Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive123

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

Noticeboard archives

Contents

Deir Yassin[edit]

Guy Montag banned from Battle of Deir Yassin (1)[edit]

Per the terms of his probation, Guy Montag has been banned from editing Battle of Deir Yassin/Deir Yassin Massacre for disruptive editing, soliciting votes on a requested move, and incivility on the article's talk page. Any dissenting administrator may repeal this ban as necessary. Ral315 (talk) 16:35, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

I really don't think that he was doing anything innappropriate on that page, I think the block should be lifted.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 03:22, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Votestaking is inappropriate. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 05:03, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
I really haven't seen any evidence that what Guy was doing was in fact votestacking at all. I personally voted in that article because it was on my watchlist, I think everybody kinda voted at once because they might have been waiting to see what other people's opinions were. I think that it is ridiculous that Guy is being banned for something that almost everybody does when there is a vote going on, after all I wonder how so many people that voted "support" found out that there was a survey going on at that particular moment especially when so many people had never edited the article in question before? That "votestacking" probably occured through E-mail.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 08:31, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
Kim, this is a controversy to which you are a party, and your "judgment" that votestaking has occurred, it must be said, is subjective. Did you review this decision with another, impartial admin? --Leifern 17:01, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
If you have a look at the admin who made the first post of this section, you would have had your answer already, and as such, I consider this a act of bad faith. Furthermore, see, Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Arbitration_enforcement#User:Guy_Montag, you will see I reported him, but did not do the ban. As such, an uninvolved admin has reviewed it, and come to the same conclusion. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 17:16, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
Kim, you were the one who imposed the ban, see [1], so I'm not sure why the question is in bad faith. --Leifern 19:28, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
So, you say I did this: [2]. Excuse me, what I did was positing the tag on the page AFTER he was banned. That is all. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 19:31, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
Kim also seems to have a history of using his administrative powers to gain an advantaqge in disputes that he is a primary party to as anyone who was involved with the "Israeli apartheid" mess knows. As someone once said- "Assuming good faith does not mean be stupid".- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 20:48, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
She was the one who reported Montag as well. I suppose someone who is on probation is subject to the subjective judgment of any admin, but I think Kim needs to think long and hard about the difference between her role as an editor and as an admin. --Leifern 13:21, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
I was also concerned to see that Kim van der Linde, who is involved in this dispute, got Guy banned from the page, started a poll about the title, ignored the results of it, then misused her admin tools to move the page against the poll results, then felt obliged to post a tag declaring that Guy is banned from the page. It's up to the admin to do that; maybe he forgot, or maybe he intended not to. I'm worried about the extent to which Kim van der Linde seems to be taking every opportunity to cause a problem for pro-Israel editors, and is consistently confusing her admin/editor roles. SlimVirgin (talk) 13:38, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
The ban was undone by User:Briangotts [3]. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 16:15, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Battle of Deir Yassin/Deir Yassin massacre: move poll closure review requested[edit]

On June 29, Guy Montag moved ithout discussion Deir Yassin massacre to Battle of Deir Yassin [4], and substantially rewrote the article [5]. This move/rewrite was contensted, see Talk:Battle_of_Deir_Yassin#Total_Rewrite and Talk:Battle_of_Deir_Yassin#Battle???. I was asked to have a look at the move, and decided to start a poll so that everybody could have their say, and could see whether the move was carried by consensus (see: Talk:Battle_of_Deir_Yassin#Requested_move). The poll started at July 8, and by July 12, there was a clear consensus that the name should be Deir Yassin massacre. At 12 and 13 July, Guy Montag allerted 5 editors, with known preferneces, on the poll, who all voted in the days after in favour of the by Guy Montag preferred name: [6], [7], [8], [9], [10]. Based on this, I reported him here: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Arbitration_enforcement#User:Guy_Montag, which resulted in an independent admin to ban him from the page under his probation from a previous ArbCom case (see above). After that, I have closed the move poll, which was now corrupted by votestaking, and based my conclusion from before the votestaking (roughly 4 days into the poll), which was in favour of moving back. The final tally was no consensus (15-15 (12+3 to Deir Yassin incident), which indicates that the original contested unilateral move was not supported by the community. As suchm, I have moved the article back to the original name.

As I have been involved, I request that this move is reviewed by independent admins, and undone if they come to a different conclusion. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 05:55, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

The page has been moved back in the meanwhile by involved editors, however, I will move the page back if there is no objection of uninvolved admin's of the decision I described above. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 12:03, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
This is what you did on the Israel apartheid page(s): you moved pages using admin tools, even though you were directly involved in the dispute. Also, your accusations of vote-stacking could amount to no more than like-minded people arriving because they agreed with what was being done. Admins are not allowed to use their tools to gain an advantage in a dispute they're involved in. SlimVirgin (talk) 17:29, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
The incident SlimVirgin points at has been discussed here, seeWikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive109#Admin_protecting.2C_then_editing_article. The votestaking was confirmed by an uninvolved admin, see Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Arbitration_enforcement#User:Guy_Montag. For the rest, I have posted my action here for review by uninvolved admins as it could be disputed, and if an univolved admin concludes that the move is invalid, I will move it back without hestitation. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 18:44, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
I have no involvement in this, and I have concluded that the move was invalid, because you're involved in the dispute but used an admin tool to make the move. You acknowledged that you were involved in the dispute when you asked another admin to ban Guy Montag from the page. Therefore, please undo the move, and leave it for someone who has no connection with the article to decide how to proceed. SlimVirgin (talk) 18:49, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
I do not consider you uninvolved due to our disagreements at various other Israel-Palestine related articles, and the ongoing ArbCom case here: Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Israeli_apartheid. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 18:54, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
Kim, you're well out of order. You don't make me involved just because you choose to say so. SlimVirgin (talk) 19:16, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

You shouldn't have moved it yourself, however it should be moved back. - FrancisTyers · 18:58, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Moved back to the original name Deir Yassin massacre or moved back from my move to the Battle of Deir Yassin? -- Kim van der Linde at venus 19:00, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
Moved back to Deir Yassin massacre. But you shouldn't do it and you shouldn't have done it. - FrancisTyers · 19:26, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the clarification. I will not do it myself, but leave it to another admin to do it. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 19:32, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
Moved back from your move. Please undo whatever it was you did. You posted for input, and you've been given input. Kindly don't ignore it. SlimVirgin (talk) 19:16, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
There is nothing to undo at the moment, as the page has been reverted back to Battle of Deir Yassin. However, the move revert war that has ensued may require further consideration, maybe even by the ArbCom. Pecher Talk 19:22, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

I have no involvement in this dispute and I don't remember ever editing pages on the Middle-East - but I do have some experience carrying out moves requested on WP:RM. I think that Kim van der Linde should not have closed the debate herself, having taken part in it. In spite of that, having spent some time looking into this, I agree with her analysis. The vote solicitation by Guy Montag clearly tainted the vote. His original move was objected to almost immediately. The user is on probation for biased editing on articles of this kind. This all seems to speak fairly clearly to moving the article to the name it had at its creation and which it still had last month. I've seen no rebuttal to this - can anyone offer one? Sarah? Haukur 20:07, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Hi Haukurth, I have no opinion about the title, and don't know anything about the arguments. My only concern is that we're calling an editor's attempt to get help from other editors "vote-stacking," when editors are in fact encouraged to involve other people in disputes and polls. Had he posted to 50 talk pages, I can see the grounds for concern, but five seems legitimate enough to me, and the fact that he was doing it openly on talk pages is another factor in his favor. There's probably a guideline about this somewhere, so maybe I should look around. I'm also concerned about Kim's comment that "Guy Montag allerted 5 editors, with known preferneces ..." How could she know what these editors' preferences were regarding what to call the Deir Yassin battle/massacre, if they hadn't already commented on it; and if they had already commented, then why is she concerned about their involvement? SlimVirgin (talk) 20:18, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
Very often you can make a good guess what opinion people will have on a given dispute and selectively contact those you think will agree with you. I know, I used to do this sort of thing back in my move-warring days... In this case Guy was, it seems, 100% successful in contacting the right people. The best way to bring attention to a vote is through noticeboards which anyone can watch. Haukur 20:39, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps, but I can think of several others who might have supported who he appears not to have contacted, so there doesn't seem to have been any kind of a concerted effort. SlimVirgin (talk) 23:08, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Francis and Haukur, I recognize that I should not have moved the article myself, but should have brought it to the attention of this noticeboard to start with. My judgement error on that part. My appologies for that. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 20:12, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Given that you did exactly the same thing on various pages related to Israeli apartheid (four times, I believe), and seeing the amount of trouble it has caused, it's hard to see how you could make the same mistake again and not realize. SlimVirgin (talk) 20:24, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
See this log for the moves in question. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 14:10, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

The page should be moved back, and the move poll be taken there. Anyone else want to do it? - FrancisTyers · 20:23, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

I really haven't seen any evidence that what Guy was doing was in fact votestacking at all. I personally voted in that article because it was on my watchlist. I think that it is ridiculous that Guy is being banned for something that almost everybody does when there is a vote going on, after all I wonder how so many people that voted "support" found out that there was a survey going on at that particular moment especially when so many people had never edited the article in question before? That "votestacking" probably occured through E-mail.

On another note, Kimv really seems to have an issue with using his administrative powers to gain an advantage in a dipute that he is a primary party to, while it is a step forward that he just admitted that he shouldn't have done it, I really must question his veracity considering the fact that in another post above he basically said that he didn't act inappropriately because people weren't "assuming good faith" whatever that means.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 21:00, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Kim, I think this is the type of situation that Wikipedia:Naming conflict (originally developed by Ed Poor and myself) was written to resolve. The guideline states that "Wikipedians should not seek to determine who is "right" or "wrong", nor to attempt to impose a particular name for POV reasons. They should instead follow the procedure below to determine common usage on an objective basis." It sets out three key principles, the most important of which is "The most common use of a name takes precedence."
Note that the issue of POV naming is specifically excluded from consideration by the guideline - if a subject is particularly contentious, there will almost always be someone who disagrees with the article title. The guideline sets out the use of objective criteria, such as frequency of use, and discourages the use of subjective criteria, such as political acceptability.
The name "Battle of Deir Yassin" seems to be virtually unknown (only 81 Google hits) while "Deir Yassin massacre" seems to be much more widely used (21,100 Google hits - Wikipedia entries excluded in both cases). Using a novel term for a well-known historical incident seems to me to be a classic example of impermissible original research ("defining new terms"). Unfortunately it appears that the POV-pushers have taken over on this article; I think the page's move permissions will need to be locked and the case referred for arbitration. -- ChrisO 23:09, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
This is exactly the kind of title that shouldn't be decided by a Google search, in my view, because of the number of highly POV sites that get included. What I do with contentious titles is try to find out what mainstream academics call it. Maybe that could be done here: try to find out what academic historians refer to it as? SlimVirgin (talk) 23:43, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
If it's any help, I just did a Google Books search for the two terms. 56 books use "Deir Yassin massacre" and only one uses "Battle of Deir Yassin" (citing "a motion [which] was put before the Jerusalem city council to honor the five Zionist patriots who "had fallen during the battle of Deir Yassin"." - the motion failed after a public outcry.) 142 books use the terms "Deir Yassin" and "massacre" in close proximity. Google Scholar returns 51 articles using "Deir Yassin massacre" and none at all using "Battle of Deir Yassin". All of the encyclopedia entries that I've found relating to Deir Yassin refer to the "massacre" at "Deir Yassin" (cites: Brewer's Dictionary of Modern Phrase and Fable, A Dictionary of Contemporary History - 1945 to the present, A Dictionary of Political Biography, The Crystal Reference Encyclopedia). None refer to it as a "battle".
So it seems that the term "Battle of Deir Yassin" is not only little used but is associated with a specific, highly controversial POV - rather akin to calling the Srebrenica massacre the "Battle of Srebrenica", as some denialists are wont to do in that case. This seems a very clear-cut case of a non-mainstream term being adopted for presumably POV reasons. -- ChrisO 23:55, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
You seem to have made a watertight case from a NPOV so unless anyone can find and equally strong verifiable rebuttal, this should be accepted, and the contention should cease. Naturally what people think it should be called is pure OR and irrelevant. We are looking for the commonly accepted term, the principle of least surprise. Tyrenius 01:23, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
A "watertight case"? Are you serious? All he did was illustrate a pov, its not like someone can say that hey you can't disagree with him, can;t you see that my side has already made a watertight case? Anyways it is irrelevent what the majority of people call the incident, what matters is that we chose a title that does not favor any pov, I am not saying that "battle of Deir Yassin" is completly npov I am just saying that the "Deir Yassin Massacre" really isn't npov either.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 08:58, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

All right, I'll go ahead and move the page back, citing this discussion. Haukur 08:47, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Just a suggestion, you might want to move protect the page after that to avoid a new move war. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 08:48, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
I'd prefer if someone else did that. Haukur 09:21, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
I do not believe a move war is forthcoming Kim as long as you stay out of it. I reverted your initial move because of your completely unacceptable behaviour there. If Guy Montag's initial move was done without consensus, then it should have been reverted, and done so swiftly. You starting a poll on the matter, rejecting the legitimacy of the results when they failed to go your way, and then making an out of process move however, was farcical, especially given your current involvement in an ArbComm case on this very same matter. The move war was not the result the intractability of the issue, but rather a response to your complete lack of standing to make the aforementioned move. This entire move war could have been avoided if you had bothered to act in a way even vaguely resembling what is to be expected of admins. Protecting the page is thus likely unnecessary, as without your involvement in the move, I do not expect there to be serious objection to the page remaining there while debate continues on the talk page. Bibigon 11:27, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
I agree that the important thing here is that KimvdLinde stays away from the situation completely. I would also suggest we try to find out what academic historians call it i.e. academics who are currently employed as historians by universities. SlimVirgin (talk) 11:55, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
I'd also suggest this discussion not be split up. For some reason, it's been started on AN too. See Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#What_to_do_if_a_move_poll_is_determined_by_partisan_reasons.3F. SlimVirgin (talk) 11:59, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
Just to let people know, I'm proposing to start a workshop along the lines of the ArbComm workshops to work through the specific policy issues involved (e.g WP:NC, WP:NCON, WP:NOR etc). The workshop will be at Talk:Deir Yassin massacre/Workshop later today. Hopefully it'll help to identify the specific points of disagreement, provide some advice on what the policies and guidelines require, and focus the discussion on policies rather than personal POVs. I suggest we continue this discussion there. -- ChrisO 13:12, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
ChrisO, you've protected the page against moves, and on the version you prefer. You're involved in the dispute and you're currently in front of the arbcom for using your admin powers in another content dispute. Please undo the protection. SlimVirgin (talk) 13:20, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
If you feel it's inappropriate, please feel free to unprotect it. I've had no involvement in editing or moving the article, and my only involvement to date has been in providing pointers to Wikipedia policies and guidelines, providing some data on usage and trying to help the parties to find a resolution. If you (or any other administrator) feel that makes me too close to the issue to legitimately move-protect the page, then please unprotect it. -- ChrisO 13:34, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
Chris, you're involved in the dispute, and we're not allowed to use admin powers where we're involved, especially not to gain any kind of advantage, and given you suggested the page be moved back to the version you prefer, and then protected it, that's what you've done. I'm not prepared to unprotect it and be accused of wheel warring, so I'm requesting that you do. SlimVirgin (talk) 13:48, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
In that case, OK. -- ChrisO 13:55, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
Thank you, I appreciate that. I hope everyone will leave it where it is now until a consensus is reached. Your workshop idea is a good one. SlimVirgin (talk) 15:44, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
Thanks, I'll make sure I notify people when I've got the workshop prepared. You're very welcome to offer advice and views (on my talk page if you don't wish to get directly involved). Given your experience in dealing with controversial issues, I'd certainly value your advice on the policy issues. -- ChrisO 18:42, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

If Kim needs to "stay away from the situation completely", as Slim suggests, then so should Slim, myself and ChrisO. However, I don't see the point in delaying this - Guy Montag changed a long-established article name without consensus. His user page, User:Guy Montag identifies him as a supporter of the Irgun, the Revisionist Zionist armed militia identified as perpetrating the massacre so his interest in choosing an equivicating title for the article is clear. If a Stalinist tried to retitle "Katyn Forest Masscare" to "Battle of Katyn Forest" we would not permit it, even if he was able to rally the support of his friends in a poll. Homey 17:05, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

No, you're not going to play that game with me. I have no involvement in this content dispute, and while I have no intention of becoming involved, I'm also not going to stay away from it because it would please you. SlimVirgin (talk) 17:13, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
You have a systemic POV when it comes to articles related to Israel so you are not neutral in this matter even if you haven't explicilty addressed content. I was not asking you to stay away from the article (you are projecting your habit onto me, it seems) - rather I'm saying you are in no position to dictate to Kim that she should stay away from it.Homey 18:32, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
Could the three of you please stop ragging on each other? It's incivil, inappropriate and definitely not in the right place. It's certainly not going to resolve anything! -- ChrisO 18:42, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

What to do if a move poll is determined by partisan reasons?[edit]

(Copied from Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#What_to_do_if_a_move_poll_is_determined_by_partisan_reasons.3F)

I'm rather troubled by the problems which KimvdLinde has reported over at WP:ANI#Battle of Deir Yassin/Deir Yassin massacre: move poll closure review requested. As I've posted there, the article's current title of "Battle of Deir Yassin" violates Wikipedia:Naming conventions, Wikipedia:Naming conflict and Wikipedia:No original research (it's a novel term with negligible use outside Wikipedia - only 81 hits versus over 21,000 for the alternative "Deir Yassin massacre"). It also probably violates Wikipedia:NPOV, as it seems to be a novel and minority-POV term for an historical incident which is generally known by a different name. (It's comparable, for instance, to renaming Srebrenica massacre to "Battle of Srebrenica" or American War of Independence to "War of American Aggression".)

In the light of these issues I would normally simply move the article myself. However, the page has already had a move war today and sparking another wouldn't be helpful. Ordinarily, a move poll would be a good alternative. However, there has already been a move poll in which the participants deadlocked, with many on both sides explicitly stating POV reasons for their votes (see Talk:Deir Yassin massacre#Clarification). There seems to have been relatively little consideration of what Wikipedia policy and guidelines require. Starting a new move poll would undoubtedly bring out the POV warriors again and, unfortunately, it's more than likely that they will again ignore policy and vote for their personal POVs. Are there any other alternatives short of taking the whole thing to the Arbitration Committee? -- ChrisO 23:33, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm, this is why voting in the main namespace is a bad plan. :-/ Each time people have to find out the hard way. <sigh> Requested Moves should be strongly discouraged as a means for well, anything. Oh well.
Perhaps something can still be salvaged? You can look at who is supporting and opposing, and start a discussion with each, one at a time. Perhaps a more neutral name is possible? Kim Bruning 00:19, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
Unfortunately I've found in instances like this (Republic of Macedonia comes to mind) that POV warriors usually won't agree to anything other than their own POV. Am I right to think that the Mediation Committee can't do binding mediations? Perhaps this is where we need some sort of intermediate stage between the Mediation Committee (non-binding) and Arbitration Committee (binding but not usually dealing with content disputes). We really need to have some way of dealing with these disputes that would involve taking them away from the POV warriors and giving them to neutral editors or administrators who know, understand and respect Wikipedia policies. -- ChrisO 00:50, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
Although formal mediation isn't binding, I think most editors would respect the conclusions of it. I think the key in this case is to use the term most often used by academic historians i.e. academics who are actually employed as historians by universities. SlimVirgin (talk) 11:45, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
The quick and dirty method is to attract as many uninvolved editors as quickly as possible, because POV warriors work by fighting in packs and outnumbering their opponents. But polls like that are almost always confrontational, so it would be better to try some form of mediation (formal or informal) as Kim suggested. Even if it fails then it's something to show to other users who can determine for themselves what caused it to fail, if it's because someone wasn't cooperating then that will be detrimental to them. A good first step would be to do a survey of the academic literature to see what name is more commonly used, Google is unlikely to settle this one. --bainer (talk) 01:01, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the suggestion. I've done a quick check on the literature using Google Books/Google Scholar, Amazon's "search inside" feature and a number of encyclopedias on Xreferplus. It almost exclusively refers to the events at Deir Yassin as the "Deir Yassin massacre", the massacre at Deir Yassin and similar formulations. None use "Battle of Deir Yassin". So it seems plain enough that the article's current title is a novel term. The problem is, of course, that the POV warriors don't care about WP:NOR, WP:NC and all the rest. Mediation is certainly appropriate though I wonder if it's ever likely to work in a situation where the participants are riding roughshod over Wikipedia's fundamental policies. I suspect it'll probably end up in arbitration, one way or another. -- ChrisO 07:38, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
I thionk is a main problem for wikipedia, as the focus is consensus and prevention of disruption, and not so much upholding basic policies (Such as NPOV of which Jimbo states: NPOV is "absolute and non-negotiable."). However, in practise, NPOV is negotiated, just as other unnegotiable policies such as WP:NOR. The bigger question is, can these policies be enforced, or are they negotiable? -- Kim van der Linde at venus 09:43, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
Kim Bruning is right. Discussion is the solution. As an experienced mediator, Kim is likely picking up on the fact that you are in too big of a hurry to settle the dispute. Having an article in the The Wrong Version is going to happen for some of the parties in the dispute. Mediators (and experienced editors) need to reinforce the idea that Wikipedia is not going to be ruined by having an article in the The Wrong Version. IMO, mediation goes astray once you began reverting or making moves based on the idea that there is a wrong version. Patience and discussion are mediation's friend. : - ) FloNight talk 10:18, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
Does this mean that unnegotiable policies are negotiable? And if mediation is not working because people insist on violating NPOV, ArbCom? -- Kim van der Linde at venus 11:20, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
The problem here is that you hold a particular POV, you got involved in the dispute, you got an editor banned from the page, and then you moved the page as an admin, so that has helped to entrench positions and increase hostility and suspicion. It would be a good idea if you would remove yourself from the debate entirely and allow the matter to be discussed by editors who were not involved in it. SlimVirgin (talk) 11:49, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
SlimVirgin, your opinion about me is clear. Thank you. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 11:57, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
It isn't just my opinion. I don't see that you have any support for what has gone on here. You've caused trouble first at Israeli apartheid and now here by acting as an editor/mediator/admin as and when it suits you, mixing up the roles in pursuit of a particular POV. It's a textbook example of what admins shouldn't do, and yet at the same time you take process fetishism to new heights when you think it'll help you. It's not on, it really isn't. SlimVirgin (talk) 12:04, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
For those uninvolved, SlimVirgin and I are both involved in the same ArbCom case: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Israeli apartheid.-- Kim van der Linde at venus 14:25, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
Kim, I am barely involved in that case, whereas you are at the center of it, and it's a case involving exactly the same problems as here: your confusion of roles. SlimVirgin (talk) 15:46, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
I urge the interested editors to have a look for themselves at the ArbCom case before the decide what is going on. I am not going to drag the extended discussions from there to here. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 17:13, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Kim van der Linde at venus I mean that impartial experienced editors do no care if the articles is temporarily The Wrong Version. This dispute is one of many daily editing disputes that occur on Wikipedia. You are involved in it so it seems extra important to you. If I can make a suggestion. I think you need to take a break from this topic. Perhaps some distance from these articles will help. There are 1,261,193 articles in English. Many of them are in desperate need of editing by an experienced editors/admin. FloNight talk 12:19, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

FloNight, I share your opinion about "the wrong version". -- Kim van der Linde at venus 14:25, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

"Kim, I am barely involved in that case, whereas you are at the center of it, and it's a case involving exactly the same problems as here: your confusion of roles. SlimVirgin (talk) 15:46, 18 July 2006 (UTC)"

This is a misrepresentation. Slim is one of the admins against whom sanctions are being proposed - Fred Bauder proposed a one month ban - there have been no action proposed against Kim, nor is she accused of having participated in the wheel war that has gotten Slim in trouble. Homey 17:11, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
Homey, quit it. You and Kim van der Linde have caused the entire dispute at Israeli apartheid, and you kept it going at maximum heat and intensity, because that's how you get your kicks at Wikipedia. I've never seen such disregard for the rules about using admin tools between the pair of you. The evidence hasn't yet closed, by the way, and I'm not going to argue it out with you here, because it would make your day. SlimVirgin (talk) 17:17, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
Slim, you brought up the arbcomm case and misrepresented it by claiming that Kim was "central" to it while you are "barely involved" when in fact you are facing sanctions and she isn't. As for "disregard for the rules about using admin tools", you are the one who participated in a wheel war, not Kim (or myself) so stop deflecting (or projecting). Homey 17:21, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
When in fact you are facing sanctions and she isn't
Are you serious? I'm sure that not even you can actually believe that that makes sense, You proposed a bunch of wierd and inappropriate "solutions" that nobody supported and then you claim that that shows that Slim is more involved with the dispute than you or Kim. The fact that there isn't a bunch of stupid proposals involving you and kim really just shows that other people aren't as spiteful or inappropriate as the two of you. I guess the fact that there is nothing on that page that explicity calls for your adminship to be taken away and for you to be banned must show that you are a completely neutral and uninvolved party or at least that you did nothing inappropriate at all in that conflict, is that right?- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 01:22, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
Okay, this really is my last comment. No sanctions have been proposed against Kim because no evidence has been put up about her yet. Only half the evidence is in, Homey. SlimVirgin (talk) 17:47, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
Yes, Homey, please lay off. Ragging on SlimVirgin only gets us deeper. Fred Bauder 18:53, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Guy Montag banned from Deir Yassin massacre (2)[edit]

Nay one quarter of a moon has passed, and I've banned Guy Montag from Deir Yassin massacre under the terms of his probation. Inserting copyvio information from here and general tendentious editing on the talk page.

I'm not particularly attached to this, but I thought it was the right thing to do. I have encouraged him to appeal if he feels he has been wronged. - FrancisTyers · 00:18, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

You've lost all sense of proportion and ruined an article over a non issue.

Guy Montag 01:04, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't think I've ruined the article :/ And I don't think you should be describing copyright violation as a "non issue". As I have mentioned, perhaps I was hasty but I think under the circumstances it was the right thing to do. You initially claimed that it was "one sentence", but have since discovered it was several paragraphs. I think you were a bit hasty in your initial response :) - FrancisTyers · 01:16, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
Note: given an initially incorrect reading of his probation, the ban was set to end at "22 July 2007", this as been amended to "9 October 2006". Apologies for this mistake. - FrancisTyers · 01:28, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
I think it clearly inflames a situation that was almost over by re-banning Guy. It was already decided that the previous block was inappropriate, and that Guy's actions did not violate the terms of his probation. I am rather uncomfortable with the fact that you would ban Guy for such a similar infraction, I think your actions amount to a wheel-war and I would recomend that you undo the ban, and first discuss the situation here and with other administrators that were involved in the original dispute above.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 01:32, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
Guy has informed me that he will be requesting permission for the use of the copyrighted text. I have asked another couple of admins to check over my ban, and if they disagree then sobeit. I don't think it amounts to a wheel-war. I don't think you can compare the two reasons for banning as "similar infractions". - FrancisTyers · 01:42, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
Francis, as you recently commented on some of the issues on that page on the talk page (as an editor, not as an admin), and as you took the opposite position to Guy, calling his position "farcical," it would probably be better if you unbanned him and allowed an uninvolved admin to take a look at the situation. I've also left a note on your talk page that shows one of the alleged copyright violations wasn't in fact copied at all. SlimVirgin (talk) 02:18, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
Just for the clarity, only a fraction of the copyright violations are reporetd at the talk page. The article is full of it, from at least 3 different websites. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 06:10, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
It does seem that the article is/was a patchwork quilt of material copied from different places. Whatever we may think of the merits of Guy's version, it's risky for us to have an article appears to be effectively a copy-and-paste from multiple copyrighted sources. The fact that Guy is saying now that he's requesting permission for the use of the copyrighted text is obviously an acknowledgement that he knows he didn't have permission before. As breaches of probation go, I'd say this was at the high end of the scale; the ban seems reasonable in the circumstances. -- ChrisO 08:04, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

I've removed the ban per SV's request. If a things worth doing, its worth doing right. I welcome less involved parties than me to review the ban and reapply it if thought appropriate. - FrancisTyers · 12:11, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

If the article is that much of a convoluted collection of copyvio, the only solution is to delete it completely and rebuild from scratch, IMO. Violating copyright first, and asking for permission later, is NOT acceptable whatsoever. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 02:30, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
I have decided that after it was clear that the article is literally loaded with copyvio's, I only will show the evidence for the first three section, and that can be found here: http://www.kimvdlinde.com/wikipedia/Deir_Yassin_Copyright_violation.doc The remaining two sections are done in part, and could be good or bad with regard to the number of copyvio's. What is clear is that the copyvio's are from various websites, and in part from pre Guy Montag, although all new insertions that I found originate from him. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 02:44, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
I ahave filed a ArbCom case for this, and the related bised editing here: Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#Deir Yassin. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 15:48, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Trolling by user:ARYAN818 and user:Elven6[edit]

Hi - I request administrative action against user:ARYAN818 and user:Elven6 for acting like WP:TROLLs. I had lodged a previous report on ANI[11] that apart from the issuance of warnings and a debate on ARYAN818's username, did not restrain these users from trollish behavior on Talk:Sikhism, Talk:Hinduism and the Sikh Panth and on their own talkpages and the talkpage of user:Sukh. These users have spoken offensively to user:Sukh, User:Rajatjghai, user:Gsingh and myself.

Despite repeated and continuous warnings, both ARYAN818 and Elven6 have repeatedly engaged in revert wars, removing comments from their own talkpages, coming close to WP:3RR violations, repeatedly violated WP:NPA (includings religious, personal, political and racial abuse), WP:CIVIL, WP:NPOV and WP:POINT, and have been acting like WP:VANDALs and WP:TROLLs.


user:ARYAN818[edit]

Relevant Diffs (most recent):[12],[13],[14],[15],[16],[17],[18],[19],[20],[21],[22],[23],[24],[25],[26],[27],[28],[29]

Relevant Diffs (continuous):[30], [31],[32],[33], [34],[35]

user:Elven6[edit]

Relevant Diffs (most recent): [36],[37],[38],[39],[40],[41],[42],[43],[44],[45],[46]

Previous Report (continuous):[47], [48], [49],[50]

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hinduization of Sikhism - Elven6 created an article that constituted WP:COPYVIO.


Thank you - I request administrators to take decisive action, as this has been going on for over one month, with a previous ANI report and numerous warnings. This Fire Burns Always 06:06, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm going to block both of them for 48hrs. Frankly some of the material discussed isn't for me to understand - well I couldn't see anything obvious from the article edits, but some of the talk page edits seem rather bizarre to say the least and some of the knockabout tone and inappropriate language is very disconcerting. Blnguyen | rant-line 06:17, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
Basically Aryan argues from a hard Hindu POV, and Elven is oppposite that. The diffs provided illustrate a combination of revert warring, personal attacks, abusive messaging, vandalism and constant disruption of Wikipedia work. This Fire Burns Always 06:21, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
This time I ask for really decisive and follow-up action, because several good editors have taken a lot of hell for over a month over several articles. A thousand warnings have not affected these gentlemen, who haven't even acted in a civil manner aside from the disputes. This Fire Burns Always 06:23, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Having seen both these users (ARYAN818, Elven6), I endorse these blocks. Both of these users spent most of their time in disrupting the articles and attacking other editors, without adding anything fruitful to the articles in question. ARYAN818 has already been blocked several times for his user name, though he claims 818 is just his area code and has no neo-nazi connotations (though his frequent edit-wars in Aryan provide an interesting insight). I suggest other admins keep an eye on the pages referred to above as frequent edit warring continues to foment there. --Ragib 07:37, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

ARYAN818 should be permanently blocked for his user name. User:Zoe|(talk) 21:25, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
His articles of interest (and manner of edit warring) lead me to believe that he is not a neo-Nazi. While this can also be easily faked, his name in the email address he used to write to the unblock mailing list also had "Aryan" as a first name. Maybe he should be blocked for edit warring, but I don't think he should be indef blocked unless he shows more serious behaviour. --Deathphoenix ʕ 13:59, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
Neo-Nazis use the code number "88" ("HH" = "Heil Hitler". This is a clearly inappropriate user name. User:Zoe|(talk) 19:21, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
And Chinese people use "88" as a good luck number. I've seen plenty of people with "88" at the end of their user name (I mean email address and user names outside of Wikipedia, I don't know anyone here IRL), and they're about as Neo-Nazi as I am. I'd never heard of this 88=HH="Heil Hitler" stuff until here (and as a side rant, Buddhists can't show a certain religious symbol because of the damn swastika). And he's not 88, he's 818. Look, I'm not saying that it's not serious, but there is such a thing as too sensitive. This guy is an edit warrior, sure, but looking at his edits, he doesn't strike to me as a neo-Nazi (at least, not yet). That means that he's certainly a good recipient of a block if he's a persistent edit warrior, but it'll take more evidence to indef-block him for having a neo-Nazi username. --Deathphoenix ʕ 04:17, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
I thought this had been pointed out already, but in the same way that 88 means HH, 818 means HAH, or Heil Adolf Hitler. And there's the tiny matter of the fact that the code is preceded by the word Aryan. If his username was CuteFluffyKitten818 it might be different, but it's not. The claim that it's a common name sounds fishy to me - I've never heard of anyone called 'Aryan', and after going through two disambig links I only managed to find a single person called 'Arya'. --Sam Blanning(talk) 12:36, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
Nope, that's the first time I've had that explained to be, and thanks for that. Man, there's a code for friggin' everything these days. --Deathphoenix ʕ 01:44, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
This is a tough username issue. I appreciate the argument of ARYAN818 (talk · contribs) regarding his user name (on User talk:ARYAN818). I saw the name on RC patrol a while ago, and was about to indef block for username, but after reviewing contribs, I'm pretty sure he's not making a neo-Nazi reference -- Samir धर्म 01:53, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

I will study the matter and shall offer my comments within two to three days. Prima facie, I find that the two users concerned do not care for the guidance and comments of fellow-wikipedians. This is not a good sign. --Bhadani 17:47, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Being referred to by name again[edit]

"Ryulong! you are not Moot, stop changing other peoples edits." Does this count as a personal attack, too? Ryulong 23:31, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

  • All of these are vandalism, but please don't look for the NPA policy. It's not needed, in the first place, and we all take chances when we edit Wikipedia. The gibbering on the talk page and the random edit warring is sufficient for intervention without trying to assess whether or not a person has been insulted. Geogre 02:32, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Essjay (talk · contribs) block of CovenantD (talk · contribs)[edit]

Regarding this issue, I wonder if a another admin could take a look. I think the admin here chose a block way before necessary, to what otherwise appears to be a good user. Summary: yes, I think the user was making negative comments, but I don't think such an immediate block was called for. Thanks for your time. --Kickstart70-T-C 19:46, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

I've already asked Essjay on his talk page to clarify this[51], as I feel it is questionable. The comments by which led to the block of User:CovenantD are these: [52], [53], [54].
Essjay justified his block on the grounds of disruption. [55]., [56] I find this highly questionable. I'm concerned that blocking was taken before any other form of dispute resolution. Blocks should be preventantive, not punitive, and as I commented to Essjay, this smacks of punishment to me. Looking at the block log [57], Essjay describes the disruption as being: "incivility and borderline personal attacks at RFCU". Now borderline personal attacks are no basis to justify a block, and nor is incivility. WP:BLOCK is clear on what constitutes disruption:

Sysops may block IP addresses or usernames that disrupt the normal functioning of Wikipedia, or pose any kind of threat to it. Such disruption may include (but is not limited to) changing other users' signed comments, making deliberately misleading edits, harassment, excessive personal attacks, and inserting material that may be defamatory. Users will normally be warned before they are blocked My emphasis.

I think this is a clear case of a badly issued block. Given the number of positions Essjay holds on Wikipedia, I would hope there are other issues behind this block. Otherwise, to me, it creates suitability issues for some of them. Hiding Talk 21:27, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

I think it fair to ask Essjay to explain his block here before speculating further. We need to be clear, though, that the comments CovenantD made on the RFCU page were highly, highly insulting and completely inappropriate. I don't know where he got the idea that such behavior could ever be acceptable. Mackensen (talk) 22:51, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

It's fair to say that CovenantD lost his temper and said some inappropriate things in his frustration. It's also clear that CovenantD was being extremely impatient with RfCU, which has always been a slow process, but as he noted it was his first RfCU and he may not have realized how long they take. I think these are mitigating factors that should be considered. But I don't see what's "highly insulting" about the remarks, nor do I understand the "abuse" you cited in your initial decision to reject. I'm curious to know what you were referring to. Kasreyn 23:07, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
I don't know if you are reading different comments than I, or reading them in a different light, but while I agree they weren't helpful and were pretty negative, I don't see anything "highly, highly insulting" in any way. --Kickstart70-T-C 23:09, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
I'm not convinced of that at all, no. The first comment I link to above is an expression of frustration, after all, Wikipedia is not meant to be a bureaucracy and here is someone running into a bureaucratic log-jam. I don't think anyone is being insulted other than the process. The user showed good faith in asking how long it would take, and having received no reply over 24 hours later frusratingly quesried no response. The rest of his comments seem reasonable considering the replies given. I think your response there is just as inflammatory, to be perfectly honest. I can't see how you were personally abused. Nowhere on the page does it indicate length of delay in getting a response. The first comment is not a personal attack in any shape or form, I can accept a case being made that it is incivil, but it's not cut and dried. The other comments are attempts at fixing a perceived flaw in the system. I think there's demonstrable good faith in Covenant's prior edits, [58], [59], so I think respondents should have assumed good faith, and I don't think they have. I think this situation was escalated by the participants a lot further than necessary, and I think in disregard for user conduct policies. Let's be clear, no-one's conduct is acceptable after CovenantD expressed frustration, but nothing that needed blocks to be issued for. The phrase "storm in a tea cup" springs to mind. Hiding Talk 23:15, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
His remarks go far, far beyond normal frustration, and his insinuations were maddening. Checkusering is extremely stressful work, and Essjay's right about the repeated abuse we experience carrying out our task (the nasty emails, the death threats, the tirades, the incivility, the refusal to believe us when we identify sockpuppets, the conversations with Willy on Wheels). This is a question of customer service. He asked for something; fine. He gave no indication that the request was pressing–if it was an emergency one of us could have been directly notified. He then began making a series of personal attacks, each worse than the last. Finally, I have some time and I wander over the Checkuser page. This is what I find. It's always nice to know that the hours upon hours of sacrifice are appreciated. Mackensen (talk) 23:21, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
Please, asking seriously, give us direct links to the 'personal attacks'. I, for one, am not seeing anything that qualifies under any reasonable definition. Further, he should not suffer for the actions of others. --Kickstart70-T-C 23:42, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
I'll also note that Checkuser is restricted because of its sensitive nature and is a measure of last resort. The clerks explained politely and responded negatively. Mackensen (talk) 23:22, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
Nope, I don't see that they do go beyond normal frustration at all. Given your answer it appears you had the wrong frame of mind when judging his comments. The user had already noted he was new to the process, and was suggesting reasonable ways to fix the process based on having no understanding of the process. He did give an indication that the request was pressing, [60]. I'd also note you have no idea whether CovenantD was undergoing stress caused by his mediation of the dispute at the page indicated. All of us are volunteers. You criticise CovenantD for his frustration, yet seem oblivious to your own frustration and posting based on that. Your actions are equatable to CovenantD's. DOes this mean I should block you for 24 hours? I still can see no personal insult to you personally. That you took comments personally is one thing; that they were meant personally is another. I don't think you have considered the possibility that any attack was meant personally, but rather at the system which appeared to the user to be broken. If no-one watches the page for 24 hours, is it not reasonable to ask if we can have more checkuser enabled editors? Especially if you are told there are only 2 active in the 14. That seems like a flawed process to me. We all make hours and hours of sacrifice. I'm afraid to me your contention that a series of personal attacks were made is not born out by the edits in question. I accept the clerks responses were perfectly polite. I can't see that CovenantD's response was impolite, and I can't see how you and Essjay justify your responses, nor Essjay his block. I'm also concerned by the flaws this dispute throws up. Should checkuser requests be judged on the merits of the case? If not, there is a worrying precedent set here. Hiding Talk 23:46, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
I think I'd worry about that sort of abuse causing our (volunteer) checkusers to "take a break" and cause other checkuser requests to lag, just because one person was impatient. Blocked or not, if CovenantD was that worked up over something on Wikipedia, it's about time to go do something non-Wikipedia for a bit. I'd suggest the new Pirates movie. *nod* Very good. Depp's a hottie. Ayep. ~Kylu (u|t) 23:32, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
I can't quite balance one volunteer's frustrations higher than another volunteer's. They all impact upon Wikipedia. If that's how the checkuser system operates, I'd question considering another model. But CovenantD tried that and was blocked. He did do something else for 30 hours. I don't know. I remember voting in Essjay's RFA. I just can't see where Essjay got the idea these were blockable comments from. I can't see that no-one can accept some fault here or extend some understanding and good faith. Hiding Talk 23:53, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
I hadn't commented on the block at all, and I don't plan to. :) I'd like to see the block pass, then all sides forgive and forget. While overhauling the current system might be good, I do beleive that there are regular proposals on how to do so and none that I know of have passed. As far as volunteer status goes, imho the reason Essjay has all those nifty +flags is because he's trusted by the community to do the right thing: If a resource (such as active checkusers) is endangered, the community should either try to create more of the resource and/or protect the resource they currently have. Verbally assaulting the resources simply causes an already endangered resource in the persona of active checkusers to potentially vanish. ~Kylu (u|t) 00:10, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
Honestly, I don't see how one sockpuppet voting in a straw poll can make all that much difference to an article. Even so, I made a very polite response to CovenantD's nagging and suggested an alternate means for resolving the article dispute he obviously feels strongly about. His response was to dump on the checkusers (as a whole, as I read it). To paraphrase Essjay, people forget that nearly everybody working on wikipedia is a volunteer. Perhaps some members of the Arbitration committee should work on the RFCU page instead of the 28 outstanding cases they have right now. Or Brion V could drop his development work on the wikimedia software to help CovenantD win some content dispute. Last week, Essjay identified and reported a long-time apparently "good" editor who had a long-term record of creating vandal sockpuppet accounts, and the community reaction was a big yawn and a week long block. This week Jayjg's integrity has been publicly questioned in at least two places by an administrator he caught using a sockpuppet to evade a block for 3RR, and Mackensen has been harranged on his talk page over at least three declined requests before CovenantD came along. You're lucky to have checkusers at all, and you may find yourselves looking back on the halcyon days when a checkuser request took only 2 days to be answered. Thatcher131 00:43, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
Absolutely, Thatcher131. Part of the problem with checkuser is the difficulty in the process that's assigned to it. Technically, I could do the actual checkuser lookup, but socially I wouldn't touch it with a fifty foot pole manipulated by a radio-controlled robotic arm. Look at the Socafan (or whatever his name was) incident where he griped about Essjay revealing the country in which he resided. Actually, look at every five or so RFCU requests since the page began: there's no shortage of gripes and abuses heaped upon those who we're supposed to be trusting with this sensitive information. Now, if he took all the usernames that edited Tiannamen Square and checkuser'd them and reported them to the PRC, I could see that being an issue. If I had someone request that I write an article on my talkpage, I'd consider it. If they demanded such and were nasty about it, I'd tell them to go bugger off in so many words. I think the exact same thing happened here, just with different privelege levels involved. ~Kylu (u|t) 00:58, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
I would not have complained about the revelation of a country had it not been for absolutely no reason - the request lacked any basis and should thus have been declined, the fact that it was not revealed a bias - and if Essjay had not written: one is from country x, the other from country y, my geography is bad but I guess they are close so it might be a sock. Try that with a Californian and a guy from NY. Socafan 22:50, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
On what Thatcher has said, it used to take a lot longer, and the page was considerably less nice than it is right now. Also, the diffs presented are not entirely perfect, as shortly after making a comment, ConvenantD changed the wording from "Time to get more people." to "Time to replace some people.". Basically a call to fire some checkusers and get new ones because they aren't responding instantly to a request. There's no timeframe listed there, insted a resort to attacking the a volunteer process to use a sensitive tool. Kevin_b_er 01:24, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
Actually, I read it as "replacing the people who aren't actually doing any checkusering", but I guess I assume good faith from an otherwise good editor. I do note that the people claiming CovenantD was making personal insults have not responded to requests to specifically point out those personal attacks...and that was the reasoning behind him being blocked anyway, wasn't it? --Kickstart70-T-C 04:43, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
I remember when we didn't have checkuser, so any threats about taking it away don't bother me too much. Maybe we should consider if it's a tool that isn't worth the hassle it causes. Hiding Talk 11:37, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm really moved to wonder about the motivations of those who have stirred this up so much; hundreds of similar blocks are made each day, and none ges so much as a word, much less this sort of treatment. I'm inclined to wonder if User_talk:CovenantD#I_would_suggest_you_formally_take_the_above_to_ArbCom doesn't have a lot to do with it. At any rate, the community shall have what they desire: I'm joining the other 13 who don't go near RfCU, and I've encouraged Mackensen to do likewise; the fact that nobody could be bothered to think "Hmm, this might leave us with nobody willing to do this" indicates to me that the community really doesn't care if RfCU has 1000 backlogged cases. I will, of course, continue to be available for requests from the Arbitration Committee and the Foundation Office, as are the other 13; to assume that not working on RfCU = not running any checks is a grand fallacy. Essjay (Talk) 05:16, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

I've looked over this situation and while on first glance I can see why some people don't see it as a justified block. However, I also know (as a fellow CheckUser) how grindingly difficult that job is. I used to be the only person working RFCU, and I couldn't keep it up for long because it's timeconsuming and totally thankless. People who put out with an attitude that they're entitled to whatever they want right away are going to find that that's not the way things work. CovenantD failed to show respect for the very difficult job that Essjay and Mackensen are doing. The rude attitude with which he expressed himself was out of line, especially for someone serving as a mediator. Frankly, he needed a quick smack in the ass to get him to realize he was out of line. I don't know if 24 hours was the appropriate time, but I suspect Essjay would have shortened the block if an apology had been forthcoming.

Long and the short of it, treat your checkusers nice; there aren't many of them and they work really hard for you. Be mean to them at your own peril. Kelly Martin (talk) 05:29, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Hmm. Correct me if I'm wrong, but did I just see a user (CovenantD) reduce the chances of every other user, including myself, getting help with a checkuser request? Because that kind of bites... I wish you would reconsider, Essjay. And even if you won't, why is it that only about 1% of admins are entrusted with this power, and only about 0.02% actually use it? If it's such a frustrating hassle that burns you out so badly, why isn't the power expanded, maybe to a whopping 50 admins? Surely there have to be, out of those 1000, at least 50 trustworthy admins! I would imagine there are far more than that. Kasreyn 06:58, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
(Responding in the order questions were asked) Yes, that is the case. No, sorry I won't; this happens far too often, and as the link I gave above indicates, there is at least one user actively looking for opportunities to continue. Again, this is a fallacy; while only 2 of us are (were) active on RFCU, nearly everyone with the permission is active in using it. The majority of those who have it are on the Arbitration Committee, and they use it for that; there are also requests from the Foundation Office, and sua sponte checks on things like vandals who continue to create more accounts after they are blocked. If it were expanded, it would be 50 admins burned out, instead of 14; the problem isn't that the permission burns you out, it's the abusive treament from other users. Indeed, there could be, but you have to be very careful when you give out access to information that could get people stalked,imprisoned, or executed; if you give out someone's IP, they can easily end up being stalked, and if they live in a country with a hostile regime, can be imprisoned or executed for the things they do here. That's not something to be handed out lightly. Plus, more is not necessarily better; the more who have access, the harder it is to control, and being able to control who has access to very sensitive private information is imperative. Essjay (Talk) 09:53, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
Question: is it really so sensitive information? Everybody who is on Internet should realize that their IP is practically public; people who are unhappy with this use proxies. Countries with oppressive governments have many other ways to find out what their citizens are doing rather than wait for wikipedia admins to reveal IP addresses (and I know about such countries first-hand). Personally I would not care much if my IP address was visible to everybody. For example, currently my IP is 68.178.232.99, let anybody who wants to stalk, imprisone or execute me do their worst :) --Vlad1 04:20, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
Well, no one is likely to break down your door over your edits, or maybe put your family in a re-education camp to keep you quiet, unlike a democracy activist from Egypt or a Falun Gong member from China. More than that, Wikipedia has a long tradition of anonymity and a strong privacy policy. And there have been some very bad stalking incidents. Oppresive governments are hardly the only groups that might have an interest in harrassing an editor off the wiki. Thatcher131 05:50, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
  • I'm sorry, but the reaction to this incident is completely out of proportion to the questionable block. I appreciate that it's a hard job, but nobody forces anyone to do it, and I think WP:BITE, WP:AGF and WP:CIV cut both ways. I'm disappointed in a lot of people's reactions here. All I was looking for was an acknowledgement that there was an over-reaction. As to the discussion on CovenantD's talk page, I wopuld hope people would assume good faith in the fact that people were steering this to the appropriate venues. I would have been far happier sorting this out with Essjay, but a user brought it here, well within their rights and as I had already involved myself I felt obliged to comment. I stand by my assertion that this is a questionable block. I apologise for the grief it has caused people, but I still feel refusing to grant a checkuser request on anything other than the merits of the case is disappointing. I really think there was a failure in common sense on all sides here, and to be honest, if CovenantD deserves a slap, then can we tear up all the guidance on there being no cabal, and no elite, and make sure we tell people that if they ruffle the feathers of the important people or their friends, then they're in the shit. Because I'm sorry, but that's what happened here. [61]. Every time something like this blows up it's because people act before they think. I know I'm guilty of it, but don't we have a right to expect better from the chairman of the mediators? This is out of hand; whatever happened to a common sense approach and the extension of putting yourself in the shoes of the other? If someone has a beef, I thought they had the right to be heard respectfully. I'm sorry for the way this has turned out, it was never my intention. Hiding Talk 11:19, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
    • If someone has a beef, I thought they had the right to be heard respectfully. Couldn't agree more; I wish Essjay and I were extended the same courtesey. He was heard respectfully (from Thatcher) and he chose to be rude. I can't help that. I'm not going to quit checkusering, but as it seems I'm the last man standing, y'all will have to work around my own work schedule from here on out. Mackensen (talk) 11:49, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
      • You misunderstand me. I'm talking about Kickstart70's beef with the block. I'm disturbed by the questioning of people's motives in commenting on the block. I can't help that the block was given. I believed there was a right to question it. Hiding Talk 11:56, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

You know what, I'd have no problems with Essjay and Mackensen going on a long (and possibly permanent) RFCU break. The one good thing that's come out of it is that it's advertised even more that RFCU is a gruelling and thankless job. If people choose to treat RFCUers like this, and the RFCUers feel like they're being hung out to dry, let them take a long break from doing that job so the rest of the community can realise how hard it really is. (please note, not a comment on specific people here, but a general comment on people being hung out to dry) --Deathphoenix ʕ 14:30, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

I do have a problem. They are both reliable and trustworthy users, they have done a huge amount of work behind scenes to improve the encyclopedia, and, they handle most of the RFCU cases. "But the side effect is to show RFCU is thankless job" gain is not worthy the loss. -- Drini 17:48, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
On the other hand, having them perform and the support a block against policy and without the warnings that should have happened show pretty clearly that there is an issue with judgement that needs to be considered. I am very thankful for their work, however that does not leave them blameless for making a bad choice. The two are not mutually exclusive. --Kickstart70-T-C 19:47, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
Oh, I agree it's a huge loss. Sometimes people like CovenantD just don't know (or don't care). I wonder what people like that would do if there's noone around to cater to their every whim? --Deathphoenix ʕ 14:29, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
Or maybe, since this was his first request of this sort, he (like me) didn't even know that every admin didn't have this power? Seriously, why is CovenantD getting such a hard time for this? No one who supports the block has detailed what the 'personal insults' were, even after multiple requests. Numerous other admins and editors say that this was a badly-issued and too-hasty block, and the admins involved in the initial situation aren't being at all asked to say that they did something incorrectly. This just smacks of 'administrator privilege', which is wholly against the policies of Wikipedia, by all I've read. Perhaps there are unwritten rules that allow this behaviour? If so, would someone be kind enough to share those? --Kickstart70-T-C 21:40, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
I can only assume that you either didn't read his comments or don't understand why insinuations of that sort are insulting. Either way, I'm not going to apologize for being offended. He's never apologized either, so I think the matter settled. Mackensen (talk) 21:50, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
I can only assume that you don't understand the issue here with blocking against policy, or don't care. All I would like to see out of the admins involved is an admission that the block was done too hastily and not within policy. That, just by itself, is quite important. Admins cannot freely go around ignoring policy, and then expect their decisions to be respected. --Kickstart70-T-C 23:18, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
No, I understand the issue quite well; the issue is not blocking against policy. Thanks for ignoring my comments; I suppose it's very easy to construe this issue in such a manner when you've never read the original exchange (or, possibly, have no idea why being called, effectively, lazy and incompetent is an insult). I think we've about exhausted the usefulness of this forum, to say nothing of my patience. If you feel there's a legitimate issue here I recommend an RfC or Arbcom. Mackensen (talk) 23:23, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
I do not see how CovenantD called any of the participating admins lazy or incompetent. I'm sorry if this bothers you, I simply do not. So yeah, you have/had a chance to explain to me where he said this, but no one wants to answer me directly on this point, or whether the block violated policy. I'd rather not take this to Arbcom or RfC, but I guess that's what you'd prefer...involving more people, wasting more admin time, rather than answering some pretty bloody easy questions. --Kickstart70-T-C 01:24, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Update Guess what? If CovenantD had asked Samuel Luo and Tomananda nicely why they appeared to have the same IP address, they would have told him. Thatcher131 19:55, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

  • Comment I agree with Samuel Luo's comment at RFCU; I'd say the block was a bit of an overreaction but CovenantD was definitely out of line and was operating based on misconceptions which I hope s/he understands by now. I also hope Essjay and Mackensen can de-stress for a while but (maybe after a break) continue to keep an eye on RFCU and handle the requests that warrant it. I think having RFCU available outside the machinery of full-blown arb cases takes nontrivial pressure off of every level of wiki ops that involves dealing with sockpuppets (including the arbcom). I'd oppose expanding checkuser for reasons described by Essjay. Phr (talk) 03:24, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

An AMA request for assistance has been made[edit]

An AMA request for assistance has been made here --Kickstart70-T-C 02:35, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

It seems the part of policy that justified this block is really what's in question. So lets go to the policy. Its for 'Disruption: incivility and borderline personal attacks', and its for a day("24 hours)". There's an attack on the wikipedia process, a personal attack on all the checkusers, and general incivility from the fact that wikipedia isn't always instantantaneously responding from CoventantD. The problem is that you are not being stonewalled, you are being disagreed with. Several people do not agree with you that the block was without policy. The brief block was for incivility and borderline personal attacks, and warning is recommend, but not required. There is the policy reasoning Essjay applied behind the block, which is the subject of your AMA request. Kevin_b_er 04:55, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
I'm saying this because I don't know...is there a place within the AMA request, or outside of this very tainted process which this discussion should place? I don't feel that any sort of great solution to this is going to happen within what's already happened here. --Kickstart70-T-C 05:06, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

User:EccentricRichard[edit]

This user edited User:Mike Rosoft's userpage (diff), adding references to Josef Stalin and "Wikipedia is Communism". He also edited a user subpage (User:Mike Rosoft/Spambot) and changed all User:Mike Rosoft's spambot links to a an email address purporting to be Stalin's... I reverted his edits and the user (I assume it to be Richard) then edited (diff) my userpage from an IP, adding in the WiC and Stalin references. I think he should be blocked as the Communism Vandal or more likely an impostor of. — Gary Kirk | talk! 18:43, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Firefox got him. JoshuaZ 21:21, 25 July 2006 (UTC)


SPUI (talk · contribs)[edit]

User:SPUI in continuing to ignore sanctions put in place by the Arbcom 3 weeks ago with regard to state highway articles. On Minnesota State Highway 33 SPUI has engaged in an revert/edit war with User:Jonathunder in direct violation of section 2.1 of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Highways which explicitly prohibits himself and any other involved parties from engaging in disruptive editing of highway articles. Full text of the decision is as following "2.1) Should SPUI, JohnnyBGood, Rschen7754, and PHenry disrupt the editing of any article which concerns highways he or she may be banned by any administrator from that article or related articles. All bans are to be logged at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Highways#Log of blocks and bans." He's violated this many times since the end of arbcom, this is just the latest time. --JohnnyBGood 21:30, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

I think this belongs on Arbitration Enforcement actually? 207.145.133.34 21:39, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
No one ever reads that board, hence I've put it here. --JohnnyBGood 21:42, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
Well. I sometimes read it. In any case I've had a word with SPUI and Jonathunder over Minnesota State Highway 33. SPUI has reacted well to such reminders in the recent past so I expect that will be the end of it in this instance. --Tony Sidaway 21:51, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
How many warnings does he get. This is the second or third time in a week you've warned him. He's violating his probation, you obviously agree or you wouldn't be warning him. Are the warnings indefinite as long as he moves his disruption around? Cause if so I'd like to make some controversial edits that could be seen as disruptive but have so far restrained myself. --JohnnyBGood 21:54, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
Also he's obviously not receptive to such warnings if he's continuing to edit war just at different articles. --JohnnyBGood 22:02, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
I'm being patient and reasonable. If SPUI continues to get into these little squabbles despite multiple warnings, he may find himself sanctioned. In the past there has been a lack of community confidence in enforcement actions taken against SPUI, and I'm sure you agree that it wouldn't be sensible to impose a sanction only to have it overturned. --Tony Sidaway 22:11, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
True there has been SOME irregularity in sanctions against him in the past (most of the sanctions were justified in the past if just through the sheer number of them). But that was before there was a set ruling against him written in the perverbial cyber stone saying he can't do this anymore. Yet he continues to do so. Sanctions at this point have arbcom backing when it comes to disruption of highway articles and any admin wheelwarring a block against him now is violating the arbcom ruling. You understand my fustration here. If he's on probation he should be on probation, otherwise call it what it is and say the probation means jack shit and he, myself and any other editors subject to it don't have to follow it. JohnnyBGood t c VIVA! 22:18, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
What about blocking and banning the idiot who came up with an article about Highway 33 in the first place? We don't need articles about Minnesota highways on here. Nor do we need articles about "historic places" in Minnesota, like the author's other contributions. If nobody had created the article on Highway 33 (with an admittedly wrong title, to boot), this fiasco would never have started. --Elkman 23:14, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
How about we refrain from personal attacks on the person who created the article. And for the record there is plenty of evidence the creator had it in the right place to begin with. And we do need HW 33 on here as it is part of a series of State Highways. JohnnyBGood 23:48, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
I agree that this comment doesn't really have any relevance to the discussion at hand. Isopropyl 00:00, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
Elkman is the person who created that article, he writes a lot about Minnesota, and he was ironically expressing regret that he had given the participants in this latest spat a further opportunity to engage in warring. --Tony Sidaway 00:39, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Technically, Jonathunder first violated Remedy 6 of that ruling (I've no idea if he was aware of it, mind you), and then SPUI vio'd #2.1, and #6 too (which of course he certainly was). Then add in some tagging/tag-reversion silliness to boot. I'm with Tony on calling this one "fair warning fodder", given the digs on both sides, but would support (and implement) escalating enforcement if this continues. Alai 04:45, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

I violated the probation by moving it from pink fuzzy bunnies? I think not. --SPUI (T - C) 21:33, 25 July 2006 (UTC)


Kosovo[edit]

The user and the administrators in this artile must be checked. The stile, substance, ect. of the articel are total serbian propagander. The articel has more mitology history then the history of Kosovo. Any way there is a article History of Kosovo. The editor in this articel are serbs or serbians supporters and they don know noting about Kosovos geography, cultur, ekonomy ect. This articel is "bloced" from many user names with irelevant poits (For they is more importen the history befor 1000 (Not it!! there are no documents only from Serbian side about this time, albanians documenst was burned since 1912) then the history in our time). Before one month it was big Edit War, not for the argumets but the serbians users block every inicitiativ witch has not to do with serbians. They are more users here or they are working for the Serbian goverment and they have maked a net here in Wikipedia with many users accounts (see all articels about Serbia, there are for each thing twise one for the "hero" and one for "inesans" serbian). My big problem is thate the administrators witch are impëemented in this articel are supporting serbian users. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.158.254.169 (talkcontribs)

FYI, this appears to be User:Hipi Zhdripi editing without signing in for some reason. -- ChrisO 21:58, 25 July 2006 (UTC)


Pplumley (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log)[edit]

FYI. I blocked this user indefintely for threatening to sue us because we deleted his trash blatant advertising. Administrators, please reference [62]] for evidence.--Kungfu Adam (talk) 14:32, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

If anyone feels this is too harsh, feel free to act accordingly.--Kungfu Adam (talk) 14:33, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
Strongly support the block. I wonder if they're going to sue us in a federal court in Trenton, New Jersey? User:Zoe|(talk) 15:34, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
The block seems entirely justified to me. Blatant spamvertising and a legal threat - nice! -- ChrisO 22:01, 25 July 2006 (UTC)


multiple IPs at Talk:Highgate Vampire[edit]


Harassment and personal attacks have occurred under the sub-heading "Comments by members of The Highgate Vampire Society." The offenders have all received warnings which they have ignored and indeed treated with contempt. These unregistered users are attacking someone who is not me, is not the topic under discussion, and someone who is not contributing to the discussion as they falsely claim. Furthermore, they are introducing insults and defamatory comments which have no bearing or relationship to the topic under discussion. They have effectively hijacked this discussion page to pursue a vendetta against someone mentioned in the original article who is an author and exorcist. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vampire Research Society (talkcontribs)

From what I can tell the primary editors of this article are also the authors of the references for the article:
  • David Farrant claims edits by 172.215.88.163
  • Vampire Research Society self identifies as supporting the views of the organization headed by Sean Manchester
  • Catherine Fearnley claims edits by 213.122.114.239
  • Barbara Green claims edits by 82.47.185.39
are involved in this editing dispute. I propose this be deleted and protected from recreation for the following reasons:
  • There seems to be no independent references
  • The article is about an event involving living persons that are borderline notable
  • The article can be easily recreated if still notable in 10-20 years.
I would just list on AfD myself, I hesitate only because of my unfamiliarity with the subject thus I am requesting addditional views --Trödel 14:28, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
Well, I've been following and trying to "moderate" the discussion there for a month now (most of the time without logging in), and I'm tempted to say "yes, delete it" (in fact I've proposed it on the talk page), so as to get it off my hands, but I'm not sure whether it would be quite fair to those who have worked on the article. Also, you aren't apparaising the situation quite accurately. The editor who initially created the page was a folklore researcher, Jacqueline Simpson, who had based her text mostly on two texts by another folklore researcher, Bill Ellis. Neither is exactly mainstream or notable (while being members of various folklore societies, they don't seem to have academical degrees in these subjects), but they were not involved in the vampire hunts either. Next, User:Vampire Research Society appeared, still unregistered and using multiple IPs, and started a very aggressive polemic against Ellis and Simpson on the talk page, while at the same time vandalizing the article in accordance with his POV (that vampires exist and Manchester kills them). Eventually the article was semi-protected and his IPs were blocked. Afterwards he got his present account and started pointing out various perceived or real factual inaccuracies (which I found rather insignificant). These have been corrected when acknowledged by the other two editors of the article - Simpson and/or me. Since he was accusing Farrant of various faults and crimes, Farrant et al. appeared and started making counter-accusations. That's about it. I'm not sure what the conclusions should be. I am sure that the article/talk page is in constant need of admin attention because of the fact that the main "characters" of the story are extremely active online. --Anonymous44 19:49, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the history - I'll help monitor the discussion - I hadn't read the article itself very thoroughly - was more focused on trying to identify the alleged personal attacks that were on the personal attack noticeboard. I think a good course of action would be to delete the accusations on the talk page - or archive them since Refactoring seems out of vogue, and see where things go from there. --Trödel 21:07, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
Archiving them would probably be a relief, although they're going to produce another 100 kilobytes of accusations in no time. But how do we tell the difference between personal attacks and simple discussion of the contents of the article? The accusations are, at the same time, at least possibly relevant material for the article. For example, Vapire Research Society justified his endless diatribes against Farrant by using them to prove that Farrant shouldn't be used as a source for the article. And vice versa. --Anonymous44 22:18, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Misrepresentation continues even above. User:Anonymous44 has claimed that our view is that "vampires exist and Manchester kills them." This is misleading and untrue. The VRS certainly accepts the existence of predatory demons and Bishop Manchester certainly exorcises them, but exorcism is not "killing." Supernatural entities cannot be "killed." They can only be cast our or removed from where they occupy. Anyone doing their homework will be aware that David Farrant and his two female helpers, Catherine Fearnely and Barbara Green, stalk Bishop Manchester and the Vampire Research Society on the internet and once found start posting extreme abuse, fabriction and libel. This they have done on the talk page where Jacqueline Simpson, the original article's authoress, consequently stopped contributing (though she has recently addressed something to 194.145.161.227 that is not Farrant related). Likewise, the Vampire Research Society also announced that it will make no further contributions to the talk page whilst Farrant and company are posting defamation and malicious falsehood. The reason the VRS was obliged to refer to Farrant in the discussion was due to Simpson's emphasis on his alleged part in the Highgate Vampire case in her article. There were inaccuracies which needed addressing. Source references, published court reports etc, were provided by the Vampire Research Society and reminders of glaring errors in Bill Ellis' published account where Bishop Manchester and David Farrant are mentioned. These were not views or original research. They are factual inaccuracies for which supporting evidence was made available. Jacqueline Simpson and Bill Ellis have both been offered archive material which includes recorded interviews with Farrant from 1970 and thereabouts. They have shown no interest in taking up this offer which was first made in 1996 and has been repeated down the years. This material would oblige them to alter what they have published as "fact." Farrant is a compulsive liar. This is not just our view. He was declared so by magistrates, judges, juries and journalists throughout the 1970s, which is the relevant period. Notwithstanding the mistakes in Ellis' and Simpson's accounts, Farrant has many criminal convictions, some relating to desecration and vandalism in Highgate Cemetery, others relating to threatening witnesses with black magic in a sex case, and was sentenced to four years and eight months in 1974. Bishop Manchester and executive members of the VRS (of which I am one), on the other hand, have no criminal convictions; though you would not know it from the way we are treated on Wikipedia. The offensive and potentially libellous comments from Farrant, Fearnley and Green remain on the talk page and, moerover, have been added to after Simpson and the VRS disengaged.

Vampire Research Society 27 July 2006


Concerns with User: Qho [63][edit]

I would respectfully request that an administrator help Qho understand that a number of his contributions to user discussion pages have been inappropriate. I attempted politely to warn him but was rebuffed, with behavior typifying his manner of postings. You may review his user contributions in the past several days to notice what he has been doing on several user pages [64]. Thanks. Ptmccain 18:56, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

  • I'll keep an eye on him. It looks like someone blocked him for a day. If he doesn't shape up in awhile, I'll step in. --Improv 19:13, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
Thank you. Ptmccain 19:14, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
Yes, I have decided to give him 24-hour block to cool off and given a notice. Since it's my first non-trivial block (i.e. not directly vandalism-related), I'd be happy with a review of my action. Misza13 T C 19:23, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
I have past experience with her and think that this is simply a learning curve deal, but I don't think a 24-hour block was out of line given the amount of communication Ptmccain had with her previously, especially given that I narrowly dragged her away from a civility block earlier.—WAvegetarian(talk) 20:56, 25 July 2006 (UTC)


Template:User WP Anime[edit]

Userbox {{User WP Anime}} needs to be restored as it was arbitrarily deleted and salted without a TfD notice or a notice to WikiProject Anime and manga. --TheFarix (Talk) 20:26, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

  • As I noted when I gave notice that I deleted it, I'll give you the contents so you can move it to userspace if you like. --Improv 20:31, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
That isn't a valid deletion criteria. I would appreciate it if you stopped encouraging a setup that results in the decentralisation of copyvios.Geni 20:34, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
I am not aware of any official policy to userfy all userboxes. I've seen a proposal for it, but certainly not any confirmation. It was your duty to ensure the deletion did not have any adverse effect or go against consensus, which you clearly did not even attempt. WikiProject userboxes have been, asfar as I know, sanctionned by the userbox-related guidelines. Circeus 20:37, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
Err, the German solution calls for the box to be userfied before deletion (for fairly obvious reasons), and WikiProject userboxes are among the few types that most people would consider as actually being beneficial to the encyclopedia. Why exactly did you delete this again? Kirill Lokshin 20:40, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
Actually, you're right in that this is a project userbox -- I was too hasty in this deletion, and have undone it. --Improv 20:45, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
Thank you.
Out of curiosity, I recall that the German solution at one point included a provision to move WikiProject boxes to project-space (e.g. Wikipedia:WikiProject Anime and manga/Userbox). Has this been taken out? Kirill Lokshin 20:49, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
Not only did the deletion of the project userbox play havoc WP:Anime's membership list Category:WikiProject Anime and manga participants, but you had also removed the alternative instructions on the project page about how Wikipedias can list themselves as part of the project using the argument that "Userboxen are passé". [65] --TheFarix (Talk) 20:57, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
Damn it, this is the sixth time I've attempt to post this!! TheFarix (Talk)

Interestingly enough I was gonna add this probably right after it got deleted in a weird coincidence without even knowing about this debate here but it spurred me to an interesting solution which I have adopted on all my non purely wiki-action based userboxes (languages and such excluded), I have converted all of them to pure cats which I think is the better solution and would suggest people do if they'd rather not deal with userfying hundreds of lines of userbox code. Pegasus1138Talk | Contribs | Email ---- 21:09, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

This didn't belong at ANI, by the way. --Cyde↔Weys 21:57, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree Cyde, it should have been taken to DRV but you have to admit that taking this to AN/I instead of DRV got more input and got the job done faster than DRV ever would have, maybe AN would have been better though. Pegasus1138Talk | Contribs | Email ---- 22:02, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
You're right, and I could get a lot more immediate attention if a brought a category renaming here instead of WP:CFD, but this is simply the wrong venue. --Cyde↔Weys 22:39, 25 July 2006 (UTC)


User unwilling to accept criticism even though criticism is given in a civilized manner[edit]

As much as I can attempt to do so, I tried to give my criticism to 219.91.203.71 in a civilized manner, yet he just not accept my criticism and repeat what I say. While I appreciate his edits in certain areas of the website overall, perhaps I tried to work a couple of "things" to make sure he's not repetitive and/or more condensed in his weight, and he's not appreciative in the criticism that I've given him in a civilized manner. — Vesther (U * T/R * CTD) 22:11, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Feel free to contact me (details in box on top) if you need someone to give him a friendly nudge. I'm on IRC right now. --mboverload@ 22:37, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
I've had a quick read and I think he's just trying to have a giggle with you, there's lots of "lol"s etc. He may not be appreciative of your criticism but although it's constructive, some people don't appreciate any type of criticism. I think the best thing you can do is ignore him and keep an eye of him to see if he starts getting offensive with other editors. Englishrose 23:01, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Taylor Iosefo[edit]

Could somebody with the proper authority remove the history of this attack page? User:Zoe|(talk) 22:48, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

And the same thing at Peter MCcoy, please? User:Zoe|(talk) 22:49, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Taylor Iosefo & Peter MCcoy 's deleted histories appear to contain no information suitable for oversight application. The pages are already deleted and not available to non-admins. ~Kylu (u|t) 01:24, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
So you don't mind that they contain claims that the subjects have committed illegallities, without a single source? User:Zoe|(talk) 01:41, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
Zoe, I'm afraid that what I mind and don't mind have nothing to do with the fact that the articles in question do not, to the general public, exist. Oversight, in fact, still doesn't remove the revisions, it only hides them, the same way as they're currently hidden since the articles are deleted. The only difference is that you, being an admin, can review the content regardless of the fact that they're deleted.
Oversight is approved for use in exactly three cases, and I would refer you to WP:OVER to review those cases, or if you don't trust a page I wrote, see the original version of m:Hiding revisions on Meta. If a request is sent in to the Wikimedia foundation by those offended (WP:BEANS applies), then an oversight request can be sent in to us, but at the moment it does not appear to warrant such attention.
While I dislike attack pages of all sorts, there's nothing differentiating this one from the thousands of others which have been deleted already, so it does not require oversight attention. If you still disagree, feel free to contact one of the users listed on the oversight page and ask them. I'm sorry. ~Kylu (u|t) 02:53, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
Kylu is correct here; apparent libel is not enough to oversight a page's history. However, if the subject (or a legal representative) requests its removal or it becomes an WP:OFFICE issue, then oversight may be used.Voice-of-All 04:50, 26 July 2006 (UTC)


Qho (talk · contribs) posting personal information[edit]

A strange request was left on the Medcab talk page concerning User:Qho and User:89.32.1.82. It appears Qho posted the personal information of IP on his/her userpage (diff). I'm utterly baffled by what's going on here, but the IP address was blocked by User:Yamla for editing other peoples' comments, meanwhile Qho has left some threatening messages on the IP's talk page. If anything, the userpage edit should probably be removed from the history, but Qho needs to cool down at the moment. I brought the issue here to see what should be done. Cowman109Talk 22:14, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Note: The "personal information" that was left appears to be an extract from a WHOIS lookup, [66] though these may be the contact details for a small ISP or business rather than the individual editor. Road Wizard 23:24, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
Nonetheless, the IP address is clearly being harassed, and that should probably be looked at. It seems the IP was removing such edits that were harassing him and is being punished for that, which is also why I brought this here as things seem a bit iffy. Cowman109Talk 23:30, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps it would be best to have a removal of this personal info from the edit history, in order to protect this person from further harassment. The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 01:16, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
There is definitely something unusual and inappropriate going on there. The all caps typing and unusual messages makes me think he needs a time-out or someone needs to have a chat with him. The posting of personal information (whether or not it actually was, its the attempt that counts) bothers me though and certainly needs to be looked at. He admits here [67] to his behaviour and I note no ban, yet the IP was banned for 48 hours. Even with the IP being uncivil, this user still went ahead and tried to put personal information on the page.--Crossmr 06:44, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
I was the admin who blocked the anonymous user. This should absolutely not be taken to imply that I condoned Qho's behaviour. My dealings were with the anonymous user who engaged in a number of disruptive edits. I am glad that someone else looked into Qho's edits. While I am not convinced that posting a country of origin (essentially, whois information) constitutes a personal attack, many of this user's other edits may have constituted such an attack (and apparently did as he was blocked). Thank you. --Yamla 03:54, 26 July 2006 (UTC)


User:Pat8722[edit]

I just indefinitely blocked Pat8722 (talk · contribs). I feel that his continual confrontation, insults, and misinterpretation of Wikipedia policy is quite disruptive. I briefly blocked this editor before. If you feel this block is in error, please let me know. Background information is available at User talk:Pat8722 and especially at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Pat8722. — Knowledge Seeker 19:59, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

I am unconvinced that Pat's behavior rises to the level meriting an indefinite block. Could you explain in more detail why you think it does? JoshuaZ 21:15, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
A couple of observations: first, if you've been involved in disputes with this user before you shouldn't really be the one issuing the block, and second, it might be more appropriate to start a request for arbitration if this user has already been through an RfC. I do agree with JoshuaZ's comment that an indefinite block seems overly harsh for what you describe - it's a big escalation from a "brief" block earlier. -- ChrisO 22:04, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
All right; I've taken your comments into account and released the block on him for now. Yes, of course, Chris; Pat and I have not been involved in editing the same articles and aside from the matter for which I blocked him, I do not believe we have encountered each other. — Knowledge Seeker 05:40, 26 July 2006 (UTC)


Help keeping an eye on an abusive user[edit]

I recently ran across a number of personal attacks, via talk pages, hidden comments in articles, and edit summaries, by Machchunk (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log) (take a quick look at his recent contributions for an idea of the latter) and gave him a two day block for violating WP:NPA. Within two hours of the end of his block, he was back at it, albeit at a slower pace. I don't like to be the only admin passing out warnings (and when necessary, blocks) to a user, so if a couple others wouldn't mind keeping an eye on his contributions for the next few days to see if he shapes up, that'd be helpful. Thanks. Tijuana Brass¡Épa! 20:54, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

I just went & looked at his user page: childish and intentionally offensive, "If you for some reason are reading this, then I probably hate you. [...] Go home, little boy.". A brief perusal of his contributions, esp to Daft Punk, show no benefit to the encyclopedia of keeping this editor around. Pete.Hurd 22:24, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
His user page alone says it all. Once a user gets a block and continues with the same shit all AGF is gone. --mboverload@ 22:39, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
He claims to be a "webmesiter" on ebaumsworldsucks. I don't know the forum, so how confrontational are they? User:Zoe|(talk) 22:40, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
At a glance, fairly confrontational. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 01:26, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, given another abusive edit summary and rude response to a different admin, I'm reblocking him for a week. If another admin thinks it was excessive or premature and wants to shorten the time, I won't wheel war with you — I just don't see any evidence that this user intends to act in a rational manner here. Tijuana Brass¡Épa! 04:05, 26 July 2006 (UTC)


Legal firm adding multiple links to their sites[edit]

New User:Marler Clark been adding links on multiple pages on food poisoning causing bacteria to their "www.about-" pages (eg http://www.about-salmonella.com) - which are produced by the law firm Marler Clark. This is clearly spamming, adding links to ones own web sites, and possibly a group vs individual user account (depending whether "Marler Clark" is an individual head of the legal firm in question, two individuals of "Marler" and "Clark" or a group within the firm). Could an admin do the undo all-last edits tool-thing you have, and decide about the validity of the user (eg its a bit like having a User:Pepsi) ? David Ruben Talk 01:03, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

All edits reverted by User:Tom harrison. User:Marler Clark seems to have stopped after being warned. Thank you! ~Kylu (u|t) 06:45, 26 July 2006 (UTC)


Underage users[edit]

I was asked by a user I believe is underage what my sexuality is. I do not feel this is a personal attack or anything but it makes me profoundly uncomfortable to be asked this by a user who is underage. Now, I have no intention of discussing my sexuality, religion, or political views here on Wikipedia with anyone, it is not the right forum. But I am concerned when the discussion turns this way when the person engaging me in conversation is under age. Does anyone know of an article on Wikipedia or a reliable article on the Internet generally where I could direct such users which would warn them of the dangers without sounding like I'm going totally off the deep end (as I probably am in this paragraph)? --Yamla 04:01, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

I personally proclaim it on my userpage because otherwise I'm answering questions all the time; there's nothing, in my opinion, wrong with them *knowing* that you're straight, gay, bisexual, or whatever else, it's when it crosses into actual discussion ("What does..." "Have you..." "How do you...") that it becomes problematic. There are probably documents online with the Center for Missing and Exploited Children that discuss safe internet practices, you might check there. Essjay (Talk) 04:24, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
This article from education-world might help. ~Kylu (u|t) 04:28, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

edits by 203.29.131.4 need attention[edit]

I just reverted what seemed like random insertions of <nowiki> in Mountain by user 203.29.131.4. I looked at his contributions [[68]] and there seems to be a lot of dubious changes. I have not got time to check them out as I am at work! -- Chris Q 11:36, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

I think it's a shared IP, and I only see two strange edits recently, both of which have been reverted. Proto::type 11:56, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

User:EasterGeorge[edit]

EasterGeorge has been spamming an exteral link to a white supremacist article on a number of pages, as well as mentioning said white supremacist's book in the "References" or "Further Reading" of various articles (this is the first time I've encountered "refspam"). I left spam template tags on his Talk page, and his response was to harass me by e-mail. When told that he should leave remarks on Talk page, not contact editors by e-mail, he continued to e-mail me. CRCulver 13:35, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, we can't prove whether emails were or were not sent, but the contribution list is good enough for me. Spam-only account, indefinitely blocked. --Sam Blanning(talk) 16:25, 26 July 2006 (UTC)


A multitude of hoaxes[edit]

Several users, apparently school kids from the Baltimore area, have been salting Wikipedia with hoaxes for a long time now. They started with many, many articles on a supposedly famous American familiy called the Eyre/Heller/Peters "dynasty", all of which have been deleted now. Today Aría has been listed for AfD, and because of that, by checking the contributions of the article's authors, I encounted yet again another Eyre family hoax, Knowlton Estate. I have pared down Grange Estate to a one-sentence stub, since there was nothing verifiable in it since it included more Eyre/Heller nonsense. I have also speedy deleted Category:Eyre family, as it was being slapped on more articles which just begged for more hoaxing. I have warned three of the contributors of the articles that if they write any more hoaxes, I will personally block them permanently. User:Zoe|(talk) 16:33, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Review also User:History21, User:70.104.231.84, Judy Feder, Eyre legend, Eyrecourt Castle, Westminster High School (Westminster, Maryland), And Having Writ Hipocrite - «Talk» 16:55, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
And Having Writ does appear to be a real SF book, though how much of what they wrote about it in the article is true, who can say? Again, Judy Feder is a real Congressional candidate, though her article needs a lot of attention. They also seem to be involved in an edit war at Maryland. I'm wondering about sockpuppets. "They" also seem to have a lot of interest in First Family of the United States. Also watch User:70.35.97.241. User:Zoe|(talk) 17:00, 26 July 2006 (UTC)


R40A (New York City Subway car)[edit]

A set of IPs have been changing information on various pages about the NY subway. Multiple editors have asked these IPs for a source/reference with no sign of a reply. The edit summaries are very similar.

What should be done in this sort of situation? Gimmetrow 17:04, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Go to WP:RFPP and ask for Semi-Protection. Editor88 18:56, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
OK. However, another editor did ask and was denied. In this case, latest IP violated 3RR so there should be a short break. My general question is about "devoted" editors who repeatedly edit the same thing into an article, despite multiple other editors asking for a reference. If the editor won't respond on talk or user-talk, it's not exactly a content dispute. In a different case I'm following, an editor has made the same edit about 24 times in 20 days, not violating 3RR but also not explaining the edit. What to do? Gimmetrow 19:15, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
Users end up being disruptive by refusing to discuss what is obviously a contested edit, and can be temporarily blocked for it. Clearly if they're making the same edit 24 times in 20 days without discussing the edit, they're not interested in consensus and should be temporarily removed from the process. JDoorjam Talk 19:35, 26 July 2006 (UTC)


Football365[edit]

Please keep a close eye on IP address 86.133.156.89 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log). They have contributed malicious and highly irrelevant content to the page mentioned in my title over a very small period of time (~15 minutes). Thank you. --Raj Fra 18:48, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

User:Ryan4[edit]

Could someone else please take a look at Ryan4 (talk · contribs)? It seems to me he's spamming -- basically inserting advertising for an online book this time -- but I'd like another opinion or three. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 13:53, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Spam. The Crux of World History by Francisco Gil-White may be a great book, but if its not being cited as a source, adding it to multiple articles (how many? I got tired before I could count all the articles) in External links is spamming. One puppy's opinion. KillerChihuahua?!? 14:00, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm really starting to get tired of JPGordon's personal vendetta against me. It's not spamming because: 1. The link is NOT COMMERCIAL, i.e. it provides no services for any fees, therefore it also 2. cannot be advertising. I added links to The Crux on pages such as The Greco-Persian conflict, Ezra, Nehemaiah, and Artaxerxes because there are specific chapters in the Book that present a very interesting Historical analysis of those particular topics, with specific reference to the history of the class conflict between the Jewish people and the Greeks and Romans around the time of the 1st Century. What on earth is spam about that? The only true guidelines about adding external links are that they cannot be the person's own website, they cannot be commercial links, and the amount of one particular viepoint should not dominate if that viewpoint is out of the mainstream. I have broken none of those rules. Ryan4Talk 18:18, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

  • "Personal vendetta"? What would I possibly want vengeance for? You've done nothing to offend me one way or another. However, anytime anyone inserts identical links into over a dozen articles in twenty minutes, those links are going to undergo very strong scrutiny. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 19:31, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
The unpublished book appears to offer an highly opinionated view of history (Chapter 1: The Roman ‘Final Solution’ in the first and second centuries; why it happened, and why you never heard about it. Chapter 2: Enter the villain: Alexander.) Further the author, Francisco Gil-White, does not seem to be significantly more notable than most professors. -Will Beback 19:25, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
As an unpublished work, the link cannot be intended to serve as a reliable source. The link is being added to all these articles to promote Gil-White. It's spam, even if it's not commercial. Pete.Hurd 21:55, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
I have some familiarity with Francisco Gil-White's writings in relation to the former Yugoslavia, one of my particular areas of interest. He's got a long history of pushing extremely tendentious conspiracy theories and denialist POVs (some sample article titles: "Was Slobodan Milosevic murdered?", "The Serbs Were Not Oppressing the Kosovo Albanians... Quite the opposite", "The Freezer Truck Hoax - How NATO framed the Serbs", etc - see [69] for more). His work on political issues raises a number of red flags, particularly this one, which is present in spades: "Claims not supported or claims that are contradicted by the prevailing view in the relevant academic community. Be particularly careful when proponents say there is a conspiracy to silence them." (WP:RS#Exceptional claims require exceptional evidence) I can't think of any reputable academic sources which cite FGW's views on Yugoslavia. I'm not familiar with his writings on Middle Eastern issues but based on his performance on Yugoslav history, I'd be very wary of them indeed.
As for The Crux of World History, FGW's not a professional historian so I would certainly not consider him a bona fide expert on ancient history. The book in question is a self-published source and so is emphatically disqualified from consideration as a reliable source per WP:RS#Self-published sources. FGW is an anthropologist and psychologist; he's plainly not a "well-known, professional researcher writing within his field of expertise". Nor is the book quoted in the articles. The whole thing seems very, very spammy to me and I strongly support removing the links. Further, I'm not at all convinced that the article on FGW meets the standard of notability set out in Wikipedia:Notability (academics), so I will be proposing it for deletion. -- ChrisO 20:11, 26 July 2006 (UTC)


User:Mantanmoreland using a sockpuppet and violating policies[edit]

User:Mantanmoreland has been editing Gary Weiss along with his sockpuppet User:Lastexit. See Fred Bauder's comments at [70]. Both accounts have harrassed User:WordBomb who attempted to edit the article but was blocked indefinitely. Both Mantonmoreland and Lastexit have voted on at least one AFD[71]. 130.15.164.51 19:05, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Lastexit hasn't edited the article since April 29. Do you have any evidence that sockpuppet abuse is continuing now? (ESkog)(Talk) 19:07, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
The AFD in which they both voted ended May 18. They continue to edit the same articles, for instance Naked short selling which LastExit last edited on July 20[72] and Mantanmoreland last edited on July 22. WordBomb is still blocked indefinitely for having edited Gary Weiss and having accused Mantanmoreland of using a sockpuppet. This means there has also been possible Admin abuse that should be looked at. 130.15.164.51 19:15, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
For future reference, 130.15.164.51 is User:HOTR. SlimVirgin (talk) 23:16, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
User:WordBomb's edit history shows nothing that justifies a block[73], certainly not an indefinite one which should only be handed down by Jimbo or by the ArbComm, not by an admin acting on her own. 130.15.164.51 19:27, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
WordBomb is blocked indefinitely for having posted what he believes are an editor's personal details. When asked for an assurance that it wouldn't happen again, he reposted them on his talk page. Since then, he has been harassing various people by e-mail, and has evaded the block several times with sockpuppets. He has made no useful contributions and should definitely stay blocked. As for the sockpuppet allegations, FloNight and Fred Bauder are dealing with the situation. SlimVirgin (talk) 20:48, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
Didn't WordBomb do this the second time after you asked for proof of the sockpuppet allegation?130.15.164.51 20:52, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
Since you don't seem to be catching this... the block was given FOR saying that users were 'Gary Weiss', which you keep doing. Whether you are correct or not, this is an attempt to 'out' the real identity of a user and not permitted. While Wikipedia does discourage people editing articles about themselves that does not constitute a reason to violate privacy restrictions. The {{autobiography}} template should only be used when it is known for a fact that the person has edited the article, and even then the particular user should not be identified unless they have publically revealed/acknowledged their identity. --CBD 13:13, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Gary Weiss has been accused of editing his biographical article under a pseudonym. Shouldn't Wikipedia:Autobiography apply here?130.15.164.81 21:28, 24 July 2