Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive158

Inappropriate picture?

Resolved

 – Image deleted by Gwen Gale as lacking source/licensing info, possible copyvio. –xeno (talk) 14:14, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm the first to admit that I'm not the most knowledgeable admin when it comes to image policy, so maybe I'm missing something, but this image doesn't sit right with me. Of course Wikipedia isn't censored, and I don't doubt that the uploader took the picture, but I don't see any assertion that the model willingly posed for the picture. Again, I'm not the best with images, but given the nature of the image aren't there personality rights or something that we have to take into account? I could be completely wrong here, and if so please set me straight. :-) faithless (^speak) 01:40, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

I believe the personality rights policy you're looking for is commons:COM:PEOPLE. While we don't require written model releases or anything, images taken in public and images that are obviously posed and uploaded by an editor in good standing are generally viewed more favorably than images that were taken surreptitiously or in private settings and uploaded by an unknown quantity. See Commons:Deletion requests/Image:One Stop Piercing Shop 1.jpg for a recent example of this in action.

Of course, this only applies to identifiable people--images without a visible face or other obvious identifying features visible are generally only a concern if it becomes apparent that they were taken inappropriately (e.g. upskirt shots) or depict a minor in a sexual or otherwise inappropriate nature. And of course, we are generally willing to delete images if the model requests they be taken down. --jonny-mt 01:54, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

From the above link: Normally not OK - Nudes, underwear or swimsuit shots, unless obviously taken in a public place (unreasonable intrusion without consent). So since it's on a beach - I guess we're OK, yes? Follow up question, is having a nude photo appropriate in Bikini? People might not be expecting one. –xeno (talk) 01:59, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Should be all right here--I believe this picture is posed to boot. As far as nudity in Bikini goes, I've always been a big fan of nudity in the proper context, so if it's appropriate then I don't have any problems with it personally. --jonny-mt 02:45, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

(ec)This search (note - also NSFW unless you work in a strip club etc) shows a monokini generally to be a one piece bathing suit, so I'm not sure how much use a picture of a topless woman is in this context. Kevin (talk) 02:46, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

IMO, monokini should have its own article, and be forked from the bikini article. Bikini article can have bikinis and a monokini article can have monokinis and pictures of them. Makes sense to me. Not sure why it's part of one article. Enigma ^message 02:47, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

I suppose fair warning is given in the lead paragraph. =) –xeno (talk) 02:50, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't personally have a problem with this sort of picture in context, but a search with TinEye and some followup work with the Internet Archive shows that this picture is all over voyeur picture forums, and has been for coming up on two years. E.g. [1]. That makes it highly likely that this is not legitimately licensed under the GFDL. William Pietri (talk) 06:15, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

The fact that the uploader removed himself as author also lends credence to this. –xeno (talk) 12:48, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Yep, snap's ok for an article like bikini but the licensing info seems more than dodgy. Gwen Gale (talk) 12:59, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Tagged for speedy deletion as lacking permission from author for a non-fair use image. -mattbuck (Talk) 14:03, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

I've deleted the image as lacking source/licensing info, possible copyvio. Gwen Gale (talk) 14:07, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Protecting Children's Privacy

Could an administrator respond to the concerns in this thread [2]? There is personal information of minors in the thread above it. Could an administrator delete the age of specific young Wikipedians mentioned in the thread [3][4]? There may be others, but those were the ones I saw. Thanks. Ripberger (talk) 06:51, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

I wasn't aware age was considered personal information. BJ^Talk 08:28, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Generally self-identifying as a minor is removed, due to the privacy concerns for the minor, see Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Protecting children's privacy for more details. MBisanz ^talk 08:37, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

The ArbCom page says "children", not "minors". Some people need to read the ArbCom ruling more closely; it says to remove such information when "appropriate", not to blindly blank and be proud of ourselves for being "protective". —Kurykh 08:52, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Yawn. I don't think anybody seriously believes that a child disclosing their age is a threat to the child's safety. — Werdna • talk 09:03, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Age on it's own isn't great, IMO, but still isn't the end of the world. Age plus school/full name/location = Not Good™. It's just a matter of using common sense, folks - Alison ^❤ 09:20, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

ER, Kurykh childen = minors (in a legal sense). KoshVorlon > rm -r WP:F.U.R 13:09, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't think ArbCom intended to force all admins to remove all references of age if the number happens to be <18. —Kurykh 18:01, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

POV in Indian articles

Hi there is an IP address probably from India which is wreaking havoc with some of the Bollywood articles. See his contributions. He persistently keeps adding POV to an article or glorifying an actor or film further than they or it actually is. It is a major nuisance for the editors on here who work on Indian cinema articles to have to keep reverting him day in day out just to maintain some sense of article neutrality. He has been warned many times and his persistence has resulted in edit conflicts on more than just a few articles. Could you please warn and/or block him and try to make him aware of wikipedias neutrality and why his edits which are intent on putting POV or glorifying the subject of the article unnecesarily may be construed as against policy and therefore vandalism. Its doing my nut it keeping track of him. User:Shshshsh (Shahid) raised my awarenss of it initially and other editors such as totalfilmi99 have to keep reverting him e.g here. Should he be blocked do you think? This is an exmaple of the kind of crap he keeps putting in articles ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ ^$1,000,000? 17:06, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Has been blocked by Tanthalas39 already. Bring it back if IP is still disruptive after 31 hour block. Cheers. lifebaka (talk - contribs) 17:23, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Will do. ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ ^$1,000,000? 17:43, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Can anyone help at WP:SSP?

I know it looks daunting, but even a little bit can go a long way. We lost User:Shalom Yechiel and a few others who used to look at sockpuppet cases. Now it gets very little attention from admins, or anyone, actually. Enigma ^message 06:11, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, I took care of 9 of them... Still 50+ left to deal with. SQL^{Query me!} 08:48, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you kindly. Enigma ^message 09:40, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

I had a look there but was dissuaded by the lack of instructions. Is there anything non-admins can do there? SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 19:35, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

You do not have to be an administrator, although it helps. If you're not an administrator, you can look through the evidence and give your opinion, so that when an admin comes, there's less work for them to do. That's what User:Shalom Yechiel used to do, even though he wasn't an admin. Enigma ^message 19:38, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Location articles

For some reason all of the articles about cities and towns are coming out malformatted. Check out Tenafly, NJ, Newark, NJ, etc... I thought it might have something to do with the template but I check out Template:Infobox Settlement which are used in these articles and don't see anything wrong.--Jersey Devil (talk) 06:41, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't see any malformation. Fixed already? —Wknight94 (talk) 11:23, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

I still see it. Like the infoboxes for these articles are on the left and it brings down all the article content below it.--Jersey Devil (talk) 13:39, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Looks ok to me too. Try purging your cache. Synergy 13:43, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Did that and it still looked malformed. Then I just changed the skin and went back to the same articles and it looked fine. It seems that the articles only show up messed up for the "Modern" skin for some reason.--Jersey Devil (talk) 19:06, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, about 15 hours ago, the site was updated, and the Modern and Simple skins were broken in the process (bugzilla:14954). The issue has been fixed internally and will go live sometime soon-ish. --MZMcBride (talk) 19:09, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Alright, thanks for letting me know. I thought I was the only one that was seeing it and was crazy lol thanks I'll just keep a different skin until those skins get fixed.--Jersey Devil (talk) 19:16, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

User:HighKing

Could someone please deal with this user. He is causing aggrovation and conflict all over the place, and has been for months now, in his relentless campaign to rid Wikipedia of British Isles. I'm concerned with GENUKI and similar articles, but his trolling is affecting a very wide area of this encyclopedia. Is there nothing than can be done to stop this user - apparently not, so far! 82.14.71.91 (talk) 16:05, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

You might want to back your claim up with some diffs, as I'm not seeing what the problem is. Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 16:15, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Just look at pretty much any article edit HighKing makes. All he ever does is remove "British Isles" from articles. This is getting out of hand, a look at his talk page archives shows this issue has been brought up with him time and time again. Chillum 16:18, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Has anyone notified the user of this thread? I don't see it on his talkpage. Perhaps there's some methodology here that is easily explained or workable? Keeper ǀ 76 16:33, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Nevermind, I just did. Cheers, Keeper ǀ 76 16:36, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Looking deeper, this does seem like a problem. Maybe a possible block is in order. Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 16:38, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

I support a block at this point, perhaps 48 hours with a warning to stop or face longer blocks. Also, 82 did notify HighKing of this thread[5]. Chillum 16:40, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Oh and if you look in the archives of WP:AN and WP:ANI you will see that this issue has come up a few times in the past both as HighKing and his old name Bardcom. Chillum 16:43, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

My apologies, Chillum (and IP), I don't know how I didn't see that diff, sorry for the redundancy. The frequency of "issues" doesn't have anything to do with the current post from IP 82 or the subsequent notification, but I should've still seen that diff, it was my error for not. Stepping out. Keeper ǀ 76 16:45, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

In response specifically to the anon IP complainer above, the consensus on the GENUKI article was that because the primary source - the GENUKI website itself - described the top level as "Common to all of British Isles", then the article continued to use the term. The GENUKI website appears to have been updated and has corrected this anomalous usage. Since the consensus was to agree with the primary source, I've changed the article to now reflect "Common to all of the United Kingdom and Ireland". This has also been explained on the article Talk page. It's a case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT or most likely WP:IVECHANGEDMYMINDABOUTAGREEINGTOUSETHEPRIMARYSOURCEASTHEWAYTODECIDETHIS.

In response specifically to the suggestion of a block, I have spent most of the day discussing with User:DdStretch some of the edits, and I've provided references for each. @Julian, you say there seems to be a problem - please take the time to look closer at my edits, and the discussions. Each edit is correcting an incorrect use of the term "British Isles", with references. This takes a lot of time on my account, and I do not edit any article that takes my fancy, but only those that are incorrect. If you follow my discussion with User:Ddstretch (an admin) today, you will see this. --HighKing (talk) 16:49, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Your reasons change as the situation changes, but the result is always the same, the removal of the term "British Isles". This speaks volumes to me. You seem to be on Wikipedia for one purpose only. Chillum 16:58, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

@Chillum, you have taken an interest in this for quiet some time, always making loose and foggy accusations and generally just adding to the background noise. Please be specific. What reasons have changed? What specific edits do you object to? Where did you discuss them? This speaks more to me as at least I can have a stab at responding to the accusations. --HighKing (talk) 17:04, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Sorry but there was no consensus on the GENUKI Talk page, you just left it alone in the face of contra arguments. But then, presumably not wanting to be defeated, you've come back for another go at getting rid of British Isles. You say you do not edit any article that takes your fancy - no, it appears that you look at articles linked to British Isles and then knock them off, one after another. 82.14.71.91 (talk) 16:57, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Sorry but there was no consensus on the GENUKI Talk page, you just left it alone in the face of contra arguments. But then, presumably not wanting to be defeated, you've come back for another go at getting rid of British Isles. You say you do not edit any article that takes your fancy - no, it appears that you look at articles linked to British Isles and then knock them off, one after another. 82.14.71.91 (talk) 16:57, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Check the article Talk page for the discussion and agreement. --HighKing (talk) 17:04, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Finally, there are a lot of British editors on Wikipedia that simply give a knee-jerk reaction when they see an accusation that someone is removing the term "British Isles" - I expect this reaction at this stage. The previous WP:AN and WP:ANI were rejected because it is seen as a content dispute. I respectfully request any admins looking at this to consider if this is a case of some editors over-reacting when they see this accusation, and not looking beyond this to see if my edits are making the encyclopedia better and more accurate. I am always civil, and always AGF, and always am happy to discuss and am very responsive. I always welcome collaboration on articles. Last night, I disagreed with User:CarterBar over some articles, and we agreed to take some time to think about it and we'd talk later today - the articles are remaining with the phrase "British Isles" in the meantime. If you check out my edits and comments and general behaviour over the past couple of days or longer, I believe you will see for yourselves that once again there appears to be an over-reaction taking place. Thank you. --HighKing (talk) 17:04, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

"I do not edit any article that takes my fancy, but only those that are incorrect" falsely alleges Bardcom. Challenge Cup was right until Bardcom went near it (source). He does not edit articles that are "incorrect", but ones he thinks are incorrect based on usually nothing more than his ill-informed opinion. EmpireForever (talk) 17:01, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

That's a different competition and a different cup. Your recent edits have now added incorrect facts to the article. You might want to revert yourself. (Kinda proves the theory that it's a lot easier to use the term "British Isles" incorrectly that correcting the articles after you...) Also, another SPA focused on my edits, the editor who brought the failed ANI. Checkuser anyone? --HighKing (talk) 17:14, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Wrong, as anyone with a basic knowledge of rugby league knows. There is only one rugby league Challenge Cup in the British Isles, see this for some information to show it is the correct one (source). My edit was right, yours was not. EmpireForever (talk) 17:27, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

For an account that seems to have only one purpose, I find it surprising you would be pointing out a SPA. Chillum 17:16, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Or maybe you only see what you set out to look for.... I've edited on many technology articles, on Irish articles, on local Dublin articles, on whiskey and sport related articles. And I've never denied my interest in housekeeping on the term British Isles either, but makes me an SPA in the same way that WMC is a global warming SPA. Different than EmpireForever. Checkuser anyone?  :-) I think it would be enlightening... --HighKing (talk) 17:29, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Well I will be honest, I only checked your last dozen or so contribs each time you ended up on this noticeboard, about 3 or so times, and each time your edits were pretty much just that. If you are doing other things then I guess I would have to sift deeper to find them. Chillum 17:30, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough - most of the time attention is drawn only when activity on the subject is more than normal. BTW, it's pretty hard to put up with attitudes like this though. --HighKing (talk) 17:34, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

And this --HighKing (talk) 17:36, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Wow. And now it's gone all quiet again. Huh. The diffs above are pretty racist. Anybody want to do something about them? --HighKing (talk) 17:49, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

A block on User:HighKing is not necessary. When looking at his edits in detail you can see he does a bit of other stuff as well, but not much. What's needed here is something to stop him editing articles to remove the usage of British Isles. That's where all the aggravation is caused, and there's a lot of it. He really does cause a problem and it looks like it has been going on since about March. He must stop this provocative editing. 82.14.71.91 (talk) 20:25, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Bardcom/HighKing's crusade against Britishness is continuing. He is removing sources that use British Isles, for no apparent reason. This really should be stopped. EmpireForever (talk) 23:34, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

You are edit-warring on many articles. You refuse to discuss on the article Talk page. You refuse to discuss on any Talk page. You're up to your maximum edits on several pages, and now you're trying to pull the wool over the eyes of people here. Also, comments referring to Irish as terrorists (and I hope you weren't aiming that at me personally) is frowned upon and deserves to get you a block. --HighKing (talk) 23:41, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

"You are edit-warring on many articles" - pot, meet kettle. At least my edits have reliable sources, the ones you remove because they contain British Isles. EmpireForever (talk) 23:46, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

• NOTE: Both HighKing and EmpireForever have been blocked for edit warring over the addition and removal of the term "British Isles". Chillum 03:07, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Another sockpuppet

User:Rebafan11 is a known sockpuppet who continues to insert false info in articles. Please check into the edits this sockpupper has made. Steelbeard1 (talk) 21:57, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

A "known sockpuppet" in this case meaning: someone with a "suspected sockpuppet" tag on their user page, added by User:Neutralhomer. Hmm. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 00:26, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I noticed that User:Tanthalas39 has blocked this account. Steelbeard1 (talk) 02:30, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Arbitration Committee motions for discretionary sanctions

The Arbitration Committee has rendered decisions passing two motions to apply discretionary sanctions remedies to three prior cases. Any uninvolved administrator may, on his or her own discretion, impose sanctions on any editor working in the areas of conflict if, despite being warned, that editor repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process.

The areas of conflicts have been defined as "articles which relate to pseudoscience, broadly interpreted" for the Martinphi-ScienceApologist and Pseudoscience cases, and as "articles which relate to Eastern Europe, broadly interpreted" for the Digwuren case.

The final text of the motions can be found at the case pages linked above.

— Coren ^(talk) for the Arbitration Committee, 14:18, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

"Eastern Europe, broadly interpreted" is an "area of conflict"? This means that anything associated with Eastern Europe is covered by the ruling? Everyking (talk) 08:40, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

That would be how I would interpret it, although I would apply a bit of common sense; an edit war over Anna Kournikova's bust size is not likely to be a nationalism-based dispute, although she is from Eastern Europe. Horologium (talk) 11:28, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Is it supposed to be applied only in cases where nationalism is involved? Everyking (talk) 11:45, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Nationalism was the underlying cause of the whole Digwuren case, and remedy 8 addresses that concern, although the arbcom did not use the incendiary term "nationalism". Horologium (talk) 13:06, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Broadly interpreted it would mean everything east of Switzerland and west of the Urals. Surely the committee can afford to tighten up the wording a bit. — CharlotteWebb 12:47, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Deleting images

Does any admin find that when they delete images and choose the "Reason for deletion" dropdown menu, they couldn't find most of the CSD criteria (e.g. CSD I8) but instead presented with a dropdown normally for deleting articles? OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 16:59, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

I'd noticed that it's poorly equipped to handle deletions under CSD other than the general and article ones. I could add support for images in a jiffy, if you'd like. lifebaka (talk - contribs) 17:02, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

I've got my personal suggestions at User:Lifebaka/Sandbox#Image delete reasons, but some might be able to be left out or combined. Cheers. lifebaka (talk - contribs) 17:10, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

You can always add User:AuburnPilot/csd.js to your monobook. It's a copy of ^demon's old script and contains all of the speedy criteria. - auburnpilot talk 19:14, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Script works great, but... if the image has an existing talk page, the script fails to work. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 03:23, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm all for adding more options to the list, but it should probably be put up for discussion at WP:VPP or somewhere else larger than here. Cheers. lifebaka (talk - contribs) 12:02, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

They were there, but removed like 1 or 2 days ago for some reason that I don't know. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 14:30, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

List of articles I've created?

Resolved

Quick question: is there a simple way of compiling a list of all the articles I've created? -- ChrisO (talk) 08:22, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Toolserver tool. --MZMcBride (talk) 08:27, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Also, in the future, questions like these should be directed to the help desk, which specializes in answering Wikipedia-related questions. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk ♦ contribs) @ 08:28, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Transwiki to Wiktionary broken ?

Hi. Could someone please review this : WP:Editor assistance/Requests#Copying_to_Wiktionary and see if something is actually broken, or if we're just confused....or both :-) Thanks. CultureDrone (talk) 11:42, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Pinged the bot operator at wikt:User talk:Connel MacKenzie#w:User:CopyToWiktionaryBot (spiffy link). So, we'll get somewhere on it as soon as possible. Cheers. lifebaka (talk - contribs) 11:56, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Obama-related articles under article probation

Talk:Obama/Article_probation. Although this remedy should assist in taking effective action, whenever needed, it will still require uninvolved sysops to enforce them.

Individual uninvolved administrators are requested to intervene accordingly if and whenever concerns/issues are raised in relation to this area of editing (or certain users editing in this area). It is my understanding that this request has been echoed by several involved parties in this area, as well as members of the Arbitration Committee (in response to the recently rejected request for arbitration on this area). Thanks - Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:39, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

autoblock collateral damage

Resolved

User_talk:TaborL#Please_unblock_my_account.

Can someone who knows how help with this? I'm not sure how fix that. This is the second time I've seen something like this. Can someone tell me how to fix it? J.delanoy^gabs_adds 19:13, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

First make sure they are autoblocked and not blocked directly, and then just unblock the autoblock -

Block ID: 1003024 (ipblocklist • unblock)

^^^ –xeno (talk) 19:17, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

OK, thanks. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 19:18, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

192.138.70.245

This IP address is registered to a government military organization and appears to have been making some POV edits recently, but I don't have the time to look any more into it. Can someone else investigate these edits? --Chris (talk) 19:29, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

The POV edit been resolved in the usual way, other people came and changed it and yet other people changed it, I changed it a bit, and likely someone else has changed it again since. The other edits were to articles such as Desilu Productions, which doesn't strike me as being something a military based user is going to get too pointy about. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:45, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I have unblocked User:VigilancePrime.

The following discussion is archived. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

No fool will unblock; community ban in effect. — CharlotteWebb 15:25, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

---

I have unblocked User:VigilancePrime. He has given me assurances that the issues that led to his indefinite block will not recur. Thanks, Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 22:18, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

I have concerns about this Morven. I've been in email contact with him because he asked me to help him get unblocked. I said I wasn't prepared to do that without an assurance that he stayed well away from the pedophile article topic. His editing there was less than helpful, and I suspect he would have been swiftly blocked solely for his POV pushing on those articles not to long after he created the userboxes. He made no such assurance to me, and made it clear he was to continue his battles with the anti-pedophilia group of editors - he said he'd never agree to edit under such terms. Personally - I think this unblock is going to increase the problems on those articles and will lead to a lot more work, for very little gain. If this unblock is to stay, I'd like to suggest a community restriction banning him from any pedophile related articles or pedophile topic discussions on Wikipedia. Ryan Postlethwaite 22:24, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

I am extremely uncomfortable with this as well. "he has given me assurances..." They must be pretty darn good assurances then, because I'm not convinced yet. Wizardman 22:26, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

They were. If he returns and causes problems I have no problem with reblocking him, and no problem with anyone else doing so. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 22:55, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

So clue us in: what, exactly, were those assurances? --Calton | Talk 23:04, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Primarily that he will avoid the pedophile articles completely. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 23:10, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

In my Wikipedia experience, an editor who makes an undertaking to avoid a subject area or even specific articles does so publicly, by way of a personal statement on his/her User page or, if unable or unwilling to make such a statement, is given an article or topic ban. Enforcing something as nebulous as a statement of "primarily, he will avoid the pedophile articles completely" on this page that will be archived in just a few days would be problematical, to say the least. Perhaps Morwen can publish the unblock conditions on Prime's talk page for all to know and understand, including Prime himself. Clarity is useful to all. ៛ Bielle (talk) 23:24, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Done so. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 23:37, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

I think if he stays away from PAW then this is okay as a PAW member. Thanks, SqueakBox 23:59, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Support unblock, based on the topic restriction as posted on the user's talk page. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 01:03, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

I should add - Ryan is correct that pedophile topic discussions (talk pages and Wikipedia-space) are also of concern; I strongly support inclusion of those pages under the restriction. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 01:09, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

I strongly disagree with this idea, seems to overly broad and could be misconstrued. Would he have been wrong to comment in that shameful bash-jeffpw thread that is happening on AN/I? I do not support allowing people back only to set them up to fail, not that I think he deserved to be banned in the first place.

On a side note, it is pleasing to see that ArbCom is trying to reform. I'm glad to see that open discussion and community input is no longer forbidden. Now if you would kindly vacate the secret trials bit, I think that would put everyone at ease. --Dragon695 (talk) 02:23, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

• Som,etimes I'm slow: Which "shameful bash-jeffpw thread that is happening on AN/I?" - brenneman 04:15, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

• As long as he does not make any edit or comment that is related to paedophilia or promoting a pro-paedophile agenda, there will be no problem. If he does, he gets blocked again, so the problem will be of limited duration. I remember VP as a tendentious editor, but that too can be watched. Guy (Help!) 20:33, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Oh the one which ostensibly started as a legitimate criticism of Haiduc's misrepresentations of sources but quickly descended into name calling and vieled insinuations. Anyways, like I said, I have very little faith in ArbCom these days, but signs of change are encouraging. Now if they would only resolve C68-FM-SV, preferably by strongly adressing the long-term problems caused by certain administrators. After Slim's little stunt on wikien-l against Lar, I should hope that people have re-evaluated her usefulness to the project. --Dragon695 (talk) 20:24, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

I suspect that the verdict there is "trainwreck, unfixable". For example, the trolls who hate SV and obsess over that hatred have made it virtually impossible to address any purported issue with SV's behaviour, a kind of self-fulfilling circle of hate which feeds into SV's feeling of persecution, a feeling which is at least 50% justified. Feel free to become part of the solution, if you have a really good new idea (emphasis on new). Guy (Help!) 23:15, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

• I will input here, and reply to some of the comments above. Firstly, the agreement was the following:

------------

VigilancePrime: I understand that the userboxes describing four types of sexual orientation were not allowed on Wikipedia.
VigilancePrime: I'll never make pro-pedophilia userboxes ever on Wikipedia (and, in point of fact, never have).
VigilancePrime: I will refrain from editing pro-pedophilia articles/edits on Wikipedia, to the extent allowed by neutrality.

In other words: Understand some people will contrive any excuse to hate you, continue to not make userboxes that are POV-pushing in the pedophilia realm, and continue to stick to a strict policy of neutrality. Long Live WikiPolitics!

------------

THIS was the agreement I made multiple times. That is the agreement.

• To Dragon 695: You are absolutely right. It's the typical dual-standard (more on that later). Most people would just make promises and then break them. Because I want to continue getting along with people, I will refrain from naming names of providing diffs as I have in the past.
• To Guy: I find it amazingly beyond-belief that YOU, of all people, would accuse someone else of being "tendentious editor", considering the beating you suffered recently for your opwn behaviour. I have never in my life been half as harsh, abusive, or disruptive as you have been as an admin! I laugh at you accusing anyone of being tendentious or bad-faith-ful.
• To SqueakBox and Jack-A-Roe: I look forward to working with you in amicability once more, as we have at times in the past. Through this entire ordeal I have learned a lot - as I mentioned in my email to you awhile back. I have had a lot of ideas regarding this and other topics in Wikipedia on which I would like your thoughts.
• As far as PAW goes: The purview of PAW is whatever they determine it to be. Once a PAW template is placed on a page, all attempts to remove it are attacked with vehemence. I've seen it before. I've fought it (when it was totally contgrived). I don't care anymore, and would myself add the PAW template to some pages. It doesn't matter, really, and in truth the wider the audience of a page, the better off the page is, so I support that.
• Finally, Ryan: I am disappointed in you utterly. You had pledged to work with me and then flat stopped emailing even s I was trying to wrk with you. Of all the people I had ever met on these topics, you had the geatest amount of respect for what I had felt was your normal view and calm demeanor. But your purposeful slight of late had dramatically damaged that.
• As for ArbCom: I still have not been involved in an ArbCom case. I have found my faith in ArbCom members has been renewed somewhat. Morven, I thank you for that. I admittedly was not expecting any communication from ArbCom members at all, and am pleasantly surprised.

So anyway, thank you all for your support (or, in some cases, lack thereof). It's been a fascinating and educational experience. I have plans to write some more on what I have learned so that you all may gain a better understanding. In some aspects I have determined that I was incorrect in my Wikipedia beliefs. Though disappointing, it's truth and in those respects others like SqueakBox and Jack-A-Roe were correct. More on that later.

Thank you all. It's been fun and I anticipate it will be fun once more soon.

{{subst:User:VigilancePrime/Templates/Signature}} (talk) 01:46, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

• VP: Can you please clarify the core issue? Morven say he unblocked you based on your assurance that you "will avoid the pedophile articles completely". Your statement above seems quite different: "I will refrain from editing pro-pedophilia articles/edits on Wikipedia, to the extent allowed by neutrality." Does that mean you consider yourself free to edit pedophilia-related articles so long as they are not "pro-pedophilia"? What is the meaning of "to the extent allowed by neutrality"? Your clarifications are appreciated and will prevent trouble down the line. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 01:58, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
  • This was my major problem with the unblock. As me and VP were emailing each other, I put it to him that as a term of an unblock, he should stop editing any pedophilia related article. It's true to say that when he refused to do this after two requests, I stopped emailing him. That was the only request that I had, but I wasn't prepared to move away from that. Morven unblocked with a request that VP does not edit pedophilia related articles - that's fine with me, but now VP must recognise that this is the only way he is going to be allowed back, and the first edit he makes to a pedophilia article is going to result in his indef block being reinstated. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 02:05, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

The above is a direct quote from my emails to Morven.

I have made no promises to or not to edit particupar articles. I was ostensibly banned for disruptive editing, eh? If tha truly was the case, then the solution is to NOT be disruptive, eh? If that is not the case, you'd have to admit that I was not actually banned for disruption. Tough call on your part, isn't it? Either the block was valid and I'm back with the above, or the block was not valid and the above was not sufficient...though the block was not. Hmmm.

Either way, I'm back, my edits are amenable, and you should be happy not to be involved.

{{subst:User:VigilancePrime/Templates/Signature}} (talk) 02:09, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

• So clue us in: what, exactly, were those assurances? --Calton | Talk 23:04, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Primarily that he will avoid the pedophile articles completely. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 23:10, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
    • hm? –xeno (talk) 02:11, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

OK, well I should make it clear that the minute you edit a pedophile related article, you're going to be blocked again. You were unblocked by Morven on the understanding you wouldn't edit them - please keep to that understanding. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 02:13, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Bottom Line, Ryan, is this: Here's the true agreement I made. I am not going to fight on the issuenor rehash it. You're too involved at this point to make any blocking decisions anyway. My advice to you and other: Comment/action on CONTENT, not CONTRIBUTORS... (Where have I heard that before?) Can we close/lock this thread now? We have some editing to do! {{subst:User:VigilancePrime/Templates/Signature}} (talk)

I'm not too involved in this, I made the same request that morven has put on you. But, I can assure you that there will plenty of admins lining up to block you should you break the restriction that morven placed on you. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 02:21, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

I have posted on Vigilance's talk page, and assured him also that removing my note is fine. May I suggest we drop this, which is basically arguing about what he could post, and allow him to edit in peace. If he does mis-edit then he knows it will be acted upon. So let him get on and enjoy editing in other areas, rather than argue about the future. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 02:32, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, FT2. I also noted and appreciate the "will" to "may" on the original comment. That's the whole point. Edits, not editors.

Take Care, {{subst:User:VigilancePrime/Templates/Signature}} (talk) 02:39, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Reblocked

Given that he's decided to ignore his restriction, I've reblocked him indef. A review would be appreciated. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 03:07, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Okay, it looks to me like he was deliberately baiting with that edit, knowing that people were going to be watching. And his response on his talk page suggests that's exactly what he was doing - deliberately baiting Ryan. That's not on, far as I'm concerned. Tony Fox (arf!) 03:12, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

FT2 made it quite clear here. The block is sound, imo. –xeno (talk) 03:18, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. I declined unblock twice for obvious reasons, that was obvious baiting, and quite frankly we don't need users like that. endorse block/ban Wizardman 03:20, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Given that he's officially test our patience for the last time, I think a community ban would be on the cards. Thoughts appreciated. Hopefully we can put this to bed forever. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 03:19, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

My wholly uninvolved take: He broke his agreement (and what he was trying to do with that edit is easy to guess). A ban is the only way now. Gwen Gale (talk) 03:20, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

• Sadly, support ban. I would support an un-ban later, if VP would make a clear, unambiguous promise to stay away from pedophilia and child abuse articles. I doubt he will do so, but if he does, I would support another chance with the understanding that the ban would be re-instated following even one edit contrary to the promise. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 03:31, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

These types of editors have proven problematic for the project in the past, and the patterns could bring the project into disrepute. Ryan, good block. I'll support a community ban based on the evidence, it supports that this is a problematic editor for the community, and the project. NonvocalScream (talk) 04:10, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

I've been opposed to blocking users based on their personal beliefs, but VP made an agreement and broke it. If he was unwilling to accept the agreement then he should have said so, rather than pull something like this. It makes the community less willing to give similar editors a second chance, which isn't fair to those other editors. -- Ned Scott 05:12, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Totally support community ban. Obvious and intentional probation violation. We don't need editors like this. — Rlevse • Talk • 09:46, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

It's either a coincidence or dissociative identity disorder

User:Viriditas brought me an interesting problem that has completely stumped me, so I wanted to get some outside opinions on how best to handle this (or if it needs handling at all). Basically, it seems likely that a minor sock farm has grown up around Talk:Father Damien, but rather than use the multiple accounts to push a POV/attack editors/stack deletion discussions/evade blocks/do all that other socky stuff that sockpuppets do, the farm appears to be arguing with itself. Extensively.

Viriditas' original post is here, and my attempt at a response is here. I'm not ruling out the possibility that it's simply a group of new editors with similar interests engaging in some intellectual discussion, but looking through their contributions I just can't help but feel that something is a little bit off. --jonny-mt 14:32, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Raising the signal to noise ratio is disruption in and of itself. –xeno (talk) 14:34, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

(Without looking in depth) If all they're doing is using the talk page, I'd ignore them until they get bored. Not doing any harm. —Giggy 14:35, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, apparently it's been going on for a while now. I think a note on the article talk page might be sufficient enough to reduce the noise ratio, but I agree that there's no need to start moving to blocks or anything just yet. Let's see if this gets any results.... --jonny-mt 07:08, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Problem uploading image / re-direct to this page

Clueless. I tried uploading an image as usual and was re-directed here. I was trying to add an additional album cover to this article Sophisticated Beggar. What's this all about? Stephenjh (talk) 21:22, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

All I can assume is that one of the upload pages was redirected here for some reason, but I can't find it. I may have misunderstood- could you explain in a little more detail? J Milburn (talk) 11:04, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Is removing CSD tags vandalism?

I'm completley uninvolved, but I'm just asking the question because I can see myself doing the same thing and I want to get a good answer so I know what to do in the future. I have AIV on my watchlist and I noticed [[9]] where User:Fieldday-sunday reported another editor, User:Sdav, for removing {{db-bio}} tags from a page. User:Sdav removed the tag from an article 4 times, User:Fieldday-sunday kept reverting, and User:Fieldday-sunday's Huggle finally reported User:Sdav to AIV. User:PeterSymonds removed the vandalism report with an edit summary "please stop. this is not blatant vandalism." [10]

Disregarding the fact that CSD was eventually declined by another admin, is removing CSD tags without comment, by the article creator, sufficient for a report to AIV? After all, the CSD tags state very clearly that the tag should not be removed by article creators, which User:Sdav did several times. If an article creator keeps removing the CSD tag, doesn't that force the issue to AfD (assuming an editor who removes CSD tags will also remove PROD tags)? Doesn't this just reward editors for removing the tags, since a trip to AfD means the original article gets to stay up for 5 more days?

I would appreciate thoughts from other Admins both to probe the question, and to make sure I personally do the "right thing" when I run into this situation. Thanks. Livitup (talk) 11:52, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Personally, I think when the author removes the tag it's vandalism, 'cuz it tells them they're not supposed to. When anyone else does it isn't, though. So, if the tag does actually apply, readd it and put a {{uw-speedy1}} (or higher) on the author's talk page. If they continuously ignore this, they should be blocked for it. Cheers. lifebaka (talk - contribs) 12:00, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

The only caveat I'd note is that the author is often not aware that removing the CSD tag on an article they wrote is technically vandalism, especially if they're new. So I'll usually give a mulligan for the first removal - "Hey, you can't remove that, use {{hangon}} instead, or explain why the article doesn't meet the criteria, etc..." or some such. If they pull it again, that's vandalism, and so on. WP:BITE should be minded, obviously, but only to a point. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 12:11, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

It is easiest to refer to the requirements for something to be WP:vandalism: is there a deliberate attempt to compromise (for which read: make worse) the encyclopedia? Clearly not in a good-faith removal of a CSD tag, even by the author. Not following instructions is not usually a wilful attempt to harm the project; assuming even that the small-type instruction got read at all in the mass of material and jargon now in CSD tags. So, tell them as UltraExactZZ says, to please not remove the tag anymore, and use hangon instead, etc. If they persist, then they can be blocked for repeatedly removing CSD tags despite being asked not to (i.e. for disrupting the CSD process). But not for vandalism, even so. However, it may be better to take the lower-impact approach and simply stick the article on AfD as that ends the issue. AfD is not a "reward", by any stretch, and sending someone's article there when they repeatedly object to other methods of deletion is usually just being reasonable to them as another human person — something which just might make them feel a bit better about their otherwise rather spiky intro to Wikipedia. (Of course, if the article itself is vandalism, then this is all rather obviously different). Splash - tk 12:19, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Removing CSD tags repeatedly is edit warring, not vandalism. Try not to WP:BITE. Splash's advice is also sound. Kusma (talk) 12:38, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Sigh. It's incidents like this which turns the "v" word into code for "I'm removing something that I disagree with". -- llywrch (talk) 19:12, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Not an admin but, my opinion is that removing the CSD tag from an article you created is disruptive behaviour at best and vandalism at worse (especially, if you've been previously warned that you shouldn't do it and you've been pointed in the direction of the proper process). The whole point of {{hangon}} is to give the author a chance to explain things. Deliberately ignoring the process is disruptive to the project as a whole. Yes, we shouldn't WP:BITE but, if you give someone the benefit of the doubt and try to help and they continously ignore this it undermines the project and the people working in good faith to help. We all make mistakes but, repeating the same "mistake" over and over again in most cases changes it from a mistake into a deliberate behaviour pattern. Just my two cents. And for transparency purposes I've recently been involved in this sort of case so have a "vested interested". Jasynnash2 (talk) 09:58, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

There is a progressive warning series for removing CSD tags - uw-speedy1 through uw-speedy4. Corvus cornix_talk 17:20, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree with most of what has been said above, but I want to add that if the article creator blanks the page, one should not revert the edit. Instead one should see it as a good faith attempt to undo the damage he did, and replace the page with {{db-author}}, which will make clear to the author that page is being deleted as he requested. Jon513 (talk) 17:49, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Obviously not vandalism, not murder, and not terrorism. It's simply not following the rules. That may often be disruptive behavior, but sometimes it's an appropriate invocation of WP:IAR - a speedy nomination that is itself disruptive, or doesn't have a WP:SNOWBALL's chance in hell, is better off removed than going through unnecessary procedure. Wikidemo (talk) 19:22, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Pre-emptive request for administrative eyes on John Edwards

I'd like to ask your help. Yes, you. There has been a debate at John Edwards on whether, and how, to include recent allegations of infidelity published in the National Enquirer. In response to edit-warring and WP:BLP concerns, I protected the page yesterday. The protection will expire tomorrow. This issue has some real-world visibility - for instance, Gawker.com has criticized our handling of the situation :0 This is a WP:BLP hotspot and I don't want to be making unilateral decisions. I'd like to ask any and all editors to participate at Talk:John Edwards, and any and all admins to watchlist the article, provide a sanity check, and help figure out what, if anything, needs to happen when the protection expires tomorrow. Relevant threads:

• Notice of page protection in BLP-friendly version
• Ensuing AN/I thread

Please lend the issue some outside eyes. Thanks. MastCell ^Talk 17:54, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Thats not really what this page is for, AN is not a step in dispute resoultion or content choice. That said the McCain allagations made it into his campaing article, but only in passing due to the timing, poorly sourced allegations by the times, and massive backlash among other media. If it is a noteworthy and sourced allegation it should be mentioned, but the context and wording is the key issue. --AdultSwim (talk) 18:31, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Watchlisted. Will do any admin or non-admin stuff as necessary tomorrow when protection expires. Currently researching situation on talk page. lifebaka (talk - contribs) 18:48, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Struck my own earlier comments, as article is locked for dispute (an extrodinary measure in my book) and there are enough allegations to note that there are allegations a simple request for 'more eyes' is perfectly fine. Lets all read about oursleves. [11] --AdultSwim (talk) 18:56, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Fun stuff, fun stuff. I've barely scratched what I ought to read to get a full picture here, but my first blush thought would be to extend the protection for another week or so and wait to see if reliable sources pick up or debunk the sources. Cheers. lifebaka (talk - contribs) 19:08, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

That probably explains Wikipedia:Help desk#Never using your site again. --—— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk - 19:30, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

That may not be a Bad Thing, to have editors who do not understand policy self-select themselves off the project because of their own misunderstanding. Makes it easier for the rest of us.

I have to say though that there does appear to be some progress on the talk page, which seems IMO to be moving in a reasonable direction. Perhaps an extension of the protection is not necessary. However, I note that after the original protection, several newish accounts appeared to argue in lieu of BLP policy, and there were very few editors who understood policy sticking around, perhaps because they thought as it was protected, they could move on to other things. I would not rule out a flurry of uninformed editing if the protection expires as currectly scheduled. So in any case a call to eyes is very prudent. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 20:25, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Exactly my thoughts. I think there is progress being made, and we'll see soon enough if more protection is warranted. A rapid influx of new users in response to off-site publicity is not always the best thing from a WP:BLP standpoint, and many experienced editors seem to have moved on. MastCell ^Talk 20:29, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

• The established editors do appear to have reached consensus, it was implemented and the article unprotected. In the 10 hours since we've had 12 BLP violations or other forms of vandalism by IP editors and new accounts, with no useful contributions from such accounts. We haven't had any established editors warring over the apparent consensus, just a couple minor tweaks to it. So I've semi-protected the article. Established editors can still edit, and further administrative monitoring remains warranted. GRBerry 21:54, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

User requesting userpage deletion

Resolved

A user is requesting deletion of a userpage. The userpage is under their real name, and they claim that it is not theirs, but... I'm not sure, actually. But they want it so that it doesn't show up as a Google hit on their name.

Their request is at User talk:71.199.104.170. I promised them I'd draw attention to it when it was made. This is in no way an endorsement of the request - just the execution of a promise. The request, I think, speaks for itself. Phil Sandifer (talk) 18:50, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

I've deleted User:Herbert Elwood Gilliland III and the talk page per RTV, and protected the user's talk page owing to the disgusting incivility in the user's request. The IP is already blocked for 6 months from July 10th, the protection will expire around that time. --uǝʌǝsʎʇɹoɟʇs(st47) 19:25, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Removal of AfD tags

Resolved

 – Blocked and warned by ST47

User:Seventy3 is removing the AfD tags from Political society and State of society, despite having been informed in edit summaries that this does not prevent the AfD from going forward and placing warnings on the user's talk page. RJC ^{Talk Contribs} 19:10, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Blocked 24 hours, the user was ignoring warnings. I will review the users other contributions. Chillum 19:13, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

(ec)Oops, another admin got there first with a 31 hour block. Chillum 19:16, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

I blocked for 31, not realizing that someone else was on it. --uǝʌǝsʎʇɹoɟʇs(st47) 19:15, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Good job. Chillum 19:16, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Arabic Wikipedia

Resolved

 – blocked indef and talk page protected for repetition of the same behaviour --Rodhullandemu 01:02, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

• Please, any admin can take a look to the article nd its history, admin Rodhull, insists that's it's orignial study (look, at the article about the German Wikipedia, nd the Hebrew one) also, is the section about wikipedia blockings in Syria, not an original one? Regards. --Stayfi (talk) 19:48, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

This article is only a couple of days out of full protection while consensus was sought on the talk page for content proposed by Stayfi; no such consensus was forthcoming, let alone any sources. This is soapboxing about censorship and some dispute on ar:wiki. Stayfi added this content earlier, again unsourced, and I removed it with a final warning for disruption. Again, he is forum-shopping, as he was a week ago here. Anyone care to deal? --Rodhullandemu 20:04, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

• Rodhull, how can u define he sections, about characteristics, of German wikipedia nd the hebrew? many without any reference. Also, what do think about the blocking in Syria (not Too original to you) though it's simple to see, the facts of my writings.

Can u delete, unsourced facts form the articles (german wiki, hebrew, french...and the blocking in Syria?) I'll glad to put: need citation, rather than delete all my writings.

it's not a soap, they are facts (nd i'll be happy if u understand Arabic, to view what they wrote about the second gulf war).

As i told u, a consensus on this subject, is hard to get (We're talking about sensitivities here)

regards --Stayfi (talk) 20:16, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

I've just created an ar wiki account (with the help of the unified loging system) and reviewed all of your edits there and the reason why you have been blocked there before coming here creating havoc. I must say that you are a disruptive user and if you don't stop your troubles I'll be obliged to block you indef here. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 20:28, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

• Fayssalf, besides my arabic wiki contributions, FOCUS on issues being brought here.

This a personal attack (havoc, disruptive, troubler) try to be more...polite, nd FOCUS on the english wiki.

If, u want a jew, as a defense to me, he can testify (a Jew who speak/Read arabic)

As any human, u've ur personal judgments, yes, we came from different backgrounds.

Regards. --Stayfi (talk) 20:49, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

The personnal atatck is the one you directed at ar wiki admins and editors when you stated that you better respect en wiki admins views (as they are not Arabs). What does that mean? And all this has nothing to do with what happened there anyway but your attitude here instead. Please behave and stop disrupting. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 20:59, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

First, ur not FOCUSING on the issue here.

Secondly, I was critical towards this arabic wiki (this version run by them)

I Hope, u met an azzidy nd a Palestinian Arab, who were banned for talking about peace in the middle east!

Regards --Stayfi (talk) 21:14, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Is there anything here that specifically concerns administrators of the English wikipedia? If not, I suggest that this discussion be closed. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:28, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

The only thing here that is admin-related is that I think a block might be in order if Stayfi brings this subject up on AN or ANI anymore. Three times in about a week is enough, and as I said in the last thread, it's forum shopping and it's disruptive. --barneca (talk) 21:35, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Barneca, it's not Forum shopping, it's a REQUEST to remove the ban on FACTS.

What can u do for my arguments above? if u don't want to be as disruptive.

Regards, David --Stayfi (talk) 21:47, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Sorry. There's no sign whatsoever that you'd be a good asset to Wikipedia. FACTS, remove ban, REQUEST, jew, palestinian, azzidy, sunni admins, arabic wikipedia, en admins, ar admins, frequent appearences on AN with less than 50 edits overall, Jimmy Wales talk page, using Wikipedia as a battleground, Focus, SPA, arguing with admins everywhere, forum shopping, suspected sockpuppet.... Is there anything positive? Frankly, no. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 00:14, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

What's our policy for protecting minors these days?

A new user, Ratzo (talk · contribs), has identified himself as a 12-year-old by giving his birth date and school on his user page. What's our current policy on things like that? I don't want to come down too heavy-handed on the kid, but this seems like a mistake to me. I know that policy proposals like WP:CHILD have failed to gain consensus, and I'm not trying to propose anything — I just wasn't sure what our standard operating procedure was on something like this. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 21:38, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

No policy that I'm aware of. The paternal instinct in me says drop the guy a note and an admin can delete his user page, getting him to recreate it without the age/school thing. The rest of me says that as the greatest probability by some miles is that his revelation of his age etc. will have no repercussions (well unless he runs for RFA!) it's best left as is. Pedro :  Chat  21:45, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

I think standard procedure is removing the information, oversighting the page, and dropping the user a note. Not sure though... Calvin 1998 ^(t-c) 21:48, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

I've just removed one bit [12] as it was clearly defamatory. I don't really see that this is a level of personal information that needs oversight when simple deletion will do (how many of this editors friends are likely to be admins after all?). And again, it's not deeply revealing in all honesty (though as noted my fatherly instincts urge me otherwise). Pedro :  Chat  21:52, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Generally, when we see children, we should try to nudge them along to myspace or somewhere like that. They're unlikely to make themselves useful here, and having them be Somebody Else's Problem is good from our perspective. Friday (talk) 21:55, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

There is a chance that there aren't any friends of the kid that is an admin, but I hate saying it there is a chance that there could be an admin that will look at it and possibly use it maliciously. RFA isn't really a background check so we don't know if it would be used maliciously, and IMO, it is better not to take a chance. I feel oversight is best. <3 Tinkleheimer TALK!! 21:58, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

I've deleted his user page, with an invitation to recreate less the identifying bits. Kevin (talk) 00:04, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, folks. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 00:15, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Persistent abuse by Kevin J

Kevin J has quite a history of improper, POV, unsourced, and hasty edits (see User talk:Kevin j) and has recently gone wild on the Bill Clinton article, with 20 edits of questionable quality (and with very angry edit-summary comments) in a two-hour period on July 29th. I am requesting administrator attention to this user and his abuse of the site, stretching back for months. Please note that on his talk page he is apparently very aggressive and unrepentant whenever he has been reprimanded, and does not seem to have changed his behavior at all since his first edits. -- Plushpuffin (talk) 18:22, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Nonsense. I NEVER VIOLATED ANY NPOV POLICIES. ALL MY CLAIMS WERE BACKED BY SOURCES

-- You're just making my point for me. I said you had a history of disregarding NPOV and other annoying behavior, but in this specific incident I only said that your edits were of questionable quality - ie: it took you 20 edits to add five sentences to the article. Plushpuffin (talk) 22:47, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Nonsense. I NEVER VIOLATED ANY NPOV POLICIES WITH THE BILL CLINTON PAGE. ALL MY CLAIMS WERE BACKED BY SOURCES, AND THE CONTENT ON THE PAGE WAS BIAS. YOU'RE ALSO MAKING UP A LOT OF LIES TOO. IF YOU MADE THOSE EDITS AS AN EFFORT OF POLITICAL PROPAGANDA ON EITHER OBAMA OR MCCAIN'S BEHALF, YOU HAVE NO RIGHT TO DO SO HERE IN WIKIPEDIA. STAY OUT OF MY WAY, OR I WILL REPORT YOU FOR HARRASSMENT. WHERE THE HELL DOES IT ALSO SAY I CANNOT DO 20 EDITS FOR FIVE SENTENCES EITHER?Kevin j (talk) 22:50, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

On your keyboard, there is a key on the left side marked "Caps Lock". Is there a little glowing green light on it? If so, you should press the key and the "Shift" key so it goes off, as it appears that it's stuck.

Oh, and while I'm at it, you should avoid making nasty personal attacks -- all-caps or not -- like this and this. --Calton | Talk 23:29, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, looking at this page again I realize that I have probably posted this report in the wrong place. My apologies; I had a bunch of tabs open looking for the proper place and I think I must have just skipped over some of the rules. I am a casual editor with no experience with disputes (science fiction articles tend not result in flame wars) and I made a mistake. Regarding alternatives: I am not sure that dispute resolution will work with this person, as he is extremely abusive and confrontational. Would a more experienced user please look into Kevin J's behavior? -- Plushpuffin (talk) 03:40, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

No worries about the report. I left it a message on his talk page and will see what he does. Next time, follow the warning templates (particularly the assuming good faith ones and report him to WP:AIV. An admin there should take care of the problem. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:27, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

User:Badagnani

Resolved

 – Content dispute ➨ Ʀƹɗѵєɾϧ collects very sharp bread knives 07:48, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

User:Badagnani always tried to add unnecessary Han tu to Vietnamese history related-articles (ex: [13], [14], [15]), it's not relevant. Some pages, it had been deleted and he reverted it. Please tell him to stop. 69.234.183.155 (talk) 07:39, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Content dispute. Nothing for administrators to do here. Try discussing the issue with the editor in question. ➨ Ʀƹɗѵєɾϧ collects very sharp bread knives 07:48, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Weird flute sock-puppetry?

I've noticed some weird stale sock-puppetry (I think). Notice the timeline - Special:Contributions/Elkhart, Special:Contributions/Kurtgem, Special:Contributions/Ophelia85, Special:Contributions/Roastbeefaujus, plus some SPAs Special:Contributions/BrettCatalonia, Special:Contributions/Kristiansteenstrup, Special:Contributions/Quicksilver88, probably others (I got bored). I'm sure there are also edits on deleted articles like Andino Clarinets. Is this sort of thing normal? I assume this person is no longer active as they likely would have edited these articles more recently, it seems to be someone with some sort of flute-related bias, attempting to seem like many people to give the articles more validity. Or perhaps they forgot their passwords. Weird, no? ~ JohnnyMrNinja 08:32, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Blocked user requesting unblock

Mugaliens (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is requesting unblock. This user made some small edits to aviation related articles but his major obsession was with male skirt wearing, consuming significant time from multiple users in resisting some very determined POV-pushing, documented at locations such as User:Bardsandwarriors/MIS-debates and Wikipedia:AMA Requests for Assistance/Requests/November 2006/Mugaliens. He has also used sockpuppets, other accounts include Dr1819 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Man in a skirt (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Locus of dispute includes Male Unbifurcated Garment (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), Men's fashion freedom (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), Skirt and dress (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), High-heeled shoe (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and the serially recreated and eventually Uncle G'd Men in skirts (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) / Men's skirts (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), see also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Men in skirts, (though note that I still think that article violates WP:UNDUE as we already have articles on kilt and Skirt#Male wear). I am strongly disinclined to unblock on the grounds that this user combined the most vexing features of WP:SOUP and WP:LAWYER. Guy (Help!) 22:55, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

He says he's given up on his agenda. Why not just unblock him and restrict him from editing anything remotely related to male unbifurcated garments? If he skirts the topic ban, he can be reblocked. MastCell ^Talk 23:21, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Guy, I think it's up to you, nobody knows this user the way you do (see my comment on Mugaliens' talkpage). In other words, don't unblock. Bishonen | talk 23:42, 30 July 2008 (UTC).

As I remember, the editing dispute over Male Unbifurcated Garment (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) was a rather pathetic attempt to engineer a change in fashion and society by declaring in an encyclopaedia article that both had changed and men now wore skirts. Not round here they don't and despite a very long attempt at original research and POV pushing it was clear that this user was not here to write an encyclopaedia describing the world as it is, rather as he hoped it would be. In other words, decline unblock. Sam Blacketer (talk) 23:51, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

He's on his third unblock request already. I'm not seeing a consensus to unblock in this thread either. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:35, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Slap a second chance template on there and see what he does. -- Ned Scott 06:25, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, saying "whatever disagreements I had with whoever are with him" doesn't indicate he's learned a thing. I don't like giving people second chances when they haven't even acknowledged they did something wrong. Does that mean whoever he disagrees with next with just be with them? That's not the type of attitude I'd like to encourage. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:10, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

I can't unblock. There are too many worrisome little bits of behaviour even in the unblock thread on his talk page, things like breaking up posts with his comments, claiming he doesn't know what someone meant by agenda account, saying he hopes someone with "maturity" will unblock him (which carries the snarky hint that anyone who doesn't is childish). Moreover, he says most of the problem was with JzG (the blocking admin) and says nothing about his own behaviour, other than that he'll stay away from "fashion" topics. Why should he have to say he'll stay away from them? There's nothing untowards about adding sourced content to any article in a civil way whilst not edit warring over it and acknowledging consensus. Why can't he say he'll do this? He claims some expertise in engineering but gives not a hint he would use this expertise for anything other than his own unsourced assertions (given his contribution history, this is a meaningful worry). I'd wait until he starts acknowledging what went wrong to begin with. Gwen Gale (talk) 08:39, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

I think that's my biggest problem with this user as well - the continued assertion that the problem is with everyone else and not with him. Guy (Help!) 09:27, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

I suspect that No true scotsman would unblock this user. Neither would they be seen dead in a skirt, but that's a different matter. Oh well... SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 19:52, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Talk page comment removal

Resolved

 – The comments have been restored.--Father Goose (talk) 21:31, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi, I'd like some input on this. User:Wikiscribe removed some comments made by an IP editor at Talk:Generation Y as "soapboxing". I disagreed with Wikiscribe's action, but I have been reverted by him twice now in trying to restore the IP editor's comments. A different IP later posted angry comments about the removal[16] -- I presume this is the same user as the one Wikiscribe reverted earlier.

I felt the comments made by the IP were on-topic (even if I didn't agree with them) and should not have been removed. However, is Wikiscribe right on this issue?--Father Goose (talk) 04:12, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Why not talk to him first rather than come here? You didn't want to edit war (good decision) but you still could have discussed it at his talk page. Either way, if it's clearly a waste of effort, I'd say remove but if someone brings it up a second time, tell them that policy doesn't let anyone just use their personal opinions. It's not that complicated and you might get a good new editor (WP:BITE anyone?) Heck, a simple "do you have a source for that?" response probably would have put the whole thing to bed. I would hope next time that he at least posts something at the IP talk page so that they know the policy. If you want it there for some good reason, that's fine but bringing it up for no reason at all doesn't seem productive. Then again, if it's some nut who been constantly repeating the same complaints on the page, it's worth ignoring and removing. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:03, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

All I could have done on Wikiscribe's talk page is repeated the comments I made in my edit summaries. I do engage people in discussion whenever possible, but if an issue starts out completely polarized, as this one did, you have to seek outside help.

My point is essentially the same as yours: rather than reverting the IP, a simple "have a source for that?" would have been the least bite-y response. Maybe (s)he does have a source for it. The IP wasn't a nut, and had he placed his views in the article, I would have supported the revert. But by placing it on the talk page, he was trying to engage us in discussion about what the dates should be (which are very much up in the air), and I felt removing his comments was entirely inappropriate.

My goal was to keep the newbie from getting bitten. Since Wikiscribe is resisting that, I need the help of others to get the situation back on an even keel.--Father Goose (talk) 10:04, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

I have reverted again - there is no way you could assume good faith and call that soapboxing - obviously a suggestion to improve the article. Viridae^Talk 10:21, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree with FG and Viridae, This is simply a discussion of what the correct time span, & what to include in the article, no different from the usual run of comments there, which are mostly on this topic. The continual disputes about this are one of the problems with Generation Whatever articles comment, and I consider those deletions as improperly trying to carry out the discussion by deletion of other people's comments. But the reason to say something on the talk page is to serve -- if properly worded -- as advice and even a warning that such was out of place. But this editor discourages communication by immediately removing everything placed on his talk page.. Its his right to do this, but it dosn;'t help; maybe its time we decided otherwise. FG notified him of this discussion, and he immediately removed it. I just placed a warning about deleting other people's material from talk pages, and alerted him that deletion meant he had indeed seen the warning. DGG (talk) 17:01, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Move Rastafari movement to Rastafari

I know I could do this through "requested moves," but I hate having to navigate through Wikipedia's red tape when I can just directly ask admins.

Could someone move Rastafari movement to Rastafari? "Rastafari movement" is a bit superfluous. "Rastafarianism" is better but tends to be offensive and, in the past, consensus determined that it was an inappropriate label. Simply "Rastafari" seems to be enough and isn't likely to draw controversy. ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 16:32, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

• To ratid. Ahem. Guy (Help!) 16:45, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

• The admins tell you to go to RFM. We hate having to do work ourselves when you can do it for us. --Golbez (talk) 21:45, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Unresolved AfD

Resolved

 – Closed as no consensus. — Scientizzle 18:48, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

So I just noticed that the AfD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Logic as a Positive Science was never closed. It was started on July 5 and is clearly expired, but no ruling was made on it, and nothing happened. I'm not sure if I should reinsert it into the AfD list, or if someone should just deal with this now. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 16:34, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Empty edit page at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Deletion_sorting/Athletes

When I try to add an entry to Wikipedia:WikiProject_Deletion_sorting/Athletes, I get an empty edit box.The non-edit page looks normal, though. --Eastmain (talk) 17:22, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

I had this problem yesterday (with ANI ). How long has it lasted for you? I could edit ANI again within a half-hour.--chaser - t 17:24, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, still a problem. Can others see that page?--chaser - t 23:16, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Using &action=raw confirms ([17]) that the MediaWiki thinks the page is blank, even though the history clearly shows there should be 302 bytes. Null edit and purge already tried. Calvin 1998 ^(t-c) 23:24, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Fixed it!--chaser - t 23:29, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

More input requested

Discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Large amount of Rangeblocks by Raul654 has stalled without resolution. The issue is whether its appropriate to use rangeblocks for ~six months to deal with long-term disruption.--chaser - t 23:06, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

User:HBC AIV helperbot3 acting up

Please stop it It's removing useful info on an AIV report. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 00:06, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

The IP was blocked and the bot removed the related comment. What am I missing? - auburnpilot talk 00:38, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Thats what it is programed to do, no? Tiptoety ^talk 00:42, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, and the report appears that it would have a proper home here. —Travis^talk 00:58, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Rollback is currently down

Resolved

 – After much begging and pleading the Developers decided to show mercy and restore rollback. KnightLago (talk) 03:53, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Just a note that rollback is currently dysfunctional due to a bug that makes the URL not have the required &from= parameter. Coupled with the fact that vandalism is actually quite high right now... thought I'd leave a note here. Calvin 1998 ^(t-c) 00:51, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Bug 14997, btw. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 00:52, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

• Just to let everyone know, rollback's borked at the moment. A bug's been filed and the devs are working on fixing it. I thought it's best eveyone is aware so you don't spend your time wondering how to fix your session ID! ;-) Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 00:52, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

• • One more quicky regards this, while Rollback is down, I have upped Vandalism information template to DEFCON1 to keep everyone on their toes to spot and revert as quickly as possible. Incidentally, some users in #wikipedia-en on IRC are getting rollback working through Twinkle, but not manually. Thor Malmjursson (talk) 00:59, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Twinkle doesn't use rollback, that's why it's working. Apparently it's already fixed in SVN, but I'm not seeing the results... Calvin 1998 ^(t-c) 01:01, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Per WP:BEANS, maybe we should keep this quiet. Heh. Enigma ^message 01:03, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

• Rollback is back up again. :) Enigma ^message 01:06, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

  reverted to r38322. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 01:09, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Portal:Biography

There's a redlink here for the archive section (and other stuff); seems Maxim deleted a few pages and is now on Wikibreak. Anyone want to take a look through the deleted content and try and clean things up so one of our most viewed portals doesn't start off with redlinks? —Giggy 09:54, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Nothing interesting has been deleted, there just isn't any content for a daily featured bio. The archive link was just a redirect (now updated to point to the correct spot). Kusma (talk) 10:05, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

If somebody creates featured bio snippets for August, just undo this edit to change to daily instead of monthly updating again. Kusma (talk) 10:07, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Kusma and DrK. It's always a shame when these things happen. I'd suggest the portal be moved over to {{random portal component}} to prevent such instances in the future (poke my talk if you need any help with it). —Giggy 10:18, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

User:Nanshu and 2channel attacks again

• Note:I repaste this, because it was manually archived by User:Ncmvocalist along with its parent thread Archive455#Comfort_women. The matter is not even touched yet. And Nanshu (talk · contribs)'s problematic attitude continues like this.[18][19]

• Past ANI Archive38 on 2channel and Nanshu

I've noticed that editors deeply associated with 2channel, Japanese biggest internet forum resume their systematic meat/sockpuppetry again. I predict this same disruption would repeat again because Checkuser system does not hold info more than 4 months and they know it and discuss about it.

Among them, User:Nanshu, being deeply associated with the Korean bashing forum also falsely accused me of abusing RFCU system to ANI to to evade much attention to them. I found his plot on one of 2channal pages. After this, Nanshu scarcely appeared to Wikipedia. Anyway, whatever article he has edited has been strongly opposed by Korean editors because of his tendency of exaggerating and distorting information to minimize Korean culture and history.[20] His view is always same as follows. Korea had been a tributary state of China but luckily saved and modernized by Japanese colonial rule. "Koreans always cook up with new theories to make themselves superior than Japan regardless of their Inferiority". He claims that Korean influence on ancient Japanese history is minor, so removes such information. Whoever objects to his tilted point of view, he accuses them of doing vandalism, even thought those accusation are actually content disputes cuased by him[21][22][23] This can be recently seen at Talk:Kangnido and Talk:Yeongeunmun Gate. At Kangnido, he deliberately has repeatedly removed Korean geographer's credit in the lead and claims it as a mere Mongol's copy or tried to merge the article into other articles.

He also frequently makes personal attacks against me like "harmful to Wikepedia", "useless hard worker"[24], "doing things in unconstructive ways", "nuisance" and "obstruct" of Wikepedia[25], because I don't agree with his crooked point of views. Also his edit on Yeongeunmun Gate has been disputed by several editors, and 2channel people ridicule the gate and article as a symbol of Korea's humiliating diplomacy. So I put {{NPOV}} tag and he has tried to remove it as calling me "vandal" as his usual.[26][27] He also accused me of not improving the article. On the other hand, I have a lot of interests aside from Korean history, and he disappeared so often. Therefore, I don't feel urgent to edit Yeongeunmun Gate. He suddenly reappears again today and make a threat of accusing me again. I think this user's behaviors are totally not acceptable in Wikipedia. Earlier his such behaviors were watched and pointed by several admins too. He also creates articles by hearsay to denounce Korea such as Samurang which has been up for AFD. I believe his reappearance is just as same as the last case. Japanese editors are recently being blocked for their violation of policies, so try to remove their common enemy like me out of Wikipedia. They consult about how effectively to remove me like RFC or Arbcom files. They regard Wikipedia as places for their political propagandas or battlefield. Unlike Nanshu's accusation of "useless harmful editor", during their absent time, I've created or edited many "useful articles", so got more than 10 DYKs. Therefore, I believe their disruptive behaviors make editors unable to article in a peaceful and constructive way.

Moreover, they said they would move their forum to other places, but still retain the bashing forum within 2channel. According to their page, their meatpuppetry plots are evident. They still stalk me and other editors and record every move related to Korean history or Japanese, Chinese history. You can find my name mentioned there so many times, including even today and yesterday's my activities[28][29]2channel meatpuppeting 1

Japan-Korea related articles are really necessary to being brought from more adminins' attentions. Thanks--Caspian blue (talk) 01:17, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

I also implemented Yeongeunmun Gate (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) with two reliable sources (Korean encyclopedia) yesterday. However, today, he continues his habitual false accusation against me like vandalism again.[30] Even if I would want to agree with his biased edit, that would mean I conducted vandalism which is totally false and unwarranted. Nanshu should apologize his disruptive behaviors to me. He removed not only two respectable sources, but also insists that his original research version is valid.--Caspian blue (talk) 00:39, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

At Talk:Yeongeunmun Gate#Please consider if this article should be deleted admins, EdJohnston intervened in this[31], but still there is no answer from Nanshu.--Caspian blue (talk) 20:14, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

At Prostitution in South Korea (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), meatpuppetry was evident today.[32][33]--Caspian blue (talk) 21:34, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

• Update Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Pabopa‎ Massive sockpuppetry confirmed
• 2channel on this [34][35] --Caspian blue (talk) 13:33, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Suggestion to add to username blacklist

Posting this here so it gets some attention - very recently I've seen a couple accounts with the phrase "666" in them (link for those who don't know the reference). One (User talk:Drake Younger 666) was a vandal-only account, the other (User talk:666thedevil666) was a clear violation of the username policy and almost certainly not here for good intentions. I can't think of any reason why someone would need "666" in a normal username, or any incidental occurrences like you get with the common swear words. Would this be a reasonable addition to the Mediawiki:Usernameblacklist, or at least to the list of red flags the UAA bots look for? Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 05:30, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't think "666" names even need to be blocked, let alone blacklisted. Then again, I'm a heathen pot-smoking bastard. --Bongwarrior (talk) 05:37, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

...and all this time I thought you were crusading for more hand percussion in popular culture... Keegan^talk 05:51, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

I have a list of all usernames on en.wiki from a few months ago. I generated a list of all usernames that contain "666". There were 10,056 usernames out of 6,540,007 (0.15376130331359%). That's quite a lot of usernames. I don't think it should be blacklisted, regardless of whether or not it should be allowed as I fear it will inadvertently negatively affect too large a number of users. --MZMcBride (talk) 05:47, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

As a regular WP:UAA patroller, I don't think a name containing "666" is blatantly offensive and would not block it unless it was combined with some other patently offensive element. It certainly does not belong on the blacklist and I don't think it should be added to the NameWatcherBot. --MCB (talk) 06:12, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree with the comments above and would add that I'm not quite sure whether this proposal would be feasible. What about variations with punctuation - 6-6-6 or 6.6.6. and so on ad infinitum. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 08:42, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

I absolutely do not support adding 666 to the username blacklist. As someone who edits around the subjects of black and death metal, I've seen a lot of good faith editors who add '666' to their name (for example, Irina666)- sticking 666 the sort of thing that email providers recommend when your first choice is taken, so it's rather common as an online identity. J Milburn (talk) 09:46, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Bad idea. I also don't agree with using the extremely cranky {{Uw-uhblock}} on User talk:666thedevil666, nor do i think the inference that the user was up to no good is very obvious. We live in a largely secular age, and for many, these are iconic but entirely fictional references, along the lines of a user:caliban or user:yossarian. 86.44.27.125 (talk) 13:56, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

User is warned that someone is unhappy about the username for "no reason given" and 1 minute later is blocked? Not good. DuncanHill (talk) 14:01, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

I'd be open to unblocking them if they requested it, but I really don't see why anyone would create a name like that if they weren't here for the purpose of disruption. I'm not particularly religious myself, but that username is way over the top for me. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 16:34, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Pre-emptive blocks because you suspect someone's going to be disruptive are a bad idea. What is it about usernames that makes people panic and start blocking left and right, while we give vandals second chances? rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 16:53, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

To be fair to Hersfold, the user did create one inappropriate page: [36] (admin only). The page by itself certainly isn't the worst I've seen, but that combined with the name make me agree with Hersfold's take on this; I've certainly used a usernamehardblock myself on someone with such a username combined with 2 vandalism edits. I agree with others that a general prohibition on 666 in a user name shouldn't happen. --barneca (talk) 17:01, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

In the absence of any notice or warning on the user's talk page about that deleted page (deleted for "no meaningful content"), or any mention of it at the time of blocking, it is rather hard for proles like me to comment. DuncanHill (talk) 17:13, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

While "thedevil" may get close to the line, it has been decided time and time again in debate that we are not going to prohibit numbers. 666, 686, 13, 86, they are all offensive somehow for some beliefs, but they are just numbers. Chillum 17:15, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't comment on the blacklist suggestion earlier. I do concede the point that there could be undisruptive uses of the number, and withdraw the suggestion. As to the concerns about the pre-emptive block, the page created had no purpose on Wikipedia, and preemptive blocks can and do happen if there's a reasonable reason for them. For example, would you wait for a User:KillThisStupidSite to make any edits? (didn't use "KillWikipedia" because that is blacklisted). But that's another discussion for another time. I guess this is resolved. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 21:01, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

help with suppressredirect

Hi, again I'm asking for technical assistance here, even though it's at cy: that I have admin tools and not here. Hope you don't mind.

I see in Special:ListGroupRights that there's a right called (suppressredirect) "Not create a redirect from the old name when moving a page", but I can't see anything in the interface that lets you do it. Is it actually implemented, or do you just have to move as normal and then delete the redirect afterwards? Thanks. — Alan^✉ 17:18, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

It looks like the code is in place in MediaWiki for suppressredirect to function (a third, optional argument to Title::moveTo()), but the option hasn't been added to the protection form, so it's still impossible I'm afraid. krimpet✽ 17:33, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Okay, many thanks. I might edit the description in the MediaWiki message to say not supported. — Alan^✉ 18:21, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Last time I looked at the code for this, its used by the editing API, but that isn't enabled here yet. Mr.Z-man 20:36, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Elonka user conduct request for comments

It's with considerable regret that I have to announce that I've started a user conduct RfC concerning Elonka (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). Although I have a lot of respect for her as an editor, some of her recent actions, combined with extensive feedback that I've received from a considerable number of people, suggests that there is a systemic problem with her approach to managing disputed articles.

I have raised this issue as an RfC because it goes beyond the scope of other forums such as WP:AE, and I do not wish to turn this into a drama-fest here on AN. It needs to be discussed in a calm, structured fashion, hence an RfC. This is the first time in four years as an admin that I've had to take such a step - and it's particularly unfortunate that it involves someone who's only been an admin for eight months - but there really seems to be no alternative in the circumstances.

I have illustrated a number of aspects of the problem from my own perspective in editing one article and I understand that other editors have very similar concerns relating to other articles. Please see Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Elonka for details. -- ChrisO (talk) 21:30, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

What's the best way to undo a large number of good faith page moves that had no consenus?

User:P22575R15 has unilaterally imposed a cumbersome, wordy and awkward title scheme to various articles about student organizations. His move log is here, but here are just a few of the moves he's performed with no consensus:

• [37]
• [38]
• [39]
• [40]
• Student organizations in Sweden (nationer) went through several iterations (none of which was discussed) but should probably be Nations at Swedish universities
• Student organizations in North America (fraternities and sororities) was originally Fraternities and sororities before P22575R15 went on his moving spree (I think we could probably come up with a better title than either of these, this is not the place to discuss it)

I don't think the user is trying to be disruptive, but I have no doubt these moves should be undone. I tried to move them back to their rightful place myself, but encountered the familiar error: "The page could not be moved: a page of that name already exists, or the name you have chosen is not valid. Please choose another name, or use Requested moves to ask an administrator to help you with the move. Do not manually move the article by copying and pasting it; the page history must be moved along with the article text".

PROD the place you want to move them to. There's a special one that is used -- I can't remember what it is, and it doesn't seem to be listed on the PROD and MERGE article ... II | (t - c) 22:35, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

How can I do undo these moves having to go through 10 different RMs?--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 21:40, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Where the move was undiscussed I'll move it back. The RM process takes the current location as a default and so isn't terrible useful for undoing arbitrary undiscussed moves (but can, of course, be used to discuss them and get consensus for a change). Timrollpickering (talk) 21:47, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I really do appreciate the help. I'll try to add a few un-discussed moves to the bulleted list above, and I think we can catch most of them that way..--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 21:50, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

{{db-move}} is the correct tag if you want to clear out the desired name for a move. as long as the history of the redirect page is trivial. –xeno (talk) 22:44, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

This is falsely presented, and wholly inappropriate. First off, the fraternity pages were horribly disorganized. The page 'fraternity' was mostly redirects, (which is fine). However, one of the sub articles was 'fraternities and sororities', which makes no sense on the face of it. Why is the plural of the same term a different article? That article was 85% about American college fraternities, with a lot of references to other countries, redirects everywhere, and endless qualifying terms. One way to organize things was to make the article specific to one topic, and provide an organized series of redirects to other countries and other kinds of fraternities.

That lousy organization was the situation, and lots of people noticed it. There was extensive discussion on the wikiproject fraternities page and again on the wikiproject disambiguation page, (which noted that the third highest redirect page in all wikipedia is the fraternity page, and that something should be done). SO, when people now present the situation as being one of consensus before I made my changes, they are wrong. The prior situation was NOT a consensus, there was active discussion going back weeks.

I tried to organize the articles, and to give them appropriate names. An article should not be named "Fraternities and Sororities" if it is only about *North American* *College and University** Fraternities and Sororities. What this really gets to is that a few editors here only think of their college fraternity when they hear the word "fraternity" and this dispute is attributable to that narrow thinking. I placed American college fraternities in a context with European and Asian societies, and with non-university based societies. (There were valid claims posted by others dating back sometime that one serious problem with the Fraternities and Sororities article was that it was 'Ameri-centric'.)

And yes, I did change the article names, and no, I did not wait for consensus about it, and I WAS RIGHT TO DO SO. Who ever said that in wikipedia you wait for consensus first and then post something??? That is complete bull. (Again, the only existing consensus was that the prior plan was worthless and confusing.) There's an awful lot of people here who are apparently unaware how wikipedia is supposed to work. People come and make edits, in a good faith effort to improve the final product, and consensus should develop over time. I went ahead and did just that. Apparently I need to remind all of you of Wikipedia:Be bold.

Not only have I gotten hostile posts over it, I have also been publicly accused right here. I am getting hostile posts from Nwwaew, ElKevbo, and The Fat Man Who Never Came Back; but at least The Fat Man Who Never Came Back had the character to admit that he could see that I had a point. You all, frankly, should take a time out. You're squawking about restoring a series of article names that, the consensus was, was wholly inadequate.

The proper wikipedia approach would have been to see the problem and address it frankly, openly, and with a little creativity. It is no surprise to me that my most hostile attacker has not offered one constructive word in dealing with any of this. I have not insisted that my work be preserved, (although I have been stupidly accused of that); and I have, from the very first, suggested that anyone with a better idea should go right ahead and make changes. That's how wikipedia is suposed to work.

Nor should I have been accused here. This was wholly inappropriate.

Furthermore, this atmosphere of hostility and aggression makes posting here less than pleasant. The long term posters in wikipedia CAN effectively run off anyone who dares question the status quo, but the end result is not a free encyclopedia, but a meaningless collection of mypoic personal views.P22575R15 (talk) 23:32, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Non-admin closing of an AFD

This AFD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Andrew Schlafly (4th nomination) was closed by a non-admin because it was "too soon" after a non-consensus AFD. I can understand not relisting for AFD if the result was keep but this is a badly done article that violates basic wikipedia core policies. Deletion review seems to only deal with procedural issues in the AFD not the actual rational. I think opening this up to debate with a carefully laid out rational for deletion (which was lacking the first time because an admin listed it with no opinion) is appropriate and necessary. Keeping an article that violates wikipedia policy that is not being improved only for the sake of letting enough time go by seems very much the wrong decision to make. Tmtoulouse (talk) 19:53, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

This seems to smack of forum-shopping, but giving you the benefit of the doubt, I agree with the close, as did other people in the AfD itself. The fourth AfD two weeks after the third? I could be wrong, I guess, but I don't think TPH was out of line here. Also, the third and most recent AfD was very robust, and had ten keep !votes.Tan ǀ 39 20:01, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Forum shopping? Tmtoulouse (talk) 20:02, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Forum shopping MBisanz ^talk 20:04, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Endorse. The close by a non-admin is a technicality: Would the outcome of this AfD have been any different? PeterSymonds (talk) 20:05, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

There are several reasons to suspect that it would be, not the least of which that the original AFD was not proposed with any rational, it was a "no opinion" from an admin. What then is the amount of time we let a bad article rot till we can put it up for AFD again? Tmtoulouse (talk) 20:07, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Irrelevant whether or not the 3rd AfD (not the original) was proposed as "no opinion". There were two dozen opinions presented in the AfD by other people, and the outcome was keep. Tan ǀ 39 20:08, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Good close. Chillum 20:09, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

• Endorsing the closure. It should be noted that repeat AFDs in a short time frame waters down the whole aspect of AFD in the first place, and only results in early closures. seicer | talk | contribs 20:09, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
• Good close. Since this is an unofficial DRV, it seems. And to answer the "loaded question" of "what is the amount of time we let a bad article rot", yes, I've stopped beating my wife. Keeper ǀ 76 20:11, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
• Note: I had a big comment here but it got wiped out in an edit conflict. Anyway, I have talked to the above user, and have let them know of their actions (they also tried to redirect Andrew Schlafly to Conservapedia, then self-reverted). Looking at the article, I think that it might not be a bad idea to redirect/merge Schlafly's page to Conservapedia's page, but I've already informed the user that this would best be carried out by means of {{merge}} templates and talk page discussion. Also re the user's question above: It's been my experience that a wait of a couple months is usually good. I agree that Schlafly's article is "bad", but there are others who disagree, so we need to find an alternative route here. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells• Otter chirps • HELP!)} 20:10, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

The outcome was not keep, it was no consensus there were more people asking for it to be deleted, I think there are people here who are not paying attention to what is actually going on. So whatever, we can "mege" this article to conservapedia without the AFD anyway. Tmtoulouse (talk) 20:11, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I'll give you that. However, the outcome was also not delete. Tan ǀ 39 20:12, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

(e/c)It was no consensus, which is a keep by default. Please do not go against the AfD and do your own thing. Your interpretation of the 3rd closure is not a reason to begin merging. PeterSymonds (talk) 20:13, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Consider it dropped, I think a policy that keeps article rotting because some arbitrary time period has not run its course is bad policy, but apparently it is policy. In this case there is another avenue to take that can bypass the bureaucracy entirely. Tmtoulouse (talk) 20:14, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

(e/c galore, gah). According to WP:MERGE, if it is a controversial merge, it should be proposed, discussed, with the goal of arriving at consensus. This qualifies as a controversial merge. Just an FYI to help alleviate future frustration on your part Tmtoulouse. Keeper ǀ 76 20:15, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

• Ignore the article, delete Conservapedia as a hopeless joke. Not the article, the site. Have you seen their article on Barack Obama? And you can bet those wingnuts come straight over here to "correct" the bias we call NPOV. Guy (Help!) 21:50, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Thanks for that - the Obama article is the best bit of internet insanity I've seen since I blocked User:Neutral777 and he went off to set up a "rival to Wikipedia", complete with the "Why Jesus is like Unix" article Wikipedia inexplicably declines to host. – iridescent 21:57, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
• What is this doing here? I urge someone to close this as an absurd and counterproductive use of ANB. DGG (talk) 22:41, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
• Overturn and reopen the AFDor Merge to Conservapedia. It was claimed above that those at the latest AFD agreed with the close. I was in the process of typing in my rationale for why deletion was necessary when Hammer prematurely closed it. I want it to be reopened so it can proceed. The subject is non-notable, and there is no good rationale for waiting a certain number of weeks before another AFD. Merger to Conservapedia would be quite appropriate also, since he has no references with substantial coverage, but is the editor of that work. Edison (talk) 01:22, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
• Archive this discussion, then re-open it, just for fun. Chillum 01:46, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh

Could an uninvolved admin keep a watch on the page. I've edited several times, including the disputed section. PrinceOfCanada (talk · contribs · count · logs · page moves · block log · edit summaries), Labcoat (talk · contribs · count · logs · page moves · block log · edit summaries) and 88.108.146.110 (talk · contribs · count · logs · page moves · block log · edit summaries), have between them made eight edits to the page, which has resulted in it ending up in the original state. I've warned both the users and pointed them to WP:3RR and WP:Edit war. They stopped several hours ago, so no action other than monitoring is required at the moment. I'll let them both know that I posted this here. Thanks. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 18:26, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Rather than "keep a watch" on the article, could I make a plea that an uninvolved admin actually intervene here. The repeated removal of important words in the relevant section by CambridgeBayWeather on the justification of his/her arguments alone (as provided on the discussion page) is in my opinion (and at least that of two other users) both disruptive and unhelpful.

CambridgeBayWeather, the reason I (and presumably the others) stopped editing that section was by no means intended as an indication that I accept the nature of your edits. Rather, (1) I simply don't have any interest in engaging in an edit war with you, and (2) since I found your language (on the discussion page and edit summaries) to be rude and at times vaguely threatening. I note from your entry above that you've now resorted to issuing "warnings" to us, which is a real shame. The fact that you possess Admin status does not, as far as I am aware, automatically entitle you to force through edits according to your own opinions on articles (as is the case here). The arguments you have presented on the issues under discussion have been one-sided and I for one remain entirely unconvinced by them. Labcoat (talk) 00:11, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Labcoat, I think that you are confusing me with someone else. Could you point out which of my three comments on the talk page were "...rude and at times vaguely threatening." The only three comments I ever made were 28 July 2007, 29 July 2007 and 10 August 2007 all of them almost a year ago. Also it appears that out of the last 500 edits to the article I made about nine. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 01:48, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

No, CambridgeBayWeather, you’re very well aware that I’m not confusing you with anyone else because I’ve already raised this with you before, and I’ve been addressing you directly throughout. Your sarcastic suggestion of ‘mistaken identity’ is (again) unhelpful and rude.

You’ve demanded that I indicate where your comments have been rude, threatening etc. I do this not for your benefit, but for the uninvolved Admin I’m praying will intervene here to provide some resolution to this sorry episode:

• In the edit summary – “Ref discussion yourself, dude.”

• In the edit summary – “We've already been over this. Stop.” – you wrote this in the full knowledge that the only person disagreeing with the edits in the discussion is you (i.e. there is no consensus). Furthermore, your use of the word ‘stop’ suggests that we are doing something akin to vandalism and is intended as a threat.

• “I'll be reverting now, please don't do this again.” – again, implies that the edits made by myself and others were in bad faith, and that you are giving us a ‘dressing down’ with the implied threat of negative consequences for myself and the others if we persist with our edits

• “I will be reverting your change until you can demonstrate how putting a value judgement on his statements is NPOV.” – in other words, despite the discussion, you are insisting that everyone else is placing a ‘value judgment’ on the subject and that you will simply avoid the discussion and continue reverting the edits according to your own whim. You then continued to sign-off this latest entry with the parting shot…

• “Okay? Good.”

I also note from the exchanges you’ve had with the other Users that there is a pattern of rudeness in your language and interaction with others - my only experience of interacting with you has been on the Prince Philip article, although it's probably a reasonable guess that this is something you do in relation to anything you’re in dispute over. In view of the manner in which you have behaved, I will not be responding any further to you in relation to this or any other article.

Labcoat (talk) 11:09, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

None of those edits were made by CambridgeBayWeather. You have mistaken them for PrinceofCanada. DrKiernan (talk) 16:05, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps he thinks that PrinceofCanada is my sock. I thought that was who he had mixed me up with. So it goes. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 18:02, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi. No, I don't think that. I've made a mistake, and I'd like to repeat the apology I've made on my User page for that. The rude nature of PrinceOfCanada (talk · contribs · count · logs · page moves · block log · edit summaries) comments remain undiminished however and I would like someone to address them and the original discussion re Prince Philip. Labcoat (talk) 21:37, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. No harm done, just a simple mistake. Labcoat is correct, someone univolved needs to look at what is going on there. Cheers. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 23:05, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

It looks like the edit warring has stopped for now. Everyone involved has been warned, so I don't think any admin action is needed at the moment. It may be worth taking to dispute resolution or reporting to WP:AN/3RR if things flare up again. Papa November (talk) 11:02, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Sindh historical articles and User:Dawoodabro

Dawoodabro (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) has added a series of articles about the history of Sindh, mostly about individual rulers. Several of these have been speedily deleted as lacking context or as copyvios, and the user's talk page is full of notices about deletions which he or she has apparently not responded to. I've discovered that the source of the text is A History of Sind, Volume II, by Mirza Kalichbeg Fredunbeg, a book published in 1902 and therefore in the public domain, with an online scan at http://www.scribd.com/doc/420317/A-HISTORY-OF-SINDVol-II

Based on the {{1911}} template created for articles from the Encyclopedia Brittanica's 11th edition (now also in the public domain), I have created {{HistoryOfSindh2}} and added it to the articles in question, together with Category:History of Sindh

I think the articles about past rulers all pass the general notability guideline, although they are weak in context. On that basis, it might be worthwhile to restore all the user's deleted contributions and to apply the appropriate tags, templates and categories to them. I'm not an admin, so I can't restore the articles myself. --Eastmain (talk) 17:58, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

User blocked relating to NFCC

Resolved

 – never mind this - probably going to unblock the user since the page was protected - Rjd0060 (talk) 23:49, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Earlier today I blocked Nukes4Tots (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) for continued edit warring (after a final warning was given) over the inclusion of a non-free image in the M1 carbine article. As you'll see from looking at the history, several users (including myself) have reverted this users additions, as the image is being improperly used, according to WP:NFC. This is a rather obvious case of inappropriate use of a non-free image. Other users (one currently) is now beginning to include the image, despite several administrators attempts to explain why the image is not acceptable in that particular article (see discussion at Talk:M1 carbine#Malcolm X photo).

I guess I'd like some more eyes, and opinions on the matter, as Nukes4Tots is currently requesting unblock. - Rjd0060 (talk) 18:22, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

I've been trying to avoid getting involved, but I have been following the incident for weeks, and I am not sure it's an improper use of the image. It's a well known iconic and historical image of a major historical figure with the weapon in question. It's both topical for the article and unavoidably not freely re-creatable, given that the man died decades ago. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 00:05, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

That's a good argument for using the image on the article about Malcolm X, but not so much for using it on four different articles (!) as the image page Image:Malcomxm1carbine3gr.gif tries to justify. The interest in the picture is not in the particular gun, but in the person who is holding it. — Carl (CBM · talk) 00:14, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

So many questions, so little time

Please forgive me for disturbing you.

I would like to know how Wikipedia administrators coordinate their work. For example:

• Who is helping with each one of the many task administrators have to deal with?

• What is the most backlogged or critical task at any given time?

• What is the status of each task at any given time?

What about the help from regular users:

• Where can a user find out where his(her) contributions will be more effective?

• How does a user know who else is involved in a particular task?

• How is progress measured in any given task?

• What policy decisions are being discussed/voted/made that could benefit from a user's participation?

Thank you so much for your attention.

Sincerely,

Virgilio A. P. Machado

vapmachado ^talk.cw 19:48, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Is this for a report? If so, I'm sure your answers can be found be inputting these sorts of questions in Google. Rudget 20:05, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

In answer to your first question, we all just do the work we choose to do. It amazingly gets done more often than not. Chillum 20:08, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Virgilio, if this is actually for a report, let me recommend Wikipedia:Village pump (assistance) as another place to post these questions. People may be more helpful in that forum. Mr. IP 《Defender of Open Editing》 20:45, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the kindness of your answers and the time off you took from your busy schedules.

I’ll do my best not to answer your question with another question: This is not for a report.

You suggested an interesting way to find answers to my questions. I had not considered that option. I was more interested in hearing them “from the horse’s mouth.” If you care to provide an example of how such search would be successful, I will pursue it, and will not use any more of your valuable time.

From the second answer, I deduct that nobody (administrator or not) knows what the administrators are taking care of. Furthermore, when an administrator chooses to do something he or she is usually successful in his(her) endeavor. Please correct me if I am wrong.

Thank you, once more, for enlightening me.

Sincerely,

Virgilio A. P. Machado

vapmachado ^talk.cw 20:48, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

In order:

• We do not have lists of which admins are currently helping with which admin activities. However, the current participants can usually be found by looking at the history of the relevant process page. The broad classes of activities specfically requiring admin powers are:
  • Deletion. Look at the deletion log to see how is dealing with speedy deletions, image deletions, categories, templates, stubs, articles and copyright problems. I probably missed some.
  • Protection. See the history of WP:RfPP.
  • Vandalism monitoring. From an admin perspective, this is now just blocking the relevant reports to WP:AIV, so see the history of that page.
  • There are others too, like the histories of WP:3RR, WP:DRV, WP:AER.
• The most backlogged varies greatly. A backlog tends to go away when a relatively small number of admins decides to really have a go at something for a length of time. Then what was a backlogged process is temporarily not so much. Probably the most oft-complained about is CAT:CSD. The most critical depends a lot on your view. There is no formal hierarchy of criticality. Again, probably CAT:CSD gets the most frequent attention from the largest individual number, but it's easy to argue that copyright problems and images (which have many copyright problems) are the most pressing since they have (theoretically potential) legal implications. Then again, one might argue that protecting and reverting problems on biographies is critical because of the libel possibilities.
• What do you mean by "status"? Tasks that someone has identified as being particularly out-of-date usually get tagged with {{Adminbacklog}}, so we can use Special:Whatlinkshere/Template:Adminbacklog if we wish. Most of the process pages in my first answer have a section(s) on them listing those items that need dealing with, and there are things like WP:AfD/Old and other bot-managed pages that give lists, too.
• As a matter of definition, a user's contributions are valuable wherever and whenever they choose to make them in good faith. It is entirely a matter of personal choice. With so many more 'ordinary' editors than admins, there is rarely a shortage of voices or helping hands on non-admin tasks for long.
• In a similar way to my first answer. Addtionally, there are many WikiProjects which co-ordinate editing in various spheres. These usually have a 'members' list on their front page, although they are often out of date.
• What do you mean by "progress"? Proximity to have 0 items in the not-done list? Then clearly, it is measured by the number oustanding. This can be determined in a similar way to my earlier answer. The editorial drudge work often has a progress graph on a co-ordinating page. See for example the long-defunct Wikipedia:WikiProject Wiki Syntax.
• See WP:CENT

Splash - tk 21:43, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

YouTube Video

Resolved

 – No admin action necessary. —Travis^talk 01:26, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

I'd just thought I would share this video with you, it seriously mocks Wikipedia. I know this might be a little bit off topic but I was on YouTube looking at my subscription videos and notrious Hot4Words, posted a new video just less than 5 minutes ago, this one, and she seems to mock Wikipedia has an unreliable source. It is disappointing people view Wikipedia this way just becuase any one can edit it. I thought I would share this video with you becuase Hot4Words gets a lot of views on her videos, thousands, and I feel she made a terrible remark towards Wikipedia. BUT! Not much we can do about it. Just thought I would let you guys know. Thanks. Also, please feel free to tell me to move this to the Village pump, or somewhere else if it bothers you. :) --eric (mailbox) 01:03, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, let's be blunt; at least at the present time, Wikipedia is really not a reliable source for academic research. It might serve as a good starting point, but not as a source unto itself. And I'm not too worried about a single person mocking Wikipedia; heck, we even have an entire article documenting it. —Kurykh 01:09, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

True. --eric (mailbox) 01:14, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Again, here is the video, About Wikipedia, becuase at the end she asks the viewers to see if Wikipedia is a good source. Turns out she isn't all brians after all if she gets her answers from the internet and not her education in teaching English. --eric (mailbox) 01:12, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

I think getting all worked up (or even giving the impression of doing so) about one person criticizing us is exactly the reaction she wants. I say just ignore her and go about your business. —Kurykh 01:16, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

 Done :-D --eric (mailbox) 01:20, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Blechnic

Some of you may recall a recent dispute where some respected editors thought Blechnic had crossed the line about following another Wikipedian's edits (see this and this in particular as examples). Well then back I defended Blechnic because I thought her heart was in the right place and her patience had been worn out. This time she's targeting me: following my edits, making unfounded accusations, and escalating the disruption each time I try to resolve the problem informally. Yesterday she deleted my second post to her user talk and requested that I not post there again. Her problem behavior continues so I am forced to raise it here. Requesting impartial review and intervention.

The problem concerns RFAR posting guidelines and featured pictures. The thread at an arbitration clerk's talk page and the diffs at my post here[41] sum up the basics. Blechnic's response was to blank my post with an edit summary that accuses me of personal attacks,[42] then edit an article where a recently-featured picture I restored is hosted,[43] then return to a featured picture candidate I was running (I had asked her to recuse herself until whatever grievance she has against me is resolved)[44][45] following up with further dialog about the nomination and the article where the FP was hosted.[46][47] Then, two hours after I put an image up for peer review (Wikipedia:Picture peer review/Ursa Major and other constellations), Blechnic starts a biography about the artist.[48] and inserts the image at another article.[49] This is the reverse of the polite distance I had asked for.

That's a very strange way to respond to a neutral procedural request, followed by my good faith explanations and finally a request for recusal: escalate the accusations, involve third parties, and follow me around? I've asked a couple of people to reality check my posts and see whether I've made any personal attacks; they don't think I have. Unfortunately Blechnic's actions have become a self-fulfilling prophecy: I really don't want to come to a noticeboard with any complaint, but this is happening on a week where my health is poor (I'll discuss that side of things with administrators offsite) and I want to be left alone. Please help. Durova^Charge! 01:59, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm being accused of editing articles I watch, in my topic area, creating new articles about encyclopedic topics in areas I've edited before, adding comments to discussions I'm involved in, and adding relevant images appropriately to articles, and trying to better format images in articles I edit.

I won't be able to think of a worthy response, so I probably should be as excluded from this conversation as Durova's lack of an alert intends me to be.

Durova, please provide a count of how many images you've nominated and how many I've stalked you on when you alert me on my talk page that you're discussing me at AN. --Blechnic (talk) 02:22, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

So far as I know, Blechnic never edited Bingham Canyon Mine until the day I asked her to avoid me. There's really no reason to create a new biography article without any references at all, two hours after I list an image for peer review, or to insert that very image at another article. The problem now continues: more posts to a delisting candidate I nominated.[50][51][52] Blechnic, you directed me to cease posting to your user talk. Obviously when you insist upon escalating the problem afterward I'm forced to go elsewhere, and prevented from notifying you. Durova^Charge! 02:27, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Durova, you can check the edit history here for the mine.[53] I first edited the article on July 15. Please verify before you accuse. Your accusations here just sound strange. The edit history is not secret or privileged.

Would you like me to forward the e-mail you sent me on Sunday July 13th requesting that I move the image in the mine article? Or shall I quote your request to move the image here for you to remember?

If you disagree with the article I created about the engraver, feel free to nominate it for deletion. WP:AfD. I also, in another instance, linked to an illustrator's article at FPC when you nominated one of his works. I also edited his article. Please accuse me of that, also.

The problem is not escalated, it only exists with one party, you Durova. I'm not following you around, your edit history and mine will show that. I'm not editing outside of my area just for you. I'm not interested in you. You have tons of nominations on FPC which I have not made a single comment on. I only comment on a few pictures there, ones that interest me. I'm not doing anything I haven't been doing at Wikipedia for months.

You could have simply asked another editor to post at my talk page to alert me of this. You did not.

--Blechnic (talk) 02:41, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Heh, point about the e-mail. I'd forgotten that. Take a look at your own words over the past few days and ask yourself how that looks to a person who's under the weather. I expressed again and again that my actions were neutral and policy based, and I held no ill will. In return you bandied accusations of favoritism, vendettas, and personal attacks, expanded the dispute, refused to withdraw when requested, and cut me off from using your user talk again. I really just want to relax: one FPC a day is a breathtaking pace to maintain for a solid month; I'd hate to lose stride over a bad week's health and an honest misunderstanding that spun out of orbit. Durova^Charge! 03:22, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

(ec)Blechnic, my health happens to be very poor right now. Obviously I'm not completely on top of my game. Yes, for a couple of weeks now I've had doubts about your behavior; it only really came to a head after the RFAR incident. I assumed good faith as long as possible. You have been blocked for POINTy disruption before; all I ask is to be left alone. Please respect that this has some grain of validity; Wikipedia has 2.5 million articles and only a few dozen of them host my featured pictures. Suppose you are absolutely correct and something is wrong with my perception: how hard would it be to humor me a little while? If I were that far gone I couldn't be reasoned with anyway (and I create enough featured pictures so why break a crazy lady's stride?) Durova^Charge! 03:01, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

I won't comment about most of this, but the creation of Sidney Hall seems innocent enough - Blechnic sees an image come up on FPC and finds the topic interesting enough to write a bit about. Right now I'm studying the history of the railroads of Utah, and keep coming across and getting confused by Bingham Canyon, but even if that were a while ago I might be reminded of it by this discussion and decide to revisit it. --NE2 02:55, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Notice from Blechnic

I won't keep discussing this. Something is wrong here that has nothing to do with me. --Blechnic (talk) 02:41, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

So, resolved?

Durova, you go ←. Blechnic, you go →. Should the paths ever cross again, just consider Wikipedia to be a mobius strip. Agreed? Keegan^talk 06:27, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Heartily. Durova^Charge! 03:47, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

User:Kuzain

Resolved

 – Warned by User:Rlevse. --Kanonkas :  Talk  12:11, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

User:Kuzain is currently making conflict of interest accusations on User:Thrindel. User Thrindel has been making good faith edits to the article Ctrl+Alt+Del, explaining all of his edits rather lengthy on the talk page. Several Anon ip users have accused user Thrindel of being Tim Buckley, the person who makes the comic the article deals with. Recently user Kuzain has begun to post very publicly that Thrindel is Tim Buckley here and here and here. Kuzain has been warned twice on thier talk page to assume good faith and to not try to out other users on wikipedia here and here, he responds by accusing the others that are the ones making a personal attack on him here. It has been requested that he supply his evidence for accusing user Thrindel of being Tim Buckley, and having a conflict of interest here, and his reply is simply that it is his own evidence and he will not supply it as stated here and here. Kuzain has now stated that unless Thrindel can justify his edits to him by a deadline his edits will be reverted here.

I am requesting some administrator assistance as this seems to have gotten out of hand with coi accusations and threats to out Thrindel and revert edits unless he can justify his edits to another editor. Knowledgeum (talk) 08:32, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Warned Kuzain on his talk page. — Rlevse • Talk • 10:10, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Just to mention, WP:OUTING covers this instance - although the warning given is sufficient for any good faith editor. LessHeard vanU (talk) 15:23, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Talk:Raymond Kennedy

Resolved

Noticing that there seemed to be vast amount of uncited material on the Raymond Kennedy, I addressed my concerns on the talk page. Soon after, anonymous IP 76.15.204.152 removed my comments and then, after a few superficial changes to the article, unleashed a personal attack against myself, questioning my abilities by cherry-picking details from my profile to make me appear incompetent. I responded, admittedly with more emotion than was perhaps prudent, but nevertheless outlining the specific policies that were at play and asking them not to engage in personal attacks. The response I received was another cherry-picked attack on my argument. At that point, I decided to point out, more specifically, where his arguments failed policy-wise then decided that I didn't want to continue the argument, since I'm liable to be cajoled into doing something foolish or rash.

I would like to recuse myself from any administrative action regarding this page, but ask that another administrator watch the IP and/or the page itself so that, when I clean up the uncited material, I do not have to engage with what is likely an attempt to merely anger me and cause me to make mistakes or say things I will later regret. Alternatively, if someone else would like to clean up the page, that would help too. In any case, the editor's behavior is simply unacceptable. An explanation of the policies from an uninvolved admin may help. Cheers, CP 15:44, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

You should be removed from the editing of this page generally since your first message on the talk page of that article included a threat. Furthermore, you did not yourself follow the policies of Wikipedia in resolving the dispute by continuing to claim your own personal qualifications in editing this page. (Exclamations and protests of your membership in Phi Beta Kappa, for example. "Cheers." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.15.204.152 (talk) 17:27, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

I've looked at the talk page and the article. Canadian Paul's first message on that talk page was perfectly proper, as far as I can see. You (IP editor) appear to have a serious misunderstanding about who can edit what articles: the short version is, everyone can edit any article. Complaining someone else is "not following Wikipedia policies" when you are demonstrating a pretty obvious misunderstanding of how things work here does not help your cause. I suggest you two retire back to the talk page, and that you (IP editor) address Canadian Paul's legitimate concerns, rather than try to undermine his "credentials" to edit the article. I'll keep an eye on the article and talk page; suggest one or two others do as well. --barneca (talk) 17:34, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

I would like to point out another personal attack against me here. That is all. Cheers, CP 17:39, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Not really a personal attack, IMHO; just their misunderstanding that you require some kind of "qualifications" to edit the article. Their comments at the talk page skirt much closer to the line, but that's in the past, and I'll be more concerned if such comments keep happening in the future. --barneca (talk) 17:43, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Interesting when a thread starts on this topic. COI disclosure: Raymond Kennedy was one of my seminar professors a long time ago. I've added an orignal research tag to the article and recommend mentorship. This reads more like a magazine profile than an encyclopedia biography and is mainly sourced to original letters in a university's private collection. Suggest it would be a viable solution to actually publish a magazine profile on Mr. Kennedy and then cite that for the Wikipedia article. Marking resolved, since no admin intervention is necessary. These look like honest misunderstandings. Durova^Charge! 03:47, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Blechnic

Some of you may recall a recent dispute where some respected editors thought Blechnic had crossed the line about following another Wikipedian's edits (see this and this in particular as examples). Well then back I defended Blechnic because I thought her heart was in the right place and her patience had been worn out. This time she's targeting me: following my edits, making unfounded accusations, and escalating the disruption each time I try to resolve the problem informally. Yesterday she deleted my second post to her user talk and requested that I not post there again. Her problem behavior continues so I am forced to raise it here. Requesting impartial review and intervention.

The problem concerns RFAR posting guidelines and featured pictures. The thread at an arbitration clerk's talk page and the diffs at my post here[54] sum up the basics. Blechnic's response was to blank my post with an edit summary that accuses me of personal attacks,[55] then edit an article where a recently-featured picture I restored is hosted,[56] then return to a featured picture candidate I was running (I had asked her to recuse herself until whatever grievance she has against me is resolved)[57][58] following up with further dialog about the nomination and the article where the FP was hosted.[59][60] Then, two hours after I put an image up for peer review (Wikipedia:Picture peer review/Ursa Major and other constellations), Blechnic starts a biography about the artist.[61] and inserts the image at another article.[62] This is the reverse of the polite distance I had asked for.

That's a very strange way to respond to a neutral procedural request, followed by my good faith explanations and finally a request for recusal: escalate the accusations, involve third parties, and follow me around? I've asked a couple of people to reality check my posts and see whether I've made any personal attacks; they don't think I have. Unfortunately Blechnic's actions have become a self-fulfilling prophecy: I really don't want to come to a noticeboard with any complaint, but this is happening on a week where my health is poor (I'll discuss that side of things with administrators offsite) and I want to be left alone. Please help. Durova^Charge! 01:59, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm being accused of editing articles I watch, in my topic area, creating new articles about encyclopedic topics in areas I've edited before, adding comments to discussions I'm involved in, and adding relevant images appropriately to articles, and trying to better format images in articles I edit.

I won't be able to think of a worthy response, so I probably should be as excluded from this conversation as Durova's lack of an alert intends me to be.

Durova, please provide a count of how many images you've nominated and how many I've stalked you on when you alert me on my talk page that you're discussing me at AN. --Blechnic (talk) 02:22, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

So far as I know, Blechnic never edited Bingham Canyon Mine until the day I asked her to avoid me. There's really no reason to create a new biography article without any references at all, two hours after I list an image for peer review, or to insert that very image at another article. The problem now continues: more posts to a delisting candidate I nominated.[63][64][65] Blechnic, you directed me to cease posting to your user talk. Obviously when you insist upon escalating the problem afterward I'm forced to go elsewhere, and prevented from notifying you. Durova^Charge! 02:27, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Durova, you can check the edit history here for the mine.[66] I first edited the article on July 15. Please verify before you accuse. Your accusations here just sound strange. The edit history is not secret or privileged.

Would you like me to forward the e-mail you sent me on Sunday July 13th requesting that I move the image in the mine article? Or shall I quote your request to move the image here for you to remember?

If you disagree with the article I created about the engraver, feel free to nominate it for deletion. WP:AfD. I also, in another instance, linked to an illustrator's article at FPC when you nominated one of his works. I also edited his article. Please accuse me of that, also.

The problem is not escalated, it only exists with one party, you Durova. I'm not following you around, your edit history and mine will show that. I'm not editing outside of my area just for you. I'm not interested in you. You have tons of nominations on FPC which I have not made a single comment on. I only comment on a few pictures there, ones that interest me. I'm not doing anything I haven't been doing at Wikipedia for months.

You could have simply asked another editor to post at my talk page to alert me of this. You did not.

--Blechnic (talk) 02:41, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Heh, point about the e-mail. I'd forgotten that. Take a look at your own words over the past few days and ask yourself how that looks to a person who's under the weather. I expressed again and again that my actions were neutral and policy based, and I held no ill will. In return you bandied accusations of favoritism, vendettas, and personal attacks, expanded the dispute, refused to withdraw when requested, and cut me off from using your user talk again. I really just want to relax: one FPC a day is a breathtaking pace to maintain for a solid month; I'd hate to lose stride over a bad week's health and an honest misunderstanding that spun out of orbit. Durova^Charge! 03:22, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

(ec)Blechnic, my health happens to be very poor right now. Obviously I'm not completely on top of my game. Yes, for a couple of weeks now I've had doubts about your behavior; it only really came to a head after the RFAR incident. I assumed good faith as long as possible. You have been blocked for POINTy disruption before; all I ask is to be left alone. Please respect that this has some grain of validity; Wikipedia has 2.5 million articles and only a few dozen of them host my featured pictures. Suppose you are absolutely correct and something is wrong with my perception: how hard would it be to humor me a little while? If I were that far gone I couldn't be reasoned with anyway (and I create enough featured pictures so why break a crazy lady's stride?) Durova^Charge! 03:01, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

I won't comment about most of this, but the creation of Sidney Hall seems innocent enough - Blechnic sees an image come up on FPC and finds the topic interesting enough to write a bit about. Right now I'm studying the history of the railroads of Utah, and keep coming across and getting confused by Bingham Canyon, but even if that were a while ago I might be reminded of it by this discussion and decide to revisit it. --NE2 02:55, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Notice from Blechnic

I won't keep discussing this. Something is wrong here that has nothing to do with me. --Blechnic (talk) 02:41, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

So, resolved?

Durova, you go ←. Blechnic, you go →. Should the paths ever cross again, just consider Wikipedia to be a mobius strip. Agreed? Keegan^talk 06:27, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Heartily. Durova^Charge! 03:47, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

User:Kuzain

Resolved

 – Warned by User:Rlevse. --Kanonkas :  Talk  12:11, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

User:Kuzain is currently making conflict of interest accusations on User:Thrindel. User Thrindel has been making good faith edits to the article Ctrl+Alt+Del, explaining all of his edits rather lengthy on the talk page. Several Anon ip users have accused user Thrindel of being Tim Buckley, the person who makes the comic the article deals with. Recently user Kuzain has begun to post very publicly that Thrindel is Tim Buckley here and here and here. Kuzain has been warned twice on thier talk page to assume good faith and to not try to out other users on wikipedia here and here, he responds by accusing the others that are the ones making a personal attack on him here. It has been requested that he supply his evidence for accusing user Thrindel of being Tim Buckley, and having a conflict of interest here, and his reply is simply that it is his own evidence and he will not supply it as stated here and here. Kuzain has now stated that unless Thrindel can justify his edits to him by a deadline his edits will be reverted here.

I am requesting some administrator assistance as this seems to have gotten out of hand with coi accusations and threats to out Thrindel and revert edits unless he can justify his edits to another editor. Knowledgeum (talk) 08:32, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Warned Kuzain on his talk page. — Rlevse • Talk • 10:10, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Just to mention, WP:OUTING covers this instance - although the warning given is sufficient for any good faith editor. LessHeard vanU (talk) 15:23, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Talk:Raymond Kennedy

Resolved

Noticing that there seemed to be vast amount of uncited material on the Raymond Kennedy, I addressed my concerns on the talk page. Soon after, anonymous IP 76.15.204.152 removed my comments and then, after a few superficial changes to the article, unleashed a personal attack against myself, questioning my abilities by cherry-picking details from my profile to make me appear incompetent. I responded, admittedly with more emotion than was perhaps prudent, but nevertheless outlining the specific policies that were at play and asking them not to engage in personal attacks. The response I received was another cherry-picked attack on my argument. At that point, I decided to point out, more specifically, where his arguments failed policy-wise then decided that I didn't want to continue the argument, since I'm liable to be cajoled into doing something foolish or rash.

I would like to recuse myself from any administrative action regarding this page, but ask that another administrator watch the IP and/or the page itself so that, when I clean up the uncited material, I do not have to engage with what is likely an attempt to merely anger me and cause me to make mistakes or say things I will later regret. Alternatively, if someone else would like to clean up the page, that would help too. In any case, the editor's behavior is simply unacceptable. An explanation of the policies from an uninvolved admin may help. Cheers, CP 15:44, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

You should be removed from the editing of this page generally since your first message on the talk page of that article included a threat. Furthermore, you did not yourself follow the policies of Wikipedia in resolving the dispute by continuing to claim your own personal qualifications in editing this page. (Exclamations and protests of your membership in Phi Beta Kappa, for example. "Cheers." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.15.204.152 (talk) 17:27, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

I've looked at the talk page and the article. Canadian Paul's first message on that talk page was perfectly proper, as far as I can see. You (IP editor) appear to have a serious misunderstanding about who can edit what articles: the short version is, everyone can edit any article. Complaining someone else is "not following Wikipedia policies" when you are demonstrating a pretty obvious misunderstanding of how things work here does not help your cause. I suggest you two retire back to the talk page, and that you (IP editor) address Canadian Paul's legitimate concerns, rather than try to undermine his "credentials" to edit the article. I'll keep an eye on the article and talk page; suggest one or two others do as well. --barneca (talk) 17:34, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

I would like to point out another personal attack against me here. That is all. Cheers, CP 17:39, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Not really a personal attack, IMHO; just their misunderstanding that you require some kind of "qualifications" to edit the article. Their comments at the talk page skirt much closer to the line, but that's in the past, and I'll be more concerned if such comments keep happening in the future. --barneca (talk) 17:43, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Interesting when a thread starts on this topic. COI disclosure: Raymond Kennedy was one of my seminar professors a long time ago. I've added an orignal research tag to the article and recommend mentorship. This reads more like a magazine profile than an encyclopedia biography and is mainly sourced to original letters in a university's private collection. Suggest it would be a viable solution to actually publish a magazine profile on Mr. Kennedy and then cite that for the Wikipedia article. Marking resolved, since no admin intervention is necessary. These look like honest misunderstandings. Durova^Charge! 03:47, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/HouseOfScandal

I have no reason to doubt the good faith or competence of this editor, and definitely do not wish to imply any intentional wrongdoing here, but I am a little concerned by the mass creation of redirects in this contribution history. Can an admin take a look at this please? I don't know if this is good practice or not - to create so many redirects - but I have the feeling that it is not. Setwisohi (talk) 08:59, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

• After exploring Setwisohi's concerns, please investigate this editor's placement of Speedy Delete tags on Nevins Farm and Equine Center and David C. Nevins and, if appropriate, council this editor on their proper use. Thanks. - House of Scandal (talk) 09:21, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Oh dear, and then please review which editor has turned this a little nasty. And, then perhaps council HouseOfScandal on good faith etc.. Setwisohi (talk) 09:27, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

If it can be established in the article how or why all of them should redirect to one specific article, then they stay (as redirects are cheap). Also, these pages are not speedy applicable. I'd recommend you remove them and take it to AfD (but only if you are certain they should be deleted). Synergy 09:30, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

• Thanks for the input Synergy. Your response and the original editors obvious and genuine indignation convince me to remove the tags. I still dont like the very many immediate redirects however. Setwisohi (talk) 09:33, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Its standard to create them, so long as they are possible search terms. If one article has several likely search terms, its inevitable that they will all redirect there. Also, fyi, these types of reports should go to AN/I and not to the general noticeboard. Synergy 09:37, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

User:Ibtikari -> Promoting Business

Resolved

as this
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Ibtikari&diff=229579408&oldid=229577531

[spam removed]

Tell what to do... —Preceding unsigned comment added by DualHelix (talk • contribs) 13:23, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

• I nuked the user page. You can use {{db-spam}} for this. Guy (Help!) 14:00, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Taekwondo

Hi, I'd filed an incident report last week regarding several months' of arguments and disruptions at the Taekwondo page, but I see it was archived (though it's still marked as unresolved and needing attention). I was just wondering what the status of this is, or if there's something I need to do? Someone mentioned ArbCom in the article — is this the suggested next step? I'm not familiar with that process, I'm afraid. Could someone give me guidance as to how to proceed?

In case it's needed, here's a recap in the briefest of nutshells: The issue we're having is a single editor (User:JJL) who favors advancing one opinion of taekwondo's origin above the others. The page's history section current presents the theories neutrally and provides various sources for each. JJL's chief assertion is that sources supporting opposing theories fail to meet WP:RS, and months of debate and appeals to accept consensus and compromise have had no effect. Help is greatly appreciated! Thanks, Huwmanbeing ☀★ 02:39, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Before ArbCom, you should try Wikipedia:Requests for comment. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:40, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Typically, ArbCom does not decide on content. Consider if the opposing theories are mentioned by reliable sources. The RS don't have to agree that they are valid, only to report it. For example, at one time, the Earth was thought to be flat. Mention that current reliable sources report that some believed the Earth was flat is suitable for Wikipedia. Spevw (talk) 21:17, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Jiuguang Wang

Jiuguang continues to attack and harass Julie Dancer by proxy on the grounds of his difference with the article she wrote in the Wikia which uses logic to define, support and defend the existence of God. I agree that some Jews may be offended by her personal conclusion that Jesus Christ is God but she is only claiming that as the personal basis of her religion and not implying that anyone else does not have the right to believe whatever they choose. In the case of Jiuguang he is not Jewish and was born in Beijing, raised as an atheist, indoctrinated as a Communist, train from a very early age on computers and sent to the Atlanta at age 12, where he eventually entered Georgia Tech where he is now a robotics student. His statement that he disagrees with Julie Dancer's article in the Wikia makes his subsequent nomination for deletion of her Optimal classification article in the Wikipedia a personal attack and his subsequent deletions of her links between her article in the Wikibooks and references in the Wikipedia and act of stalking and harassment against her. The Wikipedia is not above reproach and such actions are quickly loosing the favor of the men and women who have accommodated or tolerated its existence from the beginning. Bight the hand of the powers that allow the wikipedia not to pay taxes and you may find yourselves paying dues. His deletion of her article, in light of his refusal to read the primary reference, is tantamount to an entomologist seeing a new bug in the forest he had never seen before and squishing it into the ground for that reason. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.100.1.50 (talk) 12:14, 3 August 2008 (UTC) |}

This is likely User:Julie Dancer evading her indefinate block. No one else ever said that AfD was a personal attack against her. I'd also like to note that the threat above is not likely to induce rational discussion and more likely just to get you blocked. Cheers. lifebaka (talk - contribs) 14:27, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

IP blocked for 12 hours by Nandesuka. Takin' a look at [67], this is unquestionably a sock. lifebaka (talk - contribs) 14:30, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Fully protected the talk page. seicer | talk | contribs 16:52, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Lucyintheskywithdada: Indef blocked user's trolling and revenge

Lucyintheskywithdada (talk · contribs) has been indef blocked by his abusive sockpuppetry, vandalism, trolling, countless block evasions, propaganda approach, personal attacks, racist attacks, etc. This user's wrongdoings were spotted and reported by me with WP:RFCU, WP:AN3, WP:ANI, so it is so natural for the troll to have a deep grudge against me. The user has done nothing but harm to Wikipedia. His abusive sockpuppetries have been discovered more than 3 times. (2 cases were reported by me) The user falsely accused me to ANI as gaming the system and here as well. I think range block should be upon to some of IP addresses designated to NTT Plala that the lucy uses. "Banning indefinitely the troll would be appropriate in order.--11:33, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Lucyintheskywithdada spread this personl/racist attacks against me over to multiple users whom he think would likely side his malicious revenge. Per Wikipedia:BAN#Enforcement_by_reverting_edits and WP:NPA, I removed such attacks from the users' talk page. Regretfully, among such users, Carl Daniels (talk · contribs) reverts to keep such material [68][69]. I requested him to remove it, however he refuses. He even cites that I have to follow a certain official rule that I've never heard of before.[70], and even says to support the banned user's scheme.[71]. I think the user does not understand the policy. --Caspian blue (talk) 13:27, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Lucyintheskywithdada is blocked, not banned, as far as I can tell. So WP:BAN or parts of it don't apply here. I'm of the opinion this isn't worth edit warring over, so I'd suggest you just ignore it and let the user have what they want on their own userpages. Unless they file something against you, of course. I've taken no action, because I'm not sure what should be done here. Cheers. lifebaka (talk - contribs) 14:37, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm asking to remove the personal attack message on User talk:Carl Daniels that he wants to keep. Also, I think baning Lucy would be appropriate for his countless block evasions and disruptions. --Caspian blue (talk) 14:41, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

I have redacted the content provided by Lucyintheskywithdada, and explained my reasons for doing so to the editor. I have also removed Caspian blue's later comments on Carl Daniels talkpage so to help cool matters, and I would urge Cb to realise that CD did not choose to have the material initially posted on their talkpage and to AGF why they felt it should remain. LessHeard vanU (talk) 15:23, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

I receive this threat from Carl Daniels[72]. He does not seem to regard the policy of WP:NPA.--15:38, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Yuan.C.Lee would be relevant references for understanding of why Carl Daniels supports such attacks on me.--Caspian blue (talk) 15:44, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

• I don't have the patience to go through that listing - are there any accounts you have previously been in dispute with, or are you simply assuming that since they may be a sock then they will "dislike" you and side with Lucyintheskywithdada? I would really suggest you disengage interacting with Carl Daniels directly, and report any further actions by that account here. While you may be the injured party, it is unseemly that you keep rushing headlong into these disputes. I would comment that I have warned CD regarding attacks on you, so please just report any infraction. LessHeard vanU (talk) 16:31, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your time and consideration. According to the above RFCU, Carl Daniels was likely a sock of another indef.blocked user, Yuan.C.Lee (talk · contribs) associated with 2channel, Japanese biggest forum. However, I did not file a WP:SSP on him because at that time, too many sock/meat puppeters emerged on Wikipedia. Recently Comfort women, many sockpuppeters including Lucy had (or have) appeared to push their POV. After they were blocked by RFCU results, a new user appeared to point at me "you must learn yourself"[73], so I asked a Checkuser who has looked into such cases a lot and confirm that it is likely Carl Daniels.[74] So I guess Lucy or related editors try to turn attention by admins to me to prevent from filing SSP or RFCU or engaging editing articles that they care.--Caspian blue (talk) 16:45, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

I hope that the recent intervention of another admin on Carl Daniels talkpage will end this current matter. In the meantime I would again urge you not to interact directly with anyone you feel is pushing POV, but use the appropriate mechanisms for content disputes, possible socking, personal attacks and the like. If you can distance yourself from getting personally involved in the disputed content and deal with it editorially you will likely get better results both individually and as an editor. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:03, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Trolls and sockpuppeters do not have "normal" ways of thinking unlike other ordinary editors do, so in their mind, they're unfortunately caught up and blocked by reports of SSP, RFCU, ANI etc. If you have been watched or monitored by a lot editors from off-wiki for a log time like The Truman Show, and follow and harass you, how would you feel? The 2channel people enjoy watching and ridiculing me today's show as referring to me as a "hwabyeong patient". Besides, trolls like Lucy feeds them to make disruptive Wikepedia. If there is anyone who can be calm at such repeated attacks, I would call him or her "a sage". --Caspian blue (talk) 21:49, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

lucy evades his block sanction again with this sock NTT Plala IP, 118.16.164.46 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). The user enjoy spending his time for wikistalking me and making racist/personal attacks. Range-block would be really necessary.--Caspian blue (talk) 05:26, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

71.125.91.43

Resolved

 – Mass revert ➨ REDVERS is so happy in malice 10:51, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Please, check his edits. He wrote nonsense about Václav Benda [75] and he made many small changes in the same time. If this not the right place where I should write my request, move it to the right place. --Dezidor (talk) 10:26, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Subtle changes, all of things difficult to check, all plausible. But since two of them were clearly misinformation, I reverted the lot. Sadly, the misinformation had been there since May. A lot of secret government dossiers and mid-term papers are going to be a bit wrong. ➨ REDVERS is so happy in malice 10:51, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Going on Wikibreak; somebody want to take over my watchlist?

Well, okay, not the whole thing, but there are a few places where I flatter myself to believe that my absence may cause some difficulties, and if another admin or two would keep an eye on them for the rest of the month, it would help me sleep easier:

• Mountain Pointe High School - for reasons I don't understand, somebody keeps making this edit to the article. I was assuming good faith until they fabricated a source, and now I'm blocking on sight (and tagging as sockpuppets of User:Keeweeman-ape). Article's currently semi-protected until August 10.
• Ctrl+Alt+Del - there's debate going on here about what to include in the "criticism" section. I'm staying out of it, because I lack even the vaguest understanding of the subject matter, but periodically somebody will add in a vicious BLP violation about the comic's creator. Article is currently semi-protected until August 25.
• Shivraj Patil - an IP has recently been inserting BLP violations here (on the premis that they're cited, which they are, but they're cited to opinion pieces and presenting these opinions as fact is obviously not okay).
• Marc Ravalomanana - somebody keeps inseting information suggesting that the subject is over-eager to close Madagascar's ports (at least, I think that's the insinuation - it's not quite clear).
• Rick Reilly - this person seems to have a lot of enemies for a sportswriter, with the enemies in question occupying themselves by inserting imagined "controversies" into the article.
• Tinnitus - people keep making uncited additions to the list of sufferers, and also occasionally insert quackish theories about its causes.

I'd really appreciate the help on this. Otherwise, see you all in September, when you can fill me in on the latest developments in the Cla-FM-SV arb case (assuming that the latest developments at that point don't still date to early July). Sarcasticidealist (talk) 07:34, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

"Developments in the Cla-FM-SV case" - bahahaha. You really are well named :) I've watchlisted all the articles you listed; give me a poke when you get back, and have a great break. Neıl ☄ 09:41, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Hey! can we do that? I can sure use some help on a few watched articles of my won. Can you help me too please? Please keep an eye on Valley of Peace initiative and also Titanic alternative theories. Appreciate your help, ok? thanks. by the way, the first article is 99% stable; I just don't know if anyone else is watching it right now. thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 14:29, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't see any reason why we can't! I've watchlisted your two, too, Steve. My watchlist has now doubled in size from yesterday, and stands at a muscular 14 pages. Neıl ☄ 16:09, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Help Please

Resolved

 – No admin action necessary. —Travis^talk 15:18, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

I've been reverting vandalism for the IP 125.175.214.29, and finally posted him/her on the Admin intervention page. Unfortunatly, I don't think anyone is doing blocks currently, so I'm asking for someone to check him out...and possibly block the IP.

L337*P4wn 11:31, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

That's not vandalism, the IP is actually using very detailed edit summaries, and when they tried to discuss it with you on your talk page, you removed their message with "rvv". If you disagree with their removal of trivia sections that have been tagged for more than 9 months, then discuss it with them. If they refuse to discuss it, then we have a problem. But right now, you're just blindly reverting everything they do. --barneca (talk) 11:43, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Ahhh. So the IP actually only has one count of vandalism. Not four. Thank you for telling me of my mistake.

L337*P4wn 11:48, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, and I'm really pretty sure that one "vandalism" was just a mistake; in one instance they blanked a large portion of the page, and when ClueBot reverted them, the second time they just removed the trivia section. --barneca (talk) 11:51, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Yeah. I feel horrible now! I've just reverted helpful edits. L337*P4wn 11:58, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Ethnic and cultural conflicts noticeboard

How many of you watchlist or otherwise monitor WP:CCN? It doesn't seem particularly active....--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 04:06, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

I didn't know it existed. We have too many damn noticeboards again...John Reaves 04:25, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Funny... that's what I said, as I gently trolled the noticeboard's creator. But now, rather hypocritically, I decided to post to said noticeboard and noticed it hasn't been active for more than a week and that the last query posted to that forum was completely ignored (or at least not responded to on the board itself).--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 04:30, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Never heard of it either, but I'm not surprised. It seems even some WikiProjects have their own noticeboards these days... - auburnpilot talk 05:06, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

When the student is ready, the master will appear. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 18:50, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Semi-protected Today's Featured Article

Just wanted to let you guys know that I semi-protected TFA for one hour. Feel free to unprotect if you think my actions were unjustified. If not, can someone remove the template when the protection expires? Thanks, J.delanoy^gabs_adds 16:30, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

...and reinstating move-protection would probably not be a bad idea either. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 16:32, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm of the opinion that TFA should always be semi-protected, so obviously I approve :-) Tan ǀ 39 16:33, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

FYI, if you protect TFA, don't set an expiration time. First, it doesn't give the vandals a specific time target to wait for; second, you can't accidently lose move protection. I've unprotected, as time was almost up. --barneca (talk) 17:25, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

I just re-protected it, as he/they came back. Anyone can unprotect whenever they think it wise. --barneca (talk) 19:57, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Spam?

Resolved

 – Blocked for 31 hours; behavior didn't change after warnings. lifebaka++ 18:49, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Are these contributions considered spam? I'm leaning towards, "yes." 216.163.255.1 (talk) 17:39, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm not thinking it's spam, per se, but it's certainly disruptive and not terribly useful. Warning user again. lifebaka++ 17:53, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Nevermind, Jauerback added {{uw-spam3}}, which was what I was going to do. I'll keep an eye on the user, though. lifebaka++ 17:55, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

I just stumbled across this thread from this user's talk page. What a pain. All the edits should be reverted. I'll keep an eye out, too. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 18:07, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

I deleted all of the "references" as it was all link spam. Various other accounts were involved in the spamming:

• 75.163.239.101 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 75.163.236.224 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Conrad.pramboeck (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Using the link search, I got all of them. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 21:11, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Ignorance of Wikipedia rules, slanderous and diffamatory statements

Long post by Moldopodo
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Ignorance of Wikipedia rules, slanderous and diffamatory statements, includig by admins ignoring the matter and blocking me without any justification, whereas I request to apply the Digwuren restriction to the User:Biruitorul... Please explain whether the below mentioned is in acordance with Wikipedia rules. I do not see any point of editing or contributing to Wikipedia, when users like User:Biruitorul under cover of contributing to some other articles, clearly ignore basic written well established Wikipedia rules while editing most articles related to Moldova, expressing uncovered racism while saying that Moldavian nation, language, country, history, etc. do not exist and it is all Romanian anyaway, including basic unwritten civility rules, backed by ignorant or the "would be" ignorant admins, violating the very same rules they are expected to enforce, this namely following Biruitorul's backstage discussion with the admin. How technically possiby could I hve been blocked by filing a request to enforce the Digwuren arbitration restriction against another user? Is Wikipedia really turning into a POV supported absurdity? Below yu will find the detailed diffs.--Moldopodotalk 18:41, 3 August 2008 (UTC) Indef block You have been indef blocked for repeated disruption and arbcom violations. See Wikipedia:AE#User:Biruitorul and the two ANI cases linked to therein. — Rlevse • Talk • 20:08, 21 June 2008 (UTC) Changed to one month to comply with Digwuren. — Rlevse • Talk • 10:18, 22 June 2008 (UTC) User:Rlevse, I would like to ask you to explain this please. I would also like to remind you, that there is nothing uncivil fpr you, to apologise when you commit a mistake (procedural mistake regarding indef and monthly block). Thirdly, I will certianly contest this monthly block, as there was no justification for it provided. The most absurd is that the Digwuren request was filed against User:Biruitorul by me for User:Biruitorul's uncivil behaviour, irrelevant comments and disruptive editing, for which I have provided clear diffs. Moreover, as this request was pending, User:Biruitorul continued disruptive editing by removing, moving, deleting, reverting Rulers of Moldavia article. Speaking of all of this User:Biruitorul kept continuing posting diffamatory and slanderous statements in my regard.--Moldopodotalk 11:04, 23 June 2008 (UTC) First unbock request: Please see the talk page for explanation as well as for the check user request from here till the end of the talk page Decline reason: The things you cite are accusations of other individuals being uncivil to you and requesting a checkuser on one of them. You do not address the reason YOU were blocked though for your disruption of the AE pages. Please show how you did not disrupt thing, not why others are bad, if you would like to be unblocked. — MBisanz talk 20:18, 3 July 2008 (UTC) Second unblock request: Unfortunately I cannot address the reason why I was blocked as it was not even addressed by the blocking admin. No diff to suport the block was provided. It is is nice to see how you refer to Wikipeda rules stating that what I say does not lie in the unblock request' scope, but I would also appreciate if you referred to WP rules the same way while evaluating the reasons for this block as well, knowig that this block of my user user account was a result of the request for Digwuren arbitration enforcement against Biruitorul, and... after communications of User Biruitorul with User Rlevse[76], [77], and this. As for the user check request, I have written it here, as as of now I have no capacity to file it myself. --Moldopodotalk 16:28, 5 July 2008 (UTC) Decline reason: There is ample evidence of your disruption, and no indication that you plan to stop. — Jehochman Talk 13:08, 6 July 2008 (UTC) Diffamatory, slanderous, irrelevant and unfounded statements and accusations User:Biruitorul Diffamatory and slanderous statements in my regard posted by User:Biruitorul Notes [78] And, further to Andy's report, may I point out this user's disruption here, here, here, here, here, here and here, just in the last couple of days? This goes beyond a mere content dispute. There are false accusations of incivility, disruptive moves, redirects and move requests, distorting of primary sources, dismissal of reputable secondary sources, a hostile attitude, and above all an effort to conflate Moldova with Moldavia. Given the user's growing block log and damage to numerous articles, it's possible the at wit's end point of the Digwuren case has been reached. Biruitorul Talk 21:42, 18 June 2008 (UTC) From the references provided, it is clearly seen who reverted first, how many times User:Biruitorul moved and removed pages, and the absence of any justification whatsoever, for these disruptive edits by User:Biruitorul. Please, note, I have also explicitely asked User:Biruitorul to stop this at least while I was writing the article and also my request to use the talk page. [79] I appreciate the fact that this is not the place to carry out mere content disputes. However, the problem is rather graver than that. Moldopodo, for no good reason (other than, I suppose, to deflect attention from himself), has hauled me before AE on totally spurious charges. And despite a final warning to cease the type of disruptive editing he has been engaged in for a long time, he goes right on, in this case continuing to try and cloud the distinction between Moldavia (to 1862) and Moldova (1991-). That should be addressed, right? Biruitorul Talk 15:00, 21 June 2008 (UTC) Please, see how User:Biruitorul maliciously and grossly interprets my mere error of placing the initial arbitration enforcement request in a wrong place. Please, note, I have initially created a new section and clearly called what it was "arbitration enf. request", before the User:Tariqabjotu twice deleted and merged it with the rest of the discussion, and then finally saying me: Please use your own user talk pages or the talk pages of relevant articles to carry on this dispute. If either of you think arbitration enforcement is required here, there is a separate noticeboard for that. However, neither of theses noticeboards is for debating the content of articles and carrying on your dispute. -- tariqabjotu 07:57, 21 June 2008 (UTC) [80] Simple - the article is at Moldavia, for now. If it gets moved to Principality of Moldavia (which it won't), then by all means carry out the move. And by the way, Moldavia ceased to exist as a principality in 1862, so sooner or later, the recent additions of post-1862 rulers will be erased. Biruitorul Talk 17:59, 21 June 2008 (UTC) I think it is useless to comments on this "which it won't" and all the previous moves by User:Biruitorul of such articles as Cinema of Moldavia, Moldavia,a s well as on the consequent capacity of this user to contribute constructively to Wikipedia or even to have the capacity to have the desire to listen other users--Moldopodotalk 16:12, 24 June 2008 (UTC) User:Neil As for User:Neil who wrote the "final warning" on my page Diffamatory and slanderous statements in my regard posted by User:Neil Notes [81] If you read his block log ([58], he keeps getting unblocked by fooling admins into thinking he won't edit war again and this time he means it, then promptly starts edit-warring again. I am going to be watching his contributions closely from now on, and have given him a final warning, and I really mean my final warnings - one more bit of rubbish and he is indefinitely blocked. Neıl 龱 08:14, 19 June 2008 (UTC) Briefly. Nothing I have said has not been civil. There are a number of Moldovan users on en.Wikipedia. The diffs you have asked for are on your talk page. Note I didn't even raise the cross-Wiki spamming you carried out a few weeks ago. Neıl 龱 12:24, 19 June 2008 (UTC) The references provided by User:Neil do not explain, if simply not contrary, what User:Neil tried to support with them ("final warning") Irrelevant unfounded "warning" of User:Neil Accusation of "Cut and paste moves": Please see the history of Cinema of Moldova how, when and who started and further continuously moved and copy pasted pages and talk pages. (cur) (last) 07:59, 19 June 2008 Neil (Talk | contribs) m (Protected Cinema of Moldavia: NPOV move-warring - country is called Moldova on Wikipedia [edit=sysop:move=sysop]) (cur) (last) 00:20, 19 June 2008 Biruitorul (Talk | contribs) (31 bytes) (Please see WP:OWN, WP:SOAP and WP:BATTLEGROUND.) (cur) (last) 23:51, 18 June 2008 Moldopodo (Talk | contribs) (4,699 bytes) (I started the articel, the person who moved the articel has never explained anything on the talk page and never contributed to the article. Nor, was there any notice that the redirect page was deleted) (cur) (last) 20:01, 18 June 2008 Girolamo Savonarola (Talk | contribs) (31 bytes) (rv - redirects exist for a reason; we should not have two virtually identical articles for all naming variants) (cur) (last) 17:58, 18 June 2008 Moldopodo (Talk | contribs) (4,699 bytes) (→Cartoons: Maria Mirabela) (cur) (last) 17:57, 18 June 2008 Moldopodo (Talk | contribs) (4,409 bytes) (→International recognition) (cur) (last) 17:51, 18 June 2008 Moldopodo (Talk | contribs) (4,260 bytes) (→Cartoons) (cur) (last) 17:51, 18 June 2008 Moldopodo (Talk | contribs) (4,263 bytes) (→Cartoons) (cur) (last) 17:51, 18 June 2008 Moldopodo (Talk | contribs) (4,274 bytes) (→Cartoons) (cur) (last) 17:50, 18 June 2008 Moldopodo (Talk | contribs) (3,977 bytes) (please, stop this total disruption. I'am writing the artcile, please use the talk page. Pleas stop moving the artcile around as I am in the middle of writing it.) (cur) (last) 17:46, 18 June 2008 Bogdangiusca (Talk | contribs) (31 bytes) (rev -- Moldopodo, don't move an article by copy & paste) (cur) (last) 17:33, 18 June 2008 Moldopodo (Talk | contribs) (3,977 bytes) (Please stop disruptive editing. You are NOT contributing to the artcile, but only messing it up. Let me write the article please. Should you have any questions, use the talk page please) (cur) (last) 17:30, 18 June 2008 Biruitorul (Talk | contribs) (31 bytes) (please stop being disruptive) (cur) (last) 17:28, 18 June 2008 Moldopodo (Talk | contribs) (3,977 bytes) (cur) (last) 17:20, 18 June 2008 Biruitorul (Talk | contribs) (31 bytes) (moved Cinema of Moldavia to Cinema of Moldova over redirect: The country is called Moldova!!!) History of talk page of Cinema of Moldavia (cur) (last) 03:56, 19 June 2008 Girolamo Savonarola (Talk | contribs) (1,092 bytes) (rv - please try reading Wikipedia:Redirects (and yes, i did leave a comment on the talk page, it just is only visible in the wikicode) (undo) (cur) (last) 23:53, 18 June 2008 Moldopodo (Talk | contribs) (1,155 bytes) (undo) (cur) (last) 23:52, 18 June 2008 Moldopodo (Talk | contribs) (833 bytes) (Undid revision 220211375 by Girolamo Savonarola (talk) Please stop this, Explain on the talk page) (undo) (cur) (last) 20:02, 18 June 2008 Girolamo Savonarola (Talk | contribs) (1,092 bytes) (per redirect policy) (undo) (cur) (last) 17:46, 18 June 2008 Moldopodo (Talk | contribs) (833 bytes) (undo) (cur) (last) 17:30, 18 June 2008 Moldopodo (Talk | contribs) (311 bytes) (undo) (cur) (last) 17:20, 18 June 2008 Biruitorul (Talk | contribs) (36 bytes) (moved Talk:Cinema of Moldavia to Talk:Cinema of Moldova: The country is called Moldova!!!) Message from the talk page left by User:Biruitorul: This page has gone through various incarnations, including Cinema of Moldavia and Cinema of the Moldavian SSR. However, I submit the present title is best because Moldova is the current name of the country, even though it was called Moldavia in the past. Just as Cinema of Ukraine also deals with the Cinema of the Ukrainian SSR, so too we should maintain this simple, recognisable title rather than forking one article for every change in regime. In any case, I ask that future moves be made using WP:RM. Biruitorul Talk 18:01, 24 June 2008 (UTC) User:Biruitorul has never tried to reach any consensus or exhange any opinion neithe on the contents of the article nor on its title. He just decided what it will be according to his own personal view without regard to anybody nor anything else, moved, copy pasted the âge just as I was writing it, ignoring my numrous requests to use the talk page to explain his reverts and moves along with deletions, as well as requests to simply wait until I finish the article. This is by the way, typical of the banned User:Bonaparte.--Moldopodotalk 12:37, 6 July 2008 (UTC) History of the Cinema of the Moldavian SSR: (cur) (last) 16:45, 24 June 2008 Biruitorul (Talk | contribs) (31 bytes) (←​Redirected page to Cinema of Moldova) (undo) (cur) (last) 02:37, 22 June 2008 SmackBot (Talk | contribs) m (6,547 bytes) (Date the maintenance tags or general fixes) (undo) (cur) (last) 11:16, 20 June 2008 Moldopodo (Talk | contribs) (6,517 bytes) (→International recognition: re-arrange) (undo) (cur) (last) 11:15, 20 June 2008 Moldopodo (Talk | contribs) (6,412 bytes) (→Cartoons) (undo) (cur) (last) 10:57, 20 June 2008 Moldopodo (Talk | contribs) (6,517 bytes) (rearrange) (undo) (cur) (last) 10:49, 20 June 2008 Moldopodo (Talk | contribs) (6,117 bytes) (→Actors) (undo) (cur) (last) 10:48, 20 June 2008 Moldopodo (Talk | contribs) (6,116 bytes) (→International recognition: actors) (undo) (cur) (last) 10:34, 20 June 2008 Moldopodo (Talk | contribs) (4,967 bytes) (→Cartoons) (undo) (cur) (last) 10:21, 20 June 2008 Moldopodo (Talk | contribs) (4,956 bytes) (→Cartoons: costesti film festival) (undo) (cur) (last) 10:15, 20 June 2008 Moldopodo (Talk | contribs) (4,706 bytes) (editing) (undo) (cur) (last) 10:14, 20 June 2008 Moldopodo (Talk | contribs) (4,693 bytes) (→International recognition: stork) (undo) (cur) (last) 10:11, 20 June 2008 Moldopodo (Talk | contribs) (4,546 bytes) (→Cartoons) (undo) (cur) (last) 10:07, 20 June 2008 Moldopodo (Talk | contribs) (4,310 bytes) (undo) (cur) (last) 02:52, 20 June 2008 Biruitorul (Talk | contribs) (31 bytes) (moved Cinema of the Moldavian SSR to Cinema of Moldova over redirect: let's not content-fork) Accusation of "Nationalist edit-warring": User:Neil provided following references to support his grave accusation: [82], [83], [84] I could not establish anything nationalist in these edits, other than providing totally neutral scientific and other sourced information, often countering reverts of User:Bogdangiusca baldly erasing these edits, calling them as "original research" with no explanation why...--Moldopodotalk 13:06, 6 July 2008 (UTC) Accusation of "AFD disruption": User:Neil provided following references to support this another grave accusation: [85], [86], [87] I would like to note that other than another absurd unfounded accusation, slandering comments in my regard were kept on the very same disuccion page for days and surprisingly User:Neil did nothing about them...--Moldopodotalk 13:06, 6 July 2008 (UTC) Accusation of "Nonsense articles about the evils of Romanians" Romanian crime in Europe‎ I would like to note that the article wa snot about "evils of Romanians", but about the unprecddented rise of criminality rate, exceeding in Spain and Italy the rate of crimes committed by local nationals, about very important phenomenons and societal disturbance caused by legal and illegal immigrants arriving from Romania into UK? Germany, France, Finland, Italy, Spain, also about effects of Romanian crime in Denmark. The article was sourced, if not oversourced, inlcuding scietific research, statistics provided by police reports, media coverage, official state public statistics... Numerous users have also expressed their wish to keep the article, but to imrpove the contents' presentation. I have created many other articles and none of them is a nonsense article. This acusation by user Neil is another grave unfounded accusation.--Moldopodotalk 13:06, 6 July 2008 (UTC) Irrelevant mention of "Notice re Digwuren restriction:" [88] I would like to mention that this restriction was contested by me on the ANI Board, and the admin in charge explained it it was applied for the usage by me of the term "wicked" describing the numerous repetiive intentional disruptive edits of a user pushing through an explicit uncovered pan-Romanian propaganda, disregarding official data. It is not clear for me why the referecne for this restriction was placed here. Moreover, I consider there is a malicious intention from User:Neil in placing references to this previous restriction, which is not relevant to the present debate, nor have I violated Digwuren restriction on any counts in this case as well.--Moldopodotalk 13:06, 6 July 2008 (UTC) Slanderous statement: "Blocks being released early due to hollow pledges of good behaviour:" [89] I would like to note that adminsitrators have clearly taken their time to look deep enough into the matter and presented their excuses for the unjustified block.--Moldopodotalk 13:06, 6 July 2008 (UTC) "Final warning stands. I have little patience for wikilawyering, so don't waste your time. Statement proving that User:Neil did not look deep enough into the matter, nor has he checked the diffs he provided himself. This statement also proves that User:Neil does not apparently and unfortunaltely have any desire to look deeply into the matter.--Moldopodotalk 13:06, 6 July 2008 (UTC) User:Bogdangiusca Diffamatory and slanderous statements in my regard posted by User:Bogdangiusca Notes [90] Moldopodo readded that a couple of times. It includes various insulting phrases toward the Romanians like "todas las rumanas son putas y les gusta la polla". (All the Romanian women are...) bogdan (talk) 23:48, 18 June 2008 (UTC) These are the comments, which readers of the most read newspapaers in Europe left after reading the articles describing the Romanian crime in their respective country. "I" did not add thiese comments. However, I have copy-pasted these comments to the discussion page, as the admins previously did not do anything to remove insulting comments from other users in my regard, starting from "Anti-Romanian" to "racist", etc, etc. When I asked the same admins why this double standard, no answer was provided.--Moldopodotalk 15:04, 24 June 2008 (UTC) User:Rlevse Diffamatory and slanderous statements posted by User:Rlevse Notes [91] I find little merit in Moldopodo's claims. However, I find much in Biruitorul's against Moldopodo. Couple this with Neil's warning to Moldopodo only two days ago that if his disruption continues, he'll be indef blocked, I have little choice but to indef block Moldopodo, so I've done so....next day, changed to a month to comply with Digwuren. In other words I do not care for looking through the diffs provided, so I won't mention them in my decision, and anyway, since there was an earlier block (also by enforced by me), there will be a later one as well, why not?. Is this the way a reasonable adminsitrator justifies his/her decision?--Moldopodotalk 16:16, 24 June 2008 (UTC) [92] I explained, you didn't get it. Calling someone "ethno-racist/fascist" when they've said they find it offensive is disruptive and incivil. How would you feel if he called you that? — Rlevse • Talk • 18:04, 30 May 2008 (UTC) [93] Xasha (talk · contribs) blocked 72 hours by LessHeard vanU (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) for racist and disruptive comments. — Rlevse • Talk • 23:01, 3 June 2008 (UTC) Checkuser request - strong suspicion User:Biruitorul follows commonly the same pattern of the banned socket-pupetter User:Bonaparte, although the language used is milder sometimes by user User:Biruitorul. Although, I do not know what language used User:Bonaparte before being blocked. The same pattern results from: irrelevant to the subject of the discussion, diffamatory and slanderous accusations on any talk page and administrators' noticeboard discussion related to me the same pattern of moving, removing pages, changing formulation, inserting POV statements (or reverting them to the previous - identical ones) ignorance of the talk page discussion, arguments and sources provided both on the talk page and in the article itself, ignorance of the requests to stop removing and moving pages around as I am editing/writing the article (Balti Steppe/Balti depression - Cinema of Moldavia/Cinema of the Moldavian SSR/Cinema of Moldova good knowledge of Wikipedia rules and capacity to delete pages in order to rename them.--Moldopodotalk 15:50, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Ignorance of Wikipedia rules, slanderous and diffamatory statements, includig by admins ignoring the matter and blocking me without any justification, whereas I request to apply the Digwuren restriction to the User:Biruitorul... Please explain whether the below mentioned is in acordance with Wikipedia rules. I do not see any point of editing or contributing to Wikipedia, when users like User:Biruitorul under cover of contributing to some other articles, clearly ignore basic written well established Wikipedia rules while editing most articles related to Moldova, expressing uncovered racism while saying that Moldavian nation, language, country, history, etc. do not exist and it is all Romanian anyaway, including basic unwritten civility rules, backed by ignorant or the "would be" ignorant admins, violating the very same rules they are expected to enforce, this namely following Biruitorul's backstage discussion with the admin.

How technically possiby could I hve been blocked by filing a request to enforce the Digwuren arbitration restriction against another user? Is Wikipedia really turning into a POV supported absurdity? Above you will find the detailed diffs.

Just to clarify, the tone used is different (sometimes), but the diffamatory and slandering accusations, their posting all over where it is completely irrelevant, moving removing, deleting pages as I am writing them - all of this brings to the exactly the same result. I think it is totally probable that User:Bonaparte and User:Biruitorul are one and the same person (Biruotorul means "Winner" in Moldavian language).--Moldopodo^talk 19:18, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Can you make your point in under half a page, I am not reading all of that. Chillum 18:45, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Chillum. If possible, summarise it. D.M.N. (talk) 18:48, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Is this the same issue discussed here: [94]? Chillum 18:53, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Okay, let me put is simply. People pointing out your behavior is not slanderous, diffamatory, or even defamatory. It is a common reaction. Chillum 19:01, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

• First of all thank you for finding a way to put it nicely in a hat. Secondly, yes, please, you have to read all of this as it namely explains you why the described statements and actions violate Wikipedia policies and qualify as slander and defamation. Blindly stating People pointing out your behavior is not slanderous, diffamatory, or even defamatory. It is a common reaction - has not much value, because there is not one diff proving what you say, and to the contrary, tons of diffs provided by me stating exactly the contrary.--Moldopodo^talk 19:40, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

• Ask Mikka, he can spot a Bonaparte sock at fifty paces. Guy (Help!) 19:43, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

In fact there are much more of other points in my notice, sockpupetting suspicion being only one of them.--Moldopodo^talk 20:19, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Well Moldopodo perhaps somebody will come to a different conclusion than me. Chillum 19:46, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

One can only come to a conclusion after checking the evidence, and evidence I have presented abundantly. When someone says first "I am not reading this", but then, nevertheless, draws the conclusion "it's a common reaction" (slander, defamation, violation of Wikipedia policies and procedures - is this a common reaction?) - how much weigth to you give to words of such a person?--Moldopodo^talk 20:19, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

You will notice that some time passed between those posts. I did read through the passages you quoted, and all I saw was criticism directed at your behavior. Chillum 20:30, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Thank you very much for reading this all through. "Criticism" - is certainly a strange conclusion in my mind, in light of the evidences and diffs I have presented. May be you could indicate me one diff where this "criticism" is expressed? I guess we read different definitions of what criticism and what lies, slander and defamation are.--Moldopodo^talk 20:37, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Like I said, perhaps somebody will come to a different conclusion than me. Chillum 20:38, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Hopefully. I wish you were there with your judgement when I was blocked for calling obvious repetitive disruptive edits as wicked. I am sure you would have qualified it as criticism, wouldn't you?--Moldopodo^talk 23:39, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

As I asked the last time Moldopodo filed one of these frivolous reports linking me with Bonaparte and accusing me of all manner of crimes: where's the beef? -- Biruitorul ^Talk 04:36, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

The answers are all in the diffs I have provided - which all show how you openly lie about yor actions, how you started moving and removing pages, edit warring, spreading slanderous statements and defamation in my regard. It's all there. Just click on "show more" up above.--Moldopodo^talk 23:39, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Riiiiiiight. Speaking of the diffs you hold so sacred: this and this aren't very helpful to your cause, and neither is the above remark accusing me of being an "open liar", "slanderer" and "defamer". Especially considering that you're on your last warning, you really shouldn't be making these sorts of distortions, assumptions of bad faith and quasi-legal threats. Biruitorul ^Talk 00:38, 5 August 2008 (UTC)