Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive333

User:Taylor21
User:Taylor21 appears to have tried to try and change his username by moving his userpage to User:SeanTaylor21. As SeanTaylor21 isn't a registered name, can an admin please revert that move and explain username changing to this user? — Save_Us _ 229 12:40, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Notified, but not moved back. Will (talk) 12:55, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Considering the recent death of Sean Taylor, is this an appropriate User name? (Note that Sean Taylor wore number 21).   Corvus cornix  talk  21:18, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
 * The page was moved two months ago; it's just a horrible horrible coincidence this was found out about on the day of the player's death. Will (talk) 21:21, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

84.9.187.95 and Umran Javed
is consistently vandalising Umran Javed to remove details of his conviction for soliciting to murder (relating to London protest marches against the Danish cartoons portraying Mohammed). The IP is registered to Cable and Wireless and appears to be at least semi-static, but trying to rport this sort of vandalism at WP:AIAV tends to being told that too much tim ehas elapsed between warnings on an IP. Please could an admin take a look at this and then either block the IP or semi-protect the article. David Underdown (talk) 14:35, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Blocked for 72 hours. --Dweller (talk) 16:23, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

User:Moldopodo
This user has already been brought once here because of PA remarks against me on his userpage. He had then opposed the admin's deletion of questionable text from his page, reintroducing the text, until he was threatened with more severe action by the admin who handled that.

Nevertheless, he has reintroduced the remarks under a different form: "My page was vandalised by User:Moldorubo related to User:Dc76." I have asked him nicely to remove them. However, he does not want to respond to this, despite the fact that he has been online for many-many hours in the last 4 days, since I asked him.

Could you, please, see that the remarks are removed. I have stated clearly to the user that I have no relation to Moldorubo, and I dislike being suggested that I am related with a banned user. I asked that all references to me be removed from his page.:Dc76\talk 16:37, 27 November 2007 (UTC)


 * You may delete my post if I am not allowed to post here. All I wanted to say, User Moldorubo used exact same edits, exact same language, exact same places, exactly at the time when user Dc 76 was off line, right after the heating with editing on Balti article, and right after Dc 76 publicly declared "I will not edit for the next hours". When I have publicly mentioned all thse details on one of the talk pages, User Dc 76 reappeared and pretended to have an imaginary dialog with User Moldorubo on Balti talk page with personal references (which may as well fall under personal attack policy) in my regard (which were at a certain point deleted from the talk page, but I brought them back). Should you (the neutral person who will review this) need more references, exact diffs, etc. please let me know on my talk page by a short notice request and I will spend the necessary time and find them all. In the meanwhile you can find all of them on my talk page and on Balti (as referred to Moldavian city) talk page. I would also like to draw your attention to the fact that the user apparently plays with I.P. addresses (we had just as Polish IP users editing the same edits as Dc 76 or Moldorubo, as well as Tanzaian IP users doing exact same dits at exact same places while Dc 76 was "officially offline", who surprisingy know so much about Moldova in general and even about Balti (city in Moldova) in particular, being either in Poland or in Africa, interesting coincidence. Thank you in advance.Moldopodo (talk) 23:20, 27 November 2007 (UTC)Moldopodo

Article missing but can't find deletion review
About a week ago I found that the William (Bill) Nuti biography listing was missing from Wikipedia. The bio used to be found here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Nuti

I'm certain the article was still on Wikipedia as of early October. On November 16 I tried my link to the article and was taken to a Wikipedia page with this message: Wikipedia does not have an article with this exact name.

I've reviewed the deletion archive logs for November, October and September but have found no evidence of a deletion review for the William Nuti article.

I believe this bio has been on Wikipedia for at least a year and meets Wikipedia notability standards. Mr. Nuti is chairman and chief executive of NCR Corporation, a Fortune 500 technology company. Mr. Nuti has been quoted in dozens of news articles on the subject of the self-service revolution.

I'd greatly appreciate if Mr. Nuti's biography can be restored to Wikipedia. If a deletion review did take place, I'd appreciate if an administrator can direct me to it so I can see the reasons for deletion.

Thanks for any help with this appeal!

Gsanders77 (talk) 16:37, 27 November 2007 (UTC)


 * This from the deletion log indicates the times of deletion and brief reason. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 16:40, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict) See the deletion log for the article itself (it's linked on the page you mentioned): deletion log of William Nuti. It seems that the page has been deleted twice, the first time due to the main deletion process, which was then known as VfD and is now known as Articles for deletion, the second time speedily deleted as 'bio spam'. Here is the original VfD discussion, although as it was in 2005 it's somewhat out of date by now; you might want to talk to User:Danny (you can contact him on User talk:Danny) about the second deletion, as he's the admin that did it. --ais523 16:41, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
 * (2x ec) The first deletion debate was 31 months ago and is located here. The second version of the article got killed by Danny unilaterally. Hope this helps! east. 718 at 16:42, November 27, 2007

The article in question is written in tone inadmissible for wikipedia. It reads as a blatant promotion. I suggest you to forget about it and rewrite it while avoiding "peacock terms" (such as "leading provider", "impressive track record of achievement") and thoroughly footnoting the claims about achievements. Please see WP:BIO for guidelines to be met about the notability of a person in question. `'Míkka>t 16:54, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Here are the external links used in the article:
 * Interview in SelfServiceWorld on new self-service movement
 * Profile in NYSE Magazine
 * NCR press release announcing Nuti's appointment
 * Great Nuti interview from his Symbol days
 * Report of Dundee Redundancies

To avoid needless conflicts, I suggest you to write the new article here: User:Gsanders77/William Nuti: draft and let me know (by writing in user talk:mikkalai). I will review and point to possible problems. `'Míkka>t 17:01, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

3RR block review
I recently blocked User:Avfnx for 3RR violation and edit warring on Dominican Republic when the user was reported to WP:AN/3RR by User:CubanoDios. Can I ask some experienced admins to take a look at this discussion which I found and ask for opinions on whether User:CubanoDios should also be blocked. According to the contributions and the discussion, this seems to be a content dispute which has been going on for a while now and I would like opinions on the best course of action. Thanks. Tbo 157  (talk)  20:29, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

User:Greatartists210 and other accounts -- Regis Silva‎ issues
Users:
 * who is artist Regis Silva, and his IP
 * (sock:- though clueless rather than malicious)
 * (sock:- though clueless rather than malicious)

Articles:
 * Regis Silva
 * Hotel des Arts

Please read these two short posts: Talk page explanation of page creation and User talk page warnings to date.

The bio article is at AFD, the hotel article isn't at the moment. Notability is unsure for both. The creator (obviously the subject) is a new editor and it's unclear right now if he is wilfully ignoring notices and policy or just hasn't yet got the idea in a big way. The relevance of the hotel is he painted a room in it, and created the hotel article partly to self-promote. He has also done other constructive edits.

The ANI concern is a watch on this editor and the repeated addition of promotional links and text, and removal of tags (COI, AFD, etc). The former seems to have slowed with my requests, suggesting a willingness to learn, but the main problems and multiple account use are of concern. Since I've edited, I'd like someone else to manage any administrative action that may be necessary. Try not to WP:BITE initially.

Given the above, these two articles and the users contribs could do with an eyeball or two. They may need further action if this persists. The 2nd account needs shutting down, too, with attention drawn to the fact we don't allow multiple accounts to co-edit on the same articles/s this way. FT2 (Talk 21:03, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Edit war in process
There was an ongoing discussion of several days about restructuring the article on Transcendental Meditation. One editor made a suggestion and a second and third editors commented and agreed in part with the initial suggestion. There was no disagreement from the initial editor, and no disagreement from anyone else, so it seemed like we had a tentative consensus. Further, it was agreed that the restructuring would take place after problems in one of the sections were addressed. A new editor showed up, ignored the discussion, and began making major changes to the structure of the article. I reverted and pointed out that there was an ongoing discussion of the structure and a consensus to which no one had objected. The editor reverted. I reverted again, explaining in more detail about the ongoing discussion and also in more detail about why I didn't think the new version was effective. He reverted again. And now i've reverted a third time, something I've only done on one other occasion in my time in Wikipedia. I feel like this editor is acting outside of process. I have directed the editor to the guideline on consensus. He's just reverted again. Maybe I misunderstand the process. TimidGuy (talk) 21:24, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
 * What you've just described is an edit war. I've protected the page for seven days to allow everyone to dicuss future changes to the page and to come to a consensus about the format.  Ry an P os tl et hw ai te  21:29, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Ongoing vandalism from 74.62.72.98
Less two weeks out of a one-month block, Special:Contributions/74.62.72.98 has been reengaging in vandalism. I reverted two vandal edits today amongst others; a couple with racial/ethnic remarks. The user has stacked multiple level 4 warns since last block and no valid edits are in recent history. My last reverts were more than one hour after the vandal edits, and I hadn't time then to make an immediate report, meaning WP:AIV is likely to decline any report as not now ("now" is not well-defined, but can run <= 30 minutes there depending on admin), so I'm posting the report here if further action is deemed appropriate. Michael Devore (talk) 23:05, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Three month anonblocked. This IP seems never to have made a non-vandal edit Tonywalton | Talk 23:32, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism-only account
User talk:Npnigr8477 acts as a vandalism-only account; I believe it should be blocked permanently as such. &mdash;ScouterSig 04:01, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
 * You may want to go to WP:AIV. You'll get a faster response there. -Go od  sh oped 04:03, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Forget the warning set, we don't need people like that around here. east. 718 at 04:13, November 28, 2007
 * Thanks for the advice—and the block. &mdash;ScouterSig 04:48, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

User:Cliché Online, racist comments
Hello, I would like to request User:Cliché Online be blocked to stop him making racist comments like he has repeatedly done on Talk:2007 civil unrest in France. I don't know what the specific policy is on this, but in France at least inciting racial hatred is illegal, please do not let wikipedia be a breading ground for this kind of thing even if it is legal in the US. This page is linked to from the main page, in the news section, so it doesn't give a very good image of wikipedia when people see ''they are all africans. the dead were two muslisms, a blackboy and an arab as read in L'Express. the same as in 2005: same scums, same riots, as in the Watts riots.'' he obviously has an agenda to disparage Islam and immigrants. He is also spreading more libel calling people scum, even though they are yet to be proven guilty of anything, and is generally trying to stir up racial hatred. Here is another one of his comments: ''here's another one, just for your viewing pleasure. this is an official media Rue 89. what there are black people there too?! that's impossible! which blacks you said? african blacks, the others you mentioned are french from centuries, catholics and have nothing to do with these scums.'' He is also spreading false information about the 2 children who died calling them scum (see above) and Muslim (even though nothing shows this, sources only indicate they are children of immigrants). Requesting block per will to disrupt the project for a personal agenda, and violation of WP:BLP. Do you realise how bad it makes wikipedia look when the first item in the news section contains false allegations based on apparent ethnic background, such as Arabic = Muslim, and the talk page is filled with racial hatred posts? This is not just a case of someone being racist he is deliberately trying to incite hatred. Jackaranga (talk) 05:27, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I left him a note. --Haemo (talk) 05:43, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Porcupine - resolution
I am concerned that I cannot determine if there is consensus for my suggestion above (Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents) and don't think that this is something to be bold about. Please indicate below if you support or object to my resolution and/or my mentoring of Porcupine. Thanks, --Dweller (talk) 07:07, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Dweller's proposal

 * I think it's a good idea. -- lucasbfr talk 10:15, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Porcupine should do the 4 steps you mention, but I do not support an unblock. — Rlevse  •  Talk  • 10:59, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I could support this iff it includes a proviso that Porcupine/Rambutan/Circuit Judge's original 1-month block will be reinstated and restarted from zero at the first sign of any breach of WP:CIV or WP:NPA, and Porcupine agrees to accept any admin's call on that without question or further discussion. Honestly, he was unblocked for less than a day before drawing his current block; how many second chances do we give him? TenOfAllTrades(talk) 12:50, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Dweller, if you're willing to act as mentor, then fine, but based on his previous account and this one, I really don't hold out much hope for Porcupine - he must be on his fifth or sixth "last chance" by now. Neil   ☎  13:43, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
 * As I said above, I'm willing to accept an unblock with mentoring, despite total disbelief that it will work. I'd prefer that the current block run longer than the last one, i.e. more than a week.  By the time there is a clear consensus, we'll probably be beyond that :).  I would not object to adding TenOfAllTrades' provision also.  GRBerry 14:36, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I fully agree with this proposal. TSO1D (talk) 22:39, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Dweller as mentor

 * Since you both are ok with it, I think it's also a good idea. -- lucasbfr talk 10:15, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
 * support this once his one month block is over. — Rlevse  •  Talk  • 11:00, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Try it, at worst the behavior repeats and we will have a clear consensus when time to lower the banhammer comes. GRBerry 14:36, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Support, and reduce the block to three weeks, so Porcupine has the chance to (hopefully) calmly investigate edit wars, AN/I resolutions, AfD discussions and all the other places where dispute is (again, hopefully), resolved without sarcasm, incivility and basic nasty snappiness, then edit productively. As I said in an email to Porcupine: "WP:AGF is a very important thing, IMV, until it's blindingly obvious that GF can no longer be A" - I'm content to give Porcupine a chance to prove that his GF can be A. If he screws up this one last time, that's the lot. And hopefully other editors involved here will contribute to mentoring as well as Dweller. 86.129.70.18 (talk) 22:48, 27 November 2007 (UTC) Sigh. Now logged in. Tonywalton | Talk 22:49, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Moving forward
Having reviewed the above, there seems reasonable consensus for the proposal and certain consensus for the latter. Given the consensus for my mentoring, I am more prepared to boldly go where perhaps I shouldn't. I will unblock Porcupine and watch his actions. A repeat of bad behaviour will, as I have previously stated, see me back here requesting a community ban. --Dweller (talk) 16:46, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Curlin and Non-NPOV edits
Curlin is an article that I personally think can get to good or featured article status (there's enough recent info to reference everything), but I don't know what to do as many of these edits are being done by registered users.

There are incorrect edits, peacocky edits, edits removing referenced content, edits changing the wording of referenced content to give them content contrary to what the reference presents and crystal ball edits that keep happening...and I'm really close to violating 3RR to keep them off. --SmashvilleBONK! 16:12, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I soft-protected the article for 24h. Please explain your reverts in the article talk page with as few Míkka>t 16:46, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I left a note on the talk page of both the article and of the registered editor (who I believe has been the most recent IP editor). --SmashvilleBONK! 20:38, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
 * User responded by editing "Maybe you should check your facts" to my user page...which is kinda the problem...because I did...which is why I went to ANI... --SmashvilleBONK! 14:08, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Long-term blocks on anons?
Looking at, it's quite appalling at how the talk page is literally stuffed to the brim with nothing but warnings for almost three years worth of vandalism. Given that nothing good (to my knowledge) has emerged from this IP, and considering that the user has no problem waiting and regularly vandalizing, how long of a block may be acceptable? I understand the reasoning against indefinitely blocking an IP, but would something on the order of a year be an appropriately measured response? Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 22:01, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
 * It's not unusual for persistent school IPs to be blocked for 6 or 12 months. I'd do it here but that's just an opinion. --Rodhullandemu  (please reply here - contribs) 22:04, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I think a long-term block would be in order. The WHOIS says that the address is non-portable so a long-term block should have limited consequences on outside parties. WHOIS search. Woodym555 (talk) 22:05, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Has anyone contacted the ISP, WHRO? Their T&C appears to frown upon their user's actions here.  spryde |  talk  22:05, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
 * A low-level but persistent vandal... I blocked the IP for 3 months, which should give everyone a break. Next time 6 months would be in order. MastCell Talk 22:55, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Just so everybody knows, that addresses are marked as non-portable doesn't mean much with respct to blocking. A portable block is one where the owning organization can keep the addresses if they switch ISPs. Portability would only matter if we were range-blocking an organization for an extended period, and even there it doesn't help us much. William Pietri (talk) 00:37, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I am emphasizing: non-portable does NOT mean not shared AT ALL. That only means the end users can't keep the IP if they change their provider. -- lucasbfr talk 13:09, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Three years of vandalism more than justifies a 3-month block. — Rlevse  •  Talk  • 15:11, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I'd have given even more ;). That's just that I see this mistake often. The only way I see to guess if the IP is shared or not is behavioral. -- lucasbfr talk 17:47, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Page moving and blanking - possible BLP issues from previous block
Could someone review Special:Contributions/Martinlh and look at what has happened to Talk:David Howell (chess player) (moved to ZincBelief) and David Howell (chess player)? The previous discussion is here. There was some suggestion there that Martinlh might be a relation of the person the article is about, hence the BLP concerns. Note that the real-life incident in question was discussed on the talk page that has been moved and blanked by this user, so they may be attempting to remove any mention of it from Wikipedia. For my views on this, see the discussion on the talk page (if you can find it after all the page moves and blankings). It is possible that courtesy blanking of the talk page may be required, but the page moves need to be repaired. Carcharoth (talk) 01:36, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Account blocked indefinitely: malicious intentions became obvious when the user blanked warning in their talk page. `'Míkka>t 02:03, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Now I feel vindicated :( -Jéské ( Blah v^_^v ) 04:33, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. But it might be best to at least explain on their talk page why they are blocked (and that talking calmly and engaging in discussion will get them unblocked), and to explain to them how they should address any problems with the articles. ie. Tell them that they should discuss on the talk page, or make an OTRS complaint. My view is that the incident in question is verifiable but borderline notable. I'd be inclined to remove it, except that the article only reports the ban that resulted from the incident. It is the talk page that has gone into detail, and it is the talk page that should probably have a section courtesy blanked. This seems to be an all or nothing case. Either report the incident fully, or remove it as a minor, non-notable incident (non-notable as far as the rest of the world is concerned, though notable for the people involved) that recieved some coverage on the chess news sites. Carcharoth (talk) 11:16, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Remember, it all started with this edit. This still looks to me like a BLP issue where the so-called "vandal" hasn't had someone politely explain to him how things work on Wikipedia, and they are resorting to page blanking and moving as the only way they can see to remove content they object to. Carcharoth (talk) 11:19, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
 * And I failed to see that Mikka removed the contentious edit from the article, thus satisfying BLP concerns. Discussion on the talk page has restarted. Carcharoth (talk) 11:27, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm re-opening this incident, as my explanatory post on Martinlh's talk page resulted in a post from him expressing his concerns. This is unclear enough that it probably needs further discussion. I've put a note on the talk page stating clearly that the material in question should not be restored until it is clear what is going on. Could people here review what I wrote here and offer advice? I've also notified Mikka (the blocking admin). Carcharoth (talk) 15:23, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Abuse of anti-vandal tool by disruptive editor
has been repeatedly disruptive in the Sri Lanka conflict (last time) and just used a vandalism tool to revert to his POV. Can I, as an admin, take away the vandalism tool, or does someone else have to do it? &mdash; Sebastian 02:49, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't know. Maybe you can convince him, or you can have them blocked. I'm not an administrator, but I somehow happen to know this for some reason. -Go od  sh oped 02:53, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
 * And I can really use your help with the section above this (stoptaospam). -<font color="#006400">Go od  sh oped 02:53, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
 * There is a precedent for ripping out abused tools from one's monobook and protecting it. <small style="background:#fff;border:#4682b4 1px solid;color:#000;padding:0px 3px 1px 4px;white-space:nowrap">east<big style="color:#090">. 718 at 02:59, November 28, 2007


 * Can I do this? How? &mdash; Sebastian 03:02, 28 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Go to User:Snowolfd4/monobook.js, remove the tools, and protect the page. But it might not be a bad idea to warn him first, as I've done now.  Ral315 » 03:10, 28 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Thank you! &mdash; Sebastian 03:17, 28 November 2007 (UTC)


 * ( copied from Ral's talk ) Just to explain, I |initially removed the section as I saw it was not at all backed by the citations given, and said so clearly in my edit summery, which was
 * "entire original research. None of the citations mention a "controversy""
 * I didn't believe it needed further explanation on the talk page.
 * User:Taprobanus then | undid my edit, without any explanation, either in the edit summery or talk page. As you know, when you undo an edit you clearly see the edit summery given by the previous editor, and he decided to simply ignore it and undo my edit, simply adding his extremely POV, uncited section back. It certainly was not a good faith edit, and I saw that as vandalism, pure and simple, and reverted it as such.( end copy from Ral's talk )
 * None of this was mentioned in the above post, and Sebastian's claim that I "reverted to my POV" is blatantly false. Even User:Black Falcon has agreed the section should not be in the article, and should be removed, as I initially did.
 * Like I told Ral, I stand by my edit, and would appreciate further input from neutral admin's on what they think of this. --<font color="#9696A0" face="Tahoma">snowolf<font color="#0A0096">D4   ( <font color="#339966">talk  / <font color="#CC0099"> @   ) 04:17, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Black Falcon merged it's non redundant content into another paragraph, he did not totally remove it. BF also reworked the entire article. The para Snowolfdr was sourced too. Interested parties should also see Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Sri_Lanka_Reconciliation. — Rlevse  •  Talk  • 15:15, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Sockpuppety vandals
These two accounts appear to have been working together: I've blocked them both as vandalism-only. Another set or two of eyes would be nice, though. --Masamage ♫ 07:23, 28 November 2007 (UTC) Sygtalia is the master account, it was created a week earlier. I've adjusted the tags. The oldest account is generally tagged as the master puppeteer, or sometimes the most prominent one if the oldest has little activity. I've adjusted the sock tags.15:19, 28 November 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rlevse (talk • contribs)
 * Even if they hadn't been working together, there's nothing remotely controversial about either of those blocks. Both accounts hardly have a non-vandalism edit between them.  E LIMINATOR  JR  07:44, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I definitely won't be losing any sleep over that. I'm just not very experienced in dealing with sockpuppety concerns; I'm not sure if there's anything else to be worried about here in terms of sleeper accounts, etc. --Masamage ♫ 09:16, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Endorse. If they are working together perhaps they can help each other out off wiki. Pedro : Chat  09:18, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Excellent block. <small style="background:#fff;border:#8b0000 1px solid;color:#000;padding:0px 3px 1px 4px;white-space:nowrap">east<big style="color:#090">. 718 at 11:00, November 28, 2007

This new user is continually vandalising articles relating to communism and islam with the same message. Do we have to wait to block him or can we do it now? His account was created tonight and he was vandalising within two minutes. -- THE <b style="color:black;">DARK LORD</b> TROMBONATOR  09:41, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I've blocked him - obviously a sockpuppet of User:Runtshit who is just here to harass User:RolandR. пﮟოьεԻ   5  7  09:43, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Possible Sneaky Vandalism of A. Philip Randolph by User talk:71.212.230.167
Whenm doing various anti-vandalism patrols I noticed that this user had changed dates on this, article, however my knowledge of subject is almost none. I am posting this here in order for someone knowledgable on this to check the dates that were changed. VivioFa teFan  (Talk, Sandbox) 13:33, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
 * It's not sneaky vandalism, it's simple vandalism. <small style="background:#fff;border:#4682b4 1px solid;color:#000;padding:0px 3px 1px 4px;white-space:nowrap">east<big style="color:#090">. 718 at 13:36, November 28, 2007
 * Warned -- lucasbfr <sup style="color:darkblue;">talk 14:03, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Personal attacks
I have been personally attacked several times over the past two days. The user in question, Alice.S, called me:
 * "ignorant" 1
 * "spasm reverter" 2
 * "mindlessly and ignorantly using the undo facility" 3
 * "mindlessly and ignorantly using the undo facility!" 4
 * "stop your mindless and ignorant reversions!" 5
 * "mindlessly and ignorantly"


 * When I asked her to be more civil, after her first two personal attacks, she responded with this.6 She was recently blocked for a WP:POINT violation. Jose João (talk) 16:00, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Administer is trolling and threatening to block me
I would like to file a complaint against Admin User:Swatjester, is this the right place in order to air my grievance and show proof so I don't waste my time? - Jeeny (talk) 05:57, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
 * If administrator attention is required, yes. -Jéské ( Blah v^_^v ) 06:03, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
 * He has threatened me with a block because he says I'm "trolling". He deleted this with the edit summary that I was trolling and uncivil. I really wanted to know why I and others of the community should trust his judgment when he is up for a trusted position of ArbCom. I have problems with his attitude, and he is exaggerating in his wording to me, and that I have "strong feelings" and need a break. He is abusing his power by intimation, and this needs to be addressed right now. See his message on my talk page. I have a troll that is following me around and has now responded to SwatJester's warning to me. So, I'll be blocked and the real troll is free to come back again and again to disrupt this project. Swatjester has to be kept in check on this issue. That if he blocks me, he is abusing his "power" that is supposed to be no big deal, and a trusted member of this community. This admin is calling me a troll, which is very offensive to me and not true. Are you sure this is the right place? I have more. - Jeeny (talk) 06:15, 26 November 2007 (UTC)


 * You were warned for referring to another person repeatedly as a moron. After the first warning, you blanked it with the edit summary "If it fits...". You then proceeded to troll my arbcom candidacy page. That is unacceptable. You seem to have a disdain for the policies and procedures on this project. You would do well to heed them. Also, please note at the top of the page here: This is not the administrator complaint department. This is not an incident in which administrator attention is required. The only attention that is required here is for you to calm down, relax, take a deep breath and a nice cup of tea, and edit civilly without personally attacking other editors as you have repeatedly done in the past week. &rArr; <font face="Euclid Fraktur"> SWAT  Jester    Son of the Defender  06:31, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
 * He even admits he is an asshole (see my talk page). He doesn't mind being called names. Unlike you, I have more respect toward the a "real troll" than someone who cannot admit when they are wrong, and is all high and mighty. Cannot read between the lines, and has no flexibility. - Jeeny (talk) 10:59, 26 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I will note that in the diff that I reverted from my candidacy questions, in one single edit you referred to me as arrogant, flippant, accused me of false representations, compared me to Essjay, accused me of making things worse for others, accused me of disrupting the project, referred to me as "Mr. Defender", accused me of lying, called me egotistical, called me a "babe in the woods" and made statements that could be interpreted as a threat against me off-wiki. You're lucky I didn't block you right there.  &rArr; <font face="Euclid Fraktur"> SWAT  Jester    Son of the Defender  06:34, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Who would interpret that as a a threat against you off-wiki? That's ludicrous and you know it. In fact you seem to be threatening to deliberately misinterpret things in order to use your powers.

And none of the admins who read this board thought to say something to you about you throwing serious accusations like this around in bad faith? That's just great, guys. 86.42.83.73 (talk) 19:26, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
 * What? There you go exaggerating again. You repeatedly say I repeatedly call people morons. And where or what did I say that made you think that I made a "threat against [you] off-wiki"? You called me a troll. I did not accuse you of lying, show me where I said that. I said you exaggerate. Big difference, because it's difficult to know the motives of others when on the internet when you can't see their face, body language, etc. And now your saying I should be "lucky [you] didn't block [me] right there"? Is that not proof that you are a bit trigger happy? - Jeeny (talk) 06:43, 26 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I exaggerate nothing. Typing words on a computer is one thing, but actions proves another could be construed as a threat, especially since you were talking about how you are "better than me" off-wiki in the sentence before that. Here, you change another persons edit summary to Scumbucket. Here, you call someone a moron in both edit, and in edit summary (hence, repeatedly). Again, you call someone a moron, accuse them of adding bullshit, tell them to get a grip on life, call them a troll. Here you call them the Perfect Troll. And even when blanking the conversation, you call them trolls. This incivility is unacceptable, and it is symptomatic of the pattern you have shown over your 14-entry long block log. It ends now.  &rArr; <font face="Euclid Fraktur"> SWAT  Jester    Son of the Defender  06:52, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I didn't say I was better than you. I feel I am no better nor worse. See, that's what I mean about exaggerating. I can't trust you to be in ArbCom if you continue to misconstrue statements like that and turn them into something against YOU. - Jeeny (talk) 07:02, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Really? What was the point of "(BTW I have more experience than you in mediation, conflict resolution, and arbitration, and with many awards to show for it, in REAL LIFE)." then? Chopped liver?  &rArr; <font face="Euclid Fraktur"> SWAT  Jester    Son of the Defender  07:09, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
 * It's a fact. I've lived longer than you have. I have 8 years of experience in THAT one job. Just the facts. Not better than you. As you can accumulate the same time in 8 years. See that's fair. - Jeeny (talk) 07:14, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
 * You have been advised several times to cease conversing with SWATjester. I really suggest you take that advice. FCYTravis (talk) 07:18, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
 * What!? I have asked HIM to stop with me. Where was I "advised several times to cease conversing with [him]"? Oh, forget it, you don't need to answer that. I'm done for the night. - Jeeny (talk) 07:31, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Then oppose him when voting starts. I don't think this discussion is going to be very productive &mdash; everyone just needs to walk away and cool down. --Haemo (talk) 07:03, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
 * You're right Haemo, thanks. I'm done. You show a reasonableness, and I can deal with that. :) - Jeeny (talk) 07:06, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
 * To be fair, that's only really 4 valid blocks. --Haemo (talk) 07:01, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank you, and Phil's shouldn't count. - Jeeny (talk) 07:04, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Jeeny, you really need to cool down. I hate to say it, but the concerns Swatjester raises appear to be valid. While I'm not sure whether or not he was entirely cool dealing with you, just remember that when you get frustrated with a user, you shouldn't resort to calling him or her a troll. It's best to take a break for a little while, or go edit something else. Maser ( Talk! ) 07:00, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
 * See, he was the one who called me a troll. - Jeeny (talk) 07:04, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
 * The diffs Swatjester has provided are compelling. There is never an excuse for "a few bad words" directed at other Wikipedia editors. I've had death threats before on Wikipedia and haven't replied insultingly. What would be the point? --Bradeos Graphon (talk) 07:09, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
 * The "diffs" Swatjester is using are against a KNOWN troll, which even he called him himself. This is crazy. - Jeeny (talk) 07:12, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
 * WP:DFTT. Personal attacks are never acceptable against anyone, even a troll. &rArr; <font face="Euclid Fraktur"> SWAT  Jester    Son of the Defender  07:13, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
 * O'rly?. I can find many more where this is accepted from admins, MANY more. Don't you see that you're helping to make Wikipedia a joke more than it is? Do you not know any people in academia? They laugh at this place. I'm trying to help that not be so. Also for the essay; "There are many types of disruptive users that are not trolls. Reversion warriors, POV warriors, cranks, impolite users, and vocal critics of Wikipedia structures and processes are not trolls". Again, I take offense being called a troll, and should not be acceptable for admins, ArbCom wannabees, or in any others in "trusted" positions to use that word without good cause, if at all. Stop the insanity! - Jeeny (talk) 11:10, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Why did you just use the word "troll" in your edit summary? <font color="FF69B4">Seraphim Whipp 11:18, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Because that was what I was called. - Jeeny (talk) 11:49, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

(unindent) Jeeny, your continuing this discussion is becoming disruptive. You need to calm down or write articles instead. Sam Blacketer (talk) 11:21, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, I was going to make a comment along those lines a few hours ago but I forgot to save (too many tabs). Jeeny, you are wasting our time and disrupting the encyclopedia. Please stop before you get blocked. John Reaves 11:42, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm disrupting because I see an inconsistency? Didn't you say once that if an admin abuses his or her power than to speak up? Do you not understand the implications this has? Wikipedia is not a democracy, but it is not anarchy either. I'm truly trying to understand the dynamics here. I'm not disrupting for the sake of it, but to understand. Threatening me with a block is counterproductive. Honest to goodness I do not get it. I'm a degreed academic, and do not understand this place. Isn't this supposed to be an encyclopedia? - Jeeny (talk) 11:49, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
 * If you are a degreed academinc haven't you ever taken a course on harrassment and appropriate behaviour or do you resolve your off-line problems by calling your colleagues and peers trolls and morons? Spartaz Humbug! 11:58, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
 * No, there is no such thing such as a course in harassment, maybe a seminar, or for law enforcement. Also, it's spelled "harassment", one "R". I don't work here, I'm trying to help, but this harassment by young persons who have very little life experience, and little education is frustrating, and disruptive. Don't you see that? Plus they are in a position of power? Just because you did not call me a "name" does not mean you were not intending to insult me by your comment.- Jeeny (talk) 12:08, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict) Yes it is. Now go work on it. John Reaves 12:00, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
 * That's what I'm doing. - Jeeny (talk) 12:08, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

No you're not, now you're harassing John Reaves on his talk page. Moreschi If you've written a quality article... 13:16, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Agreed. I have blocked Jeeny for 48 hours, not only because of his disruption and trolling but because he has a long history of it and is showing every sign of not learning. I think everyone concerned needs a couple of days of peace from this. Guy (Help!) 14:26, 26 November 2007 (UTC)


 * He's been blocked for a couple of weeks, and presumably left the project as well. It appears my predictions were entirely accurate about the outcome of this situation. --Haemo (talk) 17:55, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

For all our claims of supporting the actual editors of this encyclopedia we're supposed to be all out to write, we very rarely actually do it. — bbatsell  ¿?   ✍  19:06, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Stop extending the block and then protecting the page. This backwards approach is needlessly punitive. El_C 22:40, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Jeeny does not handle blocks well. Either protect her talk page when you block her, or ignore her, but don't leave it unprotected and then protect it later. Picaroon (t) 01:44, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Swatjester, instead of provoking Jeeny with a warning about personal attacks, I think next time you should block the banned neonazi who is provoking her. Her blowup, her disrupting your candidate page, was caused by your "personal attacks" warning in which you threatened to block her for calling a self-proclaimed troll a -wait for it- troll. I'm astonished that we have blocked a good-faith contributor for two weeks when we could have simply blocked the IP who was harassing her. Hayden5650 has been stalking her for months, and warning her for personally attacking him while not doing anything about the IP was not helpful at all. This block was entirely preventable. Picaroon (t) 02:23, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
 * That does not give her the right to redirect her frustration towards anyone. We can blame and block Hayden5650 all we want (which we have done and will do), but being trolled does not give you a free pass to suspend civility at your pleasure. — Kurykh  02:29, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
 * This is an issue of cause and effect. It's like this: a banned user trolls her. She insults him. An admin she has previously been in conflict with warns her about personal attacks, while not doing anything about the banned user. She gets angry and begins attacking him. She wouldn't have been incivil towards anyone if Swatjester hadn't left her a pointless warning. Things kept escalating because Jeeny thought (and rightly so, I note) that the troll was being ignored and she was being targeted. None of this would have happened had she not been given a pointless warning. It was her fault that she didn't stop herself from escalating the situation, but the situation itself is not her fault at all, which is why I still see this as a completely preventable block. Now, she's angry, and we can't unblock her till she calms down. Picaroon (t) 02:38, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Then Swatjester should have blocked the troll, but that still does not give license to Jeeny for being uncivil. — Kurykh  02:46, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, thank you, we heard it the first time. That's why she has been blocked for two weeks (and has probably quit the project altogether); the issue is why Swatjester, rather than addressing the problem initially, escalated her frustration, called a prolific editor to the ENCYCLOPEDIA (remember what we're all here to do?) a troll, has damaged the project as a result, and NO ONE IN THIS THREAD could give two shits.  As I said above, it's sad how little we actually defend the editors of the encyclopedia.  — bbatsell   ¿?   ✍  02:51, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I made a similar observation here just recently. This was appallingly badly handled however one looks at it. Alun (talk) 07:53, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Picaroon: My warning was not for her calling a troll a troll. My warning was for her calling an anonymous IP a moron. That's unacceptable no matter whether it's a troll or not. Do not feed the trolls. Jeeny is a clear problem user, NOT a "prolific editor". Prolific GOOD editors manage to edit without continuously stirring up trouble, they manage to edit without repeatedly receiving blocks, both valid and invalid. You can dress it up and hide it however you want, but Jeeny has an EXTREME problem with civility and personal attacks, that is unacceptable no matter what her contributions are. As for you Bbatsell: nobody gives "two shits" here because Jeeny is not an innocent victim. What do you expect me to do here? I block her, you guys whine and complain "ohs noes, u r hurting good contributar!!!!". I give her warnings INSTEAD of blocking and it's "ohs noes, u r provoking her into torolllinggz!!!one1". Obviously the only remaining solution is to let her just personally attack anyone and everyone she feels like. Instead of repeatedly touting about how she's helping the encyclopedia, lets step back and take a look at the following diffs which clearly show that she has other things in mind rather than being a worthwhile contributor: scumbucket. moron edit + edit sum. moron edit, refers to edits as bullshit. feeding the trolls. more feeding the trolls. Obviously this is EXACTLY the kind of behavior we want to support. &rArr; <font face="Euclid Fraktur"> SWAT Jester    Son of the Defender  19:31, 27 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Swatjester has been placed in an untenable situation here. Every move he made has been second guessed, while he was doing the best he could. This is one of the reasons I would not want to be an admin.


 * I have discussed the situation with Swatjester and he has agreed to unblock Jeeny if she agrees to mentorship. If the community feels this is a good idea, I am prepared to do this. Jeeny and I get on well, and she listens to me. I want to thank Swatjester for being so open minded in our discussions. I would be hard pressed to react in such a way if I had been in the same position. Jeffpw (talk) 20:05, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I am willing to help out as well; I've encountered Jeeny before and our interaction was generally genial. (oh the pun) --Haemo (talk) 20:54, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Haemo. Swatjestor mentioned to me in our discussion that mentoring was usually done by admins, due to the occasional need to enforce actions, but was willing to give it a go with me. It would be beneficial to have an admin on board for the process, though, and I am glad you are willing. Jeffpw (talk) 21:01, 27 November 2007 (UTC)


 * . That says it all, really. I don't care what "bad word" you were warning her for using, Swatjester, nor whether she was "feeding" him; to use a comparison applicable for multiple reasons, your approach is like criticizing Poland for defending itself the wrong way during the blitzkrieg. We need to be protecting our good faith users from harassment, not warning them for responding with insults; if Jeeny removed the trolling immediately, he would have just left her a new message. When admins willing to block ban-evading neonazis aren't online, there isn't really much for non-admins to do but wait, and criticizing Jeeny for insulting him while she waits is ignoring the issue. Again,  says it all. Let's stop defending people like that from the oh-so-terrible insults of "troll" and "moron", and start blocking the banned neonazis. Simple, really. Picaroon (t) 23:54, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
 * That sounds like a good precedent. Only neo-nazis get blocked whilst established editors get carte-blanche to break the uncivility rules. Thanks for the heads up. Hmm, thinks, who can I insult first... so little time, so many to insult! --<font color="#000000">Web <font color="#ff0000">H <font color="#000000">amster  00:00, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Glad to know you don't care for our policies Picaroon, I'll keep it in mind. While we're on the subject of "protecting our good faith users from harassment" how about protecting our contributors from a user who self-admittedly refuses to assume good faith, has no concept of what being civil and not attacking people is, and thinks that "fuck you" is a perfectly acceptable response on Wikipedia? &rArr; <font face="Euclid Fraktur"> SWAT Jester    Son of the Defender  00:44, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
 * "Glad to know you don't care for our policies"?(!) You know, a bit of grace won't kill you. El_C 02:50, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
 * By the way, a sockpuppet (presumably) of that banned user is trolling Jeeny's page again in an effort to provoke her into another outburst. Could somebody please do something about User:Phral Phrallington? His hurtful comments will only make this situation worse. Thanks. Jeffpw (talk) 06:38, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

While we must do our best to keep good contributors, let me offer a reminder that we are not Editors' Ego Protection and Emotional Support Services, Inc. — Kurykh  06:44, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm a bit confused, Kurykh. Was that last comment in reply to me? If so, I find it an odd response to a post that a~banned user is trolling talk pages. Could you clarify that, please? Jeffpw (talk) 06:49, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
 * It was a general comment and was not directed to you, Jeffpw, and was not a comment about Phral Phallington, but at the apparent scolding of Swatjester for actually doing something. — Kurykh  00:54, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I was, and am, concernced about a statement Jeeny made. Is it trolling to ask her to confirm or deny what was said? --Phral Phrallington (talk) 06:49, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
 * What is your interest in it? You're asking some pretty private questions of another individual; why would you want to know this?  Because asking intensely personal questions without a good reason is harassment. --Haemo (talk) 07:00, 28 November 2007 (UTC)


 * What would you think if a user created a new account especially for the task? Especially one who is clearly aware of the inner workings on wikipedia, as shown by your presence on this page. What is wrong with your normal editing persona, IP or not? David D. (Talk) 07:00, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Jeeny agrees to mentorship
Jeeny has agreed to mentoring, and to abide by our civility policies and WP:AGF. I have left a message for Swatjester and FT2, and would hope that Jeeny can be unblocked, with the proviso that she will be blocked again, and her page immediately protected, if she acts disruptively again. Jeffpw (talk) 21:43, 28 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Unless someone's beaten me to it, I'm going to unblock Jeeny (based on the mentorship), and semi-protect her page (based on the Phral attacks). &rArr; <font face="Euclid Fraktur"> SWAT  Jester    Son of the Defender  22:56, 28 November 2007 (UTC)


 * (edit conflict) If mentoring works, then it will solve the problem well. Provisionally unblocked to allow trial. See comment on Jeeny's talk page for more. FT2 (Talk 22:59, 28 November 2007 (UTC)


 * PS - beat you to it! FT2 (Talk 22:59, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

User:StopTaoSpam
...there's this person that's been harassing me and trolling on my talkpage. has been harassing me since I reverted his removal of content, and he's been very uncivil to me and attacking me on his userpage, and he has been trolling on my talk page. I have the diff links if you want them, plus a warning that's still fresh on my talkpage. I would recommend you get rid of this message before he makes a big deal of this again on his userpage. -<font color="#006400">Go od  sh oped 02:03, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
 * These are the links that he is attacking me. -<font color="#006400">Go od  sh oped 02:20, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure StopTaoSpam's remarks on his userpage regarding Goodshoped qualify as an "attack" exactly, nor do two edits to Good's talkpage qualify as trolling. It appears that StopTaoSpam means well, but he may be harboring some resentment ever since Goodshoped reported his username to WP:UAA. Other opinions? --Bongwarrior (talk) 02:55, [[28 November 2007 (UTC)


 * This user name is in appropriate.  Corvus cornix  talk  02:54, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I know! I wrote him up at UAA, administrator failed to block him, and he made an attack on his user page. -<font color="#006400">Go od  sh oped 02:58, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to voice my extreme complaint concerning. I will request arbitration or resolution concerning the use of "harassment" and I was annoyed with with his report at WP:UAA however It has growned  to frustration. The first thing is I was not harassing. He was Harassing Me. For example with the policy of good faith and civility. My first edit resulted in a instant revert. With a edit on my talk page with [] He doubted whether it was spam yet went ahead and reported me at WP:UAA. Not enough in his report he stated "StopTaoSpam (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) — Violation of username policy because: Is an attack on an specific user, includes profanities, obscenities, or references to genitalias or sexual slangs, matches the name of a company or group, promotes a controversial or potentially inflammatory point of view, is defamatory or insulting to other people or groups, invokes the name of a religious figure/religion in a distasteful, disrespectful, or provocative way, or promotes one religion over another, refers to a violent real-world action, and refers or includes allusions to racism, sexism, hate speech, et cetera; User was removing links that were possibly spam, but also was kind of directing a personal attack on the Taos.. -Goodshoped 04:19, 20 November 2007 (UTC)". When I quested him talk page concerning his reasons for the revert and in the laozi article discussion. He responded first contradicting himself last. It was when I edited my OWN userpage on the problem. In which case he proceeded to abuse my talk page with progressive threats. I responded with a warning on his talk page and you can read it yourself. I have listed my points. Now look at this post by his supporter [] Isn't that a clear threat? If my name is a large concern than discuss and correct it but be aware I find this situation to be inexcusable and request arbitration with Goodshoped35110s and Gp75motorsports.

Well, the name got deleted from UAA without any action, and I am now forced to go to Requests for comment/User names. Would StopChristianSpam or StopMuslimSpam be acceptable user names? Corvus cornix talk  03:24, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I have removed if from RFCN. We do not create discussions there unless the user has been asked to discuss the username specifically, and the discussion was fruitless, or he ignored it. Neither of these has happened. If it has been rejeceted from UAA, then it is not blatant. If he is being disruptive, then he will be blocked for that. I (talk) 03:26, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
 * He ignored the requests on his Talk page, and he came here, right above my posting above, to abuse the person who brought it up there and here. Your removal of the discussion was blatantly inappropriate.  How the hell are we supposed to get this offensive user name blocked?   Corvus cornix  talk  03:28, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
 * If it has been reported twice at UAA, and declined both times, it is obviously not that inappropriate. I (talk) 03:29, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
 * That's crap. The User name policy says, Wikipedia does not allow usernames that are confusing, misleading, disruptive, promotional or offensive.  This name is all three of those things.  The only reason it was removed from UAA the second time is because it was removed once before, not out of any consideration as to the validity of the complaint.  The name is obviously promotional, and I am offended by it.  I ask again, is StopChristianSpam an appropriate user name?  What do we do now?  The proper processes have been thwarted for inappropriate reasons.  Are we just going to allow this highly offensive username to be used with no consequences?   Corvus cornix  talk  03:34, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I am making no comment as to the validity of the username. I merely removed the report, which was invalid, from RFCN, where there are criteria that must be met before adding, which this request did not meet. Take it up with the admin who removed it from UAA. I (talk) 03:39, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
 * If it has been reported twice at UAA, and declined both times, it is obviously not that inappropriate - sure doesn't sound like you're not taking sides. But you still haven't explained why the removal from RFCN was appropriate, since the user has been asked to change his name and has decided not to discuss the issue, but to attack the person making the request.   Corvus cornix  talk  03:42, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not, that comment is merely deductive reasoning. And I have read his talk page. At no point was discussion with the aim to resolve issues with his username started. Merely a "I'm reporting you to UAA". I (talk) 03:44, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
 * So you didn't manage to read your username is an insult toward somebody, even if it wasn't intentional? I admit it isn't particularly cordial, but it is an attempt at discussion.   Corvus cornix  talk  03:46, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Discussion implies you are open to the idea my name is not blatant and offensive but you may have expressed your opinion to be the contrary. The name was an simple enough to login and edit the problems I saw in the articles.  However this post was about harassment.  I refute such statements.  Any name change can be done after arbitration StopTaoSpam (talk) 04:05, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

←I did. However, that comment was only made a few hours ago, and he has only edited once since then, here, and I don't see that as a refusal to discuss. It was not an attempt at resolving the username issue. The dicussion that needs to happen is not a "your username is bad". It's a "I have concerns about your username. Would you be willing to try to resolve them?" I (talk) 03:49, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I've left a message on StopTaoSpam's page, as well as Goodshoped and Gp75motorsports pages, suggesting that everybody step away. I don't like agenda-based usernames, but I don't see a flagrant violation; it's a WP:RFCN issue.  Some de-escalation would be good. I've been working with Goodshoped on his tact and diplomacy - obviously, more progress is needed.  StopTaoSpam could be less touchy,  and it would be good if he'd change his name, for diplomacy's sake.    Acroterion  (talk)  03:51, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

The name is clearly disruptive I have softblocked the account and recommended to find a neutral username Alex Bakharev (talk) 04:31, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Very bold. I don't think it is clearly disruptive, but we will see how well this de-escalates the situation. --Bongwarrior (talk) 04:50, 28 November 2007 (UTC)


 * The user has been unblocked and is changing the username. I really appreciated your help. -<font color="#006400">Go od  sh oped 04:49, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
 * that you are an AN/I clerk. <small style="background:#fff;border:#ff8c00 1px solid;color:#000;padding:0px 3px 1px 4px;white-space:nowrap">east<big style="color:#090">. 718 at 04:58, November 28, 2007
 * Yes, I know. I just kind of like to do that for some reason; it looks cool. No offense to the real clerks, and I'm not impersonating them. -<font color="#006400">Go od  sh oped 05:05, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
 * , as there are no clerks. <small style="background:#fff;border:#ff8c00 1px solid;color:#000;padding:0px 3px 1px 4px;white-space:nowrap">east<big style="color:#090">. 718 at 05:08, November 28, 2007
 * OK...it's a clerk war and we're supposed (aren't we?) to talk about this particular user? -<font color="#006400">Go od  sh oped 05:10, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
 *  He has filed the request at WP:CHU.  Since I don't see any need for me to clerk there (everything there is in apple-pie order), I'll clerk here instead. :p Jéské (<font color="0000FF">Blah v-_^v ) 05:17, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Why not have him cool down at this page? -<font color="#006400">Go od  sh oped 05:20, 28 November 2007 (UTC)?
 * Resolved for the night, don't play any games with him (for now.) (yawn!) Good night! -<font color="#006400">Go od  sh oped 05:26, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Not yet; he just filed an arbitration request with me, Gp75motorsports, and Corvus cornix. -<font color="#006400">Go od  sh oped 05:55, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
 * You may want to consider blocking him indef; I don't think he'll stop. -<font color="#006400">Go od  sh oped 05:55, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Calm down, stop making new threads, and stop doing things that disrupt the flow of this page. There's no way the arbitration case would be filed, and that is why I was bold and removed it myself. Nothing is going to happen here to either of you— Ryūlóng ( 竜龍 ) 06:16, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you to those who stepped in and resolved this. Corvus cornix talk  17:10, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank you from me too. I don't think he's coming back. -<font color="#006400">Go od  sh oped 01:11, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Can a neutral admin please look at the contributions of ? To me, it appears to be a SPA whose purpose is to add disparaging and POV content to Woodburn Company Stores and Image:Woodburn Company Stores.jpg. The content added to the article is non-notable incidents while the image content is a straight copy of a self-proclaimed "Employee support group", which is really more like an employee rant forum. I've tried to contact the editor, but they have been unresponsive. The editor has just reverted my changes for the third or perhaps fourth time and I would prefer that somebody else intervene. Thanks. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 05:44, 28 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Also, this editor has made edits that blatantly misrepresent the information from a cited newspaper article. I have left a warning message, as have others. — Satori Son 14:14, 28 November 2007 (UTC)


 * is making similar edits. Possible sock? Katr67 (talk) 06:33, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

William Rodriguez
Edit war in progress. People calling eachother vandals. I didn't go through the edits to see who is actually making legitimate contributions, but see the history for yourself. - Rjd0060 (talk) 05:45, 28 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Upon closer examination, it appears that is the one who is being disruptive. - Rjd0060 (talk) 05:48, 28 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Then again, appears to have some ownership issues with this article. - Rjd0060 (talk) 05:50, 28 November 2007 (UTC)


 * The article is a huge mess, but it looks like the edit war is over. --Haemo (talk) 05:53, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
 * It may be...for now. I left Jrandi a 3RR notice, and he hasn't edited since.  Maybe those warnings actually do work?  Thanks Haemo.  - Rjd0060 (talk) 05:59, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Spoke too soon. - Rjd0060 (talk) 06:00, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

has been blocked for twenty-four hours for edit warring. &mdash; <span style="font-family:monospace, monospace;">madman bum and angel 06:37, 28 November 2007 (UTC)


 * So has . &mdash; <span style="font-family:monospace, monospace;">madman bum and angel 06:39, 28 November 2007 (UTC)


 * has requested a review of my block. &mdash; <span style="font-family:monospace, monospace;">madman bum and angel 06:52, 28 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Jrandi is an imposter of James Randi. The manner that the account edited (grammar/writing style, POV, edit warring) is definitely not the manner that Mr. Randi would behave.  I have contact with Mr. Randi and have confirmed it is not him editing.  It's a hoax or imposter.  The block has been extended indefinitely. --Aude (talk) 15:52, 28 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Has Jrandi actually claimed to be James Randi? Mr. Randi is not necessarily famous enough to be an "open and shut" WP:UN case anyway, and the username only has "J", not "James".—Random832 19:13, 28 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Rodriguez used to work with James Randi, as an assistant. This is noted in the article. --Aude (talk) 20:21, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
 * It's possible it's a coincidence, but that seems pretty unlikely. I think a username block is entirely appropriate here. Natalie (talk) 21:07, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Block for review
I've just blocked indefinitely, requesting review. Rationale - all his contributions consist of serious POV-pushing, edit-warring and fringe science advocacy on homeopathy-related topics. I've seen plenty of SPAs exactly like this and I seriously doubt we'll get any productive contributions from this quarter. Please also note he has something of a COI in this area, being, according to himself, the publisher for an advocate of odd views on homeopathy. Moreschi If you've written a quality article... 13:53, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Diffs? Neil   ☎  15:03, 28 November 2007 (UTC)


 * From what I can see, specific diffs would not be useful; the whole edit history is obvious POV pushing, and no attempts are made to discuss any of those edits. I'm not unblocking.  &mdash; Coren (talk) 15:31, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
 * (ed conflict)Ullman has a definite COI, as evidenced by his edits to his biographical page (which, in the interest of full disclosure, I nominated for AFD a while back). The article was created at his behest by a third party, as described in this edit summary.  I've been trying for several months to get him to talk about his edits, with no success until a few days ago.  I've even referred him to OTRS, in case he wants to correct BLP problems without discussing it with me.  He has also repeatedly inserted links to his commercial website into homeopathy and/or deleted critical external links using both his main account and a handful of IP addresses.   Anyway, my $0.02.  He's already created a sockpuppet, I gather.  Cheers, Skinwalker (talk) 23:30, 28 November 2007 (UTC)


 * has been blocked as a possible sockpuppet of this editor. I have requested that this be checked at Requests for checkuser/Case/Danaullman Tim Vickers (talk) 23:23, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Giovanni Giove (talk*contribs)
Editors have agreed to disengage.--Isotope23 talk 15:17, 28 November 2007 (UTC) Multiple attacks towards myself and User:Direktor. Also suspected of sockpuppetry and POV pushing od theDalmatia article for some time now. Has been reported to ARBCOM, who restricted him to one edit per week per article, with discussion, a restriction that he has deliberately disobeyed, making FOUR eits to the Istrian exodusarticle in one day, with absolutely no discussion. See Requests for arbitration/Dalmatia 2 for evidence. Best,--Gp75motorsports (talk) 14:50, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
 * You two really need to disengage. Giovanni's restriction was 1 revert per week... not simple article edits.  The "attacks" towards User:DIREKTOR would appear to be in response to being labeled a sockpuppeteer, sans any evidence (and as someone fairly familiar with the situation I'd say that the claim is somewhat unlikely).  Direktor and Giovanni have a history of complete inability to work together, exacerbated by the fact that the are editing the same articles from 2 different POVs.  I realize you are trying to help here Gp75motorsports, but all you are doing is ratcheting up the situation by calling his edits vandalism and accusing him of sockpuppetry.--Isotope23 talk 15:04, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

I have disengaged, I don't know if Giove has. --Gp75motorsports (talk) 20:37, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Solar energy Rfc ignored
I initiated a Request for comment of some confusing content on the Solar energy page about a month ago. This seemed like an easy fix and the results of the Rfc are clearly in favor of removing said picture but one editor continues to bring it back. This picture issue follows several months of disruption on the page by this editor. I'd like the picture issue settled.Mrshaba (talk) 16:42, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Possible legal threat re: Marc Ostrofsky
Yesterday I made this addition to Marc Ostrofsky: using the following pages as references:  and. I believe that the references, which are to arbitration cases overseen by the .eu domain name registry, support the edits. I received this edit from a person who more or less admitted to being hired to edit the Marc Ostrofsky page by Ostrofsky himself, which appears to contain a legal threat. Are my edits unsupported by their sources? Am I reading too much into this? Thanks! - Richfife (talk) 16:23, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
 * That's a legal threat. Jose João (talk) 16:33, 28 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure I'd call it a legal threat. The threat is to "report you to Wikipedia", not file a lawsuit. I think a friendly note cautioning against their making stronger threats would be appropriate though. --Onorem♠Dil 16:38, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
 * It's oddly worded. The disputed edits are described as "slander" (verging on a legal threat, but no threat actually made), it then talks about "taking formal action" (again, no legal threat as such), then it talks about being "forced to report you to Wikipedia" (whatever that may mean). The"deadline" mentioned is up in 2 minutes; I'm curious to see what'll happen... Tonywalton | Talk 16:59, 28 November 2007 (UTC)


 * What makes me wonder is that if this is a legal professional speaking, why is he referring to "slander", when (and if it was the case) it should be "libel" due to it be being written word that is published. Makes me think hot air is being blown by someone who doesn't have a clue. --<font color="#000000">Web <font color="#ff0000">H <font color="#000000">amster  18:42, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

The issue of whether they are good sources is an intersting one, but more suited for Reliable sources/Noticeboard or the article's talk page than this forum. Normally final arbitration results are effectively final court decisions, and could be used the same way final court decisions are used. The reason that it is doubtful is that in part, those sources rely upon the Wikipedia page on which they are being used. In case #4014, this occurs in the Complainant's complaint, paragraph 28. In case #2438, this issue doesn't appear to occur. GRBerry 18:55, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
 * The entire sectionMarc Ostrofsky needs more justification in my view. These arbitration decisions are primary sources. In general we are supposed to avoid primary sources, though exceptions can be made (in my opinion) if they are essential to the article. It's not clear to me that a narrative of whatever applications Marc Ostrofsky may have made to the the .eu registry is essential to getting a full picture of his significance or his career. If they are included to suggest some ethical lapses on Ostrofsky's part, then the burden of proof rises (since it becomes a real BLP issue) and relying on primary sources alone becomes even more questionable. Why should we be the first published source to consider that Ostrofsky's role in ask.eu was not proper? As an encyclopedia should be summarizing what's been published elsewhere on that issue. EdJohnston (talk) 19:18, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

MatthewHoffman
I've been asked, by e-mail from a Charles Matthews, whoever that is, to have this block reviewed. I only vaguely remember the details, but reviewing, it seems a fairly clearcut case, and the e-mailer hasn't given any reason for it to be lifted. Anyone think there's a problem with it? Adam Cuerden talk 16:43, 28 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Prior AN/I discussion is at Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive301. GRBerry 17:07, 28 November 2007 (UTC)


 * My problems with this can be seen firstly in the block log
 * Account making outspoken Talk page comments is labelled "vandalism-only"
 * First block on 3RR is presumably within the rules; second block uses the word "harass" which is bitey.
 * The second block is upgraded to indefinite with a vague accusation that it is probably a sock. Evidence?
 * Adam has little or no recollection of this. The AC heard directly from Matthew Hoffman, protesting that he is a real person. This I believe, and it's not hard to document.
 * The expressed views are shared with others, and are no grounds for saying it's a sock. We should all be sensitive to this kind of accusation, especially when used as here to take out a dissident voice. (I'm not saying that no blocks should have been isssued; we have WP:BITE for a reason.) Adam seems altogether too close to this for my comfort. I have been trying to get any response at all for some time.


 * What is more, I don't accept that the AN is some sort of standing committee handing down indef blocks. It seems clear that Adam, by refusing to discuss the block with me privately, feels that the buck doesn't stop with him, but here. That is not the basis on which admin powers are given. Charles Matthews (talk) 17:20, 28 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I tried to raise the issue of people moving too quickly to indefinite blocks here, but got little response. Blocking so-called vandals indefinitely straightaway is too bitey, in my opinion. It is difficult to distinguish between someone experimenting and someone playing around. The case you point out is clearer, as the talk page edits should not have been labelled vandalism. Regarding the buck stopping with individual admins, I agree. That is one reason why people are sometime reluctant to unblock after they have blocked. What might help is in cases where discussion between two admins has occurred, is that the blocking admin passes the block over, and allows the second admin to unblock with the proviso that they will reblock (if present) or endorse a reblock (if not present) if the unblocked editor causes trouble. The problem comes when such offers are rebuffed with a "no, I don't think this editor should be unblocked - take it to ANI/AN/ArbCom if you want to pursue this" (take your pick). As Charles says, agreeing to let someone else unblock is different to unblocking yourself. In the former case, you are passing over responsibility, in the latter case, you are continuing to take responsibility. Carcharoth (talk) 17:38, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I stand by all my decisions, but am willing to change my mind, and if Matthew Hoffman wanted to discuss his block, then I would happily reconsider and might well give him another chance. But I fail to see what the point is of unblocking a disruptive user after several months because a random user asks me to, no offense to Charles Matthews intended. Adam Cuerden talk 17:47, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Adam, if you don't know who a "random user" is, check! That is why people have userpages. In this case, even a cursory attempt to check would have revealed that he is someone who you should listen to and you should have treated his concerns seriously.  GRBerry 17:52, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
 * To be fair, I don't think Charles was acting in his arbitrator role, but just as another admin. Still, the "random user" comment did cause me to raise my eyebrows, and is particularly ironic as, if all goes "according to plan", Adam and Charles could be colleagues in just over a month's time... What will the "random user" comment be worth then? :-) Carcharoth (talk) 17:59, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
 * (ecx2) Charles, thanks for bringing more of the story to light. The prior AN/I conversation can best be described as thinly populated; only Adam, Moreschi and Jehochman participated, and noone other than Adam commented more than once.  Looking at Talk:Irreducible complexity/Archive 04 I see that other users were also somewhat incivil toward this user, which should generally be considered a mitigating factor.  I don't like the combination of that conversation with the block; the combination clearly has a chilling effect of implying to any future readers "if you challenge this view, we will block you for it".  I also think there was an easy compromise that should have been suggested at the time, and wasn't because too many editors were edit warring instead of seeking consensus.
 * Checking, the 3RR block is legitimate in my eyes, the violation clearly occurred. The harassment block is not legitimate in my eyes as harassment didn't occur, and neither is the extension, as there was not adequate basis to believe the editor was a sockpuppet.  I believe the block should be lifted.  GRBerry 17:48, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, but after two months, it is somewhat odd to have this suddenly resurface. I see I received an e-mail from Charles Matthews at the time, checking my inbox, but I fear it got lost in spam and was never read.
 * Oh, fine. I'll unblock him, if you feel so strongly. But I'm putting him on a short leash and probation. Adam Cuerden talk 18:13, 28 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Let's see, you ignored one email, you made no answer to a User talk question whether you'd had an email, you didn't try find out what my locus standi for asking was (I'm an Arbitrator investigating an indef block). You turned away another email saying you didn't recall anything. Admins are supposed to be reasonably responsive, in relation to their admin actions. Charles Matthews (talk) 17:57, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I presume you mentioned in your e-mail to Adam that you were "an Arbitrator investigating an indef block"? That makes the "random user" comment even more strange. On the other hand, this is the first time in this thread that you've said you are an arbitrator. Maybe saying that earlier might have resolved things a bit quicker? Not everyone knows who the arbitrators are, though Adam has no excuse really, as he is a candidate to be one. Carcharoth (talk) 18:04, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
 * No, I didn't mention my status. Revealing, isn't it? Stonewalling all the way. Anyway, I suggest Adam withdraws from the AC election. Charles Matthews (talk) 18:14, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
 * "Ah, yes. Hmm. Bring it up on the Administrator's Noticeboard. I'm not opposed to an unblock if that's the consensus, but don't want to do it without discussion." - My second e-mail to you. Your response was that this was not good enough, so I brought it up here myself, but upon some review, the block seemed justified and had been declared so by several admins. And, after two months, I think that it's reasonable for someone to only act on an indef block after finding out there's a reason why it's still relevant to look into.   You seemed to expect me to jump through hoops on your sayso, without finding it necessary to talk about the reasons for your concerns, and so I see no reason to withdraw from Arbcom elections on your sayso. Adam Cuerden talk 18:23, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Oh, come on. This is quite obviously a sockpuppet, SPA, edit-warrior - why are we talking about second chances? Why are we wasting our time? I had a look at this first time around, saw he was not someone to get hot under the collar about. Please, ArbCom has enough problems with disruptive editors without adding to the casload. Moreschi If you've written a quality article... 18:35, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
 * The point is that if you respect your fellow admins, and one of them approaches you suggesting an unblock, you will be prepared to let that admin take over responsibility for the block. If that admin is wrong, and the unblocked editor immediately goes on a rampage, it is their reputation and credibility that will take a hit, not yours. Lacking a convincing response and stonewalling a good-faith request after it is clear further discussion won't get anywhere, is just being stubborn. Carcharoth (talk) 18:45, 28 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Furthermore, how do you justify the sockpuppet and SPA accusations from Special:Contributions/MatthewHoffman? Spending 11 days and 20 edits on a single article doesn't make an account a single-purpose account. Give them longer and they may widen their interests. Or is a requirement now that all accounts start off with wikignome edits on unrelated articles? Carcharoth (talk) 18:49, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Given that this is an example of an admin doing absolutely everything wrong (a block logged in a deceptive way, and defended by the bureaucratic runaround), and given that saying "an obvious sock" on no evidence at all is somewhat discredited right now, the fact that Adam's actions in an area where he is not really uninvolved at all find defenders conveys a message to me. The "noticeboard culture" is corrupting proper administration of the site. It seems entirely clear here. The phrase "random user" is the arrogance of power wrapped for Christmas.Charles Matthews (talk) 19:09, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Woah, wait a minute. Adam above says that he brought the block to other admins for discussion.  Was it here, Adam?  Can you provide a link to the discussion? and was upheld, you're certainly coming on a little strong, aren't you?  And it seems to me that you are being arrogant, by assuming that everybody, even every admin, even every person running for the Arbcom, should obviously know who you are and obviously should stop what they're doing and kowtow to you, when you didn't even bother to identify yourself nor to explain your concerns, apparently.  It seems to me that somebody as arrogant as yourself should be the one to resign from the Arbcom.   Corvus cornix  talk  19:17, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Obviously I'm not asking for name recognition. Five seconds due diligence? I'm not asking for obeisance. I'm noting that even plain editors of Wikipedia deserve something more than a brush-off. And why not read the whole thread before diving in? Charles Matthews (talk) 19:47, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I did read the whole thread, thank you.  Corvus cornix  talk  19:55, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
 * FYI, the link you asked for is a few lines from the top. Charles Matthews (talk) 20:01, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
 * The issue for this forum isn't lack of name recognition, it is lack of due diligence and the lack of openness to review. (The lack of recognition is a current issue for a different forum, and I posed it there a while ago.)  As I said above, if you don't know who someone is, check before ignoring them, especially before ignoring them repeatedly.  Even the most cursory attempt to check would have revealed that the question was coming from 1) a long term editor in good standing, 2) an admin and 3) an arbcomm member, any one of which by itself is enough reason to respond seriously to the question.  GRBerry 20:17, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
 * +Yes, because, you know,


 * Oh, yes, and guys, don't spam filter your Wikipedia mails, and if you do, don't ignore User talk messages "did you have a mail from me?". Charles Matthews (talk) 19:16, 28 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I've now read every single edit that MatthewHoffman made before being indefinitely blocked, and I agree with GRBerry and Charles Matthews that the indefinite block was unwarranted. I am concerned that the (unwarranted in my view) sockpuppet and harassment accusations remain in the block log with nothing more than a laconic "second chance" unblock notice (which implicitly shows that Adam still thinks the initial indefinite block was justified), and I'm also concerned that Adam has placed excessive probation restrictions on MatthewHoffman (one revert per article per day), with no indication of when the restrictions will end. Thus an indefinite block has turned into an indefinite probation, which is hardly an improvement. Adam's initial block notice on MatthewHoffman's talk page referred to "extreme rudeness", but I have failed to find any such thing in MatthewHoffman's edits, and I looked through all of them. I'm seriously concerned at the lack of judgment shown by Adam Cuerden in placing the block, Moreschi in calling for an indefinite block, and Jehochman for backing up that call. Unless Adam can provide diffs demonstrating the appropriateness of his block (specifically the "extreme rudeness"), I think Adam should retract his probation conditions and leave MatthewHoffman to edit under no more restrictions than any those any editor faces. I would urge anyone questioning this to read Special:Contributions/MatthewHoffman and judge for themselves whether those edits tally with what Hoffman was blocked for. Carcharoth (talk) 21:15, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I share this concern and endorse the suggestion. I note that at the present time Mr. Hoffman has no deleted contributions, so anyone can review all the contributions.  GRBerry 21:35, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I hope I may venture a disinterested opinion here. I've looked through all User:MatthewHoffman's edits, as suggested by Carcharoth. Sure, Mr Hoffman states his position strongly at times but in my experience there is nothing new in that in relation to articles as divisive as this. As to his apparent knowledge of policy and usage prior to editing, ISTR that all newbies to Usenet NGs are encouraged to "lurk" before posting- is it impossible that he could have done that? I couldn't find any evidence of bad faith on his part, nor disruption. And, for the record, the article could just easily been any WP article. The subject matter is of little or no interest to me. --<font color="7F007F">Rodhullandemu  (please reply here - contribs) 21:56, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Right. Here is the entire e-mail chain. Charles (October 15, the email I missed) I have concerns about the ungrading to indefinite of the block on User:MatthewHoffman.

Would you like to talk me through it?

Charles (November 20)

I haven't heard back from you about this blocked account.

I think it would be a good idea for you to unblock it and see what happens. I can see that the editor is partisan. What now stands in the block log is unconvincing, and not greatly creditable to Wikipedia.

Me (today - it is exam period)

I'm sorry, I can't remember the details of this. Could you remind me?

Charles

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=block&page=User:MatthewHoffman

You blocked with a claim of sockpuppetry. Well, he wrote to the AC about it; I certainly thought he was just who he claimed to be. He may have been a pain, but that log doesn't look any better to me than when I first looked into it. In fact, considering current concern about "deducing" someone is a sock, it looks worse. I'd appreciate it if you'd give this your attention.

Me (I'm horrible with acronyms, so didn't realise what AC meant) Ah, yes. Hmm. Bring it up on the Administrator's Noticeboard. I'm not opposed to an unblock if that's the consensus, but don't want to do it without discussion.

Charles Sorry, not good enough. I have prompted you before about this. This is _your_ block.

Me Okay, I've set up a discussion about it.

[Then this thread started]

Charles (5:23 pm)

By the way, if you'd looked me up first you'd know that, or asked who on earth I was, I would have explained that, I'm an Arbitrator. As I said on AN, Hoffman wrote to the AC about the block.

Me (6:02 pm) Right. Well, that makes a difference. Sorry, but there's so many ways to make a username that I didn't think I could guess yours knowing only your name.

Judge for yourself. Adam Cuerden talk 22:19, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh, and has anyone else noticed that I unblocked the editor several hours agoo, but am still being attacked over this? Adam Cuerden talk 22:23, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Looking back, do you not now think that it would have been better recusing yourself from taking any admin action in relation to this article considering you had been involved in editing it as shown here? --<font color="7F007F">Rodhullandemu  (please reply here - contribs) 22:47, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Tell me, why should an administrator, who has barely touched an article at some point in the distant past, be forever banned from dealing with anything related to it? I have a lot of pages on my watchlist in order to deal with vandalism and other problems. This means reviewing the edits, and you do end up helping out here and there because of this.
 * Why should we add a pointless layer of bureaucracy between the people monitoring the pages and actually dealing with problems? Adam Cuerden talk 22:53, 28 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Responding to "and has anyone else noticed that I unblocked the editor several hours agoo, but am still being attacked over this" - no-one is attacking you over this. I'm questioning your judgment in placing that block, and your failure to adequately address the concerns raised. I'm not using incivil language or ranting and raving. I'm pointing out what I think was wrong about the block, and I'm asking you to provide diffs to back up your claims of "extreme rudeness". Characterizing people expressing concern over your block as an "attack" is being overly defensive. I've pointed out that your unblock came with unnecessary conditions and that your unblock comment "second chance" fails to acknowledge the concerns raised here that the indefinite block was not warranted in the first place. Finally, putting someone on probation like that shouldn't be done unilaterally - a probation should have community support or arbitration approval. Individual admins should not set themselves up as probation officers without outside review. I still see no reason for MatthewHoffman to be placed on a "tight leash" as you put it, and I'm repeating my call for you to retract that statement you made MatthewHoffman's talk page. Let him edit unrestricted and trust other admins to do the right thing if trouble develops later on. Carcharoth (talk) 23:04, 28 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Right, I've finally had a chance to review the case a bit [Why, after 2 months, did this have to be settled right now, immediately, no time to talk things through?] I was mixing this with a couple other cases, but this one is the ranter, not the really vicious one.
 * Anyway, I think it was things like this edit for the incivility, as well as a few others. Lots of rules lawyering, huge rants on and on in one day. If the sock puppet doesn't hold up, though, there'd be no call for the indef, however, as I said, I trust other people to make those judgements, and he's certainly a creationist type. Also, I'm now going on a short Wikibreak. Adam Cuerden talk 01:06, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Incivility: Borderline as far as I can see for a contentious topic, he makes his criticisms of other editors clear but IMO does not cross the line.
 * Sockpuppet: This was at best a suggestion by another admin based on perceived short-term behaviour, not independent evidence and thus has little value. It's weak by any standard.
 * Judgements: I thought Admins were given the responsibility to make their own judgements.
 * Creationist: Again, should a block be a content-based decision? This comments suggests so. --<font color="7F007F">Rodhullandemu  (please reply here - contribs) 01:40, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Adam, thank you for striking through your comments on his talk page and for apologising to him. As you know, we don't block for being "a creationist type". If you don't have time to review blocks, please say so at the beginning of the thread, and ask another admin to "take over" the block and unblock if needed. I would respond to some of your other comments, but I think you've earned your wikibreak. Carcharoth (talk) 01:29, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Jajouka/Joujouka
Could someone please help at this long-term dispute? The conflict can be described in a whole as a coflict of interests as per the definition at Conflict of interest.

Two groups of Musicians with almost similar backgrounds exist in real world and both have their own article in Wikipedia. The bands in question are Master Musicians of Joujouka and Master Musicians of Jajouka. Many related articles are still being tagged w/ Not verified, Primarysources and totallydisputed templates.

It should be noted that these 2 groups have been directly associated w/ other biographical articles of a few notable writers such as Paul Bowles and William S. Burroughs, painters such as Mohamed Hamri, musicians such as Brian Jones and Bachir Attar photographers who were or have been associated w/ the Beat Generation somehow.

Lately, some of these articles have been subject to edit warring again. Apart from the accounts of some of the users involved (User:BKLisenbee and User:Frankrynne), many IPs were edit warring as well. These IPs hail from both Europe (Ireland and France) and the US (NY area and Florida).

I've been directly involved in maintaining some order and there have been many discussion between editors at the articles talk pages and some have led to concensus. However, the following infringement and disrespect of policies and guidelines are still being noted (WP:BLP, WP:LIBEL, WP:NPA, WP:AGF, WP:NPOV, WP:CITE, Primary, secondary, and tertiary sources and it seems that my 1 week blocks for both users (U:BKLisenbee and U:Frankrynne) have done little to curve tensions and enhance contibutors' behaviour toward each other.

All details can be found at User:FayssalF/JK -an informal mediation subpage i created back on May 2007 to help both camps stop edit warring and build a relationship based on mutual trust. That helped ease tensions but not all the time. I am just therefore requesting from any volunteer admin to help out since i've been a bit busy lately. It still can go through a formal mediation process but any comments are welcome. Thanks in advance.

-- FayssalF  -  Wiki me up®  18:04, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

I welcome this request

opiumjones 23 (talk) 00:52, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

possible immflamatory comment on User talk:ElKevbo?
No admin action necessary at this time Hi. An anon placed a comment on this user's talkpage, calling him/her a jackass and mental. I then posted a comment after it, asking if it should be removed per WP:RPA or something. Should it be removed, or perhaps just rephrased? I see the anon has a talkpage, but I didn't check to see if it was warnings or whatever. Can someone check, and either remove the comment or do something about it if nessecary? Thanks. ~ A H  1 (TCU) 18:30, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I'd let ElKevbo deal with their talkpage as they see fit. I will warn the IP about civility and I did remove the poorly sourced text in question.--Isotope23 talk 18:36, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

User:The Matrix Prime
Hiya. A few months ago, The Matrix Prime and I had a dispute about whether a fair-use image he wanted to add to Optimus Prime (disambiguation) was appropriate. Ever much undo-ing and teeth gnashing, the image was axed and the guideline updated to more emphatically preclude those images. I've generally moved on from Transformers-related pages, but a few were on my watchlist as part of a to-do. Category:Primes/Primals cropped up on my recently-edited watchlist pages, and I removed a fair-use image from it. The category was recently deleted as empty (there seems to be an edit dispute abrew between TMP and User:mathewignash), but TMP recreated it with the fair-use image. I removed it; TMP restored it, and I again excised it and left a message on TMP's talk page. In the last 30 minutes or so, TMP appears to have gone through my edit history and undone some of my recent good-faith and appropriate edits. These are generally trivial or maintenance-tag related, but considering previous head-butting with TMP and TMP (as far as I can tell) not having previously edited any of these pages, it appears to border on harassment. I'd appreciate a third-party's perspective and possible intervention. TMP's restoration of that disambig page image, the restoration of the fair-use image to the category page, and this comment in response to my aforelinked post on his talk page unfortunately seem to show this editor's reluctance to abide by guidelines and/or consensus. --EEMIV (talk) 20:35, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

User:Metis1 and Metis TransPacific Airlines
This editor has claimed on his userpage that he worked for Metis TransPacific Airlines, which has been claimed by Skytrax as "spoof operation". Today he has blanked the page twice, , and once removed warning tags. I have reasonable reason to request this person to be banned indef.-- Samuel di  Curtisi  di  Salvadori  21:00, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Alice.S
Alice.S violated WP:NPA several times over the past two days as shown by the following diffs:
 * "ignorant" 1
 * "spasm reverter" 2
 * "mindlessly and ignorantly using the undo facility" 3
 * "mindlessly and ignorantly using the undo facility!" 4
 * "stop your mindless and ignorant reversions!" 5
 * "mindlessly and ignorantly"


 * When I asked her to be more civil, after her first two personal attacks, she responded with this.6 She was recently blocked for a WP:POINT violation. Jose João (talk) 22:45, 28 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I would call this more "general incivility" than actual personal attacks, and you're both guilty of edit warring. Why don't you try discussing this on the article talk pages?  Someguy1221 (talk) 23:37, 28 November 2007 (UTC)


 * You make a very perceptive point about discussion, Someguy.
 * When discussion is attempted, User:Perspicacite alias Jose João resorts to editing other editor's comments in breach of WP:Talk guidelines.
 * I also take this opportunity to point out that
 * this complaint is a duplicate to one made above by User:Perspicacite alias Jose João within the last few hours
 * User:Perspicacite alias Jose João never sees fit to warn the victims of his complaints that they are being discussed here
 * User:Perspicacite alias Jose João has continued unexplained and unjustified reverts within the last few hours while ignoring the discussion page of the reverted article.
 * <font color="#CC2200">Alice.S 00:00, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
 * update and then Perspicacite admits that addressing him on his user talk page is a complete waste of my time. <font color="#CC2200">Alice.S 03:55, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Brief block of Jreferee
was mass spamming dozens of user talk pages with a rather trivial message - eg. He'd only worked through the "A"s - there looked like more to come. A number of admins posted to his talk page asking him to halt and discuss before continuing - but no response - he continued. I applied a 15min throttle break - and indicated on his talk page I'd lift it immediately, if he simply started talking. As of posting this there's no reply from him. I'm posting here for transparency - although, I hope there's no need to make too much of this.--Docg 23:33, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Is this a compromised account? This makes no sense. --<font color="7F007F">Rodhullandemu  (please reply here - contribs) 23:36, 28 November 2007 (UTC)


 * He was editing normally just minutes before this started...Someguy1221 (talk) 23:40, 28 November 2007 (UTC)


 * seems rather odd behaviour for that editor - maybe he just needs a day off - anyway the short preventative block looks good - it's massing spamming - nuff said. --Fredrick day (talk) 23:43, 28 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Blocking policy allows blocking for persistent spamming. Jreferee was spamming a message to many talk pages, and despite being contacted and asked to stop, he continued. His message may not have been directly harmful but it was irrelevant to the purpose of writing an encyclopaedia. I just wonder what he was doing. Sam Blacketer (talk) 23:44, 28 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't think anyone is questioning the legitimacy of the block, rather they appear to be questioning if it's a compromised account or not. &rArr; <font face="Euclid Fraktur"> SWAT  Jester    Son of the Defender  23:55, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
 * That'd be an odd use of a compromised account. John Reaves 00:08, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree, i think the best way to tell is let the block expire and see what he does, and if he continues it may be worth emailing him about it (to verify the account is not compromised). Tiptoety (talk) 00:10, 29 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Do you guys think we should scan a checkuser to see? This behavior is unusual for Jreferee to exhibit. Maser  ( Talk! ) 00:10, 29 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Whatever the case, the spamming sure did work. Activity increased by a lot, if you'll look at the history.  bibliomaniac 1  5  00:27, 29 November 2007 (UTC)


 * It's highly unlikely that the account was compromised as he was editing normally a few minutes before the spamming. While it makes no since, it appears that Jreferee made the edits himself by choice. — <font color="007FFF">Save_Us _ 229 00:35, 29 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Not compromised. - <font color="#0000cd">auburn <font color="#EF6521">pilot  talk  01:22, 29 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Thank you for all of your concern. I saw Doc and John's posts on my talk page at 23:17, 28 November 2007, stopped posting, and logged off as I had some pressing business. The two messages didn't ask for anything else and just seemed like simple requests to me. Doc's 23:19 block of me was two minutes after I stopped (by choice) and logged off. I'm not sure why no one discussing this notice the two minute difference between when I stopped and when I was blocked. Doc subsequently indicated that he had the block template up - probably closer to the time when I logged than the two minutes makes it appear - a reasonable explanation. In hindsight, there were better ways go about my actions. The more I think about it, the more I regret raising concern for my actions in other admins. I'm sorry for the anxiety I raised. -- Jreferee    t / c  01:27, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

The end.--Docg 01:51, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Possible begining of an edit war on Citing sources
It probably needs a few more eyes since it is a style guideline page. There is some discussion Wikipedia_talk:Citing_sources, but the beginings of an edit war on the main page has begun --Hu12 (talk) 23:52, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

TfD issue
Would someone like to take a look at these two TfDs? Both of them are ugly, contentious, and require a fair bit of clean-up. I was leaving them for another admin to close, but after leaving them for several days, a non-admin came and closed them. I'm not going to lie about it, I just got back from playing racquetball and I'd rather not deal with it. For what it's worth, I do agree with the guy's closes - the templates, however, need to be untranscluded, infoboxes changed out, and the user politely told that although his help and eagerness are appreciated, we would rather he leave it to the admins. RyanGerbil10 (Говорить!) 01:02, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
 * IceKarma looks like an admin to me... BencherliteTalk 01:16, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I stand corrected... I feel like just a bit of an idiot right now. RyanGerbil10 (Говорить!) 03:46, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

User:RYNORT
I just want to notify you of this user. He has claimed to want to help positively contribute to wikipedia but has not worked with other editors very well and has a one-track mind at the Bill O'Reilly (commentator) article. I tried to offer suggestions if he wants to be a valuable contributor such as adopt-a-user and others have tried to help him out but he has attacked others on the talk pages and has now resorted to vandalism. I tried to help steer him the in right direction but he's not listening. He said yesterday that he was quitting but yet still edits and argues with others. You may want to check this out if he keeps this up. MrMurph101 (talk) 02:55, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, he's blocked forever now. Unless he decides he wants to contribute constructively, there's nothing to do.  Someguy1221 (talk) 03:30, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Soondesk6 and Bothtones7, possible sockpuppets of User:Roadcrusher
Bothtones7 was created 11 days after the last suspected Roadcrusher sock (Smackdown10) was perma-blocked. Bothtones7 immediately proceeded to upload copyvios to Second Avenue Subway and related pages, a favourite of Roadcrusher. I had seriously warned Bothtones7 about the socks issue, hoping that he would take the hint, but he continued to ignore copyright rules until blocked by User:JeremyA for 24 hours on 23 November.

Soondesk6 was created on 25 November. Among the first edits was to upload a flag of Norway (Image:Norway.png) under FU, which was within minutes given crude FU rationales by Bothtones. Soondesk6 has not been on Second Avenue Subway or any related pages, but image uploads share the Roadcrusher style of erroneously providing sources using a di-url_of_source style, the crude FU rationales (Bothtones7: "Image should be allowed because it is what the article is about." Soondesk6: "Image is a source of information."), and now Soondesk6 is adding reviewedfairuse onto uploads (e.g. Image:Evaporated milk.jpg‎), which I find highly suspicious for an account that has been added less than a week ago (I've been here for over three years and hardly know of FUR). Soondesk6 had also did a couple of copy-and-paste jobs for new articles (see and ).

User:Marc Shepherd and User:JeremyA can corroborate my statements on Bothtones7.

New possible socks:

Known socks:

Kelvinc (talk) 02:59, 29 November 2007 (UTC)


 * PS: I went straight here because Roadcrusher is already listed as a puppeteer on WP:SSP. Also, I have been looking over this issue for almost three weeks now and would like to take a break from dealing with this guy, who I perceive to be escalating in avoiding copyvio detection to the point of constant disruption.  Kelvinc (talk) 03:07, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

RFA attempt at humiliation?
Just a guy trying to do something nice for his friend--Jac16888 (talk) 05:05, 29 November 2007 (UTC) Hello, I'd like to point out something strange at Requests for adminship/CastAStone. created the RFA several minutes before he asked CastAStone. In the RFA, David states several false facts about CastAStone which makes him look better (sorry if that sounds rude). Me and User:Balloonman both suspect this was an attempt to emberass CastAStone. Looking at his talk page history, David has had contacted with CastAStone a few times. Perhaps he made the RFA because of this? Although that was nearly a year ago. I'd like someone else to weigh in on this. Thanks. Cheers,JetLover (Report a mistake) 04:40, 29 November 2007 (UTC)


 * David claims to know CastAStone in real life, per this. Still hinky, and I feel bad for CastAStone if he did intend to make a sincere attempt to be an admin. Some encouragement will help on that end, I think - but as for DavidJ710? ZZ Claims~ [[Special:Contributions/Ultra

exactzz|Evidence]] 04:44, 29 November 2007 (UTC)


 * We have asked CastAStone to verify this. Personally, if they knew each other, I don't think CastAStone would react this way. Cheers,JetLover (Report a mistake) 04:49, 29 November 2007 (UTC)


 * (EC)erm, your link is just to one of the rfa !votes, it doesn't suggest anything about them knowing each other. Anyway, this all is very stange, and them knowing each other would make it simpler, just a practical joke on davids side, although still unacceptable, suggest they both be notified of this discussion and asked to explain before jumping to conclusions--Jac16888 (talk) 04:51, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
 * notified castastone--Jac16888 (talk) 04:54, 29 November 2007 (UTC)


 * How'd I bugger that one up? DavidJ710's claim that the RfA is legit is here. He confirms this on his talk page, here. Another comment is here, asking to wait for CastAStone's response before taking action... which is moot now that the RfA has been removed by Balloonman. ZZ Claims~ Evidence 04:59, 29 November 2007 (UTC)


 * OK, glad this has been solved. Cheers,JetLover (Report a mistake) 05:00, 29 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Everybody, I do know David personally, he was probably over-enthusiastic in nominating me, but I do not believe it was malicious nor a practical joke; he's inexperienced here and he probably thought it would be an honor.--CastAStone|(talk) 05:02, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism
The user Otolemur crassicaudatus is indulging in Vandalism of articles. He is fundamentalist in his views and is creating articles to spread propaganda and is using Christian fundamentalist websites to create articles. I request the administrator to take action against him and stop him from this kind of actions. Thanking you. All the edits by him need to be reverted. Chanakyathegreat (talk) 06:07, 29 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Here is the user's list of contributions. Putting aside this user's motivation, please specify one or more diffs that show vandalism. If the vandalism would not be immediately apparent, please explain it here.


 * As it is, I looked at three edits by this user and saw nothing whatever that obviously needed to be reverted. -- Hoary (talk) 06:14, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Edit war
I just came from this article because of an RFC request. The article has been subject to an ongoing feud between Korean and Japanese editors. This war relates to the cultural issues between those two peoples and is, to put it mildly, acrimonious. the main point of contention is over Dog meat, and I am not going to list the full details but it is not pretty.

The feud has been going on for three months now with no end in sight. The fued has resulted in several warnings to and blockages of editors on both sides over incivility, rudeness and derogatory comments. There also seems to be some serious ownership issues.

Several of us over at WikiProject Food and drink have tried to mediate the issue as we have no real connection to the article other stated desire to see a well written, NPOV article on international cuisine. This hasn't worked out. What I am requesting to be done involves several different things that only admins can do.

There really needs to be a cooling of period, and this is what I think needs to be done:
 * 1) the divisive section needs to be excised;
 * 2) The article needs to be put on full protection for awhile, 2-4 weeks;
 * 3) the editors involved in the pissing contest need to be warned, or even blocked to allow them to cool off;

I think this may need bouncing up to the arb committee, but I am going to let the admins decide on this.

editors that appear to be involved in the edit war:

I am not blaming any of these people for the war, it just seems that it has gotten way out of hand over there. These people genuinely want to get the best article, but are allowing their passions get the better of them.

-Jeremy (Jerem43 (talk) 09:31, 27 November 2007 (UTC))


 * OMG, Jerem43, you have no right to do this. I haven't reverted any single edit on the article. FYI, I was trying to meditate between some editors at their disputes but simply I failed. Besides, Chef Christopher Allen Tanner, CCC and Bsharvy is missing on the list and you think threatening block is suitable method?--Appletrees (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 09:44, 27 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Chris and Bsharvy have been the ones trying to mediate the issue and you, as one of the editors involved, have not been helping. I looked through three months worth of the war before posting this request. I did this because someone who was disinterested had to make this call. - Jeremy (Jerem43 (talk) 09:54, 27 November 2007 (UTC))


 * As far as I've known, you're the most unhelpful editor for the article. You originally came to 'fix'(as you think) the order of the cuisine template and then you failed to persuade editors to relocate it to the way you want. As the consequence of that discussion, you post this? I don't think you behave properly. Of course we need a meditation from admins, but You're acting like a teacher to lecture editors. In addition, I don't also think Bsharvy has been meditating or helping for the article. He is the one consistently reverting edits between others and brought wrong statics and infos--Appletrees (talk) 10:13, 27 November 2007 (UTC)


 * ...all of whom look to be the same people who got South Korea protected and in response went on a witch hunt on the talk page. A lot of these ultranationalist editors have already been involved in one arb case, and we're headed straight for another. <small style="background:#fff;border:#800080 1px solid;color:#000;padding:0px 3px 1px 4px;white-space:nowrap">east<big style="color:#090">. 718 at 10:06, November 27, 2007


 * east718, I acknowledge you're one of admins but don't think your scornful comments on the South Korea talk page and the above are good to listen to. Two days ago, I considered to ask you to meditate the dispute because you were there to make a protection on the article. But after seeing your cynical comments, I gave up the thought. You could've also meditated the dispute as an admin but simply label ultranationalists and making article under a protection for fun? That is very offensive. I want you to withdraw the comments. The disputes were initiated by a vandal and another editor as you call "witch" to have wikistalked so long made things worse. --Appletrees (talk) 10:30, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
 * If you're not one of the warring editors, I apologize for painting you with my thick brush. Once you realize just how much of a problem nationalism is on Wikipedia, you start to lost patience fast. Granted, the editors involved in the East Asian conflicts have been better behaved than most, but the situation is deteriorating and barrelling towards a huge Balkans/Armenian-Azeri/Troubles style flashpoint. <small style="background:#fff;border:#daa520 1px solid;color:#000;padding:0px 3px 1px 4px;white-space:nowrap">east<big style="color:#090">. 718 at 10:57, November 27, 2007


 * Comment. I was involved in this a while back on a purely editorial / local interest / attempted mediation level, but just got sick of the carry-on. Somebody say pissing contest? Pretty much. Protection, arbcom... do it, because to pursue a long edit war on such a controversial topic - as divisive as various ethnic, political and religious debates which get locked down quick on WP - shows disregard for how visible WP is, and how we must visibly co-operate to present great articles. I am singularly unsurprised to see Melonbarmonster still involved. From a recent comment on the article talk - Talk:Korean cuisine - his popularity does not appear to have risen since I was keeping a closer eye on things. I am surprised that he hasn't added to his rap sheet for a while. <FONT STYLE="verdana" COLOR="#000000">Dei</FONT><FONT COLOR="#FF3300">z</FONT> talk 10:22, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

I certainly don't think blanking the section, even temporarily, is a solution. The main problem with editing process there is the lack of any effort to work toward consensus. The editors tend to insist on black and white solutions, e.g. deleting the whole section, deleting whole paragraphs (on the grounds that there are some references they don't like). There has been little discussion of the form: My concerns are... etc. Very little effort to find out why the author put that seemingly objectionable material in the article, and work toward a more consensual way for the article to reflect that concern. In short, little communication. The only real edit-warring I've seen has come from melonbarmonster, who has consistently shown a lack of interest in any sort of open-minded conversation. (P.S. I'm not sure how much nationalism is involved. I'm neither Korean nor Japanese....) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bsharvy (talk • contribs) 12:57, 27 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Respectfully, I wish folks could see that this is edit war is part of something bigger. This incident is simply one small battle in a war between editors who strongly identify with extreme and vulgar ideas of what it means to be Japanese or Korean. In other words, this IS part of a long-term war in which some of the editors identified above are continuous disrupting Wikipedia to make a point. They are nationalists and they have refused to follow Wikipedia policies. This editor has been blocked 9 times. At the very minimum this editor should not be allowed to edit any articles about East Asia and this one and this one should be blocked indefinitely as highly disruptive editors. Some of the folks (but not Badagnani, a good editor) listed above have frightened away good editors and have created an ultranationalistic and racist atmosphere. Please do something.  Phlegmswicke of Numbtardia (talk) 14:26, 27 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I dually agree. In viewing the Korean Cuisine article and similar articles, many that wish to see "offending" texts deleted are Korean nationalists. Then the Japanese nationalists step in and have it restored. Then other editors, like myself, see no reason for it to be deleted, and then an ensuing edit pattern continues. It's been ongoing for quite a long time, because no rationale is given for the text deletion most of the time, and a talk page discussion usually dead-ends.  Seicer  (talk) (contribs) 15:00, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Phlegmswicke of Numbtardia, I respect your concern but you got the wrong point. Japanese editors were not involved in the series of the incidents at this time (but as Banagnai said once, a Japanophile editor is involved). I think your accusation against Good friend100 is fatally wrong. He has to get by the painful lessons from the past disputes, but he was not involved in the edit warring. I assume you're a newbie and the dispute looks tediously long, so that you seem not to look through the every detail on this. I also don't think Melonbanstar should be infinitely banned for the dispute as you wish. In my opinion, Melon and Banagnai have equally responsible for the endless edit warrings. But on top of that, I think the reporter exaggerates the problem too much. He stopped by to make a cuisine template placed right top of a picture depicting Korean foods. But he failed and then made this report. How transparent. --Appletrees (talk) 15:02, 27 November 2007 (UTC)


 * For the record, Good Friend100 does not appear to have breached the conditions imposed on his editing. I have been watching his edits and I have had no cause for concern. Spartaz Humbug! 16:28, 27 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment - I had planned on placing this article up for arbitration as the RFC was getting no notice, so I believe that this was Jerem43's intention after going to the discussion page, not just because of the edit he made was argued. I was also not mentioned in his list for the edit war, as from what anyone can clearly see, I am not involved with it, I came in the help stop it.  I'll address a number of the major issues here.  This article has clearly been in an edit war, anyone who can read can see the constant back and forth of reverts and then the insults aimed at the persons doing the reverts, or can see the response of others who take the edits as a "personal insult."  The edit war only ended after I placed a note on many of the users discussion pages to calm down in case someone would report them for incivility or revert warring and then I added the RFC to the article.


 * These issues I have long attempted to address in Wikipedia articles, people should stop acting like articles belong to them, just because you are form a country does not make that countries article yours. This brings the comments to what some attempt to call "consensus" on the article, but I think some people need to look the word up in a dictionary.  A raising of hands is not a consensus, a discussion to a final resolution with well fashioned arguments, not "I'm right, you're not" while using numbered statistics that have a possible manipulation to them.  Internet sources are a poor source for editing a controversial topic, especially from the BBC which is a television channel looking for ratings, not accuracy.


 * There is little civility amongst the major contributors to this article (unless you agree with them) which is why I personally went on there to personally arbitrate. I made one edit a while ago and it was jumped on and I left the article for awhile and came back to put in some information on the history of the cuisine but realized that there was so much volatility surrounding the article, I would attempt to calm the editors down before attempting to add anything of merit to the article.  This is the inevitable outcome of that attempt.


 * I stick to my position that the dog meat information should become part of the history section that will discuss the evolution of consumption of dog meat in the country dating back to the pre-modern era. Statistics do not contribute to the article as they just provide controversy.  Dog meat is clearly not a "staple" of the diet and does not warrant it's own heading.  It would be likened to having a heading for each food item in any culture.  Would you suggest in the French cuisine article we have a heading for frogs, snails, horse meat etc. just because other cultures find these items taboo?  No, because these items are clearly small parts of the ingredients found in the cuisine.  Anyone who states that each cuisine is individual (I see the argument coming) is flawed in that argument because each culture has food taboos, they just are not a major part of the cuisine as a whole.


 * Clearly the regular combatant editors have scarred away not only editors who may contribute a small amount of information to the article that are not major contributors from the article, but they have also pushed away largely contributing cuisine editors such as myself from editing as we do not need the added stress. What happens instead however, is much valid academic information on the whole article, not just single sections are lost because we would rather not get into arguments with combative editors.  I think some people have lost the idea of enjoying academic work to further education for others, in favor of as Jeremy has stated, a "pissing contest" to see who can win an argument to put their agenda forward.  I would hope that multiple administrators with no cultural bias would help to arbitrate the situation.--Chef Christopher Allen Tanner, CCC (talk) 16:47, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Melon is currently not here, but most of flames are toward him. --Appletrees (talk) 16:55, 27 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Response I did not post this because I was unhappy with the "discussion" over my edit, but because I realized that issues of ownership by the editors was a serious issue on top of the edit war and it was getting in the way of a serious discussion. The way in which in which the editors disregarded the MoS over their own opinion of how things should be done was just simply the last nail in the coffin. I had been mulling the posting since shortly after reading the Talk:Korean cuisine threads on the matter, as well as the flame wars going on on your individual talk pages. This issue has gotten way out of hand and as Chris stated it needs to be resolved by individuals who are not vested in the issue. That was my intent by posting this message, and nothing more. - Jeremy (Jerem43 (talk) 17:31, 27 November 2007 (UTC))


 * Comment - Actually, the fact you found you needed to build consensus at "Discussion" rather than simply barging into a page and insisting on your way does seem to be the reason you began this. Your constant cursing, in nearly every post, did not endear you to other regular editors there, nor assure others of your good faith. Finally, repeated edits were needed formerly at the Korean cuisine article to avoid blanking of an entire section outside consensus (usually by a single user, Melonbarmonster). That has been ironed out and consensus regarding the "dog meat" section is being built, with some very good proposals being evaluated in a calm, thoughtful manner by most of the editors. The "edit war," further, is long past. I suggest you exercise moderation and actually read through the discussion, including the discussion in the past few weeks, and you will see this--a vigorous discussion, something that is encouraged at Wikipedia. I do not believe you have done that, although you say you have. Badagnani (talk) 17:52, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I would like to ask you to please take the time and point out the incidents of me cursing. You cannot because you will find at no time did I swear. The only swear mentioned was in my quotation of Mark Twain: There are lies, damn lies and then there are statistics. I did read through the discussion and saw what you call Vigorous was what I call inappropriate. People were dismissing commentary by disinterested parties who were trying to help, the only "consensus" was being made by 3-4 individuals with a vested interest in the article. Your comment about me swearing, is indicative of the problems with the "discussion." - Jeremy (Jerem43 (talk) 18:04, 27 November 2007 (UTC))


 * the fact you found you needed to build consensus at "Discussion" rather than simply barging into a page and insisting on your way does seem to be the reason you began this. And this is a bad thing?   Corvus cornix  talk   —Preceding comment was added at 00:49, 28 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment - In addition to the profanity you mention, your vulgar reference to urination was so uncalled for I will not repeat it here. It is simply indicative of what appears to be a hot-headed attitude in general on your part. I do not believe you have read all the discussion carefully in the Korean cuisine article, or you would be working to build consensus there (which we have already been doing) instead of here. From the tenor of your edits (i.e. your appearance and insistence that your version of the article be implemented immediately, with no dissenting comment permitted, hence you begin to issue profanities), the "ownership" and "urination" seems to be emanating from your direction rather than from the Korean cuisine article, at least at the moment, I'm sorry to say. Badagnani (talk) 18:14, 27 November 2007 (UTC)


 * The term pissing contest does not refer to urination, but in fact refers to an argument, usually without purpose or value. You live in Ohio and have never heard this term? It is American vernacular that has been around for years. My usage of the term ownership refers to the tendencies of the editors to brook no dissension on "their" article. My commentary was simply a statement that the WP:MoS, specifically WP:IBX, should be followed regardless of the opinions of the editors- not that "my version" is correct. It is not "my version" of the article but the the MoS standards for articles. The policy is there for a reason and you and the others felt that it does not apply to you. That is not me being rude. - Jeremy (Jerem43 (talk) 19:07, 27 November 2007 (UTC))

Vandalism and incivility
I think the edit wars on the South Korea article is far from a ultra nationalistic battle. The first one is a matter of dealing with User:Jjk82's bogus and false info regarding Korea's environment, education level, possible discrimination, and dog meat. The second dispute is a civility issue of Sennen goroshi.


 * Involved party 1


 * Involved party 2
 * User:Appletrees, User:Patriotmissile, CJ DUB, User:Good friend100

Discussion
and perhaps, if one editor constantly makes complaints about someone, and encourages other editors to do the same, constantly gets his complaints resulting in "no action taken" he should rethink his attitude towards the editor in question, and try to enter some form of civil discussion, rather than continue his neverending complaints.Sennen goroshi (talk) 14:45, 27 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, this is the very neverending story unless you cease the misconduct. Well, take more time to think about what you have just caused. I couldn't help to report it this time again, because admins above are mentioning the South Korea article dispute and connect with it. I strongly object the link between the Korean cuisine and South Korea article caused by your disruptions. --Appletrees (talk) 14:53, 27 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Don't distort my initial edit and just write down your opinion here. Beside, your civil acts include YOUR CONSTANT WIKISTALKING and REVERTING my edit blinly and vandalize the discussion at CFD? You're so you. Just accept the truth, you never act civil to anyone. --Appletrees (talk) 15:13, 27 November 2007 (UTC)


 * any comments made by me will be in the Sennen Goroshi section. thanks.Sennen goroshi (talk) 15:33, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Again, Sennen, this is my report, please don't misplace your opinions into the original report. Dividing discussion is easy way for people to distinguash the context. The reason I report here is to make things clear among the chaos and unnecessary blame for the Korean cuisine dispute. You have strong civility issue, but judging by the past, maybe you can escape again, but not for the vandal, User:Jjk82. So, you might want to brush up your old memory like below? OK. I made a new thread for you, so don't complain and distort my report any more--Appletrees (talk) 15:55, 27 November 2007 (UTC)


 * OK, if it makes you happy to move my comments, then feel free. As long as my words are not changed, and people can read what I have to say, for the sake of peace, it might be better not to argue over such small issues.Sennen goroshi (talk) 16:05, 27 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I am in 2 minds about say what I am about to say..however BE BOLD !! it seems that Jjk82's comments are content disputes, not vandalism, perhaps if he is a new user, he is a little unaware of NPOV, and the requirement to use NPOV terms, however it might be better to enter into some form of discussion with him, point out that facts need a verifiable and reliable source, and give him a few lessons on what is and isn't acceptable in wikipedia. I do agree that some of his edits are not acceptable, and of course should be removed, but give discussion a little time, and see what happens, before branding him to be an out and out vandal. Sennen goroshi (talk) 16:11, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Sennen goroshi, well there's an old Korean saying, 'He that commits a fault thinks everyone speaks of it.'. It looks that your behaviours and comments may fit into this old saying. Since most users in Wikipedia have sound mind, not like some small parts of impurities here. Sennen goroshi, please remind that it is exteremely easy to harm others by using particular references by absurdly magnifying rare cases with prejudiced tone. Even I can start let people know darker side of any countries using those kinda references like you and your friends used. However, I won't do that, since I and most wiki users have normal and sound mind. As you may know, it is common sense that you and your friends' behaviour will sculpt other users' one toward you and the Japan article. At last, I'd like to tell you that we have tried and will try to solve this problem with only legal channels in accordance with wikirules. So why don't you stop trying to entrap us to be categorized into witch hunters? I will also report your this kinda disregarding and disrespectful attitude, too.

In addition, you said wikipedia is open to the public, and regardless of shameful facts anyone can upload anything to wikipedia if it is based on facts. In part, may be you're right. However, you disregarded something huge. The ultimate spirit of free-uploadable Wikipedia is rooted from belief of users' sound mind and aspiration of sharing knowledge, not for tools to attack any objects simply because of personal hatrism. Moreover, you are urging that South Korea is a dirty place and South Koreans are racist, right? As I told you numerous times already, regardless you cited some news articles referring to daily-basis tiny little cases involved in yoor claims, but you just cannot generalize and define the South Korean society based on those rare cases. In any country, those kinda accidents happen all the time, and news from any countries are always full of accidents and crimes. In accordance to your logical flow, in Wikipedia, anyone can describe any countries where the places are sick and dirty & full of racists using those kinda news as references.

I think it is inappropriate use the terms, such as nationalist and personal attack to the users who claims vandal charge on the following users; Sennen goroshi, Jjk82, and Keyngez. Please check the previous traces of those users issued here, and contour the overall pictures of this situation. You will see what has been and is going on in the various South Korea-related articles in Wikipedia. Like you said, Wikipedia is not a battle field. I totally agree with it. However since we are living in imperfect world, so when there are numerous disputes occurred in Wikipedia, please consider the people who start and are caused problems.

How many countries could possibly avoid downfalling into a dirty and racist country in Wikipedia if described as those issued users, Sennen goroshi, Jjk82, and Keyngez, with supporting by daily-news articles? As I remember, the US is the most country in which fossil fuel are used, and consequently generates much higher amount of pollutes any other country in the world, plausibly. You can see the news everywhere referring to this fact, even from Al Gore's speak. However, is there anyone who claims that US is a dirty country? In addition, about the issue of racism, can we conclude that most of Western countries where minor racist clans are being there, such as KKK, neo nazi, and skin heads, are all racist countries?

Please please my fellow editors and administrators, I would like to deeply ask all of us to see the cores of current issue with more intropective and sound views and approaches. Wikipedia is definitely not the place where people freely excrete hatrism toward any objects due to personal feelings. Please please check the traces of those users,Sennen goroshi, Jjk82, and Keyngez, and see what has been done to the myriad South Korea-related articles in Wikipedia.Patriotmissile (talk) 16:56, 27 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Sooooooo not involved with this. Sennen goroshi whatever comes out of nowhere accusing me of uncivility, and follows up doing all this wikistalking on matters resolved on articles eons ago. He made a few unsolicted or warranted comments on my talk page. I made some comments about his behaviour in the sincerest, politest terms on his talk page that have since been removed. I have nothing to do with the Korea thing although I noticed Sennen goroshi's edits were at the very heavily biased and he is a frequent violator of the 3RR and makes uncivil edits, racsist comments. For my own part I am a tough editor and I am ruthless in my edits of fancruft from Aarvarks to Zimbabwe. Take me out of your discussion. CJ DUB (talk) 16:53, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

This entire discussion appears to be a fork from the Edit War posting made above. This is indicative of the problems stated in that section. - Jeremy (Jerem43 (talk) 17:51, 27 November 2007 (UTC))
 * Jerem43, you are a bit out of civility to alter this report with your own way. I've seen your such behaviors already though. Therefore, you are as an observer, I relocated your wording here. --Appletrees (talk) 18:09, 27 November 2007 (UTC)


 * sigh* It seems as if the Korea nationalists and the Japan nationalists continue to battle it out. But instead of being at least civil and diplomatic with their edits, they would continue to edit war, mass-delete, and introduce POV on both sides.  Seicer  (talk) (contribs) 19:09, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

That is what I put myself into the middle of trying to resolve the situation. I have now been accused of things I have not done so they may prove a point, this is really ugly. - Jeremy (Jerem43 (talk) 19:14, 27 November 2007 (UTC))


 * Would you guys please provide opinions on this situation after thouroughly proofreading all those disruptive revisions made by the Sennen goroshi, Jjk82, and Keyngez? I can understand that even just obsering this situation may lead such an annoyance, and also can mislead you guys to be recognized as a war between nationalists of Japanese and Korean. However, as I have iteratively told, before appearance of those Sennen goroshi, Jjk82, and Keyngez users, South Korea article has maintained in peace. In addition, no Korean users above have vandalized Japan article here. I also explained many many times about the reason why the claims made by Sennen goroshi, Jjk82, and Keyngez are unjust.


 * Would you guys please shift your observative ground to ours at least once? Please consider if your mother country is trampled and downfallen into a dirty and racist country and become known to whole world, simply by those kinda users with supportive by such news articles where any countries have, what would you do? Will anyone who tries to defend such acts automatically become a chauvinist and be treated like obsessive small-minded nationalists here in Wikipedia? If so, I'll be greatly disappointed. I am not gonna ask a huge favor, I'm just asking sound and generalized common senses.Patriotmissile (talk) 20:41, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Did you read what you just wrote? My point is that while you and the others were trying to correct any inaccuracies you lost touch with the point and got caught up in societal and historical feuds. Remember the Japanese attacked the US in 1941, they did horrible things to American POWs, many of us have grandparents that fought in WW2 that have strong feelings against the Japanese and many of us who grew up in the 1970s saw negative view points spouted by our parents against the Japanese. Despite all of that stuff, Chris did not let that cloud his judgment when he redid the Japanese Cuisine article.

The same can be said about the Mexico cuisine article, the Cuban cuisine article, the Vietnamese cuisine article, the Russian cuisine article and the Iranian cuisine article. We Americans have issues with all of these peoples, going to war with many of them and yet we do not allow it to get in the way of helping to write those good articles. Both sides are pushing their POV and it needs to stop. Let someone who is a neutral observer with a proven track record (Chris has upgraded several cuisine articles to "GA" status, including the GA article French cuisine) help and make the article better. (And, yeah there are Americans with a jingoistic POV who do go around spouting nationalistic vitriol. Chris and are not amongst them.)

We want to help you but you are not helping us. That was point all along. Jeremy (Jerem43 (talk) 21:52, 27 November 2007 (UTC))


 * Jerem43, I have read what you wrote, and I also read your above comment, too. However, I can't get the point you are trying to say. what's all those cuisine stuffs for? Have I asked you about the old relationship between US and Japan? Have I asked you how US citizens are so fair and lenient to embracing various reluctant topics? Do you mean that me and several users are blinded by chauvinistic patriotism, so have lost reason? Do you mean we Koreans should shut up and accept whatever others describe at us, just because you and some of US citizens still consider Iranian and Japanese cultures in a positive way? That's pretty nonsensical, I guess. Moreover, I guess I haven't seen any unfavorable opinions toward US made by users from those countries. Will you react the same way as you are reacting now, even though those issued users denounce the US scathingly as they did to South Korea? I'd really like to see how you will react if such situation actually occurs.


 * Please read what I have said carefully. I provided the reasons why those claims made by Sennen goroshi, Jjk82, and Keyngez cannot be acceptable and used as defining the whole society of South Korea.


 * Jerem43, you said you wanted to help us, but we would not help you. Please tell me in a what possible way you want to help us, and what exactly you want us to help you. May be I am not that keen guy, so please list what exactly they way you want us to do, and what exactly you have helped us so far with your mysterious way. As I told you, accoding to some of the references used by Jjk82 and sennen goroshi whom you may be supporting, your great country can also be defined as a dirty and racist country just like what is desribed for South Korea now by those users.'''Patriotmissile (talk) 03:28, 28 November 2007 (UTC)


 * In my memory, "We" haven't requested your specialty in cuisine here though. So thank your for your "interest" so far.--Appletrees (talk) 21:59, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Is Sennen goroshi blocked yet? CJ DUB (talk) 00:01, 28 November 2007 (UTC)


 * While I welcome comments from all civil users, I think CJ DUB is not qualified to give an opinion regarding my civility and his comments should be seen for exactly what they are - the comments of an offended editor, who responded badly when being told not to tell other users to FOAD (fuck off and die) I think his own comments are so far from civil, but please, judge for yourself. "BAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHA. That page has donjon but its an obvious mistake made by a moron. " " DOES NOT MEAN YOU HAVE ANY IDEA ABOUT HOCKEY, or even know how to write an article. It just means you know how to push a button to join. Good for you. Don't EVER post on my discussion page again" "Firing order‎ (→Cylinder numbering - what moron added that...rm)" - these are hardly comments that show his civility, and therefore his goading and claims should be taken with a pinch of salt.Sennen goroshi (talk) 00:46, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't think it is you, Sennen goroshi, who can judge other users' attitude. As you may quite know well, may people made complaint about your attitude. However, strangely, you're still here. Please remember you are the one practically elicited whole this situation along with your clans, Jjk82 and Keyngez.Patriotmissile (talk) 01:55, 28 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Why is my name on this list? Because I told you Sennen Goroshi is free to remove comments and warnings from his talk page? I hardly find that reason enough to get me involved with this. Mostly what I see is incivility towards Sennen, not the other way around. You guys are claiming ownership to articles when they are free to be edited by anyone. Unless something is going to be said about me being uncivil please remove my name from the discussion, as I have done nothing wrong. Spigot  Map  00:48, 28 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Jeremy, don't distort my report any more, you're not a admin. If you keep doing the disruption one more time, you have to deal with more than you're doing now.--Appletrees (talk) 10:15, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Requested block of these users
I hate to do this, but this needs to be resolved now. (original comment)


 * You hit the nail on strait on the head, I am saying that you are being blinded by hostilities towards the Japanese contributers and guilty of insular thinking. This shows in your (as a group) communications with these editors (and theirs with you, this is a two way street of hostilities), I made a point to research all of the people who are at the root of this conflagration and none of them are innocent. The various user discussion pages and their contributions to the main talk page of the Korean cuisine article show the outward hostilities.


 * The inclusion of the other articles of countries the US has had serious issues with is a demonstration to show that conflicts with other nations should not get in the way writing good articles. You and the others cannot see the forest for the trees and because of that we are at this ANI page.


 * Of this group, you are the only one who has not been blocked in the past and I believe you to be a truly committed editor but this whole affair has gone too far.


 * Well Jerem43, I have read your black list well as well as your reasoning for such a block request. However, don't you think you're overreacting on this issue? It seems that you extremely abhor this whole series of disorders simply because this chaos has made you consume an above-average level of tylenols. Now I think I can sense in part why you enumerated all those cuisine stuffs and the relationship between US and other hostile countries. Honestly, I have no idea what has happened to the US article and you have suferrred from all those antagonisitic revisions. However, you can't simply ask everyone from everywhere to follow the precedents occurred throught out the article of your country. Yes, those precedents may can be used as references to solve similar cases. However, they cannot be the exact models to be applicable to all other cases since each case can have so many subtle differences, which can lead to complete different interpretations.


 * In addition, about your request to block the users you listed, as far as I see, Wikipedia has the well-established rules for its administrative operation, and block or permanent eviction of users will be decided in accordance to the rules. You said I was blinded and obsessed by chauvinistic feeling and due to that, I have hurted other users by using harsh attitude, right? I'd like to tell something. Those charges you listed were originated from your own personal feeling. For better understanding, I honestly felt harshness and a little biasm on your comments, Jerem43. So, can I also ask you to be blocked simply because I had a little personal dislike on your coments or attitude? I don't think so, and I won't do so.


 * Yeah may be as you said, none of us are not innocent depending on point of views one is looking at this chaos. However, please consider what ultimately caused everyone had to be out-of-line at least for a while. In addition, I guess you are still confusing the core I have kept urging. I didn't mean nobody dare to upload any bad articles to South Korea thread. What I have asserted was one should not make conclusions and arbitrary interpretations from the tiny little rare cases which occur everywhere and everytime. Can't you discern the huge between my assertation and your current claim on my attitude? Please mull over my comments.Patriotmissile (talk) 22:55, 28 November 2007 (UTC)


 * "We" do not have to consent to or request permission to edit anything, as the whole purpose behind Wikipedia is that it can be edited by anyone. You do not own the article and others do not have to seek your permission to edit it; you, as a group, are demonising others who wish to contribute to the article; you have removed the contributions of those who feel they have something worthy of addition; you have ignored the MoS; you are being uncivil; and you cannot reach a consensus with the other editors of Wikipedia, only with yourselves. That is a significant point in these discussions.


 * Several times in this very lengthy discussion you have shown outward hostility to the people commenting in this thread, as well as shown bad faith by editing the discussion and moving my comments from where I put them. You have tried to lay the blame for the edit war on editors who have made good faith efforts to improve this article, such as Chris and Bsharvy.


 * You have been blocked before because of this and failed to learn from the experience.


 * You have been blocked nine times because of this type of behavior. This pattern is indicative of a wider issue of your failure to make productive contributions to Wikipedia.


 * You have lied in an attempt to discredit me and my proposal, that is a true example of uncivil behavior. You twisted one of the most famous quotes by one of the English languages greatest humorists in an attempt to claim I was swearing, and you tried to claim that a term which means a pointless argument as me being vulgar. Your lie was to have claimed that I engaged in this behavior as a matter of discourse in all of my communications.


 * You have a pattern of behavior that suggests you only follow WP policies as you want to, and when those policies go against you you do every thing to discredit them or the contributors who applied them. A prime example of this behavior is here.


 * You have been blocked five times for this behavior, and like Good friend this shows a wider patter of unacceptable activities.


 * Sir, as per CJ DUB's comments, you are guilty of numerous violations of the standards WP. You have been blocked three times, and you should be banned for the egregious nature of the edits you have made. The ichor you espouse towards the Korean contributors in some of your postings is vile.


 * Your edits have at best been unproductive, as you have personally caused more friction on the Korean cuisine article than any other editor. You have been blocked more than a half dozen times for this behavior; a trait of consistent abuse towards others that you share with the aforementioned contributors.

In a summary of my thoughts on this issue, all of you are guilty of violating most of the following WP policies:


 * WP:MoS - You have ignored the accepted policies of this site in favor of your own personal tastes.
 * WP:IBX - I and others have shown you that this is proper way to do things, this is an example of your behavior.
 * WP:Civility - Your interaction with the rest of the Wiki-community has been brisk at best, openly hostile at its worst.
 * WP:Consensus - Your groups' view is not the only opinion that matters, other view points must be considered when making a true consensus.
 * WP:3R - The issue with the info box edit was just the latest problem, the only reason it wasn't removed for a third time was the article was locked before that could be done.
 * WP:Good faith - By not trusting the intentions of others who only want to contribute, you have show the nothing but bad faith.
 * WP:Edit war - This is why we are here, and it is a shame.

Also, this behavior is carried over from an arb case over the South Korea article, as stated by East718. Many of these contributers mentioned here are continuing the conflict that got the South Korea article locked down.

For all of this behavior, all of you are need to be blocked, some of you permanently.

Yes there is anger in my post, anger because this has dragged on for three months and not a single person has tried to compromise. These individuals have claimed that they are willing and are in the process seeking a productive consensus, but there are always some codices, conditions, objections or plain old passive aggressive behavior which belies their claims. Their posts in these threads are perfect examples of how they have been behaving, which is like children.

To the admins that monitor this page, consider this a request for blocks on each of these editors. I would like to see a permanent ban on the worst offenders, Melonbarmonster, Sennen goroshi, Badagnani and Good friend100. The others should be blocked for enough time that they realize the depth of their behavior and its affect on the general Wikipedia community.

- Jeremy (Jerem43 (talk) 05:22, 28 November 2007 (UTC))

*

With his bad faith, He has caused a serious chaos to Korean cuisine, distorting the separated incident report and his serious incivility, inappropriate usage of language like urination.

Jeremy, I should ask your responsibility to have cause a serious of chaos to Korean cuisine article as you report without any consensus and notice to editors into the article, and took inappropriate examples like urination, and distorting my seperated report with your special edits. I think you're doing more than wiki policy. You need to be banned for these ongoing disruptions. --`` —Preceding unsigned comment added by Appletrees (talk • contribs) 10:26, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

I have't ignore the MoS, besides, that is a matter of perspective. Several people don't agree with your insufficient rationale and do agree with my rationale instead. You're the one to consider what is civility. Weren't you jumping from the ongoing discussion on the cuisine template, you reported the Korean cuisine and demanded editors to be banned for your retaliation. That is highly disruptive. I think you need to take time to think about your disruptive behaviors as taking a responsibility. --Appletrees (talk) 10:39, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Regarding your complaint about my relocation of your right(?) comment to the discussion subcat, well, the report is filed by myself, not you. You're not the reporter at all. --Appletrees (talk) 13:07, 28 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I should make sure I understand this correctly, is Jerem43 suggesting that just about every gets banned? I would say that the vast majority of the users named above have been responsible for many good edits, and despite a little friction, overall they add to wikipedia. Melonbarmonster, Badagani, Appletrees, Goodfriend and myself most certainly do not deserve a ban, let alone a perm ban for all but one of us. Since goodfriend got given another chance, I think his attitude towards reverting people has changed hugely, Appletrees has a ratio of about 50 to 1 of good edits/disruptive edits, Badagani is an excellent editor and mediator, and while melonbarmonster might be a touch stubborn, he is still an editor who tries succesfully to make wikipedia a better place with his edits. I find the suggestion that a large group of constructive editors get perm banned, a million times more offensive than someone 3RR reporting me, or calling me biased. As for myself, I am gradually learning to keep my POV to myself, and not to take the bait offered by some of the more annoying users. I don't think any of the users listed by jerem deserve any form of block, and that dispute resolution is a better place to solve these issues. BTW I've been blocked once, not three times, one 48hr block, reviewed and taken down to 24hours. thanksSennen goroshi (talk) 14:07, 28 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I am starting to be a little skeptical regarding the latest suggestion of Jerem43, that a huge group of editors bet perm blocked. First of all this seems to be like nuking a mosquito. Secondly it is hardly in line with normal wikipedia sanctions against minor discretions. Finally I was wondering how much canvassing/coaching/plotting is going on behind the scenes between Jerem43 and Tanner-Christopher. Call me untrusting if you wish, but when I read people asking for an E-mail so they can discuss something that cannot be discussed on wikipedia, and then the user who was asked to contact, suddenly is appealing for perm blocks all round, it seems as if something might be going on. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jerem43&diff=prev&oldid=174200562 There seems to be something strange going on anyway.  If I have made an assumption that is incorrect, then I sincerely apologise for that, just at the moment my spidey senses are tingling, and they are telling me that there may be more to this situation than is being shown. Sennen goroshi (talk) 14:23, 28 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Jeremy and I both live in Boston, so honestly the way I communicate with people about other things is none of your business. I communicate with a number of people outside of Wikipedia and if you look at different discussion pages you will see the same thing posted on their pages, it is called having "friends" seeing how we are both in the hospitality industry, I don't discuss personal information on Wikipedia and I have a number of people who contact me on a regular basis besides for my expertise in the field as well.  This however is actually indicative of some of the excessive incivility I have seen on your discussion page that when I have gone to comment on certain items, has been completely deleted.  I am amazed from what I saw on your discussion page that you haven't been blocked more than once, but I think people have given you a lot of leeway in hopes that you can be civil. Finger pointing instead of discussion is a huge thing going on here by all of the editors for the Korean cuisine article, I honestly don't go over to other Korean articles as I am not an Administrator and my expertise is in cuisine and culture interaction, I am sure I could properly edit that article without a bias as well, but why bother when there is so much friction on the cuisine article.  I can only imagine that it is worse on the article for the actual country.  As for Jeremy causing serious "chaos" to the Korean cuisine article, this process has stopped editing on the article until "this chaos" is finished.


 * So actually there is a calm on the article until some level headed editing process for the article can go forth or some administrator steps in. It seems any edit that goes into the article other than done by Badagnani or Appletrees is pounced upon with the overuse of the term "consensus" when they don't need consensus at all to add what they want to to the article.  Actually most edits for any Wikipedia article do not need consensus at all, see WP:Bold.  I am not usually into bringing out controversial things on Wikipedia, I do what I need to do and go about my business as I don't like arguing with people, but I guarantee as soon as I were to edit this article in the manner in which I have brought other cuisine articles up to B and GA status through reorganization and addition of history and relocation of giant lists to List of Korean dishes, I would be pounced on, oh wait, I already was when I made said "list" article.  I however let it go at that time and now that I feel the desire to work on the article, I think the issues need addressing as this is a bigger issue than just the "dog meat" section.  The silliness over the tea section is yet another banter back and forth that was just pointless because people didn't understand the use of the word "fragrant" and as such, became accusatory.--Chef Christopher Allen Tanner, CCC (talk) 17:42, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

I have recently had a discussion with an other contributor in regards to this issue, and agree with him. I will be back after work with an amended proposal. - Jeremy (Jerem43 (talk) 19:09, 28 November 2007 (UTC))


 * You guys need Arbcom or mediation. This isn't going to go anywhere, since my head swims just reading this discussion. --Haemo (talk) 21:48, 28 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi Haemo, thank you for your comment. Perhaps Arbcom or mediation could work. However, it seems that two of the editors listed above have no intention of submitting to or participating in arbitration because they eschew the policies of this project and frankly, by their actions they are dead set against everything that makes Wikipedia a good thing. After all, this is not an isolated incident -- the Korean cuisine problems are just a single battleground of the war between C-K-J ultranationists. Korean cuisine is another proxy article in a long-runnning war that has never been adequately dealt with by Wikipedia.
 * Remember the Dokdo arbitration? Melonbarmonster and Good friend100 were found to be part of the problem. As a part of the findings of the Dokdo arbitration Melon and Good were warned that if they continued to participate in edit wars and disruption that they would be blocked. I suggest that Good not be allowed to edit East Asia articles and Melon be indefblocked. I and other editors who have a genuine interest in making positive contributions to Korean-related have been locked out. We want to see an end to this seemingly endless ethnic warfare that is occurring in the Korean-related articles. As far as I can see, people with administrative tools have yet to publicly acknowledge that the continuous edit-warring that has occurred at article after article related to Korea is a serious problem. It is a serious problem. Why are there so few Feature Status articles related to Korea? Because the Korean-related articles have been hijacked by these incredibly disruptive editors. The ultranationalists must be stopped so that regular editors can get back to the job of presenting Korea in an NPOV manner and according to the spirit and the letter of wikipolicies. Somebody has to stand up and say something until Wikipedians realize that the quality of the 'pedia is greatly compromised by these ultranationalist editors. Phlegmswicke of Numbtardia (talk) 22:36, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Fellow editors and users, Please remind of the meaning of old saying, ' My hourse burned up, but do died the bedbugs.'. It will definitely be not a wise choice to make scapegoats simply to quench this entangled issue and balance between two sides without ascending to the ultimate cause of this situation.Patriotmissile (talk) 00:50, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Phlegmswicke of Numbtardia, Who are you?

 * socket?


 * Special:Contributions/Phlegmswicke_of_Numbtardia

Phlegmswicke of Numbtardia. Thank you for your interest in Korean related articles. I initially thought you're a newbie per your account log,, therefore you may not be acquainted with the current situation in Korean related articles. However, you're definitely not a new comer because of the following reasons. At the report on the Korean cuisine article at ANI, I felt very strange about the strong urge of a seemingly newbie which is that some of editors should be banned infinitely, especially, Goodfriend100 and Melonbanstar.

this IS part of a long-term war in which some of the editors identified above are continuous disrupting Wikipedia to make a point. They are nationalists and they have refused to follow Wikipedia policies. User:Good friend100 has been blocked 9 times. At the very minimum User:Good friend100 should not be allowed to edit any articles about East Asia and User:Sennen goroshi and User:Melonbarmonster should be blocked indefinitely as highly disruptive editors. Please do something. Phlegmswicke of Numbtardia (talk) 14:26, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

In addition, as I visited User:Jerem43's talke page, I found out that you seemed to avert people's eye as leaving your concern about ultra-nationalists and goodfried100 in the middle of a forest or the past thread there. That was also very odd. 

However, they have been going at it steadily for three years  and many of the uninvolved editors have become fatigued and dispirited and quit.............In an ANI thread in October, Jimbo and another editor discussed patterned disruption and disruptors of Wikipedia articles.....

What perplexes me the most is that, in their zeal for 'righting the wrongs' of history, they show an extreme lack of respect for the ancestors of Goguryeo and other historic peoples of Korea......

Rather than indef. blocking Goodfriend100, I suggest that the editor not be allowed to edit any articles related to East Asia. The editor may be able to contribute positively if the editor is restricted to doing his GA-related work.

Repeated urge and mention of Goodfriend100's block, Jimbo, and Goguryeo at his talk page. Besides, I'm not the only one thinking about the same thing as your transformation. 

Hello, You must have renamed your self from another user, as you seem to be very knowledgeable. (Jerem43 (talk) 16:49, 28 November 2007 (UTC))

You might have changed your id and seem to contribute to here for over 3 years. In addition, your wordings and writing style look somewhat familiar to me. I thought I met you before somewhere except the recent ANI. I recalled an anon's speaking at my past report on Sennen for the first time. But there was none but I found an anon's note on my other report instead. 

By the way, this problem was originally a content dispute at a controversial article that has seen nationalistic battles between users who outwardly identify with Japan, Chinese, and Korea. These users are all extremely tiresome and are all a drag on the pedia. They insist on using this project as a nationalistic battleground and they have scared away or completely turned off a whole bunch of constructive and policy-abiding editors. As long as we continue to ignore this problem at Wikipedia and/or deal with it in a piecemeal fashion (for example, Goodfriend100 should have been indef. banned along with others involved in the dispute!!), we will have more bad press from the mainstream media (i.e. care to edit the Koguryo article, anyone?). But I digress...70.53.130.180 14:02, 4 November 2007 (UTC

At that time, I also felt strange about the anon mentioning Goodfriend100, because all of 76.2.227.93.27, Sennen and Good friend 100 were unrelated each other. But I also recall the report regarding Good friend 100's restriction because my report and the report were made on the same day. Strangely more, one of two anons strongly demanded an infinit block to Good friend100 in a very similar style in writing to yours. 

Please block the user indefinitely. Ultra-nationalistic users such as the one mentioned here (and another one who has been banned for a year)" have done an incredible amount of damage in the Chinese, Korean, and Japanese history and culture articles. Honest editors should not have to put up with the ultranationalist cabal that has waged a totally lame war on the Korean articles of this project for 2-3 years........I think Jimbo was referring to users such as Goodfriend100 and several other ultranationalist disruptors. I fear some kind of retribution on me and my contributions if I use my username here. Why should we put up with this? 74.12.78.124 18:38, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree with But Seriously Folks as per the reasons I have listed above. How many good editors have been chased away by this user and his nationalist cabal? .......Wikipedia is not a nationalist battleground. Please re-institute the indefblock.74.12.78.124 20:52, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

You might rebut my assumption, but interestingly the both ip addresses are designated to Toronto, Canada.


 * 70.53.130.180
 * 74.12.78.124

And today, still you're strongly demanding Good friend100's infint block as mentioning Jimbo's speech, he didn't really cause any problem in the recent incidents. 

the Korean cuisine problems are just a single battleground of the war between C-K-J ultranationists. Korean cuisine is another proxy article in a long-runnning war that has never been adequately dealt with by Wikipedia.....Remember the Dokdo arbitration? Melonbarmonster and Good friend100 were found to be part of the problem. I suggest that Good not be allowed to edit East Asia articles and Melon be indefblocked. I and other editors who have a genuine interest in making positive contributions to Korean-related have been locked out.

Strange and weird. Didn't you use proxy to escape yourself? How do I believe you're an good contributor as you change your id and keep urging these two editors to banned infinitely? Besides, there is a possibility of your socketpuppetry.

Moreover, FYI, I personally don't like a red colored ip address or user name because the red colored name indicates "dead people" in East Asia, so they are very conspicuous to me. Therefore, I automatically remember the first digits of anons or ids when I encounter them. On the talk page of South Korea, there are two anons, 74.12.80.137 and 74.12.76.28 from Toronto. ,

To sum up, you've been a long time wikipedian and switch your id. The above mentioned ip addresses are all referring to you in the light of the same writing style and repeated demand for Goodfriend and Melon to be banned. I have not invested enough time to find your previous id, but admins can do that. I don't like people doing such the foul play. I think that more you demand for infinite blockage to the two editors faithfully into Korean cuisine, more suspicious you look. I don't think you behave this in a good faith. --Appletrees (talk) 23:51, 28 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Ever since I have participated Wikipedia as an editor, I found myself shriveled by realizing how this world is distorted and full of antagonism and plots. Appletrees, if you're right, this will be a good opportunity for me to reaffirm the doctrine of original sin of humanbeings.Patriotmissile (talk) 01:03, 29 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, I second that. --Appletrees (talk) 01:16, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

This will be my last comment on this matter
The person whom Appletrees is dismissing in the previous section made a very sane and rational comment on my user page trying to dissuade me from seeking a blanket ban on some of the users I mentioned above. I agreed with him that some of these users have made constructive edits on other articles (Appletrees has done some fine work in regards to several arts articles as an example), but should be given some sort of reprimand in the form of a temporary block to give them time to cool down from the events that have passed in the past few days. If this is the case, then I ask that the editor he mentions, Bagdani as well as Appletress and Patriotmissle, get a little time out.

If Phlegmswicke of Numbtardia's allegations that Good Friend and Melonbarmonster have been officially warned about engaging in edit warring with the potential of a permanent ban if they did so is true, then they should be banned. This needs to be looked at by an admin now.

We need to prevent this from happening again, as the edit war has just moved to the discussion page of Korean cuisine. I therefore agree with him that maybe those editors involved should not be allowed to edit articles related to East Asia, as they appear to be highly biased. That would be the job of the arb committee to decide.

I ask editors to please do what is needed to be done to get this thing settled, as it is heading straight for the absurd pile

I started this whole mess with the best of faith in an attempt to end an edit war that was getting out of hand and to have the participants chill. I am sorry for the inconvenience that this has caused the contributors and admins (but not to those whom are the subject) that have had to sit through this discussion, and I am going to go have some fun now (after the Advil kicks in).

- Jeremy (Jerem43 (talk) 07:18, 29 November 2007 (UTC))

Unfortunately, some of the editors who people are requesting to be blocked/prohibited from editing e.asian articles, are the most qualified to improve those articles. Sennen goroshi (talk) 13:53, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

POV fork
I have just made these two edits
 * to WP:PSTS
 * Primary, secondary, and tertiary sources

I think thes edits that I reversed by user:COGDEN by are way out of order. But now I've made the reversals my hands are tied as I am a party to the dispute.# If either of these edits are reverted by user:COGDEN please could another administrator block user:COGDEN or protect the pages now. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 14:17, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Can you explain what actual changes he has made, beyond splitting the section into its own page? "There is no assurance that this resemblance will be maintained" is the strongest argument anyone has made against it, which tells me there's not anything _right now_ in this "POV fork" that has a different "POV" than what it's a "fork" of. You haven't explained why it needs to not have its own page. WP:RS has its own page. Any protection seems like it would be premature at this stage in what is essentially a formatting dispute. You should both discuss it on the talk page. —Random832 21:45, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Altering well known well publicised redirect from a policy page to a page that has not status that was created by the same person who created the page. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 09:40, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Looking at again, it looks like he was bold, you reverted - and then you went to ANI with demands rather than, you know, that third stage in the consensus process, hmm, what was it again? - he hasn't even reverted back yet, except in the case of one sterile revert by User:Kenosis in WP:NOR.—Random832 21:51, 27 November 2007 (UTC)


 * In defense of myself, this was not a fork. There was discussion on the talk page about moving a section to its own article, and the question never really got answered. So I was bold and just did it, and the move was reverted, basically without any legitimate explanation. I stand by the original edit, but I have not re-reverted or made any additional change, or attempted to prolong any sort of edit war started by the reverter. And if there is any "forking" effect, it is caused by the reversion, not by my original edit. CO GDEN  23:05, 27 November 2007 (UTC)


 * WP:PSTS is a redirect to a policy page. If this is allowed then all redirects to policy pages become open season. For example someone does not like the wording in WP:PROVEIT (it redirects to Verifiability) then  they can create a new page put whatever they like in it and then alter the redirect WP:PROVEIT to that page. In this case I am not accusing  User:COGDEN of acting in bad faith, as the section he copied was a copy, but the potential for abuse is huge ,and a look at the edit history of No original research (and its talk page) show that COGDEN has been very heavily involved in discussing changes and altering the section WP:PSTS all of which, to date, have been rejected by most editors. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 09:37, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
 * So, in other words, you're being a process wonk - putting style over substance. There's nothing wrong with being bold, and you assumed bad faith by automatically thinking he would revert it back without discussion. Can you two please go to the talk page to discuss this proposed split (which can be done COMPLETELY INDEPENDENT of any proposed changes to the wording of the policy itself; just because it's in its own page doesn't mean he'll have any more control over what's in it, even if one assumes that was what he's trying to do. It's not clear what huge "potential for abuse" there is - even it being on its own page changes to it are no less visible.—Random832 14:22, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Odd behavior from a sock farm(?)
CU confirmed the sockpuppetry. All blocked. &mdash; Coren (talk) 21:36, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

There are a number of odd accounts:

I was about to block the whole lot; but I wanted at least a second pair of eyes. None of them have made significant contributions, are relatively recent, and they all seem to be interested only in criticizing Wikipedia to make some sort of odd point. They are obviously related to each other: (2) is a straightforward sock of (1) made to "appeal" the username block; (7) and (6) are obviously related; (5) and (6) bolster each other in Islamabad; (4) and (6) make POV edits about religion and all signed the "petition" to unblock (1).

I wanted a second pair of eyes because I'm the one who did the original block of (1) for the username so I didn't want to act further in the "dispute", but also because I suspect those may be either only part of a sock farm, or all of them socks of some other editor that's trying to make a point of some sort. &mdash; Coren (talk) 15:26, 28 November 2007 (UTC)


 * How do you know they're all connected? For example, what is the connection between (6) and (1) besides signing the petition?—Random832 15:30, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't know for sure, hence this thread. :-)  &mdash; Coren (talk) 15:39, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
 * (added) More precisely, it seems fairly clear that (3) to (7) are all the same puppeteer, but (1) and (2) might be different&mdash; it's just odd that they would just happen to stumble upon (1)'s block and linked advocacy&mdash; especially since none of them are very active. &mdash; Coren (talk) 15:42, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Two more: (8) and (9). Obvious relation, and (9) is also doing the Islamabad name edit war. &mdash; Coren (talk) 13:32, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Agreed, that it isn't totally clear per the duck test, but it is very suspicious. I'd recommend a checkuser before blocking as socks other than maybe Pheel's appeal.  Of course most of them could probably be blocked just based on vandalism, and other nonsense edits...--Isotope23 talk 15:38, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
 * There's technically no cause to block user:Pheel's appeal (well... not based on sockpuppetry anyway - he doesn't necessarily appear to be here to build an encyclopedia) unless he's connected to the other accounts, username-blocked users are free to make a new account. I would suggest checkuser.—Random832 15:45, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
 * True... or he could simply be a friend of the blocked editor. Checkuser is the way to go here.  Most of the accounts have been dormant for a few days, so there is no rush.--Isotope23 talk 15:51, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't think a CU is possible; there's obvious pointy disruption, but it's not large scale or rampant. What I'm worried about, is that they are all part of a sockfarm owned by a bigger puppeteer; probably a banned editor:  they all are recent, and jumped in with obvious knowledge of wikimarkup, wp terminology and wp policy&mdash; someone else is behind them (sock or meat).  &mdash; Coren (talk) 18:47, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Isn't that what CU is for?—Random832 19:10, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Arguably, but if you check the rules you'll see that the privacy concern greatly override the desire to find low-damage socks unless they are ban/block circumvention. Not necessarily a bad idea in general, it's just not convenient in this particular case. &mdash; Coren (talk) 20:32, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Wrong; the privacy policy prevents IPs from being outed except in special circumstances, not whether a set of accounts come from the same IP (they do not reveal the IP unless asked to do so and the situation is dire). A CU can be run on the names alone if they're being disruptive. -Jéské ( Blah  v^_^v ) 04:48, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I still think you should put in a checkuser request. Worst that happens is it's denied.—Random832 14:28, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
 * RFCU filed. We'll see.  &mdash; Coren (talk) 16:24, 29 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Why was 1 blocked? What part of username policy is being violated by that name?  Dan Beale-Cocks  16:38, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Take a peek at the user's page before it got blanked. The Jimbo part of the username was obviously referring to JW.  Apparently in some sort of odd tribute&mdash; but given the farm's apparent desire to make a point about Jimbo it's evident the editor has no intention to write an encyclopedia.  &mdash; Coren (talk) 16:46, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Crediting image authors in main space?
I noticed on Bridget Moynahan that the image says "copyright Rebecca Murray", with her name being a link back to http://movies.about.com. On the image itself at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Bridget_moynahan_int.jpg, it says:


 * Copyright Rebecca Murray; http://movies.about.com/


 * The image is from an interview with Bridget Moynahan, and she has informed me that the image may be freely used on Wikipedia provided that copyright is indicated and her site is identified.

Does this mean every visible page it appears on has to bear this identification, or is sufficient to have it on just the image page but not the article? I hadn't seen a credit like that appear in any other article before, and wasn't sure if violated any image or content policies, as the link back to the author source there isn't very encyclopediac. Does this happen on any other articles? Thanks. • Lawrence Cohen  16:35, 28 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Possibly, yes, but it would need a fair use rationale, if one can be made, for every page. Adam Cuerden talk 17:08, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
 * AFAIK the photo credit and link the website should only be on the image description page, and not in the article body. Also, "Wikipedia only" images have to have a fair use rationale anyway, because they won't stay Wikipedia only - when other sites mirror Wikipedia they mirror the "Wikipedia only" photos along with everything else. Natalie (talk) 17:11, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Having looked at the image, it seems like the uploader may not understand that the CCSA license means that anyone can use the image provided they follow the terms of the license, not just Wikipedia. Natalie (talk) 17:14, 28 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Why don't you just put copystatus tags on the image page? Easy. --Gp75motorsports (talk) 20:31, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, for starters, Lawrence Cohen is asking whether or not the image needs to be credited in the article text, as opposed to on the image page, which is an issue not addressed by any tags. And I'm not claiming that the image is not licensed CCSA. I'm just saying that I don't think the uploader correctly understands what the CCSA license entails. Natalie (talk) 21:05, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I didn't even realize there was/is/are any possible issues with the tagging of the image itself. I was confused as to why an outbound link to the photographer's site was in the body of the article itself. I.e., if I uploaded a photo of a bridge to Wikipedia, and said it could only be used in articles if credited with a link back to http://lawrencecohen.com, that would seem wrong to be linking to my site from the article itself. Is it acceptable to link to a photographer's site like this from the article's page itself? • Lawrence Cohen  22:29, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
 * No; information relating only to the article should be in the article, and the image author (and other such information, such as a URL) should be on the image page itself. EVula // talk // &#9775;  // 22:36, 28 November 2007 (UTC)


 * No, with the exception of cases where the making of the picture, or the history of the picture, or the provenance of the picture is of interest to the readers of the article. For instance, saying which satellite was used to obtain a NASA satellite picture; who took the picture on top of mountain if it was the guy who just climbed the mountain and who is mentioned in the article; the name of a submersible from which a deep-ocean underwater shot was taken; the name of a famous artist when showing an image of a painting by that artist; noting that a historical picture came from the Library of Congress (eg. a 1626 map of the world), and crediting the original authors of historical material (eg. 17th century Dutch maps; Brady Civil War photos; famous photojournalists). In the vast majority of cases, the author of a photograph will be of no interest whatsoever, but a blanket "author information on the image page" rule is not helpful. The above examples should make clear where the dividing line lies. Carcharoth (talk) 22:49, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
 * True, although I don't think that crediting the authors in the article space is required in those cases. So I guess a better way to say what I'm thinking is that it's never required to credit the author in the image space (so the author having that requirement is a deal breaker), although it may be appropriate if the photographer is notable or interesting and some way relevant to the article. Natalie (talk) 15:26, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I have removed the link from the infobox. &#10154; Hi DrNick ! 22:59, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Is it safe for me to remove any such things that are found? Or are there some licensing conditions for images that may require this, barring Cacharoth's examples? • Lawrence Cohen  23:21, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
 * There shouldn't be any licensing issues with removing the credits in the article space, as long as they stay on the image description page. Natalie (talk) 15:29, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
 * As an aside, that is a terrible picture (especially considering the fuss). I'm sure we can get a better one.  Neil   ☎  10:43, 29 November 2007 (UTC)