Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive256

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

Noticeboard archives


BJAODN yet again[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

  • Plus, that he wheel wars while telling other people not to wheel war. >Radiant< 15:10, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
    • Yeah, that's the bit that really gets me. --Masamage 15:19, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
      • Is it wheel warring for an admin to revert something once? The whole point of admin actions being reversible is that outrageous actions can be reverted. Jeffrey reverted a second time, which is what I meant by 'wheel warring'. I was supporting cunctator's initial revert (which also seems reasonable to me in such a blatant situation). I certainly won't revert a second time if someone other than J.O.G. thinks these pages should remain deleted while we discuss their status. +sj + 22:33, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
        • Absolutely, of course it is. It amazes me that you don't even know what a wheel war is. By your silly definition, it's not a wheel war if admins from two sides step in and each once revert an admin action. We've had that before and everyone involved was either blocked, sanctioned, or desysopped. Stopping wheel warring is about stopping disruption, and it's just as disruptive to have six admin reverts across a page whether it's done by one person or six. --Cyde Weys 16:04, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

A few details[edit]

Sj has barely edited at all in the last month. This morning, he basically logged in, undeleted ~90 pages, and logged out again. Before doing so, he commented in the ongoing deletion review [1] and accused Jeff Gustafson of disruption [2].

The undeletions include several pages unrelated to BJAODN, such as an old pool (note related deletion debates), and some images lacking fair use rationales [3] [4].

Finally, he has set up what appears to be a to-do list in his userspace (User:Sj/BJAODN) (which links to mailing list argument on the same topic), and a quick glance over BJAODN shows that not all of its subpages have been undeleted yet [5].

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

I wonder if it's a compromised account? If it isn't, blocking is probably a bad idea because from experience any block of an admin except by Arbcom tends to end up with even more AN discussion than would have happened anyway, a short wheel-war, and finally ends up at Arbcom anyway (generally speaking most of these events shouldn't happen, but will do anyway). --ais523 16:42, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
As we don't know any of this, and he hasn't deleted the main page - let's wait and see? Secretlondon 16:47, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
Highly doubt it's compromised. Admin's passwords were made stronger recently. If it was compromised, it wouldn't have just undeleted BJAODN, it would have probably blocked Jimbo and deleted the Main Page. Although his behavior is really suspicious, it's not vandal-like behavior. — Moe ε 17:00, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
In fact, Sj made a very cogent argument why they should be undeleted here ("Restore. The idea that BJAODN articles should be deleted on GFDL grounds is ridiculous. We quote, cut and paste materials from sources and across Wikipedia articles all the time without elaborate editor tracking....") I would take that as explanation. -- phoebe/(talk) 20:05, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

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

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

  • Why was he blocked? That's a pity; he was only doing what he thought was right. +sj + 22:30, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Kudos to User:Sj! That's what WP:IAR was intended for. He needs a barnstar, not a block.  Grue  19:18, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

FWIW, his actions are getting praised on the mailing list and elsewhere; there is certainly no consensus that this is a bad thing. Many people wanted the pages undeleted; Sj was being no bolder than Jeffrey Gustafson was in the first place. See: BJAODN timeline -- he is aware of the issues involved, probably better than many people commenting. -- phoebe/(talk) 19:57, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

There is certainly a consensus that wheel warring is a bad thing. That people happen to like the result does not excuse wheel warring. -Amarkov moo! 00:55, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

a quick note[edit]

A lot of admins have been making claims about BJAODN content that is hard to assess without access to the original pages and edit history. Please leave them publicly viewable to facilitate a better discussion.

I'm not sure myself whether some of the pages should stay or go -- but some of the pages that were deleted in Jeffrey's swath were clearly a) not copyvios, b) placed in good faith, c) actively preserved by numerous editors, and d) edited dozens of times. In all, he deleted around 10,000 edits by others, which is a pretty ridiculous thing to do without broad discussion. Since half of the follow up discussion took the form of "might have been a bad idea, but is gone now, so let it be gone", or "this cruft should have been deleted anyway", it was apparently difficult to have even a simple evaluation of the validity of deletion of 'GFDL' grounds -- something that is needed. I don't think most people engaging the ensuing debates understood how much effort have gone into these pages. We may decide that this effort was misguided and should no longer be preserved, but I hope that will b ethrough a reasoned communit ydecision, and not in haste.

The current DRV discussion doesn't seem general enough to link to from all the BJAODN pages, but it seems like the right thing to do to put some sort of tag on top of the pages letting readers know there is a discussion going on, to get everyone together to discuss in one place. It seems that the group discussion the deletions is different from the group discussing them a month ago, and different again from the group that contributes to the BJAODN files. +sj + 22:30, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

  • And how does that justify you ignoring all those group discussions and instead immediately implementing the version you prefer? >Radiant< 08:46, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
    • The Wrong Version.svg
      I read those discussions carefully. There wasn't much content there; a number of discussions were shut down with speedy closures; and there is no focused discussion at the moment (even this thread is all over the place and hardly counts). I did try to avoid the Wrong Version, but couldn't find a magnetic monopole or a cat with buttered bread strapped to its back... +sj +
      • Nice wikilawyering, but the point is that you ignore several ongoing discussions. And wheel warring, of course. Do you know the meaning of the word "consensensus"? >Radiant< 12:34, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

GFDL misconceptions[edit]

There seem to be a few misconceptions about GFDL floating around. We technically contravene the GFDL every time we perform a cut-and-paste merge (leaving a redirect in place) without carefully merging the edit histories. Technically, the presence of the redirect, plus adequate edit summaries saying on the one page where the removed material is being moved to, and on the the other page saying where the incoming material has come from, is enough for someone to trace the edit history and comply with the GFDL. But in practice the chain of evidence sometimes gets broken. Also, GFDL is contravened with pages in the Category namespace, as the content explaining the category pages (which include many of my edits released under the GFDL) are cut and pasted when categories are renamed. Also, redirects from merges should be labelled as such, to avoid them being deleted and losing the edit history of the text, but this rarely happens in practice, and sometimes redirects are redirected again, or turned into new articles or disambiguation pages. See Talk:Ægyptus and Talk:Ptolemaic Egypt for examples. A very large chunk of the edit histories for the text at those articles is at History of Greek and Roman Egypt. If that ever gets deleted without separate preservation of the edit history, then the GFDL is most definitely being contravened. In my opinion, as long as the edit summaries for additions to BJAODN stated where the material was cut and pasted from, then that is sufficient to comply with the GFDL in as much as similar practice in article namespace. Carcharoth 17:24, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

GFDL is easily contravened in massively collaborative works. Any time you remove something from the 'History' section you may be courting trouble; and what can be considered suc ha section is debatable for large documents. just two of many parts of the license that should be fixed if it is to be suitable for such massively collaborative work. +sj + 22:19, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
But most edit summaries for addition of material do not give such information. (H) 17:45, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
the way the text is structured, the sections tend to indicate the article content came from. +sj + 22:19, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
Funny thing about the GFDL, is that a few years ago I had a discussion with one of the staff members of the FSF about Wikipedia's use of it, & while he mentioned that Wikipedia has been out of compliance with the GFDL, it wasn't for cut-n-paste or breaking the chain of attributions. No, WP was out of compliance for a fairly technical reason, due to how the Wikimedia software does its versioning: we have multiple pages with the same name! But since Wikipedia is the largest collection of GFDL materials, the FSF wasn't that worried about the lack of compliance. And if they noticed a technicality like that, I'd think they would have also noticed our problem with attributions -- so it truly an "obvious" violation? BTW, has anyone queried the FSF for their opinion on this matter? -- llywrch 20:04, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
I don't think we need to ask the foundation if we should follow our own license or not. (H) 13:13, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
It's not Wikipedia licensing the stuff, it's the contributors, and Wikipedia doesn't get to choose the interpretation. That said (and I'm probably more of a GFDL zealot than most people around here) I think Sj's note is reasonable and I don't personally find this stuff to be a problem. I'm a lot more concerned about various people's efforts to suck out Wikipedia content and assert their own GFDL-incompatible licenses over it. 06:56, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

User:Herostratus threatening disruption over image on Lolicon[edit]

"I'll continue to delete it until I get blocked or desysopped"[6]. Now that the image is on commons and he's no longer capable of deleting it, he seems to be gearing up for an edit war instead.

Would somebody please tell him to pursue a more productive dispute resolution channel? --tjstrf talk 00:17, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

  • His objection to this image seems perfectly reasonable to me as does his removing it from Lolicon (not commenting either way on the diff comment though), SqueakBox 00:26, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
  • As far as I can tell, it's a sexualized drawing of a Wikipedia mascot as a child. I think dispute resolution is going to return it as grossly inappropriate, no matter what. --Haemo 00:27, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Jimbo has said "We will not let our agenda be set by pedophile trolls." There is no reason to insist that the Foundation's tradmarked puzzle pieces, associated with Wikipi-tan, be included in softcore kiddie cheescake pics except to have some fun at the expense of ptentially harming or embarrassing the Foundation. Which is trollery. So do your worst. Herostratus
    • It's relevant to the article, encyclopedic, and free content. Hardly "trollery". Your confrontational attitude isn't helping anything either. --tjstrf talk 00:32, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
      • In your opinion but not that of others. I dont see how this image helps the article or the encyclopedia though I can easily see how it hinders the project, SqueakBox 00:34, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
      • Uh, deliberately linking an entity like Wikipedia to pedophilia is seriously inappropriate. We don't have pictures of Aunt Jemima in cheesecake poses on pornography, so why would we accept this? --Haemo 00:36, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

EC'd twice and I will comment on the comment in question, it isnt PA and I found it useful as I believe did others at PAW, SqueakBox 00:31, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

  • I, for one, don't know what any of those acronyms mean. Oh, wait, the first one is probably Edit Conflict. --Masamage 00:35, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Okay, so here's the thing... If these pictures are presented specifically for the purpose of illustrating sexual depictions of minors... then doesn't that make it the sexual depiction of a minor? I mean... it's a binary choice here. Either it is a sexual depiction of a child, in which case it should be removed. Or it isn't, in which case it doesn't belong in the article, and should be removed. Am I missing something obvious here? Bladestorm 00:42, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

  • Wikipe-tan at the seashore. The article could just as easily use the pic to the right as it would be considered "lolicon" by some. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 00:44, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
    • Yes, but the point is that an article on lolicon should clearly illustrate what it is - "lolicon" does not incorporate all images of child which some people could consider sexual. The Sears catalog would qualify in such a case. --Haemo 00:46, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
      • That's the image uses, actually. --tjstrf talk 00:47, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
        • That's a highly misleading statement. Up until roughly a fortnight ago, when the image was changed to the very same image whose introduction is the subject of dispute here, the Japanese Wikipedia article used Image:Wikipe-tan the Library of Babel.png. Uncle G 09:05, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
          • That's impossible. The image under dispute here did not exist a fortnight ago. --tjstrf talk 09:13, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
    • That's not sexualized; actually, it's about as modest as girls' swimming suits get. But I think a lot of people would have problems with using any picture of Wikipe-tan on the Lolicon article just because it's sort of...well...libelous. Against ourselves. --Masamage 00:48, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
      • Yep, but I don't agree with them; honestly, I would rather it had no images at all! --Haemo 00:49, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
        • I've not commented on this subject or article or clip...I don't see Herostratus's as doing anything wrong here. The objection to the use of the image is reasonable and clearly explained. The image adds nothing to articles and is a gross and sexually inappropriate image. I commend Herostratus's diligence. I view the image as promoting pedophilia...not ok here. No image would be best DPetersontalk 00:50, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
          • You are being too sensitive. - !Malomeat 00:56, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
            • Yeah, it's not like it's associating the encyclopedia with a vile and criminal act or anything...wait... --Haemo 00:58, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
              • Won't somebody please think of the drawings!!!? --tjstrf talk 01:03, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
              • Because it´s sooooo illegal amirite? - !Malomeat 01:01, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
                • Sexual acts with children are still illegal, and showing a Wikipedia mascot engaged in them associates the encyclopedia with pedophilia - that's all I said here. I don't know why you assumed I was saying the material on the page was illegal. --Haemo 02:03, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't call that particular image at all sexual. Not in the slightest. Exploding Boy 00:51, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Of all articles, this is surely one where we'd think very carefully before illustrating it. --Tony Sidaway 01:03, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
I would argue that Shock site would be more of an issue.Geni 01:17, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
I'm sure people have tried but Shock site is currently Goatse (or anything) free. --MichaelLinnear 01:20, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
Goatse is not under a free licesence (although I think I deleted about 3 times).Geni 01:22, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
For posterity: Exploding Boy here is presumably talking about the beachwear picture that used to be at the right. --Masamage 01:06, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Can I also point out this wasn´t even sexual? - !Malomeat 01:05, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

  • Herostratus is right, this is a silly dispute. (H) 01:05, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
  • I think it's sexual, and I'm not even attracted to little girls. I mean, it was drawn specifically for the purpose of illustrating what Lolicon looks like; that should tell you something. --Masamage 01:07, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
    • Glad to here it, SqueakBox 01:11, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
    • But as long as it shows no nudity, it is not porn. - !Malomeat 01:08, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
      • I'm not sure that's true, but it's irrelevant. No one said it was porn. --Masamage 01:09, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
        • It is being referred to as lolicon. I believe you were all calling it porn. - !Malomeat 01:11, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
        • People were saying that there is no good reason to illustrate "sexual artwork involving childlike female characters." that also "refers to an attraction to girls below the age of consent." Not everything needs a picture. --MichaelLinnear 01:12, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
          • This whole thread is irrelevant and should be closed, SqueakBox 01:12, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
            • Agree with both of you. --Masamage 01:21, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
              • Why?Geni 01:24, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
                • With Michael, because that's the sort of thing I was getting at. With SqueakBox because it's turned into too open-ended an opinion-faced. Now that I'm faced with it, though, I'm also perfectly okay with it staying open in case anything useful gets decided. --Masamage 01:26, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
                  • I am amused at this Moral panic - !Malomeat 01:27, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
                    • Well, heaven forbid you should take people's concerns seriously. --Masamage 01:29, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
                      • There's a difference between taking people's concerns seriously and arriving at the same conclusion. This is a silly argument between silly people and should have been ended a long time ago according to WP:NOT#CENSOR. Unless a solid argument can be made showing that the image in question is illegal, there's no reason for it to be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs)
                        • That's all sound reasoning. But I was responding to his demeaning expression of amusement at us little ants who disagree with him. --Masamage 01:55, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
                          • You didn´t disagree with me. You disagreed with WP:NOT#CENSOR, Wikipedia, and common sense. - !Malomeat 01:56, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
                            • When you post the diff where I said "that image should be removed," I will say your accusation is justified. Meanwhile, I'll inform you that I have no intention of voting either way on the subject. I find it distasteful, and I restated other people's concerns (clearly marked as such); I never said it has no place here. --Masamage 02:04, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
                        • (deindent) You can't just appeal to "Wikipedia is not censored" for all your concerns. The problem is not that this is being removed out of any concern over the material (the lolipop one is worse), but rather that it is:
                          1. Associating the Encyclopedia with pedophilia, something which is has never condoned, and is inappropriate.
                          2. Does not properly illustrate the article in question.
                        • Given that there are many images which could do (2) properly, without doing (1), there is no compelling reason to keep this image in the article. --Haemo 02:01, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
                  • While it may be the case that not everything needs a picture it would be odd to have an art style without one. At present .ast .ca .de .es .fr .zh-classical .ko .id .it .no .pl .ru .sv and.zh all have pics.Geni 01:57, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I was referring to the beachwear image. It's not at all sexual. This image, however, does strike me as sexual. Ditto the one with the lollipop and the bikini. Exploding Boy 01:25, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

So that makes it okay to edit talk pages? - !Malomeat 01:31, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Is it fair to include this, and not the image in question?|left|thumb (The image i refer to below, click to see.)

The image which was in this section, and which some prudish editors have imprudently removed, brings up an important point. Does Wikipedia have a guideline for what's classic art, and what's likely to provoke reactions of 'It's sexual!'. I realize that since WP is NOT censored, such a concern can be dismissed by invoking that policy, but I'd rather not do so. I'd rather either find a proper reference for the editors who insist on 'desexualizing' an article about sexualization of minors in the name of 'think of the children'. Because Wikipedia's policy is 'we aren't censored', we can examine these controversial topics with greater depth and freedom, but having a guideline which again reinforces that might be significantly useful. Finally, the image, which I will next restore, was from the home of a Pope. ThuranX 01:57, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes while it is undoubtedly a time-honored piece of art, of the like only seen in the palaces of emperors, there is no good reason for it to be here, showing two boys "enjoying" each other on a discussion page that is unrelated. If you got to the relevant page you have an expectation of possibly seeing "noncensored" content, if you go to an administrative page you shouldn't. --MichaelLinnear 02:30, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
Censored or not, Wikipedia does have a very important pertinent guideline: Do not disrupt Wikipedia to make a point. Adding a picture of boys maturbating, classical or not, to a discussion does nothing but rile things up further. Stay civil, and do not add this picture again. Krimpet (talk) 02:02, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
(ECx2)Excuse you. I re-added once, someone else converted to a click on link, and I addressed the issue at hand. Focus on the topic I brought up, instead of throwing POINT out. that's as craptastic as throwing AGF out left and right. ThuranX 02:13, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
Eh actualy it's fairly trivial US obscenity laws allow exception for artistic works.Geni 02:12, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Can we close this? The image is not appropriate and every article doesn't even need an lets all get back to improving articles, and let this go...It is not serving any purpose at this point. Close the incident now!! DPetersontalk 02:03, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

The swimsuit image was inappropriate because it was Wikipe-tan. I would have no objection to a similarly non-sexual image that wasn't her. Exploding Boy 02:04, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

(ECx2)I'm ok with not using the WIki-logos in inappropriate ways, but since WIki isnt' censored, how is that determined? IF the puzzle logo is the foundatiosn, and a freely held copyrighted logo, then that part is open and shut, remove it and replace. but the larger question of a clear guideline about judgemetns for inclusion of images is still needed, as it's clear that Herostratus' motivations weren't based in the logo issue but the sexualization of the girl that he percieved, and thus he ignored the WP:NOT#CENSOR to achieve HIS version of a Bowdlerized wikipedia. ThuranX 02:13, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
are you offering to draw one?Geni 02:09, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

No. Where did you get that idea? Exploding Boy 02:12, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Then given the low numbers of such pictures under a free license we are not in a position to object to the suject matter.Geni 02:15, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Erm. What? Exploding Boy 02:16, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

beggers canb't be chosers.Geni 02:33, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

*sigh* And here I thought Wikipedia was not censured. --Farix (Talk) 02:30, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Well dont let this disillusion you, SqueakBox 02:32, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
Ok, so the main dispute is the new image with Wikipe-chan. So why not roll it back to Image:Final Solution-chan.jpg? Granted the artwork is not very good, but that's not reason to remove it from the article. --Farix (Talk) 02:52, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
Though I could care less about the image, I must point out that "not being censored" does have anything to do with allowing derogatory images. There is a reason it is preferable to use an animated image of fellatio instead of a "free" image of someone actually performing it. It's called taste, and this IS an encyclopedia. If the rules state that Wiki shall not be associated in a deragatory manner by someone's drawing then so be it. I don't know, but it bothers me that people will cite "no censor" when it has nothing to do with censoring. Censoring would be removing the word "fuck" out of an article because you don't like it. From what I gather about this Admin's actions, he/she believes this has to do with Wikipedia's image in society. It isn't about censoring, it's about not defaming a name. One wouldn't create some Lolicon of Cameron Diaz, and place that on her page, or any page. It's libelous. So, this isn't about censorship, this is about determing if the image itself causes problems.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 02:45, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
Where is the ban on "derogatory" images, especially when used in the context of an article? If there is such a ban, it is contrary to WP:NOT#CENSURE. Unless, that is, you are implying that there are somethings that should be censured regardless of the policy. If so, then we have a case of systemic bias. --Farix (Talk) 02:52, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
Psst: The word is 'censor'. 'Censure' means something totally different, and in fact Wikipedia is censured on a daily basis. --Masamage 02:54, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
I stand corrected on the vocabulary. By the way, where you the one who fixed my goof with the FS-chan? --Farix (Talk) 02:55, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, since I was in here anyway. I make that mistake all the time. --Masamage 02:57, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

I never said there was a "ban" on anything, and libelous images would need to be removed if it is determined that that was what they are. It has nothing to do with censoring. From Hero's comments, it doesn't appear to be something that is being removed because it is "offensive" to look at (which is the idea behind no censorship), but because "we do not include elements from the Foundation logos in kiddie cheescake pics". From his comments, it appears to be more of a copyright problem of authenticity, and has nothing to do with censorship. I think another statement he made, "For purely political reasons if nothing else, we cannot have kiddie cheescake pictures which include elements of the Wikipedia logo," shows it has nothing to do with censorship.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me)

I think that's exactly the issue, yeah. Well said. --Masamage 03:12, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
Given the fuss Wikimedia makes about protecting its logos ("This image is copyrighted by the Wikimedia foundation. It is one of the official logos or designs used by the Wikimedia foundation or by one of its projects. Notwithstanding any other statement on this page this image has not been licensed under the GFDL. © & ™ All rights reserved, Wikimedia Foundation, Inc.."), isn't every Wikipe-tan image a blatant copyright violation, irrespective of the sad and seedy images created with the character? Does the creator of the images have express permission from the copyright holder to create each individual image? I would imagine it would - rightly - be refused for the sexual images. I am tempted to tag them all as copyvios. Neil  09:15, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
They do not incorporate the Wikipedia logo. --tjstrf talk 09:20, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
Elements of it. Neil  10:11, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
It's my understanding that those puzzle pieces are not trademarked or copyrighted by the foundation. It's simply reminiscent of the Wikipedia logo. --tjstrf talk 10:18, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
Unless I miss my guess: the globe is copyrighted; the puzzle pieces are trademarks. That is, they are de facto marks of Wikipedia, and I don't think they have to be registered to be so. Herostratus 10:37, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Herostratus, would you oppose a similar picture with no puzzle pieces, serving the same purpose?--0rrAvenger 11:37, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

I would assume that would work. To Neil, if they take elements that are clearly someone elses then it is a violation. If someone made BELL their logo, but tilted the "E" like DELL does, that would infringement on copyrights. So, using a globe that was clearly Wiki's, or puzzle pieces would infringe on the trademarks of the Foundation.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 12:16, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
A deletion request is being debated there: [7]. However, some there view Commons as a separate entity altogether, not governed by Wikipedia concerns. Arguments as to the appropriateness of the use of Wikipe-tan and the Wikipedia symbols are being dismissed as irrelevant to Commons, i.e., "You American's are a bunch of "coincer du cul". ETA: and that debate is now closed. The image stays in Commons. -Jmh123 19:43, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
And that is in spite of about 2 to 1 in favour of deletion, SqueakBox 23:34, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
Actually the deletion has been reopened, SqueakBox 23:48, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
Looks closed to me. -Jmh123 01:10, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
The image should be deleted and Hero's actions were appropriate. The image has no place here as it is inappropriate (promoting the sexualization of children and sexual activity toward children...also known as Pedophilia). DPetersontalk 23:53, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps you should take this up with my local newspaper, then? The image is less sexualized than some of the swimsuit ads that arrived with last Sunday's paper. --Carnildo 00:40, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
Its not how much material she is wearing its the FEAR IN HER EYES thats the inappropriate sexualisation of wikipedia's mascot. Hypnosadist 01:18, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
This? [8] I probably would take that up with the newspaper if there were such a photo. At any rate, my objection, and that of many, is associating the image with Wikipedia's mascot. -Jmh123 01:21, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
If the FEAR IN HER EYES is getting to you, then why not choose to use the other version of the image, where the character has more of a "come-hither" look and has her mouth closed. -- 13:28, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
As per dispute resolution i am now talking to the admin[9] who closed this deletion request as a keep. Hypnosadist 01:39, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Hello, as the person who is completely uninterested in all of this I'd like to input a few "details" in referance to commons. I was the person initiating the COM:DEL over GFDL concerns on commons. Commons is not an encyclopedia and is a seperate project from Wikipedia. Commons is simply put a free image repository. The images in question will unlikely get deleted so long as they are freely licensed and are within the project scope of commons. Although it isn't a written rule, commons is not censored. Controversial and even illegal media are available on commons such as Nazi flags (banned in Germany) and etc. -- Cat chi? 03:41, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Fine just as long as "commons" is going to do all the work to fix the damage to our reputation that keeping this deflamitory illegal child porn is going to do. It seems that commons is intent on keeping this image, just understand the risks and accept without complaint the inevitable backlash this will cause. Good luck. Hypnosadist 04:10, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
Illegal how? It's not a real human being! It's ink on paper, or in this case pixels on a screen. She's not even naked or engaging in any sexual acts. All this "OMG it's illegal child pornography" talk is just a lot of fear mongering because you don't like it and hope the people in charge are gullible enough to believe it. Fiction is not reality. We don't go around arresting producers, directors, actors, and writers for all the illegal activities we see them creating in movies and TV shows do we? I also seriously doubt that people flock to Wikipedia on a daily basis just to scour the site looking for signs that we endorse this, that, or the other. --Billdorr 04:52, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
I am sorry, "Wikipedias/Wikimedias reputation" is not a deletion criteria. -- Cat chi? 05:22, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
"I also seriously doubt that people flock to Wikipedia on a daily basis just to scour the site looking for signs that we endorse this, that, or the other." Pedophiles are purged and banned every once in a while, due to them obviously "bringing disrepute upon Wikipedia", appearance of a tacit endorsements are and should be a concern of an encyclopedia. --MichaelLinnear 05:05, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
Try checking out Lolicon to find out where this is illegal and which countries are soon to ban this loop hole in child porn laws. "Fiction is not reality" but fiction can inspire reality which is why some countries have already got laws against this and more soon will have. " I also seriously doubt that people flock to Wikipedia on a daily basis just to scour the site looking for signs that we endorse this, that, or the other." they do starting with wikitruth and many more beside. Hypnosadist 05:11, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
As requested, I've checked Lolicon. The image in question is not illegal in any of the countries listed. Of the countries not listed, it's probably illegal in Iran, and possibly a few other Islamic countries that greatly restrict the amount of skin a female can show. --Carnildo 06:36, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
I'm not sure why we're still discussing this here - why not use the talk page for the article in question? --Haemo 06:43, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
No comment on the whole "animated child porn" thing, but I totally agree with the not-associating-this-with-Wikipedia thing. Other Wikipe-tan images are.. cute.. but this is.. slutty, dirty. Remove the puzzle pieces from her hair and you'll fix half the problem people seem to be having (since, other than that, she doesn't look at all like Wikipe-tan). -- Ned Scott 06:43, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
I, as a person, feel very squeamish about Wikipe-tan looking like that. However, as a professional, I see no problem with the image. I very much reccomend that it be recoloured and/or the puzzle pieces are removed from the hair to dissociate it from Wikipe-tan, however this is just my personal opinion. The image in its own respect offends nobody, it's the social construct of "OMG CP, GTFO NAO" that offends people. - 2-16 15:17, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
Well i'm a mental health professional and i do see problem with this image being associated with wikipe-tan, and hence this project. If by this random string of letters "OMG CP, GTFO NAO" you mean that childporn should not be delt with, that will be why america is joint top with russia with most Mb's of child porn per person on the net. Hypnosadist 17:39, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
The debate has now reclosed with the Commons is not censored/we don't care if it harms wikipedia arguement prevailing. Good luck wikipedia.Hypnosadist 18:47, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
FSchan was fine. Wikipe-tan is associated with Wikipedia and really isn't. I'll be fine with the image if the puzzle pieces are removed, though. Will (talk) 19:07, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Jimbo hath spoken. 03:49, June 8, 2007 Jimbo Wales (Talk | contribs) deleted "Image:LoliWikipetan.jpg" (pedophilic sexualization of a community mascot? No. - email me if you have questions) More here: --AnonEMouse (squeak) 19:23, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

User:Wassermann's extended block[edit]

Wassermann (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) (previous name: WassermannNYC (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) has a persistent history of incivility and personal attacks. He was reported on AN/I several times[10][11] and was blocked twice (see also under his previous user name), including his current extended block.[12][13][14] His main and persistent problem is a repeated pattern of calling other editors 'vandals' or 'censors', or their edits 'idiotic', often in capitalized edit summaries, if they disagree with and undo his own edits. He has also set up a special section in his user page proclaiming 'censorship' by various WP admins, and using a derogatory term 'adminisTraitors' in an image caption. Before his last 1 week block expired, he started editing from an IP address (which he openly admits). I received a complaint about this[15] and extended his block indefinitely, pending clarification of his actions. I then posted on his Talk page,[16] asking him to clarify that he understands what actual 'vandalism' is according to WP:VAN (an intent to harm WP), and that he should not accuse established editors with 'vandalism' when he disagrees with their edits. He keeps claiming that he has no way of reading other editors' minds so he does not know their intent, and since their edits seem to harm WP in his mind, they are vandals. He also keeps insisting that using an anon IP to edit WP while blocked is OK, since he was not editing the same topics or doing anything contentious. My main problem with this editor is that he seems to steadfastly refuse to accept any responsibility for his actions. His behavior pattern resumed shortly after his previous block, and at this point it seems virtually certain to resume if he were unblocked, as he simply refuses to understand and accept our rules. His latest response indicates he would like a wider scrutiny of his block, so I am presenting the case here for review. Thanks, Crum375 14:12, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

I personally don't see any reason to overturn the block. He appears to be in possession of The Truth, and convinced that policies/guidelines like WP:IAR, WP:VANDAL, and WP:BOLD mean he can do what he likes. He's apparently been given quite a bit of rope, and made use of it. As far as the IP, if an indef-blocked user starts editing quietly and law-abidingly with a new account or IP we may never even know, nor care... but if an IP is clearly being used to circumvent a block, as in this case, then blocking the IP is appropriate. My 2 cents. MastCell Talk 15:33, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
I'll just briefly repeat what I wrote to Crum375: namely that while the original block seems to me justified and Crum375's assessment of the problem by and large spot-on, this comment, together with the fact that he so casually identified himself on Crum375's talk page, tends to suggest that the user was merely cluelessly editing from an anon-ip while blocked, as opposed to trying to circumvent policy. The policy, on the other hand, appears to require that the user be evading the block or ban, not merely violating it ignorantly -- i.e. actus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea. Isn't there a difference, in other words, between violating the policy ignorantly -- which might merit a warning to be followed by a block extension if the action were repeated -- and deliberately evading the policy, which would merit restarting/extending the block?
And while I appreciate the need to make sure the user understands the relevant policies so that if/when the block is lifted he doesn't simply resume the pattern of incivility, requiring him to write a self-criticism seems a little Maoist for my taste.
Finally, it seems to me especially commendable that Crum375 would respond to User:Wassermann's desire for wider scrutiny of his block by raising the matter here. --Rrburke(talk) 19:07, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
Given User:Wassermann's repeated pattern of misconduct, as shown in the AN/I reports leading to the blocks, and given my communication with him on his Talk page, I have a strong sense that he does not fully understand our policies. Specifically it seems to me he is confused about WP:VAN and is also unclear about WP:CIVIL, WP:NPA and others. Since he resumed his old behavior pattern shortly after his previous unblocking, I would like to be sure that he fully and completely understands these relevant policies before being unblocked this time. This is why I would like him to explain in his own words (not just links to policy pages) what those policies mean. I don't expect him to criticize himself — I do expect him to clarify to all of us his understanding of the policies (which he clearly misinterprets above on his Talk page) so that we can all be sure he won't violate them again. Crum375 19:23, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Comments by anon IP who is apparently User:Wassermann[edit]

User:MastCell -- I don't wan't to use an IP address or start a new account to try and "circumvent a block" -- I stated on my talk page many times that I was not aware that using an IP address to edit while being blocked would lead to further blockage of my account. In any case, after reviewing the material on Wikipedia:Blocking policy it seems that the extension of my block was clearly an states: "An administrator may reset the block of a user who intentionally evades a block, and may extend the duration of the block if the user engages in further blockable behaviour while evading the block..." [17]. To be clear, I did not at any time "engage in further blockable behavior while evading the block," nor did I "intentionally evade a block." I wasn't evading a block because I try to do everything here out in the open (hence my sometimes too vocal edit summaries). I did not engage in vandalism, personal attacks, edit wars, or anything else of the sort while using the IP address (no "blockable behavior"), I was simply getting on with the work of building this encyclopedia. It also states that the block may be does not say that a simple one week block can be extended forever, only that it will be "reset" (presumably at whatever it was before; and in my case nearly another week has already been tacked on).
Wassermann (talk · contribs · page moves · block user · block log) (previous name: WassermannNYC (talk · contribs · page moves · block user · block log) has a persistent history of incivility and personal attacks. He was reported on AN/I several times[188][189] and was blocked twice (see also under his previous user name), including his current extended block.[190][191][192] His main and persistent problem is a repeated pattern of calling other editors 'vandals' or 'censors', or their edits 'idiotic', often in capitalized edit summaries, if they disagree with and undo his own edits.
I wish that you would have left a message on my userpage so that I would have been able able to respond to this, but I'm glad that I noticed it and am able to defend myself by responding. Thanks for bringing this matter to more neutral ground. During the time that I have been blocked I have had the time to read the main policies and rules of Wikipedia, and I can now say that I understand them fully (please remember that I am still a fairly new user). I have also added some key links to Wikipedia's policies/rules to my talk page in the hopes of constantly reminding myself of their importance. I would also like to point out that blocks apply to "gross incivility" [18], and compared to many of the users around here I feel that my uncivil edit summaries have been relatively tame, hugely exaggerated, and oftentimes taken out of context. My violations of WP:CIVIL were more of the "petty" sort rather than the "serious" kind [19], and "petty" offenses hardly warrant a permanent block.
He has also set up a special section in his user page proclaiming 'censorship' by various WP admins, and using a derogatory term 'adminisTraitors' in an image caption.
Due to these issues, my userpage has now been redesigned (just like I said that I would do). If you didn't notice, that link to which you refer was to the Wiki-humor article dealing with so called "Rouge admins"; it was all in the spirit of jest. I still maintain that Wikipedia still has a bit of a problem in terms of censorship in some areas, but only in certain cases. I now understand that these issues must be discussed in a civil manner instead of getting heated up about things, edit warring, using potentially harsh words, and so forth. I am prepared to avoid all of that henceforth.
Before his last 1 week block expired, he started editing from an IP address (which he openly admits). I received a complaint about this[193] and extended his block indefinitely, pending clarification of his actions. I then posted on his Talk page,[194] asking him to clarify that he understands what actual 'vandalism' is according to WP:VAN (an intent to harm WP), and that he should not accuse established editors with 'vandalism' when he disagrees with their edits. He keeps claiming that he has no way of reading other editors' minds so he does not know their intent, and since their edits seem to harm WP in his mind, they are vandals. He also keeps insisting that using an anon IP to edit WP while blocked is OK, since he was not editing the same topics or doing anything contentious.
As I've stated many times on my talk page, I wasn't aware that constructively, positively, and openly editing Wikipedia from an IP address would lead to me being blocked for additional time (much less permanently!), because otherwise I would have obviously avoided it. I now fully understand WP:VAN and have stated repeatedly that I will tone down my edit summaries (no more use of capital letters, no potentially inflammatory statements). I also understand who is and who is not a vandal, and that personal attacks are unacceptable. Also, isn't there a "3 block rule" or "3 strikes rule" when it comes to indefinite blocking, just like the "3 revert rule" that is currently in place? The severity with which my very minor/petty offenses are being handled seem awfully harsh, especially since I have seen much worse behavior on Wikipedia pass unnoticed or even rewarded with higher positions. Please remember: this is the encyclopedia that ANYONE can edit, and permanent bans do not benefit anyone or anything. I feel that, despite a few slip ups here and there, my many edits to Wikipedia have been entirely constructive and have added much to the project as a whole. It would be a mistake to block me entirely from editing.
My main problem with this editor is that he seems to steadfastly refuse to accept any responsibility for his actions. His behavior pattern resumed shortly after his previous block, and at this point it seems virtually certain to resume if he were unblocked, as he simply refuses to understand and accept our rules. His latest response indicates he would like a wider scrutiny of his block, so I am presenting the case here for review.
I accept any and all responsibility for my past actions, I would also like to personally apologize to any editors that I may have personally offended with my actions (especially Jayjg, since he is without a doubt a very good editor all around). I understand the errors of my past ways, and I stand ready to reform my editing habits. I will not resume past behavior when I am unblocked, you can be sure of that. I would like to point out that this behavior on my part has not been persistent as you claim, but only sporadic and occasional. I'd again like to stress that the constant reversion/deletion of valid information and categories tends to grind on my nerves a bit (because I have to constantly waste time correcting it), and this prevents me from moving on to new articles because I must always go back and revert the removal of valid information (this is very annoying for all involved, and it's easy to get a bit flustered). I fully understand and accept the rules, especially those dealing with civility. Thank you all for your time, and I trust that after a careful examination of the facts that you all will treat me a more reasonably, fairly, and justly than I have been treated in the last week and a half.

-- 10:44, 7 June 2007 (UTC) (User:Wassermann)

Really uninvolved user comment: Might I suggest that you place a period after that last bit "Thank you all for your time." and delete the rest, along with my comment. R. Baley 11:03, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

comment Er... what would the point of blocking an editor via the username function if WP was perfectly happy for them to simply log in as an anon in the meantime? As blocks are primarily "preventative" then it follows that it is the editor that is being prevented from harming WP, not the username (usernames/ip accounts don't disrupt WP, people do). If indeed the blocked editor is capable of editing (via an ip account) without demonstrating the behaviours that lead to the block then two things are apparent; first, that the editor could have moderated their behaviour when editing under the username and, second, that they must have then decided not to. Since the above provides of evidence of extreme bad faith then I suggest that an indef block is approprite for the username account, plus as lengthy a block as is permitted for anon accounts from said editor, until as such time as the editor satisfies the community that any editing will be done according to guidelines, rules and policies. LessHeard vanU 20:34, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Block reduction[edit]

I have again explained to User:Wassermann on his Talk page the steps that would be needed for his block to be reduced. Crum375 13:28, 7 June 2007 (UTC)


I am having problems with Makalp (talk · contribs). This user is in a constant state of edit war and prefers to carry out discussions in the edit summary (which never actually say what the user is doing). What is more, the user seems to focus on the removal of Armenian or Kurdish comments from articles, stating that they are biased, without realising that bias can work both ways. In the end, this user just feels they have the right to assert their own opinion on articles without discussing or working with others. I have been warred against by this user on various articles — Başkale (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), Diyarbakır (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and Muş Province (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) lately. I am too involved with the articles to use my admin powers. — Gareth Hughes 18:26, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

He has a long history of doing that, usually with misleading edit summaries ("typos", "corrections", "cleanup" etc).--Ploutarchos 18:28, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm afraid in many instances, the Armenians, Greeks and Kurds are using the Wikipedia articles to spread their propaganda, which are sometimes true but often times distorted and exaggerated according to their own nationalistic views; especially turning a blind eye on the Turkish casualties in such conflicts.

It is as if Wikipedia is some sort of a consolation tool for settling the scores for the losers' side.

Since it is a part of human psychology to side with the "underdog", such "blind eyes" are often seen as justifyable by editors from a third party point-of-view, who, often times, have no idea on the details and realities of such issues.

And when you try to check (balance) such ultranationalist exaggerations, you are accused of being an ultranationalist yourself, as if you are trying to "hide a truth".

As a Turk who contributes to articles regarding Byzantine architecture, Varlık Vergisi, etc, you can be sure that I'm not a blind ultranationalist. I'm only keen on preserving a "balance of truth", and am usually aware of a "supporting the underdog syndrome" whenever I diagnose one.

Regards. Flavius Belisarius 22:27, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

  • All the allegation by Gareth Hughes will be correct if we would change the User:Makalp with Gareth Hughes.
    This user in a revert war on these articles. He had 3RR in 21 hors at Başkale article. He tries only to push his political material to the articles. He tries to add just "Armenian Genocide" to the Turkish cities/towns/places. When we look to his edits (mainly just a rv) include 4-5 words which two of them "Armenian Genocide" with a false reference.
As everybody can see this reference (is an Armenian sided reference) never include word "Genocide"
Reference states; "at 1915 some hundreds Armenians massacred". At 1915 Başkale was under occupation of Armenians for three years.(Exact dates is given in Başkale article), so also "massacre" allegation is not valid in atleast Başkale case.
  • Here my edits at Başkale article. I added many material to the article, including history section. I added there as first time, Armenian history, Kurdish etnicity with population numbers and 80% language percantage.Whose edits are nationalist&fanatic, me or Gareth Hughes
    Most importantly, User:Garzo / Garet Hughes, is an admin. This makes all the case much worst.

Regards to all contributors.Must.T C 21:20, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

  • There was ongoing dispute and rv-war on article which Garzo was a member of this war.
  • The main focus of dispute is;
  • To Call the city as "capital of Turkish Kurdistan
  • To call the notable (Turkish citizen) peoples as (making distinguish with ethnicity) "Turkish" and "Kurdish".
User:Garzo is abusing his admin rights.

Must.T C 22:04, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

As a past involved party, I am less than neutral on the matter. I am here because I was invited to comment on my talk page.
I found my dealings with User:Garzo (Gareth Hughes) on Diyarbakir article to be somewhat unpleasant. Garzo reverted all my edits in one gulp including stuff like copyedits and {{fact}} taggings. Even when pointed out official policy (WP:V) that unsourced and hopelessly biased material need to be removed, user restored the material and later even protected the page. He further even stated that Wikipedia policies and guidelines should not be used as weapons[20]. I expect editors and especially administrators to have a basic understanding of our core policies such as WP:V. Either due to stress or not, Garzo didn't quite demonstrate this.
Having said all this, I feel neither Garzo nor Makalp is a threat to the project. I feel both Makalp and Garzo need to cool it. They have been arguing over many things for quite some time and would greatly benefit by doing something unrelated for a change. It is a big wiki and there are plenty of articles users can edit without disagreeing each other.
-- Cat chi? 22:14, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Neither coolcat nor Vlavius's words here can be taken seriously, summoned up as magicians to cover for Makalps vandalous edits. Removing sourced information, failing to talk about it, and ignoring other users. threatening them and mistreating them. (I can cite evidence if asked). The person on trial here is not the Admin Garzo, but the vandal Makalp. He wastes others time who have to revert his vandalous edits throughout, Wiki - I kindly ask for admin to do something to stop this vandal.Hetoum I 01:41, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Why should we take you seriously? ANB/I is not a court for trial. If this were a case of vandalism it wouldn't be on ANB/I. In no way should my comments be seen as an endorsement of Makalp's edits. -- Cat chi? 03:49, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
If you are not being summoned like a little magician or troll by Moostapha Akalp to cover for him, I dont know what you are doing here? Why should we take you seriously? The admin is not on trial here, Makalp is. Why are we talking about Diyarbakir? Is this about Diyarbakir? If the Admin is abuse report him! Better yet, why was he allowed to become admin in the first place if he was abusive. If you think you are better than this admin, why aren't you an Admin? Makalp makes it so hard for editors to work by removing sourced info and vandalizing. Something must be done!Hetoum I 05:44, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Can someone do something about this guy. I'm loosing my patience, all of my time is being spent on reverting his vandalism. He made 0 edits on any of the articles he edited. He's revert warrring on all of them. He just asked all of the Turkish editors to come to his rescue. Just take a look at his edit summaries and check what the actual edit is. One example is Başkale article where his edit summary was "Dont remove sourced events" but in realty he was the one removing the sourced info from the article. Something needs to be done and done quickly. VartanM 06:28, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
Nice to see that you are expressing "patience" her first time. You are spending your time to push "genocide" expression, as much as possible article, nothing more. Why are you and Hetoum I in so hurry? Everybody can see what is going on Başkale and other articles (if their histories couldnt be deleted). You are trying to make all things(-accusation-) upside down. "his rescue"; whose rescue you mean? Let see. Pleasee keep away from Rv warrings, personal attacks and baseless accusations. Hope to see in wiki with positive contributions.Regards.Must.T C 08:26, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
Makalp I'm not spending my time to push genocide POV, I'm actually spending my time restoring text removed by you. And yes the text removed by you almost always has to do with Armenian Genocide. One look at your contributions shows that you greatly contributed in Turkish related articles, but when looking at Turkish-Armenian related articles your greatness comes down to zero. I hope you can come to terms with the history of your country, and I'm looking forward in working with you constructively on many Turkish-Armenian articles. --VartanM 00:02, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
This page is not dispute resolution. Please try mediation first. Dmcdevit·t 08:31, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
I agree with Dmc here. I do not see vandalism or blockable offence here. Makalp is a highly respected member of Turkish community of wikiusers. He is a productive editor but sometimes prone to edit wars. I have investigated the history of the Başkale article. There is an edit war here over inclusion of a massacre of Armenians in the city. The information is based on a single primary source of 1916: an electronic version of the report of the British secretary of State. We usually avoid primary documents as sources, while some exceptions are allowed. To make the document even more suspicious the electronic document is on a personal page of some student or faculty of Brigham Young University, rarely opens (I got the page on the fifth time) and according to Makalp has a lot of factual errors. The question of inclusion of contraversial material soleyly based on such a source is disputable. To facilitate the discussion rather than the edit war I have protected the article. I have also noticed that Makalp significantly expanded the article in the last days while his opponents were doing sterile edit war Alex Bakharev 11:16, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
Imho, Wikipedia community need to be happy because of the productive edits of Makalp. If we want to catch an academic/ objective level in Wikipedia, we have to avoid this war-like atmosphere. We don't have to divide ourselves into sides and attack "the others" blindly. Whatever you think about Makalp, at least show respect to the productive work that he has been doing. Take care folks, Deliogul 18:06, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
The user ignores discussion pages, removes sourced information usually if it has anything to do with Armenians or Armenian Genocide and replaces them with a poorly written text. Maybe Turkish community of wikiusers could teach him some wiki etiquette. I understand that administrators don't want to get involved in another Armenian-Turkish argument, but Makalp is being disruptive. I don't want him to get blocked, I only want him to stop edit warring and instead use the talk page to discuss his proposed changes. VartanM 04:27, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
There is a growing section of users who mostly ignore article talk pages and feel they have a right to plough ahead with their revisions regardless of other editors. Now, bias can be blamed on all sides, but failure to discuss widescale changes is evident by the lack of open discussion by the likes of Makalp on the relevant article pages. In addition to this, if one looks at the edit summaries in this user's contributions list, one gets a clear idea of their approach to editing. This editor is rude and stubbourn. And as to the character assasination attempted by Makalp and White Cat (aka Cool Cat) above, just look at my own contributions and expert service on this project. I am fed up of bullies not getting dealt with. I get requests from users to revert their edits, protect pages and block them for misconduct, but then there's outrage from the exact same quarter. What action are we to take against persistent bullies when dispute resolution has no effect? — Gareth Hughes 17:22, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

More BJAODN stuff[edit]

I can't seem to find a centralised venue discussing the BJAODN deletions and wheel-warring, but wanted to repeat my concerns that some people seem to be pointing out the GFDL violations as if this was something new for Wikipedia, when it is not. The rationale behind the deletion of the BJOADN pages was that they violated the GFDL. Can someone confirm that these are the same "cut-and-paste" GFDL violations that occur every time a page is merged into another page (eg. merging 20 stubs to form a list article)? If so, the deletion makes no sense. The move function only preserves the edit history of complete pages. Any other internal moving of Wikipedia text (such as merging a complete page into another one, or splitting the contents of a page among several other pages) breaks the GFDL. Some of these cases are too complicated to be dealt with by merging of article histories, especially if they have a long edit history. See Talk:Ptolemaic Egypt for an example. If so, why delete BJAODN nonsense on those grounds and keep all the other cases in article namespace where history merges are too complicated? I realised this point about Wikipedia and the GFDL fairly early on, and made a fuss about it (I can look up those discussions if anyone is interested). I was told not to worry, and that including links in edit summaries back to the source articles, and leaving a note on the talk page of any redirects asking for it not to be deleted, ever (so as to preserve the original edit history of the merged text), was sufficient. From the sounds of the BJAODN GFDL deletion reasoning, others are going through the same GFDL learning process that I did, except they are coming to different conclusions and deleting anything they think is non-GFDL compliant, not realising that for exactly the same reasons large chunks of many Wikipedia articles are not GFDL compliant. I can lay out a full table of the different types of moves, splits, and merges if people aren't getting this point. But maybe Uncle G's idea somewhere about needing to restore some policy/guideline text on this is also needed so people really understand what goes on when a "merger" takes place. Effectively, when you move something to BJAODN, you are splitting out a chunk of text and merging it to a different location This sort of thing happens all the time, all over Wikipedia (such as when a daughter article is spun off a large article from a section that grows too big), and there is no reason to single out BJAODN on this issue. I think BJAODN should be organised better and pruned a lot on taste and libel issues, but deleting large bits of it for GFDL reasons strikes me as a misunderstanding of how splits and merges work on Wikipedia. Carcharoth 23:08, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

  • history mergers are posible for dealing with merges of entire articles. Otherwise a link to the relivant page history in an edit summer is probably your best bet.Geni 23:16, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
  • If all editors are attributed, you're safe under the GFDL. (You don't have to say which editor wrote which sentence) So you don't need a full history merge, you'd be safe just copying the list of editors to the talk page if the article is deleted, or providing a link back to the history if it's still extant. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 23:21, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Carcharoth, these are exactly the kind of thoughts that have been swirling around in my head ever seen hearing about the deletions. It's not so much that I care about BJAODN, but I think "wait.. what about.. all those articles... oh shi.." -- Ned Scott 23:23, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Here's a précis: The sky is not falling. Merger and deletion are mutually incompatible.

We may not merge content and then delete the original article. This is why, at AFD, people opining to "merge and delete" are asked to pick one. The procedure at Wikipedia:Merge, where one notes the source article in the edit history of the target article, is there precisely because of the requirements of the GFDL. If that procedure is followed, then each article's edit history will cross-reference all other edit histories that are relevant.

So, contrary to a couple of editors commenting on this subject, following the proper procedure for article merger does not break the GFDL. Adhering to the requirements of the GFDL, sans any ability in MediaWiki for editors without administrator tools to directly join edit histories together, is why this procedure evolved in the first place, after all. It is untrue that "large parts of Wikipedia violate the GFDL". The sky is not falling.

The problem with BJAODN, that Carcharoth is not seeing above, is that it isn't the sort of merger that is performed elsewhere in Wikipedia. Those mergers are "keep and merge". Content in BJAODN is the result of "merge and delete" — exactly the operation that contravenes the requirements of the GFDL, and that isn't permitted. The content is copied from an article, but the original article, with the edit history, is then deleted. The "D" in "BJAODN" stands for "deleted". And that is why BJAODN is singled out. It's one place where we systematically violate the copyright licence requirements that we enforce everywhere else.

There have been all sorts of bogus attempts to weasel out of this, from "It's fair use!" (which is obviously wrong: We all know about the pre-requisites for fair use now, two of which are that it be part of an encyclopaedia article and that it be for purposes of criticism or commentary — both of which BJAODN does not qualify for.) to "It's parody!" (which is also wrong: That it's parody loosens the copyright constraints with respect to the work being parodied. It doesn't mean that the copyright on the parody itself magically disappears. It is that latter that is relevant, not the former.). They are all wrong.

The ulterior motive for such weaselling is to keep BJAODN because editors like it. The correct course of action for editors who like BJAODN to take is to work on fixing its GFDL compliance. I find it quite saddening that the many editors who have griped and wheel warred on this subject for months have themselves done no work whatsoever on actually fixing the problem in all of those months. Several administrators of long-standing, in particular, should be ashamed of themselves. In stark contrast: Applause goes to editors such as MER-C who have quietly and without fuss worked on fixing the GFDL compliance, by locating and checking articles that we need to undelete (to restore the required edit history) and rename.

The correct procedure for BJAODN is the same as the correct procedure for article-space when one wants to merge content but leave the title redlinked: Rename the source page to another title, delete the history-free redirect that is left behind, then merge. (In the case of BJAODN as it is structured now, the merger isn't necessary, since the main page contains links to the individual sub-pages.) This procedure can be found at Wikipedia:Deletion process#Articles for Deletion page.

And, yes, the Wikipedia:Guide to deletion used to explain this. It was taken out. Please look at earlier versions of the Guide. I think that we should put it back in. Uncle G 09:00, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

  • I'll point out that the disclaimer on the edit page says: "Do not copy text from other websites without a GFDL-compatible license. It will be deleted." That implies that it is okay to copy text from websites with GFDL-compatible licenses. Perhaps that needs to be changed. — PyTom 09:07, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Thanks for that extended explanation, Uncle G. I knew I must be missing something, and it was the old difference between merging and deleting the edit history (not allowed under the GFDL) and merging while keeping the edit history at a redirect (or parent article). Though I would like to point out that the source of some of the material transferred to BJAODN is not always deleted - sometimes the page still exists. You are quite right, of course, to point out that most of it is deleted material. Having said that, with the normal procedure of merging and keeping the edit history at a redirect (or parent article) there can be a problem with editors performing merges without noting in the edit summaries where the merged-in content has come from. Usually, a check of the contributions history of the editor will reveal where they got the text from, but it is always worrying when large amounts of text are moved around by editors using minimally informative edit summaries (eg. "merge", or just marking the edit as 'minor'!). The other point is that redirects from merges aren't always left alone to preserve the edit history. Sometimes they are rewritten as disambiguation pages, turned into new articles, moved again, and at some point down the line they may even get deleted if people forget that it was once a redirect from a merge. This can be an especial problem with a long history of different moves and redirects, creating a very tangled maze of locations for various parts of the edit history. (For an example of this, see Magicians in fantasy and the various talk pages, in particular Talk:Wizard (fantasy) - I still don't understand the full history of what happened there - if anyone wants to take the GFDL seriously, try and work out where the edit history is for that set of pages. See also this attempt at analysing what happened). How should that kind of situation be dealt with? Do people at AfD and RfD (redirects for deletion) always take the time to check this sort of thing? Carcharoth 10:18, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
    • I think I had the answer to that Magic issue at one point and posted it on the talk page, but I'm buggered if I can remember it. I think another admin did eventually implement it though, I remember checking. The basic issue was that pages had to remain in certain places so that the links in edit summaries related to merges worked. Hiding Talk 19:24, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
    • Bugger. Here's what I thought, and no, it did not get implemented. [21]. Hiding Talk 19:28, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Two things that I think people are failing to realize:
    1. BJAODN is not a part of the encyclopaedia per se, and (one would hope) it's not getting mirrored around the world.
    2. Parody is specifically protected under fair use (which, thanks to #1, is not as big a problem as in article space). 00:40, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
      Though I should probably add a 2A: "It's only BJAODN". 00:42, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
    • These two are exactly the kinds of bogus attempts to weasel out of this that I debunked above. Uncle G 12:21, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Issues w/ Administrator Rockpocket[edit]

FIRST INCIDENT w/ Administrator Rockpocket:

Hello, I've been having a problem with Rockpocket's administration for kind of a long time now. My thing is give people a second chance and see if they improve, but this administrator still hasn't improved. He wrote:

[[22]] Rockpocket wrote to Danielfolsom on his talk page aboute me: Don't worry about it. If you choose to go around calling people vandals, you aren't going to get much sympathy when you complain about someone else making comments like you did. You reap what you sow.'' [<---- The end of Rockpocket's quote]]

I was NEVER going around calling people vandals, and he was well aware of that because he was involved in the issue. That was something that happened with ONE person and it was because she didn't have a source for her statement and I did, yet she kept rv my info and adding hers. So I wrote rv vandalism. It was something that happened twice before I was informed that it wasn't vandalism by Rockpocket and it never happened again after that. However, he tells Daniel not to worry about something he has done wrong by going back to this same issue that happened a long time ago with me and being untruthful about it. He also makes it look like bad behavior justifies bad behavior here at wikipedia w/ comments like you reap what you sow and don't worry about it Daniel because he has gone around calling people vandals which I haven't.

SECOND INCIDENT w/ Administrator Rockpocket:

The second incident is when I become friends with Daniel, however I point out that he may want to use good faith with Dscarth in a nasty argument he is having with him because Daniel says Dscarth is probably trying to piss everyone off. My intent is so that the two will cool off and behave more civilly. However Daniel gets upset with me and doesnt feel he has shown bad faith when he says 'Dscarth seems to be trying to piss people off.' So I just ask Rockpocket, since he is friends with Daniel, and maybe Daniel will be more willing to listen to him. I ask Rockpocket if he can talk to his friend about assuming more good faith to cool down their heated argument on yogurt talk page. However Rockpocket, became very uncivil with me and writes what is below. I totally didn't deserve this:

Rockpocket Writes: [[23]]

Firstly WP:AGF is a guideline, not a policy. Secondly, Daniel said dscarth... seems intent... in other words, that is Daniel's interpretation after significant interaction with dscarth. I have no idea what is going on with dscarth. It may well be a large assumption of bad faith in Daniel's part, or he may indeed be trolling the page just to piss people off. I don't know, and I don't really care. If you have an opinion on that, tell Daniel yourself. Finally, and with all due respect, if dscarth himself came an made a complaint I may consider approaching Daniel, but since the alleged WP:AGF as nothing to do with you at all, there is little to be gained from pursuing it.
If you don't like Daniel's forthright style then stay away from him, but please stop engaging him in "friendly" banter, then going behind his back and reporting him when he says something you don't agree with. If someone seriously violates policy, there are number of warnings any editor can issue (see WP:UW). Please consider using them. If the behaviour continues to the extent it is disrupting the project, then by all means let me know and I'll look into it. However, admins are not here to babysit, and we are not inclined to dish out cautions for every little squabble, especially when they are as isignificant as this. [<---- The End of Rockpocket's quote] EverybodyHatesChris 04:12, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

OK...this post kind of meanders around so I don't really understand what the problem is. Can you clarify? IrishGuy talk 02:11, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I don't know how to make it any clearer for you, Irishguy. The first time, he lied about me and the 2nd time, Rockpocket became uncivil with me. He's also made unconstructive remarks and has shown biased to user Danielfolsom. EverybodyHatesChris 02:15, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

What I mean is you know all the people involved...the rest of us don't. I can't really follow what you are trying to say. Can you provide some links to specific instances that are problematic for you? IrishGuy talk 02:17, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
I'm having difficulty understanding it as well. Part of the problem I think is, in the second example anyway, it isn't clear whether the original poster is quoting another editor? Diffs would be good. Anchoress 02:18, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
OK Chris, so you added a line to make the second entry a bit clearer. But then your sig is at the bottom of the quote. So when does RP's quote end? Anchoress 02:25, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
I take it that in the first quote, the "you" is referring to you(EverybodyHatesChris) not Danielfolsom? And the diff to the second problematic quote is this? --Dark Falls talk 08:44, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

No, the you is referring to user Danielfolsome. That is him talking to Daniel and referring to something wrong that Daniel did EverybodyHatesChris 11:41, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

*Sigh* Let me make clear what EHC is trying to say. Firstly, Danielfolsom (talk · contribs) is an adoptee of mine. He'll often come to me for advice, and I will often offer some suggestions about his editing. Daniel, EHC and Migospia (talk · contribs) were thrashing out a content dispute at Talk:Coral Smith and EHC was reverting disputed content labelling it "vandalism". [24][25] [26] EHC was upset about some of Daniels comment and complained to me. I replied with this and also had a word with Daniel. When Daniel replied, I told he not to be unduly concerned, since EHC is hardly the most civil of editors when it comes to commenting on the edits of others. However, my grammer was not entirely clear so let me rephrase to indicate who I was referring to: Don't worry about it. If [EHC] chooses to go around calling people vandals, [he] isn't going to get much sympathy when [he] complains about someone else making comments like you [Daniel] did. You reap what you sow. [27]
Thats about the crux of the first incident. I'm not entirely sure what I'm supposed to be guilty of in the second incident, but here are the diffs of the exchange [28] and [29]. Note also that in between these two incidents LessHeard vanU (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) blocked EHC for a short period [30]. Rockpocket 18:36, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
By the way, User talk:Dscarth#1st Warning For Incivility is worth a read for perspective on this thread. Rockpocket 18:46, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
ehc has talked on numberous admins' talk pages - most notably User_talk:Heimstern - who he threatened to report for saying "What do you want me to do?". EHC has shown incivility by threatening to report multiple editors and shows no willingness to understand the policy he attempts to make accusations based upon, as proved by his allegations. --danielfolsom 02:18, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Guys, Rockpocket has again brought up old edit summary problems on this page that I even admit I made a mistake about earlier on this page and besides that, this argument is about something much more current that has happened between Daniel and myself. This is all because he won't acknowledge that Danielfolsom's has done something wrong and instead lies about very old incidences with me that only happened ONCE, all to justify Daniel's behavior and become uncivil towards me. He only gave you a link to the one time he talked to Daniel and although Daniel continued after he talked to him, he tells Daniel that first 'reap what you sow' comment. That's how badly biased gets to be with Daniel and Rockpocket. The two of them can become very easily biased towards other editors very quickly and it becomes unfair for someone else and you can be ganged up on by them. Just to prove how easily they can become biased, look at a comment directed to Danielfolsom and Rockpocket right here: [[31]] Also, look at Danielfolsom's comments right here when a user, he is starting to become friends with, is being completely incivil towards me User talk:Dscarth#1st Warning For Incivility. Dscarth is telling me I am unstable. He's calling me the worst wikipedian ever. Danielfolsom only just went to Dscarth's talk page and although he acknowledge's Dscarth's comments to be over the top, he just said that he would back up Dscarth now that the two editors have made up. Daniel even knows my intentions were never bad because he just wrote me this on my user talk page [[32]], but still wants to protect Dscarth because they are closer than me and Daniel. Editors can easily be ganged up on by people like Rockpocket and Danielfolsom when there's biased behavior like that and I truly hope you all will see that and make the right decision. You can see that obviously I've been treat uncivilly by Dscarth and how Daniel, who's now becoming Dscarth's friend, is showing biased towards Dscarth without really looking at who's right in the matter. However, when an administrator like Rockpocket is in on it as well, I'm forced to come here. EverybodyHatesChris 02:44, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

WOh my god - I'm so getting increasingly frustrated for you. About 5 seconds ago you said you never called anyone vandals - now you say that you did (by the way - it wasn't one user, you also called me a vandal). And it's not attacking - you need to consider the idea that one relatively expierienced user (myself), one expierienced user (Dscarth) and one admin (Rockpocket) are actually right. And the problem is - before (on a diff. talk page) you said that you didn't know the edits weren't vandalism - but that's always the problem with you. You don't know the policies but you try to enforce them - you've threatened so many people by saying "I'll report you for incivility" - and then when you went to an admins talk page to do so, and when the admins said nothing happened- you declared bias. Look at the patterns - becaue you're doing the same thing over and over again - and you're turning almost everyone against you. Look at User talk:Heimstern, how do you explain that? Doesn't it strike you as odd that you've declared almost every editor you've worked with to have a vendetta against you?--danielfolsom 03:08, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
And me writing that on your talk page says "I know you're intentions are bad - but you're still doing the wrong thing" - so of course i'm going to defend Dscarth! --danielfolsom 03:09, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Good point. You two are right. nvm admins EverybodyHatesChris 05:30, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Anti-admin soapboxing[edit]

Resolved: User blocked for 1 week.

User:Aarandir has a section of his userpage devoted to admins, featuring a picture of Samael and using such niceties as "twat," "pedantic," and "pointless." The top of his talk page is organized into a section called "Arguments I have won," also mainly starring admins. His most recent trick has verbal abuse of me for my use of quotation marks when I tried to help him, apparently because he thinks quotation marks are actually sarcasm marks. The whole exchange is quoted here, where he can also be observed treating User:Isotope23 rudely. His post to my talk page, which is mean-spirited and sexist, is here.

I'm not comfortable using admin powers regarding people who have made me angry, but this guy is clearly out of line in a lot of ways. Please advise. --Masamage 17:07, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

I have asked him to remove the image for a number of reasons. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 17:14, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
I've already asked him to remove his arguments I've won talkpage section and he essentially refused to do so. Rudeness directed at me isn't something I'm concerned about... but in the couple of days I've engaged in conversation with him I get the distinct impression that he is more concerned with winning arguments than he is with improving the encyclopedia. His reply to Masamage (talk · contribs) was absolutely out of line.--Isotope23 17:24, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
I don't agree with Aarandir's conduct, but with him rarely editing the past couple days, I fear a block at this point would be more punitive than preventative (any other thoughts on this?). I've also left a comment about his other image; until Wikipedia:Respect my authoritah! becomes policy, it's only fair he not be allowed to be polemic on either end of the spectrum. -- tariqabjotu 17:29, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
Good call on the second image. I wouldn't have thought of that. --Masamage 17:30, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
I wasn't suggesting a block here. I've been engaging him the last few days and as I said in my last reply to him, I see this ending badly for him at some point in the future if he continues to engage his fellow editors in this manner; but I agree, blocking him right now would absolutely be punitive.--Isotope23 17:37, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
So what do we do? --Masamage 17:46, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
WP:SHUN for now. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 18:43, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Blocks for personal attacks ARE preventative. If he's that blatant about having a crusade against the admins, there's no indication he'll stop. SWATJester Denny Crane. 21:48, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

As he considers himself a "21st century Socrates" on his userpage, he probably won't stop until he's given his cup of hemlock. MastCell Talk 22:41, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
don't we know how this ends? someone needs to do some research but there is clearly something like a "50 edit" rule - if your first 50 edits are full of crap then generally... --Fredrick day 22:43, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
Agreed. IMO this editor is clearly a troll, either just ignore until s/he plays out enough rope to hang himself, or sanction in some way. I hate giving trolls wanking material, which IMO a lot of this stuff about the pics etc is. Anchoress 22:49, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
So what would be considered the upper limit of trollishness? Please note that the behavior has continued on his talk page; he has now told User:Tariqabjotu, "You also say that you find it offensive that im calling some admins saints. If this is the case than I think there might be something wrong with you, no where has being good been considered offensive except incidently in the mind of psychos and sufferers of other mental diseases." --Masamage 23:06, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, were you replying to me? I don't understand the question. Anchoress 23:12, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
I meant, how bad does it have to get before we do anything? Because that thing I just quoted is pretty lame. --Masamage 23:13, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

The upper limit of trollishness is pretty individualized, but he's exceeded mine. Almost all of his edits are to talk space (and of an unconstructive nature). We would be losing out on image uploads like this one (note edit summary), but that may be an acceptable price. I think the best approach to this kind of childish trolling is probably WP:SHUN, as he seems to just want someone to argue with. But if some other admin thinks he should be blocked, I don't think I'd lose sleep over it. MastCell Talk 23:19, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

On a lighter point, you've got to admire the gall of someone who has a picture taking the piss out of someone's spelling mistake at the top of their talk page, following by a paragraph full of spelling and grammar errors (first sentence: ..." I have also seen it being used to pedal hatred."....) EliminatorJR Talk 02:44, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

This is also amusing: "With Admins its almost as if they get a place of responsibility on the internet and thier ego grows and they think they are always right, however I can prove them wrong with my tremendous argument skills even though they seem to thing thier logic is infallible." - Merzbow 05:42, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Blocked for a week. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 11:52, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Ballsy. Thanks. --Masamage 18:02, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Harassment by User:Russianname[edit]

This user, in spite of my pleas [33][34] to stop he continues to wage revert wars on my talk page. I warned him several times, yet he persists in reverting my talk page to his complaints over and over again. Please do something. 1st: [35] 2nd: [36] 3rd:[37] 4th:[38] Just today he edited it 14 times! --Hillock65 17:20, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

I've blocked him for 24 hours. --Masamage 17:26, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
This is an archetypal example of successful abuse of this noticeboard for forum shopping in content disputes. It has been condemned many times but it continues. Sigh... --Ghirla-трёп- 13:50, 8 June 2007 (UTC)


An editor on kimchi feels it is better not to use a redirect rather than a direct link to Chinese cabbage. While no one has opposed using the alternate names he suggests, since the linked main article on the vegetable is there and because it might be informational, other editors have suggested at least a clause, "a variety of Chinese cabbage" over any locally used names. Over the past few months a half dozen or so editors have tried to make this change, even setting up a straw poll here in order to illustrate the consensus. Instead, he insists to change back to the redirect, occasionally inserting several redirect links that all go to the same article while excluding a direct link.

Today the consensus version was tried yet again, and yet again the lone editor reverted up to his maximum three/day. He is participating on the talk page, but not offering any suggestions; simply stating that those that disagree with him must convince him before changing to the consensus version. His contributions and reverts are generally of the nature to call the other editors "liars," disingenuous, labeling his reverts as "removing vandalism" when they are just going to the consensus version, etc. (eg here and here).

This is probably the most ridiculous thing I've ever argued about with someone on Wikipedia, and I'm at a loss as to what to do when presented with this level of WP:stubbornness. Try to "enforce the consensus," I made my first revert in days today, but I guess being honest I have no doubt it will be reverted back when the 24 hours for his 3RR limit rolls around. Several editors have been trying this, but he always reverts back saying they are instigating "edit wars." If he does this again, I'm not going to be sucked into an edit war over something this dumb again, but this level of insistence in spite of the consensus means that the consensus will never be there for more than a day.

What's best to do? Dispute resolution with a lone editor against the half dozen+ others who have tried to put in a consensus? Leave it alone until then? Any suggestions would be appreciated. --Cheers, Komdori 18:15, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

  • I left a 3RR final warn on the guy's talk page. He's been revert-warring on that article for days now and a number of different editors have taken issue with his changes, including yourself - Alison 18:26, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
    • Thanks for looking at it; I looked at the edit history myself and am a bit taken aback at the number of edits I and others made during the course of the discussion; we've tried all manner of compromises and no one even changed his version for the past few days, just letting it sit with his version, but the minute anyone makes an edit, away it goes with one of his comments where he says something like, "good grief," or how we're all "blind" or "liars." --Cheers, Komdori 18:32, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
      • No problem. You're not nearly at the 3RR limit, otherwise you'd have been warned too :) If the guy is being uncivil in his comments, you might want to point out WP:CIVIL to him and ask him to assume good faith regarding his fellow editors - Alison 18:34, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
        • Well I would, but I think that would be kind of just stirring the fire. I think all the editors on that talk page have warned him multiple times; he's been blocked for it (for incivility/a week at a time for 3rr, etc.). He usually responds with things like "I am not interested in compromising with trolls," here or that he finds "warning[s] of civility to be of ill-faith." here. I've never seen someone argue so ardently over a vegetable. Harsh reactions like this are enough to make most editors just give up and let him have the article to himself. He seems to take warnings as personal insults, so I've held off recently :S. --Cheers, Komdori 18:42, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
          • FWIW, An editor reverting three times a day on a content dispute, day after day is in clear violation of 3RR. WilyD 18:59, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
            • All looking at this dispute did was make me hungry for some Kimchi... but let's see what effect Alison's warning has.--Isotope23 19:00, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
              • I've never seen someone argue so ardently over a vegetable. You should meet my relatives. If the kimchi they purchase at the local Korean market was imported from China or Japan, they have a fit like you would not believe. It's pretty damn good, try it! Seicer (talk) (contribs) 19:35, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
  • *sigh* - fully protected against edit-warring until this is resolved. This issue has been going on since March and had previously been reported to WP:RFPP. I thought it looked familiar. As it turns out, I reverted vandalism (as did User:Fvasconcellos) and this guy came along and reverted again. The edit summaries in the article history speak volumes - Alison 19:40, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

I wish there was some policy about notifying users about formal accusations and reports that are filed about them. This isn't as crazy a dispute as it seems. Topically, kimchi is made out of "baechu" cabbage. There are several english words for this specific type of cabbage. It is most widely sold and known as "napa cabbage". "chinese cabbage" is used as a generic term used to sell asian cabbages that are not used for making the type of kimchi being referred to. Komdori and Lactose are against using "napa cabbage" and using a term that is inaccurate and unnecessary because they're only reason for participating in this talk page has been this one revert war.

What Komdori has left out is that he and Lactose's participation in this page began when they showdowed my edits in retaliation of our disagreement in the turtle ship article to this kimchi article and reverted my edit on this one sentence. Komdori and Lactose have never participated in editing this article besides this revert war. And they're participation in this page hasn't been about the actual topic of the article but largely limited to claiming majority between the two of them and one other editor(Webaware) who is the only other editor besides myself who had contributed to this article before this edit war, the straw poll and other such technicalities. In fact this latest bout of revert warring was instigated when Lactose and Komdori refused to participate in the discussion page and go ahead with the reverts knowing that the two of them would out number me. When I reach my third edit, Komdori filed this report.

I could go on and on pointing out the real story behind most of Komdori's accusation above. E.g. my harsh reaction like this was a response to Komdori's comment that I reverted without discussing, when his entire comment was a response to my 4 paragraph explanation. Rather than responding to the substantive issues of the discussion and my explanation, Komdori ignored the substantive issues and resorted to accusing me of "reverting without discussion". Somehow my 4 paragraph explanation and Komdori and Lactose's double teamed effort of revert warring is reduced to accusations for the sake of gamesmanship.

There is actually a real issue that needs to be resolved here. I've pointed out along with the only third party participant([39]) that the cabbage that is being referred to in the text is Napa cabbage. Komdori and Lactose have not disagreed with this nor have they offered a better English word for this cabbage. Instead they have inexplicably reverted over and over and over back to "chinese cabbage" which has been established in the above link as well as myself as being an inaccurate term.

I have and am willing to extend good faith assumption here. But the fact is that Komdori and Lactose have only participated in editing in this revert war and nothing else. Furthermore, their participation even in the talk page have been mostly regarding technicalities and gamesmanship rather than about the substantive topic. Hopefully those who are genuinely interested in this topic can go back to trying to resolve genuine issues in this article.melonbarmonster 20:00, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

  • (ec) Firstly, this revert-warring has been going on long enough now. The article is now fully-protected, so here it stops. Whatever about the veracity of whether kimchi is chinese cabbage or not, this revert-warring is unacceptable. I'm not overly concerned about which version it is stuck at, but this needs to stop. Right now, your best option may be to take the matter to Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal or Wikipedia:Mediation Committee but you should all try the talk page from now - Alison 20:15, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

I feel as if I'm being punished for participating in talk page. This didn't blow up again until Komdori and Lactose ignored the talk page discussion and began reverting knowing they would out-number me. Current decision and the version of article as it stands is only rewarding blind revert warring in numbers. Alison can you review the dispute so that a more neutral version can be PP'ed? THanks.melonbarmonster 20:19, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

It will always be the wrong version that got protected... better to leave it as is and discuss on the talkpage.--Isotope23 20:23, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
This report was filed by Komdori after Komdori and Lactose refused to participate in the talk page and ignored the ensuing discussing and started to revert knowing that they would outnumber me. And now their revert is page protected and of course they have not resumed participating in the talk page again. Do you not see how this just encourages and rewards group revert wars!melonbarmonster 21:15, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
It's been, like, two hours. Have some patience - people have lives outside of Wikipedia. --Haemo
I see a lot of discussion by Komdori (talk · contribs) and Lactose (talk · contribs). I see instead, that you value silence as an all-around agreement, despite the straw polling, discussion, etc. that was on-going directly above. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 21:31, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
This is a talk page about Kimchi. Not straw polls and claims of majority after bringing a friend to come to the page with you, etc.. The two of them have limited their discussion to claims of majority and engaging in gamemanship with the straw poll while not touching the actual topic of the discussion. This decision is only encouraging and rewarding team reverting and mobilizing POV pushers to instigate revert wars in numbers. It's sad that editors who actual care about the topic and have been edited are being bullied by POV pushers who's only contributions to this page have been this ONE revert war.melonbarmonster 17:24, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
I am not going to revert to a nebulous "correct" revision. Right now, the desired outcome has been established; the revert-warring has stopped. Next stage is dialog and, as pointed out already, silence does not imply assent here. Furthermore, I note that you have a well-established record of being blocked on multiple articles for revert-warring and incivility, sometimes up to a week. Right now, I'm seeing that attitude prevail on the kimchi article, in your edit summaries and in your talk page commentaries. Please try to be civil with your fellow-editors and assume a certain good faith on their part. - Alison 21:53, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
It's hard to assume respect when two editors who disagreed with you on an different article follows your edits and reverts your edit while not participating in the talk page. When they finally do it's to claim majority in numbers while ignoring the actual topic of the article. I'll be back after the weekend to work on this.melonbarmonster 17:24, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Second opinion on admin actions[edit]

I recently closed Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/VinylJoe - another admin had already blocked the account in question (User:Rert2) as a sock. The puppeteer, VinylJoe, is involved in a heavy dispute with another user at Talk:Audio mastering, and the target of the sock asked me to block User:VinylJoe (the sockmaster) as well. I hadn't done this since I figured it would be more punitive than preventive, and in my view both disputants need to go down the road of dispute resolution (i.e. a short block won't solve things). Can I get a sanity check? Would others have blocked the sockmaster as well in this situation? MastCell Talk 22:36, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Just to throw in a non-sysop's 2 cents, I would block the editor depending on how bad the multiple account abuse is. Also, think of it this way: If you don't block him, he will not be prevented from abusing more accounts. « ANIMUM » 00:13, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
I'm not the only one who has dispute with user Jrod2. This matter and complaints against Jrod2 [40] was brough up on the administrative notice board by another user. Admins did nothing to resolve it. So maybe ANIMUM » should take a look first before advocating blocking me without even understanding the situation. --VinylJoe 05:01, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Using a second account for policy violations will cause any penalties to be applied to your main account. --> Circumventing policy. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 13:17, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Dear Admins, as you can see this user VinylJoe is determined to prevail in getting me somehow evicted from WP. He's now using a case at the ANI that was mainly about another user (illuminatedwax) and me, disagreeing about some commercial links he wanted to include on an audio page. It was dismissed because it was not violating guidelines. My concern is that, since he continues to make arguments against me, that he will resume his harassments. If it's within guideline, I urge someone to block him as Magnus animum recommended. If anyone can see these IP's associated with him, then please do it at once, as these are the IPs that are used by common disrupting vandals: - - - - Thank you . Jrod2 15:58, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
Yes, fair enough, although that particular sentence makes the block sound punitive. I'm going to block User:VinylJoe for 24 hours for abusive sockpuppetry, as the socks were used to tag-team another editor in a dispute. MastCell Talk 15:54, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

ThunderFence (talk · contribs) / Easyjesus (talk · contribs)[edit]

These users (whom, judging by their relative edit histories may well be one and the same person) have both broken 3RR on the page Made in America (The Sopranos), repeatedly adding unverified "spoilers" regarding the content of the forthcoming episode. To list all the diffs would be tedious; here is a link to the page history, and the contribs pages linked in this section heading provide the required evidence. I have reported this here rather than on the 3RR noticeboard as the incident in question may involve sockpuppetry and potential incivility as well as 3RR violation. Thanks. --Codeine 00:34, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Shouldn't the article be deleted per WP:EPISODE, anyway? Corvus cornix 18:28, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Atabek (talk · contribs), Hajji Piruz (talk · contribs)[edit]

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

This section was not for you all to continue this argument. I see I'm not going to get any input from other admins, so this section serves no purpose. Follow the steps at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution; take this to the Arbitration Committee if necessary. -- tariqabjotu 17:46, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry I have to subject the general community to this, but after zillions of orange "you have new messages" bars and mud-slinging on my talk page, I have to take this here. To be honest, I have no idea what the hell the issue is here. Suffice it to say Hajji Piruz (talk · contribs) (formerly Azerbaijani (talk · contribs)) and Atabek (talk · contribs) are at each other's throats for something. If I understand this correctly, and believe me I don't, Atabek claims Piruz vandalized his user page and basically stalks him and Piruz claims Atabek is making false accusations about him. They have basically used my talk page as a the site of a cage match over the last few days (see #Harassment by User:Hajji Piruz, #Re: Hajji Piruz attacks, #RFC, and #Your support for RfC). I've referred the two to dispute resolution, particularly community enforceable mediation (CEM). That venue was never explored, due to what Piruz suggested was an inability for them to cooperate. Meanwhile, multiple admins have been alerted of this (e.g. User:Thatcher131#Arbcom question, User talk:Bobak#Mediation, User_talk:Dmcdevit#Safavid_dynasty); in one or two cases the users have engaged in some of the same back-and-forth arguing that has occurred on my talk page (albeit not to the same extent). At some points, the editors have had difficulty talking to each other, due to the removal of comments made on each others talk pages (perhaps that's why they kept coming to my talk page). So then Piruz decides to open an RfC against Atabek because he feels Atabek is the whole problem (I don't agree) and he feels CEM won't work; see Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Atabek. But even that's not good enough; Piruz has to claim that Atabek is trying to sabotage the RfC. Their RfArb case from April 2007 – Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan – didn't kill this dispute. Neither did any discussion with me. Neither, it seems, does the idea of community enforceable mediation. And now WP:RFC does not appear to be the right medium. Suffice it to say this is a gigantic mess. These editors are at each other's necks and the concept of assuming good faith is not as present as it should be. Again, I'm sorry for subjecting the general community to this, but this is spinning out of control. Why oh why have cool-down blocks been outlawed? -- tariqabjotu 02:14, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Is there anyway Atabek and I can take this directly to arbcom? Just him and me, and let the administrators decide what should be done. That was my first choice.
An arbcom just between Atabek and I, where the administrators review all of the evidence and make a final decision, is the only way to solve this dispute.Hajji Piruz 02:21, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
To be honest, I don't know why User:Hajji Piruz/User:Azerbaijani with advice and encouragement from User:Tariqabjotu filed the RfC. The whole situation is comic. User:Hajji Piruz/User:Azerbaijani edits my user page without permission [41], intimidating me, then continues personally attacking me, and now files an RfC. All I asked the administrator for is to explain User:Hajji Piruz/User:Azerbaijani to cease harassing me, after I asked him to assume good faith, and his response was this [42]. So I don't understand why User:Tariqabjotu now claims that I am (stalking)? Hajji Piruz. I guess there is a confusion that I am not the one who filed RfC with this [43] objective, Hajji Piruz is. He is the one also taking this RfC along ethnic lines. All I am trying is to defend myself from abuse. Again, those interested (and I mean everyone) are welcome to post to my talk page as well as to RfC to discuss their opinions. But I have no desire to waste community's time on this. Atabek 03:45, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
Don't make this seem like I'm standing behind Piruz, as you wrongly suggested before. No one suggested you were stalking anyone (you're reading that sentence incorrectly) and your link showing "advice and encouragement" is being misapplied (if you asked for the best mode of dispute resolution, I would have responded as well). This is entirely about you and Piruz and no one else; the only reason this is here is to get input on how to stop this. Not how to stop Piruz, not how to stop you, but how to stop both of you and your relentless accusations and assumptions of bad faith. -- tariqabjotu 04:25, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Can anyone please explain if it is OK when one user edits other user's personal page and adds him to a category of sockpuppeteers? [44] This is how it all started. Atabek made a mistake when he just started to contribute to Wikipedia and created more than one account, however one mistake by a newbie does not give anyone grounds to vandalize his user page and present him as a notorious sockpuppeteer. Users added to such categories are those who regularly use abusive sock accounts, which is not a case with Atabek. In my opinion, User:Hajji Piruz was clearly harassing Atabek, trying to destroy his reputation. In general, I would like to draw the community’s attention to the behavior of Hajji Piruz. This user has been engaged in edit warring on Azerbaijan related articles for many months now, pushing his nationalist agenda. He has been involved in edit wars on almost every Azerbaijan related article, sometimes revert warring over such trivial issues as whether or not the territory of Azerbaijan should be referred to as Azerbaijan, or Wikiproject tag, etc. Hajji has violated his parole twice since the end of the arbcom case, which was recorded here: [45] I don’t see how this user’s contributions to Wikipedia are any usefull, as they are nothing but edit warring over very unimportant issues, and now he has gone as far as messing up other people's user pages. Grandmaster 06:11, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

The only way to settle this is to go to arbcom. Atabek still hasnt learned his lesson as he continued to make false accusations against me on the RFC talk page.
He is also attempting to sabotage the RFC by getting all of his friends from the Republic of Azerbaijan to comment. What would it look like if I went to every Iranian on Wikipedia and told them to look at the RFC?
Oh, and Grandmaster, thanks for letting everyone know that Atabek was lying. Atabek's defense was that Tengri was his friend, now you just confirmed to everyone that Atabek was lying. That category is for sockpuppeteer's. One other thing, why would a new user create two accounts in the first place?
I havent violated my parole twice since the arbcom, I've only done so once, because you manipulated an admin into thinking I broke 1rr. What are you talking about? Show the evidence or dont make the accusations. All your comments sound the same, I'm beginning to wonder if you guys arent all one person or coordinating all of this via e-mail or something.
Oh, and all these users trying to tell me what I can and cannot edit, why do you guys edit Armenian related articles huh?
How can we get an arbcom between Atabek and I started?Hajji Piruz 14:43, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
Ok, here is my final proposal, and if Atabek doesnt accept, we will go to arbcom:
  1. You will never make false accusations against me again.
  2. You will never canvass trying to tarnish my image again.
  3. You will never tell me what articles I can and cannot edit.
  4. You will admit that Tengri was your sock puppet (as confirmed by Grandmaster above) and will drop the act that he was just your "friend" and you guys happened to use the same computer.
  5. You will be respectful to all users you come into contact with and not jump to conclusions.
  6. You will never misuse and abuse Wikipedia's rules and policies, distorting them to fit your POV again.
The ball is in your court. And note, if there is a single false accusation against me in your following reply, then I guess the deal is off...You have shown no evidence for any of the things you claim I do, so until you show evidence, any claim you make against me will be considered false (unless backed up by evidence), especially if they are the same old things you've been saying for the past couple of days.Hajji Piruz 15:03, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

What is this, blackmail? I don’t know if he was using a sock or not, I just took your word for it, but you are not the one who can edit other people’s user pages and attach the tags. Leave that to admins. What you do is nothing but vandalism and harassment. Just give it up already. Grandmaster 16:47, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Prove it, show us some diff's. You guys are all sounding the same, pretty suspicious. Why are you entering into a dispute thats between Atabek and I? Thats also interesting, does he need the back up or something? I mean, I know Atabek has absolutely no evidence to prove any of his accusations, maybe thats why he asked you, Dacy69, and probably Elsanturk to make those long comments (also with no evidence) on the RFC.
The ball is in Atabek's court, if he doesnt want to accept my proposal, then I guess he and I will only be able to settle this in arbcom, where we can settle our dispute without others interrupting. If Atabek agrees to the following points I posted above (and proven with diff's on the RFC, they're fact) then hopefully this will be settled. Its up to Atabek now.Hajji Piruz 17:16, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
Prove what? Here’s a diff for you: [46] You edit other person’s user page without his permission, attaching tags which you have no business attaching in the first place, and when he is not happy with that you start accusing him of various things and start an RfC on him. Just leave the guy alone. And stop this arbcom blackmail, if you want to take it to the arbcom, go ahead and file a case, no one is holding you. Grandmaster 17:34, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
First of all, he started the accusations. Why are you budding into something you know nothing about? You guys are trying to split Wikipedia up along national lines, telling people what they can and cannot edit and supporting each other based on country of origin.
Read what the category description says, it was perfectly justified and was not vandalism. Even Tariqabjotu acknowledged that it was not vandalism, and Tariqabjotu also acknowledged that I am not trying to blackmail, harass, or accuse Atabek... I have proved everything on the RFC with evidence, where is your evidence? Where is Atabek's evidence? This will be my last comment towards you here, I know what you are trying to do and I'm not going to take the bait. I'll wait for Atabek's responds and see where he wants to go with this, accept the proposal and have peace or arbcom, its his choice, but we really need to settle this dispute, I'm sick of his canvassing in order to destroy my image. I'm not blackmailing anyone, I'm simply asking him to accept the terms, and if he doesnt, than that means this mediation has failed and the last step is arbcom between him and I. I'm more than willing to end this here, its Atabek's choice.Hajji Piruz 17:37, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
Then please explain why out of some many people known for using socks in the past you chose Atabek and decided to attach a tag to his page? Who told you that you have a right to do that? I guess that there must have been a reason why you did that to a particular user page. It is well known that you had disagreements with this person, so what you did does not look like a good faith action. Leave Atabek alone and let it go. If there's anything that needs to be done to Atabek's user page, let the admins do that, they are more qualified to make this sort of edits. Grandmaster 17:50, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

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


This user has begun impersonating my signature to make it seem that I am the one posting his/her comments. I've never encountered this situation before and am not sure how to proceed. Gaff ταλκ 02:48, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, I'd give him a very, very stern warning about not impersonating other users, then block him if he insists on continuing to do it. --Haemo 03:15, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
Actually, noticing his edits, it looks like he just wanted his sig to look like yours - he's changed it to make it refer to him, now. Take it as a compliment! --Haemo 03:17, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
I'm not an admin, so blocking will not be my prerogative. I'll just keep an eye open and it anything strange is afoot, report back here. Thanks! Gaff ταλκ 04:50, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
Rwilco201 is a new editor who is in some kind of conflict with User:Mitchthrower (see also the article Mitch Thrower, its ongoing AfD and the Afd's edit history, and this seriously premature arbitration request) who is making various edits that would look like misconduct from more experienced users, but in this instance think they are basically newbie errors. For example, s/he removed my comment from the AfD [47] apparently confusing me with Mitch Thrower [48]. I left a comment in the AfD and will leave another one, but I probably can't monitor it very much due to limited wikitime. If some admin here is thinking of closing that afd when the time comes, it would probably be helpful to look in on it once in a while before then, and to check the history for other weirdness at closing time. 07:13, 8 June 2007 (UTC)



The blocked user Benito484847 has evaded a block and returned as Benitoisback. He's doing the exact same thing as before: vandalizing the crap out of my user page. --Juansidious 03:46, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

I warned him. If others agree, the user could be blocked as a sockpuppet/meatpuppet of Benito, given the usernames and edit similarities. — Carl (CBM · talk) 04:02, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
User blocked indef. Naconkantari 04:25, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. --Juansidious 04:41, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Block review: failure to use edit summaries for PRODing[edit]

I have just blocked Burntsauce (talk · contribs · deleted contribs ·