Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive282

Azerbaijan article edit warring/vandalism

Hi, I am new, and I hope I am posting this in the right place. I am wondering if the Azerbaijan article can be protected and a mediator added. Some users have aggressively edit warred, and even vandalized the page, making things up. There is almost nothing from those reverts on the talk page, and their edit summaries do not make sense. They have also taken the attack to wikimedia commons and other articles about my sourced information. Please see history, and also this comment I added on the talk: I see some users are bent to attack me and remove information about Azeri-German collaboration and the picture. I am reverting this, even though this is my 4rth time. As I understand wiki rules I read, we can revert more than 4 times if it is blatant vandalism, which I undertand it is. The Article on Germany is a featured article, and they show 3 images under WWII sections. So, what is wrong with this one having one for battle of Caucasus and another for Azeri collaboration. Also, why are they starting to put information about Armenians and Georgians in this article? Not only Soviet citizens but europeans like the Dutch served in SS and wermacht, should we mention all? If anything should be mentioned, it should be about Uzbek and Turkmen, who served under same unit. I also do not understand how the picture is not important when at least 18,000 to OVER 30,000 azeris served in the Armies, and participated in Warsaw Uprising to very significant level. I do not want to fight, so I reported to Administration about this, maybe they will help.Azizbekov 17:30, 7 August 2007 (UTC) For example, both users Parishan and Atabek blindly reverted on the article and then self reverted, before finding a reson to revert me. Clearly bad faith vandalism. Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Azerbaijan" Thank you to those who listen.Azizbekov 17:39, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

I have a strong suspicion that Azizbekov (talk · contribs) is a reincarnation of some banned user. He is very well familiar with Wikipedia editing for a newbie, and his contributions are basically limited to inserting the image of Azerbaijani volunteers in Nazi army to every article about Azerbaijan. The image has copyright issues, and I see no real point in canvassing the same info all over the articles about this country. I would like to ask the admins seriously investigate this user’s behavior. --Grandmaster 05:29, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Regardless of the status of the user, content disputes are not blatant vandalism. Vandalism doesn't mean "I really, really, really disagree with that edit." Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 05:33, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank Seraph, basically I removed that image from Azerbaijan article page, seeying strong disagreement. I never deny that I never editted wiki before, but I have been anonymous. neither is my contribution limited to collaboration of wermacht. It is my main interest for now, but I cant write about it forever can I? I have other interests too. Azizbekov 05:47, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

I would like to ask for independent review of situation at Azeri Waffen SS Volunteer Formations. Azizbekov adds dubious info to the article such as this:

First they took part in massacre of 50,000 civilians in the Wola massacre, then moved to the Old Town (another 5,000 sick and wounded murdered after the Polish forces withdrew from the area, the remaining 35,000 being sent to concentration camps) and then to Czerniaków and Powiśle - along the Vistula.

and fails to support it with any reliable source. Moreover, he reverts any attempts to request a source or remove unsupported claims from the article and makes personal attacks on other users: [1] --Grandmaster 06:19, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

That image was removed from the article Azerbaijan by users Kober [2] and Pejman47 [3], among others, for the same reason. However Azizbekov has only reported Atabek and myself, i.e. users that mostly contribute to Azerbaijan-related articles. I see an obvious culture/ethnicity-driven decision here. Parishan 09:02, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to draw Admins' attention to unacceptable behavior of Azizbekov (talk · contribs), who has made two personal attack now.

Please see his insulting use of language in edit summary [4]. He refuses to provide a source for a specific part of the article, and when requested to do so, keeps using aggresive and insulting language. (!) Ehud 05:34, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

User:Concerned2030

User:Concerned2030 has been single-handedly reverting all negative edits to the Young Republicans page to eliminate any reference to former chairman Glenn Murphy's breaking sex scandal. Despite all efforts to the contrary, he has repeatedly violated 3RR, and nothing short of blocking will stop him. The YR page is the only page to which this account has edited; it is a single-purpose account, likely one of Murphy's friends trying to protect his reputation. Requesting at least a 48 hour block. Anthony Hit me up... 19:31, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Hasn't made any edits since being warned.-Wafulz 19:38, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Additionally, the nature of the edits you are making to the article raises BLP questions, AND putting warning comments to another user in comments in the article text as you all did is inappropriate. Please stop yourselves until we have a chance to review this. Georgewilliamherbert 19:43, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

I've removed the "Scandal" section. Huge WP:BLP issues considering that these are still just allegations and nothing has been proven.-Wafulz

SPAM Account

Ok, there is a new user out there that is exclusively a spam account Joe12811's edits. He is adding the same text to every article on Catholicism that he can. And according to his first edit, where he uploaded a picture, he is affiliated with the authors he is posting about. The good news is that at 19:32 I posted a SPAM warning on his talk page and his last edit was at 19:31. So it appears that he stopped when he was warned about spamming. The problem is that he's been adding his spam for over an hour---thus he has about 30+ pages that need to be reverted. I was wondering if Admins had a tool to undo the edits of SPAM/Vandal only accounts? Or do we have to make the reversions manually?Balloonman 19:44, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, we have our rods of iron to break edits into pieces like potter's vessels; we have tsunamis, tempests, torrents, thunderstorms; we have the undying flame that floods cannot put out, and the Cyclopian thunderbolts of Olympus. We also have the rollback button. Duly reverted. Thanks for the report. Cheers, Moreschi ^Talk 19:54, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

indef blocked as a spam-only account.

In the future, please make reports like this Over Here, not on ANI. Georgewilliamherbert 19:55, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Actually I made it here because he had stopped posting spam after the first warning, thus didn't feel as if he necessarily needed to be blocked (although I was waiting for him to post more after the I posted the first warning.) My question, was thus on wether or not Admins had a tool to do what I did manually with a push of a button (or two.)Balloonman 19:58, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't believe there exists any tool with which one can revert all of the contributions, or even a selected subset of contributions, of a given editor all at once. Joe 20:33, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I think there is, tucked away in Voice of All's script collection. Cheers, Moreschi ^Talk 20:37, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Wow, I stand corrected. That's pretty nifty. Joe 05:06, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

As an addendum; They contacted me in email and were very reasonable, after some discussions about the spam policies and COI policies and such I unblocked earlier this afternoon. Assuming good faith for the time being. Georgewilliamherbert 00:57, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

That works perfectly well for me... as the person had stopped spamming after being warned. Like I said above, my purpose wasn't to get the person banned/blocked, but rather to find out if there was an easier way to revert 30-40 edits they had made than to do so individually.Balloonman 01:07, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Disruption (at commons) by Malber

Malber (talk · contribs) is making semi-legal threats. User is also mass removing copyright tags of images he uploaded. he is trying to revoke the free licenses he placed. I hence request community assistance and coordination in dealing with this. -- Cat ^chi? 20:42, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Can't you request deletion of things you uploaded? Is this really an issue we have any control over? Grandmasterka 20:48, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

You cannot nominate self uploads like that so long as they are freely licensed. -- Cat ^chi? 20:50, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Okay, but that doesn't change the fact that this is only happening on Commons. What do you expect us to do? Grandmasterka 20:52, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

You can request anything, but there's no requirement that your request be honoured. We generally let authors delete their own stuff because it's usually a sensible request - but we're not oblidged to delete images he's released under a free license, and can legally use them as much as we like. WilyD 20:54, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

If this is happening at Commons you need to report it there (and I'm assuming that is the case as he appears to be blocked here)... nothing en.wiki admins can do about Commons unless they are admins there as well.--Isotope23 ^talk 20:56, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Now I'm completely confused as Cat is a commons admin... is Malber (talk · contribs) somehow being disruptive at en.wiki as well?--Isotope23 ^talk 20:59, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, he's carrying on at his talk page, but as he's currently blocked, that's about it for en-wiki. MastCell ^Talk 21:04, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

He threatened to cause "slow paced" disruption. I wanted to notify the community and admins about it. This is a noticeboard after all. :P -- Cat ^chi? 06:06, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

This is the English Wikipedia. We (generally) have no say as to what goes on at the commons. There's somewhere else to discuss his actions.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 06:10, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Return of a sock abuser

Resolved

Can someone block Local667forOb (talk · contribs)? I submitted a RFCU for the user as a suspected sockpuppet of Dereks1x (talk · contribs), who was community banned earlier this year, and the RFCU came back likely, even possible.[5] Dereks1x edits out of a dynamic IP range and because of that is the best that RFCU can get. Diffs and what not can be presented if anyone needs extra evidence to get them over the possible bump. Dereks1x and his socks have shown an unnatural interest in tendentiously editing the Barack Obama article and Local667forOb has picked right up where his 25 previous socks have left off.--Bobblehead ^(rants) 21:00, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

I've compared his behavior with that of a user in the sockpuppet category and they would definitely appear to be the same person. This and the checkuser result convince me it's a sockpuppet, so I have blocked the account. Picaroon (t) 21:39, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Sweet. Thanks! --Bobblehead ^(rants) 21:44, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Just wanted to pop my head in and note that, given my experience with this batch of puppets, I agree that this is a sock and endorse the block. · jersyko talk 21:45, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Ditto. Thank you. Tvoz |talk 00:32, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Confirmed sockpuppeteer needs block

Resolved

 – Sockpuppet blocked.

At User talk:The Behnam#FYI..., Jpgordon informed me that Hayden5650 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is indeed the same as Nordic Crusader (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), who was indefinitely blocked for very racist editing (see his talk page and contribs). As may be expected, we have been getting the same kind of racist disruption from Hayden5650, even to the extent that Dbachmann needed to remove it from the talk page [6]. Seeing Hayden's block log, he has been trouble all along.

Considering these violations, I am going to be straightforward and ask that the indefinite block please be extended to Hayden's main account. Hopefully this will make editing at already difficult articles a bit easier. Many thanks in advance. The Behnam 21:04, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Given the history of disruption and the clear evidence that this is a sock of an indefinitely blocked disruptive user, I've blocked Hayden indefinitely. MastCell ^Talk 21:11, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Other pages to watch include Negroid and Caucasoid. New socks should be easy to spot. --Asterion^talk 21:14, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Technically, Nordic Crusader was yet another sockpuppet of Hayden (the earlier account), so Nordic Crusader should be marked as Hayden's sock (instead of Hayden being a sock of NC). Of course the indefinite block is still legitimate, but perhaps the tags need to be reversed. The Behnam 02:46, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

I've switched tags appropriately. The Behnam 05:29, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Bee Cliff River Slob Part 3

Per above, this editor has been trying to shoehorn information about NN and irrelevant people into radio station articles. User:Neutralhomer is a radio station article editor and has also been trying to make this editor see sense, but is being ignored (and his warnings blanked).

I asked him two days ago to cut down on the irrelevant info via WP:COATRACK, and was told to "stop spinning essays as Wiki policy". He then re-inserted the information. I then explained the points in more detail and was told that "That was perhaps the goofiest statement that I have ever read on any Wiki". I have replied in a reasonable tone [7], but this editor seriously doesn't want to conform to policy. I am going on holiday tomorrow, but have asked NeutralHomer to post any continuing problems here. ELIMINATORJR 21:58, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Just a note: User:Phaedriel is keeping an eye on this as well, per my request for help to her talk page last night. She said she will keep an eye on things while User:EliminatorJR is on vacation, as will I. Take Care....NeutralHomer ^T:C 00:43, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

PEAR pages

PEAR (talk · contribs) has been attempting to bury his talk archives through a bunch of page moves, speedy deletion tagging and other attempts to game the system. Based on his move log, he first moved the talk page to User talk:PEAR/Archive, then to User talk:PEAR/Archive 1, from there to User:PEAR/talkheader, and finally to Crazy (Alex Gilbert song). Along the way he tried tagging the page for speedy deletion which was declined.

But the icing on the cake was when he moved it to Crazy, then created an article over his archive, then nominated said article for deletion, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Crazy (Alex Gilbert song). He admitted in the AFD that this was nothing more than an attempt to game the system. I've moved the page back to User talk:PEAR/Archive 1 and reverted prior to some of the nonsense he did there. Any thoughts on how to handle this from here or something to do differently? Thanks, Metros 22:01, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

One thing you didn't do was to protect the page so that he couldn't do it again. I've done that. I'm also going to protect his talk page from moves by non admins. He'll have to archive by cutting and pasting from now on. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 22:45, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Oh, good call! I didn't even think to implement move protection. Thanks for following up with that. Metros 22:48, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Actaully on closer inspection, he's trolling stupidly at the moment and has been doing so for ages. I therefore indefblocked the account to DENY him further recognition. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 23:03, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Phew! SqueakBox 23:07, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Wow, I was wondering where this was going this morning. I shoulda paid more close attention. Georgewilliamherbert 00:55, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

User:24.23.21.137 subtle vandalism

User:24.23.21.137 has persistently vandalized numerous articles and then reverted them himself, presumably in an attempt to leave the vandalism in the article's history. The ip address has been blocked in the past. Could an admin please take a look.[8] Thanks.Tbo ¹⁵⁷talk 23:46, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

by "numerous" you mean three? Probably just playing about. Why would someone care about having vandalism in the article history? I don't think we need to do anything here. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 23:59, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

IIRC, isn't there a warning template specifically for self-reverting vandals? Someguy1221 00:01, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Sorry about the wording, I meant a few. Thanks. Tbo ¹⁵⁷talk 00:08, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Serial insertion and re-insertion of linkspamming of article Textbook by varied accounts

This article is prone to linkspamming, so I watch it. Thrice in the past few hours, linkspam for a particular company has been inserted in the article. Each time, I've reverted; each time, my reversion has been reverted, either by an anonymous editor or by a new account with no other contribs. I don't know where to report this, but thought I should do so just to be on the safe side, even though reversion of vandalism isn't a 3RR violation. --Orange Mike 01:05, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Copy vio?

The article Sinagogue of Satan was just recently created, and instantly included quite a bit of content. I think it may be a copy-vio of the book it links to, not to mention failing WP:N. A cursory Google search provided nil RS. I think an emergency blanking may be in order. VanTucky ^(talk) 01:17, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

It also seems to possibly have been written by a sockpuppet of User:Rev. Michael S. Margolin, or a member of the organization, which would obviously be COI. VanTucky ^(talk) 01:19, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Oh, seems it has been deleted before. Looks like it needs salting to me... VanTucky ^(talk) 01:28, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Administrator undeletion without appeal to DRV

User:Matt Crypto has unilaterally decided to undelete Christianity Explored without going through the deletion review process. I think that this may be something of an abuse of the mop and bucket. What do others think? --Nondistinguished 11:57, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

I re-deleted the article and left him a note here. Hopefully he won't wheel war and he will take it to DRV. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 12:12, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Matt was quite clear why he undeleted the article. He has a point, although he didn't go through the proper motions to get the article undeleted. No need to immediately cry admin abuse, though.--Atlan (talk) 14:13, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Note that WP:DP says: "If a page was obviously deleted "out of process" (per this policy), then an admin may choose to undelete it immediately. In such a case, the admin who deleted the page should be informed." Now whether this provision applies in this case might be debated, and I think it is often unwise to invoke this even when it could apply. But not all undeltions of speedy deletions need go through WP:DRV. DES ^(talk) 18:04, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

I have reveiwed the article as it ws before the latest deletion, and as it was when deleted by AfD back in 2005. I don't think it qualifies as a G4 speedy -- i thinmk it is not "substantially identical to the deleted version". I have asked User:^demon to consider undeleting, unless he would prefer that the matter be discussed on DRV. DES ^(talk) 18:24, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Complicated case, but I hope those reading this realize that administrators should not be going around undeleting articles without being careful in their research of the issues surrounding it. Matt may have been clear on the talkpage as to why he wanted to see the article undeleted, but DRV should be followed to preserve the integrity of the actions of Wikipedians who do not have the mop and bucket, but still have the best interests of the project in mind. In particular, I proposed this article for speedy deletion when I began constructing an AfD for it and realized in the process that it had already gone through one! There are two related deletion debates which took place with respect to this article: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tim Thornborough and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Good Book Company both of which resulted in deletion. In any case, I made a comment beneath User:DESiegel's comment on User talk:^demon to this effect. In short, both Matt and DES did not look into the matter as thoroughly as possible when making their independent determinations that the deletion was improper. This is why DRV is so important. Any other Wikipedian who wanted to see content reinstated would have to go through DRV. Administrators shouldn't be given a free pass to undelete content without asking for community input after a non-administrator took time to make a good-faith tagging of an article. --Nondistinguished 05:47, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Just because it was tagged in good faith doesn't mean it's acceptable for the deleting admin to act on it without investigating stuff that the non-administrator who tagged it would not have known (such as, whether the content of the previously-deleted version is the same). A lot of people don't understand G4, and even when they do, they have no way of finding out for sure whether it applies without being an admin. Regardless of the tagging being in good faith, if it was nevertheless incorrect the article should NOT have been deleted. Even if any other user would have to go through DRV, such a DRV should be resolved as a _speedy_ overturn if in fact the only basis for deletion was an invalid G4. Undelete it and take it to AFD, it's not appropriate to turn DRV into "AFD lite". --Random832 11:40, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Problems with original research from Rktect

I've just posted a note on Rktect (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)'s talk page about violation of WP:NOR. This user is adding a lot of detailed, unsourced material to articles about ancient places mentioned in the Bible, and has been doing so for some time. There has been a recent RFC on this user, but it hasn't moved anywhere. When this user writes a response on the article talk pages, it is clear that there is no real knowledge or expertise in Semitic languages or ancient history. This user has had a previous ArbCom ruling against him for doing this in a different area of the project. I don't really want to get bogged down in an ArbCom case, so I would like to know other users' thoughts and ask others to keep an eye on Rktect. — Gareth Hughes 17:01, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

He's doing similar things in global warming, e.g., here where he uses a source that included an explicit qualifier that it should not be used as a source. He's also filling the talk page with off topic rambling about the Spanish-American War, the CIA, and so on. Raymond Arritt 18:22, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

• See Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Rktect. Another block is due. 80.176.82.42 18:26, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

We've had similar problems in past weeks on a number of entries about regions or events related to the bible. Tewfik^Talk 19:02, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

It seems like this is an ongoing problem. I just gave this user another block for re-adding nonsense after being warned to discuss first. — Gareth Hughes 23:21, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

I cannot believe this guy is back on Wikipedia, he is an absolute bane. I thought this guy had left after his Arbitration case which also involved him constantly spouting his original research. That time, he kept on claiming that all weights and measures were descended from Ancient Egypt, such as the word acre coming from Aker (god). See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rope stretcher and User:Federal Street for other crap he's caused. This guy is not good for Wikipedia. - hahnchen 23:33, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

If this user appears to be broadening out original research into other areas, would it be possible for the old case to be re-opened and broadened to cover the issue? — Gareth Hughes 14:36, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

You could try referring it to WP:CN if it is clear cut, or contact an arbitrator to see if they will request a motion on the prior case that the previous restrictions be broadened to deal with his current behavior. I don't know much about how ARBCOM determines when to extend sanctions, but a member of the committee or perhaps one of the clerks could give you more information on that.--Isotope23 ^talk 14:41, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

List of Ministers of the Universal Life Church

82.13.141.197 (talk · contribs) continues to add a non-notable, and non-verified person to the list. GreenJoe 22:11, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

• User was warned. I'll keep an eye on the article, if it continues I'll place a temp block or semiprotect the article. Bjelleklang - talk Bug Me 22:34, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, I'm notable. Can someone add me to the list? Or do I have to find my card first? But seriously, even notable people shouldn't be listed without a citation to a reliable source. I'd recommend fact tags or removals for all of them. Dicklyon 23:17, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

See the debate started here for that issue. But basically, even lists have to indicate the notability of their entries. Bjelleklang - talk Bug Me 12:50, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Personal attacks

Baseball Bugs (talk · contribs) has been leveling personal attacks against other editors in the past few days despite multiple warnings.[9](Diff includes multiple posts) He attempts to justify some of them with the reasoning that "it is not possible to 'personally' attack an anonymous IP address."[10][11] Even if that logic made sense, he also abuses registered editors by calling them lazy[12] and idiots.[13] He even admits to making personal attacks in the same sentence that he makes another one.[14] Although his talk page claims that he is currently blocked,[15] this tag is deceptive because it's self-imposed[16]. He admitted that he may not be able to resist coming back until after he cools down.[17] Could somebody talk to him about this abusive pattern, remind him that there really are people behind the IP addresses, and that personal attacks against any editor are not justified by his own bias against non-registered users? 24.6.65.83 03:46, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

 Done - blocked 48 hours for NPA by User:Chairboy - Alison ☺ 04:20, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, he's still at it on his talk page. He persists in calling editors lazy and nobodies from nowhere. As an real person who exists in a real location, I find it denigrating. 24.6.65.83 04:56, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Well then grow a thicker skin. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 09:22, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Um, okay. I gather by that response that it's okay to call editors lazy and nobodies. Good information to have. 24.6.65.83 10:05, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

No, it's not okay. But he's already blocked, so there's hardly anything that can be done... Just some advice, but if he is causing you trouble, just ignore him. --DarkFalls ^talk 10:14, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

User:217.42.109.45 changing votes and other content on AfD

User:217.42.109.45 (also believed to be User:Typeone9) is changing votes and other comments on the AfD for Ross Quinn. The user also blanked the AfD discussion page and has repeatedly removed the AfD notice from Ross Quinn. 12:05, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

I've given a final warning and will block if necessary. Kusma (talk) 12:10, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Geraldunc vandal - originally reported at Wikipedia:Help desk by Calbear22 (talk · contribs)

I tried to report this vandal on the Wikipedia section concerning reporting to an administrator several times. Could someone please take care of this for me? I've been trying to get this resolved for the last several hours but it hasn't work. Thanks.

The problem

Geraldunc (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) does not understand the rules governing Wikipedia concerning sourced information and vandalism. He has repeatedly vandalized the Don Perata article. The user deleted information that was provided by other contributors and sources and replaced that information with an unsourced argument (revisions on 07:27, 24 July 2007 and 07:34, 24 July 2007). On July 29, 2007, I removed the unsourced information and posted an explanation on the Don Perata talk page and on the user's talk page. Garaldunc proceeded to again remove sourced information and sources from the article and replaced the information with unsourced material (05:25, 7 August 2007, 05:36, 7 August 2007, 05:37, 7 August 2007). I tagged Garaldunc's changes as vandalism and reverted the page back to its previous version (05:46, 8 August 2007, 05:48, 8 August 2007, 05:48, 8 August 2007). I explained my actions on the Don Perata talk page (17:53, 8 August 2007) and warned Geraldunc on his talk page (06:01, 8 August 2007). Then, Geraldunc again vandalized the Don Perata article (21:48, 8 August 2007). He used information I provided on my User page to find my personal email address (which is not listed on my user profile). He sent me the following threatening email:

"YOU are the one who is printing unsubstantiated "storis. EBE has repeatedly printed unverified, undocumented, non-sourced crap about Perata and I have to assume by continuing this crap YOU are part of Bobbie's world - his boyfriend perhaps. The most recent story - about Perata's "lavish lifestyle" is so misleading it is basically a lie - for you college boys, that's called "Libel" in legal circles. Are you two so stupid you don't realize the expenditures listed were for FUNDRAISERS??? I notice in listing those thousand dollar dinners, nowhere in there did Bobbie Gagmee point out there were, for example, dozens of people dining - most of whom paid for the evening. Obviously you have never run a successful non-profit and held a fundraiser. Obviously you have never run a successful political campaign. It takes money, it takes events, it takes relationships. So if YOU continue to fuck with the Perata Wikipedia listing, I'll not only have you banned, I'll have you sued. Thanks for giving me your real name. Nothing that I put in that post was UNTRUE - Bobbie has a history of writing slanted stories about Perata. That is TRUE and verifiable. Bobbie has never listed a single named source for his allegations against Perata - that is TRUE and verifiable. Bobbie has thrown Perata's name into any story about any Eastbay political figure even if it meant reaching back to Perata having met the person 10 years ago - that is TRUE and it's verifiable. You have NOTHING verified, yours is simply a repeat of insinuations. But enough about Perata. I think it's time to post Wikis on you and your boyfriend. You poor pathetic little nobody. God, it gets old having to hear from losers like you who have nothing beside their name except blog credits and the fact they're still in school and living with their mommies."

I admit that the East Bay Express isn't the SF Chronicle. Some of his arguments might be valid but without verification of those arguments and combined with the vandalism of his actions in general (deleting sources, sources information, etc.) this user needs to be blocked. Although the user needs to be blocked and was very disrespectful to me, I will try to address his criticism.

Summary by Shalom ^Hello

Calbear22 claims that Geraldunc, after revert warring on the Don Perata article, sent him an email containing an explicit legal threat. Though I have not seen the original copy of this email, I consider the claim credible, and I would support blocking Geraldunc based on the allegation. (Not being an admin, I cannot do this myself.) Shalom ^Hello 13:31, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Except that if he does not know the rules regarding OR and vandalism, he probably did not know the rules about legal threats. --SevenOfDiamonds 13:41, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

LinkSPAM binge by Dinnermoney

Dinnermoney, a newbie, seems to be on a rampant binge of posting http://www.bullying.co.uk/ to any article he can think of the most tenuous excuse to post it to (I fully expect it to pop up on Running of the Bulls any minute :o) ). I think he means well, I have warned him gently, but he needs watching. --Zeraeph 14:29, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

The topics are fairly "sensible" for lack of a better word. Either way, there is related discussion here: WP:NCHD#No edit button on page. x42bn6 Talk Mess 17:21, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Legal threat, Speditor

I'm not quite sure how to handle this situation. An anonymous editor left what appears to be a fairly straight-forward legal threat on my talk page, see here. This same threat was left on User talk:Speditor. The problem here is that Speditor did wilfully violate our privacy policy. Furthermore, the anonymous user seems to be requesting that comments be removed from User talk:Speditor but I see nothing there that needs review. I have not yet had my morning coffee, though, and am therefore not functioning well. Could someone else take a gander and see what's what? --Yamla 14:59, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

I've warned the user in question (72.93.130.143) using {{Uw-legal}} - it tells them to take the matter to disupute resolution if necessary. Talk pages are not the place to get these things changed, whether there's anything wrong or not. For the record, the IP's complaint seems to be not so much the content of the User talk:Speditor talk page itself, but the difs it links to (and possibly other elements of Speditor's contribution history). Waggers 15:09, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

The closest thing to defamatory material on that talk page now is stuff left on it by the IP claiming to be the defamed party! (He/she seems to be demanding that offensive stuff be purged from the edit history as well as the talk page itself.) --Orange Mike 15:21, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Speditor (talk · contribs) is blocked, the anon has been warned about legal threats, and if he/she wants to pursue WP:OVERSIGHT, point them in the direction of the Foundation email or Cary Bass. I'd say that about wraps it up.--Isotope23 ^talk 15:23, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

I deleted the versions in question at Talk:Sturgis Charter Public School, if anyone disagree please let me know. Bjelleklang - talk Bug Me 15:28, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi,

I'm not trying to be rude, but this is still not even close to being "resolved":

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Speditor&diff=150194651&oldid=149398569

THESE REFERENCES TO MY NAME MUST MUST MUST BE DELETED. Wikipedia users have a right to be anonymous.

EXACTLY. The references to my name need to be deleted from the talk history. This is a violation of my privacy.

Thanks.

You provided us a link to an edit where no names are mentioned. What are you talking about? --Orange Mike 16:28, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Please post which specific edit you are talking about. Also note that "a high school dropout" does not mention you by name and thus would, I think, not be eligible for oversight (that is, removal from the history). However, any edits that do specifically mention you by name would be eligible. --Yamla 16:41, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

I think he wants the name "Bissonnette" removed.Sarah 16:50, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

I suggest the individual contact WP:OVERSIGHT via email. There are too many subsequent edits to make a delete/restore workable for removing the information.--Isotope23 ^talk 17:00, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

As for the diff mentioned, seems I've somehow gotten an edit conflict without being warned of this. Bjelleklang - talk Bug Me 17:10, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Diemacher, Sox23 and Spirit Airlines

Yesterday at WP:AIV I blocked Diemacher for what appeared to be continual vandalism of Spirit Airlines. Diemacher contacted me via email and stated that it was he who was trying to fix the articles (he states that he is a member of the company and has given me a phone number, which I have not called). Either way, as can be seen from Spirit Airlines history these two users have just been reverting and warring over it. Diemacher has been blocked even after I unblocked him the first time so he could pursue mediation (which he either decided not to do or was blocked right before he could); I have also blocked Sox23 for a short period for violating the 3RR repeatedly, and protected the article. Diemacher has in the meantime been threatening legal action, or that at the very least he would like the article taken down if such erroneous info is kept. (phone is 954-447-7930, guess I'll try that now and confirm.) David Fuchs ^(talk) 15:40, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

User talk:Rlest

I know the page was left unprotected to allow Rlest to make any more rebuttal comments, but he has since returned only to reintroduce the personal attacks that were removed. I've protected the page. Figured I'd start a thread so people can comment on the situation if they need to. Leebo ^T/C 16:06, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Proposal to block BIGCANDICEFAN

Now, I'm not just picking on BIGCANDICEFAN, but this user has some very obvious alternate accounts, some of which have also posted on Talk:Candice_Michelle. As was stated on Deep Shadow's talk page, this user lurks about, edits pages about wrestlers, starts big flame wars, then just leaves, then comes back under a new account and repeats the cycle. Alot of his alternate accounts have something to do with Candice Michelle. So I'm proposing we block him, do a Checkuser, block any alternates and maybe block his IP for a bit. He's lashed out at me and several other users. Please forgive me if he's already been blocked, I haven't thoroughly checked the Block Logs and I'm relatively new to editing Wikipedia, although I am a regular Wikia user — Preceding unsigned comment added by Падший ангел (talk • contribs) 06:35, August 8, 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps you should post this under suspected sock puppets aswell. James Luftan ^contribs 02:39, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Image file misuse

It has come to my attention that the users of an anonymous message board for sharing ebooks has come up with the idea of using Wikipedia as a clandestine permanent host for files containing the complete text of copyrighted books. A common practice on anonymous imageboards that only allow posting of images is to share non-image files by compressing them as RAR archives and concatenating them with an image file. The result is an image file that displays like any other, but which can also be opened in most RAR software to extract whatever file it contains (in the case of ebooks, a text file, PDF or similar). So far, I have tracked three occurrences of this, all uploaded by one user:

• Image:Star Wars Republic Commando Triple Zero.jpg
• Image:Hard Contact.jpg
• Image:The Doh of Homer.jpg

Note the sudden jump in file size from the versions that have been replaced, due to the appended RAR files. If you save the full-resolution versions of any of these files and open them in a RAR program (you may have to change the extension from .jpg to .rar), you will find the complete text of each book concealed within the file as plain text files or PDF. 217.65.149.50 09:50, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

That's... very bizarre. I've checked all three, and when treated as RAR archives they do contain either PDF or TXT files that appear to me to be copyright violations. Will delete them all in a moment. Thanks for bringing this to our attention. As for what we do about it in the longer term, I'm less certain about that. – Luna Santin (talk) 09:58, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

You could poke someone with toolserver access to do a database query matching image file uploads (for the same image) with a difference in file sizes between one upload and the next over a certain threshold. --Iamunknown 19:58, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

We've got a developer and several people with toolserver access scouring the database as we speak. :) ~Kylu (u|t) 00:16, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

The user's entire talk page is a collection of vandalism warnings and copyvio notices, do the dunno response is unconvincing. I've placed a one week edit block on the account without prejudice: feel free to unblock if an explanation is forthcoming that holds water. Durova^Charge! 23:30, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

The images in question have been reverted to earlier, clean versions (thanks Luna!) and our developers have scanned the database for similar files. Files located that contain warez will be reverted and deleted and the uploaders blocked. There will be consequences and repercussions! Also, try to take it easy on the EXIF data, guys. Really, 5 megs of EXIF data for a 50x50 pixel image? Eesh. Thanks! ~Kylu (u|t) 04:45, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

In case anyone did think there was modicum of plausibility to the "I didn't know officer" excuse, I was only led to those particular files by the fact that the user was bragging about what titles he had already uploaded on the imageboard where this idea was suggested ([18]). Of course, their idea was fatally flawed to begin with, relying as it would on keeping a list of what titles had been secreted on Wikipedia (perhaps they think Wikipedians don't venture onto the rest of the internet?). Anyway, it's moot now if the developers have come up with a way to spot concealed files, either by flagging incongruent file sizes or by scanning the files for the header structure of RAR or ZIP archives. Out of curiosity, and I realize you might not be able to answer this, were there many other files similarly concealed on Wikipedia? 217.65.149.50 09:12, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Not to give too much away, but at the moment there's a bot searching for rar'd files, and we're implementing some routines to make sure there's not overly much extraneous data in uploads. Off the top of my head, I can recall a couple mp3's and one rather small file (which should've been under 10k) that contained 50MB of game textures. ~Kylu (u|t) 13:55, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Hm. Well, it's good to know I've raised awareness of this potential avenue of abuse and, all being well, prompted the boffins into closing it off too. 217.65.149.50 14:30, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Yep, damn good catch there 217.--Isotope23 ^talk 14:35, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

I've given 217 a barnstar. Who says IPs can't receive them too? Props go where they're deserved. Keep up the good work. Durova^Charge! 19:30, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Nick (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

I don't like to call admins "rogue", but this certainly needs further attention. Lately, Nick has been threatening to block established users reporting usernames violations to UAA because they were "erroneous". A user requested an explanation, and then Nick gave a nasty reply [19]. I politely told him to calm down and stop the threatening. He then removed the thread, I reverted, asking for an explanation, and then he blanked the thread once again calling me a troll. I told him to stop, he reverted me, and then protected his talk page. This needs to stop. --Boricuaeddie 01:17, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, that's clearly unacceptable. I expect complaints that you haven't done enough to protect him from trolls to follow within the hour. -Amarkov moo! 01:20, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree that threatening to block people is unacceptable. However I have to say that, reinserting a message that a user has blanked is unlikely to help! Theresa Knott | The otter sank 01:24, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

While the behavior in question is slightly distressing, the full-protection of his talk page is definitely not acceptable. Admins need to be open for discussion, given the many actions they are able to do which may confuse, or be disputed by non-admin users. --Haemo 01:25, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

He has already unprotected it. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 01:29, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

There is a crusade to overhaul WP:UAA. I'm all for it if folks are getting upset but there are three or four admins that are being downright obnoxious about it all. —Wknight94 (talk) 01:28, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

As I've said many times today, users filing inaccurate reports on the WP:UAA noticeboard, completely without following policy, are costing Wikipedia tens to hundreds of potentially good editors every week. If users will not follow policy on a process which has a tremendous impact on new users (and indeed, may be their first experience of Wikipedia) then preventative measures need to be taken against users who refuse or simply are unable to follow the letter (and spirit) of our username policy. Blocking a user is never something I take lightly, despite the protestations from the above user. Nick 01:30, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

I have no problem with blocking users that do not follow policy. I have a problem with the fact that your not assuming good faith and attacking users by uncivilly telling them that their reports are wrong and calling me a troll. --Boricuaeddie 01:33, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm Sorry Nick but your argumrnt doesn't hold up. 'Reporting a username does not bite a newbie. An admin blocking it innapropriately certaily does. Is there a problem with the admins? Theresa Knott | The otter sank 01:37, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Theresa hits the nail on the head here. The whole point of UAA as a system is to avoid new users being hastled when their username is actually fine. All that happens if a valid username is reported is that admin removes it from UAA - they can follow up with the reporter if necessary. That way new users with valid names aren't bitten. It only causes problems if admins are actually blocking usernames that aren't violations. But that would be an issue with those individual admins, not with the reporters or the system... WjBscribe 01:44, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Reporting is the first step. If a report is made and the user knows nothing about it, there's not a problem, it's when they're templated and told "I think your username might not be comply with our policies". That causes the problems. Who here would have stayed around if they saw that on their talk page after just a couple of minutes here. How many users can't even find their way through to the discussion page. It's a big problem. Admins are probably being careless in blocking too many of the reports too, but that's a little more difficult to determine, how many username blocks originate from WP:UAA would need a little research, as indeed, would the number of editors templated to see how many edited afterwards. Nick 01:50, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

This is slightly off-topic, but... That's an interesting viewpoint. Mainly because User:Rspeer at UAA talk says everyone should be templated first, and that that's the less bitey way. Grandmasterka 01:57, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

By the way, the policy says nothing about discussing with the user first in all cases. The person who says "I don't need to read the policy, I just need common sense" will be whacked with a Cluestick until they regain the common sense they claim to have. -Amarkov moo! 01:37, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

(ec*2) Well the crusade at WP:UAA is starting to sour established users on Wikipedia. I can't imagine that's any better than souring new users on Wikipedia. —Wknight94 (talk) 01:39, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict x 4)Nick there really is no need to warn a user so severely for posting a username in good faith on that board. The user you warned warned has not really caused any disruption at that board and mostly been posting usernames with no malice detectable. But Theresa is quite right about reinserting the talk page items in a pushy manner, which I can understand would cause you some stress and annoyance. Still Nick these actions are a bit harsh and bite-ish in all do respect.¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 01:40, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

(ec) Threatening to block a user for making a single erroneous report seems more than a little bit extreme. --Haemo 01:42, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

The threat of a block probably was a bit pointy-ish in all fairness. Nick 02:01, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

(ec)I can't believe this. The discussion was still open and he was constantly removing them without intention of archiving it. What was I supposed to do? --Boricuaeddie 01:42, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

FYI, my actions are justified. WP:TALK#Others.27_comments says you should not remove other's comments without a good reason. He removed my comments without a reason and then called me a troll. That's not exactly good. --Boricuaeddie 01:45, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Indeed that's not good. That doesn't mean that reverting is the correct course of action. You should have brought it up here first, instead of just reverting him. -Amarkov moo! 01:46, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

I believe in discussion before reporting someone here. If the problem can be solved without posting it here, then it should. --Boricuaeddie 01:47, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, WP:TALK is meant mainly for article talk pages, and is applied more loosely to user talk pages. It wasn't exactly civil of him, but it's not a clear violation, given the latitude users have on their own talk pages. I would have probably just started another thread, rather than reverting. --Haemo 01:48, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

I understand that I shouldn't have reverted him, but that's no reason to call me a troll and protect his page. --Boricuaeddie 02:02, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Of course not. Nobody is saying that it does. -Amarkov moo! 02:04, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Having been a recipient of Nick's "pointy-ish" threats of blocks and one actual block, I agree that his threats of blocks and actual block were discouraging. Established presences here seem to get a lot of leeway on the expectation of civility and requirement to assume good faith. David in DC 02:15, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Whether Nick was right or not in what he did, Boricuaeddie was totally out of line. I quote Thatcher from not-too-long-ago below:-

Please be advised that under the user page policy, "Policy does not prohibit users from removing comments from their own talk pages, though archiving is preferred. Please note, though, that the removal of good-faith warnings, even though permitted, is often frowned upon." Also, following much discussion, particularly Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Removing warnings, there is no consensus that removing even legitimate warnings from one's own talk page is vandalism. Obviously if removal of legitimate vandal warnings is permitted then the removal of unwelcome discussion is also permitted. The broad consensus among admins is that we will not block a user for violating 3RR on his own talk page or for removing warnings, but we will, if necessary, block users who violate 3RR on another editor's talk page or who harass that editor with continued discussion when discussion is unwanted ... since every editor has broad discretion over his or her own user and user talk pages, I suggest you stop [reverting the message back in].

To that, I agree 100%, and I would suggest that Boricuaeddie never does anything like what he did on User talk:Nick again or he may find himself blocked for harassment and/or edit warring. Daniel→♦ 06:56, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

That's a bit harsh, Daniel. I agree that Boricuaeddie might not have done the wisest edit with the revert, but it isn't in line with a block for harrassment. --DarkFalls ^talk 07:08, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

He has now been warned. If he continues to disrupt User talk:Nick by reverting to readd messages removed by Nick, I will be left with no choice. I've seen more experienced contributors be blocked for similar or even less reverting, with the same rationale, and interestingly both of the blocks were endorsed. I cannot fathom how, should he continue to revert to readd messages despite Nick making it clear he finds it harassing, a block would be too harsh. Daniel→♦ 07:10, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

My apologies. I wasn't aware of the messages he was reverting, and re-adding... --DarkFalls ^talk 07:15, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

He didn't re add after this discussion started, and in fact has already stated "I understand that I shouldn't have reverted him" further up in this discussion. Daniel threatening to block over one mistake like this is way OTT in my opinion. Blocking is a last resort only in cases like this.Theresa Knott | The otter sank 09:27, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

You are misrepresenting my position. I said that if Boricuaeddie reverts it back in again (considering his constant assertions that Nick was in the wrong to remove it, and not him), I will then block. I decided to warn him in an attempt to be proactive rather than reactive, because I'd prefer to see Nick stay contributing to Wikipedia rather than be driven off by a second round of reverting. Daniel→♦ 09:43, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

In this thread other users had already told Boricuaeddie that he was wrong to revert. Four hours before your post, Boricuaeddie acknowledged that feedback and agreed he was wrong to do so. Your threat was unneeded and counterproductive. There was no indication that he was planning on continuing and you should have taken his acknowledgment of the previous feedback in good faith. Removal of user talk comments is something that confuses many people. Education is better than threats. -- JLaTondre 12:01, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

"FYI, my actions are justified. WP:TALK#Others.27_comments says you should not remove other's comments without a good reason. He removed my comments without a reason and then called me a troll. That's not exactly good. --Boricuaeddie 01:45, 9 August 2007 (UTC)". I stand by my statement that I will block Boricuaeddie in the event that he reverts again - if he doesn't, then there's no issue, right? I'd rather state my intention now in the hope to prevent an incident occuring rather than having it as a shock. I also stand by the fact that, having seen no retraction of the statement that Nick was wrong and he was right (if he has retracted it in another medium then I am less concerned), I felt (and still feel) outlining my intentions in the event that there were further reverts was a correct course of action. If you digress with the latter, then, we merely have different styles. Daniel→♦ 12:15, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

His acknowledgment, which Theresa Knott pointed out to you, was after that one, at 02:02, 9 August 2007 (UTC). Disagreeing with someone's style has no bearing on AGF. I am assuming good faith on your part, but wish you would apply it to Boricuaeddie. -- JLaTondre 14:29, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

I am surprised this hasn't been archived already, after-all an admin is involved! Anyway both parties just need to calm down and move on. The discussion just got out of hand, but clearly the ban threat is biting badly.--Dacium 12:11, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

My God. Wikipedia: the free encyclopedia where an administrator abuses his power by threatening to block without warning, you try to discuss it, you get called a troll, you report it, you're threatened once again, and the admin gets away with it. *Sigh* Let's just archive this. --Boricuaeddie 16:07, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Actually I am on your side. I was expressing surprise that it had not been archived and infact had actually been given a fair go, rather than the usual archive and message that it has been solved, somewhere in private.--Dacium 03:02, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Calm, please. You reported it, you got agreement that Nick was out of line, but you also got told that you could have done something better too. Please don't expect to be able to criticize without being able to receive criticism. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 16:15, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Of course I expected criticism. What I didn't expect was that the discussion is now about me, not Nick's actions. --Boricuaeddie 16:22, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, when you complain about the admins most likely to mess up, the discussion inevitably ends up about why you shouldn't have provoked him. That's one of the things you just have to deal with, because it wouldn't be worth the effort even if you could change it. -Amarkov moo! 18:26, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Green108 evading block using IP - 2nd time

Green108 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is continuing to evade a block by posting logged out from a non-fixed IP address. This time using 212.126.143.106 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). The posts also contain personal attacks and reveal private & confidential information about me. Regards Bksimonb 05:06, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

I'd recommend that you request permanent deletion of this edit according to the instructions at WP:RFO. Od Mishehu 07:28, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the info. The information itself is not damaging to me and doesn't need to be deleted. What is more of a problem is that he is able to find out what internal mailing lists I am on and what meetings I have attended within an organisation I belong to and then use this information with intent on Wikipedia to, it seems, embarrass, discredit or menace me. I've always been open about my affiliations but this kind of detail is just creepy and gratuitous. Thanks and regards Bksimonb 10:29, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

212.126.143.106 was blocked for 24 hours by User:Isotope23. Carlossuarez46 18:45, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Despite attempts to discuss, IP continues to editorialize

Resolved

The IP user in question is 24.185.136.255 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). As should be evident from the history of Kashmiri people, this IP has been adding and re-adding his personal opinions and editorial comments about the article every day for almost two weeks. I've tried to reason with this user. At first I explained in the edit summaries, and eventually decided to leave the user a message on his talk page (User talk:24.185.136.255#Kashmiri people). Later, when a source (finally) became involved in his "Dear Editor" vandalism, I attempted to open discussion on it by adding this section to the article talk page, and informed him of this [20]. Unfortunately, he has not acknowledged any of my attempts and continues to add his editorial comments to the article.

So, it is with disappointment that I ask for a block on this user. I'm not sure about the length - per User talk:24.185.136.255#June 2007, this is not the first time that the IP has disrupted in this way. In any case, a block is warranted not only to prevent the daily vandalism, but also to (hopefully ) better communicate to him that vandalism is not tolerated on Wikipedia. Thanks in advance for any help with this matter. The Behnam 05:57, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

• Is anyone able to handle this situation, or will I again receive the honor of seeing the editorial remarks re-added to the article tonight? I think I'm gonna cry... The Behnam 18:44, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

• I sprotected the article for now until I can look into this further.--Isotope23 ^talk 18:48, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

• The Kashmiri people article has been semi-protected by User:Isotope23 which should prevent editing from IP's. Note that this IP has been blocked in the past for vandalism at Khatri, which is now semi-protected as well. Carlossuarez46 18:58, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Thanks a lot. The Behnam 18:59, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Repeated bogus accusations/claims and libel - User:PalestineRemembered

I've been having a problem with User:PalestineRemembered over his insistence to make claims for me or about me to other editors on talk pages of articles.

this behavior seems (to me) to be a direct follow up to more general libelous claims regarding israel, an issue which i noted to him and received some stubborn responses to.

after a number of notes, requests, and warnings i found that i cannot resolve this issue without taking it to the noticeboard, so i issued a final notice that i am reporting this issue.

the chronological order of notes the user's talk page is:

• soapbox - list of warnings/notes

• this is getting ridiculous

• no alternative

note: i suggest going over them from the most recent

i would appreciate some assistance on getting the user to change this offensive behavior.

-- Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 10:20, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

After reading through some of his postings, I am against blocking User:PalestineRemembered. He/she might have a different POV on those issues, but he/she is providing good references [21][22][23][24][25] and blocking users with a different POV will work against establishing a NPOV article. --Raphael1 11:23, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

I am strongly opposed to blocking this user. --Eidah 12:11, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Raphael1 and Eidah, and respectfully suggest that Jaakobou take this to WP:DR if he really feels that he needs to pursue this further. ابو علي (Abu Ali) 12:17, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

1. Raphael1, i was refering to him making incorrect accusations about me (and not referencing them), not to the way he works with content inside the articles.
2. User:Eidah, i'd rather hear what you suggest to change his behavior over what you think should not be done.
3. User:Abu ali, this is not a content dispute, but an issue of problematic behavior. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 14:20, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

It is worth pointing out that all of the previous commentators have been partisans to this subject-matter (as have I). The point of AN/I is to solicit comment from uninvolved editors with a grasp of policy. Tewfik^Talk 18:34, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

offtopic

Resolved

note: offtopic resolved note: not anymore. :( Kyaa the Catlord 10:30, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

I would like some help over at that page (Battle of Jenin). I'm not sure if there will be a pattern, but PalestineRemembered just reintroduced text I deleted due to it being blatant copyvio. (I've made him aware of his mistake, but I'd rather not have an edit war started over this...) Kyaa the Catlord 17:55, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Kyaa removed the copyvio and it has not been restored, so case closed on that. Carlossuarez46 19:24, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Actually, PalestineRemembered improved it so it meets out requirements rather than being a chunk of text dumped from another site. Kudos to him! Kyaa the Catlord 21:31, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Update: PalestineRemembered continues to readd copyvio text even after being blocked for 3rr yesterday. Kyaa the Catlord 10:30, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Update: User:Butseriouslyfolks and I both left the editor notes about where s/he may look for advice on whether to include long excerpts. I will assume that this resolves the "offtopic" (again) and I'll dare to mark it so (again). Carlossuarez46 20:55, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

IPs

On the Tōru Ōhira article, many IPs vandalized the article by repeatedly changing the official birth date, September 24, 1929 to May 24, 1940 and also the years. I have reverted them to make them more accurate. This could be the same person that is vandalizing the Cogie Domingo article. Also, he/she vandalized Nobuo Tanaka, an article about a person who is the Director for Science, Technology and Industry at the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, and elected Executive Director of the International Energy Agency by adding in the Tokusatsu credits. On the Seijuu Sentai Gingaman article, the narrator, who is really Norio Wakamoto according to the Official website at Toei has been repeatedly changed to Toru Ohira and I have reverted them. I am getting sick and tired of them. I appreciate it if this vandalism could stop. Thanks. Greg Jones II 12:23, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Is the birth date legitimately disputed in other mediums and/or on Wikipedia? Or is this nonsense changes? Daniel→♦ 12:25, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

I think some of my reasons (i.e. Seijuu Sentai Gingaman and the birth dates) are plain nonsense changes by the IPs themselves. Greg Jones II 12:27, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

I also suspect the IP vandals of sockpuppetry. They all come from that same person who vandalizes Gingaman and various articles. We need to make sure this vandalism on all Sentai articles and Toru Ohira must stop. Greg Jones II 13:50, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

The birth date change is just plain nonsense. Make sure every IP who has vandalized the articles is found. Thanks. Greg Jones II 13:57, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Without verification of those arguments and combined with the vandalism of his/her actions in general (deleting sources, sources information, adding speculation, changing date of birth, etc.) these users needs to be blocked. Greg Jones II 14:01, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

I would personally see all the Sentai articles semi-protected. Greg Jones II 14:12, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

I have tried to reason with these users, but it is no use. Greg Jones II 14:12, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

The user IPs who are vandalizing the articles are User:210.213.240.27, User:210.213.240.28, User:210.213.241.7 and User:210.213.243.198. Greg Jones II 14:35, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Requests for page protection and the vandal-prevention hotline are that-a-way, third door to either side. They're much quicker than AN/I, at any rate, for this type of stuff. -Jéské ^{(v^_^v Kacheek!)} 18:14, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

I have reported all of the user IPs from the phillipines at Wikipedia:WikiProject on open proxies. Thanks for the warning. Greg Jones II 19:20, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

AIV failed because Gogo Dodo removed the long list of IPs (no recent edits by any of them). Anything else I can do? I need some help now and that would be much appreciated. Greg Jones II 20:02, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

There is no administrator intervention required here, necessarily. There is nothing we can do for good faith (yet unconstructive) edits at the article in question. This is very likely a single individual in the Philippines (in Quezon or Manila) who thinks that the edits are correct and who has seen the show. There have been intermittent issues with good faith (yet unconstructive) edits to these kinds of articles from someone in the Philippines for some time, but to prevent that would either require semiprotecting all articles they editted or blocking a major island in the chain from editting.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 21:11, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Oh, sorry about that, Ryulong. I usually revert the edits, because I usually take them from the Japanese interwiki site, so I feel that it is necessary to add them. Thanks. Greg Jones II 21:31, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Speedy close of Split move request

Administrator Húsönd participated in a recent move request poll at Talk:Split showing his bias against moving the article about the Croatian city of Split to anything else. His oppose vote was "per Asterion". Asterion's justification was "The city entry has got the most encyclopedic value. Turning Split into a disambiguation page would only make sense if there were more than one city."

After the move request to move Split to Split, Croatia was closed due to lack of consensus, I submitted a new request to move Split to Split (city) because this was suggested by a number of those who opposed the first move request (in other words, the opposition was not to moving the article in general, but to moving the article to Split, Croatia specifically).

That poll has been active for only a couple of days, and Húsönd has just speedy closed it. He cites "selective canvass" (another user posted a notice about the new move on the talk pages of two people who supported the previous request, but neither of those has voted - this relatively inocuous matter can be remedied in way other than a speedy close, surely). I request that the speedy close be reversed due to administrator bias in this matter. Thank you. --Serge 17:40, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

My bias about moving this article in the previous discussion has nothing to do with my closure of this one. I always speedy close move proposals when they are created shortly after another closed move proposal. And the canvass just made it impossible in my view for the new discussion to continue. There's no much point in waiting for the canvassed users to drop by and renew their calls for a move. Canvass disrupts Wikipedia's natural consensus building process and discussions where canvass occurs should be void. I shall though undo my closure if other admins find that it was inappropriate.--Húsönd 18:00, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

I concur that it should not have been closed, even though Serge thinks it shouldn't be closed. (See our discussions on WP:NC(CN) for background.) At least two of the "oppose" !votes in the first move said they would accept the move to Split (city), so the new move request can rationally be considered seeking consensus. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 20:49, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Opening and closing of Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Watchdogb

Resolved

I don't know how to deal with this situation. I filed the WP:RFCU regarding this WP:SSP case on 17:50, August 8, 2007 and User:Amarkov closed the case on 00:42, August 9, 2007. Since I posted the checkuser I tried to re-open the case[26] but another user made his objection on that.[27] Can we re-open a non admin closure? Thanks. --♪♫ ĽąĦĩŘǔ ♫♪ ^{walkie-talkie} 18:09, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

I closed it because there was no activity for five days, and there wasn't convincing evidence of sockpuppetry given. It would have been nice if someone had told me about the checkuser case being filed instead of just having an edit war about it. I leave this for someone else to decide now, I don't want to solve an edit war. -Amarkov moo! 18:28, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

I made a mistake by not posting the RFCU case link into the SSP case. I too does not wish to have an editwar and waste my time. What should we do? open the case since the results of RFCU case is pending or keep it as it is? --♪♫ ĽąĦĩŘǔ ♫♪ ^{walkie-talkie} 18:39, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Seriously, unless there's some smoking gun I'm not seeing, the RFCU is not likely to come back conclusive. The SSP report did not sufficiently show a reason to believe these two accounts are related. If the checkuser comes back with a positive, then you'd have a reason to re-open it. Shell ^babelfish 18:48, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and you both meant - I don't want to have an edit war because that's not the right thing to do, right? ;) Shell ^babelfish 18:49, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Oh yes ma'am, btw thanks for the advice :) --♪♫ ĽąĦĩŘǔ ♫♪ ^{walkie-talkie} 19:10, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Where to report flagrant, repeated incivility?

Hello, I'd like to know the proper place to report flagrant, repeated incivility (bordering on personal attacks)such as these: [28][29][30][31][32][33] coming from User:KarenAER at White people and its associated talk page? Thanks!--Ramdrake 18:21, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Um, that's incivility? Those diffs? Anything else? Ok, I can understand why you might be a little annoyed if you're on the other side of content dispute, but I've seen worse (including from myself). With no comment on the content dispute in question, unless there's some slightly more damaging evidence I'd say there's no action to take. Moreschi ^Talk 18:24, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

The diffs above are fairly tame in terms of incivility. Being rude doesn't make something a personal attack. My recommendation would be taking a deep breath and not letting the other user get under your skin. These are not really flagrant. Leebo ^T/C 18:28, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Still, comments such as "YAWN", "LOL", insinuatng the other editors can't read, can't look up a reference and others, while still not using foul language, are incivil (to me, being rude is incivil, albeit petty incivility - personal attacks and foul language are something else). I think at least a warning from an admin would be warranted, as this is not the first time this user has acted this way (you may wish to look up all the warnings the user deleted from his/her user talk page in the talk page's history).--Ramdrake 18:31, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

I have to second Ramdrake's statements. I'm getting quite tired of having to deal with incivility (in the form of insults or condescending remarks) from the editor during almost every interaction. Especially since this is a tendentious editor, and is generally not correct about content policy. If it was only once or twice, I'd brush it off, but now it is becoming frustrating. I almost wonder if the editor is trying to bait others into responding in kind. It is becoming difficult for other editors to stay cool. I don't think that we should have to ignore this pattern of abuse just because each remark, taken by itself, isn't severe. The conduct is disrupting discussion and editing at that page. The Behnam 18:39, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree, and I have some diffs. I don't know if they repeat Ramdrake's. acusations of irelevant opinions, and to shut up, get over it, again saying an editor's opinion is irrelevant and accused of trolling, stupid thing to say and yelling about vandalizing edits, admitted to having another user name, edit summary-can't stomach this user, edit summary-silly picture, accusing aothers of vandalism. - Jeeny ^Talk 18:45, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Some background information. Behnam is an editor who ignored the advice of the previous meditator [34], User:Stevertigo. He abused the situation after his opponent, User:Lukas19 was banned, whom he accused me of sockpuppetry of [35], deleted HUGE amounts of information [36]. That information has been restored thx to another admin, User:Dbachmann.

As for Jeeny. Some of her remarks: This is exactlly what's wrong with Wikipedia, when people that have no reasoning abilities are able to edit articles and LOL! And KarenAE whatever (for me to be blocked). And going earlier this year: asshole, I quit you jerk and she had repeatedly removed a map because she thought it was wrong, without citing any sources whatsoever.

So, I'm not sure if I'm the only one here who should take all the blame... KarenAER 20:25, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

I have to say, based on the initial diffs, I see nothing overly incivil and I have no problem imposing blocks for incivility. There was nothing that i saw warranted a stern warning. Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 20:28, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

I offered a suggestion to the editor which she can take or leave as she sees fit. The only other think I'll add is that the whole discourse at Talk:White people could probably use some cooling down.--Isotope23 ^talk 20:50, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Background information, eh? I've already explained to you that your story, which you use to bash me, is not entirely accurate, as the mediator later that day changed his mind and agreed with me. I've explained at Talk:White people#Wikipedia Rules and Guidelinesdiff, and still have received no response from you regarding my very straightforward argument. I suggest that you stop attacking me based upon your misrepresentation of the former mediator's opinion unless you can answer to the fact that he agreed with me instead later that day. I do hope that you aren't purposely ignoring this reality because it weakens your case against me... The Behnam 23:15, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Images tagged weeks ago not deleted

I tagged some images as having no rationales sometime ago in July and they still don't have rationales and they are still tagged. Apparently something happened when I tagged them and the category didn't show up properly, thus it went unnoticed. Should I retag them to appear in the category or should they be deleted? An example of what happened is on Image:Benison books.JPG. — Moe ε 19:22, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

It looks like the category tag was broken. I have deleted that one, but are there others? Until(1 == 2) 19:38, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but luckly this happened right when I started keeping a log of images I tagged:

• Image:Blakfgee.JPG
• Image:Bolt play.JPG
• Image:Burnsgeo.jpg
• Image:Bust of jefferson.JPG
• Image:Cleoseln.JPG
• Image:Coa north brabant.jpg
• Image:Crete3.jpg
• Image:Dorothy sayers.JPG
• Image:Drusmaur.JPG
• Image:Films named cleopatra.JPG - someone provided a faulty rationale because this is a derative work

• I'd suggest tagging this image with {{Di-disputed fair use rationale}} as it's not currently speedy tagged. - Papa November 1 00:13, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

• Image:Gracieal.jpg
• Image:Henpercy.JPG
• Image:Jk beatles ringo.jpg
• Image:Joanbrit.JPG
• Image:Julia.JPG
• Image:Kathleen kennedy.JPG
• Image:Lehrer book.JPG
• Image:Moulins.JPG
• Image:Pistolsflyer.jpg
• Image:Saints slept.JPG
• Image:Six wives tape covers.JPG
• Image:The swan.JPG
• Image:Tifftree.JPG

• The author died over 70 years ago, so I have tagged it {{PD-old-70}} - Papa November 1 00:26, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to make sure these are fixed the next time around :( — Moe ε 19:50, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

The User, GasSnake or Poison Oak

This is being posted here as per the request of the administrators whom deal with the WP:AIV as they feel it needs to be further examined. In accordance with general policy, this user has been given warning after warning and continues to make colorful, defamatory remarks and insults against other users including myself in addition to other general violations. This is my first time posting to the WP:ANI so you'll forgive me if my knowledge on how it operates is sketchy. I will post here as was posted upon the AIV.

• The user, GasSnake or Poison Oak, implements Personal Attacks against users including some remarks which can be found to be insulting and others which can be found to be questionable. Also makes use of their user page by taking other editor's comments and posting them upon it. In addition, this user makes usage of their signature to spoil a novel (Harry Potter, Book 7) by means of the text: "Change is coming and potter should have died". This does not affect my person as I've read the novel but it still does not excuse the action. In addition, other violations include violation of the 3RR Rule, Multiple POV Edits (as self-admitted by the offending party), spam, consistent uploading of Non-Licensed Images, and flat-out insulting other users including, but not limited to the reporting party, Ancientanubis, and Sam ov the blue sand.

I believe other users who have been affected by this will be making their own cases here. The above, however, is my sumation of things to the best of my ability without going out on an entire lengthy rant. Please look into and deal with this situation accordingly. Thank You. Evilgohan2 05:01, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Have you tried ignoring him? It doesn't look like he has editted any articles in a while (just talk pages). Someone should review his image uploads for speedy deletion, though; never mind, there's just one, and I just db tagged it. Dicklyon 05:24, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

• if this were brought up a few days ago i would have completely and utterly agreed with all of Gohans above statements without question seeing as i was the one who technically gave birth to this entire predicament (through a discussion/argument between GasSnake and i over some of his edits to List of O-Parts in 666 Satan) and i still have no problem saying that GasSnake is guilty of the things mentioned above. But, over the course of last night and tonight i have attempted to make peace with GasSnake and have seemingly succeeded seeing as we were able to carry some discussion about various topics related to the editing of 666 Satan, i have also attempted to convince him to stop his personal attacks on other editors as it will result in him being either banned or some other action that would not end well for him (as an editor). i guess in the long run the thing holding me back from outright saying he needs to be removed from wikipedia is that i now see some potential in him as an editor and i feel it would be wrong to take serious action(such as banning or what not) against him without him first giving him an "administer realized last chance"(of sort), thanks, Ancientanubis, talk Editor Review 05:29, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

• i truly don't care about what happens as I've delt with worse than this guy. But originaly I tried to help mediate becuase anubis asked me to, even after I tried to talk to him calmly he answered me by yelling and making excuses as to why he does what he does, after telling him not to yell I also told him that being african american and hating racists is no excuse as to why he was acting in such a way. Even after that he retorted and telling me what I said was a personal attack even though it wasn't. I do see pontential but right now all I see is a troll. I truly don't care what happens to him but I do hope he stops his trolling ways.Sam ov the blue sand, Editor Review 16:26, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

• well, my main reasons for saying i feel he has some potential is the fact that during some of our more civil discussions(here for example) he has shown the ability to do things that most others see as being a "normal editor", and to be a little honest, i also see a bit of him inside me (this being the fact that i have been known to lose my temper and say thigns i really shouldnt say, only GasSnakes appears to be at a slight bit more of an extreme @ times), idk, to be honest im still waiting to hear his response to these aligations as i think it could go either way... Ancientanubis, talk Editor Review 17:33, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

• "...right now all I see is a troll." At the moment, that is all I'm seeing. In addition, in response to Ancientanubis, I shall point out that he has been informed of the statements made against him. ⒺⓋⒾⓁⒼⓄⒽⒶⓃ② 17:38, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

• idk, maybe your right and im just being to optimistic, but after my enormous argument with him i'm tryin to treat him as a fellow editor until it is (or is not) deemed time to let him go.... Ancientanubis, talk Editor Review 21:21, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

• This was removed from here for some reason.... I do not know why and I find no rationale for such in the history so I've re-added it. ⒺⓋⒾⓁⒼⓄⒽⒶⓃ② 20:35, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

• It was archived; this happens to threads that are inactive for 2 days.--Isotope23 ^talk 20:40, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

• While I do see some edits that get my attention, GasSnake or Poison Oak (talk · contribs) hasn't edited since 5 August. Is there a pressing reason we can't wait and see how things go if and when they return to editing? – Luna Santin (talk) 21:49, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

• None specifically. I've discussed this with Anubis and we both feel it can wait. We also suspect he flew the coop and/or was a socket puppet. His entire purpose here seemed (sic) to be to annoy people, as stated on his own talk page... ⒺⓋⒾⓁⒼⓄⒽⒶⓃ② 05:28, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Bots Semi-Protecting

Not sure if this is relevent. MadmanBot semi-protected the page Roy Oldham and despite me asking why said it was still semi-protected and didn't bother to leave a courtesy reply on my talk page. Bots do great work, but semi-protecting watched pages? The last edit was 4 days before the bot intervened. Are we not going mad? Is Wikipedia still the encyclopedia anyone can edit or do we allow bots to decide over editors who take their time to watch articles? I would ask for an undo and if I am proved wrong, I will never ask again. Mike33 - t@lk 23:05, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

MadmanBot is not semiprotecting anything. It's adding the semiprotection tags to pages that are already semiprotected.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 23:10, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

DocG has not been able to remove semi-protection for the simple reason that he is "wikibreaked". A 23/04/07 semi-protection is a joke. All editors have been able to edit for at least 8 weeks. Bots should not be able to protect articles in this way. Wikipedia is about consensus, I cannot see how a script can judge or know the inner workings of any article. I move for a clean removal of an unecessary semi-protection. Mike33 - t@lk 23:17, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Read what Ryulong just said again.--Atlan (talk) 23:28, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

An administrator semi-protected the article back in April. Semi-protection stops unregistered or new (less than four days old) editors from making changes. The bot simply added a template which labeled the article as semi-protected - it did not apply the actual protection. I've dropped the protection for now as a test per your request - I'll add the page to my watch list and will re-apply if needed. Kuru ^talk 23:31, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Look my apologies - I have no idea about this particular bot. DocG is on Wikibreak, so it was never an option to contact him. When the bot showed up I just went mad, thinking that the matter had been cleared up months ago. However, I just cannot see why any semi-protection tag should exist for months at a time (ok GWB execpted). Mike33 - t@lk 23:41, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

User:76.167.86.63

76.167.86.63 (talk · contribs) is an SPA which has only been involved in edit warring on Islam: What the West Needs to Know, and has never left so much as a single comment on a Talk page. Corvus cornix 23:33, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

He doesn't even leave edit summaries, so this can really just be considered content-removal vandalism, a report for WP:AIV if you want him blocked. Someguy1221 23:41, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

He has been adding long, OR essays. Corvus cornix 23:48, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Oh, didn't look that far back into his contribs. Anyway, complete refusal to acknowledge being warned and reverted makes this quite trivial in my book. *shrug* Someguy1221 23:55, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Nooblettepwns's hoax articles

This user has created the following articles about supposed hockey players:

• Omar Chu - appears to be a copy of the Dan Cloutier article with minor changes
• Jamal chu - the Joe Sakic one.
• Shannon wong - Markus Näslund
• Patricia lin - Markus Näslund

The supposed teams the last two play on appear to be, through google, high school teams. Can an admin look into this and deal with it?--ÐeadΣyeДrrow (Talk|Contribs) 00:17, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

User blocked, hoaxes deleted.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 00:25, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

WP:ANI sprotected for a bit

FYI, I sprotected this page for a short trolling break. —Wknight94 (talk) 01:05, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

A boastful vandal

[37] - I've seen his work coming from another IP address which was blocked, a couple of days ago. Corvus cornix 01:27, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

They're very likely all proxies. He's the reason for the semiprotection of ANI right now.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 01:33, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

And I've fed the three IPs used to WP:OP for them to check. Tabercil 03:28, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

It's obvious, WP:OP is backlogged, m:OP is backlogged, and I've blocked whatever I could.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 03:42, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Mistake

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Closed per request -- Avi 16:00, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

CAN SOMEONE PLEASE CLOSE AND DELETE (OR AT LEAST ARCHIVE) THIS SECTION? SOMEONE HAS FOUND AN OFFICIAL VERSION OF THE UK STATEMENT WITH THE DISPUTED SECTION INCLUDED. SO I WANT TO WITHDRAW THE ACCUSATION.--Peter cohen 20:51, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Most readers here will be aware that there is an ongoing POV dispute about the categorisation of Jerusalem and Category:Jerusalem as part of a much bigger dispute on Wikipedia about Israeli-Palestinian issues in general.

Today Amoruso made this change [38]. I at first took this to be just a selective quatation from the British government's Foreign and Commonwealth Office's (FCO) website [39]. The relevant section appears under the heading "THE UK POSITION ON JERUSALEM" in the second half of the page.

User:Timeshifter has now compared the two texts and has posted this [40]. If you look at the phrase Timeshifter has emboldened "but considers that the city should not again be divided", it appears in the quotation posted in the change by User:Amoruso but not on the FCO website.

When faced with a dispute, editors rely on their peers posting accurate information from external sources. Amoruso has not posted accurate information. Instead he has posted a quotation from a document which appears to official but is actually a doctored version of the official document intended to advance a point of view.

The posting of such Disinformation is unacceptable and a threat to the integrity of Wikipedia and the editorial discussions that taken place in it. Please could an uninvolved administrator take appropriate action?

Obviously the first stage is to assume good faith and see whether Amuroso picked the disinformation up from a third party source. However, the use of such material to undermine the normal process of editorial discussion must be addressed urgently.--Peter cohen

Have you already talked to the editor? David Fuchs ^(talk) 18:26, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Not in this context, but I have previously directed him to that very FCO page. Se my post at [41]. I'm afraid that I find it hard to believe that he could accidentally post the misquotation having been given a direct link to the officaial statement only a couple of days earlier. I'm sorry if it might seem a breach of Wikiquette, but my judgment is influenced by the following factors.

Earlier today I saw this post drawing attention to a campaign from outside to influence the content of Wikipedia [42]

Comments by Amoruso above in #Edit warring and POV pushing Category:Jerusalem make me feel that he is not interested in honest debate. For example, "It's not difficult to see that Peter Cohen is talking about something completely different which is whether Jerusalem is recognised as Israel's capital or not." is a similar distortion of what I was saying as the distortion of the FCO comment. I had stated there that the status of Jerusalem as in Israel was disputed by the UK as a simple check back will prove.

Then, "I'll WP:AGF and remember the rule that this is not malice, but simply lack of knowledge on his part on the issue" hints at my being malicious and then says my views should simply be dismissed because I'm ignorant. "Wikipedia is not a place for such propaganda of Muslim Brotherhood and Nazi websites." suggests that Timeshifter, is a neo-Nazi supporter and perhaps I am too.

Then reverts such as this [43] accuse editors of having made "offensive" contributions.

As I said before, this needs an uninvolved and impartial administrator involved. --Peter cohen 19

20, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

This doesn't really rise to the level of needing ANI intervention. However, you've raised a valid question about the quote, and I asked him on his talk page to explain the source and why the versions differ.

Please keep in mind that ANI is not a user conduct complaints board except for extreme situations; someone merely having misrepresented or misquoted a source on a talk page, even on purpose, isn't really all that extreme of a problem. Georgewilliamherbert 19:36, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

There was no misquotation. I have to say it's hard to WP:AGF since the person went here and not to my talk page (which George was kind enough to do). It's therefore a lie and the person raising this issue in a slanderous way should be reprimanded, hopefully with a ban for wasting ANI's time. See the proof here: [44] or read the source directly word by word: [45] Amoruso 21:10, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

:I now noticed peter Cohen's comment on the top of the section. But I'm afraid it's not enough. Peter cohen should be banned for taking it here in the first place and not even apologizing. Amoruso 21:13, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

By pure coincidence, knowing nothing about this AN/I, I had some concerns about edits by User:Amoruso at Patria. As a result of which I took "Should integrity be a key attribute in an editor?" to RfC. PalestineRemembered 21:45, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

PalestineRemembered was previosuly banned for indefinite time "(Fraudulent citations and repeats of other past misbehavior, user has had plenty of chances.)" and then "account creation blocked) with an expiry time of indefinite (Based on discussion at WP:AN/I and WP:CN)" and "(account creation blocked) with an expiry time of indefinite (Reblocking per breach of his unblocking terms)"... Amoruso 22:09, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Okay. I apologise for the slur on Amoruso's character and for leaping to conclusions and making 2+2=4. (I think the links given in the original complaint show why I thought 2+2=5.) My request for the deletion was because I didn't want the title of this thread to continue to be visible. Because this is an administrative conference and the thread already had comments by third parties I was wary of deleting it myself. I thought that putting a request in capital letters at the top of the thread was best for drawing attention to is. But the thread is still here. Now it contains a complaint against me, I'm even more wary of doing so. If complainants are allowed to delete or doctor the text of the complaint as part of withdrawl of the complaint in a more substantial, then please let me know on my talk page.--Peter cohen 12:14, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Attacks by an IP editor

 Done

After earlier being blocked for harassment on User talk:Vintagekits, an IP editor has made a series of disgusting attacks on editors who he believes to be Irish republicans.

• why are these insurgents allowed to get away with all this
• all I ask is that you retired insurgents play nice and according to the rules
• but it seems you are determined to protect these terrorists

I was told by User:Mackensen to bring the matter here, please advise. Brixton Busters 00:15, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

IP has been blocked for 24 hours. Neil ム 10:32, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Could use a hand, and/or a second opinion

User:RonCram has a long history of making charges against a certain climate scientist, charges that I consider clear violations of WP:BLP -- stating that he is unethical, that he knowingly published false results, and the like. I've had to revert two of his edits today (here and here). Now he's done it again on the very same talk page as earlier today.[46] I'd block the guy as a last-ditch attempt to let him know that we take WP:BLP seriously. But I'm heavily involved in editing articles on the same topic as him and don't want to give the appearance that I'm trying to gain an advantage. Would anyone like to step in and (a) issue a block, (b) make one last attempt to get through to him, or (c) tell me that I'm off base? Thanks. Raymond Arritt 02:03, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm not going to take any administrative action either, since I occasionally edit those pages, but User:RonCram is an inveterate abuser of article talk pages and violator of the talk page guidelines (e.g. this recent comment). His months-long crusade to introduce defamatory, poorly sourced material about a specific climatologist into Wikipedia is problematic. MastCell ^Talk 03:06, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

As a neutral party who doesn't edit that subject, here's how it looks: this is on the borderline since it refers to an op-ed piece. The style is close to a blog and the editor keeps reopening the topic over objections, so WP:NOT and WP:POINT are arguable. Yet it's also framed in the context of a legitimate WP:RS question. Is the editor gaming that guideline to soapbox? Possibly. I suppose it seems that way to someone who disagrees with that editor's POV. So a block would be a hard call based upon this evidence. If it fits with a larger pattern of borderline behavior, suggest user conduct WP:RFC. Durova^Charge! 05:08, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm not so concerned with the op-ed piece; disputes over things like that come with the territory. But User:RonCram's persistent comments that a certain scientist is "unethical" and has knowingly published false results are a serious problem. Raymond Arritt 05:15, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Definitely looks like heavy POV pushing. If he's already been warned, and it looks like he has, via edit summaries, if not talk page notes, then perhaps a 24 hour breather is in order? (standard IANaAdmin). ThuranX 06:38, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

As Raymond said, the issue of how to handle the op-ed piece in and of itself is a content dispute. The larger problem is a pattern of attacking a living person, in article space and talk space, in a way that likely violates WP:BLP. Since the issue is really a pattern of behavior rather than one specific incident, Durova's suggestion of a user-conduct RfC may be the most appropriate way of handling it. MastCell ^Talk 15:55, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Watch844 (talk · contribs)

I've had it with this fellow. All he does is edit war and disrupt Out of India theory, against clear consensus, with his brand of fringecruft cranknutcasery. Somebody uninvolved please block him indef. Moreschi ^Talk 10:55, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

I went for a one week block. The guy really needs to stop his incivility and edit warring... He starts edit warring again after the block, and it'll be indef. --DarkFalls ^talk 11:03, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

...and the subsequent unblock request. --DarkFalls ^talk 11:10, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

you may want to compare WIN (talk · contribs), who has a similar strategy of reverts-only contributions (but this one doesn't even pretend to have a case). dab (𒁳) 11:30, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

A warning should suffice for the moment... --DarkFalls ^talk 11:35, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree. I don't believe in blocks without warning. The ideal outcome is that an editor actually reforms once they realize people are serious about enforcing policy. dab (𒁳) 11:38, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Islam: What the West Needs to Know

There's an ongoing edit war over this page, with which I have been peripherally involved. I replaced a section that seems like a quote-farm by summary text, but Jaakobou keeps reverting this change, claiming there's a POV problem. An edit war then developed, chiefly between Jaakobou and CJCurrie. There are also several anonymous edits that may also be Jaakobou. Jaakobou seems to me to be acting against consensus (his claims otherwise notwithstanding) and keeps backing away from discussion on the Talk page. I'm not certain what to do next: the style manual seems pretty clear that a quote-farm is inappropriate. So I've come here -- I hope this was the right thing to do. Bondegezou 15:27, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

#User:76.167.86.63. I reported problems with this article yesterday, it needs to be addressed. Corvus cornix 17:14, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Cut-and-paste move

Resolved

A cut-and-paste move occured at Alexa Fluor. The previous title was Alexa (fluor). Cool Blue^{talk to me} 15:36, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Repaired. — Moe ε 15:48, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Armenian Genocide being removed

I'd appreciate it if someone would look over this. User:Atabek has been removing every reference to the Armenian genocide in many articles or putting words such as "alleged" in front, all today: [47], [48], [49], [50], [51], [52], [53], [54], [55], [56], [57], [58], [59], [60], [61], [62], [63], [64], [65]

Thanks.Hajji Piruz 22:39, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree block him immediately! this is not necessary!!! --85.18.242.26 22:59, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Please see [66] he is removing Armenian Genocide everywhere! --85.18.242.26 22:58, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Don't see how the term "Armenian Genocide" is supposed to be a fact, rather allegations of it are. Can you point me to Wikipedia rule that says that allegations of "Armenian Genocide" cannot be questioned? I did not remove the reference, but only replaced it with Armenian Massacres, which is more correct definition and points to the same page. According to the UN convention, genocide is a crime, for any crime there must be a court which identifies the content and victim of the crime and charges those responsible. Otherwise, it remains an allegation. I would also like to highlight that the person reporting me is a party to current ArbCom [67], charged with assumptions of bad faith, battling along ethnic and national lines, wikistalking and other forms of disruptive editing. His listing of my contributions above is another fine example of his Wikistalking documented here [68]. Thanks. Atabek 00:05, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Once again you are canvassing with irrelevant information. Are you not also in an arbcom? Yes you are, and this is in no way anything what you call it to be. This is the removal of the term Armenian genocide on mass on many articles based on your own interpretation and on what you would like it to be. The term Armenian Genocide is widely used and accepted.Hajji Piruz 00:17, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

"for any crime there must be a court which identifies..." Uh, no. Murder is murder, even if the murderer is never convicted (we just need really really good sources to say that he is, the BLP thing and all). Same with genocide when there is insurmountable evidence, no matter how many people claim it is merely "alleged" (even if it's the government of Turkey!). The use of the word is in complete violation of WP:NPOV. Someguy1221 00:21, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

The allegation here is the term not the fact. And that's why I replaced it with Massacres in most cases, because that's what they were. Genocide is legal definition which was never attributed on legal basis, in fact the very term of "genocide" per UN Convention was defined in 1940s. So using "genocide" word as a fact is an utter violation of NPOV as it only represents the position of a single side in this dispute and obviously attributes a certain non-neutral political stance to Wikipedia as a source. Atabek 00:26, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Have you seen Genocide definitions? Anyway, Wikipedia is not bound to UN decisions. If many independent, reliable sources call it a genocide, so can we. Someguy1221 00:30, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Neither is Wikipedia bound to take POV of a single side in a rather controversial issue. So the usage of the word "alleged" was definitely NOT a vandalism. And I am not even mentioning the fact that scores of non-Armenian people also perished in the region during the same time. Per comment below, this will be my last on the topic on this page. You can post your opinions on the subject on relevant content pages. Thanks. Atabek 00:47, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Point of order: Do not export your content disputes to this page. —Kurykh 00:27, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

IP complaining about an established user's POV? That's new. Will ^(talk) 00:36, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Two points. The IP backup, i agree, is odd, but probably a different issue. As to this being a content dispute, I find it difficult to write things off as content disputes when they spread to multiple pages and involve unusual POVs being pushed. Calling the events 'alleged acts of Armenian Genocide' is about as neutral as 'the supposed Holocaust'. It's a ridiculous whitewashing and revisionist action. There are numerous sources to cite for the term. Further, Atabek's wiki-lawyering above, about how crimes need to be tried in court and proven guilty, etc., etc., isn't a good faith discussion point, but a 'gotcha' attempt.

To get back on the major point, though. I find it troubling that editors, often newer ones but not always (the Indian/Pakistani editors and the Palestinian/Israeli editors, for example), bring major efforts to push POV across entire subjects here, encompassing numerous articles, and though regular AN/I editors KNOW it will be back as soon as some rule is violated, we throw it back, saying 'content dispute, try WP:3O or WP:DR or WP:RfC', instead of addressing the offending editor's obvious POV pushing, what ever that Agenda may be. We know it'll kick back to us when somene breaks Godwin's Law, or 3RR, or some other mess. Why do we delay? On a single article, kicking it for 3O or DR makes a lot of sense, but project wide revisionisms could be headed off here more easily than on 15 different article pages, which smacks of forum shopping, because you can probably find the two ends of the spectrum on any topic here, and have two relatively unique groups of regular editors. Convince one that your way is right, then bring it to the other group as consensus for your edit, and it gets messy. Further, doing this on 10 to 15 pages means you get a lot of chances to 'get your way', giving you a toehold to push some agenda, especially if you push it on a quiet page, then claim that no one reverted, therefore consensus. Stepping in at this point is treacherous and muddy water. Instead, why can't we step in now, asking the involved parties to create a single user talk or wikiproject subpage for such discussion, and holding it all in one place, notify all relevant pages, and let them work it out centrally, but with our awareness? I really am serious, and really would like an answer as to why there's no attempt at proactivity with such editors. The sooner they're talked to, the less 'dug in' their heels are, and the more we can reach them, to help them out, or stop them. ThuranX 05:57, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

I believe it could be argued that Atabek's behavior violates the spirit, if not the letter, of his 1RR parole. It certainly would be actionable under this proposal currently under consideration by ArbCom. Thatcher131 12:44, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Thatcher131, could you explain under this proposal, which you mentioned above, how does the statement: "should they fail to maintain a reasonable degree of civility in their interactions with one another concerning disputes which may arise." apply in this case? Did I not maintain a reasonable degree of civility in my interactions with another user in the given set of edits? If so, can you please, outline the facts of incivility, so I can perhaps, review my behavior. Thanks. Atabek 15:05, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. As far as I can tell there is no real dispute that the Armenian Genocide occured. Adding alleged before it is whitewashing and extremely disruptive. The Arbcom thing just settles it. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 16:04, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

VOicing some editor (non-admin) support for both Thatcher131 and Jester's comments. ThuranX 16:59, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Again as I explained, "alleged" in my edits applied to the term "genocide" not to the fact of massacre. I believe Wikipedia often prohibits the frivolous use of WP:WTA words, like terrorist, etc. without source, even in cases when the organization is established as terrorist. In this case, "genocide" word is being applied to the "massacre" without any legal basis, but simply based on political and not legal definitions, and is being used as a political tool rather than an impartial attempt to identify the events. Going even further, the user is being blamed for merely bringing up the opposition to non-neutral POV with threats of being blocked? Atabek 14:58, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

I would like to point out that Atabek is wiki-retaliating[69] there is no doubt that this was an answer to Azizbekov's recent edits on Azeri related articles[70]. Azizbekov seems to be an Azeri who's interested in Azeri involvment in Nazi Germany. Most of Azizbekov's edits were on the Azerbaijani legion, Atabek edit on Armenian Legion was simply a retaliation. I just wonder, given that Atabek has probably broken most of Wikipedia's policies, is there anything left to convince you that he should at least be blocked for 24 hours? VartanM 18:30, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

It will be relevant to analyze user:VartanM removal of referenced info without discussion on this page [71] about Armenian Nazi Legion--Dacy69 14:09, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

That was good one Dacy69, perhaps you should look at the talkpage of the article before claiming such ridiculous claims. This was posted in the talkpage 10 minutes after [72]

Thuranx, I never denied Holocaust, the fact of which was established by Nuremberg trials, a legal process, which identified the victims and punished those responsible for this crime against humanity. So I don't see the point for your comparison. And in Armenian case, I added alleged to the claim of political and legal term "genocide" NOT to the fact of "massacre". In fact, most of my edits on those pages replaced genocide with massacre, thus claiming that I deny it as a fact do not have a basis. This has to do with legal definitions, and in situation when the other side of the dispute is rejecting the term "genocide", the usage of this term is not neutral and is simply an imposition of a viewpoint in Wikipedia as a fact. Using it against me in ArbCom case is even more ridiculous, provided that numerous cases of major removal of sourced material [73], [74] with reinsertion of OR instead here [75] are simply being overlooked and I am being blamed for simply opposing a non-neutral point. If this will be used against me in ArbCom, I reserve the right to further pursue the case with Wikipedia until proven NPOV. I believe this project is supposed to be impartial not pushing POV of single national group against another nation and country. Atabek 14:48, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Comment: Voicing support for Jester and Thatcher - the genocide is only in dispute in Turkey; not even so, since nobody is allowed to talk about it there. It would be more POV to not call it a genocide. I also note I studied this genocide in my human rights law class in law school. --David Shankbone 15:12, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Quite frankly, this breaches out of the realm on content dispute and into the realm of boldfaced trolling. Anyone putting "alledged" in front of the Holocaust of the Armenian Genocide (or other confirmed genocides) as well as a host of other "probably citable but blatantly inappropriate" substitutions isn't acceptable, and is a "blocking" offense. I could probably dig up some old dictionary that'd justify changing black people to niggers whereever the phrase occured, but if I did this, I should be blocked without hesitation. WilyD 15:26, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

this is rollback-able per WP:SNOW. If Atabek really thinks he can get consensus for his approach, let him seek it first, by debating on talkpages. If he doesn't, his edits are trolling, and he should be warned, and blocked if he persists. dab (𒁳) 15:23, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Why doesn't someone just present this wealth of sources that every third person studied in college that states "genocide" as opposed to massacre. The issue as presented has nothing to do with if many people died, it has to do with sourcing the term genocide it seems to appropriate people. --SevenOfDiamonds 15:33, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Armenian Genocide has 84 references, Recognition of the Armenian Genocide has another 30 - that the Armenian Genocide happened, that it was a genocide is not seriously disputed. It's disputed roughly on the same level that the Holocaust happened, and that the Holocaust was a genocide is disputed. WilyD 15:38, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

this isn't the place to discuss this. The upshot is: present your case at Talk:Armenian genocide first, achieve consensus, and then start changing terminology all over Wikipedia. This noticeboard is not the place to discuss sources, it is the place to report editors who disruptively fail to discuss sources. --dab (𒁳) 15:44, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

That simply isn't true. Adding "alledged" in front of stuff like that is not a content dispute - it's unmitigated vandalism. And this is a place to complain about it. WilyD 23:16, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Again, Holocaust has nothing to do with this case, as indicated above, the fact of it was established by Nuremberg trials. In any case, if that's the conclusion, then I would kindly suggest for all those justifying the "genocide" definition in this case, to create a separate page or issue a Wikipedia rule/injunction, which says "Armenian Genocide" is recognized in Wikipedia community and denial of the term "genocide" in application to these massacres is punishable by restriction or blockage. And I think all those opposing such claim (possibly counting in millions) must be made aware of this rule ahead of time as well, as such restriction is clearly new to me. Otherwise, haunting contributors, without rule, and based merely on their opinion and position over a controversial issue, does not seem to be very productive or educational.

Also, the comment: "the genocide is only in dispute in Turkey; not even so, since nobody is allowed to talk about it there. It would be more POV to not call it a genocide" - do you call something white because someone else calls it black or because you are provided with sufficient basis to believe it should be called white?

I will post on this subject no more. Thanks. Atabek 15:50, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Atabek, had you ever participated in the talkpage of that articles you would see that the usage of Armenian Genocide was shown to be appropriate and even Turkish veteran users don't revert or remove them. The fact of the Armenian genocide was established by a Turkish martial court who sentenced the Ittihadist leaders to death, the same leaders who were too coward to attend their own trials but left their lawyers to defend them. Insteed they moved to Germany seeking asylum. The International Association of Genocide Scholars which includes all major historians studying war crimes and genocides unanimously recognize it as a genocide. The only report by the UN including cases and examples of genocides included the Armenian case before Turkey threatened and messed the whole thing. The UN as a consequence has no official document voted which specifically includes the examples of genocide. See you in the talk page of Armenian Genocide VartanM 16:04, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Hiroshima and Nagasaki: Deleting My comments and Lying About It

An editor, Gtadoc, is behaving unethicallly, in extreme bad faith, and probably vandalizing a Talk page. The following events have taken place in Talk:Atomic_bombings_of_Hiroshima_and_Nagasaki:
1) I left a comment calling him dishonest (also giving the reasons, and restating the reasons for my version of the edit).
2) He deleted the entire comment (not merely the accusation of dishonesty).
3) I restored the comment, and told him not to delete editor comments on Talk pages.
...a few days passed...
4) He deleted the entire comment again (not merely the accusation of dishonesty)
5) He added a comment that I am the one who deleted my own post, in order to remove my "personal attacks" from the record. He followed this with an accusation of dishonesty.

The utterly unaceptable, unethical act is the attempt to attribute his deletion of my comment to me, as a way of propping up an accusation of dishonesty. All ability to assume goood faith ends at that point. It is a deliberate attempt to tear down my reputation. I believe the deletions are also vandalism, as I doubt a claim of dishonesty meets the standard of personal attack that justifies deleting another editor's comments. And in any case, he should not be deleting all the other parts of my comment.

Here is the diff that shows the edit deleting my comment and the addition of his suggestion that I deleted my own comment. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AAtomic_bombings_of_Hiroshima_and_Nagasaki&diff=149994708&oldid=149990048 Bsharvy 23:16, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Dude, you called him dishonest. The definition of "dishonest" is, according to dictionary.com, "not honest; disposed to lie, cheat, or steal; not worthy of trust or belief". Calling someone dishonest is the ultimate assumption of bad faith. You may believe he or she is dishonest, but this is a collaborative project; to work in a collaborative atmosphere, sometimes you simply have mince your words. You could have said, "You are misrepresenting my actions. (1) The changes I made were precededed ...." Phrasing your statement like that at least makes it appear that you are at issue with his or her actions, as opposed to his or her person (by saying he or she is dishonest). I agree that you should be able to restore your comment, but perhaps you can rephrase it? --Iamunknown 23:30, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

That kinda doesn't make any sense. If I think someone lied, I should instead say, I think they misunderstood me? So they can say, yeah thats what it was, and get off about lying? This idea of lying to everyone, so you do not seem like you are violating WP:AGF defeats the point. You should AGF until the point where you obviously no longer, then you call it, calling a spade a spade. WP:SPADE --SevenOfDiamonds 23:51, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Calling calling somebody dishonest "the ultimate assumption of bad faith" seems odd. But the Iamunknown dude has a point. Simply, yes, even if you're pretty sure somebody is dishonest, try to avoid calling him dishonest. Whatever the rights and wrongs of calling him dishonest, it's unlikely to advance your aims. Avoid accusations of dishonesty, however blazingly obvious the dishonesty may be, unless/until matters reach this stage.

I haven't yet looked at the talk page in question. The "real world" calls; I hope others will take a look. -- Hoary 00:06, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I probably shouldn't have been so hyperbolic. I am sure there are other worse assumptions of bad faith. But it is true, nonetheless, that calling someone "dishonest" is an assumption of bad faith, because you are stating that they neither can nor should be trusted. --Iamunknown 05:44, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

SevenOfDiamonds, what has "calling a spade a spade" in this case done other than to inflame the situation? Why is it appropriate? Is it ever appropriate? There are more collegial and collaborative ways to say, "You're a liar", than to say, "You're a liar". Like, for example, "You are misrepresenting the situation." Semantics, yes, but it does wonders when you are trying to work in a collaborative environment. --Iamunknown 05:44, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

If everyone in the environment is aware that "You are misrepresenting the situation." is equal to "You're a liar", then it kind of defeats the point of pleasantries. I do see your point, please do not think I do not. But telling someone here, to lie to everyone when they are trying to have admins look at a situation, is pointless. If someone comes and says "John seems to not understand what I am saying", then admins will tell them to explain differently. If you however are honest, to yourself, and to those you are attempting to seek help from, it helps them to get at what point the situation is. I see on this page often, admins calling people trolls and vandals, and other terms, it is odd to see people now saying "liar" is bad, when they are comparing people to mystical ugly beasts that live under bridges. But as I said, in other areas where the point of collaboration is still active, I get it, however when that collaboration has ceased due to AGF being lost, which is different then never having been assumed in the first place, then it is time to seek help by stating everything honestly. --SevenOfDiamonds 12:23, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

In retrospect it's obvious that announcing his dishonesty didn't help (even though it was accurate). But that is really not the point. I am not asking for administrative action because he deleted my comment. Much, much more serious is his (dishonest) assertion that I am the one who deleted my own comment, so that he can then make false accusations against me (I am trying to hide my "personal attack"...am being dishonest myself, etc.). That is not merely aggressive words where softer words would be better: that is an absolute end to good faith. In any case, I am becoming obsessed with this, so I am going to take a 24 hour break from Wikipedia. But the level here has escalated beyond what a mere undo by me can fix.Bsharvy 00:18, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Hello, To start, I think it says a lot that this complaint was posted w/o the complaining editor notifying me of it. As I've been told of it by another editor I'll post here briefly. I've deleted numerous posts by Bsharvy after he created what appears to be a single purpose account in order to disrupt the page on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Random personal attacks were inserted all over the place so I deleted any of them I found, what he posted here was probably one of the more mild ones, I tried not to delete anything that was an actual comment that was just written in an imflamatory way. After Bsharvy was blocked for 3RR and disruption he then also went back and cleaned up after himself (which is fine, as I prefer the page w/o the vandalism but wasn't going to spend each day looking for it and deleting it) and at one point requested for his usertalkpage to be protected to keep admins and editors from leaving warnings and block messages about his edits. At first several editors tried to hold discussions with him but its become clear to the editors that have been putting effort into the page for a while now that Bsharvy's edits are the classic "refusal to get to the point" edits and several of us have simply grown tired of repeating ourselves. In any event, I have very little time to work with WP as it is, much less deal with disruptive editors, which probably accounts for why I didn't get an admin involved with that page earlier. Gtadoc 02:28, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Hm, well, most of that is...a lie. All one has to do is look at the diff to see that Gtadoc deleted my comments, not me; this is stated by the admin who restored my comments. I posted a notice of this complaint on his Talk page the same time as I made this complaint...I won't bother to continue.Bsharvy 00:06, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Is there a Slovak speaking (reading) admin in the house

St. Urban's Church (Bystré) is tagged for speedy deletion as a copyvio of a Slovak website. Any help would be appreciated. I have lots of babelboxes, but Slovak and related languages are not among them. :-(.... Carlossuarez46 02:32, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Check Category:User sk for users who speak Slovakian. Miranda 19:40, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Obvious sockpuppetry, unobvious puppeteer

Sjones23 recently filed a report at WP:BLP, regarding the changing of information at the Toru Ohira article. I responded, changed the information back (Ohira was born in 1929, the false claims have been in the 1940's) and provided sources. Today Sjones23 reverted another such edit. The problem here is that all these edits are definitely coming from the same place, smacking of sockpuppetry. User:210.213.240.27, User:210.213.240.28, User:210.213.241.7 and User:210.213.243.198 and, now, User:210.213.241.86. I've given one of the above users a final warning. However, it's unclear as to whether or not these are sockpuppets, and who is the sockpuppeteer. Otherwise, I would have taken this to WP:SSP.--Sethacus 15:12, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, they are normal IPs from an ISP in the Phillipines. Greg Jones II 15:48, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

As what Ryulong pointed out to me above, there have been intermittent issues with good faith (yet unconstructive) edits to these kinds of articles from someone in the Philippines for some time, but to prevent that would either require semiprotecting all articles they editted or blocking a major island in the chain from editing. Greg Jones II 15:50, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

I have just recently warned User:210.213.241.86 on his/her talk page. Greg Jones II 19:08, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, Greg, stop being so gung ho about this. I'll semiprotect that article if it is truly an issue (I had to do the same with Akira Kushida because of similar edits, although from I believe someone in Brazil).—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 21:01, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

To be honest, I am not being so gung ho about this. I apologize for my angry replies regarding this situation. The birth date and credits are truly serious problems as with some of the credits, just to clarify, because there is no such thing as Tokei Keiji Spildan (also added in the Akira Kushida article before it was removed) and also 1940 is a false claim for a birth date. Adding in things like those I have described are clearly not acceptable. By the way, Ryulong, thanks for your comments. Greg Jones II 21:26, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Ryulong, thanks for protecting this page. I appreciate it. All the best Greg Jones II 21:33, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Anyone know what's going on here?

See this edit [76]. The latest episode in the Pigsonthewing/Andy Mabbett user page saga. Mabbett's user page has been reverted to a controversial version by a new account with the name "Andy Mabett" (one "b"). Now, I'm not Mr. Mabbett's biggest fan but before we jump to conclusions, I suspect he may be being trolled. Please investigate the new user account before this turns into another rumpus. --Folantin 16:44, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

I've blocked the account. If it's an impersonating troll, as seems likely, then that's the proper action. If on the off-chance it actually does belong to Pigsonthewing, and is an anti-impersonation account, then it also really has no need for further editing. - TexasAndroid 17:31, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Good move. Thanks. --Folantin 17:39, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Could somebody delete User talk:Andy Mabett, it's redirecting to User talk:Pigsonthewing. Corvus cornix 18:45, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Note also that the user Andy Mabbett also exists now as well [77]. I have no idea if it's User:Pigsonthewing or an impersonator. — Gavia immer (talk) 19:17, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Blocked as well, for the same reasons as above. If it's a impersonator, it has no reason to be allowed to edit. If it's Pigsonthewing creating anti-impersonation accounts, then it serves it's purpose just as well by existing, blocked. Either way, the account cannot now be used to impersonate Pigsonthewing. - TexasAndroid 19:36, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Edward McSweegan, again

Freyfaxi (talk · contribs)'s original version of the Edward McSweegan article was heavily plagiarized, and was also a blatant WP:BLP violation that led the subject of the article (Emcsweegan (talk · contribs)) to create an account to register his objections. It survived an AfD as a result of a heavy rewrite by myself and several others, and the original version was oversighted.

Now Freyfaxi's back again, attempting to add some of the same information from his previous version. He contends that it is public domain information--but last time I checked, you can't just add information from a source verbatim, no matter how reliable it may be. He's also added information that borders on libel as well.

And to take it up another notch, just minutes after I reverted one of his more problematic edits, 69.120.212.35 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) added in some of the very same information here. A duck test confirmed that this was Freyfaxi, and he had the decency to admit it on the talk page.

Something needs to be done here before it gets out of hand again. Blueboy96 20:57, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

To the benefit of Wiklipedia?

edits by banned user removed by Theresa Knott | The otter sank

what's your point? I think it's clear here that Texas android was undoing the actions of a banned user. big deal. Please be clear about the problem, otherwise, nothing to see here. ThuranX 21:01, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

I think this is based on what I was saying above, that deleting additions made by banned users, is in the end not beneficial to the community this project is suppose to serve. Collection of information is the priority, not sticking it to banned users. None of the removals were of any benefit to the project, and many will have to be redone. But apparently (g5) says its ok to remove content as long as it is from a banned editor as was pointed out above, no matter how much it spites the Wiki community. --SevenOfDiamonds 21:06, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Just as an FYI to anyone if it's not already clear. The initial list/accusations in this thread are from an IP in the exact same range as all the other shifting IPs that Conradi uses, and is in line with his normal MO, and is thus unquestionably Conradi himself back with more attacks just as I expected would happen. - TexasAndroid 21:11, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

In that case I'll remove the edit aboveTheresa Knott | The otter sank 21:24, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Interesting. As for the possibility that some contributions were valid, if you aren't Conradi, get an account, and get to work. But if you are Conradi, expect to go through ths whole mess again. I do note that there appears to be a more current citation on the ISO639 page, which might bear reinsertion by someone familiar with the topic. Perhaps a talk page note about it? ThuranX 21:22, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Of interest is this edit by another IP of Conradi's. He seems to be under the understanding somehow that only his original account was banned, not him the person. That he's free to continue editing under other accounts. Not sure how he thinks such a ban policy could actually work, but that's what he appears to think. - TexasAndroid 21:30, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

I removed the entire thread. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 21:38, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Why doesn't somebody spell it out to him explicitly, that he cannot edit under any id? Corvus cornix 22:53, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Theresa has, but I suspect if he was the type of chap who'd listen to that kind of thing then he'd be the type of chap who wouldn't have gotten himself banned in the first place. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 23:02, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

In general, edits by banned users are properly removed. On the other hand, if a banned user (e.g.) fixes a typo, it hardly makes sense for a conscientious editor to redress the situation by reinstating the typo. Whether any of the edits in question fall into the "typo" category (which I will define as undisputed ministerial edits that any editor reading the passage would have made), I have not checked. Newyorkbrad 22:32, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Expired Bans

Do admins have to go through arbcom to unban a user when their ban has expired, or do they just unblock them and resume editing? There are two bans which are about to be expired (see below), and I am wondering what will happen.

1. Saladin1970 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) August 10, 2006, one year - see WP:RFAR/Saladin1970 appeal
2. Minun (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) August 13, 2006, one year - see WP:RFAR/Iloveminum

Thanks. Miranda 23:07, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

As both accounts were blocked for a finite time, the software will just (silently) unblock them when that time expires. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 23:10, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Let the software/system give them their papers and items back and free them. They have already served their terms at the Wikipedia correctional facility. No need for them to sign as it is automated. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 23:16, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

(e.c.)When the bans expire, do we remove them from WP:BAN or let them stay when they expire. Thanks. Miranda 23:20, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

If you mean Wikipedia:List of banned users then they have to be manually removed by a human. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 23:23, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

In answer to the question of whether they should be removed, though, I think they should be, no use cluttering up the list with bans that are no longer applicable. It might also cause confusion if an editor is on the ban list but is again editing. The original ArbCom case or block log will still have a record that they were banned. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 23:26, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Hm, anybody interested in writing a bot to check block expirations and automatically remove names from the list? Corvus cornix 23:27, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Expired entry for Saladin1970 on WP:LBU removed. —Kurykh 23:33, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

A bot could go through that list and draw attention to ones that are no longer blocked. Until(1 == 2) 23:34, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Thats not a bad idea Until(1 == 2). We should attempt to make sure such logs do not become inaccurate, and bots are usually the best option for making sure of this. -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 23:38, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

I like the idea of a bot doing that sort of work. However, given the rarity of the need to do such an action, we can create a bot that can do something else more...eh...worthwhile at the same time, like tagging month-long indefblocked user pages for speedy deletion or something. Essentially, a two-function bot. Alternatively, we can just append this job on an existing bot. —Kurykh 23:41, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

There are several existing bots that perform small functions like this, I am sure one of them could accommodate it. Until(1 == 2) 23:43, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

You got two options. Try to find someone interested at Wikipedia:Bot owners' noticeboard. If that doesn't work try informing active bot owners about the proposal and see if they are interested. I just couldn't find a place where this proposal can be communicated. Maybe here? -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 23:49, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Journalism Scandals

Will you please look at Journalism scandals and my adding of Matt Sanchez Link as a scandal. Please read my notes in talk too. The article is not balanced. I do not want to get in trouble for 'warring' again. Thank you Bmedley Sutler 23:40, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

User:TPIRFanSteve aka User:Orangemike

This user has been reverting the Fanboy Arcticle and now is doing the same to the Rich Apuzzo page. I've asked both to stop, and it's ironic that "Steve" reverts my undo(from Mike) in less than 5 minutes. I posted this incident earlier, but it didn't seem to go through. I'd appreciate a speedy response on this trolling issue. Thanks Hdayejr 00:01, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Good God! Now's he slandering me on User:Angelika_23 her page too! Please stop him quick! Hdayejr 00:08, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

A look at the Rich Apuzzo history shows uncivil edits like these, as well as edit-warring by Hdayejr against multiple editors. The sockpuppet allegation is absurd on its face. THF 00:11, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

I've blocked Hdayejr for 3RR on Rich Apuzzo. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 00:14, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

A possible SPA is reflected in the history of Rich Apuzzo. Anyone want to take a look at that? Seems a bit fishy. Edit: Theresa Knott just blocked.¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 00:21, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

This edit very early in his Wikipedia career may be instructive - note the edit summary and the lack of his username in the discussion he's deleting. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 00:23, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Indeed the edit warring happened to be at an article which i'd not consider notable enough to merit inclusion. A real fan site indeed. Smelling like some SOCK out there as well. Try AfD if this mess resumes. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 00:26, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

I invite anybody to examine my edit history, my LiveJournal, and everything else publicly available about me, to see that I'm nobody's sockpuppet. Don't know who this Steve is, don't know who Mr. Accusatory is; just trying to make Wikipedia better. --Orange Mike 00:50, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Hello, I understand that some have a problem with my article, and I respect that. However, I have asked for the editors to give me some feedback on how I can make it better and they are not responding. I am not opposed to fixing it if it is warranted, but people just keep tagging it and giving me no explanations. I am sorry that some feel my article drags down Wikipedia's reputation. I am new at this and would appreciate any help. - Angelika 23 01:06, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Theresa is trying to help out there. Please be aware of the implications of sockpuppetry. There were 2 or 3 single purpose accounts which were created on July 28 and 29. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 01:23, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Do you think I am the person making those accounts??? - Angelika 23 01:31, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't know. I just think they are worth mentioning due to the mess which was going on at the article. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 01:58, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

I resent that. Check my IP. I only have one account. My husband has an account (dmwcincy), but he has not touched, or even viewed, to my knowledge, the Apuzzo article. The mess with the article is because hdayejr apparently has people who follow him around. I daresay if he hadn't edited on it, we wouldn't be in this mess now. Also, I have tried to talk to OrangeMike and he has decided to start replying, but he is being very condescending and rude. It seems like he just wants the article gone. I simply do not understand the hostility I am encountering on this site tonight. - Angelika 23 02:31, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

That's unfortunate but try to calm down. I suggested that the article goes through WP:AfD so there would be no mess or at least little after the outcome of the AfD. Participants at that would-be debate would surely bring ideas on how to deal w/ the article in case the article is kept. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 02:47, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

PeeJay persistent personal attacks

Resolved

PeeJay, who has a history of personal attacks as seen here [78] and here [79]. Posted the following vile and disgusting remarks on my talk page in retaliation for losing a consensus discussion. [80] and [81]. Obviously, saying I must have been abused as a child, then calling me a "bitter cunt" is unacceptable. Yes, I told PeeJay to "fuck off" which any self respecting man would do after insinuations are made that you were abused. If I made these comments about another editor I would be blocked. PeeJay clearly has a history of personal attacks, he's received his warning, it's obvious that it's time for a block. Batman2005 00:19, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Frankly, when you state That's fucking bullshit and i don't give a flying fuck about WP:CIV...fucking admins don't give a shit about that, all they care is blocking people for no fucking reason. it become obvious that you are both guilty of personal attacks and incivility. Not to mention the tirade you left on my talk page. Read WP:CIV and WP:ATTACK and abide by it before you go accusing others of violating them. IrishGuy ^talk 00:34, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Frankly, when one person doesn't get punished for a breach of policy, yet another does, there is something SERIOUSLY wrong with the system. Like I said, i'll be civil when, and ONLY when, PeeJay is ALSO punished for his violations of policy. Until EVERY person who violates policy in such a vile and disgusting way is punished, then wikipedia is a joke. PeeJay should be blocked, plain and simple, instead you're choosing to cower behind "read WP:CIV" and claiming that I personally attacked somebody with that post...which is flat out untrue. Instead of falling back on that, why don't you give me a reason why PeeJay is allowed to call me a "bitter cunt" and escape with no punishment whatsoever? Can you give me a good reason as to why this blatant violation of policy is going unpunished? I didn't think so. Batman2005 00:39, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

At no point did I say that others were allowed to attack you...I simply warned you that the actions of others don't justify your own wanton disregard for policy. Clearly you are simply spoiling for a fight. Find something else to do with your time. IrishGuy ^talk 00:41, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

No no no, if I was spoiling for a fight i'd choose a better opponent that PeeJay, Adambro or you. You STILL can't give me a reason as to why I get blocked for violating one policy...yet PeeJay doesn't get blocked for violating one...which is in fact WORSE and MORE disruptive than the one I got blocked for. What's the reason? Is there a good one? Batman2005 00:45, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

48h for Peejay and 36h for Batman. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 00:57, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Hopefully they will leave each other alone upon their returns. IrishGuy ^talk 01:05, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

It's up to them. The bottom line is that CIVIL keeps running. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 01:09, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Sherzo

Resolved

Hi, I requested that the article British Student Television be moved on its talk page. So far Sherzo has been the only objector. He is reverting the main page as if he owns it and is also being very uncivil about the 'discussion' about the renaming - eg. you thought it meant northern ireland despite saying Dublin? don't they teach geography in the UK anymore? outside of fringe of vocal lunatics on the internet the british isles is an oft use term in the rest of the world. Please can someone drop into the talk page and make a definate decision and/or can Sherzo be sanctioned? On another note he's also been edit warring on List of United States Presidents by military service against Bluecord. CR7 (message me) 00:56, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

No wonder that discussion is sitting on WP:RM's backlog. Obviously not the best model chosen for discussing a move proposal. I'm closing it as inconclusive.--Húsönd 01:08, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Sherzo refuses to accept that Ireland is not part of Britain. The name of the article is geographically and politically incorrect and is as such unneutral. CR7 (message me) 01:09, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Sherzo continues to vandalize List of United States Presidents by military service. His vandalism is biased and politically motivated. Ronald Regan served in the U.S. Army Reserve and on active duty during WWII. George W. Bush served in the U.S. Air National Guard during Vietnam. He continually deletes Reagan's service because it offends him that Reagan served in Hollywood making propoganda and training films for the Army. Reagan is not the only WWII veteran that recieved stateside service. He can not help that he was ordered there by the Army. He continues to revert Bush's status as AWOL even though that is still under dispute. My contention is, being a History teacher and a veteran myself, that you can not take service away from someone and both of these men served no matter what your personal feelings are of that service. There are clearly questions in relation to the service of some democrats, most notably Clinton and his deferment, however, Sherzo does not even want to admit that. This is what makes this a political point of view on his part. He is basically revising history to meet his own personal beliefs. He also leaves pretty nasty messages on other peoples talk pages.Bluecord

That's pretty ridiculous; especially the Reagan part. I've watchlisted the article. --Haemo 01:48, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

I've also watchlisted it, and since he's changing it from the original content without a concencus, his edits in question will be considered vandalism by me. -JacќяМ ¿Qué? 02:10, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Help on User Talk:THF

A few days ago in relation to Reality film I told this editor that I respected his edits, but he has been involved in multiple imbroglios and not only is the comment not true, but I also don't want my name seen as supporting his edits. I have tried twice to remove my comment from his Talk page and he removed it twice calling it vandalism. Could I have an admin remove my comment and let User:THF know that I am well within my right to remove such comment from his Talk page? Thanks for the help, and sorry it's such a small matter - it shouldn't be such a big deal but this editor apparently wants to keep stoking the fire. --David Shankbone 01:22, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

WjBscribe has already informed them that its usually a good idea to make compromises to maintain a positive aspect of community. So it is up to THF especially that there is no policy which states that "he is not free to take full control his userpage" except in cases where behavior is unacceptable. Don't forget the fact that "All text is available under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License". This is your --> solution. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 01:33, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

David, please do not do it again. Thank you. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 01:56, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Vandilism

Special:Contributions/24.117.147.70, this user has been vandilizing the page for Down III: Over the Under by pasting a link to YouTube for a singer completly unrelated to the album or the band, he is persisting on keeping it and something must be done about it, he also vandilized User:Corrupt toolbox (but he took it as a joke.) Skeeker _[Talk] 04:57, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

No steps have been taken to warn this IP, I will do it now. remember that warning a user is a necessary step to take before reporting the vandal, to ensure they cannot say they were not aware they violated policy. -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 05:16, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

::After reviewing contributions, the IP has violated the 3RR, but he is adding content that is not necessarily vandalism, but that probably shouldnt be in the article. -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 05:18, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

My mistake - he almost violated the 3RR rule. -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 05:32, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

User:Kafziel abuses protection on User:Kafziel/gallery

I was recently removing fair use images from userspaces and when I came to User:Kafziel/gallery which contains fair use images, specifically I was triggered by Image:Algerianfranc.jpg being used in the userspace. When I looked at the history of User:Kafziel/gallery, I discovered

1. Fair use images were being used on the userspace, and per WP:NFCC this is a violation of policy
2. A bot attempted to remove non-free media before on July 3.
3. User:Kafziel, an administrator, reinserted the fair use images by reverting the bot and then protected the page so they couldn't be removed by non-administrators.

Will someone please remove the fair use images from User:Kafziel/gallery and discuss with User:Kafziel why this was inappropriate? — Moe ε 15:16, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

The images being removed are all pictures of money, and it's not at all clear that the bills pictured are under copyright, because as the template says, some aren't. Even if it does turn out to be a violation, it's not his fault for not knowing. It was reasonable for him to assume that pictures he took wouldn't be under copyright. -Amarkov moo! 15:38, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Could someone check to see if these are violations then? — Moe ε 15:46, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

And it's very clear that images of money aren't the only issue: Image:Trix box 2006.jpg, is cleary presumed fair use. — Moe ε 15:51, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

I'd presume the pictures of products (the closeups) might have some issues but I'm not a lawyer nor do I play one on TV -- Tawker 15:56, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

True, but it looks like it's just a misunderstanding of copyright, since he did previously claim the images as GFDL. Anyway, the only thing I found about the money is that the algerian franc isn't used anymore. -Amarkov moo! 15:58, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

If he did claim them as GFDL and it isn't, why does this make it less of a violation? — Moe ε 16:43, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

←Have you pesronally addressed this with him yourself before you came running here crying abuse? I personally get tired of the 10+ posts a day accusing admins of abuse when the accuser has not even asked the admin about it? Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 17:59, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

• Yeah apparently no one ever mentioned this to Kafziel or informed him about this AN/I thread. That's pretty poor behavior if you ask me. --W.marsh 18:27, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

• No one notifies me of discussions about myself, why should I take the time and do things no one else does? — Moe ε 20:03, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

• In the spirit of making Wikipedia a less nasty place to be? --W.marsh 20:17, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

• So now I was nasty? Could you focus on why this thread was started? — Moe ε 20:24, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

• I am focusing on why this thread was started. --W.marsh 20:33, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

• Then your not aware of why it was started then. — Moe ε 20:38, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

• What is "the your"? Please take a deep breath and calm down before commenting. --W.marsh 20:40, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

• Why should you take the time and do things no one else does? 1 because respect and courtesy are Good Things. And 2 because those who care about image policy will win more people over to their side if they don't annoy people when annoying them is avoidable. ElinorD (talk) 20:22, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

• And now I'm annoying? What do you call the cabal of defenders here shouting attacks at me, while not addressing the issue at all? — Moe ε 20:28, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

• Please. Nobody has called you annoying. I spoke about the importance of trying not to annoy people unnecessarily. That's not at all the same thing as calling you annoying. Just consider — is it possible that Kafziel might be annoyed at the fact that you came here and started a thread with "abuse" in the title, rather than assuming that he made an honest error and raising it on his talk page? If you think he might be (even if you think that he'd be wrong to be annoyed), then just ask yourself would it be possible to get those non-free images removed without annoying him? That's all. As for the "cabal of defenders . . . not addressing the issue", well, I did address it. I said that you were right. I asked Durin to have a look, and he retagged some of the images that had been incorrectly tagged, and left a message for Kafziel. (Durin knows a lot more about copyright than I do.) And then I removed the non-free images from the page, and left a message myself for Kafziel, trying, as far as possible, to respect his dignity. If the purpose of this thread was to get a copyright violation cleared up, then the purpose has been achieved. You're absolutely 100% right that those images shouldn't have been on that page. ElinorD (talk) 20:41, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

• I wasn't talking about you -_- — Moe ε 20:57, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Moe is perfectly right that some of those images absolutely have to be removed from user space. Even the ones tagged with a free licence may not be indisputably free — for example, I'm wondering is Image:Dairymilk creme egg.jpg a derivative work. But I suggest that someone raise the issue with Kafziel courteously on his talk page. I'd do it, except that I'm busy. Sometimes people who might be well inclined to respect our policy on non-free content may just dig their heels in because they're approached in the wrong way (or because they're not approached at all — just reported). And the image copyright policy is so important — so fundamental to our whole Project — that it's really, really important that those who are interested in it make a special effort to be tactful and sensitive, and respectful of the dignity of those who may not understand it or agree with it. ElinorD (talk) 18:48, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Posting a thread at ANI claiming abuse could probably be considered one of the least likley ways to get people to comply nicely. Just to reitterate to the complaintant. Please attempt to address issues with the admin in question first before claiming they are "abusing" something! Thanks. Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 18:53, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Uh, did you try... TALKING to him? Politely explaining your concerns? So far as I can see, you took it to ANI with no attempt at less "dramatic" resolution. Eleland 19:01, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

The reason I didn't immediatly go to this editor is because he's semi-active for the most part. Whenever I dispute an editor, I don't run to AN/I first, but the actions I was requesting needed admin assitance, or at least opinion, so it was at least proper to post it here. Ad hominem much? — Moe ε 20:03, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

It has nothing to do with an ad hominem, it has to do with a very frequent problem here at ANI where every 5 minutes somebody is accusing an admin of abusing the tools. If you had titled it under "fair use concerns on protected page" or "question regarding protection and fair use" or anything of the sort that did not claim abuse it might not have been a big issue. Your response above concerns me too, the "nobody else does it why should I" does not seem like a rationale you would use? You do alot of work with fair use. A majority of editors here dont even understand it or do stuff with it so according to your rationale with this situation you should just not work with fair use? In short, I dont care that you brought up the concern and in fact it is valid, I just ask that you use tact and a personal touch by addressing the editor in question first and then, come here without the word abuse. Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 20:10, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

"Nobody else does it why should I" is a reference to notfiying the uploader, not working with fair use. And excuse me of actually starting a topic on abuse when it was accurate for a change. You haven't even bothered to address what you think on what I said but instead focused the discussion on me by stating that I was acting improperly. And again you divert the conversation by focusing on other posts on An/I that have stated abuse incorrectly. When do you plan on commenting on what Kafziel did and how the images should be dealt with, or do you plan to furthur comment on something irrelevant? — Moe ε 20:20, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

I dont believe kafiziel did anything wrong. He was probably ill informed. I have subpages that i protect (archives and the such). If i had a fair use image that happened to be there that I was unaware of i sure hope someone would addrss me where I would kindly fix it instead of running to ANI claiming abuse. You are the one who found the issue, you address it with kafiziel. I strongly believe it is improper to run to ani without first addressing the person in question so yes, I also do happen to believe your actions are ill advised. All I ask is that you refrain from running to ani claiming abuse and make an effort to resolve this issue with the editor in question before running here. Thanks! Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 20:26, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

He didn't do anything wrong? Really? Because from my stance, and from other editors who actually commented on the issue, fair use images, even disputable fair use images, are not to be placed on the userspace. Kafiziel reverted a bot that was not malfunctioning and performing correctly, then reverted. Disputable, yes. Thats why I brought it here. — Moe ε 20:38, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

With regard to Image:Dairymilk creme egg.jpg, images containing copyrighted logos are a derivative work of the logo depicted, so, yeah, that's not a free image. — Gavia immer (talk) 19:11, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

• I've left a message with User:Kafziel regarding this issue, and have retagged a number of the images on the gallery page as being non-free works. --Durin 19:29, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

I've removed all the non-free images from that page, but have left it protected, and have left a note for Kafziel. Frankly, I'd rather have left them for him to remove, himself, as it will probably be a bit galling next time he logs on to find this discussion and to find that another administrator has stepped in and removed those images. But I don't know when he's likely to log on again, and our image policy is important, and, quite simply, non-free images may not be used outside of mainspace. ElinorD (talk) 20:22, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

No offense directed at Kafziel but I can't believe people are saying "You should have notified him first." Kafziel obviously was aware of the issue when he (if Moe is correct) reverted and protected after the bot edit. Following that logic he must have already known that it was an issue. I perfectly well see Moe's point. I'm not taking an opinion on it, but I can exactly see why he thinks that it is an abuse of administrator powers. It certainly has grounds for stating that it's an abuse of protection, in that protection generally should be reserved for protecting things from vandalism, not from enforcing non free content policy. Once again, I'm not taking sides, so don't go back and yell at me, but I think everyone should slow down and take a look at WHY Moe Ep came to that opinion. And I endorse ElinorD's statement that our image policy _IS_ important, and non-free images may not be used outside of the mainspace. -- Swatjester 16:58, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Please Advice Me

Can I use photos with the tag - {{PD-USGov-Military-Army}}for my magazine.Kaystar 16:17, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Generally, yes, and you don't need to ask our permission. It would be worthwhile to check with the relevant branch(es) of the US Military to make sure you're not going to fall foul of any specific laws, such as the PATRIOT Act, for instance. Additionally, there is normally a request for credit to the photographer and source when you use any of the US military images. Nick 16:39, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Kaystar 06:54, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Advise please

This account User:90.240.74.203 seems to have been setup solely to revert my edits, see [82] I suspect this is another established editor and may be being used to avoid 3RR.--padraig 19:02, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm not convinced. He's only got three edits so far. 'Tis true that two of them are reverts but that could be a coincidence. Of course if he goes on to revert you further, then that is a different matter. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 19:25, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

This is not the first time this method has been used to revert my edits, usualy when I post a warning on the IP talk page they cease to use that IP.--padraig 20:00, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Reverts immediately after another editor was getting close to 3RR - then a IP steps in! come on!--Vintagekits 20:03, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

I notice 90.240.74.203 (talk · contribs) jumps in as Astrotrain (talk · contribs) nears 3RR at {{World Heritage Sites in the United Kingdom}}. Not a slam dunk case, but worth keeping an eye on, perhaps. – Luna Santin (talk) 20:34, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Well He has just reverted me again [83].--padraig 21:50, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

I've just left a warning on hir talk page, so we'll see what happens. I agree with Luna in that it looks like someone is evading 3RR - Alison ☺ 21:58, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Well it wasn't me as Luna Santin implies- I have better things to do on a Friday night! Do a usercheck if you don't believe me rather than make false accussations. Astrotrain 13:08, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

User:Voice of All

Resolved

On the 24th of July the administrator User:Voice of All unilaterally, and with no discussion whatsoever, unprotected the highly contentious article of Australian Prime Minister John Howard with this edit. He included his reason in the edit summary of "protection is no longer necessary."

This article has been under a constant barage of vandalism ever since, including blankings and redirects. User:Voice of All, who has not been back to the article or it's talkpage since, has ignored all attempts to hail his attention to his mistake. See here,and here

His failure to even acknowledge these requests either one way or another, represents a gross dereliction of duty, and IMO, is grounds for the removal of his admin privileges. Prester John ^{-(Talk to the Hand)} 02:01, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

No it isn't grounds for removal of admin privileges. Voice of All unprotected the article because he assumed good faith, and felt the protection was long enough (about 6 months...) Taking a look at his recent contribs, he has not been active lately, explaining why he didn't reply. Last time I checked, making a small mistake or being inactive does not represent a "gross dereliction of duty". --DarkFalls ^talk 02:30, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Please assume good faith. Making a (small) mistake is not reason to desysop. Sean William @ 02:35, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Note that any admin can reprotect, so it's not necessary for the original admin who removed protection to stick around. Orderinchaos 02:43, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Let me get this straight, opening up an article on "Wikipedia - The encyclopedia anyone can edit" for, umm, anybody to edit, rather than just autoconfirmed users, is grounds for desysopping ? Nick 02:48, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Nick. This doesn't even come close. he might have actually done a good thing by unprotecting it. -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 02:53, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

To be fair, that's not what Prester John wrote. He was complaining about the fact that VoA hadn't acknowledged or responded to his requests (yet). That being said, the consensus seems to be pretty clear here. ---Sluzzelin talk 02:58, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

And orderinchaos addressed that already... --DarkFalls ^talk 03:00, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Voice of All unprotected an article that had been protected for a number of months. It is standard practice to lift protection occasionally to ensure that they are necessary - protection is a last resort to cope with serious vandalism. That does not mean that any editor cannot request that the page be protected again at WP:RFPP should high levels of vandalism resume. I see no misconduct on Voice of All's part here, only a stunning failure to assume good faith by Prester John. WjBscribe 02:55, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree, being unprotected is the natural state of an article and protection should be temporary. If an article has been protected for too long then it needs to be unprotected. Good call Voice. Until(1 == 2) 03:00, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Also, coming up to the election, it's possible that the protection was, or had the potential to be, stalling article development. Agreed with WJB's post above. Orderinchaos 17:58, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

<after ecs>Prester, CJ has re-protected the article. Please assume good faith of Voice of All. He is American and probably isn't aware of the Australian political situation which makes the PM's article troll-bait. Talk of "gross dereliction of duty," and "grounds for the removal of his admin privileges" for failing to respond to your message is ridiculous and unnecessarily dramatic. All you needed to do was ask another admin to reprotect the article, either here, on WP:RFPP or by asking any admin directly. There is no need to escalate this into a drama. I am sure that VOA was acting in good faith and did not realise the article will be troll-bait, at least until after the election. Also, when you start a thread about someone, it is customary to advise the admin on their talk page so they can contribute to the discussion and explain their side of the story, particularly when you are calling for him to be desysopped. Sarah 03:08, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't see any problems here. Voice tends to caution on the side of unprotecting pages because of our anyone can edit philosophy. If that's grounds for desysopping, I think that we should just shut the project down. :) --Woohookitty^Woohoo! 10:01, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Ha! Haven't seen you around here lately. Reminds me, I need to unprotect more pages actually. Voice-of-All 10:07, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Comment I haven't seen any response from Prester John regarding the responses. Perhaps he should be indef blocked is too busy editing Pot calling the kettle black? LessHeard vanU 11:26, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Admin Assistance

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Resolved

I am not aware of the situation going on between these two users, but User:Calton posted on his talk page emails from User:StraferOfTruths complete with email address. Within moments he removed this post from his talk page saying "On second thought, I'll save this for later". Regardless of the situation between these two, an editor like Calton should know better than to post someone's email address on his own talk page.

If I am not mistaken, this is violation of WP:HAR, per "Posting of personal information", ie: "email address". I think an admin needs to have a word with User:Calton. Thanks....NeutralHomer ^T:C 05:08, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

What for? That email is hardly personally indentifying and it's probably a throwaway account anyway.--MONGO 05:35, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Still...it is personal information, regardless if it is a hotmail account or whitehouse.gov, it is still personal information and an experienced editor like him should know better. - NeutralHomer ^T:C 05:37, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

It's a throwaway email account. This is definitely much to do about zero.--MONGO 05:46, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Who cares....the rule is you don't post email addresses. It isn't, "you don't post email addresses you think aren't throw away accounts" or "you don't post email addresses that look to be from a throw away account", it is "Posting another person's personal information (legal name, home or workplace address, telephone number, email address, or other contact information, regardless of whether or not the information is actually correct) is harassment".

That is not much to do about zero, it is textbook (and quoted from the rule itself) harrassment. - NeutralHomer ^T:C 05:51, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree, textbook harrassment, and the offender cannot have done it unawares. PalestineRemembered 06:21, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

You mean sending someone an email with the message YOU ARE THE TROLL copied 60 times? Or Calton? El_C 07:01, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Before this becomes a shouting fest, Neutralhomer, try looking at WP:RFO. —Kurykh 05:54, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

The e-mail address is almost definitely throwaway, but to prevent a fuss I've done a delete/restore. Cheers, ~ Riana ⁂ 05:59, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

That is probably best...the real harasser is blocked indef now anyway.--MONGO 06:19, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

NeutralHomer, I don't want to see you mentioning Calton anymore. Would you mind, actually, removing his talk page from your watchlist? TIA. El_C 06:26, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Since the main point, the email address, was taken care of by Riana (thanks again), if no one minds, I am going to archive this discussion. Take Care....NeutralHomer ^T:C 06:39, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:Wiikipedian

Resolved

• Wiikipedian (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - On Elisha Cuthbert; vandalism after final warning. There has been a problem finding a suitable free picture for the Elisha Cuthbert article. This got to the point where an editor put in a "No free image!" image, and a comment to editors to only add a free image. He keep blanking this information. Looking at his contributions, he seems to have a habit of making odd edits, and ignoring the warnings placed on his talk page, and simply blanking it. His contributions and talk page history make interesting reading. I'm trying really hard to believe he's making the edits in Good Faith, but it's getting frustrating!— Timotab ^{Timothy (not Tim dagnabbit!)} 09:12, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

• Wiikipedian (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - On {{Infobox actor}}. Keeps making unannounced edits to the template that will damage articles using it, e.g. renaming parameters arbitrarily. Warned and reverted many times. I also directed him to read Help:Templates after which the struck again. Currently given his final warning on vandalizing {{Infobox actor}}. --Kudret abi 09:20, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Update: He reverted again after his final warning. --Kudret abi 10:41, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Blocked for 24 hours for violating WP:3RR. LessHeard vanU 11:36, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Railpage Australia

Railpage Australia has been the subject of an intensive edit war due to a split in the management of their web site. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Railpage Australia (8th nomination) is the 4th afd nomination inside 10 days with and additional WP:CSD tags thrown in for good measure. Additionally I have blocked the nominator for being a sockpuppet though its just as likely its a meatpuppet given the intensity of this edit war. Due to this edit war I have protected the article without an expiry time.

As I had previously closed a valid afd as keep, and also closed afd #4 as a bad faith nomination due to edit warring. I have listed it here for review, with the approval for any of my actions to be reverse if necessary. Gnangarra 11:14, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Six noms for AfD since 23 July 2007? It appears these are bad faith nominations, and are clearly in breach of consensus, and I think your actions are entirely appropriate. LessHeard vanU 11:40, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

A question raised at another forum: "Apart from continually speedy closing the debate, is there something that can be done to stop the multiple AfDs?" Orderinchaos 12:07, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

I suppose there could be an attempt to see if the various SPA's trace back to a single IP range, and then see if there is anything that could be done to block it, or report it to the ISP. Otherwise it is a matter of watching the AfD pages and having a form response to any further nomination. LessHeard vanU 12:31, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

As the article is currently protect only an admin can post the afd notice so I'd assume that they'd look at why its protected before posting a notice. As for the IP range it'd be a big field as theres an extremely heated dispute in that community between railpage and aus.rail which has spilled over to here. Gnangarra 12:38, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

The inability to post notice of an AfD to the article doesn't stop it being nominated (does it?), and may serve the purpose of a bad faith nomination better. While there may be large bodies of opinion on the subject it may be that there is only one or two individuals who are trying to remove the article via AfD/CSD. If there is several editors trying to "game the system" then it serves no purpose, but if it is one underlying ip addy then that route can be blocked. LessHeard vanU 13:12, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Voting is evil

Well, I thought I might leave a note about the current vote going on at the unending lame edit war over infobox colors for baseball players: Talk:Reggie_Jackson#Athletics.2FYankees. We are currently at 11-10 in favor of the Athletics (11-5 in favor of the Yankees, after massive sockpuppetry and vote fraud removed) - but it's only the top of the 8th, and things could change shortly. *Ahem* In any case, maybe someone uninvolved could give some advice on mediation or not voting or something, if that would be appropriate. Thanks for the help. The Evil Spartan 17:38, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Archived. People are discussing just below the poll. So what's the need for a poll? Evil or not, it is clear from the pol lthat no consensus has been reached so far and most likely would not be reached in the near future after the sockpuppetry issues. Archived. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 18:21, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

User:RodentofDeath resumes personal attacks

RodentofDeath (talk · contribs) is continuing to use his userpage for personal attacks on another Wikipedia user by name. This is the 2nd such page created this week, the first of which was deleted for containing copyvio information. Current attack page is modified to be within that policy in an attempt to be within policy, plus to add a purported innocent motive in response to recent WP:COI concerns.

This user has been asked several times to initiate dispute resolution instead of making personal attacks. User's edit history is mostly personal attacks against the same Wikipedia editor, plus edit warring and outright vandalism on articles edited by the same editor.

Page can be reverted trivially to a non-attacking version. My concern is the persistent attacking behavior, which has continued for months now. User's edits are seldom if ever constructive, and this user has been warned many times. / edg ☺ ★ 15:40, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

With vandalism templates? if he has been systematically and properly warned for vandalism, then a report to WP:AIV could genuinely be made. -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 16:37, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

The vandalism is easily reverted. My concern is for months now this user has been honing personal attacks against another Wikipedia editor. / edg ☺ ★ 18:00, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Wasn't there a previous WP:ANI report about User:RodentofDeath inappropriately soapboxing in the userspace? This seems to ring a bell...--Isotope23 ^talk 18:03, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, or it might have been about Susanbryce (talk · contribs)... both seem to have a penchant for userspace soapboxing in their ongoing dispute.--Isotope23 ^talk 18:07, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Bryce has removed most soapboxing, and seems to make good faith attempts to comply with whatever she is warned about. / edg ☺ ★ 18:14, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

For what it's worth, Susanbryce's soapboxing has been on the topic of the Philippines sex industry, whereas RodentofDeath's soapboxing has been repetitive defamatory personal attacks on Susan Bryce, calling Bryce a liar, pedophile, prostitute, childnapper, and insane person. Rodent's userpage has been deleted twice now, once for defamatation and attempted outing, another time for using copyvio in a page that also happened to be defamation of Susanbryce.

I don't wish to defend every edit Susanbryce (talk · contribs) has made, but it is frustrating to me that every complaint about RodentofDeath is met with the defense that Susanbryce probably did something to deserve this abuse. / edg ☺ ★ 22:42, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

The vandalism is easily reverted. Rodent is unlikely to be banned for vandalism because he presents plausible good-faith explanations for disruptive edits, which will either get him off the hook entirely, or negotiate any sanctions to very light. My concern is for months now this user has been honing personal attacks against another Wikipedia editor.

Tagging won't fix this. A dozen or so warning templates have been appended to User_talk:RodentofDeath, and he has been banned once. This editor has learned to stop short of behavior that would mandate a ban; however, RodentofDeath sticks to an agenda that is entirely disruptive and has the effect of deterring editors from contributing. / edg ☺ ★ 18:14, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Has any form of dispute resolution been attempted with this editor? Also, I've notified the editor of this discussion--Isotope23 ^talk 18:24, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

It has been suggested a few times.[84] I've not seen much interest. / edg ☺ ★ 22:42, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

the only "agenda" i have is to get rid of the lies posted on wikipedia about the city i live in. it seems that other editors are having a problem with the truth being posted and when the lies are taken out. when the truth is posted it gets labeled as an "Attack" for some odd reason. meanwhile, attacks and unfounded accusations are made not only on my city but now on me personally. my personal page has a press release from the Philippine Senate that comments on a smear campaign against my city. please comment on the posts and not the poster. thanks. RodentofDeath 19:04, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

RodentofDeath was certainly given a chance here. Nothing came of it. However, since then Rodent has certainly been able to focus on personal attacks against Susanbryce. / edg ☺ ★ 22:42, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

seems to me that the disagreement was between you and me and that a compromise was reached. it now seems that i am being accused of things i'm not doing, such as ip farming (still dont know what that is) and death threats. perhaps you need to go after the actual perpetrators of this instead of blaming it on me. RodentofDeath 04:38, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

im not too sure if im allowed to join in here, but if i am, id like to put forward what has happened as best as i can. i joined Wikipedia several months ago looking to be an active part of the community. Since then i have started several articles here on various subjects right across the board on the Philippines. ive also participated in other other articles. Im not an educated person, I never went to school, and english is my second language. i made some mistakes when i first joined due to harrasement by RodentofDeath. I didnt understand the way thinfs worked here and i was not getting an early support or advice, so some mistakes were made on my part, I admit it and I apoligize. But i sort out help from more experienced Editors I think starting with Phadeus86, from there numerous other Editors have been kind enough to guide me including Adhoc, Devalover and Edgarde. Ive always been giuded ny what they advised and followed that advice. I think I can safely say i have built a good working relationship with them all. Many of the subjects I touch on are difficult, but on advice from more experienced Editors im trying to contribute as best as I can. Over time I feel I have become a good Editor here on Wikipedia, im learning more all the time and im growing here and I hope to have a long future of many more articles on a wide range of topics. Almost from the beginning RodentofDeath set out with vile and degrading attacks against me. His postings on wikipedia have only been to hound me and nothing else, he has not contributed anything to wikipedia except attacking me. These attacks amount to the hndreds and hundreds over several months and still continue. Attacks against me include continuely calling me a prostitute, ifiot, lunitic, pedophile, etc. They are an attack against me as a human being and a woman and are set out to degrade, threaten, abuse , humiliate me, and i feel contain serious underlying threats to my life. i believe RodentofDeath has used multiple ip farming to attack me. its interesting that these same ip addresses are the ones that are sending death threats to my email including threats to rape and kill my daughter. Despite numerous pleas for help, i find these attacks against me in wikipedia are continuing. I contacted edgarde on this and asked if he could kindly refer this matter further. kind regards.Susanbryce 18:59, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

...and I again ask if dispute resolution has been pursued by anyone in regards to the conflict between RodentofDeath & Susanbryce? If not it is time to start; the current status quo of editing between these two editors is not helpful to the Encyclopedia.--Isotope23 ^talk 19:52, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

she has a conflict of interest on the articles i am editing and shouldnt be editing them to begin with. RodentofDeath 20:28, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Dispute resolution has been suggested a couple of times. I'd like to see a mediation between Susanbryce and RodentofDeath, but no one else seems keen on the idea. Since both parties seem to be reading this, I here endorse the idea again. / edg ☺ ★ 22:42, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

• I'm nearly insistent that some form of dispute resolution happen here if both of these editors wish to continue editing here. I'm not particularly interested how this dispute even started but it needs to stop before one or both of you are blocked from editing here. dispute resolution is your best path to avoid this happening and I urge you both to agree to mediation. Continuing down the current path of incivility/personal attacks is not going to end well.--Isotope23 ^talk 13:47, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Im 100% happy for this to go to dispute resolution and fully support this resolution as I always have. I also gaureentee to abide by the outcome of the resolution.Susanbryce 14:28, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

i'm a bit confused as to what exactly there is a dispute about that needs resolution. i posted a press release issued by the Senate of the Philippines that directly pertains to articles i am editing. in it it basically calls for the author of an internet petition to put up or shut up and disclose where atrocities in Angeles are actually happening or she will be considered to be running a smear campaign. press release has since been removed not because of content but because, unknowing to me previously, the "fair use" policy applies to articles only and not user pages. so where is the dispute now? RodentofDeath 15:40, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Well for starters, beyond simple fair use, you posted a press release in your userspace in regards to an ongoing series of article disputes you've had with another editor. That is soapboxing; besides, we are trying to build an encyclopedia here, not be an an aggregator of press releases.

From a very precursory look at the edit histories here I see quite a bit of incivility between you two though and I don't think removing that press release solves the root problem of the two of you constantly bickering over edits or accusing each other of malfeasance. This goes beyond simple article content dispute and seems to involve a fair bit of failure to assume good faith as well as bringing off-wiki disputes here and incivility towards specific editors. I urge dispute resolution because as I said above, if this behavior continues and escalates there is a very good chance that one or both of you will end up blocked from editing. Wikipedia is a collaborative effort and if you two are unable to collaborate, come to some sort of civil agreement, or leave each other alone, then someone else will likely need to step in here.--Isotope23 ^talk 15:57, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Is there any way to STOP once and for all these continuing verbal, vile and degrding attacks that RodentofDeath continues to post all over Wikipedia and till this point still continues? He seems to operate with total immunity and can post the vile and threatening attacks against me. Also, can we please have all these vile attacks he has posted removed? My daughter has read these, her school friends have read these. He continues to post over and over and over again in almost every post im a prostitiute, pedophile, etc. What have I ever done here on wikipedia to ever deserve this? PLEASE! im begging someone here to please stop this.Susanbryce 16:50, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Diffs? The response below is fairly incivil and unhelpful... but I'm not finding any evidence of "vile attacks"... if you can post page diffs here or at my talkpage I will look at them.--Isotope23 ^talk 18:13, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Some things here bother me. User:RodentofDeaths posts to talk-pages, which are mainly, utterly Un-Civil in all manner of ways. They go beyond that, in their almost complete focus on attacking, personally, another editor. Yet RD's edit summaries are informative and civil. [This one] is an exception - 09:42, 4 August 2007 (hist) (diff) Human trafficking in Angeles City (if you take the time to actually read the discussion yourself instead of telling me to do it you will see that the majority think Susan Bryce is nut.)

This attack occurred on the article page. It is right to insist that both editors either co-operate appropriately on particular articles, or else face being banned. More importantly, continuing personal attacks ought not to be tolerated. If RD has any factual material to contribute, which appears to be possible, this can in no way assist wikipedia if personal attacks by RD continue. RD, though a new contributor, has done much to generate ill-will, and been reproached on the user's talk-page by a number of concerned wikipedians.

Please note, this editor has no personal affiliation or acquaintence with either editor, or any party, nor the Philipines, nor editted any of the articles in question. Newbyguesses - Talk 00:28, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

the edit summary is not an attack. i am not accusing her of being a nut. if someone were to actually were to do as i asked in the summary and go back over the histories of the article and talk pages of susan's personal page, the Human Trafficking in Angeles article and the Angeles City article you will see that there are many, many editors that say either the things she is putting in the articles are completely nuts or they comment on the editor herself. i would guess that a very large number of them consist of people that are not native english speakers.

looking up the city you live in and seeing lies posted about it by someone that is running a smear campaign against your city is no way to welcome new users. no doubt they don't stick around very long and dont wish to argue the point in english. however, that does not make their opinions any less valid. RodentofDeath 08:42, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

response from rodentofdeath

ok, lets set the record straight here since we seem to be getting more lies and distortions already. When i started editing the article on the city i live in and subsequently the human trafficking article on the city i live in it was a complete mess. i politely went about trying to remove obvious lies such as 150,000 of Angeles's 280,000 residents are prostitutes. to save everyone the few seconds of brain power it would require to process that figure i can tell you that yes, that means more than half or all the residents (grandmas, grandpas, babies, girls, boys, teachers, police, etc) of the city are prostitutes. even when faced with obvious errors such as this it still became impossible to delete the error without a battle. the list of errors inserted into the articles is very long and wide-ranging. everything from lies saying the Angeles has the highest AIDS rate in the Philippines (it doesnt) to insisting this first class city be called a slum has been inserted into the article at every opportunity. even when presented with well documented facts from reliable sources the editor refused to face reality and instead resorted to accusing me of attacking her.

by far the largest lie inserted seems to be this ongoing obsession that angeles is filled with pedophiles, foreign gangs and rapists. of course angeles isnt actually filled with any of that so in order for her delusions to actually work there must also be a huge government conspiracy involving local, national and international governments and organizations. now when faced with the facts that there is either very little records of their being crimes of this type or the fact that there are no crimes of this type reported it simply becomes an unsubstantiated government conspiracy to cover it up. it also seems that a few other editors have an unusual reluctance to believe that angeles is NOT filled with pedophiles when faced with the facts, such as crime statistics or arrest records and now even senate inquiries that come up empty handed.

susan also at one time put a fictional story on her page. it was a rather absurd fictional story about a woman that heard a kid screaming as they were being put in a car and how she ran to pull this child away from the person putting them in the car. in the process of trying to kidnap the child she was stabbed multiple times. i later put a rather similar version of the same fictional story on my page with a slightly different view. it was of a woman that runs up to a car and tries to kidnap a child from the child's step-father resulting in the step-father defending his child from being kidnapped. this is what is apparently being considered an "attack" and it was deleted from my page. (its ok, i'm not fond of fiction anyway).

now let's get down to specifics of what i have said about susan. she claims i have continually called her:

a prostitute. the truth is i only called her a former prostitute. i only say this because it is true. it was her occupation at one time according to information she posted. she was born and raised in a brothel in a town filled with pedophiles and child prostitutes. it may even be her occupation now but i have no information about her current occupation so i will not venture a guess.

an ifiot. sorry, i dont ever recall calling you an ifiot. i'm dont even know what an ifiot is. for someone that claims to be a journalist i have noticed quite a few spelling errors on your part. in case you meant idiot instead of ifiot i also dont recall calling you that either. i may have said some of things you say are idiotic and i stand by that statement. if you can find where i called you an ifiot or an idiot please post a link so i can refresh my memory on what was being discussed.

a lunitic. dont recall calling you that either but i did call you a lunatic. i'm not sure what other word would be better to describe someone that thinks there are many people out to kill them, there are various government conspiracies, the media is trying to kill them, the philippine senate is against them and there are pedophiles gangs and rapists everywhere killing everyone in the city they come from. they are the only person that knows where everyone is being killed and so now everyone is out to get them. perhaps delusional would have been a better word. i actually stand by my assessment of your mental condition and i am sure others will agree (but perhaps only secretly!!). however, i do apologize not for my assessment of your mental state but for sharing my assessment of it with others.

a pedophile. sorry, i dont recall ever calling you a pedophile either. i do recall calling the priest you associate with a pedophile. you know which priest i mean, right? the one that was arrested for molesting the 9 year old girl and went into hiding rather than face charges?? its a good thing he didnt have to go to trial but instead got a pardon (from a secratary of the president while he was in the process being ousted in a coup). he was then able to come out of hiding. its all very well documented somewhere but not here on wikipedia. it got deleted, oddly enough.

i dont see how any of this equates to threatening you life as you claim it does. i also dont see how these four incidents could add up to hundreds and hundreds of threatening and humiliating posts. even if you math was bad i dont believe it could be that bad.

about this "multiple ip farming" thing.... i dont really understand that. Edg and now you have used this term and i honestly dont know what an ip farm is. perhaps i dont need to know the specifics seems it seems logical enough that you are accusing me of something else that i didnt do. again. i dont threaten people. thats silly as far as i am concerned. for what it worth i feel sorry for you if you are indeed getting death threats, although i have serious doubts that you are. i suggest you contact the authorities if you have not already. contact the ones that arent part of the conspiracy please.

i really dont care about your personal life, susan. all i know is what you post on the internet. things like you were born and raised in a brothel on fields that is still there, apparently. i dont care about you family life. i dont care what country you are in. i dont have nor do i want your email address. i simply dont care that much. my concern is correcting the lies you are posting on the internet about my city.

on a side note, wouldn't it be easier to tell everyone where the atrocities you post about are actually happening?? there are authorities that are trying to find and help the victims you post about but are unable to locate any signs of victims or illegal activities. please don't continue to delay in doing so.

sorry this is long winded but i feel its necessary to respond to these accusations. i wonder if it would be possible to keep these accusations all in one place so it does not continue to be spread out to other pages where it doesnt belong. RodentofDeath 20:28, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

• OK, but do you not understand how incivil much of what you've written above is? I mean you are deriding someone else over their spelling... it's wholly unnecessary, doesn't contribute to a collaborative effort, and frankly is juvenile. As I've stated above, you both need to enter into dispute resolution--Isotope23 ^talk 13:47, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Mediation

I misreported something. Apparently, Susanbryce has agreed to mediation several times, most recently on my Talk page.[85]

Would RodentofDeath agree to mediation? Most observers consider this a good idea. / edg ☺ ★ 16:10, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

SURE!! what exactly are we mediating? RodentofDeath 18:25, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

For starters, the content of Human trafficking in Angeles City would be a good idea.--Isotope23 ^talk 18:27, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

ok. susan has a direct conflict of interest and should not be editing that article. anything else? RodentofDeath 18:45, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

well let's see how good this mediation process really is. susan has an obvious conflict of interest on the Human Trafficking in Angeles page. she should not be editing it. please see Talk:Human_trafficking_in_Angeles_City#Campaigning. she has now reverted the page for no apparent reason other than it was last edited by me. so before this becomes a revert war i wish to know the outcome of the mediation and why she is able to revert to a biased version without discussion or consensus. RodentofDeath 17:04, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

no comments on her revert war? nobody wants to intervene? RodentofDeath 19:43, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

susan is now inserting lovely phrases such as this (referring to sexually transmitted disease and women and children) "Some men said that it served them right to be infected by men."

i'm all for assuming good faith but at what point do we call a spade a spade? is anybody going to stop this non-sense? RodentofDeath 20:44, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

i just noticed susan is also pushing her attack of Angeles on the Angeles City article itself. The Senate of the Philippines has accused her of running a smear campaign here.[86] i think her bias and personal agenda against the Philippines has now been well documented. RodentofDeath 02:36, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Does this mean you will participate in a mediation? Administrator's Noticeboard is not generally the place to arbitrate editors' disputes on details of article content. / edg ☺ ★ 20:31, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Why can't we say "Wikipedia is not a battleground, nor is it a soapbox here and be done with it? ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 16:50, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

If wishing made it so... / edg ☺ ★ 20:32, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

quite frankly, i wish if she had any information about human trafficking in angeles she would report it to the authorities as they and even the Senate of the Philippines have requested. instead she seems to wish to continue to print lies and distortions on wikipedia in order to further her smear campaign. RodentofDeath 08:32, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Potential legal threat made by the owner of stickycarpet.com/dam

FYI, please see the comments made by the owner of www.stickycarpet.com/dam at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam#stickycarpet.com (permanent link). I'm posting this note here as a "heads up"; I do not know if any administrator action is required yet.

IP addresses:

• 194.203.91.252 (talk • contribs • links • count • user logs • x-wiki • noticeboards • link archives || WHOIS • RDNS • traceroute • RBLs • tor • Google)
• 213.123.37.252 (talk • contribs • links • count • user logs • x-wiki • noticeboards • link archives || WHOIS • RDNS • traceroute • RBLs • tor • Google)
• 80.189.122.144 (talk • contribs • links • count • user logs • x-wiki • noticeboards • link archives || WHOIS • RDNS • traceroute • RBLs • tor • Google)
• 80.189.15.230 (talk • contribs • links • count • user logs • x-wiki • noticeboards • link archives || WHOIS • RDNS • traceroute • RBLs • tor • Google)
• 80.189.221.52 (talk • contribs • links • count • user logs • x-wiki • noticeboards • link archives || WHOIS • RDNS • traceroute • RBLs • tor • Google)
• 80.189.226.59 (talk • contribs • links • count • user logs • x-wiki • noticeboards • link archives || WHOIS • RDNS • traceroute • RBLs • tor • Google)
• 80.189.243.130 (talk • contribs • links • count • user logs • x-wiki • noticeboards • link archives || WHOIS • RDNS • traceroute • RBLs • tor • Google)
• 80.189.8.114 (talk • contribs • links • count • user logs • x-wiki • noticeboards • link archives || WHOIS • RDNS • traceroute • RBLs • tor • Google)
• 80.2.194.51 (talk • contribs • links • count • user logs • x-wiki • noticeboards • link archives || WHOIS • RDNS • traceroute • RBLs • tor • Google)
• 91.125.108.44 (talk • contribs • links • count • user logs • x-wiki • noticeboards • link archives || WHOIS • RDNS • traceroute • RBLs • tor • Google)
• 91.125.198.147 (talk • contribs • links • count • user logs • x-wiki • noticeboards • link archives || WHOIS • RDNS • traceroute • RBLs • tor • Google)
• 91.125.208.144 (talk • contribs • links • count • user logs • x-wiki • noticeboards • link archives || WHOIS • RDNS • traceroute • RBLs • tor • Google)
• 91.125.221.41 (talk • contribs • links • count • user logs • x-wiki • noticeboards • link archives || WHOIS • RDNS • traceroute • RBLs • tor • Google)
• 91.125.24.177 (talk • contribs • links • count • user logs • x-wiki • noticeboards • link archives || WHOIS • RDNS • traceroute • RBLs • tor • Google)
• 91.125.36.200 (talk • contribs • links • count • user logs • x-wiki • noticeboards • link archives || WHOIS • RDNS • traceroute • RBLs • tor • Google)
• 91.125.43.141 (talk • contribs • links • count • user logs • x-wiki • noticeboards • link archives || WHOIS • RDNS • traceroute • RBLs • tor • Google)
• 91.15.200.169 (talk • contribs • links • count • user logs • x-wiki • noticeboards • link archives || WHOIS • RDNS • traceroute • RBLs • tor • Google)

--A. B. ^(talk) 16:52, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

I did not see a legal threat. I saw the blocked guy making a claim that he believes the edits to be libelous, but not "I intend to contact my lawyer or take legal action", nothing even close to that. Then, 3 or 4 other people jumped on him to stuff the legal threat policy down his throat, when he did not actually make a "threat". Remember, there are TWO WORDS to legal threat, and the second one is the most important one. There's no need to give him a lecture on the differences between libel and slander. Simply point him towards WP:NLT, and give him the OTRS email address, and it will be dealt with.⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 17:09, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

OK, thanks for the advice. Personally, I think it's ambiguous and could be construed either way; others, as you pointed out, took as a threat while you did not. I left all those links not to hector the guy but so he could try to figure out whether he wanted to be on a legal track or a discussion track. I'm always wary of editors using WP:LEGAL as a means of squashing dissent -- when you read the actual policy, that's not what it's about.

I'm glad I posted here and I will do as you've recommended. Thanks again, --A. B. ^(talk) 17:20, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Holy sockfarm, Batman! I'm with Swatjester: Tell him to shove off, or we'll put on some range blocks. Massive spamming, massive sockpuppetry, and legal threats for removing spam to boot. Please report back if it continues. The Evil Spartan 18:11, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

I've already blocked some of the individual IPs, but just for 48h, however I doubt if this will continue if we just blacklist the site they are trying to spam. Tim Vickers 21:38, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Regarding legal threats: diff. "If you wish to blacklist the site then you are free to do so but as I have a reputation to up-hold in the 'real world' being a journalist, if my identity continues to be libelled in this manner then I am going to seek guidance as to how to proceed against both yourself and Mr. Goldberg for unproven and libellous misinformation against me." Now, he or some other unknown IP did tone it down later, as I see now in hindsight, but, to me, that reads like (again, this is MY interpertation) "If you blacklist me, I'll sue". That's just my take on it, however. --SXT4^{$\color {Red}\oplus$} 06:34, 12 August 2007 (UTC)