Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Night Gyr (talk | contribs) at 18:44, 5 June 2007 (→‎User uploading PD images from NASA as PD-self). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Purge the cache to refresh this page

    Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
    Shortcuts

    This page is for urgent incidents or chronic, intractable behavioral problems.

    When starting a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page; pinging is not enough.
    You may use {{subst:ANI-notice}} ~~~~ to do so.

    Closed discussions are usually not archived for at least 24 hours. Routine matters might be archived more quickly; complex or controversial matters should remain longer. Sections inactive for 72 hours are archived automatically by Lowercase sigmabot III. Editors unable to edit here are sent to the /Non-autoconfirmed posts subpage. (archives, search)

    Start a new discussion


    Removal of RS sources

    After I have a complaint about removal of RS sources from Wikipedia article to an admin (see here) including my intention to use wiki process to resolve the conflict he then began a process of removing sources from articles that I have created (see here), (see here), (see here), (See here), (see here)

    There are genuinely differences of opinion about this source in Wikipedia. For example uninviolved neutral user was quoted when confronted with the RS sources of Tamilnet.


    [1]

    Then on Sri Lankan reconciliation project the following compromise was reached about the source see here

    When such diverse opinion is out there about this source for admin to refuse to follow wiki process that has been suggested is uncalled for and will only lead to edit wars as I am sure more people will revert his edits. Some other uninvolved admin needs to get involved to resolve this issue. Thanks Taprobanus 13:31, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Well, RGTraynor also suggested that perhaps Sinhalese and Tamil people recuse themselves. Are you going to do so? Blnguyen (bananabucket) 03:20, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I am sorry to say that includes you because although you claim what ever you are to be, your edits parralel edit with other very specific minded Indian editors shows that one does not have to be an Indian or Sri Lankan to be part of a partisan camp. Thanks Taprobanus 14:07, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok. So you tell us Taprobanus that there was a consensus reached here at the WikiProject Sri Lanka Reconciliation. Well, has Blnguyen been invited to participate? Has he done it in case he was invited? If you say that you have reached a consensus about TamilNet being a qualified source (QS) than why aren't you using an explicit attribution (TamilNet reports that...)? Maybe Blnguyen was reverting on the grounds that it was used as a reliable source (RS)? -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 16:23, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    He was not part of the decision, but not every wikipedian can be part of such decisions any way. As the reconciliation decision is not a formal wikipedia decision such as a result of mediation or arbitration. It is as binding as suggestion:)
    Now if he agrees with the suggestion, (now that he knows about) he can edit using it. But If I am not mistaken he did remove Tamilnet from a statement which explicitly stated as pro-rebel (see here). That means he is not all amenable to any use of Tamilnet in Wikipedia. His point of view is just one point of view.See here for history of involvement in Sri Lanka related articles in the past.
    User:RGTraynor another experienced non involved third party (that is not a Sri Lankan or Indian who has an axe to grind in this conflict including me and Blnguyen)said very clearly that he will accept Tamilnet as a RS source.[2] So we have diverse opinion here about this source.
    Already Blnguyen edit patterns which went after many articles that I created has resulted in an edit war where there was non for a long time. These were stable articles including an AFD that went through with minimal content deletion including sources. That is a lot of neutral non involved third party editors looked at them and decided that they were written from a neutral point of view with reputable sources. So how do we solve this problem? when we have editors such as myself and Blnguyen who potentially have conflict of interest because of our backrounds who say have such opposite views about this source and yet others who are non involved say it is a RS source. (I will post here other explicit statements supporting this point from number of non involved third paties here) What is the next step ? Mediation and what is the final step ? Arbitration ? I am sick and tired of wikipedians indulging in vicious edit wars based on one source. If we decide it is not RS, then it is not RS. If we decide that it is RS then it canbe used. If we decide is QS then it QS. What ever it is I want more than a mere suggestion. Thanks Taprobanus 17:18, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not Indian, I am of Vietnamese ethnicity, and RGTraynor did not declare Tamilnet to be an RS. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 03:20, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    We can claim to be what ever we are in the internet. I suppose the French colonials were very fond of the game of Cricket in Vietnam:)) Seriously just like I am a Canadian, similarly you are Vietnamese but your edit patterns in parallel with other very specific minded Indian editors shows that you have very strong conflict of interest in Dravidian and Tamil related subject matters as was noted during many entanglements with now banned User:WikiRaja. So lets us not go there about ethnicities here and lets us stick to the discussion about Tamilnet. Thanks Taprobanus 14:07, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    WikiRaja was a two-bit troll, intent on promoting clouded ethocentric agenda, and racist myths. WikiRaja was an anti-Brahmin also intent in working to denigrate the contributions of Iyers to Tamil culture. Might I remind you that Sarathambal would not be off limits to his ire?Bakaman 03:22, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Just because you've used Tamilnet and other such patently partisan and non-RS on scores of articles doesnt mean they become reliable sources. These sites are avowed sympathisers of the militant outfits and in some cases just the 'media arm' of the militant outfits. They dont stand a remote chance of making it past WP:RS. Any dispassionate editor, editing in good faith wouldnt use these sources, especially since there is no dearth of bonafide reliable sources like BBC or the mainstream Indian media(print and internet) etc.,. This is not some conflict raging in some 'unexplored, unknown to the modern world' corner of the globe. It is happening in SriLanka, a member nation of the UN and the entire world is watching. So, there is absolutely no dearth of reliable sources(and non-partisan ones at that). Of course, if you adhered strictly to WP:RS, you may not be able to keep a score of every gunshot and every loss of limb as you're doing now, but it will leave wikipedia in better encyclopedic shape.

    And what do you mean by - "...when we have editors such as myself and Blnguyen who potentially have conflict of interest because of our backrounds..."? Are you suggesting that you have a conflict of interest here? If that is the case, I'd request you to stop editing these articles. You really shouldnt be editing these articles in the best interests of the 'pedia. And as for insinuating that Blnguyen or 'Indian editors' have a COI going here, I'd suggest that you think twice before throwing around such accusations.

    And please read WP:RS, WP:EL and related policies once before you infest the references and EL sections with links to google videos, random geocities, tripod sites, blogs, or a random site of some Tamil 'sangam' in some corner of the world etc.. apart from the staple tamilnet, tamilnation cruft. Thanks. Sarvagnya 21:58, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Just a simple question, will you stop editing Tamil related article because of your Bangalorean Tamil backround. Seriously, you have been noted by many editors many times in the ANI. So let us talk about Tamilnet then. Thanks—The preceding unsigned comment was added by notbakaman (talk • contribs).
    Blnguyen is vietnamese. He is interested in India (india is one sixth of the worlds population, a lot of people are), and I fail to see a conflict of interest. As for tamilnet, it isnt neutral but not unreliable. The views on it are divided with some calling it LTTE and some calling it slightly biased. Tamilnet shouldn't be, however, the principal source for which notability is established. As for the fighting between editors, Taprobanus has been willing to discuss instead of reverting to trolling like 213.181.56.12 (talk · contribs) who we are led to believe is a Tamil in Iraq (via traceroute). As if the plight of Tamils is the most important worry in Iraq. Back to the subject, the analogy to FOX is interesting and demands some further discussion.Bakaman 22:55, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I have to give my 2¢ here. Partisan websites of any nature or background cannot be automatically classified at not reliable. As per Bakaman, it isn't neutral but not unreliable. I also agree w/ Bakaman in that no article should rely on one disputed source. One thing that i noticed and may not have appeared to you is that after classifying it as a qualified source, it has been inserted as a reliable source. As i said above, if it has to be used, than obviously wording should be like TamilNet reports that.... -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 00:54, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I am more than willing to follow Fayssal's suggestion. Thanks Taprobanus 14:07, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I get the feeling that Bakaman and Fayssal are confusing 'notability' and 'reliability'. 'Notability' is perhaps all that we can concede to Tamilnet and that is why we have a TamilNet on wikipedia. However, just being 'notable' doesnt make them 'RS'. That they have a rather lopsided militant view of the situation doesnt help either. Sarvagnya 01:48, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment: The analogy to FOX is ridiculous. FOX is a professionally run media house owned by News corp., which is listed on various exchanges and subject to routine and professional audits by the best in the business. I am sure it is affiliated to any/all "official" press regulatory bodies that count. It has an editor with rather impeccable professional credentials who has the moral courage to attach his name to a story. If anybody feels that FOX has a slant(to right or left or whatever), then it is their POV. Tamilnet otoh hand is, for all we know run by some journalistic quack who takes his blogging rather seriously. Sorry. The FOX analogy just wont cut it. Try something else. Sarvagnya 01:43, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Your personal opinion or do you have serious citation for what are you saying. I have listed reserach papers others your comments are just WP:SOAP. Thanks Taprobanus 14:12, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Can i ask a simple question Sarvagnya? What if TamilNet announces and acknowledges a terrorist attack via their website? Would we use it as a primary reference? Would it be considered as a reliable source as well? IMHO, if you have reached a consensus in which TamilNet would be considered as a qualified source (everything but a reliable source) than why not all parties try to use the appropriate wording when using TN as a QS?
    Whatever is the case, i am still not convinced that you have to sort out this issue in this board. What about an RfC? -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 02:06, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Whether TamilNet acknowledges something one way or the other is besides the point. Also, I was not part of any consensus where a patently non-RS source has been decorated with a "QS" tag. What is "QS" anyway? Are there similar precedents elsewhere on wikipedia? It is not upto any random Wikiproject to get together and hammer out a 'consensus' on matters like this. And I dont see where there has been any consensus regarding this and other similar sources. A quick look at some of the talk pages will tell you that editors have always been against these sources. I can only say that these sources have been used in bad faith. Sarvagnya 02:50, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't believe admins can do something. It is a dispute regarding the reliability of a website. You have some few days to discuss it again before the article is unprotected. If not than obviously a RfC is just next door. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 02:56, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I'd prefer not using FOX either if it was at all possible, or LankaWeb, or Tamilnation or Tamilcanadian. This conflict is very famous, and each time there is an air strike or a suicide bombing, it is covered on BBC, CNN, AP, etc etc, so we can use those if necessary. If it is only noticed by a few small ethnocentric sources, then I would be skeptical. FOX is a proper news source although it is very biased, but I have not seen people say that they present false data and such. It does contain strong editorial bias and such, but when you use a source you should not import the bias from the newspaper and just say "described by .... as "the best" ". But in any case, if BBC or CNN have the same data, it's better to just use them instead. There are many times where a proper newspaper like Sydney Morning Herald and the tabloid Adelaide Advertiser say the same facts, in which case, I would just source the SMH since it would look better. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 03:20, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Can the TamilNet refs be replaced by BBC/CNN ones? If yes than the problem is sorted out. I haven't checked if TamilNet references are unique (i.e. no one else covered it...) -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 04:21, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Not most of the time see my comments below specifically about Sarathambal case Taprobanus 14:07, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    If no non-partisan media are willing to cover such details of a conflict which is on the news all around the world each time there is a skirmish, then I would doubt that they are at all neutral. In any case, see things like The mission statement of Tamilcanadian "Our humble attempt is to broadcast to the world our struggle to preserve and save our culture from the Sri Lankan government's campaign of genocide against the Tamil people." and Tamil Nation] to see what their agenda is. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 07:40, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree that a the WP:SLR community reached a vote to name many sources as "RS", "anti-rebel" , "Pro-rebel" and "UnRs". The problem is that most srilanka related articles do not follow thse branding of articles. If you take a good look at many other articles there are lots of "anti-rebel" sources being used as RS. So if the community is saying that we cannot use tamilnet then why is the same community keeping quite on the other side of the story-using anti rebel sources. Is there something thats missing ? Or has the community not seen these articles ? Anyway if we are going to allow the anti rebel sources then we MUST allow the pro rebel sources so that in the end we will have a neutral article. However, if one is taken out the other should also be taken out to again have a neutral article. Watchdogb 12:09, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I am also the same view after the WP:SLR community has reached a vote to name as "RS", "anti-rebel", "Pro-rebel" and "UnRs", still there are articles which have been sourced using anti-rebel sources as WP:RS. Those who are willing to remove Tamil-Centric souces using as WP:RS for the events purported by the State Terrorism in Sri Lanka in the Tamil areas where the International Press is in total isolation, are keeping silent to the usage of anti-rebel sources as WP:RS in various articles. Whether Blnguyen has failed to see those articles or he has biased view towards the persecution of the Tamil community in the Sri Lanka to be exposed to the world is not still clear. But his vesak wishes to his friends [3][4] who are adamantly against the view there is a State Terrorism in Sri Lanka, is giving some view of his biased nature and will only lead to a RFC against him subsequently.Lustead 13:42, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]


    None of the articles from which I questioned the TNet, TNat, TC websites: Mylanthanai massacre, 1990 Batticaloa massacre, Akkaraipattu massacre, Eastern University massacre, Kokkadichcholai massacre, Sarathambal, Ilayathambi Tharsini or Krishanti Kumaraswamy had Sinhalese groups' references to anywhere the same extent as the Tamil ones, contrary to what RS says. And it says that these sources are only good for presenting the POV of the said groups, not for rock solid statistics etc. It is you who is the single topic editor here. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 07:48, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    If you declared yourself Buddhist and made come into contact with me previously, I would have given you a message as well.Blnguyen (bananabucket) 07:40, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Tamilnet does not file false data, there are serious non Indian and Sri Lankan researchers such as from the United States and Australia who have studied this news site. For example for archived version of the research paper on this see this. Read it in full before making any comments. I can provide more such research papers. I am not arguing that Tamicanadian is a RS source, so let us not confuse the matter here. The discussion here is only about Tamilnet as I said I will take it all the way because I am sure we will prevail at the end when neutral uninvolved Wikipedians see the arguments on both sides not any one belonging to a cabal or faction with and axe to grind.
    Tamilnet passes RS because
    • 1. It has an editorial board
    • 2. It has an editor
    • 3. It reviews its news reports for accuracy
    • 4. It is used as a primary source by notable media
    organizations such as BBC and CNN (just to name a few) to report on information that is generally censored information in Sri Lanka.
    5. It is used as a source by notable Human Rights groups such as Asian Human Rights Commission and HRW (just to name a few)
    To arbitrarily remove very important information that is particularly important for Sri Lanka conflicted is tantamount censoring information in Wikipedia. By claiming most information is covered by BBC and CNN.because it is not true at all.
    For example in the Sarathambal rape and murder case, some one arbitrarily removed Tamilnet source which says that number of important dignitaries including number of majority Sinhalese attended her funeral. That information is not available in BBC or CNN. But that piece information humanizes the Sinhalese people that although it was a Sinhalese person who is suspected of raping and murdering this minority Tamil women other Sinhalese were equally upset about. That piece of information makes the article neutral other wise the article will be completely one sided. To remove Tamilnet from that article now makes it a non neutral one from a neutral stable article.
    Then there was a claim that it was a blog ? There was a claim that it was a partisan website ? That it was a lobby group ? Now all this is personal opinion without any credible citations.
    I think people simply jump to conclusions without doing serious research. Let us continue this discussion to its logical conclusion. Thanks Taprobanus 13:50, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    They weren't neutral anyway. Some of those articles were 80% TN sourced and the rest mostly HRW or AI. Yes, that tripod site is a random website. and the Socialist News is clearly self-declared as partisan. Just because something is a primary source doesn't mean it is reliable. A political journalist gets info from politicians and bureaucrats speaking anonymously. Does that mean that rumours spread by a politician's secretary become RS and can be taken as real statistics? And you are talking about people with an axe to grind when you know full well my ethnicity and the fact that you are an activist.Blnguyen (bananabucket) 07:40, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Is there any source to back up the allegation that Tamilnet is not a reliable source? Partisan view can never be a parameter in deciding RS. For example, there are hundreds of articles in wikipedia which uses *karnataka* web sites which present kannad-centric views and obviously very partisan. Let's not get into the quality of these websites. Anyways, a simple search in google provided me with these sources.
    A PHD thesis of Kasun Ubayasiri, Central Queensland University covers extensively Tamilnet. This is the conclusion that it derives.
    "It can also be argued the Tamilnet success as internet based news service has been largely attributed to a unique position it has created as the only ‘independent’ provider of a reliable alternative view in the Sri Lankan theatre, one designed to counter the states rudimentary propaganda machine. Tamilnet has also adopted a reportage style closely resembling a wire service feed identified by western media practitioners as viable and reliable media. The prompt coverage of news both in the government controlled regions and those under the LTTE control has placed the a Tamilnet in the unique position of the being a news service with the widest coverage – a defining attribute in a media theatre dominated by Colombo and south centric media.Therefore it can be argued that Tamilnet’s strategy of providing pro-Eelamist news without any overt LTTE connections has yielded results and coupled with its reporting style and content, paved the way significantly wider coverage in both the internet and through international mainstream media, when compared with any other web based media Sri Lankan media product."[1] here is the link
    Same goes for Tamilnation.org. A simple search in google shows that tamilnation website is used as references in conference papers and other research papers. Associate press & BBC uses these websites as reference too. Praveen 15:06, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    May I point out that Kasun Ubayasiri is an Australian of Sri Lankan majority Sinhalese extraction which makes his point of view even more credible. His reaserch papers have appread in may scholarly jourmnals. Thanks 15:34, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

    <deindent>I can't believe that any editor would even suggest that Taminet is a reliable source. Plain and simple, every single news organization that refers to a report from Tamilnet, Reuters [5], AP [6], Xinhua [7], AFP [8] etc etc all call Tamilnet a pro-LTTE website. So does even the BBC [9] ("Tamilnet, the pro-Tamil Tiger website"). The only reason reports from Tamilnet are quoted in international media is that Tamilnet is considered the official news website of the LTTE[10], just like reports by Baghdad Bob were widely quoted by international media.

    To give a few examples, Tamilnet sometimes reports incidents before they actually "happened" [11]. Two weeks ago Tamilnet published a bogus news item containing material from an alleged "interview" with the Bishop of Jaffna, one of the highest ranking religious leaders in Sri Lanka. The Bishop later completely denied he even spoke to Tamilnet, saying "Hence I deny totally the report ascribed to me by the Tamil Net"[12].

    I simply don't see any reason for this argument to continue. No one - apart from the LTTE and it's supports - consider Tamilnet a credible news agency. Regarding it as a RS for Wikipedia articles would be simply ridiculous, and there should be no two ways about that. --snowolfD4( talk / @ ) 16:45, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    No one - apart from the LTTE and it's supports - consider Tamilnet a credible news agency Admins please take note ofthe above WP:ATTACK on wikipedia editors who are trying resolve this matter by amicable discussion. Thanks Taprobanus 16:55, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Just because these news sites call Tamilnet a pro rebel website does not mean that the website fail RS. Also I can remember many protests against BBC for giving one sided information on the LTTE. So if you want to look at it that way then I guess that BBC also a unreliable source. For example- BBC reported that they had credible evidence that shows that the LTTE was running the credit card fraud in UK. However, they failed to show the "Credible" evidence. Furthermore the UK police them self have said that they have NO evidence linking LTTE to these fraud. Does this mean the BBC is not to be used in the SL related articles ? Does that mean that BBC is not a RS ? This argument brings about 2 debates. 1) Since the BBC has made false news blaming LTTE then how can we take their word on Tamilnet being pro rebel. 2) Since BBC has done this sort of biased coverage they can be considred Biased against the LTTE. So does that mean that BBC should not be used as RS ? Also as I have said above other sources have been crammed into wikipedia which are considred Anti rebel. So if thats sites are allowed to be used then why not Tamilnet (playing the devil's advocate) even if its pro rebel ? - watchdogb
    Also the story about Bishop of Jaffna is not exactly as Snowulf puts it. Their title was wrong but the story is right. A close associate of the bishop told Tamilnet these stories. Tamilnet went on to say that they made a mistake and that they will change the title. They even made a article on this.

    Section break

    I believe i've had heard enough arguments from both sides and at at least i can have my own judgment now. I see that TamilNet respects our policy on RS. These are my reasons:

    • TamilNet has been cited and used as a reference in both notable media outlets such as BBC, CNN and news agencies such as the notable Reuters. It has also been used in academic papers and still being used in government websites such as the Canadian immigration and refugee board website. (based on the links provided by participants above)
    • Saying a pro-X is biased and unreliable is just like saying that opponent pro-X is biased and unreliable. Defence.lk reporting on TamilNet having lied is not a totally unbiased reporting. They are both partisan websites. In our case here, we only have one partisan side having a say in wikipedia. It is against our core policy NPOV. The article should be balanced. You are talking about "state terrorism in Srilanka" but the main accuser is silenced. Please read the next point.
    • Websites and publications of political parties, religious groups, anti-religious groups, or any other partisan group, may exhibit bias and should be treated with caution. Neither political affiliation nor religious belief stated in these sources are in themselves a reason not to use them, as these websites can be used to present the viewpoints of these groups, if properly attributed. Such sources should be presented alongside references from other sources in order to maintain a neutral point of view. (source: RS/Examples).
    • The argument that says that TamilNet lied once is just not a perfect one. In the list of journalism scandals you'd find almost every universally notable media. Who doesn't remember the Sorry..We were hoaxed story about the fake abuse photos of prisoners in Iraq? Daily Mirror is still considered notable. Newspapers and media in general sometimes lie intentionally and sometimes unintentionally. You can't be sure about that.
    • I am a Moroccan and i use to edit Western Sahara related articles and i've never attempted to claim that the pro-Polisario (the Saharaoui separatist group)arso.org website is unreliable. We use it as a reference in many related articles. Is it biased? Have they lied? Yes, definetely but who and which is not? Many times and the lies have been mainly reported by foreign and NGO media. Has Moroccan newpapers lied? Yes, of course and in many occasions. THEY ALL LIE sometimes, if not all the time. Let me add this to you. Recently Morocco blocked access to YouTube. I was the one who first added the information to [Human rights in Morocco] article. Why it has been blocked? Well, one of the speculations is that Morocco didn't want some videos about abusing rights of some Saharawi students to be available for Moroccan public. Ummm!!!! Than which side is unreliable here? The state owned media or the partisan media who could publish videos of the abuses on YouTube? I am sorry but in this case i SHOULD consider YouTube as reliable and kick the garbage of the other side out of my scope.
    • I used also to work on the article about ETA, the Basque separatist group. Everyone knows about the group but only a few would know about Gara. Well, Gara in simple words is the loudly mouth of ETA. Gara newspaper has had the habitof publish/announcing terrorist attacks executed by ETA hours before they occur. It is not only considered biased but it considered to be part of ETA, and therefore a terrorist newspaper according to their opponents (mainly the Spanish gov't) though nothing is sure or otherwise it would have been shut down as they did w/ Egin. Still, we use it as a reliable source in Wikipedia as media outlets around the word do. Do we have any dispute tag on the ETA-related articles? No. Are they protected? No.
    • NPOV = Work for balance, that is: divide space describing the opposing viewpoints according to reputability of the sources. And, when available, give precedence to those sources that have been the most successful in presenting facts in an equally balanced manner. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 05:43, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • These Tamil sites are obviously politically motivated and do not qualify as WP:RS. The New York Times is RS. I cannot believe we're having so much discussion about something so obvious. -- Y not? 00:54, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    COI of Taprobanus

    Taprobanus used to contribute under "RaveenS". In his old sandbox, he declares himself to be RaveenS. In his self bio, it shows that he contributes to Tamil Canadian and some other Tamil websites. A google brings up things like this on TamilCanadian and TamilNation. I believe this constitutes a conflict of interest. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 07:19, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Cannot come with a comprehensive argument so go after the contributer, shows the caliber of argument. I have contributed to both sides of the conflict in Sri Lankan conflict. Tamilcanadian, Sangam.org for the pro-Tamil side and Asian Tribune and The Island newspaper for the pro Sri Lankan government side. Infact my biggest contributions have been to the Asian Tribune news website which is very much anti-LTTE news site. The editor himself is good friend of mine and was dissapointed because I stopped contributing after sI began to contribute to Wikipedia. So just because I have a minor history of contribution to both sides of the conflict (which has been ignored by User:Blnguyen in his arguments) I have a COI ? Although effort has been made to confuse what we are discussing, I need to point out that we are not talking about Tamilcanadian here. The argument is about Tamilnet. I am encouraged by the comments

    Tamilnet.org got closed just as I was browsing through it. Perhaps some of their verifiable comments can be taken into account

    by Nearly Headless Nick {C}. That shows when really neutral non involved editors take a look at this newssite, including editors of BBC, CNN and other major organizations, they decide to use it as it publishes verfiable information. Again we have come to a conclusion about Tamilnet in this ANI. Thanks Taprobanus 23:06, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Also considering that he's been pushing for these sources(Tamilcanadian, tamilnation etc) in scores of articles he's edited makes it an even more acute case of COI. Also in his message to me here, he admits to being emotionally invested in these articles. He claims that he hasnt let it seep into his editing and that nobody has ever complained, but a look at this discussion and the talk pages of several articles and editors suggests otherwise. Not to mention, he himself has admitted to 'COI' earlier in this very discussion. Sarvagnya 10:15, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    It is because he has written a few articles doesn't make him to view, he has some Conflict of Interest over those on-line media until otherwise he is trying to use his own articles as WP:RS or have some Editorial Capacity in those media and bring them as WP:RS.Lustead 14:47, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Raveen's exact words were
    "Before his addiction to Wikipedia, he used to contribute to Asian Tribune.com, Sangam.org and Tamilnet.com among other e-magazines and Blogs, but since then he has stopped contributing."
    Misquoting to suit one's needs?
    Please do not use COI to gain upper hand in POV disputes. Thanks. Praveen 15:59, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    If you must, please take it to COI notice board. Praveen 16:01, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Now we all know why some people are so insisting having racist crap sites like, tamil nation,tamil net,tamil canadian as WP:RS here. First I thought people are just kidding as even a small kid reading those crap sites would know its merely comical to have them here in Wikipedia. But I guess its not, for the contributors to those sites.Iwazaki 会話。討論 03:05, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Iwazaki, i am afraid to disagree w/ your opinion. My reason is that when someone says racist crap, s/he should back h/is allegations w/ fatcs. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 23:01, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Fayssal my good Moroccan friend,here in this case there are no evidence, that's the sad truth. Just go through those web-sites , then you would know how childish are those sites. How racists are those web-sites. And that's exactly why all the media which quote from those sites explicitly say tamil net is pro-LTTTE !! I am not sure how that makes tamil net a neutral source. And for user.raveen, we don not know whether he is contributing to those sites even now, but evidence shows that probability is quite high .And thats may be why, he wants to have those as valid sources here.Iwazaki 会話。討論 01:43, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I just can't be unfair to anyone. "No evidence is needed" is alarming. Please, just get some. If there are none, then there are none. If we are going to focus on bold text then i have this: denense.lk is pro-x gov't!!. Nick has just said that the website was censured while he was browsing. Who blocked the access to the site? I am a Moroccan and when i talked about my youtube story (including the censorship of my own gov't) i was rational. It just happened yesterday to Nick. Does the Srilankan gov't follow this thread? If yes, then i shall give them my satute. In wikipedia, we got BALANCE. Somewhere else? i just don't care. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 05:54, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Fayssal ,I don't think you fathom what I said, or may be I should have been more coherent. There are tons of evidences to show they are pro-tamil pro-LTTE.. Check out every media,CNN BBC or whatever, they call these web-sites PRO-LTTE.. And why they call them like that? Because that's what they are, extremely pro-LTTE sites !! I was saying no-evidence to refer counter arguments against tamil net.Let me be clear this time, there are no evidence to prove tamil net(or other tamil something sites) are neutral. These are inherently bias sites, nothing else!And how do you know the site got censored by the GOSL ? A site can be temporarily closed for various reasons, I have no doubt that you also aware of this. There is actually no need to censor those sites as they have done enough harm by engaging extrme pro-LTTE stance.To keep a good balance in Wikipedia we need valid,good sources, not some pro-LTTE crap sites like tamil net.Iwazaki 会話。討論 06:45, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    IF tamilnet is not considred as a NPOV site it does not matter. Why ? According to wikipedia rules you have to give the same weight to all sources. I have seen editors used Asian Trubune is anti rebel site in many article. They have also used South Asiah Terrorist portal is anti rebel. These sources do not even have an editorial board. I think those sites fail WP:RS badly yet they are here on wikipedia. Since these sources have allready been used in wikipedia then why not use Tamilnet ? Do you want to have POV articles ? Watchdogb 13:29, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]


    A cursory look at these websites acertains that they are advocacy websites of some kind. Tamilnet.org got closed just as I was browsing through it. Perhaps some of their verifiable comments can be taken into account, while giving due respect to WP:UNDUE; otherwise, most of them look like propoganda sheets. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 06:42, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    So whats your thought about users using sites like SATP and Asian Tribune ? If Tamilnet fails RS then SATP and Asian Tribune would fail RS 2times as hard. So before talking nonsence go take a close look at the contribs you have made with those sites. Also its not propaganda sheet. Please do some real rescarch on tamilnet and if you would like go ahead and read the article thats allready here on wikipedia. Watchdogb 12:59, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I couldn’t see the following media as propaganda machinery as they are covering wide variety of news coverage,
    and by giving importance to Dravidian Art, Architecture,Culture, Dance and Music.
    If some one wants to say randomly they are propaganda sheets, he or she should discuss here in detail.
    Note: Beacaue they are covering Tamil Eelam news doesn’t make them propaganda sheets.Lustead 14:38, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Violation of privacy and endagengering my life

    As the civil conflict in Sri Lankak got worse during the last 1 year I have progressively requested Wikipedia admins to change my user name from RaveenS to Taprobanus for privacy reason. I also asked a Wikipedia admin to delete contents in the User page RaveenS that showd my full name because of privacy concerns. Both were done, to retrive these information must be misuse of admin authority? People in Sri Lanka or those who visit Sri Lanka are killed regularly for having an opinion that may be considred to be different than the government. This has been documented by Amnesty International, RSF and Human Rights Watch. User:Blnguyen beacuse of his conflict with me has now published information that may lead to my death because of my contribution to Wikipedia that may be offensive to the government of Sri lanka. I want wikipedia admins to take a good look at his behaviour based on this simple violation of privacy as well as putting the life of a fellow Wikipedian in danger.

    Also as these sources indicate[13],[14] most of the Journalists in Sri Lanka contribute under duress when their views are different from who ever is in power. Many internationally known contributers such as Taraki, Mylvaganam Nimalrajan and Richard De Soyza have been murdered by government proxies. RSFsee here has documented countless other murders of anyone suspected of being a Journalist with a different point of view during the last 20 years of civil conflict. All this evidence put together and the flippant decision by an admin to out me, my personal information when I had done everything to remove such information from wikipedia has to be investigated. Thanks Taprobanus 17:46, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I don't see any violation of privacy here. Blnguyen got the info from your subpage. If you want him to stop then you only have to delete that subpage. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 23:32, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I am not a computer expert, this sub page used to be the starting point for my personal page which I requested to be deleted the comment was too much personal information. Then I blanked the sub page thinking the information is gone. So my intentions are very clear, to protect myself from privacy concenrs. Then I changed my name from RaveenS to Tapbrobanus again the comment was wanting to remove too much information associted with real name. All pointing a wikipedian wanting to be able to contribute without being associated with real name. The intentions are very clear. The admin in question because I requested to him to discuss with me via wiki process how we can resolve the difference of opinion he had with me regarding one source Tamilnet began a pattern of going after articles that I have created, it sort of stopped with the ANI finding. Now he is going after some pictures I uploaded and marking them with various violations (they are legitimate) but he is not informing me of all his findings in my talk page as the template requets. He has now shown to be fishing for personal information about me by going through my sandbox very many levels below where they are all indicating WP:STALK very least if not other violations. This is issue is not black and white as to whether the information was out there or not. There is some Grey involved as I am not a computer expert and I have made my intention to remain private known to Wikipedia as an instituition. This is potentially a life and death issue for me because my intentions were very clear as I changed my name and deleted my user page information that has been fished out by a Wikipedia Admin. Thanks Taprobanus 23:52, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I do not mean to put your life in danger. I believed that since you posted a very detailed account of yourself with all your achievements etc, on your userpage, that you wanted people to know about your life accomplishments. I am not stalking you. The fact is that you only edit LTTE-Sinhalese related things, so it happens that the pages where you used TamilNet, also had copyright violations. I am adamant they are copyvios and a liability to WIkipedia to say the least. I did notify you on your talk page. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 07:30, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I posted a very detailed version of myself in my user page then I deleted it using an admin’s help. The sandbaox that I used create that user page, I blanked it number of times thinking it is gone. But you had to fish for that information at number of levels below where that Sanbox was to find information that I erroneously left behind. As an admin and a senior Wikipedia editor that is uncalled for just to make WP:POINT.

    I am more than willing to accept for face value that you did not mean to put my life in danger although that's what you did with your actions. At minimum for this issue to go away you should apologize so we understand that you really understood what you have done. Otherwise this will follow the wiki process. When I came to your talk page to talk about Tamilnet, I said I believed 100% in the wiki process and I am more than willing to follow it through to rfa, but not even in my dreams did I think that instead of Tamilnet we will be talking about an rfa about your conduct. But this madness can stop with a simple apology.

    Further don’t belittle my contributions as only related LTTE-Sinhalese stuff. Just like you are interested in English game of Cricket for a Vietnamese citizen, I am interested in Human Rights in Sri Lanka and the world at large, my user box says that. If WP:NOTABLE incidents happen in Sri Lanka whether the perpetrator is the government or the LTTE, I will write about it.

    About the pictures you tagged, you tagged 5 pictures that I uploaded since this discussion began but only informed me about 1. Why ? Thanks Taprobanus 15:36, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]


    The reason for your user name change is obvious.. You wanted to cover all your contributions which you made to those racists pro-LTTE web sites. Because that would enable you to play an innocent role here in Wikipedia. But luckily Thanks to great Wikipedians we all know who you are and why you are here.We do not need to go far to see your anti-Government hypocrisies. They were clearly shown by you with your creation of dubious templates(which got deleted) and lots of other non-sense stuff esp you added to Sri Lankan related articles.You have before even collaborated with other users, exchanging pass words to push your anti-government pro-tamil agendas, even calling some of your friends not-pro tamil enough !! And here you are shamelessly trying to play the victims role by accusing probably one of the best Wikipedians we have now. I have told you many times not to tell stories, stories are for kids NOT for adult Wikipedians. And here you came up with another stories. I don't think anyone in the world take what you say seriously.. Death threats ?? You must be kidding here. Why dould anyone want to threaten a person like you ? I have never heard a person got threaten in SL just because he is pro-LTTE..Some members of TNA make comments supporting LTTE in the parliament ,and even call LTTE , we, but still live in peace among the Sinhalese with of course protection of GOSL . There are many tamils openly criticizing Sinhalese people,GOSL and live in peace in Colombo. And why should people take some one like you,who may have not probably visited my country for years,and live 1000 miles apart ?? The whole tirade made by yoou is simply disgusting.ESP because it comes from sone who has no idea about whats going on in Sri Lankan, probably find info by reading those racist tamil web-sites !! Anyway, finally we all know who you are and why you are here. And we even know why you have put your self to such a low position some time.Its all to defend your POV, your bias towards a certain section, your hatred of GOSL, and probably your hatred of the country call Sri Lanka. Iam sorry, I don't think people like you deserve to stay in Wikipedia. Iwazaki 会話。討論 01:43, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    It is well documented fact that people journalists ,political workers and people from all of walks have been killed this includes Tamils,Sinhalese and everyone particurly after 1983 both in North and East and also in the south during the War against the JVP.It is sad fact that journalists are killed in Sri Lanka just for there views by all the sides in the conflict.Paramilitary backing the Sri LAnkan Army ,LTTE and no one is above it.If he wants maintain his privacy as most people do so in the internet it is fine.I do not think anyone can question it .Most chat rooms people avoid giving there real identity to strnagers as it is dangerous.Taprobanus may feel his life is at risk this is true .Not a single sinhalese government staff want to work in the North except the Army in the south Tamils do not want to go to certain parts.This is sad reality of Sri Lanka. Harlowraman 02:25, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I would like to note to iwazaki that he is just as unabashedly partisan as taprobanus. He is correct that many tamils live in sri lanka and enjoy comfortable lives in a sinhala majority. Another major point is that not all tamils support the LTTE, infact some for religious reasons are more apt to support the sinhala. A prime example is Subramaniam Swamy. This conflict sticks its branches into South Indian politics as well, its not just relegated to Sri Lanka.Bakaman 02:51, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Not 'South' Indian politics... may be just the Dravidian politics of Tamil Nadu. Which is understandable, given the extreme tamil ideological stance that these parties and the ltte share. But it has little to do with any religious ideology, least of all 'Hindutva'. Anyway, thats besides the point. The point here is that Taprobanus has a conflict of interest which not only his subpage, but also his comment on my talk page and his comment early on in this discussion prove. His alarmist pitch now is yet another bad faith mudslinging at one of the most respected and useful wikipedians we have. Anybody, half as concerned about their privacy as Taprobanus claims he is about his, wouldnt even put up their bio anywhere on the internet, let alone on a high traffic site like wikipedia. How very convenient of him now to claim that his life is in danger! All this lawyering for what patently are advocacy sites and propaganda tabloids is now starting to spill over into WP:POINT. Sarvagnya 03:40, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Our "comrades" seem to have connections as well.Bakaman 03:46, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    'Comrades' have agendas and 'connections' in every corner of the globe :) Sarvagnya 04:19, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Taprobanus' concern is correct. Many people who stand up against the GoSL have been killed when they step into Sri Lanka. While it is true that many tamil live happily beside sinhalese and other yet how many of these people speak against the GoSL ? Not many at all. The ones who do speak against the GoSl don't enjoy peaceful life. Now with the bashing aside. This is a serious issue. Taprobanus is really scared for his life. I bet the person who brought his real name up here has a hidden agenda. Every one knows he changed his name for a reason... Why breach his privacy? Most editors allready know who he is (sl related anyway). So I kindly ask the admin to take proper measures not only to hide Taprobanus' real identity but to make sure this type of act will not be followed by any users. Watchdogb 13:17, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I have already advice raveen not to tell stories and not to attack good/established Wikipedians. And regarding his bogus fear for life, Why would anyone even think of harming him ? When, from what I have seen here, he can be easily out-smarted and out-witted by anyone. The only reason he changed his profile was to cover his contribution to those racists tamil crap sites. Obviously he knew that was going to harm his future in Wikipedia and give him a black mark. After all who on earth take people who write to those crap pro-LTTE sites seriously ? And finally in case you haven't noticed,TNA MP's regularly praised LTTE and live in the comfort of the GOSL.Please at least read news ,if you are serious about contributing to SL'an related stuff here.Iwazaki 会話。討論 14:29, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    WOW IWAZAKI... TNA MP's Praise LTTE and live in peace ? Hmm what happend to Nadaraj (mind you in the tight security zone of SLA controlled area) ? Very comical comment by you. Plus your the one who constantly attack other wikipedians so I think its best to take your own advise. Your argument are pretts nonsence. What does his fear of life have to do with him being outsmarted ? Also how can you say he changed his profile to cover his contribution to those racists tamil crap sites. Who are you to say what he was thinking ? You got proof ? Why can't you take it as it is. He didn't want his real identity to be shown on wikipedia and as he has just shown he is scared for his life. Besides many people (such as yourself) don't even put their real name on wikipeida. Does that mean that you want to hide something from the racist Sinhala sites ? Does that mean that you don't want to have a black mark in wikipedia because you (might) contribute to Asian Tribune? I don't get your point.... So its ok for you to remain unknown but its not ok for someone else to be unknown ? Wonder why that is... It's not proper for a admin of wikipedia to violate someone's privacy. Its even worst when the admin does not take his real name off of the discussion even when the said user is scared for his life. Is this how wikipedia admins their admin ? Watchdogb 15:39, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    We are NOT interested in your content dispute. We cannot, personally, fix the dispute in Sri Lanka. Could you all take this somewhere else? Secretlondon 15:56, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The revealing of a user's ID after that user pursued anonimity should be taken seriously. There seems to be a small group of editors who regularly show up here on AN/I on both sides of issues and problems here. Blnguyen and bakaman are both well aware of how to act here, and Blnguyen's comment, and actions, are highly inappropriate for a user of his experience. As for Iwazaki, such blatant bigotry for someone whose politics don't match yours do not belong on wikipedia. Your message essentially amounts to 'I hope they catch and kill you, because you're Pro-tamil and LTTE.' As an otherwise uninvolved editor, I'd definitely hope that if Iwazaki has any more such comments here, he receive a cool-off break. Blnguyen knew not to reveal it, too. He's not so dumb as to think that this user really meant to leave his ID behind, and almost certainly exploited the user's error to gain advantage in the content dispute. He ought to be blocked substantially, IMHO. ThuranX 22:52, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Please improve your reading comprehension skills. I have not said anything like that at all. All I said this was, this whole I am in danger drama was created to take attention away from the main issue. Credibility of some one who writes to tamilnet tamilnation or tamil something sites is in question here. His true desire to have web-sites for which he contribute, as Wp:RS, is in question here. I am not sure how these crocodile tears going to take the focus away from the real issues here.Iwazaki 会話。討論 15:23, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Boy.. hold it. Its not like Raveen abandoned his former id or something. Even now, User:RaveenS redirects to User:Taprobanus. And there is no content dispute here which involves Blnguyen with Taprobanus. There are only two issues here - one is the usage of advocacy sites and propaganda sheets by Raveen as sources in dozens of articles which goes against WP:RS. The other is COI(to which Raveen himself confesses). And on both counts, Raveen is caught on the wrong foot. And just because he's been caught on the wrong foot, very funnily, he pulls out the ridiculous "my life is in danger" card out of nowhere and tries to mudsling at respected editors. If his alarmist pitch is really true, the commonsense thing to do would have been to WP:VANISH and probably come back after some time with a new account or something or just vanish from Wikipedia for good. But given that he hasnt done any such thing, I am forced to give more credence to Iwaziki's theory that he just wants to whitewash his true colours and act all innocent and naive on wikipedia. If anything, it is Taprobanus who should be 'blocked substantially'(in your words) for circumventing wikipedia and disrupting. Sarvagnya 01:27, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    As you are good friend of User:Blnguyen, you should leave it to neutral people to decide this vexing issue. Thanks Taprobanus 03:21, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    What is that supposed to mean? Can you be more specific? Sarvagnya 03:28, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    To make my stance clear to everyone at the outset: I'm Indian, but largely apolitical, and have no strong views regarding the LTTE situation. However, I believe it is unfair to accuse Blnguyen of inappropriate behaviour. He has given many proofs throughout his time here that he is completely trustworthy and respectful of others' privacy. I do not believe Taprobanus is overreacting - I will not be so cavalier as to brush off someone's fear for their life, nor call them an alarmist - but I believe he needs to take a giant step back and think about whether contributing here under an identifiable username is a good idea at all. I respectfully recommend that he read WP:VANISH and consider whether editing about a subject which is obviously very close to his heart is going to end up with the result we all want: a neutral, verifiable encyclopedia.
    As an aside... we still haven't solved the problem of sources. Riana ⁂ 04:17, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    User:ThuranX correctly said - "The revealing of a user's ID after that user pursued anonimity should be taken seriously". It is something like revealing the penname of a reporter who is handling the issues of State Terrorism / Terrorism or an officer’s identity who was dealing with French Connection. Though the comments of User:Riana are neutral, other than her comment about User:Blnguyen at this incident - "However, I believe it is unfair to accuse User:Blnguyen of inappropriate behaviour. He has given many proofs throughout his time here that he is completely trustworthy and respectful of others' privacy". I don’t believe the open testimoney of some Indian or Pakistani wikipedians, declaring themselves as neutral on Kashmir issue and then commenting on. The same will applicable to the issues related to wikipedians as well. The Vesak wishes of User:Blnguyen to User:Iwazaki of This and User:Snowolfd4 This and then revealing the ID of User:Taprobanus who is differing the views who those received his Vesak wishes and then the actions of User:Blnguyen going after some pictures which have been uploaded by User:Taprobanus and marking them with various violations (when they are considered as legitimate according to the User) without informing him, are highly inappropriate for a user of his experience and making others to suspect whether he is over-estimated his Admin. powers and misusing it or in a state of mental-imbalance. Lustead 07:12, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I have not used my admin powers. I am not mentally ill. I gave Vesak wishes to whoever I had come across on-wiki and who declared themselves to be Buddhist. You and your friends are not declared Buddhists, so I didn't send them to you. I gave out many of the Vesak greetings on May 31. If you are saying that Indians and Pakistanis are not to be trusted on Kashmir, then why are you here if you are a member of the "involved ethnicities"? The fact is that I saw the copyright pictures on the pages with the TamilNet website and they were clearly not acceptable. Nothing more nothing less. If those pictures are acceptable, which they are not, then they will stay. As they are, they don't pass WP:FUC #8. I would not have revealed Taprobanus' were it not for the fact that he still preserved it in his possession at the time. The fact that you guys only edit one very small focused topic with dubious website s and not academic textbooks says more about why you are here.Blnguyen (bananabucket) 07:30, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    The fact that you guys only edit one very small focused topic with dubious website s and not academic textbooks says more about why you are here What you mean, you guys ? and what reason do to assign to these guys. Assume good faith per WP:AGF and dont no personal attack of fellow wikipedians. I think you may be loosing your cool ever since I posted a simple statement in your talk page that I am more than willing to discuss per wiki process with you as to how to resolve a vexing problem about a source called Tamilnet. Now that source issue is resolved at the ANI level all what you had to do is move on to cricket or what ever you like rather than linger on and make all of us South Asians centric editors look like petty quarrelsome lot unable to accept the wiki process for what it is. Without following the wiki process, we will have chaos and edit warring like what you precipitated in number of articles that only stopped after the ANI findings by a neutral admin then you started it allover again by removing Tamilnet yet again showing a loack of respect for wiki process. I have a job to do, family to take care of and number of notable raped and murdered women, massacres and involuntary disappearances to write about in Wikipedia when I have time. So let us all move on. Thanks Taprobanus 15:52, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    You have the freedom to wish anyone you want in wikipedia or elsewhere by sending Vesak, Christmas, Diwali and Ramadan wishes. But the coincidence of your wishes and your controversial edits alarmed other wikipedians.
    I should add one more ethnicty, the Chinese also on Kashmir issue, I don’t trust anyone other than Kashmiri wikipedians whether they are Buddists, Hindus, Muslims or Sikhs and any neutral wikipedians. Kashmir or Tibet can’t be a center for regional powers to show their supremacy at the expense of natives of those regions.
    Coming to the point, you are saying - "TamilNet website and they were clearly not acceptable. Nothing more nothing less". But another well reputed wikipedian User:FayssalF, a Moroccan nationality, he qualifies more than you to WP:NPOV is concerned, differing from your view point by accepting TamilNet is meeting the WP:RS. I excerpted here some of his views[15]–"I see that TamilNet respects our policy on RS. These are my reasons: TamilNet has been cited and used as a reference in both notable media outlets such as BBC, CNN and news agencies such as the notable Reuters. It has also been used in academic papers and still being used in government websites such as the Canadian immigration and refugee board website. (based on the links provided by participants above)". So his answer will clear your doubt which you posed – "The fact that you guys only edit one very small focused topic with dubious websites and not academic textbooks says more about why you are here". Lustead 13:16, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]


    Riana, tamilnation.org is run by the guy who served as lawyer for one of the terrorist leaders. On the site, he says that he 'bows his head humbly' to these 'leaders'. In his view, SriLanka is perpetrating a genocide which curiously none of the mainstream press like BBC or the Indian media etc., have reported. In other words, these sites are foisting hoaxes and only a bad faith editor with a COI would be using those sites as sources on wikipedia. Also, tell me what are the credentials of these sites and the people who run it? Are they affiliated to any offical press bodies in any country, for that matter? For many of these sites, we dont even know who's running it. Who the editor is, who the reporters are. In short a benami site. No checks. No balances. Pretty much free to write what they want.
    For purposes of Wikipedia, how are these sites different from driveling blogs all over the net? Like I've already argued above, the parallels with FOX etc., is invalid. Even if the likes of FOX or timesofindia or The Hindu or CNN etc., are biased, we have WP:NPOV which takes care of it. But you cant use non-RS sources and argue that you are bringing NPOV to wikipedia. NPOV has to be established only from RS sources. And as far as the affairs of Tamil goes, it is not as if there is a paucity of RS sources. There are more than enough RS sources. There is even a BBC Tamil version. The Indian press covers it widely. Where is the need to even use these propaganda sheets, except to push POV? Sarvagnya 07:15, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    You are absolutely WRONG. Take a good look dude. Our issue here is about tamilnet and not tamilnation.org. So get your facts stright. No, BBC has many times shown bias against the LTTE. So again I ask does this mean that we should not use BBC ? Ofcourse we use BBC. Also last time I check any of the SL articles they are allready filled with POV sources from the GoSL friendly websites. So may I ask Sarvagnya why you would stick with those sources ? Watchdogb 13:50, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Its a tough choice, which is more crappier, tamilnet or tamilnation ? Could be either of them..What do you think ?Iwazaki 会話。討論 15:23, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Here we go. User:Sarvagnya is bringing his crap arguments once again. He has written the same non-sense in the portions above and received a verdict from a neutral editor contrary to his stand (That Tamilnet is a RS). Now his bad faith attempts to accuse Tamilnet as an equivalent to blog (once again) shows his difficulty to understand simple English. I suggest neutral editors/admins to please read the arguments & evidence given in above portion which clearly demonstrates Tamilnet's reliability. Thanks Praveen 13:55, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Instead of calling other peoples comments, craps, could you please go through what he has said here and point out what is crappy about it? And I prefer simple English, too..Thank you

    Please, let's not discuss privacy related issues in this highly visible place. I think there is a chance to move on. — Sebastian 17:31, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    There is no privacy violation here. If anything all the details revealed are highly necessary to carry out this debate. It is now pretty obvious why some elements wanted to have crap bias tamil something sites as WP:RS. How can we take someone as a neutral editor, when it is obviously clear that he contribute to pro-tamil pro-LTTE sites ? Iwazaki 会話。討論 15:23, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Moving on

    On the top of this page, it says: "This page is not part of our Dispute Resolution process." I believe this page gets cluttered too easily, and this section is a case in point - it has grown far beyond proportion.

    I think we can boil it down to two issues:

    1. Reliability of Sri-Lanka related sources
    2. Privacy violation

    I propose we discuss the Reliability of Sri-Lanka related sources on WT:RS. As for the privacy violation, naturally it is not a good idea to discuss this publicly. Since I have experience as a mediator and since I am very sad to see two good and respected contributors locked in this sort of conflict, I offer to do informal mediation. I will contact both parties and see what comes from that. — Sebastian 17:31, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment I am amazed that such politically motivated web sites are being used to provide data and citations to wikipedia. A casual read (need to dig in a bit) on "Tamilnation.org" clearly shows how anti-Kannada and Kannadiga it is. On top of all this we now have COI !! I have seen a growing need on the part of some people to use this media source (wikipedia) for political gains, ethnocentric attitudes and blind exclusiveism. This needs to be weeded out before wikipedia no longer remains an encyclopedia. This link is just one among many political propaganda material on Taminnation.org.[16]. One look at Tamilnet.com makes it clear what the main intention here is-Eelam. Dineshkannambadi 11:27, 5 June 2007 (UTC) Support -->blacklisting these two sites "Tamilnation.org" and "Tamilnet.com".Dineshkannambadi 12:04, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Yeah, right.... You keep using a Kannad-centric 'history' book by Kamat (Who is a Kannad) and scores of *kannad* websites as 'references' as if there are no neutral history books and now here you are arguing about the quality of Tamilnation etc... Do you have any proof for your allegation that Tamilnation is anti-kannad or is it one more of home-cooked theory by Kamat et al?
    Support -->blacklisting of 'history' book by Kamat & "kannad* websites. Praveen 13:50, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Good luck trying to make a case that Kamat and Kamath are not RS. A certain troll did try in the past but ended up like this, this and this. Hoping for some similar entertainment from you too. Thanks. Sarvagnya 16:49, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User talk:Jimbo Wales

    Resolved
     – Page semi-protected for 25 hours, thread removed. -N 16:26, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    There's currently a full scale edit war going on at User talk:Jimbo Wales between two anons. One is claiming to be a German Wikipedia admin, and another is claiming their privacy is being violated. I can't make much sense of it because it's all posted in German. I posted at WP:RFPP but nobody's gotten to it yet. -N 15:58, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi protected for 25 hours (because I pressed 5 instead of 4 and now don't feel like changing it). You should be able to just remove the squabbles now. Neil ╦ 16:16, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I removed the thread entirely from the page. Carrying over disputes from another project to here is inappropriate. -N 16:26, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I disagree with that, since this is where Jimmy's User page and Talk page are. However, I do believe that conversations in any language other than English are not appropriate. Corvus cornix 20:43, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I can't believe that people still have beliefs like that. ExtraDry 22:17, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    There is another problem 2 topics below about use of a language other than English! Template anyone!Feddhicks 22:13, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Posting crap people can't understand involving disputes on another project is bad form. It has nothing to do with bad "beliefs". -N 22:25, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm talking about "However, I do believe that conversations in any language other than English are not appropriate." ExtraDry 09:45, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Gryffindor out of control

    Gryffindor keeps on moving Meran to Merano against the consensus and WP:NCGN. (see also the above report by Pmanderson).--Supparluca 17:37, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Now he has protected the page abusing his admin powers.--Supparluca 17:40, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm trying to work this out with Gryffindor. On first sight, it does look like rather questionable use of the admin tools to me. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:17, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Please consider that this isn't the first time at all. He started to abuse his powers in 2005, always with his strong point of view, and always (for what I know) on articles related to that province, usually with subtle and bully behaviours.--Supparluca 18:42, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Clearly a complicated situation with possible mis-steps on both sides. See [17] for questionalbe accusations of vandalism. —Gaff ταλκ 02:45, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Gryffindor made one controversial move in a questionable interpretation of the results of a straw poll he had himself initiated and voted in. On being reverted, he today repeated his move three times within few hours and then protected his version. I've reverted his move to the status quo ante and kept move protection on that version in effect. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:49, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Thank you for your celerity, though I obviously think that's not enough.--Supparluca 18:52, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Watch List on Project Space

    http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:QuackGuru&diff=next&oldid=135583956

    An editor issued me a fake warning.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Pseudoscience/List_of_articles_related_to_scientific_skepticism

    The watchlist in project space was a keep.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Pseudoscience/List_of_skepticisms_and_scientific_skepticism_concepts&diff=next&oldid=135581510

    However, an editor(s) is trying to speedy delete it after it was kept. :) - Mr.Gurü (talk/contribs) 18:18, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    An article can still be speedily deleted after an MfD, so long as it meets CSD requirements. Passing an XfD does not give an article immunity against further deletions. Phony Saint 18:32, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    what confuses me is that the stated reason for the XFD is reposted material - but what's it a repost of if it survived it's MFD? --Fredrick day 18:33, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Looking at it again, it's not a repost, but QuackGuru didn't state that in his edit summaries or here. After the original article - this article - was moved to project space, someone recreated the article in mainspace, and that was the article deleted. I was about to revert myself when I saw you already did it. Phony Saint 18:38, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Cool. This sounds settled then. Mr.Guru, in the future don't remove an AfD template, but rather follow the "hang on" instructions contained within. Removing the AfD template as you had done [18] is considered vandalism. Hence, my warning to you. -- Levine2112 discuss 19:12, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    According to Levine2112, he still believes my edit was vandalism when it was not. He knows it was not a repost. He voted in the MFD.[19] He knows it was a keep. It can't be a repost in project space when it survived the MFD. Levine2112, do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point with your unfounded warning. Hmmm. :) - Mr.Gurü (talk/contribs) 20:14, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Levine2112 has issued me another unfounded warning. This time, I made a single edit to an article and he has dumped on my talk page a warning of edit warring.[20] This is harressment and uncivil behaviour. :) - Mr.Gurü (talk/contribs) 21:17, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Removing an AfD is considered vandalism. Separtely, your involvement in the editing of Coral calcium constitues edit warring. In each case, the warning template I placed on your page was appropriate. -- Levine2112 discuss 21:21, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I removed an inappropriate speedy delete tag. It did not meet the criteria for speedy delete. You do not believe it was vandalism because you have not reverted back to the tag.[21] Making a single edit to an article is not edit warring. Please stop with your incivility. :) - Mr.Gurü (talk/contribs) 21:31, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Removing an AfD tag from an article which you created is considered vandalism. I didn't revert because of the discussion here which I believe cleared up the situation. Next time you are presented with an AfD tag on an article which you created, rather than removing the tage, consider following the "hang on" instructions in the AfD notice, as removing the tag can be construed as vandalism. -- Levine2112 discuss 23:30, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I did not remove an AFD tag. I removed a speedy delete tag. You knew it was not a recreation. You participated in the MFD. :) - Mr.Gurü (talk/contribs) 01:14, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Same deal. Removing a speedy deletion tag from an article you created can be considered vandalism. Next time, please consider following the "hang on" instructions in the template, if you wish to contest the nomination. -- Levine2112 discuss 03:47, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    From WP:CSD: Any editor who is not the author of a page may remove a speedy tag from it; the author may not do this, but instead should place a {{hangon}} tag on the page. -- Levine2112 discuss 03:59, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    No wikilawering. You got it backwards, again. You knew in advance it was not a repost. How could you consider it vandalism when you participated in the MFD and knew fully well it was a keep. You can't repost a watchlist when it was never deleted in the first place. I consider it uncivil for any editor to put a speedy tag when they know the article's detailed history. The key is that you knew it was not a repost and yet you accused me of vandalism. Rubbish. :) - Mr.Gurü (talk/contribs) 04:13, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Levine2112 cannot explain away the fake warning for alleged edit warring when I made a single edit to coral calcium.[22] Very odd behaviour. :) - Mr.Gurü (talk/contribs) 04:23, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    This is not the place to make uncivil accusations. I did not know that it was not a repost or whatever it is your are claiming. What I know is that you removed a speedy deletion tag from a page which you authored. This can be considered vandalism; hence the warning on your talk page. All the warning was meant to be is educational to you so next time you would know not to remove such a tag from a page which you authored. Please assume better faith. -- Levine2112 discuss 04:28, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Please do not attribute vandalism to my name again or you will reported for your disruptive behaviour. You still can't explain the ficticious warning for edit warring when I made a single edit. A single edit is not edit warring. Your warning was not educational. It was harrassment. You did not AGF with me and you continue to contrue vandalism to my name. I do not vandalise and it was not edit warring. :) - Mr.Gurü (talk/contribs) 17:06, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I really don't know what other way there is to explain that removing a Speedy Deletion template from an article which you authored can be considered vandalism. It isn't about whether or not I agree with the template. It's about following the policies. And the policy is: "If you are the author of this article, don't remove the template." That's all there really is to say. I am sorry that you are turning this is into something personal between us. I assure you that is not the case. I have warned many users for doing the exact same thing which you did. No one else has reacted like this. This is fairly routine practice for the VandalProof team members such as myself. Again, nothing personal. -- Levine2112 discuss 18:07, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    It does not work like that. Levine2112 knew in advance it was never a repost. He knew I was the original author. He participated in the MFD. The MFD was a keep. He commented on the talk page after the resulting keep.[23] He knew all this and he still thinks it was vandalism. No. It was not. He tried to delete it as a repost but it did not work this time around. He also knows I did not edit war. He can't talk his way out of that one either. Have a nice day! :) - Mr.Gurü (talk/contribs) 18:25, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I have spoken my mind on this issue and see no need to continue on this until if and when an Admin responds here. In the meantime, I would appreciate that your discontinue your bad faith accusations about me. Thanks. -- Levine2112 discuss 18:45, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Levine2112 has not provided a reason for the harrassment warning[24][25] of edit warring when I made a single edit to the Coral Calcium. That speaks volumes. :) - Mr.Gurü (talk/contribs) 19:01, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Please see the next posting [26] where I explicitly spell it out for you: "This includes removing an AFD template". -- Levine2112 discuss 21:28, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    After it was moved to project space I did a lot of work on it. A new and changed article was posted in mainspace. They are trying to delete it as a repost again when they know it was never a repost in the first place. It was originally moved to project space by consensus. After I worked on it in project space, I posted it in mainspace in accordance with policy. It is very different from the original article and it was voted to keep in project space. After I did a lot of work on it and posted it in mainspace it was tagged as a repost which was not true. Now, they want to delete the watch list from project space for no reason. Again, it was voted to keep in project space. The key is understanding the MFD was a keep. There is a long complicated history of moves with this list. In the confusion they were succussful in deleting it as a repost in mainspace. In the beginning, I created an article in mainspace. It survived deletion and was subsequently moved to project space. To make a long story short. I did a lot of work and made considerable changes to the article and posted it back and mainspace. It was not a repost. It was deleted as a repost. It was a logical fallicious argument made by some Wikipedians. Of course you know how things can get on Wikipedia sometimes. I opened a deletion review. I have provided proof it was a different article with substantial changes to the text of the article. After it was moved to project space I did a lot of work on it. A new and changed article was posted in mainspace. They are trying to delete it as a repost again when they know it was never a repost in the first place. It was originally moved to project space by consensus. After I worked on it in project space, I posted it in mainspace in accordance with policy. It is very different from the original article and it was voted to keep in project space. After I did a lot of work on it and posted it in mainspace it was tagged as a repost which was not true. Now, they want to delete the watch list from project space for no reason. Again, it was voted to keep in project space. The key is understanding the MFD was a keep. There is a long complicated history of moves with this list. In the confusion they were succussful in deleting it as a repost in mainspace. I want many experienced administrators to overview. Per deletion review policy any administrator can undelete and overtrurn deletion. If you agree, it may be possible to return this article back to its proper place in mainspace. Thank you very much. Please advise me if there is any options for me left. A good article deserves to be in mainspace. I have provided proof it was a different article. This article is a great resource tool. A library of information. And belongs in mainspace. Please return this list to mainspace and explain on the talk it was not a recreation. In fact, it was a substantially different article. All in all, we should not reward people who take advantage of Wikipedia's openness who misrepresent the quality of an article just because they don't like it and who pretend it was a repost. Godspeed and hooray to Wikipedia!

    http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Pseudoscience/List_of_skepticisms_and_scientific_skepticism_concepts&oldid=99780515

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Pseudoscience/List_of_skepticisms_and_scientific_skepticism_concepts

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_articles_related_to_scientific_skepticism

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2007_February_1

    Sincerely, :) - Mr.Gurü (talk/contribs) 20:14, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I believe the main problem was that the article's talk page wasn't moved when the article was moved, so nobody really knew the article's history; I fixed it and it now resides at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Pseudoscience/List of skepticisms and scientific skepticism concepts. I suggest closing this thread since there isn't any necessary admin action needed. Phony Saint 00:02, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Its time (mainspace)

    All allegations it was a repost have been summarily debunked. Now then, to the mission at hand. I recommend it be put back into mainspace right now, because the article has gone through a major transformation and the text of the article has considerably changed. Any thoughts. :) - Mr.Gurü (talk/contribs) 01:24, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    What part of moving this article requires admin intervention? Take it to the talk page of the article or the WikiProject. Phony Saint 01:59, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    No it isn't. This article has repeatedly been deleted from mainspace. You already took it to DRV and lost. If you repost it is mainspace, it will be deleted again as a repost. The way, the truth, and the light 02:02, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The old version was deleted from mainspace. This one is the new version. This requires administrative assistance and approval. Also I moved the article before. It did not work properly. The talk page got left behind. I forgot about it. It would be easier if an experienced administrator would go ahead and review. After a determination has been made it can easily be put back in mainspace. I hope administrators can offer their assistance. Thanks. :) - Mr.Gurü (talk/contribs) 02:13, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The AfD and DRV comments were against having any article based on this concept in mainspace. The talk page has been fixed. The way, the truth, and the light 02:16, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    It was based on an old version. The new version is organized and different. This requires administrative oversight to sort this out. :) - Mr.Gurü (talk/contribs) 02:22, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    No it doesn't, you're trying to circumvent consensus by bringing it here. Take it to DRV again or the talk pages; AN/I is not deletion review, or article review for that matter. Phony Saint 02:52, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    How can I take it to DRV again? Where is the policy to open a second DRV when the article has been updated? There is no policy covering this matter at hand. The talk pages are not for this matter. I am asking here for administrative guidance on the path never taken. The first DRV was deletion as a repost which was unfounded and easily debunked. Again, there is no specific policy on this. We are breaking new waters. :) - Mr.Gurü (talk/contribs) 03:04, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_articles_related_to_scientific_skepticism&diff=next&oldid=104740040 According to Levine2112 the article met the criteria for speedy deletion. He charged me with reposting deleted content. Nothing was further from the truth. This kind of misrepresentations should not be tolerated on Wikipedia. The text of the article was considerably different and the enitre article was reorganized. Respectively, :) - Mr.Gurü (talk/contribs) 17:20, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I charged you with nothing more than removing the speedy delete template. So I simply reverted the edit and warned you that it is considered vandalism to remove a speedy delete template from an article which you authored. I really wasn't think about the MfD from five months ago. I was just going about my usual anti-vandalism business. -- Levine2112 discuss 03:55, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Levine2112 has also charged me with edit warring on the Coral Calcium which was a lie. I made a single edit and he harrassed me with a warning. The allegations have no merit or validity. Levine2112 is unable to provide any evidence of edit warring. He made it up. Levine2112 can't cover his tracks by explaining his way out of this. Levine2112 has presented a false picture, please stop. :) - Mr.Gurü (talk/contribs) 04:12, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    An edit war is when two or more contributors repeatedly revert one another's edits to an article. You teamed up with another editor with whom you have an alliance and joined in a edit war to help prevent that editor from breaking 3RR. It should be noted that the editor with whom you teamed up with dropped the same edit warring warning on another editor who only made one reversion as well. Like you, that editor promptly deleted the warning. Unlike you, that editor recognized that the warning is just a warning, stopped his edit warring and moved on. I suggest you do the same. Finally, it should be also noted that the edit which you reverted was changed back. It was discussed on the talk page and it appears that you and your edit warring "teammate" were in the wrong policy-wise. -- Levine2112 discuss 04:52, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Pigsonthewing (talk · contribs)

    Can someone suggest a sensible place to report these personal attacks (in the edit summaries)?:

    I'm not sure that dispute resolution/mediation etc are the correct forum, but don't know where else to go. L.J.Skinnerwot|I did 22:36, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm not sure, but you should definitely not be re-posting warnings that the user has removed from his page. He has shown clearly that he prefers you not to keep posting there, so please take a hint. Especially don't post templated warnings. People do get testy at those. I agree the edit summaries aren't civil, but your posts are pretty provocative, too. Please give his page a rest. POTW isn't fair game just because he has a bit of a rep for being testy. That's emphatically not a good reason to keep poking at him. Bishonen | talk 22:56, 3 June 2007 (UTC).[reply]
    P. S. And you're supposed to tell him you're discussing him here. That's one message on his page that would be appropriate. Bishonen | talk 22:59, 3 June 2007 (UTC).[reply]
    Both Wikipedia:User page and Wikipedia:Vandalism allow a user to remove warnings from their own talk page. Phony Saint 00:35, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, I had not realised, but can you show me where the above allow him to call me an idiot in doing so? L.J.Skinnerwot|I did 12:21, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The above appears to be a response to this complaint to and about a user who has already found to have been using sock-puppets to harass me and blocked for incivility towards me. Andy Mabbett 07:01, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    No, this is a question asking where best to report you for uncivil edit summaries. May I ask why you feel the need to bring up a non-proven sockputtetry case and an incorrect use of a block to justify yourself? I say again - pot, kettle, black, Pigsonthewing. L.J.Skinnerwot|I did 12:20, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The sock-puppetry case was proven, as per the cited link; and the block was correct. My edit summaries were not uncivil. My name remains, Andy Mabbett 13:18, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Personal attacks after being told repeatedly to stop, using various IPs

    An editor complained at the help desk about something in the article on Labrador Retrievers[30] calling another editor "delusional" or, rather, suggesting another editor might be delusion (I suppose if they didn't write an article that exactly agreed with this editor's opinions). This editor was asked politely to stick to the topic and post on the article's talk page, and to not discuss the other editor there. This editor then posted a comment on the article's talk page calling the other editor "paranoid." I removed the edit, and warned the poster on his talk page, with a level 3 warning, in light of the name calling, and having been asked not to continue in such a manner. The poster is using an IP address, and is changing IP addresses to repost the same comments, which I removed again from the talk page.

    My question is, can I now ask for this user to be blocked, who is posting from a range of IPs, and how do I got about it? Should I give a final warning, and where do I give it since the user is changing IP addresses within a range of addresses? KP Botany 00:22, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Did you try request for page protection? Seicer (talk) (contribs) 02:10, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh, no, hadn't thought of that. It's for a talk page, will it be done for a talk page? I guess I don't see why not. Thanks. KP Botany 02:49, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Looking over it, it seems as if its just one individual doing the same edits. Your RFP will probably be denied (unless it was from a lot of editors), however, the last edit by the IP received a L4 warning (continuing from the others). If it continues, apply for help at WP:AIV and cite the other IPs. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 02:51, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I made the mistake of talking back to them a while back, so quite obviously I'm the editor this person is so intent on speaking out against. I made comment about them on this board a few days ago, which is archived here. In case of future reference, it has a list of the IP addresses the person had used, though I did not include edits to the talk page. I am concerned about possibility of having to report them to WP:AIV some time, because of, among other things, the fact that putting warnings on their talk page is rendered useless by the constant change of address. Sarrandúin [ Talk + Contribs ] 14:34, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Short term RFsP was granted, and the admin removed the personal attacks. However, when requesting semi-protection I did not realize that this page had been granted a short term semi-protection before and that the IP returned and continued with precisely the same behaviour (I also lightly scolded and complimented User:Sarranduin for so politely tolerating the obnoxious behaviour--there has been no return on the personal attacks, so the situation has not escalated, just stayed the same, one IP editor spewing incomprehensible venom at another editor). I will request that the IPs be blocked when it returns, unless someone has a more useful suggestion. The IP is not reading the article, in addition to not reading any warnings or comments, and is simply intent on reposting the same personal attack. KP Botany 19:38, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:M.V.E.i.

    • Resolved
       – indefinitely blocked

    User M.V.E.i. has been repeatedly accusing me of vandalism, inserting false information and "talking lies". I have asked him to provide evidence (up to a point where I linked my contributions and article history for him) or stop that. Yet that has had no effect, either he ignores my request completely or insists "it is all there". Accusing someone of vandalism is perhaps strongest and harshest thing to say to another Wikipedian - yet I did not want to "bite a newbie" (his first edits are from April 20th) and just warned him repeatedly. However, now that is grown to a point where I believe that his actions can be called stalking.

    Instances when has accused me of vandalism, trolling and/or lies:

    He has been repeatedly asked to behave civilly, not only by other users but by administrators as well ([41], [42], [43], [44]). That has had no effect whatsoever.

    I am unsure what to do about him. Temporary blocks have no effect, he feels that he is fully just in his edits. Apparently he even doesn't realize that he is insulting other nationalities or editors. DLX 06:37, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Way, way over the line. Indefinitely blocked. Neil ╦ 07:01, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    You could AT LEAST learn the case, i can find you a few that belive that DLX should be blocked for vandalizing articles and starting Edit-Wars. I gave hin exemples of lies he said and he couldn't denie them. M.V.E.i.
    IP blocked. Sigh. Neil ╦ 16:49, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Hi, Neil and other admins. I don’t think 24 minutes is enough to make such a drastic decision. Thus, I’d like to clarify some points here. First, DLX is from a group of Estonian nationalist editors, who try to clean up corresponding articles so that the Estonian History would look “ok” [86]. They presumably collude and take active part in frequent edit wars: (only some) instances of such actions can be found in their recent checkuser cases [87] and [88]. (Wars with dropping relevant materials from articles, for instance, [89], is definitely “vandalism”. So I see no problem with this term used by M.V.E.i.). Selected additional evidence of their misbehavior is presented on a special page [90], where some more facts about DLX are also included. (I think enough evidence to block those editors, and DLX in particular, for long or forever will be collected sooner or later. But this is another story.)

    Another side of their strategy is to talk an opponent to death or to provoke him somehow (see example [91]) so that he becomes angered and then impolite. And M.V.E.i. case is typical in this respect. Look at the talk page of this new editor. I found 17 lenthy messages from Baltic users, though M.V.E.i. didn’t want the discussion. What was the question of this discussion? DLX stressed many times here and there that “none of Jews were killed by Estonian SS legioners” (e.g., [92]). That was definitely incorrect claim. Even the Estonian official source [93] admits that “the Estonian Legion and a number of Estonian police battalions were actively involved in the rounding up and shooting of Jews in at least one town in Belarus (Novogrudok); in guard duties in at least four towns in Poland (Lodz, Przemysl, Rzeszow, and Tarnopol); in guard duties at a number of camps in Estonia and elsewhere”. I believe such a claim by DLX is nothing else but a kind of Holocaust denialism (thus, “liar” was, yes, harsh, but actually correct name). What thing could anger Israeli citizen, M.V.E.i., more than Holocast denialism? In this context, his claim that DLX is a pro-Nazi is at least understandable, though not fully justifiable.

    Finally, I took a deeper look at the DLX accusations (skipping their personal clash [94], etc.). As to cases where “He has been repeatedly asked to behave civilly, not only by other users but by administrators as well”(DLX), [95] and [96], they were successfully resolved without external intervention. Concerning “Deleting material/references from Wikipedia”(DLX): accusations [97], [98] and [99] are taken out of context and thus baseless. Also, I don’t think there are “Racist and ethnic slurs”(DLX) in [100], [101] (this case was quoted twice by DLX), [102], [103], [104], [105].

    To summarize, I believe that M.V.E.i. doesn’t deserve such a strong punishment. I’d like to add also that, in a very short period, he created and did constructive contributions to several good articles. I ask admins to shorten his block.

    Best, Beatle Fab Four 11:09, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    You might want to review WP:BLOCK. Most importantly, blocking is not a punitive measure; it's a preventive measure. It's not that M.V.E.i. is being punished for being obnoxious; it is that he has shown consistent unability to help with the Project, and thus, he is being prevented from harming it. Digwuren 14:12, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The message above is a typical example of how they apply their strategy. Beatle Fab Four 14:19, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    As Beatle Fab Four asks people all ower Wikipedia to comment on this, I would like to express my opinion as well. From what I have seen, I fully endorse the block. Colchicum 14:42, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Sigh. Here we go again. I asked Neil to check my edit history for vandalism here. And I ask anyone else interested to do that - and if I have vandalized articles, then give me appropriate warnings or blocks. Oh, and by the way, BFF, for [106], read at least a lead from an article about Lord Voldemort and try to understand what I said... DLX 15:25, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Just in case this is a reply to my reply, I have nothing against you, I endorse the block of M.V.E.i. Colchicum 15:52, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    No, sorry - that was a reply to BFF, I just left my message to the bottom. DLX 16:21, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Nice to see that User:Beatle Fab Four, who has a history of being blocked twice in a time of an hour [107], [108] has suddenly become so polite [/sarcasm]. But the truth is that this M.V.E.i.'s racial prejudices far extend insulting "Baltic nationalists" - e.g. see these two [109] [110]. Quercus schnobur 16:16, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Don't miss [111], [112], [113], [114] DLX 16:21, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Given facts ([115]) presented in my statement, it is interesting to read this [116] by Quercus schnobur Beatle Fab Four 17:05, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict)You may want to re-read that and your sources. We were talking about murder of Estonian Jews by Nazis. SS-Legion was created after Estonia was declared judenfrei. But this discussion has been going round and round enough - and this is not the place for it. Discuss it on my user talk page, if you want - user pages are available for anyone, as long as they remain civil. DLX 17:38, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    About Beatle Fab Four who currently tries to protect M.V.E.i. we should not forget that edit summary[117].--Staberinde 17:33, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    BetacommandBot/Bookcover image deletion

    I'm confused by BetacommandBot tagging Image:Evolution and the Theory of Games.jpg with the {{non-free use disputed}} template. The image was tagged as {{Non-free book cover}}, since it is used in an article Evolution and the Theory of Games, which discusses the book in question. Is this not sufficient to meet the fair use criteria? It doesn't seem to feel like any of the Wikipedia:Non-free content#Examples of unacceptable use. Pete.Hurd 07:00, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Please read the second paragraph of the {{Non-free book cover}}; it begins with "To the uploader" in bold. --ElKevbo 08:12, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Good grief! Better just delete it so that Cambridge University Press doesn't sue for using an image of a cover of a book in the article about the book. Can't we just make a template for this, maybe call it {{Non-free book cover + the "used in article" rationale}}? Maybe Betacommand could write a bot to fill in the needed couple of fields of boiler plate. I'm not going to. I'm done with this. Pete.Hurd 08:55, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I've fixed that one. Personally, I believe this hamfisted new rule about a boilerplate not being sufficient to assert fair use is retarded and an appalling waste of everyone's time, but what do I know? Neil ╦ 09:09, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    It isn't a new requirement, the fact that some think it is just demonstrates how lax we've been in enforcing it. The template has stated the requirement since 31 Jan 2006, the policy I would guess older than that. --pgk 09:15, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, I think most have only noticed it since it started being enforced by bots. Being in place for almost 2 years doesn't mean a rule is a good one (in my opinion, of course). Neil ╦ 09:26, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Some of us have enforced it when seen for quite some time, the bot is merely uncovering the rather large amount which have been missed. I personally find it much more of a problem that we have lots of people uploading images etc. without taking the time to understand the basic policies, adding tags to indicate a status without reading those tags (how do they know it really is the correct thing if they never bother to read it?). Realistically if people had taken the time to actually read and act on the tags message when they uploaded it, we'd have no problems now. (By act I mean either simply do it, or try and discuss/understand the requirement and if tweaks can be made). --pgk 10:39, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Apparently very little (and yeah, you set yourself up for that one). --Cyde Weys 03:17, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    <deindent> Yeah, it's pretty stupid that boilerplates can't be used as FUR's, but it's policy anyway and it takes you what, 20 seconds to write up a FUR? —Crazytales (public computer) (talk) (main) 15:34, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    But if the boilerplates are not sufficient, why do we still have them? What is their point, other than luring the newer editors (or ones that have uploaded so many images they don't read the boilerplates any more) into uploading images that get deleted? It's as silly and as wasteful of everyone's times as allowing people to upload with templates that immediately tag the image for speedy deletion. Neil ╦ 16:53, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Their point is to record and display coherent and sufficient information on the license of the image, not its fair use rationale. There's are different boilerplates for that. Get with the program, man! --Spike Wilbury 17:15, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Why have both? Why not have one boilerplate that accomplishes both requirements? Neil ╦ 20:00, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    For the same reason Betacommand can't set up his bot to simply add the rationales on these - because it allegedly doesn't provide enough information. Yes, it's beyond asinine, but that's where paranoia gets you. --badlydrawnjeff talk 20:02, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The templates are there primarily for categorisation. I really think they should be abandoned and plain old categories used instead, since there seems to be an endless stream of users who get confused and think that the boilerplate is all they need to add to the description page. --bainer (talk) 23:27, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I see no reason why templates couldn't be used for book covers that are used only on the article for the corresponding book. The reason, both legal and in terms of Wikipedia policy, for using Image:Greenmile.jpg on The Green Mile (novel) is no different than for using Image:Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets.jpg on Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets. (I picked these two at random; there are probably thousands of book covers that could all use identical rationales.) Rather than have people write their own rationales in each case - some of which may be badly written or flawed - why not use a boilerplate for {{Fair-use book cover for book article}}? The same also applies to album cover images to identify an album, video game boxes to identify that video game, and so forth. Yes, additional rationales would need to be added in some specific cases where it's used on other articles, but that is a minority. Right now we have a bunch of images that need fair use rationales and using something like this is the best possible way. *** Crotalus *** 01:44, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Second thing is though, you need to demonstrate why the useage is needed. Do we really need a picture of the book cover, does it do anymore then decorate the infobox 90% of the time? I mean for most uses, we could get away with free images of say, the author, or of fan art or something (as long as the fan art is free). It can and should be explained in each rational why we really need to use the image. Most of them are "so we can put it in an infobox". Infoboxes do not provide critical commentary of the book cover itself. —— Eagle101Need help? 03:09, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    First editions are relevant. The cover of Dianetics is in Xenu for good reason, but not in Dianetics itself for some reason ... - David Gerard 17:02, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Captain scarlet and microformats

    With reference to this recent edit by the above user (Captain scarlet (talk · contribs)) where they say that "This user's contributions now solely consist on removing as many Microformats as posible to maintain quality on Wikipedia." Could this be considered an attempt to disrupt Wikipedia to make a point? They have made their dislike for Microformats clear yet fail to justify the reasons for removing it on a large number of occasions as can be seen by looking at Special:Contributions/Captain_scarlet. Comments from this editor on this issue tend to be similar to this where they plainly dismiss the addition of microformats with other editors without considering the possible benefits of the change on the appearance of pages for our readers. It is clear that the user and the main editor behind microformats, User:Pigsonthewing have had numerous disagreements in the past and I feel that Captain scarlet's dislike for microformats and revert campaign against them may have more to do with this than actually writing an encyclopaedia.

    Please note that previous attempts to discuss my concerns with this editor have led to the demand that I do not communicate with him via his talk page (diff) following his comment that "Whatever you tell me will be delete and ignored whatever its content". For this reason I will not be informing Captain scarlet of this. Adambro 11:03, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Here we go again... Captain Scarlet and the Mysterons 13:05, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    "Please note that previous attempts to discuss my concerns with this editor have led to the demand that I do not communicate with him via his talk page" - likewise. Andy Mabbett 13:13, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The particular edit on his userpage is just trolling, and you'd probably do well to ignore it, since he hasn't actually created any disruptive microformats. That said, diffs like this one seem like a more significant problem. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 13:27, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Rampant incivility is pretty much the norm whenever User:Captain scarlet and User:Pigsonthewing find there way to the same talkpage.--Isotope23 13:47, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Indeed. And it's not from me. Andy Mabbett 13:50, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    <Cynical mode>Oh my god you're serious</cynical mode> No further comment. Captain Scarlet and the Mysterons 15:47, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    No-one has suggested that he is creating microformats of any sort. far from it; he is repeatedly removing templates which happen to include microformats, without apparently any reason for doing so, or being willing to enter into reasoned discussion. Indeed, his last 50 edits alone include 13 such reverts, to just three articles: [118], [119], [120], [121], [122], [123], [124], [125], [126], [127], [128], [129] and [130]. Andy Mabbett 13:50, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Articles you and Adambro didn't revert either... [131] [132] [133] [134] [135] [136] [137] [138] [139] [140] [141] [142] [143] [144]
    These reverts were made after Pigsonthewing ignored any comments left on talk pages, other users suggestions and compromises; Talk:Tinsley_Viaduct, Talk:Tinsley_Viaduct/coordinates, [[145]]. Captain Scarlet and the Mysterons 15:47, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I have ignored no meaningful comments and have worked towards compromises. Andy Mabbett 15:55, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    If you haven't ignored anything, then I haven't either and this time consuming nonsense is nothing more than a comment on your own behaviour. Fact is you canot accuse me of doing anything more than what you do. Criticising me is nothing more than criticising yourself, if you're ready to talk, do so. You have done nothing of the sort except using vitriolous comments against me and anyone else who disagree with you, with a support of an administrator... If my edits now consist only on reverting the inclusion of Micrpoformats is because I view Microformats as nothing more than a useless gadget and because I have no desire to spend time adding valuable content thanks to you. Captain Scarlet and the Mysterons 22:29, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    "you canot (sic) accuse me of doing anything more than what you do" Quite clearly I - and others can; and do. Andy Mabbett 08:13, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Which supports my comments and show unwilling to cooperate with others you are. Captain Scarlet and the Mysterons 17:17, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    You try an RFC on whether to use Microformats on the pages in question yet? I took a quick look at the list and didn't see one, but I might've missed it. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 14:28, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    There's this Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not#Microformats where no-one objected to their inclusion. Andy Mabbett 15:55, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    London Borough of Camden

    Apologies for needing to bring this to your attention. There has been extensive editing at this page for about 4 days. The edits, made by anon ip and a named user have violated a number of policies. This has been pointed out on the talk page. An experienced user removed the edits, as extensive violation of WP:BIO, they have now been reverted by another anon IP. I believe that the page needs to be semi-protected, libels removed and a strong statement of policy made on the page. Thank you. Kbthompson 13:57, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • There appears to be two partisan individuals editing this article (one an anon ip the other a newly created account). The article seems to be used as a soapbox for their political views. I have reverted the additions once, but I am unwilling to get involved in reverting the re-addition. The talk page discussions are also rantish and partisan. Because of the extensive libelous material that is added, request semi protection. MRSC • Talk 16:57, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Ha! I parked in Camden once, just off the high street, came back five minutes (literally) to find my car towed. And, ironically enough, I had been buying cannabis. Whilst what they're adding to that article seems a bit... one sided... as someone who goes there fairly regularly let me assure you that it *is* accurate... my little anecdote supporting the stance of these people. Best username yet 20:35, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    It does make it seem like Camdem is the worst borough in the country. Even if they have sources it is disproportionate. We are really not interested in this stuff. Secretlondon 22:22, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I have removed legal threats and personal attacks from both Wikipedia talk:WikiProject London and Talk:London Borough of Camden. I strongly advise all editors to stick to the issues that are relevant to the writing of a verifiable encyclopaedia that is neutral and free from original research, namely the discussion of sources, sources, sources. Uncle G 10:29, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Deletion of Article History

    On 6/2/07, I created the article Allison Stokke, not realizing that it had already been created and deleted. There is an ongoing, very active DRV, but I wish to raise a different, more serious issue: my edits to that article no longer appear in the article history. There are edits before mine, and after mine, but looking at my own User Contributions page, my edits have simply disappeared. Please correct me if I am wrong, but this appears to be an outrageous abuse by some Admin, unilateral censorship *way* outside the bounds of Wikipolicy. I want my edits back in the article history and my User Contributions, whatever the result of the DRV. Bete Noir 17:07, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    You are correct - your edits were deleted out by User:Sean William. If the article remains, then this is a violation of GFDL which will need to be resolved. If it is deleted, all the other edits will be deleted, and there will be no problem. Neil ╦ 17:10, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    No, it's not admin abuse. He stored one version of the article instead of all the versions. The article was deleted a few times and recreated a few times. Sean Williams chose to restore one particular version (the one from around May 31) instead of the one that you recreated after that one was deleted. It is not abuse, just choice of what version to restore for consideration during the DRV. Further, it is not a GFDL violation because the article was not built around your edits. Your edits were deleted, the full article history was later restored, then someone added the DRV template and more edits were made related to the DRV template, then Sean Williams deleted your version and the other version leaving just the May 31 version plus the recent DRV template edits. None of this violates GFDL since your edits are not in any version of the article that currently exists. Metros 17:16, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh, maybe I read it wrong ... are you sure they're not in the article? Neil ╦ 17:23, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, the only edits that exist are the May 31 edits of the article and the June 4 additions of the DRV template. BeteNoir's edits were on June 2 and remain deleted. Metros 17:24, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    In that case, apologies on my part to Sean William. Doh. Neil ╦ 17:36, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    But please explain why my edits are gone from my own editing history? My own User Contributions? Bete Noir 17:30, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Because deleted edits do not show up in a user's contributions. Metros 17:34, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    When The Cunctator restored that article, he sloppily restored every edit ever made to that article, which included two irrelevant re-creations. If I had let it be, then the history of Allison Stokke would have logs of the individual page creations, which would be confusing. Instead, I decided to delete the two stubs in favor or the larger version that is being debated at DRV. This is neither abuse nor censorship. Sean William @ 20:07, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Anthony Appleyard is treating contested/controversial proposals at Wikipedia:Requested moves as uncontroversial, and moving pages without consensus

    Yesterday, an unregistered editor added two proposals at WP:RM to the Uncontroversial proposals section. I happened to notice that one of these proposals was contested, so I checked and noticed that this IP editor had recently started making name changes to Ftr which were then reverted by different editors here, and here.

    This IP editor also started making name changes to BMI Baby, which were reverted by different editors here, and here, and here, and here. This IP editor knows these page move proposals are clearly not uncontroversial and should never even have been added to the uncontroversial proposals.

    I went back to WP:RM to move these to the contested proposals section, but Anthony Appleyard had gone ahead and moved the pages, even though the edit history showed this would be contested (another IP editor even added a comment opposing this move, which was ignored).

    So I moved the pages back to their original title, including detailed edit summaries why I was doing so, but the proposals were re-added by the same IP, to the uncontroversial section again, even though they were clearly contested). Unbelievably, Anthony Appleyard has again ignored the dispute in the edit histoy and moved both pages, apparently just because they were in the uncontroversial section. In the case of Bmibaby, User:The Gannet, User:Trident13, User:Gandoman, User:MilborneOne and myself, all dispute that BMI Baby is the correct name (the Civil Aviation Authority and the airline's own website, and many other reliable sources, refer to it as one word; "bmibaby"). Ironically, I have little interest in these subjects or their correct names, the main problem is this admin is being over-zealous and apparently moving any page that is added to the uncontroversial proposals, even if they could be contested or controversial. Crazysuit 18:19, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Have you considered speaking to Anthony about this first? ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 18:24, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I've moved the all back, as it appears to be a case of not paying attention to the history of the page, but I will pop a note at his talk page. The Evil Spartan 18:25, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    They were proposed as uncontroversial because:
    • They are supported by the naming conventions and the manual of style (and therefore are backed by community consensus)
    • The proposed formats are supported by the references, as well as the rules of English (and therefore are backed by community consensus)
    • When proposed on the talk page, no dissenting opinion was put forward
    Therefore, I cound only conclude that the moves were consensual, and in the absence of any overwhelming evidence to overturn the strong consensus reposed in the NC and MOS, the reverts were contrary to that consensus. Hence they were put forward a second time for speedy reversion (as a result of User:Crazysuit's deliberate sabotage of the resulting redirects). 81.104.175.145 22:34, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    A comrade does not tolerate GDP map

    I am almost embarassed to report this bizarre incident. This may not be vandalism per se but certainly Cold War POV.

    This editor has reverted (exactly once daily) this apparaently harmless bubble map of gross domestic product in 2005 based on IMF data. The map was a simple replacement for colour-coded map to resolve accessibility issues faced in old computer screens.

    This editor strongly believes I am pushing America-centric POV.

    Also see related discussion here

    What action, if any, would be taken? Anwar 18:31, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I'll first note that I strongly disagree with characterizing this dispute, however obliquely, as "vandalism". It's a content dispute that ought to be more fully hashed out on the talk page. That said, I concur with Elk Salmon and Giandrea that the original image is superior to your replacement. The "bubble map" leaves most countries with no data at all and is more difficult to comprehend. — Lomn 19:00, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Is 'comrade' meant to imply that they are socialist? —Crazytales (public computer) (talk) (main) 19:30, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Aside from this being purely a content dispute, the map currently in the article seems to be a lot better than yours, if only on the basis that yours says nothing at all about half the countries in the world. Christopher Parham (talk) 20:02, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Agree with Chris. Upon seeing your map, my first thought was, 'why dots, instead of ust coloring in the nation?' I see such a map is available nad in use. Let's use it. ThuranX 02:24, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Talk:Mudaliar

    I had been alerted about a few posters at Talk:Mudaliar. They were conversing in Tamil (my native language) and posting obscene messages and personal attacks. I have indef blocked the posters, User:Jack Heart, User:Zip600001, 58.185.249.2 and 84.73.20.236. Can another admin please review my actions if they were appropriate? Thanks, Ganeshk (talk) 18:36, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I dealt with some vandals there last week... I don't read Tamil, but if those were indeed obscene messages (and I'll take your word for it) Jack Heart (talk · contribs) would appear to be a 1 off troll account. Zip600001 (talk · contribs) appears to have some actual edits but an established account doing the same sort of edits as IPs and a newly minted account would strongly suggest a sockpuppeteer. I'd only consider an unblock of that account if a checkuser cleared them of sockpuppetry. Otherwise I think your block is appropriate.--Isotope23 18:44, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I have indef blocked 203.101.45.171 too. Regards, Ganeshk (talk) 18:46, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Does anyone know if socks of User:Mudaliar or User:Venki123 have appeared on that page? They edit warred a lot before ArbCom banned them in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Mudaliar-Venki123, and the writing of 'new accounts' on that talk page seems awfully familiar. Perhaps they should be blocked as well. The Behnam 16:28, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I've taken a closer look. Most of them have been blocked, except Baccarat (talk · contribs). Considering that Baccarat does the same edit warring on the same pages (Mudaliar, Segunthar, Devadasi) I think that we are looking at a reincarnation. The Behnam 16:31, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Repeated Deletions and Harrassment by user Evrik

    Archived. No cause for urgent admin intervention. Encouraged to follow dispute resolution. Another admin can reopen this if they feel there is more to be said. MastCell Talk 22:01, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

    This user refuses to agree on simple matters and abide by the direction given by an Admin. We have tried DS before to no avail, hence I have come here. Examples:

    • #1: [146] Removed category Fugitives. Ms. Arellano has an outstanding order for Deporation by US Immigration and Customs Enforcement and they have publicly stated she is a "fugitive."
    • #2: [147] Removed category Mexican Criminals. Ms. Arellano has been convicted of using a counterfeit Social Security card which is a felony in the United States.
    • #3: [148] Restored deleted Mexican American link under "See Also". Ms. Arellano is a Mexican national only and does not fit the description of the category, only the looser defined project. Admin Will Beback specifically stated she does not belong to the category on the Talk page. Not sure why then a link to the Mexican American article is required since she fails the description set forth in the first line of that article, "citizens of the United States of Mexican descent." Seems misleading to readers not familiar with the Arellano article.
    • #4: [149] Inserted category Mexican American Leaders. If, as per admin Will Beback Ms. Arellano does not fall under the category Mexican Americans, why then should she fall under the category Mexican American Leaders? Seems like basically trying to revert Mexican American category.

    I mean if a Mexican national who has a felony conviction and hid in a church to avoid an outstanding warrant for deportation cannot be tagged with the categories "Mexican criminals" and "Fugitives," what does that really say about the intellectual integrity of Wikipedia?

    Furthermore, Admin Will Beback clearly directed that Ms. Arellano does not fall under the category Mexican Americans. User Evrik is basically trying to get around the spirit if not the letter of that admin's wording.

    Additionally, user Evrik has repeatedly used the "highly discouraged" Single Purpose Account tag after my asking him several times not to do so. I have explained myself to him but he is unwilling to bend. I consider this a personal attack and harrassment and ask that the article be reverted to my last revision, user Evrik be blocked and that he be made to delete the SPA tags anywhere he has placed them on me. Sorry to dump all this here but frankly, I don't know what else to do :-( 18:41, 4 June 2007 (UTC) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by LordPathogen (talk • contribs).

    Hmmm... with a brief glance at your history, I see edit-warring, a couple of recent 3RR blocks, and the clear use of sockpuppetry to continue edit-warring and evade 3RR. Your complaints appear to boil down to a content dispute, and I'd recommend you take it back to the article talk pages, without further edit-warring, sockpuppetry, etc. Alternately, you can pursue dispute resolution. I do agree that Template:Spa shouldn't be used in this context, and I'll ask Evrik not to do so. But there's nothing requiring immediate administrative intervention here. MastCell Talk 19:22, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Sure, there has been edit warring. Users Ramsey2006 and Evrik frequently tag-team on this article. Other users have been blocked as well here. I have tried to avoid edit wars since my second 3RR which is evident by my postings on the 3RR notice board recently. As for sock puppetry, I still dispute that but nothing I can do about it. I firmly believe that this is far more than a simple content dispute. Evrik seems very personally involved. As I have stated, we have tried DS before to no avail. I requested a Third Opinion. I made a Request for Comments. No effect. Someone who is convicted of a felony is a criminal. How can that be up for dispute and if it is, how do you resolve something so fundamental? Finally, he is ignoring the ruling by another Admin. Why is that allowed to stand? Thanks LordPathogen 19:31, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
    This user is geting increasingly out of control: "Don't think I didn't notice that you tried to report me for 3RR (and had to be shown what the real policy was." Some assistance would be appreciated. I have tried all the relevent options I can think of... 19:23, 4 June 2007 (UTC) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by LordPathogen (talk • contribs).
    Umm... looking at that talk page, I see you harassing User:Evrik (about the Wikimedia elections) and engaging in incvility and personal attacks. I don't see the diff you cite above as particularly "out of control". You're not helping your case. I'd suggest pursuing the steps outlined in dispute resolution; this isn't the complaints department and I don't see that User:Evrik has done anything actionable. I'll ask him to stop using the SPA template. MastCell Talk 19:29, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    User Evrik created a whole section on the talk page devoted to me and that is not harrassment? Please also note that 1. I created my header after he did his and 2. I removed his name when he stated it was a personal attack. LordPathogen 19:34, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
    It seems to be going well. (H) 19:51, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    So what does this mean, the fix was in? LordPathogen 20:14, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
    • Just for the record, if you look at this summary:
    This template must be substituted.
    you'll see almost no edits outside Elvira Arellano. You'll also see that all the other edits are related to Elvira Arellano (except maybe for unsuccessfully reporting me for 3RR). LordPathogen is being disruptive and using the process to disrupt the article. --evrik (talk) 20:39, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Just for the record, you will see that Evrik is still ignoring your request since he user the SPA tag even here... And with editors like Evrik, it is little wonder I have time for other articles, now is it? ;-) And as for using the process, kindly note it is I, not you Evrik, who have recently asked for a Request for Comments... I ask you MastCell to read the edits I made adding data from the legal brief and decide for yourself if they are "disruptive" or is there perhaps someone who shall not be named that is gaming the system here...LordPathogen 20:49, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

    As long as we're adding things to the record

    This little gem as emailed to me last week while LP was blocked:

    from LordPathogen <xxxxx>

    to Evrik <xxxx>
    date May 25, 2007 12:43 AM
    subject For the "Modern Thinker" LOL

    You and Ramsey2006 openly push your personal agendas and present them as Wikipedia fact. For example, neither of your can bear to use the term "illegal immigrant" in an article on... Illegal Immigration. That is akin to an article on Christ being forbidden to use the term Christian because it is "labeling." I'm sure you both sleep well at night, content that you have made Wikipedia a better and "right-thinking" kind of place, but actually all you have done is substitute lies for reality. The saddest part, however, is you have been doing it so long you don't even notice anymore...

    Get me banned permanently. Don't really care. Rest assured however, that I do plan to relate in detail the shabby treatment and narrow-minded POV I saw here in the hope that I can discourage as many people as possible from particpating in this project. And that's where it really hurts you guys because you, unlike I, live for this stuff. :-)

    Btw, don't worry about sending your partner in reality distortion a copy of this, I'm way ahead of you. If you want to send me a reply, feel free. I can certainly use it to round out the blog entry on this adventure...

    Delivered-To: xxxx

    Received: by 10.65.158.9 with SMTP id k9cs266316qbo;

           Thu, 24 May 2007 21:43:31 -0700 (PDT)

    Received: by 10.70.46.1 with SMTP id t1mr3335381wxt.1180068210940;

           Thu, 24 May 2007 21:43:30 -0700 (PDT)

    Return-Path: <wiki@wikimedia.org>
    Received: from rock.cadm.xxxx (rock.cadm.xxxx [128.103.149.98])

           by mx.google.com with ESMTP id 44si1803928wri.2007.05.24.21.43.30;
    
       Thu, 24 May 2007 21:43:30 -0700 (PDT)

    Received-SPF: neutral (google.com: 128.103.149.98 is neither permitted nor denied by best guess record for domain of wiki@wikimedia.org)
    Received: by post.xxxx (Postfix, from userid 203)
    id 7D06D604; Fri, 25 May 2007 00:43:30 -0400 (EDT)
    X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.1.1-soc_rev_31 (2006-03-10) on rock
    X-Spam-Level: *
    X-Spam-Status: No, hits=1.1 required=4.0 autolearn=no version=3.1.1-soc_rev_31
    Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])
    by xxxx (Postfix) with ESMTP id DC0315FD
    for <xxxx>; Fri, 25 May 2007 00:43:29 -0400 (EDT)
    Received: from wiki-mail.wikimedia.org (wiki-mail.wikimedia.org [66.230.200.216])
    by xxxx(Postfix) with ESMTP id AF38B5BF
    for <xxxx>; Fri, 25 May 2007 00:43:29 -0400 (EDT)
    Received: from srv73.pmtpa.wmnet ([10.0.2.73]:57498 helo=localhost.localdomain)
    by mchenry.wikimedia.org with esmtp (Exim 4.63)
    (envelope-from <wiki@wikimedia.org>)
    id 1HrReD-0006ft-36
    for xxxx; Fri, 25 May 2007 04:43:29 +0000
    Received: from localhost.localdomain (srv73 [127.0.0.1])
    by localhost.localdomain (8.13.6/8.13.6) with ESMTP id l4P4hSeZ023166
    for <xxxx>; Fri, 25 May 2007 04:43:29 GMT
    Received: (from apache@localhost)
    by localhost.localdomain (8.13.6/8.13.6/Submit) id l4P4hSrX023165;
    Fri, 25 May 2007 04:43:28 GMT
    Date: Fri, 25 May 2007 04:43:28 GMT
    Message-Id: <200705250443.l4P4hSrX023165@localhost.localdomain>
    X-Authentication-Warning: localhost.localdomain: apache set sender to wiki@wikimedia.org using -f
    To: Evrik <xxxx>
    Subject: For the "Modern Thinker" LOL
    MIME-Version: 1.0
    Content-type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
    Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
    X-Mailer: MediaWiki mailer
    From: LordPathogen <xxxxx>

    --evrik (talk) 21:39, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    No apologies. I think both these editors Ramsey2006 and Evrik are extreme POV and for some reason, this one in particular is treated with kid gloves by Administrators. I guess because he must be high up the wiki food chain. I don't think that is good for Wikipedia and frankly, it is frustrating as my email surely depicts. The email was also not a secret. No one emails secrets... LordPathogen 21:52, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
    Yeah...that looks virtually identical to the email that I got from User:LordPathogen. This whole thing is getting rather annoying.--Ramsey2006 21:56, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
    • Is it appropriate for private emails to be posted here? If not, the above should be removed. --After Midnight 0001 15:40, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Status report? (User:Night Gyr)

    Resolved

    I was emergency desysopped last friday over a misunderstanding of something I said in the Allison Stokke drv, which someone interpreted as a threat to leak deleted revisions to the press. Now my intents been clarified, the article has had a history undeletion (so the revisions are visible anyway) and arbcom's been dragging its feet for the last couple days without giving me a single word on what's going on. Does anyone know? Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 18:53, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I suggest leaving a note at the bureaucrat noticeboard for resysopping. -- John Reaves (talk) 19:56, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Right - but it will bear more weight if someone else asks for him. That's called DefendEachOther. I asked at Wikipedia:Bureaucrats'_noticeboard#User:Night_Gyr. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 21:02, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I saw on another talkpage the other day a comment from an arbitrator to the effect that the matter was still being discussed on the arbitrators' mailing list. I assume that the 'crats would wait to hear from ArbCom before taking any action, although the time is coming when hopefully some sort of more official update on the situation will be posted. Newyorkbrad 21:07, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Of course I forgot that there is are people who are 'crats and arbitrators—Raul654 has posted that he has resysopped Night Gyr. Newyorkbrad 21:22, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Hmm, it turns out the crats aren't arbcom, after all. The bit has been restored. Friday (talk) 21:22, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    As I just noted (we must have just missed ec'ing), this particular crat (Raul654) is both. (UninvitedCompany is both also, actually.) Newyorkbrad 21:23, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Threatening messages

    Resolved
     – User Mehudson1 warned not threaten other editors with violence.

    Mehudson1 (talk · contribs) needs at least a talking to about leaving threats of physical violence on people's talk pages: [150], [151]. I don't personally feel intimidated, but not all Wikipedians have skin as thick as mine. A review of the user's own talk page and the very low talk pages participation in the user's contributions demonstrates an uncommunicativeness, that suggests the user may only respond to other editors when a temper threshold has been crossed and the urge to lash out can no longer be resisted. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 18:55, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Left a warning. Anything further and I'd be willing to block them (let me know or bring it back here). MastCell Talk 19:11, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Rex Germanus calls me nationalist and idiot

    As User:Future Perfect at Sunrise doesn't feel like taking on another of these disputes, maybe some other admin can have a look at this Admin talk page edit in which User:Rex Germanus states "User Matthead is, once again, looking for trouble ... because that idiot want to irritate people". Please have also a look at his recent (and numerous past) edit summaries in which he calls me "German nationalist" several times. He also continues to maintain User:Rex Germanus/Rex' nationalism scale where I just have added two links to show that an edit of mine and my talk page are meant. Also, Rex had filed Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Matthead. -- Matthead discuß!     O       19:01, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    No one, with a capable intellect, will deny you're a nationalist. If they do, they should look at your edits. You were inactive for quite a long time and then suddenly reappear ONLY to undo several of my edits, with no edit-summary whatsoever. That's looking for trouble (seeing this 'reporting' it would seem you're still looking). Those aren't personal attacks. Those are valid observations for everyone to check. Rex 19:12, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    What do you want an admin to do? Play nice, and don't let it get under your skin. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 19:15, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Red Star Over China

    Resolved
     – IP blocked for 24 hours for 3RR violation and encouraged to utilize the talk page.

    82.196.168.156 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) has made five reverts to the above article restoring a quote critical of the book. Asdie from edit warring and 3RR concerns, the quote itself doubles the size of the article giving undue weight to two people's criticism, and is also so long as to probably violate fair use. Anyone want to step in? – Steel 19:30, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Sure. I've blocked the IP for edit-warring and 3RR violations for 24 hours, and left a note asking him/her to discuss concerns over the proposed addition at the talk page once the block expires, rather than re-adding it. They seem relatively new (although IP addresses do change), so perhaps they'll come around. MastCell Talk 19:50, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks! – Steel 19:51, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Darwinek - Block review needed

    Resolved
     – User unblocked by Phil. EVula // talk // ☯ // 21:09, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Earlier today, established user (and former admin) Darwinek (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was blocked for 24 hours by Phil Boswell (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) for "edit-warring and incivility." Darwinek has requested an unblock review. I posted to Phil's talk for input, but he appears to have been offline since the block. Note that Darwinek is on civility parole per Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Darwinek. Posting here for comments and consensus on the unblock request. Newyorkbrad 20:02, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Looks resolved now, unblocked after apologizing. Newyorkbrad 20:26, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Unblocked now, after he apologised nicely and promised not to be so silly again. HTH HAND —Phil | Talk 20:28, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I have to object, I noticed this (the suggestion of unblocking) discussed on IRC so the outcome must be evil . --pgk 20:31, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    (Guess I should clarify that I'm kidding just in case anyone takes it any other way). --pgk 20:34, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:SteakNShake

    Resolved
     – I love it when one policy violation gets completely side-stepped by another. :) EVula // talk // ☯ // 01:20, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    This was previously dealt with at #Taken from WP:AIV above, but the primary issue was civility. I think that another look is now needed. This editor is being totally disruptive to the general relativity article, pushing edits that violate WP:NPOV by being strongly anti-relativity with a novel synthesis centered aroung the posibility that "space is virtual". Such a novel synthesis violates WP:NOR. A look at talk:general relativity will reveal the extent of this user's disruption. Especially telling is Talk:General_relativity#proposed_change_to_article, in which this user's idea for a change to the article was solidly shot down. Also at User_talk:SteakNShake#Response_on_the_.22edit_war.22_business is the remark that "These changes will stand, come hell or high water", which means that this editor is not interested in being part of a consensus.

    BTW - I also advise that a CHECKUSER be done on this editor. He has "hit the ground running" in this campaign, which means that he probably has edited here before. So this may be a sockpuppet of a banned user. --EMS | Talk 20:38, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: There is now a block on user:SteakNShake due to the user name being inappropriate (since it is the name of an organization). So this request is moot, for now. --EMS | Talk 22:10, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Christodouloug534

    Christodouloug534 (talk · contribs) just recently posted an {{unblock-auto}} request, with the same IP address as Jack1956 (talk · contribs), who was blocked per Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/86.152.81.41. Since their contributions seemed to have a lot in common, besides the IP address, it seemed to me that this indicated some more sockpuppetry, and I've blocked the account. Since this account has been editing since November 2006, I thought I should submit this particular block here for review. Sanity check, anyone? – Luna Santin (talk) 21:59, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    If I had to guess, I'd say that User:Christodouloug534 is none other than Glenn A Christodoulou. Now, Christodouloug534 never contributed to that article, but he's contributed to or created articles about United Theological College Aberystwyth and its faculty, including Samuel Ifor Enoch, that Jack1956 and associated accounts have also contributed to. I'm inclined to think that these are all the same person, and I think the block is appropriate. Note, however, that I blocked Jack1956 and the other accounts in Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/86.152.81.41, and so am already involved in this matter. --Akhilleus (talk) 22:38, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Fair use problem tags reverted

    User:Chaldean keeps removing tags identifying images which fail to meed the fair use critera without addressing the problem, in spite of the templates' clear instructions and mine. Could an administrator please ensure that images such as Image:Alnaftlogo.gif and Image:Ashurtv.JPG remain tagged so that Wikipedia's procedures may have their due course? —LX (talk, contribs) 21:59, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User WDS1/WDS2/WDS3/WhiteDragon Slayer

    User constantly vandalises page, removes large section of text and removes discussions on White Dragon (England)

    Now has taken to cutting and pasting large sections of text from www.icons.org.uk and www.whitedragonofengland.com - user not discussing the issues at hand and placing large amount of POV, unreferenced material onto page...some verging into the ridiculous.

    Believe that 212.139.218.107, 82.153.29.85 and 80.41.15.107 is also the same person. WDS1/2 already banned.White43 22:08, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    WDS3 (talk · contribs) already blocked, as well. I've reverted the page. Not sure yet if the IPs are the same person, but what I've checked so far doesn't necessarily suggest a link. If the IPs are socks, sprotection may be a good idea; it they're not socks, sprotection might be premature. Hm. – Luna Santin (talk) 22:14, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    he was creating duplicates as well earlier - I tagged one. --Fredrick day 22:21, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    On further review, 212.139.218.107 (talk · contribs) seems to be WDS, but the IP is dynamic. 80.41.15.107 (talk · contribs) was editing at similar times/page, and is on the same ISP, but I haven't found an exact contribution similarity, yet. 82.153.29.85 (talk · contribs) appears to be a static address, and has been blocked by Steel359. – Luna Santin (talk) 23:27, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Edit warring on Murder of Red Cross workers in Sri Lanka

    Iwazaki who has a history of WP:STALK ing my new articles is simply tagging and edit warring without discussing as to what his point is. He did the same on a new creation Duraiappa stadium mass grave. Thanks Taprobanus 22:19, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Funny, I could say the same thing about this edit [152]. --snowolfD4( talk / @ ) 22:36, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Keep in mind that some users follow around other users' articles because they like to provide assistance in cleaning up articles, and in some cases they simply have the same interests. Of course, edit warring is bad and it seems that they've neglected to put in a reason for the change (using popups seems fine when you've got obvious nonsense or vandalism, but as your were the only edits up to that point it seems inadequate), but once that is cleared up you should be fine. --Edwin Herdman 22:40, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oh, another news story masquerading as an encyclopaedia article and resulting in an edit war. How unusual. Guy (Help!) 06:37, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Severe uncivility from TheClownPrinceofCrime

    I have just warned the user for recent harrassment, see here. As such, the user continues to display ignorance and even trolls my talk page not once, see here, but twice. This all started on another user's talk page a few days ago, see here. Despite my warning there, see here, the person continued, see here. This wouldn't be the first time TheClownPrinceofCrime has been blocked for this; the user replaced their entire talk page of warnings and unblock requests with this comment. I suggest a sysops or administrator's firm action. Lord Sesshomaru

    Yet, the trolling goes on and on in my talk page. See [153], [154], [155], [156], [157], [158]. Lord Sesshomaru
    Blocked. Naconkantari 23:54, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Looks like Naconkantari blocked him: [159]. --Mr. Lefty (talk) 23:55, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Side note: Your edit warring on his page was not appropriate either. Users are allowed to remove comments from their own talk page. --OnoremDil 23:58, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Removing uncivil comments is edit warring? Lord Sesshomaru
    Yes. "This is my page. If you don't like it I dont care. If I've offended you good. I just dont care." - This comment may be uncivil, but it's his talk page and it wasn't directed at anyone. The comments aren't so uncivil that you should be edit warring over them. --OnoremDil 00:04, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Understood. What about the first comment? Lord Sesshomaru
    Ah, never mind. Lord Sesshomaru

    Quack Quack?

    Resolved
     – user blocked for unrelated vandalism and harassment ⇒ SWATJester Denny Crane. 01:16, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Anyone potentially think this user is a sock?

    First two edits are "# 17:41, 3 June 2007 (hist) (diff) User:KingTee (←Created page with 'To leave me a message, please use my talk page. Thanks. ==Disambiguation== I'm a participant in WikiProject Disambiguation, pa...')

    1. 17:40, 3 June 2007 (hist) (diff) The Black Wall Street Records (there are cited sources there, and there is no prefernce on wikipedia that there has to be pages for the members)

    The Black Wall Street Records was semi-protected around that time due to an edit war. What kind of user's first edit is to join WikiProject Disambig?

    Also, note he blanked his talkpage when the only edit was a welcome template: possible to make it more difficult for people to see when he was welcomed?

    Appears to be a sock of one of these two IPs: 84.13.153.130 and 89.242.9.82 ⇒ SWATJester Denny Crane. 23:09, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Not to say you are completely off base, but didn't about 80% of registered Wikipedia editors start off editing from IPs? We actually encourage people to register instead of using IPs [160]. Risker 23:12, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I would suggest you WP:AGF for now. If the user does enter into a pattern of reverting the same part again and again, then it may be appropriate to go further. I would also suggest that a newly-created user is not a sockpuppet. IPs and users can be socks of other users, and one might think of anons changing IPs or accessing zombies, but without significant evidence I'd probably rule out an anon registering a user account as sockpuppetry. After all, even if it is the same person, they may change. 81.104.175.145 23:28, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I believe you both are missing my point: Both this user, and the two IP's are editing the article at the same time, which has been engaged in an edit war. That's not encouraged at all, in fact it's expressly forbidden in all iterations of it. I'm not saying anything about IP's all being sockpuppets so I don't know where you're getting that. The registered account started editing significantly more once the article was semi-protected, hence my sockpuppet belief. ⇒ SWATJester Denny Crane. 01:07, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Nevermind. He's now attempting to impersonate me, is vandalizing others user pages, and deleting AFD notices as well. see here. I've therefore blocked. Resolved.⇒ SWATJester Denny Crane. 01:16, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Threat

    Resolved
     – Pretty serious, it would seem. :) EVula // talk // ☯ // 01:19, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I don't know how serious this threat is, but I thought I would bring it to everyone's attention. IrishGuy talk 23:37, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Was indef blocked by Yamamoto. bibliomaniac15 An age old question... 00:36, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Indef block doesn't notify the school. ThuranX 02:14, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I've sent a short email with a link to the diff to the email address on the school website. Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 02:16, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Rash of reverts

    All have been reverted number of times, no intention to talk mostly on whether Tamilnet is RS or not ? Thanks Taprobanus 01:02, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Copt

    Could someone please take a look at the last edits on the page Copt? I believe Impartiallaw (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and 74.0.147.42 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) are other socks of this banned user who used to make those same edits. — Zerida 01:04, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    He is certainly the one. However, the article lacks verifiability and RS. Wikipedia guidelines and policies are much more important than semi-protecting the article or chasing a banned user everytime they strike. I tried to fix what i am talking about (adding footnotes, removing blogs as references, etc...). -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 01:48, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The article as a whole does not lack reliable sources, though it may need to be checked for POV. The main issue is with the flag which is why it remains tagged as lacking neutrality. I agree regarding policy, but it applies just as much to vandalism. Content disputes are not an excuse to vandalize or introduce false information into an article. I also agree with the changes, though short of deleting the flag altogether (and I don't see why it should be), I don't think that they will stop this user either. — Zerida 02:30, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Revert whenever he comes back. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 16:13, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Probable block evasion by Emnx

    Emnx (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) was recently blocked for sockpuppetry. Shiny brand-new SKRINE2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) appears to have taken up his cause. Details at Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Emnx (2nd). Do I need to request another checkuser, or is this one obvious enough to act on without RFCU? IPSOS (talk) 01:38, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Having reviewed the evidence, I have indef-blocked SKRINE2 (talk · contribs) as a fairly obvious sockpuppet of Emnx (talk · contribs). I've extended Emnx's block from 1 month to 3 months for ongoing sockpuppeteering. I have also closed the AfD started by the sockpuppet as speedy keep, given that the nomination was made by a sockpuppet of a blocked user (without prejudice to renomination by a user in good standing). Can I get some admin feedback about the appropriateness of these actions? MastCell Talk 15:37, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:SwatJester

    The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Generic "rouge admin abuse". User violates policy, complains about enforcement thereof. Nothing to see here. Guy (Help!) 06:36, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    This is the second time I am here filing a seriosu complaint because I dont see the first one I made on the list here. Im here because a adminitstrator SwatJester has deleted the logo I uploaded for my article called Atala T LLC and claimed it was a fair use image which is false. I made sure the article is competley appropreate for wikipedia before I uploaded it to the site, Now the logo has been upthere for a while and if there was something wrong with it, my mentor Slavin would have mentioned it to me along time ago. Also, everything I try to create of fix on this site ends up being deleted and I do not think it if for the reasons they say it is, I think it is because some of these people abuse there powers on wikipedia and think that they can get away with doing so. Swat Jester also stated that I would be blocked for disruption. I have not disrupted anyone on wikipedia or even atepted to disrupt anyone. This is very upsetting and apalling to have to deal with constantly. I hope that we can fix this and make sure that this does not happen ever again. Thank you --Muriness 01:55, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    You uploaded a fair use image and used it solely on a subpage. That's a violation of policy—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 01:58, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    And the last time you filed a report here, you were told that you were violating non-free content policy. Why are you bringing this up again? Everything you upload that gets deleted is because it is not fit for being on Wikipedia. There is not some grand conspiracy against you. Your menter, Slavin, tried repeatedly to reason with you, but you were not listening. Can we just archive this section and move onwards, please? ⇒ SWATJester Denny Crane. 02:22, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    For reference: your mentor Slavlin: "Muriness, I have been trying to help you with this as my time allows, but you don't seem to be making much of an effort here. I am thinking that you would benefit from participating with some other articles first. That might give you more of a feel for how the process needs to work. Also, I think you need to get a better feel for the software. Probably spend some time reading on Wikipedia:Introduction as well. Talk pages are pretty basic but you don't seem to be using them properly either. That is what is giving me the feeling that you don't have a good feel for the tools available." followed by "Actually, I followed the trail on it and I agree that you were being disrespectful. He does have the right and the duty to block people who are being disruptive" source ⇒ SWATJester Denny Crane. 02:24, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    continued, statement of intent not to stop bringing up the issue. This is disruptive, and if he continues I will further block, and I've warned him as such, and recommended that he stop, and spend time reading up on image policy. ⇒ SWATJester Denny Crane. 02:33, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    This administrator is abusing his powers and is blocking me claming that im being disruptive! I will contune to argue untill justice is served and he learns not to abuse people. --Muriness 02:37, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I prove my point: This is your last warning. Continue to state your intent to be disruptive, and you will be blocked from editing. ⇒ SWATJester Denny Crane. 02:35, 5 June 2007 (UTC) Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Muriness"

    You're in the wrong here, and continually complaining about it and posting here without seeking to understand what you did wrong is disruptive. --Haemo 02:40, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Swatjester should probably let someone else do the block if it becomes necessary, but he's quite correct in stating that Muriness is being disruptive. --Akhilleus (talk) 02:44, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Too late. I blocked for 48 hours. Continuous "you have new messages" comments demanding things from me were tiresome. Akhilleus (or anyone else), if you'd like to block review and modify it, please do, however I feel I've left more than enough warnings. At least 3. ⇒ SWATJester Denny Crane. 02:46, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I should've checked his block log before posting. Hopefully he'll take this opportunity to read the image policies. --Akhilleus (talk) 02:55, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Also (posting this at userpage as well), he might be interested in joining IRC, more specifically the channel #wikipedia-en-help. The user seems to have some difficulties adjusting to using a Wiki, so getting help/coaching here might help somewhat. Bjelleklang - talk Bug Me 03:03, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    "…blocking me claming that im being disruptive! I will contune to argue untill justice is served…"

    We're having a problem at a very base level if you don't see the contradiction here. Refusing to let minor issues pass (especially when consensus is so clearly against you) is a manner of disruption. Please, do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point. (Note: You can click those two links to see the policies and guidelines I'm citing.) –Gunslinger47 03:33, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]


    Someone else declined the unblock, then protected his page for abuse of the unblock tab. Now he's using Special:Emailuser to demand I unblock him. ⇒ SWATJester Denny Crane. 03:55, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm having trouble believing that this guy is going to be a productive contributor when his block expires. --Akhilleus (talk) 04:07, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    GFDL

    The recent spate of BJAODN deletions got me thinking. If copy-and-paste moves violate the attribution requirement of the GFDL, and BJAODN violates the GFDL, doesn't using subst on a template also violate the GFDL? After all, it just shows the text as if it had been copied and pasted, with no attribution. *** Crotalus *** 02:09, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Archives of stuff like AN/I and user talk pages are also technically GFDL violations by the logic that got BAJODN deleted, since they're accomplished just by copy and pasting. --W.marsh 02:48, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    True, but with talk page archives, the comments are generally signed and dated, and the antecedent diffs are preserved in the history of the main talk page. As for template substitution, I guess you could say that templates aren't content, rather they are shortcuts used for navigation, categorization and maintenance, so if you write {{subst:whatever}} it's as if you bothered to write the entire code. There are a few templates, such as Prod, which indicate the antecedent in the subst'ed code. That being said, there will always be examples where Wikipedia technically violates the GFDL. Perfection is impossible. I think the Wikimedia Foundation will shut down the site for lack of funds before they complain about the GFDL compliance of template substitution. But it's an interesting topic to think about. Placeholder account 02:54, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The signing provides the attribution needed to be in compliance with the GFDL.-Mask? 05:29, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    How exactly do signatures "Preserve the section Entitled "History""? Kotepho 05:32, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    It shows exactly when and who made a particular edit to the page. For example, Kotepho an edit here on 05:32, 5 June 2007 (UTC), and Ryulong is making an edit here at 05:36, 5 June 2007 (UTC) —Ryūlóng (竜龍) 05:36, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    There's nothing in the GFDL about "preserving a section entitled history". All there is in the GFDL is a requirement that work is attributed, and signatures on every comment are the perfect way to accomplish that. --Cyde Weys 05:38, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Did you eat paint chips as a kid? Kotepho 05:46, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I. Preserve the section Entitled "History", Preserve its Title, and add to it an item stating at least the title, year, new authors, and publisher of the Modified Version as given on the Title Page. If there is no section Entitled "History" in the Document, create one stating the title, year, authors, and publisher of the Document as given on its Title Page, then add an item describing the Modified Version as stated in the previous sentence.

    Sigs do exactly that. the new authors, and date of the publishing of that copy, and the statement of modification (the comment). The section marked as historical is split into 2, one for the history of that copy, in the history tab, and one for the publishing history, contained in the work itself. -Mask? 05:56, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    There can only be one section entitled History and you can't just put it somewhere else and call something else History. Kotepho 06:02, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    A section "Entitled XYZ" means a named subunit of the Document whose title either is precisely XYZ or contains XYZ in parentheses following text that translates XYZ in another language. (Here XYZ stands for a specific section name mentioned below, such as "Acknowledgements", "Dedications", "Endorsements", or "History".) To "Preserve the Title" of such a section when you modify the Document means that it remains a section "Entitled XYZ" according to this definition.

    Sure you can, we contain an invariant section on history, the history of that particular copy. We contain the history of the overall work in the comments them selves. It makes sense within the construct of the GFDL. -Mask? 06:26, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The History section is not an invariant section, but an append only section essentially. You can add to it, but you can't change anything else and you certainly cannot remove it or call it something else and make a new one. That would make the requirement to keep it useless and the only real attribution left would be the copyright notices (which you also can only add to and not remove). One could make the argument that signatures might qualify under a board definition of the spirit of the GFDL, but it is certainly, explicitly against the letter. Kotepho 06:54, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, this comment had two parts, you should've kept them together, but since you responded to the more relevant portion below, Im assuming you realize how dumb this argument is, considering I was being intentionally absurdist.-Mask? 07:02, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    (just realized since you still are replying, you may not have gotten it. Im being sarcastic, mostly because of the over-the-top 'did you eat paintchips?' line. The use of invariant sections is widely viewed by the FSF themselves as a mistake, and is being fixed in the next version of the GFDL)-Mask? 06:27, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Given all of the stupid and clearly wrong statements about the GFDL (such as the one above where I quote from it and someone says it says nothing of the sort) I have seen in the last week it has made it abundantly clear to me that probably a half dozen people have actually read the GFDL and not teal deer'd it, it is impossible to discern someone being sarcastic or trolling versus a serious statement (c.f. arguments involving creationism and conservatism online). Kotepho 06:54, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]


    Is Citizendium in compliance with the attribution requirements? Tom Harrison Talk 03:34, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • No. Citizendium does not transwikify articles correctly. Uncle G 09:17, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Neither does Answers.com or any other mirror I can think of... so they are in good company. (The one that comes to mind as being the closest to correct is Wikitruth.) Kotepho 09:28, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Citizendium is in bad company. That bad company includes Wikitruth, which is nowhere near being correctly compliant with the GFDL. Good company, in stark contrast, would be the likes of Totally Explained or the Unification Encyclopedia Project. Uncle G 12:43, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • Wikitruth provides page histories in much the same way we deal with transwiking (which is not perfect), not just links. Example: Joel Leyden history They seem to be missing the talk page histories, and the histories of a few templates they copied from Wikipedia or copy of the GFDL that I saw (well, some of it). If I say TELL THE WIKITRUTH, do you think they will fix these issues to fufill whatever requirements needed to meet 'High' in this list? I would note that I did not say that wikitruth was perfect, and neither of the sites you use as an example are complying with the GFDL either (links to history don't cut it). Kotepho 13:22, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Getting back on track, I'm not sure if most of our templates would qualify for a copyright, as many of them are just basic wikitable formatting. -- Ned Scott 06:07, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Many of them contain significant prose (at least the user warning ones that are regular subst'd). Even non-subst'd templates and images present serious problems (see the section "5. COMBINING DOCUMENTS"). Putting a GFDL template and image in an article undoubtably fails under this section. Kotepho 06:54, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    One possible solution would be to require that template edits be released into the public domain, or using some type of free license that doesn't require attribution. Images wouldn't be an issue since they are always linked by filename to their description page. I'm simply puzzled as to why various other practices apparently violate the GFDL, but using subst on templates does not, since it seems functionally identical. *** Crotalus *** 07:21, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    subst: is a problem, but if you go with a board spirit idea of the GFDL it can be covered with including an HTML comment that says where it is from (many of them do this). It is a little late to make the template namespace public domain (especially given that many of them started before there was a template namespace). Some of the MediaWiki namespace is a complete mess too. Starting out as GPL and then edited and released under the GFDL (wtf? you can't do that!) and then distributed without any attribution (think .css/.js, blockedtext). All of this without getting into the complete lack of compliance with 4.A-C too. Kotepho 07:38, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    So in a nutshell, we should have written a better free content license before we started? --tjstrf talk 07:41, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, there are plenty of other better free content licenses if you ask me (MIT/two or three clause BSD/ISC/etc... but I know I'm in the minority there), but better software, forethought, and reading the licenses would have certainly helped. Kotepho 07:54, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    When Wikipedia was started, the GFDL was the only free-content license suitable for documents. The licenses you cite are designed around the needs of software, not of text. --Carnildo 08:14, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Which parts exactly of the GFDL which make it 'suitable for documents' does Wikipedia use?　We don't use cover texts, endorsements, acknoweldgements for example. Documentation is not that different from software. Kotepho 09:28, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    How to blacklist a site?

    Resolved

    appropriate action was taken to blacklist the site. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 02:47, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Does anybody know how to blacklist a site? Wrestlingobserver.com is currently being used by JB196 and his hundereds of socks. JB196 is a banned editor and daily creates socks just to reinsert links to this site. It would save the many of us spending hours reverting and blocking them if he could just not add them to the article at all? -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 02:12, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Please see m:Talk:Spam blacklist Naconkantari 02:15, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I have to object to this, JB196 is employing another joe job and has done it in the past. He managed to get several websites related to wrestling blacklisted in the past just because he could. His WP:LTA abuse page covers his joe job MO and thus black listing the site is giving him what he wants. –– Lid(Talk) 04:03, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    It's ok, Lid, if you see the meta talk page list, only that one article is blacklisted, not all of wrestlingobserver (and we know Dave Meltzer won't move it around) SirFozzie 04:05, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Mass tagging by 66.93.209.195 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

    Could an admin please take a look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/66.93.209.195 ? A user 66.93.209.195 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) is tagging a lot of articles for speedy deletion as advertising, and I don't know whether this should be treated as vandalism or not. Some of the tagged articles might not survive AfD, but they don't seem to be eligible for speedy deletion. --Eastmain 02:14, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I looked at a few random diffs. They all seemed to be pretty helpful actually, not all were tagging, he also removed spammy text from some articles. Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 02:19, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Same here, looked at around 20 diffs, and all are fine by me. Bjelleklang - talk Bug Me 02:25, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Trolling by User:71.235.81.39

    Hello, user User:71.235.81.39 has a history of Trolling talk pages relating to Boston, Connecticut or New England in general. He leaves comments such as this one 1, refering to anything to which he disagrees with as propaganda.

    Other examples of this are: 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6. Plus others which I don't have time to lists.

    He has been warned about these postings many times on his Talk Page, but he seems to ignore them. I recently posted this warning on his talk page. He then responded with this message on my user page.

    Since these posting by User:71.235.81.39, are a violation of WP:CIVIL and WP:POINT, I would like an administrator to consider blocking this user.

    Thanks For Your Time: BH (Talk) 03:47, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Telling the truth with PROOF in TALK pages should be no problem. That is what they are there for. Just because someone may not like the facts that I write does not mean that they should have the right to harass and delete my words simply because it goes against their POV propaganda. This guy and two others have been on my case. Is this site about their thoughts or everyone's? Some so-called editors need to be banned. The site needs to stop letting editors pick the topic because they clearly pick the topic with the thoughts and actions of spreading their vision of the topic. People like me only come to correct the BS with the truth. Do you want a site full of lies of the truth?--71.235.81.39 04:28, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The above statement is a near perfect match of the tone the user uses to express his POV. It is also a piece of irrefutable evidence against its author. BH (Talk) 04:32, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Wikipedia disruptive editing extinguisher #1: Verifiability not truth. —Kurykh 04:34, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not sure what you mean. BH (Talk) 04:39, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Accusing him of trolling only inflames the dispute. Please remember wikipedia:civility. That said, Kurykh is correct: debating truth on talk pages isn't helpful - just back up statements in articles with verifiable sources. Rhobite 04:44, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    It means that Wikipedia is here to publish verifiable facts that have been written by others, not to stand as a light against the darkness, the one source of shining truth. In other words, if 71.* can come up with independently-published sources that state New England doesn't exist and that there is a pro-Boston bias out there, then we can include his info. If he does not have sources to that effect, we cannot. Meanwhile, there are a lot of sources that he feels are propaganda, which in this case is tough cookies for him. It's happened to me, too. --Masamage ♫ 04:46, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    It should be noted that he was warned not to refer anyone as a propagandist (1) here, or he would be blocked for violating WP:CIVIL. And he has never brought up any sources other than using a weather map centered on NYC. BH (Talk) 04:55, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    >See, this is an example of lies. I did not submit a weather map centered around NYC, I submitted a local news WEBSITE that deals with NY/NJ/CT. This shows and PROVES that CT is not into this NEw England thing as purported in the article. CT is a part of the NY/NJ/CT Tri-state area which that site is proof of. I don't have to prove that CT is not New England, I am just proving that CT is in the NYC area and NOT a part of this Boston/New England frame of thought. The New England article would lead a reader to think that CT is like those others state in seeing Boston as it's capital and making readers believe or think that CT has the same culture, geography and speech as those states. It also implies that New England means easy transportation between states and that every state is connected to Boston and receives their media which is totally not true for CT. In that regard, we get everything New York as we should being so close to it. Those New England state love Boston because it is the only major city up there. Here in CT, we are right next to NY and a lot closer, so why would you think that we would have Boston on our minds?

    Here is the link that they claim is just a 'weather map.' [161], [162]. These show how WE view and see ourselves. Not that Boston and New England are no where to be found...--71.235.81.39 17:35, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I generally confirm Black Harry's account and complaints. Though I believe the anonymous user may have intended contributions rather than disruption for its own sake, the result of all discussions with him have been replies of a personal inflammatory nature rather than calmly articulated reasoning with sources. I advised user [163] that continuing to post on indignant anger would not be prudent, and that any well-reasoned civil remarks would be considered and discussed by his putative antagonists. This did not aid the situation.--Loodog 04:59, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    And of course, if the diffs didn't prove the point that this user has been making uncivil, disruptive comments to advance his agenda, the user actually posted a comment on this thread, in which he accuses us (me and Loodog) of writing "POV propoganda". He then suggests that "Some so-called editors need to be banned". not blocked mind you, but banned by the wikimedia foundation and/or Jimbo Wales himself. Then, he finishes his defense of his actions by saying "People like me (him) only come to correct the BS with the truth. Do you want a site full of lies of the truth? (sic)". What else do you need for proof? BH (Talk) 05:19, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    >It's people like you that cause problems. If you don't like what I write - tough! Don't harass me and try to get me blocked just because my truths do not fit your fiction. The fact that you have to try so hard to convince others goes to show your bias and desperation to stop the truth about this New England/Boston propaganda.--71.235.81.39 17:37, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Æthelbert of Kent and User:Hel Hufflepuff

    Accordingly I made the move. But, afterwards, as I cleared up the resulting double-redirects, User:Hel Hufflepuff came after me reverting all those resulting edits to redirect pages. (An example is http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Aethelbert_of_Kent&action=history .)

    I complained on User talk:Hel Hufflepuff.

    User:Hel Hufflepuff tagged User talk:Hel Hufflepuff with {{db-vandalism}}. I added {{hangon}} to it.

    User:Hel Hufflepuff then deleted a line from User talk:Anthony Appleyard for no good reason;and then did the same again.

    As:-

    1. User_talk:Gryffindor has already been involved in difficulties (see User_talk:Gryffindor#Merano);
    2. Gryffindor and Hufflepuff are both founders and houses of the fictional Hogwarts School;

    Is there any chance of sockpuppetry here? Anthony Appleyard 05:41, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    If you look at the edit summeries, however, you will find that every edit of Hel Hufflepuff has the edit summery of [[WP:IAR]] or [[WP:IAR|rvv]]. I don't see any of this thing with Gryffindor. In addition, since the summery rvv seems to suggest reverts, I checked whether these were actually reverts. The result is that every one of these edits which I checked seems to be a revert of either Anthony Appleyard or of Naconkantari, or tagging a page created by them with {{db-vandal}}. Od Mishehu 07:35, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    While looking through the block log, I found 1 account which does look similar, although it was blocked sooner. This is the Row Ravenclaw account, which seems to follow the same pattern as Hel Hufflepuff:
    1. The Hogwarts connection mentioned above - Rowena Ravenclaw and Helga Hufflepuff (bolding the first 3 letters - matches the user names) are both among the founders of Hogwarts. Very likely there are 2 more intended usernames - although neither of them seems to exist - Godric Gryffindor (God Gryffindor (talk · contribs · account creation) and Salazar Slytherin (Sal Slytherin (talk · contribs · account creation)).
    2. Edit summeries - Both use a link to WP:IAR as the basis for their summeries.
    3. Their edits are completely reverts of some other user.
    Od Mishehu 07:53, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Request "speedy keep" for Steve Gilliard

    I am arguing for a speedy keep for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Steve Gilliard. None of the four justifications for speedy keep are applicable here, so, yes, this is a bold request. Steve Gilliard passed away on June 2nd and a page was created the same day (not by me). User:Naconkantari, a respected and diligent admins, deleted the page. Upon request, he restored the article and sent it to AfD (see here). My concern is this does not follow wp guidelines, which I quote:

    Before nominating an article for AFD, please ... first do the necessary homework and look for sources yourself, and invite discussion on the talk page by using the {{notability}} template, if you are disputing the notability of an article's subject. Notability is not subjective. The fact that you haven't heard of something, or don't personally consider it worthy, are not criteria for deletion. You must look for, and demonstrate that you couldn't find, any independent sources of sufficient depth.

    User:Naconkantari explanation for the AfD is: "Non-notable blogger" and that is all. I have twice queried the admins about this matter with no response (see here). Today, Sarah Wheaton of the New York Time's "The Caucus" described Gilliard "a blogger’s blogger who had the attention of some of the most influential on the scene, and he was also considered to be one of its most important black voices."[164] The AfD includes copious evidence of his significance. So, why not wait the five days until the inevitable "keep" decision? Isn't the existence of an AfD template harmless? In this case, I disagree. First, this page will get a lot of traffic now due to his death and the mention in the NYT (apparently, it is possible that even a NYT obit will be written [165]). Having this template on the page serves to deligitimize Gilliard. Secondly, it can't help but cool the interests of editors working under this cloud. Although this harm may not be great, in light of the (arguably) incorrect procedure for including the article in AfD when using the notability template was the better alternative, I am requesting that this matter be settled now. I would be so bold as to do this myself ("Although closing AfD discussions that end with an outcome of "keep" can be done by non-admins, it is recommended that only administrators close discussions as speedy-keeps"), I have voted for keep, so I have a conflict of interest.  ∴ Therefore  talk   06:07, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    No opinion on the substance of the matter, but checking the bot counter, the "score" is 39 keeps versus 5 deletes. I know it's not a vote, and Wikipedia is not a democracy, but I have never seen an article deleted against such a lopsided consensus. You have nothing to worry about. Placeholder account 07:04, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    That doesn't necessarily mean it will get WP:SNOWBALLed though. nadav (talk) 07:12, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    If I were to close, I would probably strike out a good half of the "keeps" for being from new visitors to Wikipedia (it is strange how so many new user's first edit is to an AFD), but even then, it's not getting deleted. Neil ╦ 08:17, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    In the end I think this will be a Keep, but in the interim the AfD is just a forum for vitriol and User:Naconkantari-bashing. A speedy keep resolution of the AfD will (hopefully) lead to editors' constructive work on the Steve Gilliard article, instead of just talking about it. Lipsticked Pig 08:47, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    either a lot of socks or meatpuppets in that AFD. I wouldn't use speedy in such a case. --Fredrick day 09:23, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Looks to me as if someone you like died, his fans dashed over to Wikipedia to create a memorial and you don't like the fact that this was not viewed with universal approval. Fie on you, sir. Delegitimize my arse. Guy (Help!) 10:45, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Just as a general observation, it's sometimes easiest to create/update an article right after the death of the article's subject, since the subject will receive media attention and retrospective coverage as a result (which can then be used to expand/source). -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 15:18, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Kudos to Biruitorul for remaining civil in that discussion in the face of personal attacks from -asx- (talk · contribs) and Milton Stanley (talk · contribs), both of whom have been around long enough that they should know better. The latter's repeated pointing to Wikipedia:Civility and Wikipedia:No personal attacks are especially ironic, not least because they follow perfectly civil comments that aren't personal in any way, and because of this edit.

      Kudos to Lipsticked Pig, too.

      And yes, the evidence of a swarm of new users suddenly appearing in order to try to stuff the ballot, when there is no ballot to stuff, and without rationales that have any foundation at all in our Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines, when those are the only rationales that would actually make a case that holds water, abounds in that discussion. The holders of the new accounts (and, indeed, several editors of long standing whose rationales are also not based in policy) would do well to learn from Capitalistroadster's contribution to the discussion. Uncle G 13:07, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    A wee bit of trolling

    Resolved

    130.108.192.178 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) and the recently created 130.108.192.178I (talk · contribs) seem to be doing a bit of trolling (eg [166]). Anyone with a block button want to take a gander? Thanks --TeaDrinker 06:40, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Never mind, both are now blocked. Thanks, --TeaDrinker 06:58, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Paxsilvestris / User:Monophysite

    This user has made a sinister stalking threat to Kbthompson and discouraged two established editors against editing again. This is response to attempts to remove unbalanced and libelous details from the London Borough of Camden. And a detailed legal threat too. Request block for trolling/threats. MRSC • Talk 07:11, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I think this request belongs at WP:AIV. Od Mishehu 07:54, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Legal threats are not vandalism, so no, this is the correct board to report it. The account User:Paxsilvestris has been indefinitely blocked for legal threats, with the provision that if he pledges on his talk page never to make such a threat again, it will be reduced from indefinite. The first two diffs you gave are not in themselves worthy of a block. Neil ╦ 08:13, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    For the record, I added 'tone' and 'reference' tags to the article, and expressed my concern about it at WPLondon. I also tried to guide the editor on the talk page to writing about it in a way that is appropriate. The editor formerly known as User:Paxsilvestris / User:Monophysite is continuing to rant on 193.82.16.42 (User talk:193.82.16.42}. For my part, I would welcome him back, but he needs to learn what is appropriate for a wikipedia article and how to behave in civilised company. Kbthompson 09:47, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    See #London Borough of Camden Uncle G 10:31, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Mass deletion of television articles by TTN

    User has been notified of this action through a message at User talk:TTN
    TTN has engaged in a one-person crusade to delete literally thousands of television episode articles, representing tens of thousands of hours of work by Wikipedia editors. TTN is replacing the articles with simple redirects to "List of episode" pages. There is no assessment of the articles, not is there any attempt at adding the deleted information to the aforementioned "list" pages. (TTN's "notification" consists of a single message left on each series' "List of episodes" page - which is not necessarily on the watchlist of editors who contribute to the affected articles.) The resultant cleanup, on a massive scale, is being dumped on the editors of the affected pages. All of this is under the guise of the WP:EPISODE guideline.

    TTN is also unwilling to engage in any meaningful discussion of these actions. Efforts to reason with TTN are met with dismissive replies, as per the following examples:

    "People who disagree with all episodes being removed do not count." (here)

    "Who really cares if people don't agree with what I do? Anyone that does disagree is a major inclusionist like yourself or a fan. Frankly, their opinions do not matter." (here)

    "It doesn't really matter if people are grumpy as long as I'm removing useless information." (here)

    "People disagree with me, big whoop. They can only use false arguments most of the time anyways." (here)

    Regardless of where one stands on the issue, the manner in which it is being handled is completely unacceptable. At the very least, there should be some sort of discussion regarding WP:EPISODE. A crusade like this, especially with no attempt at discussion, is divisive and will only damage the Wikipedia community. This is *not* how Wikipedia should operate. Sincerely, Ckatzchatspy 08:24, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    They'll come back on summer reruns though. --MichaelLinnear 08:26, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    TTN has been pretty much spot on with his deletions though. Empty articles written using a standard template and containing about two lines of useful text being redirected to a main episode list page is policy. Nick 08:30, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    It seems excessive, and from a cursory glance, heavy-handed and likely to cause more trouble than it's worth. En mass changes of that magnitude should have undergone centralized discussion. That is, beyond a guideline page I never heard of. El_C 09:29, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    He's following guidelines. Problem is, no one has ever noticed this, so it's just been growing bigger. That's why you're objecting, right? Because of the size. I assume those dismissive comments are merely a result of him referring to the same policy over and over again for a number of months. - Zero1328 Talk? 09:52, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The messages are presented in a cynical way, but they're absolutely truthful. All comments about this are placed from a personal level rather than one backed by any sort of policy or guideline. They're either grumpy that the episodes are gone or they feel insulted from a lack of discussion (which they don't end up bothering with). I am perfectly willing to participate in a constructive discussion that will bring about good sources. The problem is most people are fine with the current condition of the articles, so they somehow avoid actually finding any. Only one person/group has really done anything, and I have no idea how it has gone this past month. TTN 10:18, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    To El C: This has already undergone a centralized discussion that lead to that guideline, so now it is up to users to find sources for their single series. Further attempts at more discussion leads to nothing more than rambling, paranoia, and yelling. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kept Man for why this needs to be done away from things like that. TTN 10:39, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    TTN, the job you're doing is one that needs to be done, but some of the above quotes show you could perhaps be a little kinder? Neil ╦ 12:18, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Kinder, perhaps, but experience shows that fans will not accept anything less than an article per episode, so sometimes being blunt just saves time. Guy (Help!) 14:55, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Unless if server memory is an issue, I see no good reason not to have articles that obviously a good segment of the community finds interesting or useful. As long as they are referenced and even a handful think they are encyclopedic, deleting them only turns off many readers. We should not be exclusive or elitist. --24.154.173.243 17:51, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Well I took a look myself at this guideline and I would have to say I disagree with the how the episode was dealt with the critics, since a great number of shows would not have this kind of information and I feel that this alone is unneccessary, adding in a plot summary that is not too minor or too detailed with any available data for key members of the production crew, and any avaiable cultrual reference or notable trivia and sources are found. However, the problem with sourcing is that their are hardly any episode books on the market and many of the only worthwhile links come from fansites which would fail Wikipedia's established link policy because it is a fansite with questionable source material. Me thinks that the whole episode policy needs to be re-evaluated and decide which shows should have their own episode page and which one should have a list instead. -24.20.180.73 15:05, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    So what you are saying is that there is a concensus on which shows should be allowed to have their own specific episode articles? -Adv193 15:44, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Other helpful links for this discussion:

    1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:List_of_Kim_Possible_episodes#removal

    2. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:The_Ocean_Hunter#Deletion_of_useful.2C_relevant.2C_and_interesting_information

    3. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:TTN#Ahem

    4. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:TTN#Your_behaviour

    5. User talk:TTN#Episode pages

    6. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Village_pump_%28policy%29#Using_Wikipedia:Television_episodes

    7. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Video_games#Mario_character_merges

    I obviously think that it isn't right for so much work done by other editors to be needlessly erased in such a fashion. --24.154.173.243 16:22, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment

    I'll preface my remarks by saying that AN/I probably isn't the place for a discussion over Wikipedia guidelines. With that in mind, however, the way TTN is proceeding - and the scale of it - should not be permitted until a consensus on the larger issue can be achieved. Whether consciously or not, the Wikipedia community has permitted the creation of these articles, and allowed them to develop and grow - not for days, or weeks, but for *years*. This is not a question of a few random pages that don't meet guidelines - we're talking about literally thousands of pages, and tens of thousands of hours of work by good, solid contributors. We're talking about the Television project, dozens of related sub-projects, and all the rules, guidelines, and procedures developed within those structures with the goal of standardizing content and creating professional product. We're talking about editors who - on a daily basis - struggle to maintain a strong body of pop-culture content. Not only are they having to weed out the constant onslaught of speculation, trivia, and fan-boy debris, but they are also having to work within a community that, to some degree, "looks down" on their efforts as being "less than worthy". (See this note from TheDJ) TTN says "go to TV.com and Wikia" - but that is *not* the same thing. Speaking for myself, if I wanted speculation, fan theories, and "what if" scenarios, sure, I'd go to those sites. That, however, is *not* what I want out of an article, and not what I want to work on. Whether you like pop-culture articles or not shouldn't be the issue here - it should be about showing a certain degree of respect for your fellow Wikipedians. TTN's actions, I'm sorry to say, do not meet that mark. --Ckatzchatspy 17:28, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    There already is a larger consensus: WP:EPISODE. Just because single editors don't want the articles that they work on to be gone, it doesn't mean this it isn't valid. They all miserably fail that, WP:N, WP:V, and various other combinations of things like WP:NOR and WP:NOT depending on the single articles. Something needed to be done, so I'm doing it. Otherwise, we'll just be sitting around and twiddling our thumbs, all while having an idle discussion that will get nowhere. Plus, the comments that you quoted were not towards editors trying to keep a single series. They were towards people saying that I should not continue just because people disagree with me or people suggesting that I bother with single discussions for every single one (though few are ever responded to). TTN 17:38, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    It's hard for episodes to not fail anything if they are deleted before editors even have a chance to finish expanding them. Clearly there is NOT a consensus on this matter by any means. --24.154.173.243 17:44, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Most of these have existed for well over a year. Time has nothing to do with it. People stop editing after the plot summary is up. Only a little tweaking here and there and the addition of trivia follows. TTN 17:49, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    So, how is having articles that obviously a number of editors and readers find helpful somehow detrimental to this website? If you or others do not like these articles, why not just ignore them or work on other projects than destroy what others have worked on and what others do find helpful? Are we running out of memory or something? --24.154.173.243 17:54, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    We don't keep articles because they're "helpful." This site is based upon building a source of information with encyclopedic and verifiable information. If it is impossible to do that with a subject, it doesn't belong (no matter how "helpful or interesting" it may be). TTN 17:58, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, by your own post then, the articles should be kept, because a) episode information can be easily verified and b) by the definition of encylopedia provided on Wikipedia, they are encylcopedic as they are examples of "general" knowledge "containing articles on topics in every field." See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Encyclopedic#The_term --24.154.173.243 18:02, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I led myself right into that one. Verifiable by this sites standards (published sources), not just from the primary source. It has to be notable in that way, or it is just unencyclopedic. General means general, not in-depth. The general overview is the episode list, not the specific articles. TTN 18:08, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Then, why not just put some kind of request for sources tag on the articles? It shouldn't be too hard for people to add a source for each episode. --24.154.173.243 18:10, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The tags aren't magic. Sources have to exist and people have to be willing to work on them. The reason they're being redirected is because both of those aren't met. TTN 18:12, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Sources exist on such websites as Tv.com and even on the network websites for the shows. With thousands of editors and an ever growing community, you'd have to think that more and more people will eventually be willing and able to meet such standards. --24.154.173.243 18:14, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Those aren't good enough to build articles (tv.com, for example, is not a reliable source). Trust me, sources don't exist for most episodes, and users don't care for their quality. They just want a place to write summaries. If what you are suggesting was possible, I would be doing that rather than redirecting. You're going down the same exact road as the rest of the people that are trying to keep these, and it's a dead end. TTN 18:20, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Bzz Wrong, this conflict will never be over as long as there are a massive amount of editors that fight for what they believe in, ignoring the rules, and some such as myself who believe that such rules or styles on Episode pages can still be changed. -168.156.153.175 18:30, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Deletion of talk page of article in active AfD

    Resolved Resolved

    Khukri 09:45, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Talk:Blue_Prism has been deleted during an AfD - this page had information relevant to the AfD on it - Tiswas(t) 08:55, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Went to fix it but it's already been restored by Khukri. Neil ╦ 09:47, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Requesting an IP Ban on 70.89.228.65

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/70.89.228.65

    If you take a look at his "edits" you'll find that he's nothing more than a repeat vandal on Wikipedia. His vadalism has ranged from the page on Nathaniel Hawthorne in 2005 all the way to his most recent "work" on the SOCOM: Confrontation page--both and all pages in between have been re-edited and fixed.

    As a frequent user and editing member of Wikipedia, I would highly advise the IP Ban of this individual. --Hisashi 0080 10:08, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Borg Queen had blocked for a week - considering the IP address has registered nothing but vandalism to the same articles, over and over, for three years(!), I have extended this, and softblocked it for six months. Neil ╦ 10:34, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    It's a school. a block summary like no useful edits in three years ignores the fact that we don't know how many good registered users might edit from there. I have noted {{schoolblock}} on the talk page. Thatcher131 14:35, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, at least in the checkuser time frame, the answer is zero. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 15:07, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    There's reason to ask the Foundation to ask the school to investigate. I doubt all the kids sitting at the same workstation for 3 years only vandalise.--Samuel di Curtisi di Salvadori 15:20, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    As a member of the counter-vandalism team, you'd be surprised. 80-90% of what comes from schools is pure WP:GAY vandalism. The Evil Spartan 17:56, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Urgent Protection needed

    Resolved

    [167]

    Or at least semi. Show has just finished, and people are being idiots. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 58.172.202.5 (talk)

    semi protected for 48 hours - it was taking a hammering already. Ryan Postlethwaite 11:22, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    For future reference, to get pages protected - the right place to make the request is: WP:RFPP. Od Mishehu 11:39, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Harvest (band)

    I'm not even sure where to begin with how to remove the excessive Images and audio files from this article since all of them are only being used on this one article, which for those of you without a calculator, it's about 90+ Fair Use Images and Audio Files. — Moe ε 12:38, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm not sure fair use covers uploading every single song they did... --Fredrick day 12:42, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Well, they are only short bits of the songs, not the whole wongs, but this is still taking fair use beyond defendable limits (and I am a fair use supporter). My advice would be to remove all the ogg files aa excessive, keep the album covers. Fram 13:42, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • The images have to go too. There's no commentary on those image at all in that article, none. Nick 13:45, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    On the other hand, applause goes to Jamielang77 (talk · contribs) for xyr fair use rationales. Uncle G 14:12, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • CSD I7: Bad justification given for fair use; this is decorative use in a list, not critical commentary. One or two lnks have gone red... Guy (Help!) 14:48, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • The sound files have gone. But the fair use rationales that I was talking about are the ones such as Image:Harvest-reduced album cover.JPG. It has full sourcing, including the name of the copyright holder and date of copyright, and a rationale that includes the fact that the image cannot be used to make bootleg albums. Uncle G 15:22, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • It doesn't matter how good the rationale is when the Images were still used for decoration. Maybe we could spare the Images if individual articles were created for every album, then that would be acceptable, but the way it was, was not applicable with WP:FU. — Moe ε 15:33, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • I don't think he was trying to advocate any different, just noting the person had been thorough, if only more were. That said the rationale isn't necessarily that good if it doesn't actually provide a rationale sufficient to keep using the image within the bounds of our policies. --pgk 18:00, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    BJAODN yet again

    Sj (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has just restored all BJAODN pages without any form of discussion, other than a remark that "This is ridiculous. The articles should be restored asap", and telling other people to "discuss before wheel warring". Can anyone give me a good reason not to block him for blatant wheel warring, or should this be taken directly to the ArbCom? >Radiant< 14:22, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Outrageous. Should be taken to ArbCom. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 14:25, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    This is ridiculous. Either one would be lovely. Sean William @ 14:26, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Radiant - I can see no reason for you not to block him. Nick 14:32, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh leave the man alone. Seriously. Yell at him, don't arbcom him. We've been over-litigious lately. -- Y not? 14:34, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Litigation has nothing to do with it. If someone lacks the self-control to avoid wheel warring, that casts severe doubts upon his suitability as an administrator. >Radiant< 14:37, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Don't blow it out of proportion. It's one act of wheel-warring, committed 50 times. One act. Compared to years(?) of faithful service! Don't be so quick to decapitate. -- Y not? 14:53, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    You use the word "decapitate" and tell me to not blow it out of proportion? Funny. >Radiant< 15:10, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    We're too keen to start wars of attrition in order to keep or delete things. It's a continual cycle of deletion, DRV, AfD, DRV until people get the result they're after. In this case, it's wheel war after wheel war. ArbCom is too harsh, an enforced forty winks would be fine. Nick 14:39, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Just ridiculous. Block or ArbCom, one of the two. Probably ArbCom. Then again, you have my blessings on the block button as well. Moreschi Talk 14:36, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I concur... there is every reason to block for disruption given all the time that has been spent discussing these pages; a unilateral restore on top of the unilateral delete is in no way helpful (and for the record I'm a big fan of BJAODN). I don't know if ARBCOM would even take this case, but that might be what is needed here.--Isotope23 14:38, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Whatever you do, don't waste the ArbCom's time over something as trivial as whether deleted nonsense is visible or invisible. Kusma (talk) 14:40, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    My understanding of why this would go to ARBCOM would be more about an admin engaging in WP:WHEEL while asking other admins not to revert him than the question of whether or not we should have BJAODN.--Isotope23 15:14, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't support a block - he stopped hours ago - it's certainly not protective, at least try disucssing it with him first. Not sure on the merits of ArbCom - possibly. Ryan Postlethwaite 14:41, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Fifty three actions of admin-wheelwarring. I support a block. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 14:42, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    But non for 6 hours - that's why I think it's punative and should go to ArbCom instead. Ryan Postlethwaite 14:45, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    53? I count about 90. >Radiant< 15:10, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Stupid, but not worth over-reacting. The whole festering pile of excrement should of course be nuked, but if people want to make a genuine attempt to fix the less fatuous bits I suppose it's no big deal. I suggest we give people 14 days to fix the GFDL issues and remove any entries which are not fixed after that time, deleting pages which have no remaining fixed entries as empty or under G12. That should satisfy the process wonks and "ZOMG! Evil hu o[u]rless bastards!" objections. Guy (Help!) 14:52, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Absolutely not. GFDL is copyright, we can't throw that to one side because we like it. Where does that stop?--Docg 14:59, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Apparently (enforcement of the GFDL) stops with talk pages archives and templates, among other things, which are technical violations of the GFDL as much as BJAODN was. See the above thread... there's lots of examples of selective enforcement cropping up. Not condoning the wheel warring though, that anyone would waste admin actions on a collection of jokes is... well... not something I'd do. --W.marsh 15:02, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • This is a legal issue and perhaps the Arbitration Committee with aid from legal counsel would be able to deal with the matter in a much appropriate manner. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 15:18, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • As the above thread pointed out, talk page archives are not a GFDL violation. The GFDL requires attribution and the signature provides that. The GFDL doesn't require that attribution has to be done via the Wikipedia page history. That is simply the only way we have to do it with article content. With talk signatures, we don't need the history as we have the signatures. Also, for subst templates, it is a pain, but the attribution can be reconstructed by using the article history to determine what date the template was subst'd and going to the template history to find the history. The only time attribution would be lost is if a template was deleted after being subst'd. -- JLaTondre 15:34, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • Attribution for BJAODN can be found too, but it's also a "pain". Nevertheless I haven't seen anyone really show that the GFDL spells out degree of difficulty in tracking down attribution, so they're all in the same boat. --W.marsh 15:40, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
              • No, some (at least) of BJAODN can't be tracked to where it was cut and paste from, some although we know the article the revisions have been deleted. In the latter case admins can perhaps find the attribution, but an average user who wishes to reuse it couldn't (or an author checking compliance). It's a very messy area though (since not everyone needs to be attributed....) --pgk 18:05, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I'd like to see some sort of explanation from Sj about this as to how he feels such an action was justified. The fact that the deletions are being discussed extensively at DRV et al, the fact that more people than not want it deleted (at least to my knowledge), and the fact that these were restored despite his knowledge of all of the above troubles me. -Pilotguy hold short 15:00, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Plus, that he wheel wars while telling other people not to wheel war. >Radiant< 15:10, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yeah, that's the bit that really gets me. --Masamage ♫ 15:19, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    A few details

    Sj has barely edited at all in the last month. This morning, he basically logged in, undeleted ~90 pages, and logged out again. Before doing so, he commented in the ongoing deletion review [168] and accused Jeff Gustafson of disruption [169].

    The undeletions include several pages unrelated to BJAODN, such as an old pool (note related deletion debates), and some images lacking fair use rationales [170] [171].

    Finally, he has set up what appears to be a to-do list in his userspace (User:Sj/BJAODN) (which links to mailing list argument on the same topic), and a quick glance over BJAODN shows that not all of its subpages have been undeleted yet [172].

    All this indicates to me that he was fully aware of the ongoing discussions, decided to ignore those discussions and instead wheel war to undelete these pages, has offered no explanation for all this, and gives no indication that he won't simply continue tonight. >Radiant< 16:37, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I wonder if it's a compromised account? If it isn't, blocking is probably a bad idea because from experience any block of an admin except by Arbcom tends to end up with even more AN discussion than would have happened anyway, a short wheel-war, and finally ends up at Arbcom anyway (generally speaking most of these events shouldn't happen, but will do anyway). --ais523 16:42, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
    As we don't know any of this, and he hasn't deleted the main page - let's wait and see? Secretlondon 16:47, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Highly doubt it's compromised. Admin's passwords were made stronger recently. If it was compromised, it wouldn't have just undeleted BJAODN, it would have probably blocked Jimbo and deleted the Main Page. Although his behavior is really suspicious, it's not vandal-like behavior. — Moe ε 17:00, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Don't block, not least because you would also want to block User:The Cunctator and User:Jeffrey O. Gustafson, who have also wheel warred over this. Take it to ArbCom if you feel it's that important. I know that undoing another admin's actions is considered by some to be the ultimate crime, but it's really not an inappropriate response to something as catastrophically lame as deleting BJAODN. — Matt Crypto 17:33, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    FYI Jeff's already been blocked by request. -Pilotguy hold short 17:46, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    A request from a person whose article is on here, that I created

    Hi, I believe you don't normally do this but Roger Webster a friend of mine, has asked for his article to be deleted. I believe that if you were to put it up for deletion review very few people if any would vote, as he is only notable in brass band, some classical and some psycological circles. I do however, believe he was notable enough in the first place to be put on wikipedia (which is why I created it!)

    Anyway the main point of this was, he contacted me yesterday asking me to get his page deleted off wikipedia, partly due to the last vandalism. He did not know at that stage that I was the one who created it. Furthermore, he said that if possible he would like to track down the last user to edit it. That was before I reverted the vandalism, so the user was User:Roger The Girl Dodger whose account was obviously created just for that one edit. He told me that any admin who needed to speak to him are more than welcome to, and they can either contact him via the number I have (which would be emailed to you) or probably better, due to him living in the UK, via the contact section on his website. I am sure you can appreciate his frustration, as he found the vandalism shocking and could affect him if people take the information off here for programme notes. He also believes the person who vandalised is someone he knows due to the nature of some of the edits. I hope you can help. Any questions you have about this, please do not hesitate to ask me. Thanks for your time, Asics talk Editor review! 15:20, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Hey -- looking over the article to apprise myself of who Roger Webster is, I really don't think we can simply delete the article, he seems far more notable than borderline. Is his complaint that the article is vulnerable to vandalism? Or is the complaint about what is there in the article when it isn't vandalized? I'll add the page to my watchlist and try to keep an eye on it, and I'll make sure that account is blocked so it doesn't happen again. If the biography has sourcing or neutrality problems (I mean, other than the vandalized version), we can work on correcting that too. Mangojuicetalk 15:27, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    If he believes the vandalism may have been done by someone who personally knows him, then that hits a bit too close to home. Mangojuice's offer is laudable (and downright nifty), but even more sensitivity may be in order. Wikipedia editors expect (and receive) a great deal of protection from 'wikistalkers', and other forms of online stalkers (you know what I'm talking about). If this has any connections to his 'real life', then I think it's only fair to grant him such a relatively minor protection. Bladestorm 15:33, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not sure what you're asking anyone to do. Are you asking for the article to be protected (a request unlikely to be granted given the very low number of edits to the article)? Are you asking for the article to be deleted (a request you could likely have fulfilled as you are the only major contributor to the article and thus such a request would be a G7 speedy)? Are you asking for information about the editor who allegedly vandalized the article (another request that is very unlikely to be granted)? Or are you asking for something completely different like general advice and a list of options? --ElKevbo 15:45, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Just a few things, as I see it anyway. I notice the vandalism from the 'dodger' character stayed up there for quite some time before being discovered and reverted. In a biographical article of a living person, that is far from ideal. Also, in deference to Mr. Webster, I'll do a selective delete-and-restore to remove the vandalised version (I looked and it's not pleasant at all). As a regular WP:RPP admin, I'd not have any hesitation in semi-protecting this for a time to discourage that kind of vandalism which could give rise to serious problems for its subject - Alison ☺ 16:06, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • We can protect it, he can email me (use special:emailuser/JzG) or email info <at> wikimedia.org for the OTRS team. He is a great player, and the article is sourced, so deletion is probably less attractive than protection in this instance. More articles on notable brass players, please! Guy (Help!) 16:07, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • (ec x 2) I took the bold step of semi-protecting it for 2 weeks to deter the vandal from returning. I also deleted the vandalised version from the history. It's the least we can do for the man - Alison ☺ 16:11, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    The larger issue is that these low-traffic biographical articles are WP:BLP disasters waiting to happen. The most obvious scenario is: editor creates article on marginally notable person; no one else cares; editor loses interest in WP and moves on; no one now watches article; article is vandalized and/or taken over by someone with an ax to grind; nobody notices; article is brought to subject's attention resulting in lawsuit etc. Granted we're not going to solve that here but this may be a case in point. Raymond Arritt 16:59, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • I agree. It happens & vandalism can "hang around" quite a long time, which is why I patrol Special:Unwatchedpages when I think of it. Anyone else do that / know about it? - Alison ☺ 17:54, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I didn't know about it until you brought it up. It's an admin area, so I can't be of any assistance there right now. DarkAudit 18:02, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Admin

    Hello can an admin talk to me on my page please, i need a little assistance with dealing with some insecure idiot strutting about thinking hes right when infact he is not... I dont want to explain here becuase its too long. (trust me)Aarandir 15:23, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Please... can i have some help... can anyone spare me minute or two??Aarandir 15:33, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    You're going to have to be more specific, because I can't find any "insecure idiots" on your talk page. --Masamage ♫ 15:40, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Provide diffs. We're not here to look for problems, we're here to take care of problems when they are reported to us (and they warrant administrator intervention). If you can't be bothered to inform us of why you need assistance, why should we bother? EVula // talk // ☯ // 17:04, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    You've devoted an entire section to arguments that you have won, and call others morons. Um... Seicer (talk) (contribs) 17:23, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Anonimu accusations of Holocaust denial and general rudeness toward User:Biruitorul

    Greetings,

    A sad little drama has recently preoccupied a small corner of the Wiki and I would like to bring it to your attention. It all began when Anonimu started deleting any comments Biruitorul left on his talk page, often with rude edit summaries. The pertinent deletion came as most of the Romanians were all embroiled in an argument with Anonimu and a few others over whether or not Romania was actually "occupied" by the Soviet Union, or rather "liberated". Biruitorul left Anonimu a message stating (perhaps rather vehemently) his own opinion, which Anonimu promptly deleted, with the edit summary "deleted message of ultra-nationalist holodeni". After another editor had restored the comment and Anonimu had again deleted it, I restored it once more. The result was this revert. That's when I got irritated, and posted a NPA warning to him: [173]. As I was typing that message to him, the probable meaning of the word "holodeni" dawned on me--I had figured it was just a piece of Romanian foul language, but then realized: "holo"..."deni": "Holocaust denier." Anonimu has previously accused Biru of being a Holocaust denier (as well as an Iron Guard member, both of which are outrageous, slanderous and false accusations), so I wasn't surprised to see the same pathetic accusation pop up again. A quite stupid (though admittedly somewhat entertaining) discussion ensued on Anonimu's talk page over the exact meaning of the word "holodeni": Anonimu told us it was in the language of a common ethnic minority in Romania, which led us to surmise it was Lipovan Old Russian for "those who don't work, and thus starve" ("holod" = Ukrainian for "hunger"). The latest "theories" are that it Swahili. Of course, this is all nonsense since it is clear as day it meant "Holocaust denier." Additionally, Anonimu is still deleting anything Biruitorul writes on his talk page.

    I'm sure others will agree with me that Holocaust denial is an extremely serious accusation and not one to be tossed around lightly. I hope someone can help us resolve this ugly situation. Regards, K. Lásztocska 15:43, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Editors are free to delete messages left on their talkpage and I would suggest not restoring comments that an editor removed from their own talkpage; it just makes the situation worse. The Diffs you provided containing WP:NPA are from several months ago, well past the time that Anonimu (talk · contribs) could reasonably be warned about this... while it is pretty clear that Anonimu (talk · contribs) is being a WP:DICK, I don't see any evidence of anything actionable at this time.--Isotope23 16:06, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Three of those four diffs are from a couple of days ago. Biruitorul 17:13, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I was referring specifically to the edit where he explicitly called you holocaust denier, which was from 1-Apr. The removal diffs are nothing that require attention.--Isotope23 17:43, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Attack page (recreated)

    I hope this is the right place for posting this...

    About a year ago I was involved in a miniscule dispute with an anonymous IP, 68.101.64.76, who was repeatedly inserting a link to floridaeclipseclub.com in Mitsubishi Eclipse. Initial attempts to contact the user through their talk page and the article's talk page proved fruitless, until I eventually e-mailed the owner of the car club directly. Eventually, when no constructive progress was made, an outside mediator stepped in, assessed the situation and the IP ended up blocked. The whole storm in a teacup is recorded for posterity at User talk:DeLarge/Archive 1#Mitsubishi Eclipse linkspamming dispute with User:68.101.64.76, with fragments of it scattered on other talk pages.

    I pretty much thought it was all in the past until last month. For reasons I can't remember I was googling my name, and came across the WP talkpage of User:Saeedc, who shares his username with the admin of the floridaeclipseclub.com site (where he's simply "Saeed"). It's an apparent single purpose account created to publish personal details about me -- at least, the most personal stuff he could find. I tagged it for speedy deletion with {{db-attack}},[174] and reverted similar content added to the old User talk:68.101.64.76 page by another anonymous IP and SPA, 72.196.126.185.[175]

    It took me several months to even realise I was being attacked, but once bitten twice shy. So I watchlisted the two pages for repeat attacks, and they were recreated last night. Now, I don't want to make too big a deal out of this; my real name's not a big secret, he's got my IP wrong, and telling the world I'm obsessed with SETI and lousy at chess isn't exactly the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune. However, from my perspective, on general principles the best thing would be:

    • Speedy delete User:Saeedc and User talk:Saeedc, and block this account indefinitely;
    • Restore User talk:68.101.64.76 to the last non-attack version, as I'd previously done; alternatively just delete it;
    • Block the two anonymous IPs, which seem to be static, for a short period to prevent immediate reoccurrences.

    Is that a proportionate and reasonable request? Regards, --DeLarge 16:50, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Seems fair to me. I have not yet blocked the IP, but the rest is done. Guy (Help!) 17:04, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Very odd situation regarding requested deletion of articles

    There are two articles on Masonic magazines started by User:Frumious Bander (who had a COI, having been a contributor to said magazines) which I felt were borderline nn. These are Masonic Magazine and Templar History Magazine. The publisher of those magazines, Stephen Dafoe, has since posted on Talk:Masonic Magazine that he would like both articles removed. However, Dafoe did not create the articles, nor was Frumious the only editor. I therefore see no clearcut case for CSD, and I'm not sure how the rights assertion works. Can someone look into this? MSJapan 17:03, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    As far as I know, just because he does not want them there does not mean they can be deleted. He is welcome to nominate them for afd though. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 17:05, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    If by "look into this" you mean "delete for not asserting notability", then yes. --Spike Wilbury 17:15, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    They have each been through afd though with no consensus closure. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 17:17, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    They should have been speedied then. The keep comments that allowed the articles to exist a bit longer for improvement have resulted in exactly no improvement or any whisper of notability. No sense wasting any more time on them. --Spike Wilbury 17:21, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Avram Glazer claiming to be Avram Glazer

    User:Avram Glazer claims to be Avram Glazer - looking at the users contributions, which I consider to be vandalism, I seriously doubt that claim. He should either offer proof that he is who he claims to be, or lacking that - I think there is some kind of policy against impersonating people, right? CharonX/talk 17:23, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Thanks. Blocked for violation of username guidelines (yes, you cannot impersonate people) and vandalism. --Golbez 17:28, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Ipaat

    User:Ipaat has uploaded a number of images to WP and has a gallery of his uploads on his user page. Trouble is, several of them are fair use images which cannot be used on user pages pursuant to Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria exemptions. The user was warned about this one hundred times prior to my involvement -- 98 by a bot and twice by User:Jay32183 here and here. I came across the page while I was tagging images and noted that nonfree images were still present. In light of all the warnings, I removed the entire image gallery with a note on the user's talk page that the gallery could be restored as long as the fair use images were not included. The user restored the entire gallery, including fair use images. We went one more round of reverts, so I'm bringing it here. I suspect that this may be a language problem, as the user appears to be a native speaker of Russian with only basic English ability. Perhaps someone can get through to him in Russian? In any event, nonfree images cannot remain on the user page. Thanks! --Butseriouslyfolks 17:32, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    No, not a language problem: look at contributions and user page. He understands fine, he's just obstinate. Quite frankly, this user needs to be blocked for a short time: he's had warning aplenty. The Evil Spartan 18:10, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Sock looking for a block

    Wah1954 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is the latest Torrisholme/user:Graham Heavy sock. Could someone please block? Cheers! Flyguy649talkcontribs 17:52, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Vous etes le Weakest Link. Au revoir (mais non, je truste, adieu). Moreschi Talk 17:54, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Ack! My universal translator is failing! (H) 17:55, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    That would be, let's see: "You are the Weakest Link. Good bye." Not bad for a man who speaks no French. The Evil Spartan 18:07, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Vous oubliez le derniere parte - "But not, I trust farewell (for ever). Ah, le sockblocking est magnifique, non? Moreschi Talk 18:09, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Lol! Merci beaucoups! Also people have been trying to deny the sockset recognition and not add sock tags to their user pages. -- Flyguy649talkcontribs 17:57, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    SqueakBox impersonating admin / admin powers

    Resolved Resolved

    As can be seen from the big red marker here, SqueakBox impersonated an administrator on my talk page, or at least deluded himself as to having administrative powers (which his long career should have convinced him was not true).

    I suggest that some action is taken against this user, for his generally threatening, rude and disruptive behaviour (or at the very least, for this incident alone) (f a b i a n) 17:57, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Uhh...that would be him giving you a vandalism warning which any user can give. Only an administrator can block you, but SqueakBox can warn you for vandalism and then report you to an admin if you continue. Nothing to see here against SqueakBox but your own edits do seem to warrant administrative investigation. Metros 18:00, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh how beautiful: Fabian appears to be a pro-pedophilia edit-warrior. The Evil Spartan 18:05, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    How exactly does SqueakBox know that I will be blocked, and how exactly do you justify your apparent agreement with him, that my edits were vandalism? You might like to check out WP:VAN, which clearly states that moving content to more appropriate locations is not vandalism (f a b i a n) 18:23, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Because Squeakbox knows the policies under which you will find yourself blocked under if you don't head his warnings. He know what he is talking about, so you should listen. (H) 18:25, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, I agree with H because you are a step or two away from the wrong side of a lengthy disruption block. Uhh, nevermind, he was just blocked as I wa typing that. Metros 18:27, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    This trolling account has been blocked indefinitely (not by me). Endorse block, obvious socking troll, no need to waste more tears. (Beside, I just love it when the trolls announce themselves on ANI. Classy). Moreschi Talk 18:32, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Endorse block. (H) 18:29, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I actually have a template on my talk page making clear I am not an admin, SqueakBox 18:31, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Endorse block by User:El C. Good call. Pro-pedophilia POV-pushing / filing vexatious 3RR & ANI reports / WP:SPA / censoring of talk page comments, etc, etc - Alison ☺ 18:32, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I guess SqueakBox's prediction that he would be blocked was accurate. Amazing! SqueakBox, will I ever find true love? Will a Democrat win the US presidency? Who puked the hairball on my floor? -FisherQueen (Talk)
    That last one was me. Kitty 18:38, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User uploading PD images from NASA as PD-self

    User:1981willy is uploading NASA images (which are public domain, or sometimes attribution) licensed as {{pd-self}} I told him to knock it off -- but this is a weird scenario I'm not sure exactly how to handle, so I'm soliciting advice. WilyD 18:37, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Fix the tag and warn him not to do it again, and that he's making a mess for others to clean up? Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 18:44, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    1. ^ Kasun Ubayasiri. "PHD thesis" (PDF). Retrieved 2007-05-31.
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&oldid=136116030"