Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive102

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Noticeboard archives

Morale![edit]

I have been doing some small investigations, and I know exactly where to look. Certain people, mainly admins, are taking a decidedly adversarial stance with users, when coaching is what is needed. HRM would not tolerate this in a large Corporation. The result is that decent people are being driven away. I look at certain people's talk pages, see repeated confrontations, and blocking, when the admin can't get his (yes usually his) way. I look at the other party's user page, and guess what... "I've had enough." "I'll never come back" etc". The good work that many many people, both admins and users, in building up morale is being quickly dissipated by a few bad eggs. This CAN be rectified NOW. What are you going to do about it, guys? Wallie 20:04, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Drink a milkshake and watch television? --Avillia (Avillia me!) 20:10, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
That's not funny. Wallie 20:17, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
I got a giggle out of it. --InShaneee 20:55, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
You would! Wallie 21:06, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
Any editor can be a mentor; it's not only up to administrators to teach new users how to conduct themselves on Wikipedia. · Katefan0 (scribble) 22:47, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
"Nothing's gonna' change the world," said the one man in the last century whom everyone thought capable of making a difference. There will always be a few bad eggs, and the only thing you can do is to try not to be one yourself. AmiDaniel (talk) 22:53, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
The blockings will continue until morale improves. --Carnildo 23:12, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Note: Tony took this seection away, saying it is trolling. This is not trolling, at least that is definitely not my intention. This is a serious issue to my mind. However, if it is in the wrong place to discuss this, then say so. Thank you. Wallie 07:02, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
How can blockings improve morale? Wallie 07:27, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
Really, Wikipedia is unusually polite with vandals. First they get the nice {{test}} message, and then the {{test2}} message, and only by the time things reach {{test3}} are the messages even threatening. Then they're blocked for maybe 24 hours. It takes major obnoxiousness to be blocked for an extended period. If anything, the ease of repeat vandalism is driving away serious editors. There are articles that have to be fixed several times a day, every day. This is bad for morale. --John Nagle 07:34, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
31 hours :P. --Celestianpower háblame 18:49, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
Yes, I clearly agree and empathize with that. I guess that admins get upset and have morale lows too.
The main point I wanted to discuss was that people are getting banned or as least annoyed over edit wars in which an admin or his (usually) friend is one of the participants. If an admin disagrees with another editor, irrespective of who is right, the admin pulls rank and bans, warns, or is insulting to the competitor. The other person feels very hurt, as one does when slapped down by your Line Manager. Wallie 07:42, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
Wallie is complaining about the banning of User:Aidan Work, who in his brief time here engaged in personal abuse, homophobic rants, widescale vandalism, posting libellous comments on his talk page about a politician (I think it was) and insulting everyone who wouldn't let him write in extreme right wing POVs into articles or wouldn't let him delete non-extreme right wing edits. Work was finally axed after a reign of abuse. Wallie doesn't seem to understand the scale of Worth's behaviour and thinks that a gang of nasty admins ganged up on poor elderly Mr. Work, beat him up and kicked him off ruthlessly. Some incautious comments were made about Worth by some users in sheer frustration at his abuse of them (often he laced those comments with extreme homophobia and rascism). Adam called him a "homophobic slimeball". That user may well have been tactless and offensive, but given Work's comments against gays (and everyone else to the left of the KKK) it pretty much summed him up. FearÉIREANNMap of Ireland's capitals.png\(caint) 09:45, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
Nope. OK. I will be a little specific, while not going into too many grubby details. I was objecting to one particular guy who I though was still trailing after Aidan, baiting him, and I thought gloating. I hate that sort of thing. Yes, I had crossed swords with him in the past too. In Aidans case, I always say if you do the crime you do the time. No more no less. As for the slimeball remark, I was just using this as an example that we can all get annoyed at times when baited. I can fully understand why he said it. It is the baitor I have an issue with, not the baitee. The "victims" I referred to in this section do not include Aidan. Wallie 20:17, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
(Reply to Wally): When you have concrete cases of admin abuse bring them here. As you may have noticed, Wikipedia is not a corporation, but an encyclopedia. We do not have a strong hierarchy. Essentially, everybody who has been around productively for a time can become an admin. If some admins "pull rank", they are wrong. I have not, however, experienced that more than once or twice in my 2.5 years on Wikipedia. --Stephan Schulz 11:11, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Some points here, in response to Wallie: (1). If you compare Wikipedia to other community-type websites, you'll find that we're actually more tolerant than most when it comes to not blocking/banning users. For all but the most egregious offences, we give warnings (usually several) before blocking. That's more than, say, the average video game forum will do. (2). Wikipedia cannot really be compared to a corporation, as corporations often have high employee-acquisition costs. However, you'll find that corporations are pretty quick to get rid of bad employees too. If FearÉIREANN's statement above is true, and you're posting to protest the banning of someone for homophobic and/or racist remarks, then you'll find that coporations have NO tolerance for that sort of crap. (3). An admin taking a bad user under his wing and slowly but surely rehabilitating them and turning them good is a nice story, but it's basically just that: a story. Admins don't get paid here, and most of us have jobs and/or school and social lives outside of Wikipedia. Homophobic and racist feelings tend to run very deep, and getting rid of them could take years even for a trained counsellor, which wikipedia admins generally are not. We can't expect to purge the world of all its racists, homophobes, or other miscelleneous bad guys through "coaching". What we're here to do is make a great free encyclopedia, with as little trouble as possible. No more, no less. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:27, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
Well said, Sir. --Celestianpower háblame 18:49, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
At Wikipedia you get lots of warnings before banning/blocking, that's true but some other websites you can get away with extremely bad racial/religious trolling. Have you gone to http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport, go to the cricket section, the message board, and looked at what goes on in the South Asian noticeboard??Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 07:32, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Hi. Just to clarify. I was not actually thinking about the case that Jtdirl is mentioning. That is a separate issue, and is definitely outside the scope of the issue here. I also agree that you can't have as you say "this sort of crap", and I don't think admins should have to or are up to counselling of that sort. I am not suggesting that either. That is the dilemma... if I make a general inquiry, it is up to interpretation - someone may get the wrong idea. If I give a specific example, then attention gets diverted onto that case, and everyone focuses on that, and not the general issue. Anyway, back to the topic. This is meant to be a general observation, not a specific case study. Thank you. Wallie 19:30, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
Ok. Our way of dealing with the general problem is to look at each case individually - for simple cases by discussion here, or through conflict resolution.--Stephan Schulz 20:08, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
  • What it comes down to, I think, is whether "coaching" is really a task suitable for administrators. Let's imagine a possible scenario: I'm patrolling recent changes, and come across the Martin Luther King article, which a vandal has blanked and replaced with racist remarks. What would my most reasonable response be? (1) To revert and warn the user, then block if it reoccurs? (2) Or to take the user under my wing, try to find the reason for his hostility toward blacks, and through tender care and love, rehabilitate him into a respnsible citizen? Even if successful, the second option would be an enormous investment in time, which in my case would be better served writing and editing articles. At the very least, to expect "coaching" from admins is asking a lot. Worse still, it could actually make the situation worse, as few admins are trained counsellors or therapists, and few have the qualifications necessary to properly rehabilitate miscreants. What if I did try to coach the imaginary MLK vandal, and botched the job so badly that he went from vandalising wiki pages to burning down black churches? Wouldn't that be partly my own fault? The responsibility of transorming wayward people lies with their own parents, school guidance counsellors, church leaders, etc. It's unfair (to say the least) to expect website admins to do the job. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:35, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Flagrant disregard for discussion and consensus[edit]

The user WikiStylee has practically threatened vandalism to keep his site on an external links list despite ungoing discussions for it's inclusion on the Talk:Spore (video game) page. Especially in the xSpore section, and especially through this edit. If someone can look into this, it would be useful. Thanks Chris M. 20:57, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

This is getting ridiculous. Users from the site xSpore.com have been repeatedly editing the Spore article to add a link to their site, and remove the one to the SporeWiki.com. There is a heated discussion in the talk page, though frankly the only ones supporting their actions seem to be people directly affiliated with xSpore.com, who seem to have it out for SporeWiki. It just hit the stupid point, though:
(From Talk:Spore (video game)): Well maybe you should consider not contradicting yourself before making discussion. Should you continue, we will be more than happy to continue adding our links back. When both sites are treated fairly, then things will be alright. Until then, we will continue with our said actions. And as for the action against our IP addresses, go right ahead as we have access to thousands of ip addresses to make edits from, thank you. So treat all sites fairly and don't contradict yourselves otherwise you will be facing a lot of heat. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by WikiStylee (talk • contribs) .
He's threatening the site with repeat vandalism. That ain't nice, or civil. WikiStylee is directly involved with the xSpore.com website, and has something against SporeWiki.com, as evidenced from the previous discussion. I might go to the RfC with this as well, but I figured I should definately mention it here because of WikiStylee's threats. -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 21:02, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
Just get it added to the spam blacklist. Stifle (talk) 07:43, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
I think the site itself is o-kay and eventually might be worth including, so that is probably too harsh. But if that is the common practice then that's okay. Chris M. 02:05, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Redjax88, vandalism, evading block[edit]

User:172.194.65.210 seems to have taken up where the blocked user User:Redjax888 left off - I think it's him evading the block. He keeps removing a link on Bob Brinker that is critical of Brinker. A short history: another user was adding multiple critical links, all to the same website. I reduced it to just one link for balance and to keep the article neutral. Other user seems fine with that now. Redjax888 was blocked for removing all user comments on the talk page (seven times), but he was also removing anything critical of Brinker on the article page, and he's doing it again with this IP, I think, evading the block. I have no horse in this race - I just happened to be on vandalism patrol and have spent a week trying to keep a balance between two edit warring editors who don't seem to know much about Wikipedia, except that they can edit as often as they want. If User:172.194.65.210 is the same as Redjax88, can IP be blocked? ॐ Priyanath 03:35, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

User:172.194.65.210 has now removed an entirely appropriate opposing view link 9 times in the last 24 hours. Is there any recourse? ॐ Priyanath 16:19, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
It looked pretty clear to me that that was redjax888's ip, so I tagged it as his sockpuppet and blocked it for 24 hours (the length of the block on redjax888. Syrthiss 16:27, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
Thank you! ॐ Priyanath 16:29, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

For the record, someone acting much like Redjax88 is continuing to delete the same material at Bob Brinker. I've reverted and placed warnings at the IP talk pages of User:172.193.217.144 (same IP block as the other sockpuppet of Redjax), and User:168.103.72.5. ॐ Priyanath 04:28, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not for crusades[edit]

There's some weird anti-anti-userbox movement being formed here. For all intents and purposes it looks like a simple vote-stacking campaign designed to disrupt our consensus-seeking processes. I'm not going to deal with it myself because they seem to have singled me out personally as the enemy, but obviously this isn't the kind of thing we need to put up with at Wikipedia. They also have a signature, welcome message, recruitment message, and rejection message (in case you don't get into their little club!). Here's the message he's using on his userpage to advertise this crusade (his words): You have been invited to join Fredil Yupigo's crusade against the mass deletion of userboxes. Click here to add your name to the list. (Created March 16) They also have their own userbox. --Cyde↔Weys 20:12, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

OK. I'm for deleting all of this. We don't do exclusive clubs in wikipedia, and we don't do campaigning groups. Anyone else see yeh? --Doc ask? 20:26, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
Definitely. I saw that earlier and was on the verge of doing something about it and the thing that Cyde mentions below. The latter, especially, is an attack page and should go. Speedy, or MfD? User:Zoe|(talk) 20:47, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
Crusades and votestacking bad. Personally I agree that those pages, as they stand, have no place in this encyclopedia. I'm inclined towards MFD, in order to show that the deletion isn't a unilateral decision. FreplySpang 20:53, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Also check out this little gem: User:Fredil Yupigo/AHH CYDE IS INVADING. It was linked to from a bunch of user talk page spamming that has already begun using this "members list". Here are some diffs: [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] --Cyde↔Weys 20:35, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Geez...Block...simply not here to write an encyclopedia IMO.--MONGO 20:45, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
    • You know, you could slow down the ubx deletions a bit, but just get this little club on MFD. Will (E@) T 21:07, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

I've nominated the page for deletion. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 21:10, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

The problem with trying to delete a vote-stacking group is, well, they're gonna vote-stack to keep it. --Cyde↔Weys 21:17, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

So far they haven't. JohnnyBGood Flag of Mexico.svg t c 21:21, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
I didn't say they were a particularly effective vote-stacking group. --Cyde↔Weys 21:23, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
LMFAO! Cyde you actually made me laugh. Maybe there is hope for progress. JohnnyBGood Flag of Mexico.svg t c 21:24, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
Actually, it appears that they have. See here: [15]. This behavior is and always has been unacceptable. Mackensen (talk) 21:37, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
Emergency! Emergency! JohnnyBGood Flag of Mexico.svg t c 21:42, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
I was unaware of his activities at the time and I regret them, but I still hold that it is a place for information, just like it says. I will talk to him about putting it up for speedy. --mboverload@ 00:20, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Seeing how badly people behave regarding userboxes is making me extremely tempted to rip off my own userboxes in disgust. And I don't even have any opinion-expressing userboxes (well, unless you choose to interpret {{User:UBX/1337-0}} a certain way. I really would have no objection if Jimbo would come along and unilaterally decree that all non-Babel userboxes must be nuked, but of course he won't. --Deathphoenix ʕ 11:56, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Dukakis1988[edit]

[[16]]. User attacks my personal page, removes tags (without hangon). Wondering if I could get assistance in a civility message. Yanksox 23:25, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Inappropriate Personal Attacks by User:ER MD[edit]

On the talk page for Talk:Capital punishment ER MD posted the following;

You are an idiot and you are proving it. Note the differences: My statement: "thousands of murders that have occured in prison and by murderers released from prison" Your characterization: "letting murderers kill other people in prison and then releasing them" Do you not see the difference moron? I am stating that there are TWO different populations. You are saying that they are ONE. Damn, you are dumb. ER MD 00:40, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

I've already asked him several times to stop making personal and snide comments, obviously to no avail. Any assistance would be appreciated. JCO312 00:55, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

I've blocked ER MD (talk · contribs). It looks to me like your own behavior, while less egregious, leaves something to be desired. Tom Harrison Talk 01:04, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

User:Hashbrowns is a sock?[edit]

User:Hashbrowns is a relatively new acct (first edit 22 April 2006), with relatively large wiki experience for such a newbie. User's first edit was a revert. User's homepage is a virtual clone of User:Kingstonjr's porn gallery. I see several instances of WP:BITE and lots of failing WP:AGF in his contributions. His edit summaries also arent exactly following WP:NPA. I'm going to guess this is a sockpuppet based on habits... and a troll based on userpage. Anyone got any idea who this is a sock of?  ALKIVARRadioactive.svg 01:47, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Ask here. Essjay (TalkConnect)</
I was following policy and rule #1: Due to the effort involved, difficulty of interpretation of results and privacy issues raised, checkuser is a last resort for difficult cases. Use other methods first. (emphasis mine) not to mention the fact that you need another acct to compare against (which i cannot give you yet!)  ALKIVARRadioactive.svg 06:47, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
Nope, I can pull the IPs and see who else is using them. We need to know the other account when it is a dynamic IP, and there are 1000 other people on it; otherwise, we can't tell who is who. Essjay (TalkConnect) 09:21, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

User:84.203.172.234 threatens disruption due to linkspam reverts[edit]

Please note the contribution history of 84.203.172.234 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log), in particular the fact that there is almost nothing but adding links to various fora on [17]. I have reverted a great number of these, although not all as other editors have reverted some, too. Then consider this edit to InterBase, which just happens to be the first article listed in the "Articles I originated" section of my user page. The IP appears to be a dial-up, but as I noted there doesn't appear to be anyone else using that address. Worth watching, I think. Thanks for your attention! --Craig Stuntz 01:44, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

See also this edit, posted minutes ago. --Craig Stuntz 01:52, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
Temp-blocked 48 hours for another admin to look into it, as I don't have the time. NSLE (T+C) at 01:54 UTC (2006-05-23)
Maybe you should move this to the bottom of the list so it's in chronological order?--Anchoress 01:56, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
He's back under a new IP. --Craig Stuntz 02:05, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

216.239.38.136 signing as Merecat[edit]

This IP has been going around, signing as User:Merecat who is banned for being a sock. It has been editing in places such as User talk:Tbeatty, which lead me to think it is an impostor or Merecat him/herself. Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 03:45, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

I blocked it for disruption when he reposted his taunt on Kevin Baas's page ([18]). That kind of behavior is completely inappropriate, IMO. Antandrus (talk) 03:51, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

The Middle East Conflict Man indefinitely blocked[edit]

The Middle East Conflict Man (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log)'s is a user who has been indefinitely banned from noWiki and nnWiki. He recently joined here, and began making edits consisting entirely of extremely inflammatory edits to Socialism related articles, connecting socialism with various infamous dictators and regimes - e.g. adding Nazism to our series on Socialism, adding a picture of Saddam Hussein to Socialism, adding heavily POV text about how socialism oppresses the individual, etc. etc. (he also has a complete seeming inability to use the preview button, so digging through his diffs is an annoying process), plus the usual incivility. He was blocked for 3RR on the 21st by Katefan. An obvious sockpupppet apeared, User:Carroteater117, which I blocked indef and extended TMECM's block - another appeared, User:Fooltocry, I again extended the block and warned him that the next sockpuppet would result in an indefinite block - lo and behold, User:Freeway appeared and carried on the same editing pattern.

TMECM claims on his talk page that the sockpuppeteer is someone else. There are numerous edits from a different IP contacting him on his talk page purporting to be from the 'second man', and he has exhorted me/us to lookup the IPs he gives and see that they come from different countries. However, by ruling of Arbcom, "For the purpose of dispute resolution when there is uncertainty whether a party is one user with sockpuppets or several users with similar editing habits they may be treated as one user with sockpuppets." [19] That most definitely applies here (and on a personal level I haven't had any complaints applying it to ZoeCroydon, who also used an open proxy and boasted about how his IPs proved he wasn't a sockpuppeteer). Essjay agrees with me on this and has endorsed my indefinite block. [20]

So, in summary: notorious international troll, edits indicate that he intends to do the same here as he did on the two Norse Wikipedias, obvious sockpuppetry, I consider him to have exhausted this community's patience as he already has two others'. As always, please review. --Sam Blanning(talk) 08:55, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Excellent call. Full support. Would support banning him from all Wikimedia projects. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:14, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
  • I heartily endorse this product or service. He's thumbing his nose at us. --Deathphoenix ʕ 11:42, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
    • Your endorsement gets you a celebrity goody bag of L'Abussivez Rouge Admin makeup ("Because I'm worth it, and everyone else can bite me"). --Sam Blanning(talk) 13:39, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
      • L'Abussivez? I always prefered L'Gopenez. Luigi30 (Taλk) 13:44, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
      • Thank you, now I can use this rouge admin makeup to look more like my hero. --Deathphoenix ʕ 13:53, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Full support. This user has no intentions of helping to build an encyclopedia. Kjetil_r 11:58, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Featured Article Editor being attacked for cleaning out a stub category[edit]

PZFUN (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) recently cleaned out Category:Judaism_stubs, putting many articles that did not meet Wikipedia:Verifiability criteria on Articles for Deletion.

But now people are attacking him left and right and assuming bad faith and whatnot.

Good grief!

Kim Bruning 20:24, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Oh yes, and he got mad and deleted his user and talk pages. Happy joy joy. Kim Bruning 20:30, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
What does being a featured article editor have to do with anything? This gives him/her no more or no less power, authority or credit than any other editor. The fact that PZFUN is on a campaign to remove ONLY articles about one ethnic group is problematic. User:Zoe|(talk) 20:31, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
Try again Zoe. PZFUN was cleaning out stubs. Stubs are divided into sub-catagories these days, and he happened to be working on the judaism stubs catagory. If you had cared to actually check the links, you would have found that the articles nominated on AFD are all precicely in that cat. Kim Bruning 20:42, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
I think he was just lucky he didn't try this in an area people really care about like schools. There is a reason bulk listing for not meeting Wikipedia:Verifiability genraly isn't done (in fact bulk listing is generaly a bad idea for whatever reason when it comes to articles).Geni 20:49, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

(Apologies for my reply above being slightly unfriendly, I'm fairly angry at the moment.) Kim Bruning 20:54, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Zoe, the reason featured article writers are important is because they are involved in the minor&controversial activity of writing a great encyclopedia ;-) We should chase them all away as quickly as possible and rename the site to wikimyspace. :-P Kim Bruning 21:01, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
Maybe someone uninvolved should go through the recent stack of speedy keeps of Jewish this-and-thats and re-nominate the obvious deletion candidates on AfD. It would make all the invocations of "good faith" (PZFUN in nominating them, SlimVirgin in closing the nominations) more credible. Just a suggestion. Dr Zak 21:57, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
Thank you so much for volunteering to do that! :-) Kim Bruning 22:17, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
Nominating major Hasidic Rebbes with random summer camos was something of a faux-pas. Anyone remember Asterix on Corsica, when Asterix and Obelix are in that cave and Obelix mistakes a Corsican chieftain for a boar? ("Never had Corsican chieftain for dinner, and please don't stare at me like that, it gives me a headache!") Per Kim's suggestion I'll go and close all of PZFUN's nominations and will then re-list the non-controversial ones with a suitable note. Dr Zak 22:50, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Re Zoe above - Frankly, I am appalled at how a well-meaning, experienced editor on Wikipedia can be accused of poor faith to the degree that they feel it necessary to leave Wikipedia, when merely carrying out a task that is perfectly legitimate and in pursuit of improving the editorial quality of the articles in question. To accuse PZFUN of a "campaign" is quite wrong; it was merely a case of having "cleaned out" articles from a particular category, that did not otherwise conform to Wikipedia editorial standards such as Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:Cite sources, Wikipedia:No original research, etc. I supported PZFUN in his deletions of the various articles, because I agreed with him about them, and we'd talked about them on IRC. I'm not terribly happy with many of the nominations being speedy delisted especially since some had already received delete votes from other participants. I think Dr Zak is correct in his suggestion above. --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 22:10, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

I am greatly disturbed by the accusations made about me for stub-cleaning. While some have chosen to view such pruning as an attack on their religion, such a conclusion is entirely erroneous. I am not an anti-Semite. My grandfather is a Holocaust survivor, and I have no place in my life for anti-Semitism. That being said, I am greatly disturbed that nominating articles that do not meet any of the current Wikipedia criteria for inclusion as an article, notably notability, verifiability, and referencing has been met with such hostility and anger solely because the articles pertain to Judiasm. As a thank-you for trying to clean up some of the JudaismCruft to be found in [[Category:Judaism stubs]] and other related categories, I have been extremely angrily attacked and had accusations levelled against me that I have either been a Crusader, a POV-pusher, an anti-Semite, etc, all of which are bogus. The only WP:POINT I had to make was that there are a lot articles related to Judaism on Wikipedia that do not meet any critera for inclusion. If that is a POINT made in bad faith, as I have so been accused, then Wikipedia is in a far more unhealthy place than I ever thought possible.

At no point were other users unable to make their views known in a healthy, non-confrontational manner on all of the AfD pages, on my talk page, or anywhere else: had I really wanted to make a POV-push or make a POINT, I would have circumvented community imput and listed them as Speedy candidates or just deleted them myself. Yet I remain deeply disturbed by the lack of regard for one of the few policies that have yet to make an appearance in this debate: Wikipedia:Ownership. Neither Jewish editors nor those involved with the Judaism WikiProject do not own any article nor the right to edit it. If this is the welcome given to anyone who attemps to clean up articles within their scope, then I am not surprised that the article quality remains low throughout.

I am more than happy to apologise for some of the things I did. Yes, perhaps some of the historically rabbis should have had tags applied to their articles before being listed for deletion. But I do not apologise for my attempts to clean out what has become an unhealthy part of the Wiki-verse. Páll (Die pienk olifant) 22:12, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Besides the fact that no one called you an anti-semite, your claim that none of the articles you nominated for an AFD were verifiable is clearly erroneus. Many of the articles had sources, they just weren't on the internet, they were books that were properly cited at the bottom of the article. Even if it was true that they had no references that does not make the subject any less notable, you do not nominate an article that is about the founder of Hasidism for deletion, you request more sources, or possibly a cleanup (although many of the AFDs didn't even need that).- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 22:39, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
I've taken a look at some of the articles that PZFUN nominated and the notion that the AfD nominations were a matter of clearing out a stub category is not upheld by the array of articles that were nominated. For instance, Moshe Zvi of Savran and Eliezer Zusia Portugal (there might be more; I stopped at finding two) were not tagged with the stub template at the time that they were nominated for deletion. User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 22:58, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
They were, however, in Category:Hasidic rebbes, which is I expect where PZFUN looked, browsing from the top level of Category:Judaism downwards. --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 01:50, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
Which makes one wonder why that category was chosen to be the one to be "cleaned out". User:Zoe|(talk) 01:54, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps the user was just interested in those subjects? It seems like there is a lot of jumping to conclusions here.... Yet another lame sig I came up with T | @ | C 01:59, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
I was speaking to the stated assumption that the user was concentrating on clearing a stub category. Evidence does not support that assumption. User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 02:05, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
  • I'll repeat again: this seemingly arbitrary, en mass "reads like an ad" nominations of major Hasidic Rabis was highly questionable, at best. And Nichola Turnbull's equally robotic, "delete as per PZFUN" worked to legitimate these disruptive edits. El_C 04:14, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Though I'm skeptical myself of the notability of summer camps, I think the problem here has been that PZFUN took a "broad brush" approach, determining that there was a group of "problem editors" rather than some articles with problems. Personalization is never a helpful thing here, but I can only think that that was the emotive factor behind the AfDing of so many articles on really obviously encyclopedic Hasidic rebbes, something that I think PZFUN is conceding now was an error in judgement. That said, the "this doesn't smell right" comments were unwarranted; bigotry should be the last motive we ascribe to a fellow editor, reached only after we have exhausted the other much more likely possibilities, e.g. pride, avarice, lust, envy, gluttony, wrath, and sloth.--Pharos 04:58, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
I agree, the only motive that could rationally be applied to PZFUN's actions is gluttony, and possibly a little bit of sloth.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 10:17, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
See, isn't this avenue of criticism much more productive? :)--Pharos 21:03, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

While camps seem clearly dubious, and likely a good find, it far from offsets [On closer look, it appears many of the camps are notable, but this is not the same thing as systematically nominating articles from Category:Sufis or Category:Hindu religious figures, and so on] [T]he insultingly-phrased mass nominations of "really obviously encyclopedic Hasidic rebbes." What PZFUN, Nicholas, and Kim fail to appreciate is the extraeditorial act itself. The talk pages of those articles were not employed and individual attention was not accorded to each entry. Nor were querries placed in other, more central places: the category talk page, the PJ, etc. By entrenching themsleves in their positions, they're setting a bad precedent. El_C 05:08, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

The problem is that this got taken wikiwide, so the best viable option now was to entrench, which is far from my preference. This could have been handled more diplomatically all around from the get-go, I totally agree. I think that that's the take-home message here. Kim Bruning 11:05, 22 May 2006 (UTC) I'm getting too good at managerese :-/
The problem is the entrenchment; it is the lack of introspection. Otherwise, I'd pass it for errors in judgments that can be overlooked. El_C 12:18, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
*blink* I just said that, didn't I? I thought I sorted this out with Slimvirgin and PZFUN on saturday. We even got a third party to recheck and renominate articles that were clearly bad. But people still continue to assume bad faith, even after that point. Even though basically we have the whole thing sorted out. And every time we need to explain. But it is hard to explain, and I'm sort of stuck on what to do about all this. <hmph> Kim Bruning 19:51, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
No, you did not. You said "the best viable option now was to entrench," that's the opposite. El_C 22:06, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
Ok, now you've twisted me around so far even I don't know what happened. And I'm sure I have the logs ;-) Kim Bruning 22:24, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
Anyway, as mentioned elsewhere, in order to demonstrate to you that I am not evil, and am in fact, good, I will be proposing a specific set of reforms to AfD in the near future. This will involve a two-part effort: 1. Better clarifying the guidelines in terms of the minimum steps necessary to file an AfD for single and multiple articles. 2. Better organizational structure. Once we defeat the aggregate nature of AfD, it will become drastically more accessible to outsiders and especially, respective experts. So watch out for my proposal soon. El_C 04:08, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
I think we established that you are not evil yesterday already. ;-) Even so, this is great :-D . Kim Bruning 09:33, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
I for one find it refreshing to see people blowing up over the mass deletion of something other than userboxes. :]
Seriously though, I think we all have particular topics which we care about and there are always going to be a few who go ballistic when their interests are 'attacked' (or looked at funny). One of my favored topics has unimaginable tons of unreferenced cruft that we are slowly trying to sort out and organize into lists and sub-groups and whatnot, and I would certainly be less than pleased if someone came along and nominated huge chunks of the admittedly unencyclopedic/unreferenced/et cetera stuff for deletion before it could be cleaned up. Lacking verifiability, notability, et cetera are reasons to delete individual articles... not entire topics with dozens of articles. There is almost always going to be another option. For instance, these 'Jewish summer camps' might not be notable individually (I really have no idea), but an article listing them and explaining why such camps exist or how they are different from other camps would seem to be more notable... thus a discussion before taking action might have resulted in an amicable agreement to merge some of the articles or efforts to add references and explanations of those which were notable, et cetera. Ditto the rebbes (sp?). Any mass action at odds with the efforts of some group will lead to disruption and anger. Not may, not could... will. Is that 'unfortunate' and 'unneccessary' and 'bad'? Yes... but railing against that which is inevitable (unless we replace all the humans with robots) is equally pointless and 'bad'. Accept that all humans are jerks - it allows you to feel indifference on those occasions when they prove it and surprise and admiration on those occasions when they don't. :]
I look forward to seeing El C's proposal in regards to the 'mass actions' issue. --CBDunkerson 11:55, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
That is a minor aspect of my proposal for AfD reform. Please take the time to review it here. El_C 13:26, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
Just posted a proposal at the Village pump. (First time I post a proposal, please tell me if all is done right!) Read all about it here. Dr Zak 22:16, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Xino[edit]

I have blocked Xino (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log) indefinitely based on this edit [21]. The linked post followed a sustained pattern of disruptive behavior. Fred Bauder 13:47, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

An appropriate block. Looking at his history and general contributions, he depicted a clear pattern of disruption and inability to construct productive edits. Also see this and other stuff. -ZeroTalk 13:51, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
He currently has a WP:RfAr going, actually. You might want to offer to dictate his reply to it on his talk. --Avillia (Avillia me!) 14:28, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
That's not paticularly relevant. He's blocked indefinitely, and Fred has rejected because of that. Please note that the user has neglected to respond to the rfar. He's an obvious indefinite block canidate. -ZeroTalk 18:22, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
Utterly agree with this block—one need only look here. RadioKirk talk to me 14:55, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
Endorse. Extraordinarily difficult editor. · Katefan0 (scribble) 18:40, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
I am just a user. But wouldn't it be better to block a user for say, 6 months, or even 5 years. Indefinitely seems too strong. Wallie 19:42, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
Indefinitely doesn't necessarily mean permanently. · Katefan0 (scribble) 19:45, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
Are you sure? Wallie 20:29, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
"Indefinitely" essentially means, "you've demonstrated that you need to be blocked until you convince the community that your block should be lifted." Indefinite and permanent are not synonymous. RadioKirk talk to me 21:49, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
I think the phrase "until hell freezes over..." comes to mind.Wallie 23:27, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
Like this? :) RadioKirk talk to me 15:09, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Attack page[edit]

Looks like User:Anwar saadat the muslim extremist is aimed at User:Anwar saadat. A indef ban may be appropriate. Tintin (talk) 19:38, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Blocked indefnitely. --Cyde↔Weys 19:54, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. Tintin (talk) 19:56, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

It's worth noting that Anwar Saadat may not be an appropriate username, either—Anwar Sadat is a real and quite famous individual. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 20:05, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
As opposed to GeneralPatton, etc. ? El_C 22:09, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
Well, on the face of it, neither seems appropriate under the username policy. Both would seem to violate "Names of VIPs or well-known historical figures (e.g. Benjamin Franklin; Chuck Norris)". In general, I'd suggest that if you can put square brackets around a user's name and end up in a biographical article, then we're afoul of that provision. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 00:03, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Anwar Saadat's username is fine. His personal attacks, vandalism and POV pushing, however, were not. I'm pretty sure he was blocked over it. SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 22:53, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Please let's not have any further restrictions on user names--there are an awful lot of username blocks as it is. It would be possible to construe that policy in such a way as to indefinitely block me, not to mention our friend Tintin above. Chick Bowen 03:55, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
Indeed. I am afraid that if I ever go for RfA, people will vote against me because my nick is 'copyrighted' as they did in Lord Voldemort's RFA. Even though in the west the name of Anwar Sadat is always linked with the Egyptian President, elsewhere it is a common Muslim name. In this case, it appears to be the editor's real name. Tintin (talk) 14:40, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

My block of TruthSeeker1234 (talk · contribs)[edit]

After repeated warnings about civility, being asked to not refer to other editors content disputes with him as vandalism and his commentary to two editors (myself included) that he is going to "publish" information on editors, I have blocked TruthSeeker1234 for 24 hours after he made comments as shown here, which are actually mild compare to some he has made. There is an arbitration request which details this better.--MONGO 20:22, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Recommend indefinite block. --Cyde↔Weys 20:26, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
  • It's clear to me that he's not here to write an encyclopedia, but to promote his pet theories. I'd be inclined to accept that as the cost of doing business, but his persistent incivility, and his threat to publish an article accusing me of vandalism, make his presense here a net loss for the community. I support the block. Tom Harrison Talk 20:39, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
  • The diff above doesn't IMV support a block. I also can'tin a brief search find threatening comments. He's clearly not here for the right reasons - but can someone provide more evidence? The Land 20:41, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
    • "Clearly not here for the right reasons" supports an indefinite block, actually. --Cyde↔Weys 20:44, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
    • I think if you examine the arbcom request linked above, it may povide more detail. This has been an ongoing event for some time now.--MONGO 20:44, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
      • I've had another look. To me it seems that there are three points:
        • The user is continually engaged in POV-pushing on an article
        • The user refers to other peoples' edits as vandalism
        • The user has made one, not very credible, threat to 'publish' something about someone
      • If I've misunderstood something pelase let me know, but to me that doesn't indicate that he's a threat to anything, just a fairly unproductive user. I am not happy with an indefinite block against him and would urge people like MONGO and Tom harrison not to block him themselves - further action should only be taken by someone who's not party to the dispute. Start an RfC on him? The Land 21:50, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
      • I believe this block is unwarrented. This is part of a battle between several users, some of whom use their admin power to win arguements. This user has been politely argueing his case and has been repeatedly and often agressively shouted down and unnecessarily reverted by Mongo, Tom Harrison and others. Accusations of vandalism have been made all round, not just by truthseeker. I for one have gotten bored of these irrational arguements, but Truthseeker, Mongo and Tom Harrison have all continued. It is unfair for this user to be blocked simply because he disaggrees with an admin. Seabhcán 22:45, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
  • While I believe he probably needs to be blocked, it should come from a third party and not MONGO.--DCAnderson 22:49, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
I think that blocking people who deserve to be blocked for incivility and failure to respect the consensus reached in articles is not a bad thing. I also think that he should be indefinately blocked but considering the AbrCom maybe we can let them decide that. With regards to Seabhcán assertions I must diagree. If you see the user's history of edits, he continously defends users like TruthSeeker because they hold his 9/11 truth point-of-view regardless of what Wikipedia policies they break. This is extremely frustrating. It is not fair that administrators refuse to acknowledge users who break with Wikipedia policy because they share their POVs. I would say that this is reason enough to remove adminship from users.--Jersey Devil 01:08, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
I think a block is a very last resort, but TruthSeeker1234 has thoroughly tested patience here and the incivility is unacceptable. I support the 24 hour block but any longer-term or indefinite block should come from an uninvolved, third party. (not me) Since this has been brought up in ArbCom, I would prefer them to take a look at the situation. --Aude (talk | contribs) 01:19, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
I agree with DCAnderson: Admins should not block people they are currently disputing with, and decisions regarding indefinate blocks for these kinds of reasons need to be left to ArbCom. — Asbestos | Talk (RFC) 21:01, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

King Vegita (talk · contribs)[edit]

I need some advice on this one. Please look at these three edits by King Vegita (talk · contribs) on Aleister_Crowley (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views):

[23] - Adds 17 {{fact}} tags
[24] - calls removeing 15 of 17 tags vandalism.
[25] - reverts again.

To me it seems like at the very least a violation of WP:POINT. What do ya'll think? ---J.S (t|c) 05:27, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

  • I agree; but my judgement is clouded by the difficulty of trying to bring some sanity to what appears to be a disagreement over something everyone agrees about, so someone else probably should gently remind King Vegita of WP:POINT as well as WP:CIVIL, since calling good faith edits vandalism is the epitome of Wiki incivility. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 05:34, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
Oh, it's a flagrant violation of WP:POINT, for the most part. "This means that an individual who opposes the state of a current rule or policy should not attempt to create in Wikipedia itself proof that the rule does not work." I'm making a point, sure, but I'm not showing that any policy doesn't work. In fact, this is an attempt to force the article to improve itself.
I also should point out that WP:POINT clearly states: "This page is considered a guideline on Wikipedia. It illustrates standards of conduct that many editors agree with in principle. Although it may be advisable to follow it, it is not policy." Administrators cannot act against me for violating a guideline, if I were violating it in actuality....... I'm pointing out that there is a clear POV bias.
Now, in the light of Crowley calling other races inferior, and that is cited, they decide that it is necessary for me to cite that he is a racist. Seeing as those statements were the only cited pieces of the article, I decided to go fact by fact and force them to cite it, especially an opinion, unbalanced, and the attempt to cite something with another statement. There were more than 17 facts in that statement, all uncited as per WP:V. I could in all rights, delete everything BUT the prejudice section, but I don't see that as helpful. But if I force them to cite everything, they'll 1) create a reputable article and 2) learn that you cannot be extremely stringent on the applications of WP policy, overriding policy that override even editor consensus according to all three, in the support of one viewpoint..... and then expect extremely lax in the application of it to your own.
I'm making a point about fair application (in which none of the citations I have asked for are even close to being as easily drawn from other citations or as obvious given the facts as what they insisted on another source for)
KV 05:44, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

User is on his third and final reversion for the fact tags. I'd suggest that things are left be right now. If King Vegita reverts again, 24 block for violation of WP:3RR. If he continues after that, more might be merited. --Avillia (Avillia me!) 05:48, 23 May 2006 (UTC)Note: I'm not a Admin.

No, actually I am not. I made the initial change here, which is a beginning, not a revert. My first revert was here, and my second revert was [26] here. I am still entitled to one more reversion, and even if I were to use it now, I could revert three more times tomorrow...... so long as no four are within 24 hours of one another.
And then I notice that there is no worry to enforce WP:V here. That is an overriding policy that cannot be compromised except as per WP:NPOV and WP:NOR which are equal. Even editor consensus cannot be seen as overriding. Those must be cited.
Any edit lacking a source may be removed, but some editors may object if you remove material without giving people a chance to provide references. If you want to request a source for an unsourced statement, a good idea is to move it to the talk page. Alternatively, you may tag the sentence by adding the {{fact}} template, or tag the article by adding {{not verified}} or {{unsourced}}. You could also make the unsourced sentences invisible in the article by adding after it, until reliable sources have been provided.
Be careful not to err too far on the side of not upsetting other editors by leaving unsourced information in articles for too long, or at all in the case of information about living people. Jimmy Wales has said of this: "I can NOT emphasize this enough. There seems to be a terrible bias among some editors that some sort of random speculative 'I heard it somewhere' pseudo information is to be tagged with a 'needs a cite' tag. Wrong. It should be removed, aggressively, unless it can be sourced. This is true of all information, but it is particularly true of negative information about living persons." [1]
I was being more than fair by giving them a chance to provide sources. They cannot simply decide that they don't need to cite but two of seventeen requested facts, and as of yet, they still haven't cited them. Administrators have a duty to make sure that the policies are followed, and yet I see threats laid against me of a 24 hour ban, if I take my third revert, which I am absolutely allowed.
KV 05:59, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
Err..... sorry, I was thinking Avilla was an admin...... that was probably the original edit conflict, her saying that.
KV 06:05, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
Stop causing edit conflicts, dammit. WP:POINT in-and-of-itself isn't a blockable offense; However by the definition of the rule, if you've managed to break it you managed to crack another egg along the way. I'd also note that in this case, the addition would probably be considered a reversion. If you get blocked, you get blocked. It's 24 hours; The world won't change in that time. Furthermore, 24 hours isn't a fixed limit... I think the highest we've had is 4 reverts in 32[citation needed] hours resulting in a ban. Aside from that, adding a fact citation to each word isn't generally liked; You are usually expected to slap one at the end of a disputed sentence(s) or paragraph. Try getting a third opinion, maybe a friend from WP:MEDCAB.--Avillia (Avillia me!) 06:06, 23 May 2006 (UTC) Also, I'm a he dammit!
No, it isn't a revert. I asked for citations, that isn't a revert. "The burden of evidence lies with the editors who have made an edit or wish an edit to remain. Editors should therefore provide references." as per WP:V. Then, WP:Revert explains "To revert is to undo all changes made after a certain time in the past. The result will be that the page becomes identical to how it used to be at some previous time. A partial revert undoes only some of those changes." I did not undo anything, I added demands for citations. When I had a series of citations to make, word after word, I did it, properly. "Crowley made racist statements against the Chinese, specifically the lower classes[14], the Indians[15], the Italians[16], and the Jews[17]."
If they decide to put that many facts in a row, then they run that risk. Everything must be cited, and the policies must be applied in an NPOV manner, not in the favor of the Crowleyites.
KV 06:14, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
1 tag makes the point just as well as 9 for one sentence. The way that it is typically done is to mark the end of the sentence and then start a conversation to the talk page. Instead, you decided wp:civil, wp:point, wp:van, wp:3rr were just annoyances to be ignored when you want them to be.
Oh my god, this has to be one of the most retarded conflicts I've ever been in. I'm arguing against someone I completely agree with. YES, ALL THOSE CLAIMS NEED CITATIONS! WE GET IT! Not only do we get it, we ALL agree with you! You keep trying to make the case it needs to be cited... and wow! You win! Your right! It does need to be cited! But, 17 bloody tags is inappropriate! It completely disrupts the article. 3 or 4 tags is fine. I'd even be fine with a tag a sentence. If 17 different citations is needed for the first paragraph, then fine. But 17 tags aren't needed to get the point acrost that citations are needed. Can I say this in any other way? Shall I try French? err... never mind, I don't actually know French. You may not belive this, but this weekend when I was reviewing the article I was planning on actualy going to the bookstore and buying a biliography so I can fill in some of the citations, but if I need work under these combative conditions, I'm not so sure I want to do that. ---J.S (t|c) 07:27, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Just to add to the above — King Vegita added 36 {{fact}} tags to the Christianity article on 15 March.[27] I tried, politely and gently, to tell him that we don't need citation tags for things like Christians believe Jesus in the Messiah, or Chritians believe in heaven and hell, or Catholics also believe in purgatory. I did not call his edit vandalism, but said that if it had been made by an anon, it would possibly, though unfairly, have been called vandalism.[28] (I'm sure we've all seen cases of eccentric edits being labelled as vandalism.) He then went to the talk page of Trollwatcher (an editor who has been banned indefinitely for his part in contributing to and promoting a website that attacked Christian editors and gave personal information about them, which had led to stalking) and asked that my reverting of the fact tags and calling it vandalism would be reported to that website.[29] In fairness to King Vegita, the website at that time did not yet give personal details about the editors. He has also, made what seemed to be a WP:POINT by removing things from the article when something he wanted met with opposition. It's discussed here. I don't think his edits are in bad faith, though his support for the stalking website raises questions, but he seems not to understand policy properly — expecting me to block an editor for seven reverts when four of them were reverts of vandalism, and questioning the block of an obvious sockpuppet, which was reported by the blocking admin (myself) and upheld by others. AnnH 12:00, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

If I found 17 cite tags added by an anon, I'd revert it as vandalism on the spot. Adding all those tags was disruptive, and was clearly meant to be. That was his point. I also dislike this counting of reverts, as if someone could say "No, that was two, not three, so I get 2 more before 10:30, then I get another until 2:15 when it resets." My answer to that would be, "No, you get a block right now for edit warring and disruption, with an oakleaf cluster for wikilawyering." Tom Harrison Talk 12:58, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
Sigh, I have two administrators who I have disagreed with, who are included in a mediation project, but haven't made any appearance either trying to argue that I am a bad editor. Hearing JS say that he understood that a citation would be needed in all those places eventually was all I actually needed to hear. WP:POINT is saying that I'm trying to prove a rule does not work...... which in neither case is applicable. In this case, I was trying to prove that there was a bias in how the rules were applied, not that the rules shouldn't exist. Technically you DO have to verify all of that, I have done so in other articles I have made and worked on. My additions are always full of citations, so I am certainly not saying that WP:V does not work. In the addition of the tags on Christianity, that was after having mentioned that I planned on doing that, 3 days prior, and having no reply on an active talk page. Nothing was cited, and I had been arguing for weeks prior that that way to solve the conflicts was to verify it. Both cases are the opposite of WP:POINT, though someone not looking into it would think that just that I was pointing something out, that I was violating it.
KV 18:28, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

So far as I know, I have had no dealings with King Vegita. I have warned him on his Talk page that he is being disruptive, and he can be blocked for disruption. If he continues his behavior, I will block him. User:Zoe|(talk) 19:46, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

I would like to have it explained exactly HOW it is disruptive. WP:DISRUPT does not suggest that at all. As much as that might apply, the others would be in violation of WP:OWN, removing NPOV tags, and removing requests for facts to be cited. WP:V states "Articles should cite these sources whenever possible. Any unsourced material may be challenged and removed." I am challenging the contents, as they are not verified, in an attempt to improve the article quality. I know that most of it will be verified shortly, and that which cannot can then be removed, if it seems untrue, otherwise we have it noted that it is not cited. That increases Wikipedia's credibility. Yes, it wasn't the easiest to read, and when I hear JS state that he recognizes that each of those facts still have to be cited, I won't feel the need to add as many fact tags. But that should have been fixed within 24 hours as those are all basic facts which made it into the introduction. In the end, the article, and in a slight way Wikipedia as a whole, would be much better off. WP:DISRUPT also applies to policies, whereas I'm not disagreeing with any policy, a review of my contributions will show that I have gone out of my way to include heavy citation whether or not I am being challenged. I have gone out of my way to cite opponents' views as well. So please, give some reasoning.
KV 22:49, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
I've been active in the discussion on the Crowley talk page, and am not an Admin. I think this would have been avoided if you would have challenged it on the talk page first KV, like these people are saying. You disrupted the article in order to make a "point" that more citations were needed, where as, a fact tag after a sentence would have made the page easier to read. This however was not addressed in the talk page prior to demontrating this, and NPOV tags were removed as well because it appeared you were trying yet again to prove a point. The problem is, this needs to be discussed first, and then resolved. I learned this when I added fact tags to the page, and was corrected. I hope this helps in answering some of your questions. Zos 23:01, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
I did bring it up on the talk page. And I did not disrupt the article, in my opinion. I made the first step in a movement of drastic article improvement in the way of verifiability. If I were trying to disrupt the article, I would have riddled the entire page at once with such tags. I, however, did not. It was not disrupting, it was proving a point as per Wikipedia policy suggests "If you want to request a source for an unsourced statement, a good idea is to move it to the talk page. Alternatively, you may tag the sentence by adding the {{fact}} template, or tag the article by adding {{not verified}} or {{unsourced}}. " I could have taken this to a much larger extreme, which would be the case if I were trying to disrupt. The guidelines don't even require that to be true, as I was not trying to prove that any policy did not work. And NPOV tags, everyone knew what my objections were, I had voiced them constantly on the talk page. It is not disrupting, and it cannot be done to "prove" a point, but rather to make one.... and the tag cannot be used if one isn't trying to make the point that the article is biased.
KV 23:19, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

I'd also like to point out the hypocracy of jpgordon accusing me of an infraction of WP:CIVIL. In a recent edit made he has been outright uncivil. [30]. I considered the removal of requests for information to be vandalism, but here he makes the outright comment: "rv weaselization. His words that are racist now were also racist then. This doesn't improve the article; it just makes it sound sloppy.)".

KV 23:33, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Kv, if you check, you'll see that this was a comment made about user:999's revision, and not your own. Zos 23:48, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
Use only one : per layer, so it stays readable please. Now, I know who the comment was made about, but it still is a violation of the policy he accused me of violating. Moral: People who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.
KV 23:58, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
KV, I apologize for my wording. What I meant was: You did not discuss the matter of citations in the Introduction to the Aleister Crowley page prior to using as many fact tags as you did (Here at 19:37, May 22, 2006 Here at 19:43, 22 May 2006 (UTC) ). This could have been brought up before hand, and discussed rather than how it was handled. I'm more than willing to discuss each and every issue you wish to address. Zos 00:36, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
I had brought it up less directly, but the issue here is administrative action against me. I have been accused of being "disruptive" in violation of WP:DISRUPT, which is what I am refuting. "Not perfect" and "in violation of WP:DISRUPT" are two different things.
KV 00:44, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Also, AnnH has made accusations that I had added 36 fact tags to the Christianity article and she tried to tell me nicely that they're not needed. Not only have I found that that is not the stance of WP:V, but I felt it necessary to include exactly what she said:

King Vegita, we don't need citations for things like saying that Christians believe that Jesus of Nazareth is the Messiah, or that they believe in heaven and hell, or that Catholics also believe in purgatory. The [citation needed] template is not meant to be used for things like that; it's never used that way in other articles, and actually looks slightly bizarre. If that edit had come from an anon, it would possibly (though unfairly) have been reverted as vandalism. Have a look at other articles that use that tag, and try to get a feel for when it's appropriate. AnnH ♫ 13:03, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

It is at the bottom of the page at [31].

She did not actually explain source to a policy or guideline that applied to her statements, and I am still convinced they have no basis in Wikipedia policy. My edits, however, did.

KV 01:12, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Wushu[edit]

user Llort continues to revert my edit to Wushu. He has asked for evidence, i have obliged. Yet he continues to revert on the grounds that he does not feel it is relevant, which i contest and i have reinforced through my representation of the gpforums as being very very large. I have tried to enter into dialogue about why he continues to revert it, but all he does is play on my anger when i revert the article back by complaining and getting me banned for an understandable reason, but the grounds are unclear. Can someone please warn him not to revert unless he has given proper reasoning as to why he has done so? Cheers. --Subwaynz 11:45, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

They are absolutely right to be reverting your edit. You're trying to add a section on the Wushu disambiguation page on Wushu : a frequent poster who claimed at times to be in the posession of a Toyota Supra, which was later discredited and unsubstantiated. More recently wushu, under various aliases (such as japanese_girls) has spammed GPforums with copious amounts of softcore japanese pornorgaphy under the pretences that they were somewhat hot, thus he has gained a cult status and is a very famous member of gpforums. The fact that no less than 3 different people have reverted this, and that there IS an explanation for this on Talk:Wushu asking you very politely to stop doing this, should have clued you in to the fact that a troll on a forum (that doesn't warrant its own article) is not encyclopaedic. You are now disrupting Wikipedia. Please do not add the section again, or you will be blocked. I'm going to copy this to your talk page. Proto||type 12:02, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
Even as I generally look with great disfavor on indefinite blocks, I certainly can conceive of a situation in which Subwaynz might exhaust the community's patience and merit such a block. His/her account was ostensibly created in order that he might continue making edits to Wushu, having been reverted whilst editing anonymously (this proposition, raised on his/her talk page, seems undisputed), and his/her contributions are only to the Wushu article, the concomitant talk page, and the talk pages of users with whom he/she has quarreled over the Wushu page. I certainly believe the user to be acting in good faith, but his/her recalcitrance seems to suggest either that he/she is incapable of appreciating our verifiability and notability guidelines or that he/she, comprehending them, simply flouts them; neither scenario is particularly comforting. One always hopes that users such as this will comport themselves with policy, in order that they might contribute effectively, but surely this account should be watched closely, as it shows signs of having been created for disruptive purposes (or, at the very least, of being wholly, if avolitionally, disruptive in practice). Joe 17:04, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

J.Smith (talk · contribs)[edit]

Hello, i am an anonymous role account of another wikipedian, my password is swordfish. please inspect my account to confirm that i am a benign role account and am not hiding anything malicious--J.Smith 13:43, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Sockpuppets themselves are not prohibited. It's using them for malicious purposes that is. I'd recommend changing your password, too. Luigi30 (Taλk) 13:45, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Account indefinitely blocked until user changes password and contacts me. Role accounts are not prohibited, but public accounts certainly are. We don't need a password to check your contributions. Syrthiss 13:57, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Hi, whoever changed my password, could you please change it back to swordfish, thank you--J.Smith2 14:00, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
And hence we see the problem. Syrthiss 14:02, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
The fact that J.Smith decided to post this notice in about 15 places causes me difficulty when trying to assume good faith. Please do not create another J.Smith account. The Land 14:07, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
And I've taken the liberty of changing the password on the second account. If the user wants the new password, e-mail me. Otherwise, go away. --Calton | Talk 14:06, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
And then User:Johnny Smith 2 materialises and starts vandalising this page. what a surprise. The Land 14:23, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
I have a problem with this account. It is too similar to my account: J.smith (talk · contribs). ---J.S (t|c) 16:18, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

uh[edit]

What is that how is it that sometimes one RU can create another RU?--205.188.116.65 14:54, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

If you create another account while you are logged in, that's how it shows up. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 14:56, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

BACKIsayBACK[edit]

BACKIsayBACK (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log). New phenomenon, or a sock of somebody? I've blocked him anyway. --GraemeL (talk) 15:24, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Ball of wax vandal. I am marking him as such. - Mike Rosoft 18:47, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
    • In fact I didn't have to, he did it himself. - Mike Rosoft 18:49, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

My blocks[edit]

Mike Rosoft 19:54, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
61.95.199.116 is not currently an open proxy. Naconkantari 22:46, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

User:Cool Cat's disruption of Kurdish categorization efforts[edit]

Minutes after I add Category:Kurdish inhabited region to a half dozen articles [32] [33] [34] [35] [36] [37], User:Cool Cat nominates the category for deletion.

This is confusing, because Cool Cat contacted me via IRC to get me to create just such a category. Unless I'm misrembering (I _am_ getting old, you know ;-) this. --Uncle Ed 15:04, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
Really? It seems that his objection is not in the category's existence but in its use. Thanks! --Moby 09:45, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 May 8#Category:Kurdish inhabited region

User:Cool Cat has a history of #POV editing, and has been enjoined from disruptively editing articles relating to Turkey or the Kurds.

He has vociferously sought the deletion of all categories related to Kurds:

Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 January 17#Category:Kurdistan
Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 March 3#Category:Kurdistan

plus the current votes:

Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 April 30#Category:Kurdish provinces
Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 May 6#Category:Kurdish cities

During the second CFD for Category:Kurdistan he stated: I dont care about this vote at all. I have no reason to keep nonsense like this on wikipedia, I will eventualy get it deleted, watch me.

Category:Kurdish inhabited region was created by User:Ed Poor as part of discussion on Category talk:Kurdistan where User:Cool Cat has been adamantly opposed to all efforts to establish consensus on usage of this category. User:Francs2000, whom User:Cool Cat asked to comment, ended up telling him that you need to change your attitude.

I agree, he needs to change his attitude. --Moby 10:56, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

I do agree entirely with Moby's summary. Cool Cat's disruptions do it hard to write articles about anythings related to Kurds. And it is indeed not an extenuating circumstance that user themselve stated, as quoted above, that they intended to sabotage the Category:Kurdistan, as it during the debate for its deletion was clear that it would stay. I hope some action will be taken, since the alternative seems to be continuing of disruptive edit wars. Bertilvidet 13:27, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for your comment! --Moby 09:45, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
The ArbCom verdict which you've posted above says that he should be blocked for up to 3 days if he engages edits disruptively in Kurdish related areas. We've got several people saying he has done so, therefore I block 2 days. -lethe talk + 13:58, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
Thank you. --Moby 09:45, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
Just to clarify my position here, Cool Cat invited me into the discussion claiming that he was having POV issues with Kurdistan related articles, implying that he had received death threats from other users as a result of the discussion getting heated (see here). I got involved and made some progress with the other users in getting some agreement over the inclusion of Category:Kurdistan in articles, and this I believe has led to some of the sub-categories such as those listed above being created. I have since stepped back a bit due largely to real life events. I will say that although Cool Cat had some valid points in his arguements against the inclusion of material in articles about the disputed region, the way he went about making his point was unnecessarily aggressive, in my opinion. I also stand by telling him that he needs to change his opinion, after he stated (and I paraphrase) that he would be unable to negotiate a consensus on certain subject areas. -- Francs2000 14:10, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
It appears to me that the comments you're referring to as death threats were targeting you (for reasons I have no clue about) and had nothing to do with User:Cool Cat or anyone else involved in the Kurdish categorization discussions; I certainly made no such threats. And thanks for your comment! --Moby 09:45, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

I've had enough of this. As Cool Cat's mentor I'm banning him from editing articles, templates and categories related to the kurds. He may still edit related discussion pages. This ban is initially to run for one week, to be made permanent subject to the agreement of the other two mentors. --Tony Sidaway 05:01, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

The ban includes creation or nomination for deletion. See the announcement on WP:AN. --Tony Sidaway 05:24, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
Thank you, too! --Moby 09:45, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
  • If this is to be kept it should be called Kurdish inhabited regions as per the naming policy to use plurals in categories. How long was this ban on Kurdish related articles for Coolcat? (Mgm - not logged in) - 131.211.210.16 07:30, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
Use of plural makes sense to me, I'll suggest it on the CFD. Thanks! --Moby 09:45, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Here's a copy of a message I posted to Tony Sidaway:
While I agree, the best way for Coolcat to stay out of trouble is to edit other articles, I think he made a valid point when he nominated this particular category for deletion. And now people are voting keep based on his involvement rather than the merits or demerits of the category itself (which is in my opinion even more disruptive -- bad, bad!). The thing is the category is vague. Should London be considered a Kurdish inhabited region? And what kind of precedent will it set? American inhabited region, German inhabited region, French inhabited region?
I think Coolcat was right to nominate such a vague category and I don't think banning him for it is the right thing to do. If someone else had nominated it, this whole thing wouldn't have happened. - Mgm|(talk) 10:42, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
The nomination of Category:Kurdish inhabited region was the action that prompted me to start this discussion here, but the disruption has been on-going on pages such as Category talk:Kurdistan and Talk:Batman, Turkey for some time. He has removed Category:Kurdistan from many article (awhile ago...) and has been rather clear about his intent to oppose all efforts at categorizing Kurdish articles. Given his history, I would think a ban on Kurdish-related editing an apt remedy. An hour ago I left a note on his talk page and he screamed at me. I don't see him as willing to work with others on this subject. --Moby 10:52, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
As mentors I see it as our main jobs to keep Cool_Cat (talk · contribs) editing effectively and to avoid another rendezvous with the arbitration committee. As always, it is not Cool Cat's judgement on content that is in question but the way in which he interacts with others on some subjects. Yesterday he was blocked for forty-eight hours by Lethe (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) as a result of the complaint by Moby_Dick (talk · contribs). In Lethe's view, Cool Cat has edited disruptively on the subject of the Kurds so arbitration remedy 5 is invoked.
This isn't the first time since the arbitration that we've had trouble with Cool Cat over Kurds. From early March he has made some unconstructive AfDs:
and some unconstructive comments on others:
There is an ongoing concern, and I think a valid one, that Cool Cat permits his edits on such issues to be influenced too strongly by his sympathies with Turkish nationalism. He repeatedly attempts to promote the removal of categories, templates and content related to an ethnicity that, while not having a single national entity of its own, is significant enough to be treated seriously by an encyclopedia.
Editors who complain about his activities and his attitude thus have a solid basis upon which to do so.
It is for this reason that I announced the one-week ban.
However, User:MacGyverMagic is also one of Cool Cat's mentors, and although in this case I have acted alone I do not intend to take actions with which any of my fellow mentors disagree.
In view of MacGyverMagic's opposition, I rescind the ban pending further discussion. --Tony Sidaway 15:13, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for documenting these other activities; the scope of the issue is greater than I was aware (and I now understand the restaurant references).
While I disagree with User:Cool Cat's judgment on many of the Kurd-issues here, it is his attitude that is most troublesome. In his response below I see no sign that he sees any validity to the objections others have raised -- he appears to be simply digging in his heels. If no action is taken on this issue, what's to stop him from continuing to obstruct efforts involving Kurds in the future? Presumably this whole incident will have been noted by a variety of people, but I don't expect many to involve themselves in the issue (which I would welcome).
I understand that banning someone is a serious step and should not be taken lightly. I will avoid editing any of the Kurd articles and categories against consensus. If a clear direction on an appropriate course to take on Kurdish categorization comes out of this whole dispute I'll be pleased. --Moby 09:31, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Disruption of Batman, Turkey[edit]

A review of the editing on Batman, Turkey (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) over the last two months will reveal that User:Cool Cat has edit warred and generally disrupted all efforts by a number of editors, including myself. He has repeatedly removed categories related to Kurds, and sources and statements about Kurds, and he has been joined by anons that make the same redactions that he does. At the moment the article is protected due to an edit war (that I was not involved in) over the addition of a paragraph about the killing of a Kurdish child by Turkish Security Forces (I did add the paragraph and a source). While it was anons that edit warred with various users, it was User:Cool Cat that argued on the talk page against the inclusion of the paragraph . --Moby 10:18, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

And you have declared the place predominantly kurdish when neither a census nor any other reliable source to base this on is avalible. You have also declared many other cities predominatly kurdish.
My 'disruption' is explaining that a census was not held even though the BBC claims the place is predominantly kuridsh (in a random news coverage)
--Cat out 17:53, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
Also regarding that incident, if I recall correctly davenbelle had it on his userpage... Something about a "bullet riddled child". Admins can check the delet history. --Cat out 23:11, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
Furthermore, I think adding a cunk of 'sensative information' irrelevant to the topic covered is most certainly not in the best interest of wikipedia. It only leads to a revert war as we can observe. --Cat out 23:27, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
You must be recalling some other "bullet riddled child" -- Fatih Tekin was killed recently.
According to the EU-Turkey Civic Commission Submission on Recent Violence, on March 30, 2006, Fatih Tekin, a 3 year old boy, was shot and killed by Turkish Security forces during a police raid on a civilian house in Batman during a series of violent clashes in the Kurdish regions of Turkey.EU-Turkey Civic Commission Submission on Recent Violence on khrp.org
--Moby 06:33, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
Has to be a coincidence... Now what did I say about coincidences...
How does this "bullet riddled child" expand the article? How does it give the reader a better understanding of the city? As unfortunate and tragic the boys death is, wikipedia is not a memorial and the incident has no significance to the city to be on the article. It might have been an interesting wikinews article, though I am not even certain of that. It is equaly irrelevant to talk about that kurdish boy pkk shot and killed or that teacher that died due to a heart attack.
Recently two little girls were abducted, raped, and murdered in texas (IIRC). No referance to the incident is made in the article about the region as it shouldn't.
--Cat out 08:16, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Cool Cat's response to all of this[edit]

It is quite pathetic when one has to defend himself to his mentor... I'll list the articles, categories, and templates I have placed for deletion below. I am going to include ones Tony Sidaway did not include as well.

I'd like to point out the reason why we do not do polls for deletion. All deletion processes are a concensus gathering process. However on occasions disruptive behaviour such as Vote Stacking do happen.

Hence I will explain all of the deletion votes I started or participated. I will try to be brief for all of them.

  • Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kingdom of Kurdistan
    • Article was originaly talking about two countries that have supposively existed. One only lasted 2 years while another lasted less than 6 months. The article(s) barely occupy a paragraph and had two sections I believe.
    • Article at a point was comparing the british goverment with saddam as "the british goverment gassed the kurds".
    • I was in contact with Tony on IRC about this deletion, I do not recall the details but he did not say or imply such a deletion would be disruptive.
    • During the vfd the articles quality was improved sligtly
    • Perhaps article is much suitable to be a section on an article with the title "Modern History of the Kurds" as article cant grow much even when inflated with lists of cabinate members.
  • Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mykonos (restaurant)
    • When I placed this article up for deleteion it was talking about an insignificant restourant which two kurds supposively had been shot. At the time the article barely could be considered a stub. After the deletion article was slightly inproved and renamed. It became a historicaly significant incident and hence became article worthy as an incident rather than info about the restourant.
    • I discussed the possible afd of this article with Tony Sidaway on IRC and he said it was pretty useless and that he said it wouldnt probably survive a deletion.
    • The result of my Afd is a better article with a better title.
    • This article should be a section at "Modern history of the Kurds" as article is too short and cant grow as the incident was quite minor and all details have been presented.
  • Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Turkish Kurdistan
    • Other editors, one being Gruntness feels this article exists soely as a pov fork. Syrian Kurdistan was deleted for that reason
    • There was a case of vote stacking over 14 people were notified of this afd of which all but one voted favorably to the advertisier (user:Bertilvidet) with keep. My complaint about a vote stacking generated milimal response and no action.
    • Article currently gives a short intoduction to kurdish history which is a copy of History of the Kurds and a number of articles. Kurdistan is not oversized and we do have a Kurds in Turkey if we are to talk about the kurds. We can talk about Kurdish nationalism in its own article.
    • If we had a sensable deletion process this article would have been deleted. If you think otherwise please provide a rationale at what purpose does this article with pov titile, Turkish Kurdistan, serve that cant be achieved through Kurds in Turkey and Kurdish nationalism.
  • Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Genetic origins of the Kurds
    • It is a strange article. I believe this article is nothing but pusedo science and promotes racisim. When I nominated this article for deleteion there was a VERY LARGE dna picture and it was less than neutral. it might be a nice addition to a section under Kurdish people. BUT etnicity is a cultural concept not genetic. Genetic would be race and last time I checked Kurds were just an ethnic minority.
  • Category:Kurdish terrorists
    • I got this category speedy deleted.
    • I personaly believe Abdullah Ocalan is a Kurdish terrorist. Hence my nomination is in conflict with my personal views.
  • Category:PKK victims
    • I got this category speedy deleted.
    • I personaly believe PKK is a Terrorist organisation and anybody they killed is a victim. Hence my nomination is in conflict with my personal views.
  • Template:Kurd-politician-stub (vote)
    • I participated in this vote expressing why the stub category is pov. Stub types have very explicit guidelines.
    • I'd like to point out comments of some of the people voting keep... They are by far intruguing
    • I have not initiated this deletion
    • The "unless we consider kurdish a nationality and kurdistan a country which would be pov not shared by international treaties" comment tony highlighted is in parallel with stub guidelines.
      • While a Category:Kurdish politicians may be approporate. I would however prefer a categorisation similar to the format politicians in United States is covered such as Category:African American politicians. Tagging a Kurd in Iraq and Turkey under the same category would be problematic and confusing. However I do not intend to do anything about it as my block is proof wikipedia is not worth my devotion anymore.
  • Template:Kurdistan-politician-stub
    • Speedy deleted as per vote mentioned above.
    • User:Retau created this
  • Template:Kurdistan-bio-stub (vote)
    • Probably will be deleted as a back log as per stub sorting practice.
    • User:Retau created this
  • Category:Kurdish provinces (vote) and Category:Kurdish cities (vote)
    • We do not categorise provinces, cities, or other landmarks based on ethnicity. I do not see why kurds are treated diferently from rest of wikipedia.
    • If demographic information about an ethnicity is avalible it can be presented in an article.
    • Who determines which article fits in these category or not? Kurdistan does not have defined borders nor are there any reliable data on Kurdish population.
    • Categories are navigation aids. The basis of such categories for provinces and cities is based on "who owns the place". Categories are not tools for territory grab. We do not tag every province and city in mainland china under Category:Taiwan just because the goverment claims it. Kurds do not even have a country to claim territory from.
    • User:Retau created both of the categories
    • See User:El_C's comment about User:Retau on the next section.
  • Category:Kurdish inhabited region (vote)
    • Originaly intended to be a comprimise to Category:Kurdistan. I requested its creation from user:Ed Poor via email and/or irc.
    • I later changed my mind as categorising based on ethnicity still is a poor practice. No example of ethnic tagging exists in articles like New York or California.
    • It is more problematic as we do not have any reliable statistics regarding the Kurds. We do not know how many kurds there are let alone know what fraction of the population they occupy as no census about ethnicity was EVER held in the past 7 decades at least to my knowlege.
  • Categories I haven't touched nor intend to touch Category:Kurdish people, Category:History of the Kurds, Category:Kurdish musicians, Category:Kurdish politicians, Category:Kurdish writers,... List goes on I am well aware of many other categories, articles, and templates related to the kurds. So I am definaltly not trying to delete everything related to kurds at random.
  • My actions are infact reactions to mass creation of many contraversial categories all only exist soley to grab territory. I also raise concerns about tiny articles that have no way of growing. None of my actions have "distupted" the articles in question unless you consider improvement as disruption.
--Cat out 17:24, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
On at least one matter of fact I must correct Cool Cat. He and I discussed the article Mykonos (restaurant) and I edited to add a reference from a Time article. I told him at 2007 UTC on March 1, 2006, that, as with all deletion candidates I edit, "I don't think it stands a snowball's chance in hell of being deleted." I had told him at 2000, "the case is obviously notable. It led to an international incident" -Tony Sidaway 20:36, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
I actualy interprted that as the article has a chance to survive as much as a snowball in hell. In any case my nomination was for a non-notable restourant. Overal the nomination improved the article, not disrupt. For instance it was renamed as it was not about this random restourant. --Cat out 16:03, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
Yes, I can see in retrospect that my wording was unclear. I can see how this unintentionally misled you on the subject. --Tony Sidaway 12:44, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
No harm done, I do however owe you an apology for misinterpreting your words. I can also finaly understand why you kinda acted wierdly (from my perspective) at the time. Having said that, I am curious on what you think of the evidence I presented below? --Cat out 22:42, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
Curiously, User:Cool Cat has responded here while blocked [38][39]. His post is interesting in that he has basically documented more of the disruptive behavior that I have objected to and for this I thank him. --Moby 09:28, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
Comment: I would just like to say that I support Cool Cat on this matter. The Kurdish categories were deleted before by nominations because of the vagueness of the borders of the proposed "Kurdistan" region - which had lead to edit wars in the past, they were created again by the User:Retau (Who may be a sockpuppet of User:Xebat according to CheckUser [40] - who was banned recently for a year according to the Aucaman ArbCom [41]). I believe User:Moby Dick has turned this simple matter to something very personal which I regret to say that will not help the matter. -- - K a s h Talk | email 15:28, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
I've little opinion of the conjecture of a reincarnated Davenbelle, but there is a qualm in this editor's behavior. As per the above edvidence, this editor's initial confrontation with me conflicted over a userpage misunderstanding. This is a archived discussion on my talkpage which can be found here. After the I refuted the accusation, said editor took to being my shadow, which I noted after a number of appearences in locations across the encyclopedia which were in direct contact to my usertalk page (he has it consistently watchlisted you see). I made a final verification of this after he made a spell check on my talkpage, confirming he sees almost every comment posted there. [42] This has been prevelant ever since the allegation on AN/I, but I never gave it much heed and it didn't bother me, so I let it alone. There were no subsequent direct confrontations after this incident, so I assumed good faith, and didn't have a valid complaint anyway, since, despite his occasional trolling, Moby makes excellent contributions to article space, not to mention ground-breaking work. [43] Proceeding that incident, I took his talkpage off my watchlist and went about other things. I soon forgot the subject and the user, and made the presumption he had as well.
During some article expansion, I ran into two disruptive editors (BIG (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log) and 70.231.130.128 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log)) on Talk:Colonel (Mega Man) and Ridge Racer during which said editors introduced/removed content from article space without any sources and any factually correct rebuttals. I made many reverts, for which I was subsquently blocked for [44], but respected due to the fact one must accept the consequences of his actions regarding the violation, despite the fact I was correct. I questioned the point of the blocks due to the fact, neither admistrator had taken the discussion on the talkpages into account and how each of the blocks were issued large timeframes after said violation (The first block occured 24 hours after the edit war was nullified and the page protected; the second several hours later, and after I had reverted myself to reach an comprimise). This incited a more active response from the editor, who had merely been watching my talkpage and contributions to this point. Druing the timeframe of my second block, He posted a note [45] on William's talkpage (Another one of my elaborate plans to take the wiki by storm) concerning an established contributor engaging in vandalism. I had extreme difficulty believing this post when I first saw it. I posted a reply rearding this shortly afterward [46] detailing my surprise at this bad-faith attempt to descend me into scurtuniy. William percieved this as a personal attack and threatened to block me shortly afterwards [47]. It certainly wasns't intended as a personal attack, but I removed the comment as I don't believe personal attacks accepteble on anyone. I complied and altered my comment as I deemed necessary [[48], after which William decided to block me anyway for being insolent. Not too much of a problem, since it was bedtime anyway.
The editor in question persisted. After a clearly confused william asked how it was relevant, Moby replied I circumvented my block and I was still up to something [49] (I was still plotting my master scheme, you know) and that I should still be punished. Now expasperated, I made another note on the talkpage and explained the situation in full. [50] which defused the matter. Around the ensuing timeframe, he proceeded to conflict in the Kurd-nonsense with Cool Cat, who was subsquently blocked. I'm aware that Cool Cat has a aggressive viewpoint on this subject and has encountered much opposition on this before, so I didn't comment on the matter, although it was quite obvious to the informed Moby didn't report the rfar violation in good faith. I took note of this after seeing his replies to various editors on subject on WP:AN/I, which gave me great cause for concern on his intent:
Revision as of 09:45, May 9, 2006 - "Thanks for you comment!"
Revision as of 09:28, May 10, 2006 - "..His post is interesting in that he has basically documented more of the disruptive behavior that I have objected to and for this I thank him."
I drew the line there. At wikipedia we report violations to enforce stability on article space and the workings of the site. Seeing this joy in the punishment of another user was very disturbing. One must really take into account weather this user is advocating the well-being of the article or muggery of those he disagrees with.
There certainly is a problem here.
At the current date, I was prompted by MONGO on my talkpage to accept an rfa [51], which I was hesitant, but felt I was ready for the additional workload. Before I accepted the nomination, I made note that I was being closely survallianced by Moby and I had no doubt a opposition would arise. I was correct in the assesment (I would have been honestly surprised had he not taken participation) [52], with said user agressively making the point of my image forgery and the rebuttal I made regarding his outrageous accusation. I was presently away from the computer, so when I returned I was atonished to find my rfa had already been withdrawn in an act of kindness by the nominator.
I stress that its not obtuse to believe Moby may be Davenbelle, as I'm still utterly baffled as to how a new user can simply migrate to a userpage, search the history extensively, and blow an ensuing argument about a misunderstanding out of porportion. It also strikes one as odd when a user immediately engages in long-standing conflict about aftermentioned article and makes reverts unusual for one so new. However, despite the sockkery or not, it needs to be known this editor has engaged in trolling and many contributions have been verified to be unwelcome at this encyclopedia. -ZeroTalk 16:23, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
Well, look who showed up. Yes, I opposed your RFA -- what were you thinking, with blocks just last week?
As to being your "shadow" -- hardly. Yes, you are on my watchlist and have been since you deleted my legitimate comments from your talk page. Please do not feel that I consider your talk page surveillance-worthy -- it is mostly extremely banal chatter about video games. Your poorly-affected adult-English, however, does occasionally provide some amusement, as does your spelling.
I do thank you for your praise of some of my edits; hope you don't take offence -- In the Heart of the Sea: The Tragedy of the Whaleship Essex is a wonderful book.
Also, you did comment on the matter involving User:Cool Cat and Kurds -- remember now?
--Moby 10:34, 11 May 2006 (UTC) (who is not a troll, thank you)
You sound just like a pouty child trying to lie his out of a fix by pretending it's all Cool Cat's fault. Give it up. I'm not impressed. -ZeroTalk 11:04, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Comment: While I believe that CoolCat hasn't looked especially open to compromise, it is unfair to declare that all of these actions are "disruptive" - it is unfortunate that he changed his mind about a compromise category but changing your mind should always be allowed. There is no general consensus about ethnic-geography categories. Indeed, these Kurdish examples seem to be the sole example of the type; presumably because most people find the idea of an ill-defined ethnic-geography category a bad idea. I am open to the idea if implemented properly, but the three ethnic-geography categories CoolCat has nominated were all, quite simply, dire. They had POV issues. They were poorly defined. The most recent one even had a grammatically incorrect name! I do not believe it is disruptive to nominate for deletion something that, in the reasonable opinions of many well-respected Wikipedians (and there are many who agreed with CoolCat - see the votes), does not belong on Wikipedia. CoolCat has not been mass-deleting Kurdish-related articles. He has not been attempting deletions of neutral, generally accepted, Kurdish categories. He has made a contentious attempt to expunge ethnic-geography cross-over categories, but these have widespread opposition from many sources so I don't think that it is genuinely disruptive. Nobody should be forced to compromise on the issue of ethnic-geography categories, since many Wikipedians reasonably disagree strongly with their creation - failure to agree on a compromise isn't necessarily a sign of disruption if you honestly believe (especially with something as "binary" in nature as a category) that something is a harmful or damaging idea. The fact that many of his nominations were speedied is an indication that he isn't being entirely disruptive, perhaps the restaurant and genetics AfDs were the closest to that mark. The thing that seems to be the real problem is that CoolCat isn't making a secret of his personal views. While sometimes he edits in a way that shows he is actually being a "Good Wikipedian" and going against personal preference in the interests of the encyclopedia (e.g. with the Kurdish terrorist category) when he is making a positive, useful contribution that seems "in tune" with his views, he looks like a disruptive POV-monger. Which in turn makes people vote against him unthinkingly... It would be better, perhaps, if he kept some of these topics at arm's length and merely brought these instances to the attention of Wikipedians known to be neutral on the Kurdistan question, to allow them to decide whether to make a deletion request or not. I simply can not believe that anybody would have cut any slack to Category:Hispanic inhabited region for instance: it would have been wiped off the face of the 'pedia without any second thoughts; however, the fact that it is CoolCat and the Kurds has meant that this category has a surprising number of keep votes. However, whether CoolCat wants to take this degree of extra care (and restrict his editing accordingly) in cases which are fundamentally non-disruptive should really be for CoolCat to decide, not any of us. TheGrappler 22:06, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Moby Dick (talk · contribs)[edit]

I believe in coincidences. Coincidences happen every day. But I don't trust coincidences.

  1. User:Moby Dick has a total of 344 edits as of the preparation of this report.
    • I'd normaly consider him to be new to wikipedia as he has been a wikipedian since december. This alone is not a problem though.
    • User:Davenbelle's last edit was on 03:20, 6 December 2005, User:Moby Dick made his first edit on 01:29, 23 December 2005
  2. On 03:02, 26 January 2006 users makes his first edit into the wikipedia namespace and it is opposing my RfA [53]
    • He seems to have located my RfA conviniantly. It his his 84th edit. He also makes a very professional edit by incrementing the oppose counter. Its something often oldies fail to notice
    • We have not edited any articles in common meaning he did not know me at all.
    • He participated in a total of 2 RfA aside from my own. One for Megaman Zero (as oppose) and another for Khoikhoi (support). Both are figures I know. He is definately not a frequent voter.
    • User:Davenbelle had opposed my other previous two of my rfas.
      • One of these RfAs were filed by MegamanZero
      • User:Davenbelle managed to oppose it before the nominator, megaman zero, could support
  3. On 07:57, 25 February 2006 MobyDick conviniantly discovered "forgery" on Megaman Zero's user page [54]
    • Long ago, on 20:05, 2 January 2006, User:Megaman Zero complained about User:Davenbelles behaviour on User:Davenbelles talk page. [55]
    • This is just 3 edits after him opposing my rfa. Mind the month long gap. It is strange to say the least.
    • User:Davenbelle gave User:Megaman_Zero the award.
    • This incident had made its way to the ANB. This is mobydicks first post to the ANB [56]
  4. On 07:21, 10 March 2006, Moby Dick informs user:Aucaman about my RfAr [57]
    • It is possible that he could have learnt about the existance of the RfAr from my 3rd rfa nomination as I have mentioned it there. However a key question is why did he tell this to Aucaman. He has no edits in comon with Aucaman. Nor was he involved with anything related to the kurds.
    • This is his first post for 11 days, in the previous post he was complaining about megaman zeros award on the ANB. [58] [59]
  5. On 02:41, 11 March 2006 [60] [61] user participated in his first deletion votes, both were initiated by Megaman Zero
  6. On 05:09, 11 March 2006 this user oposed the copy vio nomination I made [62]
    • This is the first and last time the user participates in copyright matters
    • Davnbelle was involved with the Armenian Genocide article and was practicaly opposing anything I suggested. It can be said that was his entier contribution.
  7. On 05:58, 11 March 2006 [63] user opposed the deletion of Category:Kurdistan which I initiated.
    • user had not been involved with any other issues regarding Kurds or any such deletion votes for that matter.
  8. On 02:51, 13 March 2006 [64] user got involved with an article about kurds for the first time on Batman, Turkey article. He has repetively restored "Kurdish dominance" line by reverting my edit. This continued on
    • user:Bertilvidet is one other party desperately working to force "Kurdish dominance" to the lead.
    • Davenbelle also prefered to oppose me whenever possible. This might be too vauge to be considered as evidence but take a look at [65] and [66]
  9. On 02:20, 1 May 2006 user created the KHRP redirect. [67]
    • There is nothing disruptive with that. however if you take a look at [68] you will see Davenbelle had initiated the article redirect leads to.
These are the coincidences I have found on frist sight. There are of course other cases I can post but I want to keep my report brief.
Among 5,911,805 many articles and 36,962,597 number of users, MobyDick's edits intersect with Davenbelle on more than one ocasion. Would make a great statistics research paper.
I wont come up with conclusions but I find the material I just posted very interesting.
--Cat out 14:21, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
Wow, I actually liked this evidence gathering. Interesting indeed. -- ( drini's page ) 03:22, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
Too long, didn't read. Telex 16:53, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
Too long, indeed -- however I felt obliged to read it. User:Cool Cat is making this false allegation in order to divert attention from the issue of his behavior and, it would seem, in order to entangle me in his arbitration case. It is also not the first time has has made this sort of claim: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Cool Cat. While the factual details -- who has edited what, for example -- of his accusation appear to be accurate (I've not checked), his spin and interpretation are entirely self-serving.
I believe I first encountered User:Cool Cat on the first CFD of Category:Kurdistan and did not like his obvious intent of limiting Kurdish content on Wikipedia. I have used Wikipedia as a reference for years and its greatest problem is inconsistent accuracy of information and it is the behavior of editors such as User:Cool Cat that is responsible for this.
User:Cool Cat's implied accusation (which he makes explicit here) can easily be explained by the fact that articles and users he refers to are all related; they involve Kurds or they involve him. He expresses concern that my edits are too "professional" for one so "new" -- as if this were the only wiki in the world.
I would add again that he does not appear to be interested seeking a consensus. He efforts here only serve to make the editing environment hostile.
--Moby 10:31, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
Interesting argument. What wiki do you normaly work for? Tonikaku, I may have been wrong on Amask's case but that has nothing to do with your case. Amask has participated in only two votes and one or two articles. Since the nonsense I had to deal with davenbelle, I had been somewhat jumpy... Lets consider your statistics.
  • You have participated in a total of 3 rfas, the first one you have ever voted was my rfa and you voted oppose, just like davenbelle. After Coincidentaly the other two rfas are people who I know about. Of that MegamanZero is the person that told Davenbelle to stop stalking (See User Talk:Davenbelle). The other RfA you participated was for Khoikhoi who at the time in dispute with me. Lets call all that circumstential evidence and discard them.
  • You have participated in a total of 8 deletion votes. 5 of them opposing me, 2 of them opposing megamanzero. So thats 7 out of 8 deletion votes we have in common. Again lets call that circumstential evidence and discard it.
  • There is this hole case of you and megaman zero. You were complaining about something megaman zero recieved from davenbelle. MegamanZero at a point modifed the bycycle award to an exceptional newbie award long ago at 10:50, 18 January 2006. I Had to dig through the userpage history to discover the actual modification of the award and I knew what I was looking for.
    1. So we have an award given to MegamanZero by davenbelle.
    2. We have MegamanZero warning davenbelle to stop stalking me on a much later date. (a motive for davenbelle to seek "revenge") as MegamanZero and I had been close and still are close.
    3. We have megaman zero modifying the given award in 12 january (hey he can its his userpage)
    4. We have you detecting and "correcting" it on 25 february.
    5. We know you never met megamanzero on any article, meaning you didnt know him.
    So among 36,962,597 registered users, you found Megaman Zero at random. You also discovered "forgery" of an award on his userpage which required me to load a dozen diffs even though I knew what I was looking for.
  • You make edits such as this or this. While to an untrained eye it is a simple vandalism reversion. Davenbelle was also very interested in the contravercy surrounding the Southeastern Anatolia Project ([69]), an article I mostly wrote. Among 5,911,805 we meet on the same article as davenbelle edited on the same section.
  • We also have you removing/objecting a copyright issue I posted concerning a letter and the Armenian Genocide [70]. It spikes my curiosity how on earth have you noticed that post? And if you are so concerned about copyrights why havent you ever commmented on another copyright issue?
  • I noticed recently. So you have randomly discovered an edit of mine and since it is a redirect that is among 4,190,567 pages. You have reverted an edit of mine from 04:20, 12 April 2006.
You are complaining about me creating a hostile enviorment... How productive is you complaining about megaman zeros award? How would you describe your attitude?
Coincidences? Sure. A striking question is why would a user who had only edited articles about the novel featuring the whale Moby Dick suddenly start to edit articles related to Kurds, Armenians, and Turkey practicaly opposing me on every opertunity?
I said I wouldnt come up with the conclusions and I wont, however if davenbelle made edits like yours... he would be considered stalking in my view.
--Cat out 19:22, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
Oh and before I forget comments such as the one below create a hostile environment. Not just that, it is also very incivil.
As to being your "shadow" -- hardly. Yes, you are on my watchlist and have been since you deleted my legitimate comments from your talk page. Please do not feel that I consider your talk page surveillance-worthy -- it is mostly extremely banal chatter about video games. Your poorly-affected adult-English, however, does occasionally provide some amusement, as does your spelling.
Wikipedia prizes itself for its coverage on topics such as hard science as well as video games and Anime episode descriptions. Founder of wikipedia had made his view on this issue quite clear.
--Cat out 19:30, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
I, for one, consider an ethnic group of twenty-odd million people to be a bit more encyclopaedic than a bunch of doe-eyed adolescent cartoon characters. --Moby 10:28, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
You are entitled to have your opinions. I for one consider all topics equally relevant and important. Certainly you appriciate fiction on wikipedia. You contributed a great deal to articles such as In the Heart of the Sea: The Tragedy of the Whaleship Essex. I do not understand why you think so 'lowly' of articles about 'a bunch of doe-eyed adolescent cartoon characters'. The ethnic group of twenty-odd million people is no more significant than Chaos theory. --Cat out 23:08, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
In the Heart of the Sea: The Tragedy of the Whaleship Essex is not fiction. --Moby 06:30, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
Very well it isnt fiction and is 100% factual. --Cat out 21:46, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

You thi