Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive309

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

Noticeboard archives


Tyler Warren (talk · contribs)[edit]

I've reblocked Tyler for a week with e-mail blocked for sending rather abusive e-mails to me. Is a week justified? Maxim(talk) (contributions) 20:17, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

If it's abusive, yes. You shouldn't have to put up with that. --Haemo 20:25, 11 October 2007 (UTC)


Not surprisingly, given the popular subject, this page seems to receive tons of vandalism, mainly from anons. I just reverted to a version two days ago, and the only changes that stuck (despite a number of other vandalism reversals) were other anonymous vandalism. I suggest semi-protection. (Is this the right place to suggest this?) Rigadoun (talk) 20:18, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

WP:RFPP is the correct place to suggest protection ... but it looks like the vandalism today was from a single IP. It's important that when vandalism is noticed, the vandals are warned using a warning template (like {{subst:uw-bv}}) and then reported to WP:AIV if it continues. I don't think there's a need for protection right now, but I have watchlisted it and will protect it if there is any more vandalism today. --B 20:23, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
(ec) Erm, well, I just semi-protected it for 48 hours before I saw your reply. The history showed ongoing juvenile vandalism from several different IPs. Review welcome, of course. Raymond Arritt 20:29, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, I just found that and put this there too, before I saw this reply. I saw six different IPs today, perhaps I'm in a different time zone? If you're watching it then you can see if it's needed (and perhaps address this at my comment at RFPP. Rigadoun (talk) 20:26, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

2nd report of this user[edit]

I am reporting this user again, i reported him yesterday i believe but no action was taken however today he has carried on vandalising and has ignored warnings, all his edits are on michael jackson ans all he seems to do is insult this LIVING PERSON. [[1]]. Realist2 20:48, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

You want to see WP:AIV for this; generally, the route to take with a persistent vandal is to revert the contributions as they occur and ensure that the editor receives a warning for each one (see WP:WARN for the templates), and when they breach the final warning report them to AIV. It's an IP, however (and appears to be static) with nothing but vandal edits, so someone might want to just slap it with a block now. Tony Fox (arf!) 21:10, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Immediate attention needed at DYK[edit]


The red urgent warning caught my eye. The page is supposed to be changed every 8 hours. It is 2.5 hours past due. Assistance, please. Archtransit 20:56, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

  • I updated it. It isn't really a matter urgent enough for reporting at the Incidents noticeboard (WP:AN would do). DYK tends to get backlogged anyway. Thanks for keeping an eye out. --Elkman (Elkspeak) 21:14, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
    • Sorry. I first compared this issue with several on the ANI board and thought that the urgency was at least equal to those. I also thought that AN was too slow a board. I also saw it earlier but didn't post here until 2.5 out of 8 hours had passed. Thanks for the resolution. Archtransit 22:39, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

User Kiolt's talk page[edit]

Resolved: Deleted. —bbatsell ¿? 23:42, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Kiolt (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) has made a single edit to create a talk page that I'd mark db-attack if it were an article. --Jamoche 23:04, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Deleted. For the record, you can mark any page with {{db-attack}} — it's G10 in the criteria for speedy deletion, the 'G' signifying that it's "General" and applies to all namespaces. —bbatsell ¿? 23:42, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
I put a db-attack on a User page earlier today. Corvus cornix 01:42, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

anon editor causing problems[edit]

There is an anon editor who keeps causing problems. Mainly, he keeps inserting POV into the GM minivan pages; Buick Terraza, Chevrolet Uplander, Chevrolet Lumina APV, Oldsmobile Silhouette, Pontiac Trans Sport, Pontiac Montana, Opel Sintra, and Chevrolet Venture. The original IP was, who got blocked. Since them, many more have sprung up, doing the same thing, and I have reason to believe that this is the same guy, just using a proxy. I can't document them all here, so check the histories of each of those pages every so often to see what IP he is using lately. I might be able to talk this guy into stopping (our talks have made progress), but this guy is getting harder to contain, and if I can't talk him into stopping, he will require immediate administrative attention. Karrmann 23:10, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

There's a definite pattern here. I'll semiprotect for 1 week. Rlevse 01:12, 12 October 2007 (UTC)...someone already protected some, so some expire 16 Oct, some 19 Oct. Rlevse 01:21, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

edit warring on Michael E. J. Witzel[edit]

For the last month or more, User:Kkm5848 has been adding material to Michael E. J. Witzel that I think is a clear violation of WP:BLP. Discussion on the talk page is going nowhere, and a post to WP:BLP/N is getting no input from people not already involved in the dispute. Despite my attempts to explain to Kkm why the material violates BLP, he doesn't seem to understand why there might be a concern. If this were a normal content dispute, I'd pursue WP:DR, but I really think this is an obvious BLP violation. Could an uninvolved user please look at the situation and take appropriate action?

(Please note that there has been at least one previous ANI thread about this: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive281#More_eyes_needed_on_Michael_E._J._Witzel.) --Akhilleus (talk) 23:43, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

I protected the article for a month due to edit-warring, or at least until this discussion could be resolved. See protection log. The page was protected on the conservative, albeit wrong, version. Daniel 00:54, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism that slipped filters[edit]

Hello. An IP editor edited the bacon's rebellion article and his edits were not caught by our bots. Please see I only happened to find this one by chance and probably this edit would have stayed undetected for a long time. Please ban the IP or warn him, the type of vandalism he did is what keeps Wikipedia's credibility down. I have reverted his edits. Thanks -- Penubag  02:10, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

I warned him. You can do the warnigs yourself. Vandalism that warrants blocking (they should be warned first) should be reported at WP:AIV.Rlevse 02:14, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
What's the difference between this page and WP:AIV?-- Penubag  02:18, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
Vandalism happens all the time, so it's not usually considered an "incident" except in unusual circumstances. WP:AIV is a page that is set up to deal exclusively with vandalism. --Bongwarrior 02:23, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
(e/c)WP:AIV is only for vandalism and will get a faster response. Also at AIV you don't need to give as much evidence.Just something like "Vandalized after final warning" (if they vandalized after being given a final warning). Also, the bots only catch very very obvious vandalism that has little to no chance of being a constructive edit. People do the majority of the work. See Wikipedia:Recent changes patrol for more info. Mr.Z-man 02:26, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
oh, ok, thanks -- Penubag  02:27, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Rewinn: Mallicious Behavior[edit]

Rewinn user page:

The user Rewinn has been stalking the "Fairness Doctrine" article with the aim of enforcing his POV. NPOV violations include extensive use of Weasle Words and Original Research. What is less tollerable is that he invokes these standards as a sword and sheild for his own violatory edits. This I belive demonstrates that he is acting in bad faith.

For example:

Rewinn deleted a list of politicians who had expressed support for reinstating the Fairness Doctrine and replaced it with the weasle-worded, "Conservative commentators have asserted that various Democratic..." The original list of specific politicians was sourced to an NYPost article. Rewinn's protest was that each politician had to be specificly quoted in order to meet muster. However, rather than work constructively and in good faith, he just deleted and replaced with weasle words.

The POV that Rewinn is trying to enforce on the article is that support by officials to reinstate this set of regulations is a "conspiracy" theory, the "claims" of which are "controversial". Indeed, Rewinn renamed the section of the article "Controversy" back in August.

In his very next edits, he actually deleted two direct quotes from the politicians named in the nypost article he later deleted for not containing direct quotes. This he did without mention in the talk page while merely asserting that they were "undocumented" in his edit summary, when in fact both items were sourced.

Now on the talk page, some months later, when two other direct quotes were added to the article, sourced to a news article and audio documentation, Rewin risably challenges their authenticity of the quotes as well as their authority to document what the quoted speaker means.

You can see how this is churlish behavior at best. at worst, it deliberately undermines the ability to arive at any text with any factual fidelity whatsoever.

Rewinn has both introduced Original Research in a blatant fashion and challenged others' content, citing it as Original Research.

For instance, he has argued extensively with a Byron York article linked in the section in a manner violatory of OR.

He does so first by linking and quoting extensively from a Center for American Progress study not referenced in the York piece.

"Linked to CAP report" -

It should be noted that the study argues not against York's identification of a campaign to reinstate the Fairness Doctrine, but rather for the need for the return of such legislation.

York's piece does quote from an annoucement issued by the group Media Matters for America in which there is an open call to commence a campaign to reinstate the Fairness doctrine.

To this, Rewinn writes himself into the article as "those" "on the other side" "who disclaim (sic) such an effort" thusly:

On the other side, are those who disclaim such an effort. The website of Media Matters contains no announcement of a campaign to reinstate of the Fairness Doctrine.[2] (earliest version)

The citation is a link to a site search of the Media Matters website he performed himself for inclusion into the article. If this isn't OR, I'm not sure what is.

What is cynical about Rewinn's violation of OR is his flinging of allegations of OR violation against sourced, relevant content he intends to delete.

For instance, he argues with the inclusion of two direct, solidly sourced quotes by claiming that their position within the frame of "conspiracy" - which he authored - constitutes OR.

finally, I'm not a big tattler or complainer, but I felt compelled to report Rewinn's behavior up to now because he is always threatening administrative action against those who challenge him; suggesting that he is keeping record of critisisms which he characterizes as "personal attacks" and the like. yesterday he included a 3RR warning against me in his edit summary after I had reverted once.

I hope you recognize as I do that this sort of behavior isn't clever, but abusive. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:28, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

This sounds like something that should be addressed at dispute resolution. Corvus cornix 22:39, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
thanks for responding. i'm not so sure this is a dispute resolution issue. it's not so much that the material is contentious as that we're dealing with an editor who's behavior is inimicable with the arrival at concensus. 15:40, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
rewinn has reverted again. I've proceeded with the nessesary level-1 templates for vandalism, NPOV and 3RR warning. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:22, 12 October 2007 (UTC)


Resolved: Used {{Uw-vandalism2}} and supplemental message on user's talk page. -- HiEv 13:17, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

(I hope this is the right place to ask this.) There was a large amount of clearly irrelevant text about "nutraceuticals" added to the meme article by Dulcinea07 (talk · contribs · logs) (see here). I reverted the edits, and I'd like to put a warning on the user's page, but I honestly don't know what warning to put. Clearly the material doesn't belong there, as it has been shoehorned into the article, but it doesn't seem to fit any of the standard vandalism clauses. Am I wrong? Have I missed something? Also, the text seems oddly familiar. I think I might have seen it inserted somewhere before. Recommendations? -- HiEv 22:48, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Try one of the nonsense tags; they're appropriate for random spam, particularly if you use a supplemental message about it. Rdfox 76 22:56, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
Done. Thanks. I used {{Uw-vandalism2}} since WP:VANDAL says it's "suitable for nonsense". -- HiEv 13:17, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
Not sure it all fits that, even if the vast majority is out of place. The para he had on multilevel marketing might actually be considered as a meme.LeadSongDog 16:34, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

John Lennon[edit]

I would like to request an administrator (or two or more) to participate in a discussion being held on Talk:John_Lennon#Geffen_and_Ono in which Arcayne (talk · contribs) is insisting that a particular book citation (ISBN 1843536927) is inaccurate. I have explained to him that the most likely reason for his confusion is that he is referring to another, shorter version of the book, namely (ISBN 1843537532) which is half the size and probably does not include the information in question. This misinterpretation has resulted in him removing a reference to the most recent version of the book (2007) and replacing it with a 2003 version. Since we are supposed to use the most current sources available, I've replaced it with the 2007 source. Arcayne continues to claim that the 2007 version does not include this version, however, I have personally taken a trip to the Borders bookstore in my area and verified the ISBN, page number, and content in person. This still does not satisfy Arcayne, as he insists that his copy of the book does not contain this information. I have asked him to copy the ISBN number of the book and to compare it with the one being offered, as this would solve the problem. —Viriditas | Talk 03:41, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Thats a content dispute, I'm not sure what you would want an admin to do that any other user can't? ViridaeTalk 03:44, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
It's not a content dispute at all but rather disruptive trolling. The citation is accurate, yet Arcayne is claiming that it is not accurate without giving an ISBN of the version he owns. I personally went to the bookstore to check on Arcayne's claim and found that he was mistaken, and he does not own the book in question. The content is not in dispute; it's in the ISBN cited on p. 212, word for word, as it is a direct quote. Yet, Arcayne continues to claim that it does not appear in the book. —Viriditas | Talk 03:58, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
That is still a content dispute unless Arcayne is disagreeing for the sake of disagreeing. I suggest you open an RfC on the matter. ViridaeTalk 10:53, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Apparent role account[edit]

Above account appears to be a role account for Hyphaze magazine. Creating spam/copyvio articles (see deleted contribs) and userpage appears to be spam as well. Videmus Omnia Talk 07:47, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

blocked. G11ed the userpage. -- lucasbfr talk 08:31, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Monetary rewards for finding a sockpuppeteer[edit]

What does everyone think of WP:VPM#The TDC Sweepstakes! Win a $100 gift certificate!? x42bn6 Talk Mess 11:38, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

User:SockOfPedro. When do I get the $100 ? This is a bad thing. Pedro :  Chat  11:41, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
The subpage has more details, perhaps the heading of this is a bit misleading: User:TDC/Prize x42bn6 Talk Mess 11:43, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I saw the sub-page before replying and was being facetious. Obviously this guys after one person but this is still a very bad idea to stand handing out "rewards". WP:REWARD is one thing but financial bonuses for hunting down socks? That seems totally against the ideals here.Pedro :  Chat  11:46, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
Speedied as an attack page. Neil  13:01, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
Concur. Good choice. Pedro :  Chat  13:09, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[edit]

Sorry for reporting this here, but I couldn't find the appropriate page to report it. If you look through this editor's contribution history, you'll see the last several edits are vandalism. Can this IP be blocked? Jeffpw 11:42, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Not enough warnings yet + only one vandal action in the last few hours. Final warning given. Will monitor. Next time WP:AIV after final warning, but thanks for the help. Pedro :  Chat  11:44, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
Thanks a lot, Pedro! I had added the AIV link to my userpage, so now I know exactly where to go to deal with that. I don't do much vandal reporting, but think maybe I should start. Jeffpw 11:59, 12 October 2007 (UTC)


Resolved: IP re-blocked

User:M.deSousa who was blocked indefinitely on 6 June 2007 for POV pushing and sockpuppetry is evading his ban using the IP address User: to continue to push the claims of Hilda Toledano to the Portuguese throne. Kigf 13:01, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

  • The previous block had expired. Block re-set longer, as it appears to be a static IP. ELIMINATORJR 13:18, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Disruptive editing and user page[edit]

Hi there. I need some advice on how to deal with User:Yusef Masushef. His short contrib history contains a lot of political sopaboxing and little of anything else. His user page is also rather offensive and requests to have him alter it have been met with personal attacks and incivility as can be seen on his talk page. Any ideas on how to proceed? Tiamut 13:37, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

  • I have removed the inflammatory Twin Towers image. I would point out, though, that your comments to him ("you must have a brain the size of a pea") were not particularly well-advised. Incidentally, the user has not edited since 27 September. ELIMINATORJR 13:58, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

IP hopping vandal[edit]

Resolved: semi-protected

I would have reported to WP:AIV but it seemed more appropriate to put it here. It looks like (*.128 to *.255) is enjoying vandalizing Holy Land. The WHOIS on the IPs points to a school, and across the various IPs it seems that it has received several warnings yet persisted. --slakrtalk / 13:43, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

  • Semi-protected for 1 day, which will take us to the weekend. ELIMINATORJR 13:49, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

AIV backlogged[edit]

Would someone mind checking? • Lawrence Cohen 14:16, 12 October 2007 (UTC)


this IP address has made approximately 15-20 edit to the Chocolate chip cookie article in the past 15-20 minutes, all vandalism. Could someone please put a quick 24 block on it? It resolves to Tazewell Public School in Reston, VA.

Jeremy (Jerem43 14:52, 12 October 2007 (UTC))

The best place to report vandalism for a quick response is the admin intervention against vandalism page. Tony Fox (arf!) 16:06, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Blocking sockpuppets[edit]

I apologise if I'm not asking in the correct place, but what's the best way to deal with a obvious sockpuppet? Chait2001 (talk · contribs) has been blocked for persistently adding material to Brigham Young, and several sockpuppets have also been identified and blocked [2]. There is now another obvious sockpuppet, Decembernoon (talk · contribs) making identical edits. Opening a case at WP:SSP seems like overkill. I've wondered this a few times before: can I report at WP:AIV or should I be using WP:SSP? (I suspect there are going to be a few more sockpuppets of this user at Brigham Young, and would like to know the quickest way to stem the flow each time). Thanks --Kateshortforbob 15:15, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

I've blocked the sock. Let me know on my talk page if any more socks show up. JoshuaZ 17:00, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
Thanks very much! --Kateshortforbob 17:27, 12 October 2007 (UTC)


Resolved: bbatsell ¿? 16:22, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

This article was repeatedly vandalised by an anon IP on 24th Sept and page was semi-prot as a result. The same guy is back with a different IP User: but is using the exact same wording as before. Warnings have no effect, in fact he vandalised my user page last time. He has also violated WP:3RR today. Could we have semi-prot back on please? --Rodhullandemu (talk - contribs) 15:57, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

I've taken the liberty of putting a pp-semi on this for one week. This guy is not getting the message. and is still reverting reversions. --Rodhullandemu (talk - contribs) 16:11, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
I've blocked the IP in light of the past edits. In the future, if it's just one person, place the warnings on their talk page as laid out at WP:TT, then report them to WP:AIV if they vandalize after their final warning. Additionally, I've removed the {{pp-semi}} template; only administrators can add protection to an article, and it's generally not used if there's only one vandal, we just block the vandal instead. If you need to request protection because of heavy vandalism from multiple vandals in the future, you can use WP:RFPP. Thanks! —bbatsell ¿? 16:22, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
Was about to come back here & delete request having just raised at WP:RFPP Thanks. --Rodhullandemu (talk - contribs) 16:26, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Stubborn editor keeps reverting to a copyright-violating version of a page[edit]

For months I've been attempting to revert a user who keeps replacing the Lidia Bastianich article with nonwikified text pasted in word-for-word from another website. At first, I was going to treat this as a content dispute and try some of the WP:DR steps (such as WP:3O). But the closer I examine the problem, the more I believe it's simply a matter of inexperienced user ignoring policy. The user has edited as User:Ciupicat, User:Lidianyc and various IP addresses. I opened a discussion on the talk page, and I'm going to look for a suitable warning template to leave on Ciupicat's talk page. I don't want this slow revert war to continue, so what's the next step? Semi-protection might not be enough, because this user has several registered accounts.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 17:20, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

I have given a proper warning. EdokterTalk 17:33, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
For future reference, where can I find templates like the one you used? I didn't notice it on WP:WARN. Thanks for your help.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 17:37, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
It is there. {{subst:uw-copyright}} is the one you are looking for. Add |<name of article> and you will have the exact same. Spryde 17:40, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
Oh, there it is. Sorry I missed it.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 17:44, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Should I block?[edit] (talk · contribs · WHOIS) keeps adding complete nonsense into Heroes. Since I reverted myself, I don't know if I should block this IP myself, being "involved" and all... or is vandalism exempt from this? EdokterTalk 18:12, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, in cases of obvious misinformation like that, you can block if you reverted; however you should really give him more than a level 2 warning first. Mr.Z-man 18:16, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
I just did for 24 hrs due to the several instances of vandalism in the history and that he was warned. I think it would have been okay if you'd blocked, but I do what you just did, if I ever have a question about whether I should take an admin action, I always ask another admin to look at it. It's best to not give anyone any reason to question your integrity, or at least as little chance thereof as possible-;) Rlevse 18:18, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
Thanks :) EdokterTalk 18:22, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Editwarring on Western Sahara articles[edit]

Koavf (talk · contribs), Wikima (talk · contribs), and A Jalil (talk · contribs) are engaging in slow-moving editwarring (slow-moving largely due to the fact Koavf is on 1RR per Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Koavf) on many Western Sahara-related articles. Koavf's revertwarring on these articles is what got him community banned in the first place (the arbitration case overturned it to give him another chance), and Jalil and Wikima spend a large proportion of their time undoing all of his changes.

As you can see in the edit histories of this article and this wikiproject, as well as the other pages in Wikima's recent contributions this is a long-term, continuing problem, and blocks aren't working (Koavf has been blocked a ton, while Wikima was blocked for 3RR this time last year). I'd like some suggestions on what should be done about this - blocks, paroles? (I'll say right off the bat that protection won't work, they'll just wait it out.) Picaroon (t) 23:30, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Defense You'll notice that I am posting on talk and not blind reverting, except in the case of vandalism (e.g.) I keep on trying to seek consensus on talk and have engaged an admin at Talk:Legal status of Western Sahara, who is apparently incapacitated; another admin agreed to assist and then never showed up on talk, despite several entreaties. Note that Jalil and Wikima are: redirecting Western Sahara articles to Morocco articles, deleting Western Sahara from relevant templates (and again), ruining the user templates at that same WikiProject they have been vandalizing, inserting irrelevant politicized asides in articles on flags and coats of arms, mass deleting relevant passages from articles (note that the latter deletes references to Moroccan human rights abuses), deleting criticism of Morocco from articles, taking out relevant stubs from articles, ignoring cogent logic from several users on some pages, and generally trolling my edits. I am trying to seek consensus on talk pages, and they are not. To presume that my editing is in the same class as theirs is simply false balance, and I have requested admin intervention on several occasions. In the one case where I got it (Legal status of Western Sahara), they simply ignored the admin's injunction and deleted scholarly source citations because it disagreed with their pro-Moroccan political agenda. That's to say nothing of the POV forks, copy-and-paste violations, reversion of comments on talk, controversial page moves, etc. that have been happening with these two users for over a year now. Will some admin please deal with their nonsense? -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 23:49, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

I used to be part of this war; this is my understanding of those involved last time I checked:

  • Wikima (talk · contribs) — fanatically biased towards all things pro-Morocco; I honestly wouldn't be surprised if he works for the Moroccan government.
  • A Jalil (talk · contribs) — clearly biased towards Morocco, but can at least be communicated with (perhaps he just doesn't see the bias).
  • Koavf (talk · contribs) — means well in his attempts to curb Wikima and A Jalil, but plays their game instead of trying to use Wikipedia's dispute resolution process (which, in his defense, has IMO utterly failed this issue so far - its appearance here is encouraging, however).

I don't think Wikima or A Jalil should ever be allowed to edit anything remotely related to Morocco or Western Sahara or the SADR ever again, but failing that I would at least hope their edits were reviewed closely for a good long while to ensure NPOV. Koavf's position, IMO, has not always necessarily been on the side of reason, but has been on the side against those who are against reason. I think you'll find he will appear to behave more once this issue is actually addressed by administrators, instead of being continually ignored. ¦ Reisio 00:38, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Oh come on mate, Koavf is the exact equivalent of wikima, only simply a monolingual. Means well, he's a stubborn close minded git who likes to do stealth reverts on others edits after laying low. (collounsbury 00:04, 11 October 2007 (UTC))
Reisio, you used to be part of the war defending Koavf's positions, and it is good to mention. Your input above follows the same path. You were less fanatic than Koavf is, but your talk page speaks for itself about your editing attitude, the discussions we had with you, and your brawls with others, that in the end led you to being blocked. Saying that you "think you'll find he [Koavf] will appear to behave more once this issue is actually addressed by administrators" is completely ridiculous. He was warned, short-blocked and long-blocked, and indef-blocked, and there is no change at all in his behaviour. Having other editors check my changes if they are pro-Morocco POV is more than welcome. Actually my action (and Wikima's) has almost always been a reaction to Koavf's POV editing, rather than the opposite contarely to what Reisio alledges above.--A Jalil 14:02, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
I don't defend people's positions, I merely adhere to logic and Wikipedia guidelines & policy. ¦ Reisio 18:25, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
I see what "logic" you mean: the logic of reverting that you share with Koavf. Your contributions are no more than reverts. Your talk page is full of complaints about that. Playing the third-party editor who throws his two-cents on this does not fit you Reisio, because you were very much in the middle of it.--A Jalil 14:39, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
Explaining my relationship to this matter was the first information I presented here. ¦ Reisio 18:28, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

  • Reisio, in my edits i am rather neutral and defend neutral pages (e.g. separtion of WS from "sadr")
  • You think, like koavf, being neutral means pushing Polisario's interests in wikipedia (and possibly elsewhere)
  • An possibly you think this way because you are payed by Polisario or the Algerian Governement.
wikima 19:32, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
Wow "Actually my action (and Wikima's) has almost always been a reaction to Koavf's POV editing" this is an explicit admission that Wikima and Jalil exist on Wikipedia in order to revert my edits. That is what they do and that's it. They only want to instigate edit wars on Western Sahara-related articles. As for Wikima's paranoid allegation about spies from Algeria, is anyone taking him seriously at this point? Honestly, is anyone else even reading these ramblings? -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 20:09, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
  • If you read well, reisio is suggesting I am working for the Moroccan gov., an unacceptable allegation. I am merely showing him the mirror. But you were unable to see that. Why? Because unable to be neutral.
  • I my view it is extremly important in wikipedia to get articles on Western Sahara as balanced as possible.
  • Polisario activitsts like you and Arre have created a whole pro-polisario world that needs to be balanced. You excessive edit warring and pro-polisarian editing does not allow any constructive way.
  • This is what I mean that there is almost no conflict when you are away (e.g blocked).
wikima 20:38, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
Spying No, he didn't. And when I didn't edit the Western Sahara articles, virtually no one did. There was certainly no one who edited them with any regularity, and you definitely didn't take the initiative to add more content. Your main project on Wikipedia is deleting information and reverting me. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 21:33, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
NO I exist on Wikipedia to, among other things, remove POV edits (by you or Arre or else) to a subject I know very well. I don't touch your other edits if they are not POV. Needless to say, I have nothing to do with the troubles you had om R.E.M template nor on massive renaming or moving chaos you did elsewhere. --A Jalil 10:23, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
Oh So you exist on Wikipedia in order to revert some of my edits, not all of them. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 19:56, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

  • 1/ I didn't speak of spying
  • 2/ Reisio accused me fo working for the Moroccan gov., an allegation that did not bother you at all. But now that I am holding the mirror for him you seem excitd about this. This reflects how profoundly biased is your thinking.
  • 3/ We did lots of imporovements to the articles and created new ones when you were away (e.g. corcas, former members of polisario etc.)
  • 4/ Since you're back from your indefinite block your only acitivity is to undo the efforts of others with the aim to get the initial pro-polisario versions
  • 5/ Your behaviour keeps people busy dealing with you only instead of dealing with the topics. If we didn't have you here we would spend our time dealing with the articles themselves
  • 6/ If I were only a Moroccan POV fighter I would have inserted versions in your absence which go 100% along the Moroccan position. None of us did when you were away.
wikima 18:25, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Okay, but you think he's a non-spy government employees of some kind? Whatever.
  • When?
  • You created those before I left.
  • That's not true; you're lying.
  • That's also not true; see the months when I was away. Anyone can look at your contribs and see how you were not interested in making the articles any better.
  • How did you not do that? It certainly seems like you did. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 19:56, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
It has been clear to me for a while now that all three editors should be under the same parole. It seems that every block that Koavf has had has been a result of reciprocal edit warring, often in tandem, by A Jalil and Wikima. It's been going on across dozens of articles for months now. Dmcdevit·t 00:43, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
Koavf has been on the 1RR parole and what is the result?, to revert every other day, or a couple of days?. I have taken this problem to your attention before. The admin who was intervening is on a wiki-break (car accident). What is needed is that an admin to step in and go through all the articles in conflict. The best example is that lately an admin has managed to settle a very disputed article, though not without problems with koavf. That is a good example to follow.--A Jalil 14:02, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
Parole I would be fine with some kind of oversight (in point of fact, that is precisely what I have asked for on several occasions here at AN/I); would someone please step up to do that? Some kind of intervention or mediation on these pages? Again, I would like to point out that a strict equivalence between every edit they have made and I have made is false balance; I have made nowhere near as egregious edits as they have. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 01:07, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
Judging by your behaviour under 1RR parole, I wonder if parole has any impact on edit-warring.--A Jalil 14:02, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

The main issue here is the fact that the pro-Polisario activist Koavf (in addition to Arre), has loaded Wikipedia with pro-Polisario content to a great number of articles. Western Sahara has more space on Wikipedia than the vast majority of African nations. We (I, wikima, Juiced Lemon, and Collounsbury, ..) have been removing that POV content from different articles only to find he reverted back to his edit. He actually started the revert process immediately after being unblocked. The articles being the subject of trouble all have one of the following points:

  • Koavf is using Western Sahara, the disputed territory, and the SADR, the govt-in-exile of the the Polisario Front, interchangeably and using the flag of the SADR to represent WS. That is the reason of trouble in these articles: WikiProject Western Sahara, Gallery of flags with crescents, Flags of Africa, and Pan-Arab colors.
  • Western Sahara has no flag nor coats of arms, but Koavf insists on it having them, and imposing or redirecting to the Polisario/SADR flag and coa on WS. We suggested that the article of flag of Western Sahara makes mention that there is no such for the disputed territory, but there are two competing flags claiming to represent the territory and have them listed. He refused. An admin intervened to edit the article to a neutral approach and is actually what we suggested.
  • Magnifying sporadic riots that happen once in a half year by a few stone throwing teanagers as an "ongoing campaign". Sahrawi Association of Victims of Grave Human Rights Violations Committed by the Moroccan State, (what a title!!).
  • Making the SADR, a government in exile of the Polisario Front, look as a sovereign state and Africa topic.
  • Reverting some articles to nearly a two year old version, loaded with Pro-Polisario POV, in disregard of many editors contribution. Portal:Western Sahara/Intro.
  • In addition to portraying WS as occupied instead of disputed, and calling the area to the east of the military berm as a free zone, a term used exclusively by the SADR organs. Needless to say that it goes well with what Koavf openly states in his user page that he is on Wikipedia to represent the interests of the SADR.

An admin, Zscout370, with better knowledge about flags has solved a couple of articles' troubles. What we need is another dedicated admin to tackle the other subjects. I am quite confident that an admin's intervention, looking from a neutral perspective, will solve most of these problems.

Unfortunately, after nearly half a year of block, the behaviour of Koavf is the same. The same pro-Polisario POV pushing, and the same disruptive behaviour. The WS related disruption by koavf is visible only because there are people to oppose it. What about the week-long block related to disruptive page moving?, shortened only due to the admin's kindness?, in addition to more complaints. For those who think Koavf only has trouble on WS related pages.--A Jalil 14:02, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Trolling More trolling about. The only thing that makes any sense in the post you just made is the injunction that a disinterested editor can see through this obfuscation. Your arguments are paltry at best, and your actions speak volumes - you and Wikima exist solely on Wikipedia to revert my edits to Western Sahara articles. Anyone who looks at your edits can see that literally 99% of them are reverts to push a Moroccan nationalist agenda. In the six months that I did not edit, can you point to one constructive addition that was made to these articles? One? The entire WikiProject laid fallow and my immediate concern on resumption of editing was getting started editing Western Sahara-related articles again and contributing to their breadth and scope. Silly statements about how Western Sahara is not occupied, there is no flag of Western Sahara, and how there is no Independence Intifada show how disconnected your ideology is with reality; the fact that you refuse to have any kind of coherent posts on talk reinforces this. In point of fact, your first allegation against me - which you and Wikima have repeated ad nauseum - is patently untrue. Never have I ever equated Western Sahara with the Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic or either with the Polisario Front. Ever. It also shows how you are more interested in trolling about your Moroccan nationalism on every page rather than discussing the merits of your actions - do you have any response to the allegations made above or do you only have these illogical arguments in favor of your POV? Again, will some admin please take accountability for this series of disputes? As much as I appreciate Fayssal's gestures, he's been ineffectual at stemming the tide of nonsense and is apparently incapacitated. I have posted at AN/I and RfCs several times and have sought mediation over and over again. Would someone please help me here? -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 19:49, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
You seem to not have read my edit (as usual), because I have put links to just a few from the many articles where you use the SADR flag and SADR coat of arms, and you use, SADR symbols to represent Western Sahara. In many occurences of Western Sahara youd add SADR in brackets -- Western Sahara(SADR)-- If that is not confusing the SADR with Western Sahara, then what is it?. At the same time you came here on the AN/I to claim without shame that "Never have I ever equated Western Sahara with the Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic or either with the Polisario Front. Ever.", 10 minutes later you created an article titled History of the Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic and ... directed it to the History of Western Sahara. Is that lying or Schizophrenia?. Against an admin's intervention, you insist on adding the SADR to the template of African sovereign states, and at the same time calling it occupied. are not you putting yourself in a ridiculous situation?. The Moroccan POV, is that Western sahara is an undisputed integral part of the kingdom as the southern provinces, while I describe it as a disputed territory. Am I then pushing pro-Morocco POV?. After your unblock, on the 15th of June, you reverted many articles to the half year old versions you left, and in some cases to a nearly 2 years old version in dirsregard of the contributions of half a dozen editors. Is that what you call "resumption of editing", or is it resumption of reverting and edit-warring?. While Picaroon was putting this on AN/I you were reverting, and continued after that. My concern here on Wikipedia is to remove the POV that you have added with Arre. To change the situation where Wikipedia has become a repository for activism and POV pushing of the Polisario. If that is what you do, and in your own words, that is why you are for, then, of course I will remove your pro-Polisario POV, and I welcome anyone to remove Pro-Morocco POV also.--A Jalil 14:39, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
Ridiculous So I guess you're just going to ignore the allegations above. That gives a tacit agreement to them (silence is approval.) I have in fact used the phrase "Western Sahara (SADR)" just like editors have used the phrases "Taiwan (ROC)" and "Republic of China (Taiwan)." They don't equate the two, simply show that there is some relationship between them, not that they are identical. A perfect example: the history of the SADR is pretty intimately related with the history of Western Sahara, isn't it? I would prefer that there were two articles, rich in sources and facts. Since there are not, one should redirect to the other, shouldn't it? In no small part the confusion is do to colloquially associating one with the other. As far as the flags go, you keep on calling it the "flag of SADR" whereas the most common name of it is the "flag of Western Sahara" and you know this, and the consensus is to leave the article name there, and you know that, and several sources refer to the flag as such, and you know that. I'm not getting into these ridiculous semantic games with you. As far as the Africa in topic template goes, your preference is apparently to remove Western Sahara from Africa altogether. Isn't that a bit of an extreme POV, to remove a country from a continent entirely? Then again, you apparently see no problem with that. I agree that it is ridiculous that the SADR is a sovereign state and its claimed territory is mostly under military occupation, but I had nothing to do with that; talk to Hassan II of Morocco. You push the Moroccan POV by claiming that Western Sahara is not occupied, when in fact and the eyes of international observers it is. As you admit yourself, your concern on Wikipedia is (just?) to revert my edits. I, on the other hand, contribute to the well-being of the project at large. This is not to say that every edit I have made is justified, nor is it to say that I am always dispassionately and objectively correct, but it is to point out the false balance and fallacious parity between your edits and mine. For some reason, you pretend like you right from no POV and you present sources as if they have no POV as well. Which is nonsense. I write my biases on my user page for the purpose of full disclosure and in the interests of neutrality. Meanwhile, your stealth edits, obfuscation, and outright lies (e.g. about the UN never calling Western Sahara occupied, which you know for a fact is not the case) hide your pro-Moroccan agenda, which is increasingly obvious to anyone that has looked at your contributions. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 18:01, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
POV. I am removing your POV edits not your edits. Western Sahara is a disputed territory not a country. the SADR is a government-in-exile based in Algeria, not a sovereign state. The Republic of china is Taiwan and Taiwan is the Republic of china. It is not they are related, they are the same thing. I think that was a desperate comparision. If you write "Western Sahara(SADR)" and claim you don't mean they are the same, you are in trouble. At worst, that is insulting the intelligence of the readers, among them the admins. They look by themselves and judge. I will say no more. --A Jalil 10:23, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
Right So you have no defense of your actions? What on earth does "I am removing your POV edits not your edits" even mean? The fact that you write completely ignorant statements like "The Republic of china is Taiwan and Taiwan is the Republic of china. It is not they are related, they are the same thing." shows a gargantuan lack of knowledge about what you're talking about; for instance, read the first three or four sentences of Republic of China and Taiwan. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 19:56, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

While I do admit I do not know much about the area, I am willing to work with all parties to resolve other issues. It was hard trying to get the flag issue right. Even some of the folks I work for, like Flags of the World, gives a confusing view about the flag. But, once everything was settled, the results were satisfying to me and some of the others. It would be best if I can get all editors involved in this dispute to tell me, on my talk page, to pledge to me to work with me. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 03:12, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Almost uninvolved editor tries to help[edit]

Obviously, I can't understand everything going on here, but I think I can detect who is attempting to bring scholarship to this article and who is not. There appears to be a book on the subject that is particularily valuable - and the scholarship of it is not at issue. In conditions like this, using the book must be far preferable to using web-sources, particularily those of parties that have multi-$billion financial interests and have been defying the UN. Removing references to the book (on simple factual matters, such as recognition of SADR by particular nations) looks very much like vandalism - meanwhile, other edits, such as Justin (koavf)'s edit here persuade me that there are editors capable of properly assessing sources, and their contributions are likely to produce a much better article.

Separate to the question of sources, some parties (perhaps only one individual) seem to be attempting to act cooperatively with the 'facilitator'/mediator, while other parties or individuals are refusing to cooperate and are 'personalising' the discussion in unhelpful ways. It looks increasingly to me as if this AN is an abuse of process, and Justin (koavf) should not have been put on trial in this fashion. I'm very tempted to endorse Reisio's suggestion above and state that Wikima and Jalil should be topic-blocked from anything related to Western Sahara or the SADR, and likely from articles on Morocco as well. There will undoubtedly be other factors I've not accounted for, the proper name for this article, whether certain information/images should be included here or elsewhere, etc, etc. PRtalk 15:11, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

PR (a.k.a PalestineRemembered), If you don't understand what is going on here, you do better switch off your detecting radar, or turn it to the case rised against you above. Your edits to a whole range of articles look obviousely biased, as is your intervention "to help" here. You picked one article out of dozens, and did not even understand what is the issue there, and used your mis-understanding of it as a basis to call for my (and Wikima's) block. the diff of Koavf's edit your refer to implies that when the Emir of Kuwait was on a visit to Morocco last year, and asked by journalists about his country's position in the Sahara conflict, and he answered that he supported the territorial integrity of Morocco, that implies he might be talking about the Canary Islands, that Morocco has never claimed. If your mind approves of this laughingly nonsense, then I do now understand why you trail such a long block record and why you are under mentoring and the subject of many complaints.--A Jalil 10:23, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
  • PR if you have been following on the topic you would have realised that koavf has broken by all records of edit warring
  • For this he has been blocked on indefinite
  • And when he was away, for months (can't remember how long), the topic was in rest. There was peace.
  • As soons as he came backl edit warring began again.
  • Your judgement shows that your position is simply unfair and irrealistic.
wikima 19:38, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
Trolling about "The topic was in rest." In other words, we did nothing to contribute to the articles, and we had nothing to do since we couldn't revert Justin's edits. Since he has come back, we have been reverting his edits. Is anyone else reading this stuff? -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 20:06, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
  • No, that means that there was no edit warring when you were away.
  • This is a fact that everyone can verify
  • Edits continued and despite from some tension with Arre and Reisio there has never been an edit war like with yourself
  • You are excessive in using wikipedia and in your edit war.
  • Your blocks are incomparable. You have broken records.
  • Any admins who wants to say anything here must first look at the block logs (PR obviousely did not)
wikima 20:19, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
No edit warring Of course there was no edit warring - you had your way and you did nothing on those pages. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 21:33, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
  • This is indeed the sad thing about you
  • When you were away there was no edit warring.
  • Of course there was tension with other activits of polisario like Arre or Reisio, but in general we could move further and get more progress in the topics quality than in all the time you were around.
  • This is unfortunately not the case with myself or Jalil only but I can remember Daryou, Fayssal himself and other editora whom you completely discouraged from editing with your excessive reverts. All that people gave up and left because of you.
  • And I am not familiar with the other topics you are involved in but I think other people had complained about your behaviour in otehr areas as well.
wikima 18:31, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Supplementary Comment - I looked at parts of this case and I saw cooperative editors and non-cooperative editors. I saw editors who had proper sources to work from, and editors who sourced to parties who have big financial interests in the outcome. I saw one editor who appeared to be taking an analytical attitude, and others who seemed to be taking a personalised attitude. After all of this, I may not have dug deeply enough, and could be completely wrong in my assessment. But I know how it looks and my views have not changed in response to further contributions. I know what kind of editor I would choose to collaborate with in articles, and I know what kind of editor I'd like to see editing articles in the encyclopedia. Lastly, it's always interesting to speculate on the motives of an editor who immediately draws attention to the supposed ethnicity of another editor. PRtalk 13:38, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Suggestion to resolve this, at least partly[edit]

  • For those who have been following with the conflict, a main source for it is the confusion of Western Sahara with the "sahrawi republic"
  • Koavf, pro-polsiario activist, is misusing wikipedia to make sure Western Sahara is exactly the same thing as the "sahrawi "republic"
  • In fact it is not. Western Sahara is the disputed territory, while the "sahrawi republic" is the entity that claims the independence for this territory.
  • If you (admins) really want to help resolving this then I suggest you look into this.
  • I suggest that admins who have been involved in the topic get involved in this debate, otherwise it would not make sense
Thanks - wikima 20:29, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
Look into this? Please do, admins. Please do. Just look at the diffs I've provided above and tell me if they are reasonable in any sense of the word. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 21:33, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
Yes, the admins will look, and they will see that you were actually unblocked from the indef-block to have a second chance, and you are not supposed to engage anymore in edit-warring and disruptive behaviour, and not to be blocked 4 times within a short time from your unblock.--A Jalil 10:23, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Ah the dialogue des sourdes: As neither a partisan of Morocco nor Polisario, frankly the core issue is that neither wikima nor Koavf in particular are able to listen and compromise. It's rather hard to advance anything with the Western Sahara articles when both play pretend dialogue - Koavf being rather better at the special pleading and wiki-lawyering, indeed he seems to be making it his new approach -while insisting on their POV. Frankly the entire thing is tiresome. I would simply like then to note that in my experience trying to gain consensus, Koavf is as much a problem as this Moroccan tormentors, and to block them without also blocking him on editing the articles strikes me as unproductive. I await, then, Koavf's little "Wha! (collounsbury 00:01, 11 October 2007 (UTC))

Sure Just look at Talk:Legal status of Western Sahara; see the rationales I provide versus what they say. Then tell me if there is parity between our dialogue. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 19:56, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Ok. I'll try to echo Collounsbury comment and add that this issue is really annoying too much. It is very clear that both sides are being extremely POV (especially Koavf and wikima). We have been hearing the same arguments by the same users for 2 years now. Nothing resulted. There was a period of calm because Koavf was blocked indef. True but that can also mean that at his absence all articles were biased toward the Moroccan POV. All of your issues deal w/ content disputes so admins would just ask you gently to try to discuss, mediate, and you know the etc... I say it again... Compared w/ other classical wikipedia disputes, yours seem to be relatively more civilized in general but that's all. What can admins do?

  • not a big thing. Admins rarely block for POV and if they would do so Koavf block log would explode.

Well, wikipedia policies and guidelines have little to do w/ your case unless it is a violation of 3RR, personal attacks, etc... I am sincerly against banning Koavf because of his block log. My reason is simple. Articles would become one-sided. However, Koavf and wikima are not here to make any consensus whatsoever. They are always the last editors to say their word in any discussion. It always happens to be the same word thay would start that discussion w/. White is white and black is black. What admins can do here?

  • Ask these 2 people to agree and reach a prior and general consensus (whether WS is a region, a country, a local marketplace, etc...) before delving into editing;
  • or else, ban those 2 editors from these articles and leave others reach consensus. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 20:00, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
Welcome back Fayssal, I'm glad to see you back and I hope you're better. Again, look at the edits above and show me anything I've done that is as POV. Furthermore, look at the talk on Legal status of Western Sahara; which of us is providing cogent arguments based on reliable, verifiable, and scholarly sources? I am definitely willing to play ball, but I am not willing to have the WikiProject constantly vandalized, or its user templates as well. Nor do I think that the kinds of edits that I outlined above are reasonable behavior; not the least of which is the example of reverting out the references that you told me to put back into the article. Honestly, is that justified? Have I ever done anything as egregious as that in my edits? Seriously. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 01:38, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

  • Col and Fayssal, you don't seem to be able to look at things with an objective eye.
  • You compare me with koavf, although my block log is extremly low (to not to say insignificant) and koavf's is a candidate for the Guiness World Records.
  • An other fact that you ommit, is that I am for balancing the WS topic and not to make it all Moroccan POV, while Koavf only represents the Polisario/Algeria POV on the topic.
  • To help you understand this, I never spoke of the Sahara as Moroccan, but always insist to dissociate this territory from an entity that claims its independance.
  • The same is valid when I don't recognize the "sadr" entity as this is the most neutral position in international relations. Because taliking of the "sadr" as en existing, sovereign entity (as koavf and co. do) means that there is no conflict and that WS belongs to the "sadr". IS this right? No, it is NOT.
  • You should open your mind a little and try to understand this because the other way would be to simply agree with koavf and build an online independent "Polisariostan" on wikipedia.
  • You should use your mind a little bit more and not judge in such a simplicistic way.
Thanks - wikima 16:35, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Second Suggestion to resolve the issue[edit]


  • Here is a second suggestion from my side, in the sake of Wikipedia. It adresses the roots of the conflicts. In my view if you don't deal with this the conflict will never end, as it never ends at the UN.
  • Also, the following is a package, take it as whole or leave it as whole:

1/ Content Level
  • Make a clear statement among all active users involved in the WS topic that WS should NEVER be put same as the Sahrawi Republic
  • Allow for action / Encourage action to dissociate both from each other at all levels (also file naming) and present Western Sahara as what it is: the disputed territory and not the wished republic.
2/ User Level
  • Ban Koavf from all Western Sahara and Morocco related topics. Koavf has had many chances and he sinply ignored them. No need I think to go into details here.
  • Block myself (wikima) for three months from editing in Wikipedia (and later for more if I am not able to show any change). Honnestly my personal block log is simply too little even for a three months block, but if this helps to resolve anything then ok.
Hope this helps and thanks - wikima 16:51, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

User:MurderWatcher1 - Second (and third, fourth, fifth) opinions needed[edit]

Following the closing of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Boitumelo McCallum, the original author of the article MurderWatcher1 (talk · contribs) has posted a message to the (not yet deleted) talk page. In this post, they mention three other articles of theirs (Jennifer Moore, Ramona Moore and Chanel Petro-Nixon), all of which appear to fail WP:NOT#MEMORIAL and WP:BIO (and - almost - WP:BLP1E); a look down their contribution history shows plenty more such as Imette St. Guillen, Jennifer Levin and Fountain Avenue which (aside possibly from Fountain Avenue) appear unsalvageable.

While I think these are all clear violations of policy and technically ought to be deleted, I am extremely reluctant to AfD them, as it seems very WP:BITEy for a good faith-editor to suddenly find their seven (at least) most substantial contributions to the encyclopedia all up for deletion; I would think that at the very least it would lead to a rerun of the Billy Hathorn incident, and quite possibly could lead to a legitimate & good faith editor leaving the project altogether in a huff. (If around 50% of my mainspace edits were simultaneously deleted, I could see myself doing the same.)

There doesn't seem to be any right answer here; does anyone have any thoughts as to what the least wrong answer is?iridescent (talk to me!) 21:35, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

From my perspective it's easy. If the articles fail the rules in a way that can't be corrected via a rewrite or amendment then it's AfD. There's a difference between not biting a newbie and sitting them down, making them a cup of tea and a cookie. If nothing else it's a lesson to them about what does and doesn't make it into WP. At the moment the editor is learning nothing in that regard. ---- WebHamster 21:43, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
Without looking too much at the articles and judging mainly on what is here, WP:BITE does not override other policies, if the articles are completely unsalvageable, there is only 1 solution. WP:BITE means that you shouldn't go to the editor's talk page, throw a bunch of policy abbreviations at them, and threaten to have them blocked if they continue. Mr.Z-man 21:48, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
I'd suggest AfD them, but leave a polite note on their talk page to explain why you're doing it (along the lines of "thanks for your contributions, sorry but I don't feel they quite fit in with WP policy"), and maybe try to steer them towards some places they can make contributions that are more likely to stick. Confusing Manifestation 01:08, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

If the Imette St. Guillen, Jennifer Moore, Ramona Moore and Chanel Petro-Nixon pages are deleted then I would, indeed, consider leaving Wikipedia as an editor. I put considerable research and work into these pages as, I know the materials that I am referring to. I'm not without my own, considerable skills as, I work as a legal secretary for a well-known law firm and, other than Wikipedia style and policy, I'm pretty knowledgeable about some law matters.

While I didn't create the Imette St. Guillen page, if you have read my user page then you know that I was personally involved with the case. User:ImmortalGoddezz started editing and putting this page into Wikipedia format from a tag from User:Garzo.

Perhaps WP policy should change or be amended as, these incidents were of unusual occurrence and circumstances and can apply to civilized people everywhere who enjoy nightlife in general.

Also, I've 'weighed-in' on some subjects that I'm very knowledgable of, two of which are Eschatology and Photography. I have and would consider making considerable edits and formatting to these pages but only if they are received positively. Now I have no feedback on how my edits were received, nor do I have any idea of how many people are viewing a particular page. Your Wikipedia Project does not provide "software counters" for the pages. I would assume that only an Administrator would know those numbers, and I have worked as a Computer Technician as well.

In response to User:WebHamster comment: "If nothing else it's a lesson to them about what does and doesn't make it into WP. At the moment the editor is learning nothing in that regard." well my response that that statement is, what 'kind' of lesson are you trying to teach? That 'the work ethic is false'? That would be the lesson that I would learn if all of my work were destroyed on Wikipedia, so I would see no further reason to contribute to anything here. There comes a point where 'enough is enough' and I've learned to cut people off in that regard. That's a lesson that I give to you, from life as I've lived it, and the various experiences that I have lived. Have any of you worked at the World Trade Center in 2001? I have. Have any of you been a victim of a corrupt legal system? I have. This and many other things I have 'brought to the table' so understand that, in this respect, I will at least try to fight for my input and for what I believe in, but again, if my pages are deleted, then I'm done with Wikipedia. Are you going to be 'robots' to rules or clear thinkers? The decision rests with all of you.--MurderWatcher1 17:11, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

In general I consider the subjects of these articles notable, but the nature of the articles deplorable. The detailed recounting of crimes does not belong in WP, and, alas, I think it is fair to say that the ed. has made it clear in various ways that he writes in that fashion deliberately. I think the consensus that the deleted article was is not notable may have been affected by the article content to the extent that even the competent re-writing by another ed did not help. I did not !vote at the AfD--because of my conflict over these two factors. The analogy with BH is correct--an excellent writer whose style is not that of an encyclopedia, and seems determined to keep that style. I supported deletion of many of BH's articles--I doubt anyone would have even nominated them if the length had been proportional to the importance. I'd think the same here. I suggest a moratorium on further deletions of these articles in the hope that we can reconsider what makes a murder in a large city notable--and--even more important, try to find a way to have community binding decisions on content as we do on notability. We have only one tool, and all we can do is delete, or ask for improvements under the threat to delete. Iridiescent suggested I comment here as a representative inclusionist, but my intent at WP is not primarily inclusion, but upgrading of content--if we wrote more appropriately we could have a wider range of content without looking foolish. It is not the presence of articles on minor subjects that attracts unfavorable attention, but their length and elaboration. DGG (talk) 21:35, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
Since I've been nominally involved with some of the things that this editor has edited and have interacted with him I thought I'd leave input, also I was notified of the AN/I. I don't think the user is a bad editor, unfortunately despite prodding on my part the articles that he writes continues to be POV. My efforts at this have been minimal, I don't have the time or the patience, so they might not have been effective as they could have been. I do believe his editing habits can be changed. I think the solution here would be to have somebody mentor the user; discuss whatever article he wants to create prior to creation, discuss whether it would be worthy of inclusion on wikipedia, guide his edits/tone, and whatnot. I do believe this has been done before, having a mentor, however whether it works or not is the question. I have told the editor that if he continues on as he has an independent wikia might be more to his style. As for the articles themselves I do believe that some of them have notability; Imette St. Guillen, Jennifer Levin and Fountain Avenue. However of the three I've listed the only article that he has had edits of any major proportions are St. Guillen, which I've totally rewritten and her notability, I believe, is established due to a NY law that was passed in her name and influenced because of her death. His edits on Levin are minimal (and actually have mostly been removed) and the Fountain Avenue can easily be formatted and cited; same with Levin (heck give me time and I can do both of them). The others I believe are questionable in their notability, unfortunately. I believe the articles for the time being could be moved over to the user's sandbox, and the original article AfD'ed. I mean articles can be recreated if notability is established. With the articles in the sandbox and a proper mentor the articles could be gone over with a mentor to see if they do in fact meet the notability guidelines and gives the user a chance to fix the articles and not loose all of the work, and reinserted if they meet guidelines. I think his intentions are to honor the people who have died however the user does not realize that wikipedia does not necessarily view the same things as being notable that he does. I think if he is mentored about wikipedia then that can possibly become a better wikipedia editor. --ImmortalGoddezz 22:59, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
MurderWatcher, you may want to keep in mind that you do not own Wikipedia articles that you create. You should be prepared to have your contributions thoroughly edited or even deleted. If you simply cannot tolerate that, then you are correct in coming to the conclusion that Wikipedia may not be for you (although you seem to be putting the blame in the wrong place). --Cheeser1 23:03, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
I have neither said nor implied that I do 'own' an article! I put some of them up on Wikipedia, to use one administrator's term, 'in good faith' -- that someone more skilled than I am would contribute to the stories (RE: style, etc. and that work also would be 'in good faith'). I still continue to say that these stories are valid, and they are valid if you will but read some of ImmortalGoddezz comments above. I watched and learned some style from her, and when I had completed the page on Boitumelo McCallum almost two weeks ago, she praised me as definitely improving as an editor.
When she had started editing the Imette St. Guillen reference months ago, I decided to exercise patience and to simply watch and learn from what she did. I didn't get upset with her or anything like that. Cheeser1, you've come to the wrong conclusion about my work if you believe your own comments above.
In regard to ImmortalGoddezz comment about the minimal edits to the Jennifer Levin page, I had personally considered spending time in a Library researching her murder and adding to that page. That's more work than you can know as, her murder story "stretches" through a number of years. In regards to using the Internet to research her story - the only way that would be possible is if the New York City newspapers had all of their archives online for the past few decades! This they currently do not have! Only a library would suffice for researching materials for the Jennifer Levin reference.
Wikipedia doesn't really have any 'mentoring' program in place. Perhaps, since there are a lot of "Learning Annex" classes taught monthly in New York City, Wikipedia might consider actually setting up a class to explain the style, etc.
FYI, there was an article some time ago in one of the 1977 issues of "New York Magazine" by an excellent writer, Gail Sheehy, which was titled "The Mentor Connection". Unfortunately, to my knowledge, few programs of any kind of mentoring anywhere are in place, except perhaps in Union Shops which teach the skills needed for a particular job. The attitude in New York City is that "you should be up and running on the job" the moment you are hired. This expectation is unrealistic, nevertheless there are those individuals who can do that.
Anyone 'coming onboard' in Wikipedia, by your reasoning, has to read the Wikipedia Manual of Style, etc. which, let's be honest here, can be rather arcane! So many rules and regulations! I have read some of it but, let's face it -- it needs to be put into a book and that book studied. It took me some time just to learn how to properly do a cite ref. This I learned from simply studying what ImmortalGoddezz performed on the Imette St. Guillen reference.
Nevertheless, I have seen and read some Wikipedia pages which, I understand, that you Administrators' have had to clean up because of vandalism, profanity, etc. I've paid attention to these abuses. Seeing as I have used good taste in my approach here, I would think that this merits something, unlike one unauthorized user putting in something childish such as "boobs", which I believe was done on a photography page that I was editing. Also, one person criticized both myself and User:ImmortalGoddezz saying to "GET A LIFE". I don't see these people getting this much criticism as I am here.
Also, to respond to the comment of DGG given above "... nature of the articles deplorable. The detailed recounting of crimes does not belong in WP ..." well my response to that is "what about the Holocaust?" That was 'deplorable', nevertheless the Holocaust happened; it was and is covered in detail in a number of books and television specials. There is currently a series of television documentaries on New York's WPBS Channel 13 on World War II, and at least one of these showed the conditions of the prisoners in the death camps. These are facts of life.
Perhaps I am being "too wordy" here but I stand by my initial comments above. Again, the decision rests with all of you.User:MurderWatcher1 COMMENT: Can't put my signature here for some reason.

Pre-disclosure: Me and iridescent have previously discussed this matter on-wiki and the original ANI posting is partially a result of that (and partially the result of my being a yellowbellied chicken on the matter). In that discussion, I agreed that these articles should be sent to AfD.

I still agree with myself.

To deal with MurderWatcher1's points (which I am grossly simplifying):

  • If the... pages are deleted then I would, indeed, consider leaving Wikipedia as an editor. Yeah, and I don't blame you. But you'd be making a mistake, Wikipedia would be poorer for not having you here, and the articles would have to go regardless. I think you got a WP:OWN thrown at you before, and I think that "threat" (for want of a better word) is why.
  • I have no feedback on how my edits were received. Yeah, tell me about it. Wikipedia lacks the positive version of {{uw-test1}}. I'm just as guilty - in my first days here, I'd have climbed over my grandmother (not a good example, she's a cow) for some positive feedback. But with our level of vandalism etc, lack of feedback is good feedback. Ugh. Horrible, but real.
  • Your Wikipedia Project does not provide "software counters" for the pages. I would assume that only an Administrator would know those numbers. Nah. Not available to anyone. The only clue is the amount of editing/vandalism. And not even then. Your articles could have been read by 100m people or 10 people. But the figures would tell us nothing. I could put up an article with a description of how I fellate goats on Wednesdays, digg/slashdot it, and get millions of visitors. Would it be encyclopedic? Nah.
  • Are you going to be 'robots' to rules or clear thinkers? Wikipedia editors are going to try to protect Wikipedia. What else can we do?
  • Wikipedia doesn't really have any 'mentoring' program in place Per my second point, I agree. However, Wikipedia:Editor review and so forth exists. We don't have a pro-active system for this, asking our editors to find people or places willing to comment. This leaves editors to contribute for ages and then get slammed. A flaw in the pedia's design. But not one aimed at you or anyone else.
  • Anyone 'coming onboard' in Wikipedia, by your reasoning, has to read the Wikipedia Manual of Style. Oh, but I'd love to delete article for being poorly laid out and thought through - I think poor articles are far, far worse than no article at all. But Wikipedia's rules don't allow for people to delete them (despite poor articles discouraging new editors, go figure). They allow for a poorly formatted article to be sent to WP:AfD, but even a well-formatted article can be sent to AfD. And deleted.
  • I don't see these people [vandals] getting this much criticism as I am here We don't value them at all. We just vaporise them quickly. People we value get talked to, threads made, their articles discussed for second, third, forth opinions before we even start to ask about deletion. That's what we do for people we value. You're not a vandal. People are agonising here because your articles don't appear to fit our policies. It isn't you, it isn't vandalism, it's just Wikipedia stuff.
  • what about the Holocaust? Yeah, close to Godwin's Law, but I see what you mean. Our articles go into detail about the Holocaust because the event was practically without precedent and the ultimate results of such a barbaric act are still to be experienced daily throughout the world. The murder of a single person in a single city in a single country really doesn't match in any way you can come up with. An arch-inclusionist like DGG will try to find notability and encyclopedianess in any article. But even DGG is having problems with the content here. This is no reflection on you, just a problem with the nature of the articles in question [for DGG - once the gory details are removed, the articles become just a set of "X was murdered by Y for Z reason claimed by the tabloids" mini-articles. Murder, in the US, is commonplace, indeed normal; we may as well have articles about individual paving slabs].
  • the decision rests with all of you It does. It was brought here to see what people think before the sheer demoralising hell of AfD was inflicted on these articles and you as author. So far, we've not had reasons to keep from you or anyone else, just reasons to make an exception to, or change, Wikipedia's rules.

Above all, I was terrified of putting you in an awful position with these articles when discussing them last night. But the bullet must be bitten - as I should have said to iridescent, these articles must go to AfD; there will be hell to pay, but there's no alternative. ➔ REDVEЯS was here 21:45, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Note: I'm crossposting this from my conversation with Redvers, as I think it's more appropriate here where other participants in the discussion will see it. As anyone who's been watching me will notice, I've flip-flopped 180o on this, but Redvers's arguments above have persuaded me.
I deliberately invited DGG and ImmortanGoddezz to the discussion in the hope they could provide some reason to save at least some of them - and in the expectation that if even they can't, they really aren't savable. (Looks like you've come to the same conclusion.) IG makes a good case for saving Imette St. Guillen, and I think I'll leave that out of any AfD run. I started this whole sorry episode, so I suppose I ought to be the one to finish it; I think I'll wait until the thread is archived from AN/I, to let as many people as possible comment, although I think we can all see where it's headed. I'll nominate them separately, and reasonably spaced apart, to avoid them becoming a de facto delete all/keep all bulk nomination.
The quote on MW1's userpage "In a sense, Imette St. Guillen's Wikipedia reference is something like her gravesite - sacred - more representative of who and what she was than a physical gravestone - and it should be respected", I think sums up the problem perfectly. MW1 doesn't just see WP as a memorial, but as a shrine, and is starting to see us as desecrating the shrine. It's ironic, given the lengths everyone is going to not to drive him off (if these had been by, say, Lucy-marie or Billy Hathorn they'd all be A7'd by now), but with an editor who seems to have violation of Wikipedia policy as a religious obligation, in some ways I'd rather scare him off now, then face the same problem in a couple of months time with 20+ articles instead of seven.iridescent (talk to me!) 22:33, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
I was asked to comment on this discussion and since I have a free moment, I am willing to offer my thoughts; considering that we are not a paper encyclopedia and that we want to make it so that "every single person on the planet is given free access to the sum of all human knowledge," I think these articles are valid and do not weaken our project any. They are well-organized and contain numerous references/external links that attest to their notability and verifiability. I therefore support Murderwatcher's creation of the articles and their continued inclusion on Wikipedia. I hope that helps. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 00:50, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia not being paper isn't a reason to keep everything, so stop using that as a reason to keep everything. There is guidelines in place that should be followed and not ignored. Anarchy with no deletion isn't the purpose of Wikipedia. RobJ1981 20:39, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Who is talking about "Anarchy" RobJ1981? Does my work offend you that much? By the way, to all of you: I did searches on your website:

On this page:

4.3 Dispute resolution process and ANI

I learned that you have a "History of Pedophilia" page. What? Are you kidding me? This should be AfD and not my pages! Futhermore, in regards to people who are dead, and also to respond to User_talk:Iridescent post dated 22:33, 10 October 2007 (UTC), talk about 'nasty'! You took my comment out of context altogether! I said "in a sense". Well 'in a sense' you could say that: Benjamin Franklin, F. Scott Fitzgerald, Satchmo which as a redirect leads to Louis Armstrong - are also 'memorials' and sacred. I just believe that history in general is sacred. That was my reasoning, not creating an actual shrine but 'in a sense'. And again, I know I don't own the page but I do want to see it continue.

Now look at my search below:

Lindberg Kidnapping

4 The body On May 12, 1932, delivery truck driver William Allen pulled his truck to the side of a road about 4.5 miles from the Lindbergh home. He went to a grove of trees to urinate, and there he discovered the corpse of a toddler. Allen notified police, who took the body to a morgue in nearby Trenton, New Jersey. The body was badly decomposed. The skull was badly fractured, the left leg and both hands were missing; and it was impossible to determine if the body was a boy or a girl. Lindbergh and Gow quickly identified the baby as the missing infant, based on the overlapping toes of the right foot, and the shirt that Gow had made for the baby. They surmised that the child had been killed by a blow to the head. The body was soon afterwards cremated. Once it was learned that the Little Eaglet was dead, the U.S. Congress rushed through legislation making kidnapping a federal crime. The Bureau of Investigations could now aid the case more directly.

This reference talks about murder, just as I had attempted to do! This child was horribly murdered! All of you are way out of line here with your thinking!--MurderWatcher1 21:10, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

This is starting to get silly. As I suspect you're perfectly well aware, the reason you've put "History of Pedophilia" in quotes whilst everything else you cite is wikilinked, is because History of Pedophilia does not exist and has never existed. If you want to cite WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS as an argument, at least choose other stuff that does exist.
The Lindbergh kidnapping was a case that received international publicity, was the primary impetus for a major rewriting of US law, and continues to influence popular culture to this day. The thousands of other murders that took place in 1932 don't get their own articles as (in Wikipedia terms) they aren't notable. You'll notice, I hope, that the article is called Lindbergh kidnapping and not Charles Augustus Lindbergh, Junior; this is because it's about the case, not a memorial to the (non-notable by WP standards) victim.
The section you cite is a single short section, in a 27kb article, and everything you seem so shocked by is directly relevant to the broad topic of the case - a brief description of the finding of the body; a description of the condition of the body (necessary, as so much of the subsequent case hinged on identification); its effect on subsequent legislation. The word "murder" appears more often in Harry Potter than in the whole of Lindbergh kidnapping.
As Redvers says (a long way) above, so far all your arguments have just been to attack Wikipedia policies which took six years of cooperation between thousands of editors to reach this stage. If you can make valid arguments to keep the articles within those policies, they will almost certainly be kept. If you can't - or won't - then, as ImmortalGoddezz has already told you, Wikipedia - a site which runs on consensus - is possibly not the place for you.iridescent (talk to me!) 21:33, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
Flogging an increasingly dead horse here, but having found this, I'm no longer willing to accept the "I don't feel I own the articles" argument.iridescent (talk to me!) 16:20, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
Just to note: Wikipedia does have a mentoring program in place. It's called Adopt-a-User. I wish more newcomers knew about it, because there are far more willing adopters than adoptees. As #th opinion, I'll say there seem to be substantial WP:BIO issues with some of these articles: "If reliable sources only cover the person in the context of a particular event, then a separate biography may be unwarranted." I can't see that Ramona Moore and Chanel Petro-Nixon are notable for anything other than being horribly killed. Wikipedia is not news. The death of Imette St. Guillen could probably be touched briefly in an article about Imette's Law—or at least much abbreviated for weight, since presumably it is the proposed law that makes her murder notable, not the details of the crime. I'm not sure how strong the case is that Jennifer Moore impacted the crackdown on fake ids. If a clear connection is made about that, then maybe it, too, deserves a reference somewhere in some article on fake ids. And I'm not a die-hard for tossing out every article that relates to a single event, but even if being brutally murdered is enough to make one relevant per WP:BIO, how many articles do we need relating to a single event? Why do we have both Robert Chambers (killer) and Jennifer Levin? These various articles obviously represent considerable effort, but I, too, suspect that the majority of them might be suitable candidates for AfD. While it is possible that consensus there would keep them or that the AfDs would close without consensus, I think there's a really strong case to be made that they are inappropriate on Wikipedia. --Moonriddengirl 01:13, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually, what makes something notable is clearly described in Wikipedia:Notability. It is: "A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject." All these topics are notable. The only question is whether the proper article on this topic is Imette St. Guillen or Murder of Imette St. Guillen, but the topic got coverage from multiple highly reliable sources over an extended period of time. WP:BIO says "If reliable sources only cover the person in the context of a particular event, then a separate biography may be unwarranted." but it doesn't say "and we shouldn't cover the event either." Don't go leaving Wikipedia just yet MurderWatcher. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 20:50, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

This is MurderWatcher1. I'm actually putting this message into an archived discussion. Very difficult finding this page again. The pages on pedophilia that I was referring to above, and that were further discussed by User:Iridescent comments were:
Now this text, reproduced below which I had found on one page, is also significant:
==Paraphilias as classified by the DSM-IV-TR==
The numbers were given by DSM-IV Codes Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders by the American Psychiatric Association):
  • Exhibitionism
  • Fetishism
  • Frotteurism
  • Pedophilia
  • Sexual Masochism
  • Sexual Sadism
  • Transvestic Fetishism]]
  • Voyeurism
  • Paraphilia
  • N.O.S.
  • Kern County child abuse cases
  • Pedophilia and child sexual abuse in films
Now I'm pleased that AnonEMouse added something positive on what I was trying to do. FYI, there is now a new link on the Imette St. Guillen page which leads to a Rock Band named Interpol (band) and they have a new album out, containing a curious song titled "Pioneer to the Falls" which the user inputting this reference said referred to St. Guillen. I personally am not sure about this so I put in a ""Citation Needed" tag on that reference. I've just listened to the song which is on It's hard to know if the song, going by the lyrics, does indeed refer to St. Guillen or just something else. So, these are my comments and I hope they are saved into this archive.--MurderWatcher1 20:14, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Haemo's warning to Iwazaki[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Haemo (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) gave User:Iwazaki a "final warning" for making personal attacks against User:Wiki Raja. Iwazaki's comment that he linked to was

Havent you noticed , WP:HOAX part in my reply?? Well, I am not going waste Wiki space by giving 10,000 names, and I would let wiki policies to take care of these blatant propaganda of LTTE which has killed more tamils than anyone else in the past couple of years.And after all these murders of tamils, its amazing that there are tamils(though few in numbers),still want them to kill more tamils !!!! Well, Mr Amirthalingam,Theruchelvam, Dr rajini, glad you didn't live to see this coming.

I'm assuming the sentece taken as a personal attack was "And after all these murders of tamils, its amazing that there are tamils(though few in numbers),still want them to kill more tamils". I'm amazed as to how this could be contrived as a personal attack against Wiki Raja. The exchange between the two users had long moved away from the userbox in question (it was at an MFD discussion), with Wiki Raja accusing Sri Lanka of State Terrorism and Iwazaki likewise accusing the LTTE of terrorism and killing Tamils. Unless Wiki Raja himself is a member of the LTTE, how could he be offended by Iwazaki saying "the LTTE kills Tamils"? Even if he is a member of the LTTE, how can that be taken as a personal attack? --snowolfD4 ( talk / @ ) 14:09, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

It's abundantly clear from that sentence that he feels that WikiRaja supports the LTTE, and that support for the LTTE is tantamount to "want[ing] them to kill more tamils [sic]". Iwazaki has been warned, and blocked, before about his personal attacks on other users yet has not demonstrated that he (1) sees anything wrong with his behavior and (2) is going to persist with it since he feels it is appropriate. I do not believe any editor, no matter what their political affiliation should be accused of wanting other people dead, and I feel that this whole Sri Lankan civil war conflict (Which you are a prominent part of) is currently generating a poisonous atmosphere on Wikipedia. Notice the sheer number of complaints it has generated on this, and other, administrator boards — the numerous MfD, AfD debates which break down cleanly along partisan lines with only lip-service paid to guidelines. The tit-for-tat incivility reports, canvassing, and outright skulduggery (forged email headers, anyone?) that has occurred. The gross incivility and personal attacks all around are commonplace, and the only way they are going to stop is if they administrators around here start putting their collective foot down against what is an outright war. I stand by my actions, and am going to put my foot down here. Wikipedia is not a battlefield, and I will not stand idly by while it becomes one. --Haemo 16:25, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
"It's abundantly clear from that sentence that he feels that WikiRaja supports the LTTE"? Where did pull that out of? Where does he say Wiki Raja supports the LTTE? All his critisism was directed at the LTTE, not Wiki Raja, and it started off after Wiki Raja made comments a number of times linking to a ridiculous propoganda essay on his userspace, User:Wiki Raja/Sri Lanka State Terrorism (which I subsequently speedy deleted), which criticized Sri Lanka. Iwazaki retorted that the LTTE kills thousands of Tamils, which you have somehow contorted to a threat against Wiki Raja. As for his previous block, it was made by an admin with whom he had a number of content related arguments in the past, which incidentally is the same situation you are in. So (1) if saying the LTTE kills Tamils is a blockable offensive you're going to have a lot of blocks to carry out and (2) I say, right now, The LTTE kills Tamils. Block me for that if you think you could get away with it. (And yes, I edit almost exclusively Sri Lanka related articles, and it a debate about one of my userbox's where the above comments happened, so of course I'm a prominent part of it).
As for the rest of your angry rant, remember who forged the email headers, who makes all these AN/I complaints, and who has been blocked, on both his accounts [3] [4], for a total of over over 7 the past 12 months for various reasons, including "persistant harassment of other editors", "dirt-digging", "sockpuppeteering" and "uploading obscene images". --snowolfD4 ( talk / @ ) 21:12, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
Apparently I'm not the only one who sees it that way. I noticed User:SheffieldSteel has commented above, that he doesn't see any personal attacks in that comment either. --snowolfD4 ( talk / @ ) 22:16, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
Oh come now. WikiRaja makes a page which Iwazaki disagrees with; Iwazaki calls it LTTE "propaganda" and accuses him of pro-LTTE soapboxing. He then claims that people who support the LTTE want to see more Tamils killed. The issue is not him saying that the LTTE kills Tamils, as you seem to believe, but the statement that supporters of the LTTE want to see Tamils killed. That's what makes it a personal attack; it's directed specifically at a user who he knows, and has explained, supports the LTTE. Don't misrepresent the facts by claiming I said it was "threat" against WikiRaja, and don't try to pretend that all he said was that the LTTE kills Tamils. That's not my issue with what he said, and that's not why I warned him. I would also note that tu quoque is a fallacy — bad behavior by one user does not excuse bad behavior by another. My exasperation with your nationalistic edit warfare extends to both sides, not just one as you are trying to imply. And SheffieldSteel commented on WikiRaja's complaint, which was not the comment I took issue with — in addition, he struck his comments when he saw this discussion below, and the comment I warned him over. Says something, indeed, no? --Haemo 22:23, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
Also, if disagreeing in an MfD is having "a number of content related disputes" I'll eat my hat. --Haemo 22:42, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
Snowolf, you should not misrepresent what happened. User:SheffieldSteel later on did notice the personal attack here [5] GizzaDiscuss © 01:28, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
I asked SheffieldSteel to comment on whether he stuck out his comment because he thought Iwazaki did violate WP:NPA, or because he noticed there was already a discussion going on here.
To Haemo, so saying that supporters of the LTTE want the LTTE to kill Tamils is now a personal attack? Then you better do something, cos I'm sorry but I agree with that statement. And you need to show me where Iwazaki calls Wiki Raja an LTTE supporter, because I can't see such a thing. His point was that although Wiki Raja claims abuses by the government, he does not do so about the LTTE. That does not mean he is inferring that Wiki Raja is an LTTE supporter and that certainly does not mean Wiki Raja supports the killings of Tamils. The rest of his comments are merely a criticism of the LTTE.
Also, you can keep your hat, lol, but my comment was related to the fact that, there are 1300+ admins on Wikipedia, but over the last two weeks, you closed an AFD as merge, when, as I see it, there was no consensus, you declined Iwazaki's unblock, you got involved in a related MFD, and you pop up here and gave Iwazaki a warning. Now I believe in coincidences, but that's pushing it.
So you want to start showing neutrality? How about doing something about this. --snowolfD4 ( talk / @ ) 02:03, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
Yes, saying that people who support the LTTE want to see more Tamils killed is a personal attack — especially when you are talking to other editors who support the LTTE. If I assert you want to see innocent people killed, that's a personal attack. Iwazaki said that WikiRaja was pushing pro-LTTE propaganda. He then said that people who support the LTTE want to see more Tamils murdered. The syllogism is clear; all A want B. C is an A. Therefore, C wants B. The logic of a personal attack. In the interests of good faith and neutrality I'll protect that page again to stop the nascent edit war on that page. Please, feel free to bring any and all attacks, stalking, harrassment, etc etc to my attention. I'd love for this conflict to de-escalate on all sides. --Haemo 03:17, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
Iwazaki is factually correct. The LTTE does kill Tamils. See the recent murder of a Hindu priest in Sri Lanka.Bakaman 03:23, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
No one is disputing this; it's totally unrelated to the discussion at hand and not related to why I warned him. --Haemo 03:25, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

(un-indent) I made my original post because I couldn't see how saying, or implying, that supporters of an organisation must in some way condone what that organisation does, constituted a personal attack. I simply did not interpret Iwazaki's post the same way that Haemo did. I did not, however, read up on the background to this debate, so my view of the incident may be too narrow. Sheffield Steeltalkstalk 03:57, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time to comment Sheffield, i just wanted to clear up why you struck out your previous comment.
Haemo, are YOU are saying Wiki Raja is a supporter of the LTTE? You also say no one is disputing that the LTTE kills Tamils. To use your words, A Supports B, B does C, so A supports C. That in essence means you are saying Wiki Raja is a supporter of the killing of Tamils. That itself is a blatant personal attack. How would you like if someone said you were a supporter of the Nazis? And that pretty much illustraits the unfairness of your warning.
Also, I think you have gotten what Iwazaki said wrong here. Iwazaki did not say Wiki Raja was pursuing a pro-LTTE stance. He said Wiki Raja was anti-Sri Lanka, and asked him to add murders by the LTTE to his little propaganda page to make it neutral. He did not say Wiki Raja was a supporter of the LTTE, it is you who directly have said it now.
And yes, everyone wants the bickering on Wikipedia to end, but other that Ricky81682 last year, no neutral admin has ever really tried. In fact, no one has even bothered to comment here.--snowolfD4 ( talk / @ ) 04:48, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
Snowolf4, Iwazaki even revealed unethically at a AFD discussion, the subject is an adamant LTTE supporter by his edits on wikipedia[6]. Now you are dragging Haemo equating by your pseudo calculus that; "it is you who directly have said it now." Hameo's one is unintentional but the Iwazaki's one is intentional. That is the difference which is not put forward in rules with tangibility and help always people to evade from punishment on wikipedia and outside. Hiloor 06:31, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
Why can't I be a Tamil from India? I couldn't understand your logic relating me with Rajkumar Kanagasingam.Hiloor 16:49, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
Okay, I'm willing to step into helping you guys get together on this. However, it's going to require a fair bit of work, and civility all around. In order to kick-start this willingness to work with everyone, I acknowledge that there is good faith disagreement over my warning and I therefore retract it, with my apologies. However, I do ask everyone involved to please be civil and assume copious amounts of good faith. Again, I extend my offer to anyone who is having a problem is leave a note for me on my talk page to have me look at it. --Haemo 04:54, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Looks like the birds of the flock have lost a feather. Wiki Raja 08:44, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Here's wikiraja's impressive wiki-resume in just the last twelve months

  • Sep '06 - Blocked for disruption
  • Sep '06 - Blocked for disruption again
  • Sep '06 - Blocked for uploading obscene pics
  • March '07 - Blocked for 3RR
  • March '07 - Blocked for socking and evading block
  • May '07 - Unblocked and reblocked 50 days.
  • Sep '07 - Blocked for 3RR
  • Sep '07 - Blocked again for 3RR

Impressive. Isnt it? Add to this his nonsensical template which gets deleted with overwhelming consensus but not before he defaces dozens of talk pages with his templates. And the hoax of an article with gfdl violations to boot which eventually had to be rewritten from scratch. And in the latest, he scales new heights - forged email headers in an attempt to get his opponent blocked!! (of course, he didnt do that, right?).

Dear Haemo, could you explain to me how this user continues to live and breathe on wikipedia? Why isnt he indeffed already? You talk about admins putting their 'collective foot' down. Now if you could walk the talk and indef him, I'd be really grateful. You dont let users like this out in the loose and then pounce on whoever loses his temper with them!! Wikipedia isnt about Anger Management. Sarvagnya 09:03, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Sarvagnya, thanks for submitting that wonderful resume.Didn't I mention you that, he is in many occasion acting as a 3RRR evading tool for other editors? Have a look at the LTTE article, where his only edits were reverts!! NO other edits not even anything in the talk page, no involvement in discussions, just reverts. I guess this alone prove your above remarks of WP:TROLL.Thanks for our input again.Iwazaki 会話。討論 14:20, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
But you are a worse troll, looking at this. More a fanatic level doing edits.Hiloor 15:36, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
Haemo ,could you please ask this person to stop insulting me by calling my edits, fanatic. This WP:TROLL with no existing edit record in wikipedia was suddenly created and now engage in personal attacks on me. I would appreciate if you could check his IPs ,as I have the felling that he is the same person, as snowolf has mention above. Thanks you.Iwazaki 会話。討論 17:27, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
So, when you want you can request Haemo, but when others request something and when he is getting into action, accuse him. You want the world as you want!Hiloor 17:57, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
It's obvious that feelings are very strong about support for violent struggle or terrorism - even as someone who lived in England at a time when US citizens were contributing money to the IRA my own. For the record, I believe that Haemo has acted 100% in good faith throughout this episode. Let's hope that other editors act likewise, and that normal dispute resolution can provide a way forward in this subject area. Sheffield Steeltalkstalk 13:18, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
SheffieldSteel san, Thanks for your input. I am just thankful to snowolf san for bringing this matter here So I could at least hear what the other editors say regarding this.I was once blocked for calling some sites racist(and they are 100% racist sites), and even in that case,admin misinterpreted my words and accuse me of calling others racists!!! Past is past, and I am hoping after this discussion admins would stop giving final warnings solely based on their misinterpretation of what I said.SheffieldSteel san,Allow me to prove what I said about LTTE, or to actually add something to that.LTTE and their supporters want not only tamils, but also wikipedian editors and their families dead.Some how, they know whats going on in wikipedia and threatening not only wikipedians but their innocent family members too. So ,were I wrong in making my original statement? Isn't this alone prove what I said about the LTTE?Iwazaki 会話。討論 14:20, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
What is the proof that is your orginal name and not sent by your friends to deceive the wikipedia and others.Hiloor 15:25, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
Are you talking about the same friends with whom you share your wikipedian passwords? OR are those friends were the ones who were angry because you are not defending tamil issues?Iwazaki 会話。討論 17:27, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
Why your head went wrong asking me to answer unnecessary things. Answer to this What is the proof that is your orginal name and not sent by your friends to deceive the wikipedia and others.Hiloor 17:57, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
Excuse me could you please translate your question into ENGLISH?Iwazaki 会話。討論 19:07, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
Okay, this is getting way, way off track. I'm going to close this thread, and would strongly suggest that everyone commit to the following guidelines:
  1. Assume good faith on the part of other editors. Assuming deception until proven otherwise is not good faith. Accusing each other of being sockpuppets is not showing good faith.
  2. Be civil to each other. Calling other people "trolls" and "worse trolls" is not civil. SHOUTING is not polite. Demanding other users be indefinitely blocked is not civil. Deliberately trying to provoke one another or smear one another is not polite.
  3. Don't feed the trolls when they try and provoke you. When someone acts like a jerk to you, ignore them. Just walk away, and don't interact — they're looking to provoke a response, so don't give them one.
So, if you're willing to commit to all of these, feel free to bring up issues on my talk page. It would be much appreciated, and I promise to do my best to help calm this situation down. --Haemo 20:18, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Edit warring, incivility, and WP:POINT by Duke53[edit]

Note: I have created Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Duke53 at User:Llywrch's request. Please do not add to this section. alanyst /talk/ 21:05, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Duke53 (talk · contribs · checkuser · block user · block log · edit count) initiated an edit war at Marion Jones which has now turned into disruption to make a point at Michael Jordan, along with WP:CIVIL violations along the way.

  • Edit war at Marion Jones:
    • [7] Duke53 adds info about Jones's alma mater to lead paragraph of article (Duke53 is a strident fan of Duke University, so highlighting Jones's affiliation with UNC-Chapel Hill makes UNC, Duke's arch-rival, look bad by association.)
    • [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14] Edit war ensues between Duke53 and three different editors; Duke53 reaches but does not exceed 3 reverts in 24 hours
  • Discussion at Talk:Marion Jones#University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill in lead follows
  • WP:POINT violations at Michael Jordan and incivility at User talk:Zodiiak
    • Duke53 removes Jordan's college affiliation from lead: "See the Marion Jones talk page; apparently this is the accepted format." User:Zodiiak reverts: "rv; the article achieved Feature Article Status as is; an incredible amount of effort was made in doing this"
    • Discussion at User talk:Zodiiak#Edit to Michael Jordan article follows
      • [15] Duke53 says "apparently many editors feel that the mention of a person's university affiliation has no business being in the lead of an article. Just trying for some consistency here." —clear WP:POINT vio.
      • Incivility at [16] and [17]: "Monitor anything as closely as you choose, but don't pretend I altered any other data on that page, because that just isn't true." Then: "Yeah, leave your phony allegations though."
    • Further edit warring and WP:POINT vio at Michael Jordan: [18] "deleted university mention in lead, per discussion on this and other talk pages. His university affiliation is mentioned later in the article." Note no discussion occurred at Talk:Michael Jordan. Reverted at [19] by User:Chensiyuan.
      • Incivility cuts both ways ... people who are snarky deserve what they get, IMO. If the mention of a person's university affiliation is allowed in one article it should be allowed in all, just for the sake of consistency. Duke53 | Talk 04:35, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Duke53's editing history is full of incidents of this type, too many to offer diffs for here. He has been blocked once before for incivility. Apparently he has not seen fit to change his behavior. I'd like an admin to take a close look at his behavior, in this incident but also his extensive history here.

"He has been blocked once before for incivility. More wrong info? Duke53 | Talk 04:35, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
Wrong? Not according to your block log, which is clearly linked at the top of this section. Technically you were blocked twice for incivility, within the same day, and briefly unblocked in between. --Masamage 16:20, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Technically? One does not equal two ... but you stated something as fact that is not true. Seems to happen a lot. Let's stick to dealing with facts, M'kay?Duke53 | Talk 18:37, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Full disclosure: I have had numerous interactions with Duke53, most of which were less than pleasant. I invite scrutiny of my own history and behavior too; it's only fair. alanyst /talk/ 16:09, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

If asked, I can offer dozens of examples of Duke being downright cruel, generally without provocation, to everyone who crosses his path--especially if they belong to his least-favorite religion. Very little has ever been done to curb his behavior--not by admins, and definitely not by himself. I also invite scrutiny of my own behavior and that of the others he's targetted. Something needs to be done. --Masamage 16:36, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

" ... if they belong to his least-favorite religion". Why in the world would you presume to know what religion is my 'least favorite'; feel free to post those 'dozens of examples', I will be more than happy to defend any and all of your perceived notions of cruelty. Duke53 | Talk 04:35, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Because I just don't see you harping on anyone else. But, if you insist. Examples coming right up. --Masamage 16:20, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
Oh, okay ... if you don't see something then you are allowed to create 'statements' out of whole cloth and treat them as fact. Consider this a warning about a personal attack. You haven't a clue about my dislikes; don't pretend to be all knowing about them. Duke53 | Talk 18:33, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
What would you like done with the user? a simple block for incivility (a two day wikibreak) or would you like some longer term more permenant remedy? If you think this is a long term problem that is not going to get better, then ask for a permenant remedy, and back it up. I would have advised you to use the Community Sanction Noticeboard, but it's closed now and it's activity remanded here. --Rocksanddirt 19:00, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

[Outdent.] First off, I think Duke53 deserves a fair opportunity to respond if he so chooses, before any action is settled on. As for what should be done with him, my perspective is undoubtedly colored by my past disputes with him, which is why I'd rather an uninvolved admin (or several, if they like) take a close look and come to a conclusion about appropriate action to take. This particular incident might already be over; who knows whether Duke53 will try to perpetuate it at this point? But I'm satisfied that his long-term problem behavior is not going to end unless he is quite strongly made to understand that his approach is intolerable. If you need more evidence of long-term problems to justify a proportionate action, just say the word and I can supply diffs, or I can take this to WP:RFC/U or any other venue you think would be more appropriate. alanyst /talk/ 19:10, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Certainly some manner of consensus on what to do will need to be arrived at, but 1) if you ask for what you want, 2) get the other party to participate, 3) you will get more activity out of this noticeboard. So, put a notice (a suggestion is at the top of this page) on Duke's talk page, and come up with what you'd like. Some manner of revert parole? topic or aticle restrictions? short civility leash? outright ban from the project? and get some other community by-in on what is appropriate. --Rocksanddirt 20:02, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
Alanyst left a note for Duke at the same time this report was posted. Similarly to him, I've long been uncomfortable with the thought of doing anything myself, because I'm very biased as a result of having been a target of Duke's abuse. Of the options you list, though, "short civility leash" sounds the most like what's needed. I have no problem with him continuing to edit in his areas of opinion and interest, just as long as he can do so without being rude. His history does not make me optimistic, but it's worth a try. --Masamage 20:51, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
" ... because I'm very biased as a result of having been a target of Duke's abuse" Melodrama is again your strong suit ... show the supposed instances of cruelty and I will defend and / or rebut them. Duke53 | Talk 04:35, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
I agree with Masamage, with the addition that civility is not Duke53's only problem behavior. So I'd also suggest a strict revert parole to stop his POV warring. I'd also like to see, as part of the short civility leash, a close eye on WP:BITE behavior, which I didn't mention above for brevity but has also been a problem I've unsuccessfully tried to resolve with him before. I thought of a topic ban from the major problem areas (primarily Mormonism and Duke University and related subjects) but since Duke53 seems to get aggressive about anything he has an opinion about, it would be tough to formulate a list of topics that will adequately cover the scope of the problem. alanyst /talk/ 21:17, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
  • "I agree with Masamage ... " Surprise, surprise. :>) Duke53 | Talk 04:35, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
"I thought of a topic ban from the major problem areas (primarily Mormonism and Duke University" Aha! I think we are now seeing the crux of your problem with me: a non-mormon having the audacity to edit mormon related articles. Wouldn't life be grand at Wikipedia if only mormons were allowed to edit mormon related articles? Duke53 | Talk 04:35, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
I deny categorically that this complaint is based on religious differences. Let our edit histories demonstrate which of us is being forthright here. alanyst /talk/ 05:07, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
Yup. What we three have in common is that we all revert pro-Mormon vandalism and anti-Mormon vandalism with equal readiness. The big difference is, Duke insults the crap out of them before, during, and after--but only if they're pro-Mormon (at which point they don't even have to be vandals). --Masamage 06:38, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Here are some of the diffs revealing Duke's uncivil behavior. If more are needed, there is no shortage. An obvious standalone. Accusations of bias, deceit, censorship, etc. etc. made based on religion: "nice try" "cut the crap", plus rejection of WP:BITE. Quotes CIV, breaks it in his PS. And wow. Later today I will post diffs of the exchange that first caught my attention over a year ago. --Masamage 16:50, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

But first, here are some of his recent cracks at me. I expressed concern to an admin at Duke's calling someone an asshole, and the admin successfully convinced me that the IP in question was sufficiently a jerk that this wasn't worth worrying about. Duke found it days later, during the interim of which I became an admin, and told me to get a life, then anachronistically mocked me on his talk page. In this section I explain exactly why I am watching his talkpage, and I am frosty, but do not insult him as he does me. ("I didn't know exactly how stupid you are. As far as you disliking me: there isn't much here that I could give a shit less about.") More diffs to come later; I'm sure alanyst has a few more choice examples to share as well. --Masamage 17:29, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

There are plenty, but given the size of this page I'll refrain unless an admin asks for them. There's a lot of evidence here already, and it's the proverbial tip of the iceberg. alanyst /talk/ 17:41, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
"There's a lot of evidence here already ..." Well, 'counselor', it looks like you have really got me now. :>) Show me the Wikipedia policy that states that I can't respond to other editors in kind. I have never lied (or distorted facts) on these pages; can you say the same? I can give as good as I get, but don't whine about it like others do; in short, if someone is smarmy or lies to me or lies about me, then all bets are off. If you attack me, expect to get some in return. Should I list the blatant lies that have been told about me by a 'certain crew' ?
I fully expect a 'swarm' to pile on here shortly, and we both know who will be in that swarm, don't we? Your 'categorical denial' not withstanding, I know why I am attacked ... the truth is out there. Face up to it. Duke53 | Talk 18:33, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
Duke, your words remind me of the saying, "An eye for an eye, and the whole world will be blind." And just because there are no policies keeping you from doing something stupid doesn't mean that you should. If everyon