Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive314

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

Noticeboard archives




NewLabourNewLies (talk · contribs · count · logs · page moves · block log) Seems to be on a one person campaign to add many articles to the category abnormal psychology, as a quick check of his/her contributions will show.. He has shot well past 3rr on transgender, and has expanded his horizons to include Sado-masochism, pedophilia, transexualism, and Kathoey. I;m not here to debate the appropriateness of the categorization, but to point out that this is going on despite discussion or consensus, and is causing many editors of those articles distress and anger. There are several comments and warnings on his/her talk page; I think it is now time for stronger action. Could an admin please reign him in? Jeffpw 12:52, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

  • That should be username blocked. Guy (Help!) 13:15, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

 Done username blocked and requested only to request unblock for name change once they are ready to agree to play nicely. Spartaz Humbug! 13:51, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Spartaz, on behalf of innumerable editors, thank you so very much! Jeffpw 13:55, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
Err, maybe not done entirely. This is copied from the LGBT project page: While working my way through this, I happened upon Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Mumia Abu-Jamal, which points to User:BiasThug, a suspected sockpuppet of User:DavidYork71... The claims of bullying in User talk:BiasThug and User talk:FisherQueen make me suspect that it may be the same editor. I think that this will need further investigation by someone more familiar with the editing style of DavidYork71. Not sure where to report this but I'm sure it needs reporting to somewhere... This time I'm going to bed and not getting up again until the morning. I trust someone else will sort this out while I'm asleep. :) --AliceJMarkham 13:54, 21 October 2007 (UTC) Jeffpw 14:10, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
  • The username "NewLabourNewLies" is politically loaded. It refers to the British political party called the Labour Party. Anthony Appleyard 14:40, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Since 99% of the administrators here at th present seem to be contemplating the collective Wik navel at the above Mikkalai block thread, I took the trouble to tag all suspected socks as such. No charge, and feel free to revert. Jeffpw 15:18, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Selective undelete[edit]

In the selective undelete, a useful new feature appeared "invert the selection". This useful feature has disappeared again. Please, what happened? When will it be back? Anthony Appleyard 14:37, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Works for me on Opera 9. MaxSem 14:49, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
It's still around. Try clearing your cache. east.718 at 14:56, 10/21/2007
What browser are you using? This is implemented in the new Sysop.js linked to Common.js, which was changed to make disabling Sysop.js possible. It may be related. EdokterTalk 14:58, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
Should work now, have updated Sysop.js. AzaToth 16:45, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

User:Ryulong block review[edit]

I received an e-mail from User:The Technodrome's Toilet asking for help after being blocked by Ryulong (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). It appears that Ryulong has blocked him/her indefinitely as a sockpuppet, without a checkuser, and in the middle of a Power Rangers content dispute. I'm no expert on the subject matter, but it doesn't seem obvious to me that the person is a sock. Hasty and overly harsh blocks have been a Ryulong problem in the past, posting here for review. Videmus Omnia Talk 02:35, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

I blocked because the evidence was damning at the time, and still is. In a checkuser that did occur, it did not turn up that he was either user who I suspected him of being, but then again, he was utilizing open proxies, and several other accounts were found.
Even though there is no evidence to show he is a sockpuppet via checkuser, he still has a bunch of edits that resemble both sockpuppeteers in question (baseball-related edits, Power Rangers edits, removing the "fictional" qualifier to an article on a particular character, trying to delete the page of that same character, etc.), as well as the hoaxes that he has admitted to. This block does not come from any dispute. I saw that he was editting a page that I have watched because I'm preventing it from becoming a page totally based on rumors, and I looked into his past edits that resemble two particular banned users that I've encountered.
We should not let a user who has admitted to screwing with the project be allowed to continue to edit it.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 02:48, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Blocking on the basis of sockpuppetry seems a bit hasty given that the Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/EddieSegoura is pending. However, from his talk page and deleted edits, TTT seems to think creation of hoax articles doesn't offend anyone, so I'm not rushing to unblock. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 02:50, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for explaining/looking into it. Like I said, I'm no expert on Power Rangers sockpuppets. Not sure why the user picked me to e-mail, except that I was involved in Ryulong's RfC. Videmus Omnia Talk 02:52, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
This is an episode list for a series that doesn't air until February 2008 and everything here is either nonsense or a hoax (mostly fake films or nonsense TMNT references, like his username).—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 02:57, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
(ec)I know that Eddie is still editing (he told me via some recent emails) but I'd be surprised if this him. The language and writing style seem very different to Eddie's. But that said, I agree with AnonEMouse with regard to hoaxes etc and don't feel inclined to rush to unblocking someone who has so blatantly attempted to undermine the integrity of the project. Sarah 03:02, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
I've amended the block rationale to reflect the actual evidence that was received from the checkuser, as well as why he should remain blocked, even if it isn't Eddie or CBDrunkerson (who is believed to be Eddie, regardless).—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 03:05, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
(edit conflict) These points make sense to me. For what it's worth, the username probably needs some work as well. Newyorkbrad 03:07, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
I've declined his (third) unblock request. If the only reason he won't create hoax articles is because other people don't like it, he still does not quite get it IMO. Mr.Z-man 01:23, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment Wow, isn't that a bit too much like keeping some guy in jail for a crime he didn't commit because of his bad attitude? Not very professional. Michael2314 20:09, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
  • CommentSo now you just keep him in jail and retroactively change the charges? Come on fellows, you're better than this. Michael2314 20:11, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
I tried to avoid this, but after my talk page was made inaccessable I decided to create a new account so I could state my case. I did whatever I can to request unblock, but I don't know what I did to make the lastest user to review my request to make editing inaccessable. I didn't use profanity. I also was criticized for attacking the blocking user's credibility when I pointed out the complaints filed againt the blocking user. Given the fact the I had no prior blocks, is it really asking too much for an unblock. I'm only human and I make mistakes. I can't change what I did but I think it's ridiculous that a small group of you are willing to linger on something that could be solved by deleting the articles, notifying me and moving on. The Technedrome\'s Toilet 22:45, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Third attack on me via edit summary: now I'm pissed[edit]

The edit summary in question is:

(Undid revision 165772791 by ILike2EatShit (talk))

This is by anon IP I trust this might get someone's attention here. The first couple of times I was annoyed but let it slide. Not this time. +ILike2BeAnonymous 07:41, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Have you tried telling him that abusive edit summaries will not be tolerated? Any warnings, at all? ~ Sebi [talk] 08:34, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
Warned. Dynamic IPs mean blocking is ineffective, so I indicated semiprotection would follow instead. This is confined to a single article.--chaser - t 09:04, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, and no, I didn't bother contacting them because 1) it's an anon. IP and 2) I'm basically a nobody around here w/no particular powers, and thought it would be better to have a warning come from someone with some authority. +ILike2BeAnonymous 20:48, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
It doesn't matter who warns who; as long as the warn is given. Administrators don't usually block a user without warnings. And most vandals don't really identify users with authority anyway. The ones I come across stop after the first warning. ~ Sebi [talk] 21:25, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

comment i doubt this would have occured if you were more civil towards your fellow editor and stopped being rude and uncooperative with everyone. Your borderlining:"habitually treading the edge of policy breach or engaging in low-grade policy breach, in order to make it hard to actually prove misconduct" (see: WP:POINT) seems to antagonize many people.CholgatalK! 02:20, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Username block review[edit]

Resolved: Thanks all, I left a note on my talk page and at the user's talk page noting that the account will not be unblocked. -- Flyguy649 talk 02:14, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to WP:AGF here and believe the user. I blocked Cuntass (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) indefinitely as an obvious violation of the username policy. (It was a soft block). However, the user has contacted me on my talk page claiming that his name is Tass and he is from Cun, Hungary, and that he uses this username at other sites on the net. My feeling is that even if the story is true, native English speakers will read "Cuntass" as Cunt + Ass, which is blatantly profane, and against WP:U. I can't see how the user could be taken seriously with that username. I believe the username block should stand and that he should register some other username, but if there is consensus that I am wrong, I will unblock. -- Flyguy649 talk 22:18, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

I think the block is correct. The problem here is that too many people will belive the name is referring to "cunt ass" and will lead to a lot of time wasted from uses checking through their contribs to make sure they are legit. I would appologise to the user, but say that the username is against our username policy as it is blatantly profane, even if by accident. Ryan Postlethwaite 22:22, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
agree. ViridaeTalk 22:23, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
The person's explanation is quite plausible, and may indeed, be the intent, however, I think that a very small fraction of the Wikipedia population (if any) would realize this, and instead would see this as a severely offensive username. I would endorse your suggestion to the editor to choose the name Tass Cun, instead. ArielGold 22:23, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
Agree. Alot of users would think that the username is referring to "Cunt Ass". Cheers, Lights () 22:27, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
What are the odds of this? Wikipedia says that Cún is located right next to Tass, Hungary. Somebody might want to check these articles to make sure we're not being trolled. - Jehochman Talk 23:02, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
Cún and Tass are about three hours away according to Google Maps. [1]Crazytales talk/desk 23:18, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
My god I found this incredibly hilarious for about 2 seconds. Just block the guy. Checkuser to see if he/she really is from Hungary. Tyler Warren (talk/contribs) 23:23, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
(ec x2) Two Google searches show multiple sources for the existence of both Cun and Tass in Hungary, and they are in adjacent counties in the south of the country. Amusing coincidence. (And Tyler, the user's already blocked). -- Flyguy649 talk 23:25, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
My hovercraft is full of eels; this is the en-WP, we act according to the dictates of English language sensibilities. LessHeard vanU 23:44, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
Amusingly, My hovercraft is full of eels is indef blocked. PrimeHunter 03:31, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
But not due to a username block. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 03:32, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
This seems like a valid soft block. Even if one's intention is not to disruptive, it can still happen accidentally. This name would have been likely to be disruptive. 1 != 2 03:40, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
Pretty obvious softblock. Endorse. Daniel 11:36, 21 October 2007 (UTC)


Was blocking a user for asking a question really justified? *Dan T.* 22:59, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

When the issue is WP:POINT, yes. Crum375 23:03, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
Yes. Especially considering this warning from Jimbo. - Jehochman Talk 23:05, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
Another yep here. Please see the above/read up on the history of the dispute. Shell babelfish 23:07, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
Dan is perfectly well aware of the nature of the dispute, which is archiving from a talk page of a WP:BLP article a series of attempts to discuss and promote the agenda of banned User:WordBomb. But of course since WordBomb is a valued contributor to a certain site, our friend Dan appears to feel the need to pitch in. Guy (Help!) 23:11, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
Whereas certain individuals on Wikipedia feel themselves immune to aspects of Using someone's affiliations as a means of dismissing or discrediting their views -- regardless of whether said affiliations are mainstream or extreme. in their commentary; but then why apply policy when debating application of policy? LessHeard vanU 23:51, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
Some of your comments are getting pretty close to personal attacks on me. *Dan T.* 23:24, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
Some of us feel that you are actively harassing us and deliberately impeding good faith attmepts to improve the encyclopaedia by ensuring that people don't unwittingly act as a proxy for banned users, and some of us find that vexatious. And some of us are losing patience with your holy crusade to support your friends on Wikipedia Review, at least one of whose oopinions are actively being promoted in the talk page of an article on a living individual. My level of tolerance for editing as a proxy for that person - whether intentionally or as a result of a mistaken impression that what he says has some probvable objective basis - is at zero and dropping. Guy (Help!) 07:36, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
"Some of us feel". That's always a difficult one to judge. Please permit me to do you the favor of giving you an unbiased, outside opinion.
I don't know Dan Tobias. In all of his writings on this subject, I had never gotten a hint that he was pro-WR. All he seems to be arguing -- rationally and eloquently -- is against unnecessary Wikipedia censorship, a topic which I happen to be pretty keenly interested in myself. Based on the number of times I've come out in support of Dan, you may have gotten the impression that I'm some kind of WR sympathizer or a Dan Tobias sympathizer myself, but I assure you, I am not.
I'm sorry you're vexed by Dan's continued questions on this subject. But it's a contentious subject, so those questions come with the territory. I understand why you feel harassed, but at the same time, from where I sit, it does not look like harassment to me; it looks like precisely as much of a good-faith attempt to improve the encyclopedia as I know you believe your extensive activities to be.
I might also say that from where I sit, your activities look like just as much of a holy crusade, against WR and in support of your friends here, as you accuse Dan's of being. —Steve Summit (talk) 13:50, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
I hope nobody was seriously proposing blocking Dan for politely asking his question. As for Cla68-- I too hope he wasn't really banned just for asking a question, and although I've only spent 3 seconds looking at the issue, I'm sure he probably wasn't actually banned for that. Problem users being problematic get banned for their whole editing history, taken in toto--- not for the last straw that breaks the camel's back. --Alecmconroy 23:31, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
Block log says only 24 hours. The message on his userpage also says 24 hours. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 23:33, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
Thx for catching me on that. One of these days, my hands are going to start typing block when I mean block and ban when I mean ban. But I'm not there yet. :) --Alecmconroy 03:32, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
I'm sure there was a good, valid reason for this block, given the long, embattled history of the dispute, but honestly I think a more detailed explanation for the block than simply "WP:POINT violation" would have been a good idea. WP:POINT is extremely broad and can be interpreted in a multitude of different ways; it would be better if the blocking admin had provided a more detailed reason for the block, so more of us can understand what is going on. --krimpet 23:47, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

It seems a rather peculiar block. Lèse majesté is not a blockable offense; neither is asking ill-considered questions, when done in good faith. While Cla68 may well view the matter as something of a personal one, for obvious reasons, the situation seems hardly so urgent or so critical that a few quiet words could not have served just as well as a block. I would suggest that Durova lift the block, as I can't really see any benefit from keeping it in place at this point.

Having said that, this whole mess with the Weiss articles has gone on for long enough, and I entirely agree with the broader effort to put things in some semblance of order. Kirill 00:09, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

I completely agree. ViridaeTalk 00:10, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

The situation was such that a firm hand was amply called for, and more than ample warnings had been given. WP:POINT was the obvious call, but it was also a rather snide remark at Jimbo. I have no regrets for this one, especially because a biography of a living person was involved and the individual was known to be a target of harassment. Add WP:NOT#Not a soapbox. This site's article talk pages are not fora for extended grievances. DurovaCharge! 00:27, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Durova has now threatened another editor with a block for asking a question on Durova's talk page about this block. I think Kirill has it right, and I don't know what Durova is trying to accomplish with this but it's clear this threatened block won't do anything to prevent disruption to the site. Milto LOL pia 01:15, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

If you want the article's talk page to not be drama central, blocking anyone who asks questions (and threatening to block anyone who complains, as JzG did above) is almost certainly going to be exactly what you do not want to do. If the situation involving this article is a long-running disaster... maybe overly aggressive admin action is also playing a role? From the outside looking it, it certainly seems like something to consider. --W.marsh 01:19, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

The block seems to be attempting to make more of a WP:POINT than the question was. Uncle uncle uncle 01:36, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
If it seems that way, it's because people are taking small parts of the actual situation out of context and attempting to spin them. It's time to stop enabling that behavior. My second block warning wasn't for questioning the block - that would be absurd. DurovaCharge! 01:34, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
If it seems that way, it's because the reason for blocking was poorly explained. Uncle uncle uncle 01:43, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
I'm not interested in endless discussion here. That block had a better explanation than many others that go unchallenged. As a courtesy to Jimbo I've reduced it to six hours with a request to refocus on solid references and topical discussion. I extend that request to this thread. See WP:NOT#Not a water cooler. If that isn't a policy clause yet it should be. DurovaCharge! 01:42, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
Durova, I was referring to Guy's above comment at 23:09, 20 October 2007, which seemed to be threatening Dtobias with a block for starting this thread. Or at least saying Dtobias deserved one. That really doesn't seem like an attempt to calm things down at all, it was just petty escalation. --W.marsh 01:45, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
Hm, well Guy can address that if he wants. Let's encourage everyone to refocus on properly sourced encyclopedic collaboration at that article. DurovaCharge! 01:57, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
But the two things are related. Guy is, after all, apparently the point man on this whole thing... if he is doing things you say are absurd (your comment at 01:34, 21 October 2007), it seems like there are some major problems here. --W.marsh 02:09, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
Let's let him speak for himself. And more importantly, let's return the focus to encyclopedic collaboration. That was the whole point of his intervention, after all. DurovaCharge! 02:43, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
Guy can reply whenever he wants. There's really no "encyclopedic collaboration" in his participation in this thread to focus on though, just an attempt at steamrolling, which is hardly helpful. I'm sorry, but if this is his approach to the dispute... no wonder the whole thing has been a disaster. Ignoring that won't help. --W.marsh 02:58, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
I've taken virtually no part in the dispute. I did what I thought best to stop the idiocy of endlessly rehashing Bagley's off-wiki allegations. If anybody has anything approaching a reliable source for those allegations (and I do think that if one existed we'd have seen it by now) then they can bring it to the Talk page. What is not acceptable is speculation and repeating the allegations of a very very banned user. Few users are quite as banned as Bagley. Even his website is banned. Cla68 and Dan Tobias are perpetuating Bagley's agenda, for no readily discernible reason. It's gone on for far too long. As I say, if a reliable source comes along then we can talk, but that article's talk page was a BLP nightmare, and I cannot for the life of me imagine why we are still allowing Bagley to dictate the agenda here. Gary Weiss is a biography of a living individual and we had better start treating it as we are supposed to treat all biographies of living individuals, which is to stick to what can be reliable sourced and neutrally stated. That is what I said on the talk page, and I absolutely stand by it. I interpret Cla68 and Dan's continued agitation as "surely we can talk about it a little bit more yet?" to which my answer is: no we can't. Guy (Help!) 07:43, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

I can't speak for the blocking of Cla68-- there's obviously a lot of history there, and i'd have to do a lot of digging to intelligently speak on it. It doesn't look good to block right after a mere question, but I certainly wouldn't want to go so far as to say it's wrong unless I actually knew what I was talking about in the Cla68 situation (which I don't)

I am however greatly disturbed by the block threats made to Dan T[2] and to G-Dett [3]. Obviously, there could be other explanations, but they really do look like they were threatened with blocks just for questioning/disagreeing with the Cla68 block. Hopefully there's another answer (friendly banter? satire mistaken for seriousness? other factors)-- because if we assumed the block threats were sincere, and really were issued just because of asking too many questions-- that's a big dang misuse of admin status in my eyes. Threatening a block that would violate blocking policy is 95% as bad as actually making the block. --Alecmconroy 04:00, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

All right. Bear in mind that there's a lot of history at that article. The long and short of it is we're dealing with the biography of a person who's been harassed in real life, and there's substantial reason to believe that Wikipedia has been abused as a venue to perpetuate that harassment. Obviously neutral Wikipedians don't want that. I have nothing to do with the original issues behind that. A lot of turmoil had taken place at that talk page, with a fairly limited set of players contributing very little of positive subtance and attempting to raise negatives that had appeared in non-reliable sources. Guy had archived the talk page and basically said, This site has policies. Abide by them. We mean it. Jimbo and I agreed. I've got no problem at all with legitimate encyclopedic discussion, but two individuals immediately came along and tested those boundaries. I blocked one of them and nearly blocked the other, mostly because their comments really looked like attempts to push the envelope and engage in drama. They certainly weren't resuming the editorial discussion that ought to have been taking place. So yes, one camel had one straw too many and the other had one straw too few. But there are limits at Wikipedia, and I find it illuminating that rather than actually locate appropriate references and engage in topical discussion the same set of people who'd sidetracked that article talk page have raised so many complaints here and elsewhere. If they want to demonstrate that they're serious about writing an encyclopedia - if they want to establish any credibility - then the thing to do would be take up the gauntlet and improve the article in a legitimate and mature manner. My estimate of several users' worthiness as editors weighs heavily on that. DurovaCharge! 04:55, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
Yes, exactly that. Time to stop aiding and abetting the harassment. Guy (Help!) 07:45, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
Precisely. Cla68's ongoing reminders about SlimVirgin and her mistakes made two years ago are enough in themselves...much to do about nothing really, yet he has continued to persist on that saga for some time now, even though it is very old news. Acting, for all practical purposes, as a proxy for banned editor Wordbomb, is also getting tiring. I hope he resumes his excellent FA level work and ceases to continue using Wikipedia for purposes that are not congruent with BLP.--MONGO 07:58, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate everyone's thoughtful and reasoned comments and look forward to continuing to work with everyone here to build a better encyclopedia. Cla68 00:24, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

My expedition to ASM[edit]

I just got back from ASM, where I spent FAR too long trying to understand the situation. After looking over things, I'm officially giving myself a kindergarten-esque gold star for not denouncing the Cla68 block. "Blocked for merely QUESTIONING authority!?!?"-- that's a tempting lure for an open content ideologue like me. :) Why just hearing the phrase makes me want to break out a copy of the bill of rights. :). But I just had a feeling this one wasn't all it seemed, so-- gold star for me.
(I should be clear-- I'm not implying anyone was intentionally being deceptive by describing it as a "Blocked for questioning". At first glance, it did look that way.)
Now, everyone please, in general, remember this, and be nice to me when I don't get it right the first time, eh?
So, because everyone loves a backseat driver-- here's what our problem is. Durova and Mongo have tried to explain to me, here, what the scoop was, with the whole Gary Weiss article. Now for the regulars-- people who are always up to date on the latest controversies-- maybe you guys already all knew. But for me-- to even ascertain for myself the truth of Durova's and Mongo's statements took like, two hours of wading through archives and ASM. Because if you're gonna say "X is just a mouthpiece for Y"-- that means if I care about figuring out whether it's true, I've gotta go try to figure out who the heck Y is and what in the world crazy theory he subscribes to.
So here I am, an hour later. I literally have a piece of paper trying to diagram out the alleged conspiracy, and I still don't think I actually have a good conception of what's going on. And all this work is work I really would have to go through before I could edit intelligently on articles on this subject. And I definitely still don't have it. (You'll note, however, in all the verbosity, I've never once taken a stance on whether ASM is notable enough to merit inclusion (I hope that's true)).
So, here's our problem. We've forbidden on-wiki discussion of disputes of this sort. THat's fine, and if that's really the way people want to play it, I won't be the one to start it.
But, have you considered that by SV, GW, etc all not having a short statement of THEIR side of things, it forces me to go to the unreliably narrators, try to guess what worldview he subscribes to, try to guess what parts are inspired by reality, what parts are fabricated, what parts are spun-- then try to figure out what Cla and Dan and G-dent KNOW is false vs what they've been fooled into believing, and on and on and on. It's a gordian knot, and even having looked into it in the first place makes my head hurt.
It doesn't matter, in this case, because I'm nobody. But for the benefit of the other people who DO have to make editing and admin decisions in these cases, I just want to throw this out:
Maybe it would be better for the SANE people to put up their version of events somewhere. A short summary of the whole dispute, saying what parts are true, what parts are lies. You're under no obligation to do that-- if silence is how you want to respond, you deserve support for that too. But just consider,the best antidote for bad information is more information. Having ASM being the only source for someone who wants to understand that dispute--- that's just a bad idea. We might be far better served just talking about all the crazy allegations and publically debunking them, rather than letting them fester in the darkness, deleting references to them.
A statement: "Hi, my name is ____, and I do NOT work for the CIA, and I don't know where the lunatic got the idea that I did" might have gone a long way, and stopped the lunacy from making the frontpage of slashdot, for example.
Anyway, just a friendly suggestion. Take it or leave it. For what it's worth, I'm gonna personally apologize, on behalf of the internet, for all the crap you harassees have had to take. Please, sincerely, from the bottom of my heart-- don't anyone ever accuse me of supporting harassment. I knew it was an ad hominem insult, but I had no idea just how bad an insult it was until tonight. I'm still gonna argue on the same principles I always have-- NPOV should rule, BADSITES is bad, and all that... but just know I have a LOT of sympathy for all that you big-names have gone through. In particular-- I had no idea just how... invasive the attacks on SV were-- psychotically dredging up random trivial spats from college pubs 20 years ago, for example-- . Even assuming they're the tiniest shred of evidence to them all-- WTF is it supposed to show other than somebody has to be psychotic to try to dig up something like that!?
Anyway, all you pro-badsites people... You're still wrong, but you guys definitely have earned a hug. --Alecmconroy 09:19, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
Alec, you may want to look at a website called O-Smear [4], which is written by a techie who debunks Bagley's claims and also rips his methodology to shreds. The posts tagged "Wikipedia" and "Slim Virgin" and "spyware" are of particular interest. Other blogs respond to Bagley ([5], [6] - check out the same tags) but I think O-Smear may address your concerns the most comprehensively. --Mantanmoreland 12:18, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
I will look at them-- but let me be clear that after reading ASM, I personally did not have any concerns that myself needed to be addressed. I have a pretty good lunacy detector, and came away quite satisfied that the site was not a reliable narrator, to put it generously. When I asked for debunking stuff, it wasn't for me personally, so much as for the next guy who comes along. :) --Alecmconroy 12:24, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
Alec, well done for 'fessing up here. Yes, it is very complex, and has been running for a long time. Also, please be aware that BADSITES is absolutely not the only reaosn for removing any given link, the main reason links are removed is spam but in this case we also have active offsite harassment and in some cases offsite essays by banned users - banned users are not allowed to contribute to content debates. Especially the banned users I am looking at right now.
Now to the Weiss / SV situation. First and foremost, the only reason Bagley started out on his campaign against SV on ASM was that SV refused to accede to extortion. He said that if SV did not leave him to promote his agenda, he would publish hurtful things. The hurtful things are not his own work, they come in the main from Daniel Brandt, who in turn picked them up form some conspiracy theorist somewhere. The allegations against SV are and always have been baseless. They have been discussed before.
Consensus among those who deal professionally with harassment and stalking is that you do not engage in any way with your attackers. You do not make statements, you do not give them any leverage at all. The corrcet response to the allegations agaist SV is to remove them, inform the people bringing them here that they should refrain from bringing allegations without credible independent sources, and suggest that if they absolutely insist on discussing material in blatantly unreliable sources, they should do so directly with the arbitration committee by email.
Bagley is the latest in a series of increasingly dangerous zealots. Wikipedia's profile is such that these people need to get their mad theories on Wikipedia. The bigger we get, the worse they get. The way we used to deal with this madness two years ago does not work today because there are more registered users (hence the one in a million who will believe an obvious conspiracy delusion becomes three or four individuals), because one or two people keep sidetracking the debate to push another agenda, and because we as a community have not yet realised just how serious this is. We have had to call the police to deal with some incidents, by now, and female admins in particular are expressing significant and well-founded concerns about harassment and stalking.
Wikipedia is not Usenet. We are not obliged to discuss tittle-tattle. And we are absolutely not oblioged to let these people have an indefinite number of kicks at the can, whether they be Scientologists, LaRouchites, 9/11 conspiracy theorists, promoters of bizarre "scientific" theories or people like Bagley employed to advance the agenda of his employer by any means. Soapboxers, vanity merchants, fringe theory proponents - they can go away. We know what they think, and their input is not relevant to building a credible and neutral encyclopaedia.
One thing we do need to do, though, is to start documenting these cases in a way that forestalls the endless idiocy. SV absolutely should not be asked to lend credibility to Bagley by responding, but we, the Wikipedia community, should probably have a very short subpage somewhere that details the allegation, who made it and why, what investigation took place (or none, and why). Then, when each new unsuspecting individual is drawn in by the campaign to build and spread the meme, we can simply point them to that page. Debate can be centralised in that place and clerked to within an inch of it's life. So "Wah! I read that admin X did this Bad Thing!" would be redacted to "User Y expressed an interest in the case and was informed of the steps taken." Further debate - for example if people are dissatisfied with the collective response - belong at ArbCom. And if people are absolutely determined to discuss the allegations at, they can take it to the mailing list where it won't distract people from building an encyclopaedia. I have written more on this at User:JzG/Harassment links.
Now bear in mind that in any sane society the ravings of obvious loons would simply be dismissed, and we would not be compelled to make any statement on it because when trusted people say they have investigated, then most reasonable people will accept it. Wikipedia has too many people, and the community is too diffuse and contains too many impressionable people, for this to work. Also, the kooks are getting very good at spreading their memes. Which is why I suggest a clerked, carefully monitored system for handling good faith attempts to raise these issues. They have, almost without exception, no merit, but they spread like a plage around the whole project because there is no one place where we can send people to say "there, that is what happened, now please drop it." Guy (Help!) 11:35, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, obviously, there's some real pluses and minus to responding to the stuff vs leaving it alone, and I can see really good arguments for both, so, I just threw it out there. Maybe talking about it gives it strength, but maybe ignoring it gives it more strength. That's a question for wiser minds than mine.
One thing I would emphasize, which of course you already know, is that there's two types of harassment. The "namecalling, flamewarring, god that is REALLY REALLY rude" type we see on the internet all the time, and the "criminal harassment". Obviously, I would strongly encourage anyone who feels the second kind to tell law enforcement. If Bagley's threatened her in a criminal way, we (we being the foundation) should do whatever is necessary to see he's brought to justice. Based on his website, I don't get the feeling he's doing anything criminal, but of course, it appears I'm the least informed person on the entire project when it comes to the details of this, and the only people who should be making that assessment are the targest of the harassment . --Alecmconroy 12:37, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
Alecmconroy, your various suggestions here are thoughtful and productive. Please know, however, that I don't accept – and am seriously offended by – your insinuations that I have been somehow taken in by Bagley. I edit ME-related articles first, and literature/poetry articles second, and though my real-world interests are much broader I neither understand nor give a sh** about naked shorting, Wall Street scandals or any of it. Nor do I want to learn. I've never edited those articles and never will; nor am I an apologist for harrassers or corporate shills. I am told that Bagley praises me for questioning the banning of Piperdown. Bully for Bagley. If he thinks I'm his girl on the inside, he will be sorely disappointed. I have zero interest in the Bagley-Weiss wars themselves.
I am interested only in one principle involved, and that principle has nothing to do with harassment or linking to attack sites. It has to do with what happens to NPOV when you have "superbanned" users like Bagley. Bagley has been so egregious in his sockpuppeting that admins have taken to shooting on sight. That all sounds well and good, but we've reached a stage where not only Bagley's puppets but Bagley's opinions (and not his theories about intra-Wiki politics but his positions on matters of public interest) in effect have been banned. This presents a problem to my mind. NPOV in article mainspace should not be a reflection of which real-world actors are in the good graces of Wikipedians and which ones (due to megadisruption) are not. This problem is an important one in my view, one with broad implications for other subject-areas in Wikipedia, and it is logically fatuous to define it as part of "Bagley's agenda."
I had this problem in mind when I commented on the Weiss RfC; I wrote that material considered notable by the New York Times should be considered notable by Wikipedia, regardless of our feelings about the actors involved. I have since reflected that weighing in on a specific editorial question regarding an issue I know nothing about (in this case, Gary Weiss's disputes with others in the business world) simply because of the principle involved comes perilously close to making a WP:POINT. That is true no matter how important the principle involved. Hence Durova's threat, high-handed as it seemed to me at the time, in hindsight makes sense.--G-Dett 15:34, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
G-dett, I sincerely apologize for giving you the impression that I thought you were somehow 'in league with' or 'taken in' by ASM. I wasn't trying to comment on you at all-- I haven't looked over your actions, I wasn't commenting on them in the slightest. When I refer to being deceived by the overly-simplistic explanation of Cla being blocked just for asking a single question, I do not in the slightest mean to imply someone else deceived me. It was my own first impression that the Cla block, but after a lot of examination, i just realized the situation was really really complicated.
Anyway, please know I wasn't trying to criticize you in the slightest. I was just trying to apologize, because I've argued so strenuously against BADSITES, I realized that even though that principle is, in my opinion, correct, I should have been far more considerate in my arguments, and a make my compassion for the people who have been harassed a little more explicit, rather than assuming it's implied. --Alecmconroy 17:55, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
No worries Alec. The part I was reacting to spoke of trying "to figure out what Cla and Dan and G-dent KNOW is false vs what they've been fooled into believing." I don't mind criticism – bring it on – and I didn't mean to be tetchy. The very issue I'm concerned with is how broad and all-encompassing our working definition of a "Word Bomb meatpuppet" is becoming, and your comment seemed to me to play into the logic of that. No harm no foul.--G-Dett 18:39, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
Hi, Alec. Nicely written. And I think you've hit upon an important problem. If you just get some random pages on ED, or look at a few threads on WR, or skim a bit of ASM, they don't seem particularly offensive. Unlike, say, the Time Cube guy, they are not instantly dismissable. It takes research.
Something that summarizes the issues, or even a place where reliable, uninvolved contributors can report back like you just did, would be a great help. As Guy says, we don't want to place the burden on the targets.
I do wonder if in talking only to traditional harassment experts we might be making a mistake. One other thing that's important for people being harassed is to make people close to you aware of the problem, as they can be a great source of emotional support and pragmatic help. But in a public environment like Wikipedia, the two directives conflict. I wonder if we could find advice from people who handle PR disasters or political mud-slinging could give us useful advice.
Oh, and if you do end up with a diagram, please send me a copy. :-) William Pietri 16:51, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
Well, honestly, I have a harder time figuring out the deal with Time Cube than I did the deal with ASM. LOL. My experience was never that ASM came across as reliable, but it isn't clear at first glance how... cruel and petty the content is. Honestly, if our only goal were to convince people that ASM is nonsense, the best the we could do is plaster links to it all over the place-- reading it for itself conveys its meanspiritedness in a way that no summary really could ever capture. (obviously, our goal is write an encyclopedia, not convince people ASM is evil, so, yeah, no need to take that "plaster ASM links everywhere" as an actual prescription, please).
Honest to god, there really is a diagram. Not particularly coherent, but it does exist.. I wish I had a scanner-- I'd show it off. :) --Alecmconroy 18:13, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Several people in the thread above have wondered if there is a place to give short summaries of things like this. Comments like "Something that summarizes the issues, or even a place where reliable, uninvolved contributors can report back like you just did, would be a great help." The closest thing I know of to this is Wikipedia:Long term abuse. This has archives and subpages dealing with various long-term abuses by several people (links to the archives and subpages are on that page). It is mainly set up for long-term vandalism, but could be adapted for harassment reports as well. The main concerns would be to avoid give the harassers recognition (though the page I've linked to there makes clear that the motivations for vandalism and harassment are different) and to avoid privacy concerns. Oh, and to clearly change the structure of any reports page to make clear it is about harassment, and not vandalism. I also agree wholeheartedly that criminal harassment should be dealt with by the police, and that we need the advice of people experienced in dealing with specifically internet based harassment, as opposed to real world harassment (though I recognise that that has taken place as well). Carcharoth 18:49, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi, I don't work for the CIA, FBI, NSA, MI5, or any other spy outfit. If I had my pick I'd take Inspector Clouseau over James Bond - I like a guy who makes me laugh. There have been a few odd things claimed about me elsewhere on the Internet, most of which are rubbish, but I'd like to officially thank the trolls for spelling my name right. ;) DurovaCharge! 19:20, 21 October 2007 (UTC)


I feel as though Leilani19 (talk · contribs) is harrassing me. I have tried to leave multiple contributions of information I know is fact. That person repeatedly slams me with threats saying that I have been reported for vandalism. This is not the case. I feel as thoguh this person is purposely doing this to discredit my information. At one point in time, I accidently deleted a page, I am still fairly new to this website and am still learning the ins and outs. I did not mean to do that on purpose and I filed a report to the proper department. Several occasions, I find my tlak box filled with messages from Clue Bot, in which I write back to defend myself. I cannot take this harrasement anymore. Please help me to fix the problem. I understand how things go as far as celebrities are concerned, and there will be young girls and guys out there who do not want to hear the truth. But that simply does not justify them turning around and falsely accusint me and discrediting my sources and my credibility. (Ryan782) —Preceding comment was added at 23:37, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

You have been adding information to Leland Chapman, but you've not provided a reliable source, something that is mandatory for biographical articles. It doesn't matter if you know it to be true; it doesn't even matter if you are Leland Chapman; information has to have a reliable source that we can verify, otherwise it absolutely positively cannot be in the article. Also you blanked the article (this edit), which is indeed vandalism. And you've chosen to personally attack Leilani9 in this unacceptable edit, a violation of our no personal attacks policy. So you're not being harassed; you've chosen to break Wikipedia's rules repeatedly, despite being asked to stop, and you've chosen to attack those who defend Wikipedia. You're very close to being blocked from editing. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 00:21, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
Can you explain how blanking the page is not vandalism? Corvus cornix 19:57, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Figure out Ryan's afternoon[edit]

I woke up this morning with a pretty bad hangover and I need to stay in today - so here's a one time offer: The first person who gives me an admin task that they think is backlogged will get three solid hours of my effort in that area, not including the time it takes me to learn how to do it, if applicable. I'm going out to lunch, I'll check back when I get back. RyanGerbil10(C-Town) 16:05, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

  • SSP has been backlogged for ages. :) Spartaz Humbug! 16:08, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
Ok then, three hours of sockpuppets to sort out. RyanGerbil10(C-Town) 17:05, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
Cool. Thanks Ryan Spartaz Humbug! 17:26, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Bah, I showed up too late to suggest CAT:CSD. Damn. :) EVula // talk // // 17:07, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
    • I suggest that you send a case of strong liquor to Ryan if you want your backlog(s) to be dealt with... LessHeard vanU 17:58, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

I closed a bunch of sockpuppet cases, the ones that remain are all either under the review of another admin, have been remanded to Checkuser, or are too horrible to deal with. With some extra time on my hands, I suppose I could check on CSD... RyanGerbil10(C-Town) 18:09, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

In CSD I found Image:Mariko Morikawa.jpg marked as "for educational use only." (Admins can take a look - I think it wins for ironic license tag) Alas, it was deleted. RyanGerbil10(C-Town) 18:30, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
Well, that was certainly notable. ;) Spartaz Humbug! 19:34, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Ryan, if you're still looking for things to do, UFAA has been backlogged all afternoon. NASCAR Fan24(radio me!) 22:58, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Here's my vote for initiating the Booze for Backlogs program. --bainer (talk) 04:49, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Another block review[edit]

I have indef blocked Beh-nam (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log) on the basis of a report to WP:AIV, and my review of the diffs provided. Per my comment when placing the notice on User talk:Beh-nam I recognise that the tariff may be inappropriate, and I am open to any admin who wishes to investigate further to vary or lift the block as deemed fit. I also concede that the original report may be motivated by reasons that are unencyclopedic and I therefore blocked on the basis of the incivility as evidenced by the language. LessHeard vanU 16:21, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

See this thread above. User:Beh-nam, User:Aspandyar Agha and User:Dilbar Jan have been participating in adolescent insults to each other on various talk pages, and calling each other sockpuppets of some User:NisarKand. I should have delved deeper into it last night as I thought it was just restricted to one particular spat, but it looks like it is a bigger Tajik vs. Pathan issue. -- Samir 17:02, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
(ec) I had dealings with Beh-nam some months ago and always found him to be a good-faith contributor. Please be aware that the person who placed that report is apparently NisarKand (talk · contribs), one of the worst spreaders of ethnic hatred and long-time sockpuppeter. NisarKand is indeed a serious problem. Dealing with him can be exasperating; I don't think anything Beh-nam may have done while dealing with NisarKand ought to be held against him. I'll look further into this; might recommend unblocking. Fut.Perf. 17:07, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
I would endorse the indef blocking of Beh-nam, for this edit alone. The problem vandal NisarKand is irrelevant to this issue, which is Beh-nam's conduct, and there is no justification for that kind of hateful speech. Neil  17:10, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
Still skeptical. A one-off outburst under the kind of constant provocation caused by the NisarKand socks is not necessarily grounds for indef-blocking. I notice Beh-nam was doing some useful work in pinning down copyvio image uploads which Nisar was trying to hide behind a multi-sock smokescreen, as usual. Fut.Perf. 17:19, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
Doing some useful work does not give anyone a pass for that kind of racism and intolerance. I saw a thread about this further up one of the Admin Noticeboard pages recently. Of particular note is [7] - the history of User talk:Sodaba shows that Beh-nam did not make a "one-off outburst" - he made five edits over 17 minutes honing and adding to his name-calling and bigotry - this was not a one-off edit made in a fit of passion, this was a carefully constructed and considered piece of hatemongering. Neil  17:41, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
I still maintain that even a 17-minute fit of rage is still just a fit of rage, and, after the truly exceptional history of year-long disruption by NisarKand, potentially forgivable. But I'll let this rest until Beh-nam actually comes back online. He hasn't commented or posted an unblock request as yet. Fut.Perf. 18:14, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
I've reviewed User:Dilbar Jan's contributions more thoroughly and there are heaps of hateful ethnic commentary. I've blocked him indefinitely. -- Samir 17:16, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
Besides him, judging by editing times and similar evidence, the following are certainly Nisar socks:
Can some commons admin please take care of all their image uploads? They are most certainly copyvios. Fut.Perf. 18:14, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Please note that the individual who placed the unblock request (since denied) on Beh-nam's talkpage is likely to be the user in the section below. I believe Beh-nam should be allowed to make their own presentation. LessHeard vanU 18:20, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
I am wary of making an indefinite block on Beh-nam for the one outburst. Neil is right that it was honed a few times, but if was still basically one episode.
However, I have also found [8] (more racist abuse), [9] (foul edit summary), [10] (more abuse), [11]. Digging back further, I don't find much more in the same vein, and quite a lot of reasonable behaviour -- not always super-polite, but nearly all of it well within acceptable bounds. I had an encounter with Beh-nam last month, and it was rsolve politely and resaonably: [12].
So I think that I would suggest that the blocking admin should reduce the length of the block, to something which reflects the seriousness of this spat but doesn't go so far as to say "never again" in the way an indef block does. Maybe one month, but with an explicit warning that any further racist abuse would lead to an indef block? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:33, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
I recognise that the tariff does not have consensus, and that there may have been ethnic/ nationalistic considerations in both the making of the report and possible provoking. I would prefer to have Beh-man's response, but I have no problem with another admin varying the period if it is considered appropriate before then. LessHeard vanU 18:55, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
Aspandyar Agha, who has commented below, has made much worse racist attacks than Behnam. Here are some examples of his racist attacks: [13], [14] and of harassment of a user who has left wikipedia: [15]. There is also the case of the "insulting match" with Dilbar jan([16], [17]). Most of his edits are tendentious, and indicate a strong prejudice against ethnic pashtuns. If Behnam's behaviour warrants an indef block, then this user certainly deserves some kind of sanction. Raoulduke47 19:39, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Hello dear Friends[edit]

Beh-Nam is not NisarKand because Beh-Nam is a Tajik and NisarKand an Awghan, an ethnic Pashtune. Dear Admins, plz check that out also his IPs. They are two different User. While NisarKand and DilbarJan are one and the same User and a nationalistic one but Beh-Nam has nothing to do with such activities. DilbarJan(/NisarKand) claimed he would helping Taliban but since Beh-Nam is a Persian and the Taliban were looking for cleansing Tajiks who could he be NisarKand self since Dilbar is allready NisarKand!? Plz dear Admins, unblock him. Beh-Nam is for a long time on Wikipedia and he didn´t do sth bad either against any nations nor against any User or any articles. The admins of Wikipedia now banned two or three of Tajiks who were one o the important ones here at least they were the sole Tajiks who were active. Plz Admins, ban DilbarJan who is writing articles from his nationalistic view. With best regards. --Aspandyar Agha 18:02, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

After reviewing Aspandyar Agha's editing, I have indefinitely blocked the account. Neil  21:16, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Section break[edit]

I don't know much about this case but looking at it here i think Fut.Perf. and BrownHairedGirl description of the situation is more accurate. If it was his second i'd certainly support an indefinite block. But having the same fate as NisarKand is really bothering. He's always been a disruptive editor. But the difference is that this is the first time Beh-nam drinks while driving whereas NisarKand drinks all the time while driving. A month is enough for a first blatant violation of policy. If repeated it would be the last one. But in this case the block of Dilbar Jan would be probably treated the same way unless he is a sock of NisarKand. Any thoughts? -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 20:53, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Just for the record, Dilbar Jan most certainly was Nisar, if there was any doubt left about it, the latest anon trolling here on this page dispelled it. Fut.Perf. 20:57, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
Now, i've got no doubt about that. Whenever i see a disruptive editor starting editing Wikipedia w/ a long discussion at a talk page followed by many similar others especially when saying " according to Wiki rules, we must stick to the majority." at his first ever edit, i just confirm he is a sock. i don't care of whom he may be but blocking indef on the spot is the correct action. I just don't understand why he was left editing till today. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 21:07, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
Again, I absolutely do not endorse any reduction in the length of this block. Editors like this, irrelevant of who they are "fighting with", are tendentious, abusive, racist POV warriors, and should not be welcome. I strongly reccomend leaving at indefinite. Neil  21:19, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
Note Beh-nam's charming comment was "You are big time benamoose watanforosh. You are living proof that Owghans are treacherous, dishonest, fascist, selfish, racist, thieves, delusioned, and cannot be trusted with anything. Stop making sockpuppets you idiot kooniwal." I'm not sure what "benamoose" or "kooniwal" mean, I think they're Afghan slang, but "watanforosh" is traitor. Neil  21:34, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
I don't know what those words mean either. But I know what "treacherous, dishonest, fascist, selfish, racist, thieves, delusioned and cannot be trusted" means, and I don't think they are in the spirit of WP:NPA. Raymond Arritt 00:57, 22 October 2007 (UTC)


According to this block log, [18] this user was blocked indefinitely on 7 October. However today, 21 October the user was able to make this edit to the user talk page, [19]. Was this user later unblocked but not recorded in the log or is there something wrong with the block? Thanks. Tbo 157(talk) (review) 20:29, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Blocked editors are able to edit thier own talk pages. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 20:31, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
Oh of course. Apologies, I was a bit confused as alot of them are protected. Thanks. Tbo 157(talk) (review) 20:33, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

"Finger" on userpage[edit]

Is this page:User:Dinote suitable or allowed? I wasn't 100% sure so I thought I'd ask here. Thanks. Wikidudeman (talk) 21:09, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

It has been removed by Maxim (talk · contribs). ~ Sebi 21:12, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
I remember Jehochman mentioning Wikipedia:Five pillars yesterday. I think it is better to not be used in user space. However, Maxim could have left a cool message at User talk:Dinote before removing it. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 21:19, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
I've left him a message after I removed it, just asking him not to do it again. I think he should know better. Maxim(talk) (contributions) 21:23, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Problem with Bots?[edit]

It appears that SnakeBot is out-of control - see [[20]] as well as SieBot - see [[21]] Zagubov 21:35, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

How so? Both of those are valid interwiki links (although WHY any other language Wikipedia has articles on counties in Kentucky isn't clear). -Amarkov moo! 21:39, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
Why not? The English Wikipedia has articles abut provinces and lower-level political organizations of other countries, why should other language Wikipedias be any different? Corvus cornix 22:09, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

My apologies- I've not seen this kind of thing before and mistook it for vandalism needing reverting.. I'm using an updated Firefox on Mac OSX and didn't realise my systems limitations. Zagubov

Tired of being attacked by persons who don't agree with my edits[edit]


The title says it all. I have ignored a couple of few personal attacks and warning the other users that I was not going to pay attention to it. Seems like these group of people just want to do in Wikipedia what they feel like. I've made my edits according to the official guidelines and policies, wich this user thinks are stupid and somehow "delete" the entire article, or "doesn't help" Wikipedia.

The personal attack can be seen in User_talk:Cosprings#Tasco made by User:Real Compton G. Diff.

Now, I know this is not a high level threat or attack, by I've been recieving some of these and I am tired of it. I think the user should have a message delivered by an administrator warning about the guidelines and respect them. If he doesn't like others user's edits, don't insult him/her.

That would be all, I hope you can understand this issue. Thank you.--Tasc0 21:50, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Note left. Wikidudeman (talk) 21:54, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
Thank you. That's all I really wanted. I hope he can understand now.--Tasc0 21:58, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Problem with a project's editors[edit]

I discovered, via Talk:Decommissioned highway, that the term "decommission" when applied to highways is a neologism, and readers will not understand it. This was confirmed at Wikipedia:Reference desk/Language#Decommissioning. So I started changing to more appropriate terms. Several people are now objecting on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject U.S. Roads#The new "multiplex": decommissioned?, and at least one - Scott5114 - is reverting my edits. What am I to do? This is clearly not an appropriate word to use, but the editors of the project have determined that they don't care. --NE2 22:00, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Request for comment. Discuss it, try to reach consensus. This isn't really something requiring administrator attention. Wikidudeman (talk) 22:04, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
I've taken issues like this to this board before and had them discussed. --NE2 22:07, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
Well this isn't really the area to asks for broader consensus on those types of non-administrative issues, though I'm sure you'll get some new editors commenting. Try Wikipedia:Requests for comment. Wikidudeman (talk) 22:09, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
Try getting bogged down in bureaucracy? Riiiiight. --NE2 22:46, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
I'm not even sure how I'd do that; this isn't about a single user, a single article, or a single policy. --NE2 22:47, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

And now they've started an RFC on me: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/NE2 3 I need help. --NE2 22:52, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Sockpuppets with open proxies[edit]

Can you please block those open proxies:

ForeignerFromTheEast 01:55, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

All blocked. Mr.Z-man 02:28, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. ForeignerFromTheEast 02:41, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
Now the anon vandal is registered though, on Krste Misirkov. ForeignerFromTheEast 02:42, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
Account blocked, page semi-protected. MastCell Talk 02:45, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
This seems to be a part of a larger problem with multiple account abuse:

More open proxies:

ForeignerFromTheEast 02:53, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

All IPs reported to WP:OP. Dean Wormer 03:58, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

JS security hole closed[edit]

Please see Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Arbitrary_.js_security_hole_closed. This is something that I think as many eyes as possible need to see, especially those that write these user js scripts. Please discuss on AN (Administrators's noticeboard). Thanks. —— Eagle101Need help? 02:41, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Peri’ah metsitsah[edit]


I created this article based on information from Christopher Hitchens' book, god is not Great. Eliyak asserts that the information is wrong, arguing that Hitchens is not an authority on Jewish customs (Hitchens converted to Judaism when he married his current wife, though he's currently an atheist), etc. Eliyak changed the material without a citation, and left a citation tag in the article. Although Eliyak appears to have done much work on Judaism-related articles, I tried to explain to him/her that the WP standard is Attribution and Credible Sources, not truth. Eliyak insists that the name of the article is wrong, that the procedure it describes is incorrect, that its origin is Orthodox rather than Hasidic, that the frequency of its practice is greater than the article asserts, etc. He moved the article to a new name, and changed the material, and even added a source, but does not go into detail as to how that source contradicts the material. My position is that when two sources disagree, the article should incorporate both of them. I tried to revert the article to reflect both sources. I even tried to look for a link to Hitchens' website in his article so I can contact him over his sources, but his article has none. Eliyak reverted the title's page, and again altered material in the article, relying on his/her personal knowledge, rather than wait until the conflict can be clarified through collaboration and more in-depth investigation. Any advice? Nightscream 04:17, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Firstly, Hitchens is not an expert on Jewish Law. Secondly, there already exists mention of metzitzah in its proper place Brit Milah. This article is a POV fork. -- Avi 04:20, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
I have redirected the article, where sources including Talmudic scholars and Medical personnel are brought, and not investigative journalists. -- Avi 04:23, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
The article I wrote was not intended to be POV, however, I have read the sourced articles regarding the procedure on the brit milah article, and am satisfied that it covers the material well enough that a separate article is not needed. Nightscream 06:15, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Request Action on Special:Contributions/Havelove[edit]

This account appears to have only been created to insert pro-China propaganda POV edits into the Dalai Lama page. K. Scott Bailey 04:49, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Three edits, all reverted. No warnings, not even a post on their talk page. At least first tell the editor about NPOV and see if they act unreasonably. Then we'll see. Assume good faith first. Otherwise, what would you like done? Personally, I certainly am not going to block someone purely due to how they're editing, until they are disruptive. If a user trolling to edit Hitler isn't a clear block, this one certain isn't. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:47, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
I made it clear in my summaries that if the POV pushing didn't stop they would be reported. It didn't stop. They were reported. Nothing was done. Fine. K. Scott Bailey 05:55, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
I'm just saying, at least post a warning on the talk page. That way, someone will be sure that the user is seeing it. It is possible that a new user don't see the edit summaries. If they violate 3RR or are uncivil or whatever, report that and they will be blocked. Besides, a content dispute will not result in an immediate blocking. I'm sorry, that's just the way I see policy. Anyone disagree? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:13, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
One other thing. I know Dalai Lama is controversial (duh) but is this editor posting some language that is a repeat of some other user (like a banned one, you know a WP:SOCK?). I just wanted to check. If so, then a block is appropriate. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:17, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
They're very similar to ALL the pro-China vandals/POV pushers I revert on a daily basis. And it would seem that when an account is created, and then proceeds immediately to POV-pushing, that some admin action would be warranted. K. Scott Bailey 06:21, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Origin of religion[edit]

I am seeking comments regarding a recent incident regarding an article titled Origin of religion. I created this article over a week ago. However a number of editors were unhappy with the article and nominated it for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Origin of religion. The article was deleted because it was deemed to be a "Inappropriate content fork of the article Development of religion" and was OR and WP:SYN. It is my opinion that this decision was incorrect. This is because I do not believe that the title "origin of religion" and "development of religion" are the same topics. The apparent consensus on the deletion discussion indicates that the editors do believe that there should never ever be an article titled "origin of religion" but there should only be an article titled "development of religion". The admins redirected the page "origin of religion" and also protected it to ensure that no editor ever creates an article titled "origin of religion". To start with the thesaurus does not indicate that "development" and Origin are synonyms [22], [23]. Furthermore the some of peer reviewed scientific journals and books cited in the article use the term "Origin of religion" for example

Sources cited
The sources cited include:
  • "King, Barbara (2007). Evolving God: A Provocative View on the Origins of Religion. Doubleday Publishing." ISBN 0385521553. The author is is professor of anthropology at The College of William & Mary,this is her profile and these are are reviews on her book.
  • "Nicholas Wade - Before The Dawn, Discovering the lost history of our ancestors. Penguin Books, London, 2006. p. 8 p. 165" ISBN 1594200793, he is a science journalist for the New York Times. I figure since this is one of the most reecognized newspapers in the world, he qualifies as a reliable source.
  • The Religious Mind and the Evolution of Religion Matt J. Rossano, he is a professor of psychology at Southeastern Louisiana University, ::his profile
  • (1996) The Prehistory of the Mind: The Cognitive Origins of Art, Religion and Science. Thames & Hudson. ISBN 0-500-05081-3. by Steven Mithen, Professor of Archaeology, University of Reading, his profile.

I am therefore requesting input on this. If editors feel that origin of religion and development of religion are the same, I will proceed to add the relevant information to the development of religion article. Muntuwandi 05:01, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

As the article was deleted, I think you want deletion review. (Or you could talk to the admin who deleted it). Cheers, --Bfigura (talk) 05:04, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
I used the deletion review at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 October 16. However the admins were only interested in procedure and not content. Muntuwandi 05:16, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
There appears to have been a valid discussion there. I don't think it's fair to dismiss the conclusion of the DRV debate as overly focused on procedure over content. While you may not like the conclusion reached, I'm not sure the best approach is to keep asking different people until you obtain a favorable answer. Best, --Bfigura (talk) 05:19, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
This is my last request as I have mentioned that if editors here feel that there should never be an article titled "origin of relgion", then I will proceed to add the relevant information to the article development of religion. However even in DRV procedure, no editor addressed the issue of whether the title "origin of religion" is a valid and distinct topic. I requested a response on this question and nobody provided any answer. Muntuwandi 05:26, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
It WAS settled there. Now if someone could please take a look at my legit request above, I would appreciate it. Thanks, K. Scott Bailey 05:22, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
Editors took votes but the underlying question still remains unsettled and will definitely resurface again. For example some editors have already began suggesting that development of religion is in a mess and should be merged with other articles Talk:Development_of_religion#removing_synthesis_tagMuntuwandi 05:27, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Longer term discussions[edit]

Potential problem concerning episode articles[edit]

Moved to /Episodes. Mercury

User:Timeshift9 trying to "out" User:Prester John[edit]

Moved to /User:Timeshift9 trying to "out" User:Prester John. -- Cat chi?

Recent editing by PalestineRemembered[edit]

Moved to /PR. Mercury

The case on me here looked terrible while it was on display on the board (at least, I presume that's the reason people with respect for the project moved it out of sight). It's taken even more sinister directions now it's "hidden". It died once and was closed. It's now sprouting more allegations that are, yet again, completely baseless. Please have a look at this - Jaakobou has re-opened it in order to accuse me of sock-puppetry. There is nothing whatsoever to link me to the anonymous IP. User:Jaakobou has previously made at least one other reckless accusation of sock-puppetry against an editor in good standing. And this comes less than 2 weeks after he was warned and apologised for "Forum Shopping". I don't know what it will take to stop him wasting everyone's time. PRtalk 17:22, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Mass Speedy Delete Notices on Korean Military Rank Insignia Pictures[edit]

Moved to: Talk:Comparative military ranks of Korea

User:Angela Kennedy, User:MEagenda[edit]

I have indefinitely blocked the above users, in line with the Wikipedia policy on no legal threats, for this edit from Angela Kennedy and this very similar edit from MEagenda in particular. I have informed the users that they can be unblocked at any time if they rescind these threats of legal action. Would appreciate feedback, having never really taken action on legal threats before. Neil  10:48, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Quite right. My only problem is the daft idea that, after those who made the threats (typically grudgingly) rescind them that we do indeed unblock them. Legal threats are a spiteful attack on members of the Wikipedia community, with the clear goal of intimidating them into compliance or silence. Those who issue unambiguous threats, such as this one, should be permanently excluded for Wikipedia, regardless of whatever post-hoc wailing they make when the find their bully tactics have repercussions. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 10:47, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
Note Finlay's response was before I mentioned MEagenda was also blocked (although I think the response would be the same?) Neil  10:50, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
Doubleplusly so. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 11:00, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
Comment by (somewhat) involved editor: My personal impression is that AK is doing two things here: (1) accusing JzG of libel and (2) requesting information/material to be used in possible legal action against Prof. Wessely. However, I can see how it may be interpreted it as a legal threat and would hesitate to propose unblocking. I would advise the editor to accept Neil's offer and retract the problematic text. (A request for said information/material can be made via foundation e-mail; since the editor appears to be corresponding with Mr Wales, who was the designated contact last time I checked, it would be easiest to simply ask him). PS The same applies for MEagenda. Avb 11:07, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

These blocks seem completely unfounded, since the 'no legal threats' rule applies only to legal threats against users, not outsiders. There is really not an obvious legal threat, either. One can see a limited potential for a legal action, but it has not been announced. I am therefore kindly requesting to unblock both users. Thanks, Guido den Broeder 13:04, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Guido, they will be unblocked when they retract any legal threats. To me, it reads like they are threatening the preparing of legal cases against Guy Chapman / User:JzG. That is, by definition, a legal threat. Without even looking, I guessed you were not neutral to this, and a quick look of your contributions shows you are not. Neil  13:55, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
Excuse me?
Can someone other than Neil take a look at this? There is no legal threat against anyone. There may be a legal issue with Wessely, who is not a user, and that's all what can have been implied. Guido den Broeder 15:09, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
You can't be serious. User:Angela Kennedy: "Guys comments here... are libellous and defamatory, and this is not the first time he has made libellous and defamatory comments against myself. I am currently engaged in corresponding with Jim Wales about Guy’s previous libel... I therefore call on ‘Guy’ to supply those emails... to me directly so that I can forward them to my solicitor. I should remind ‘Guy’ that even if Professor Wessely HAS made such comments, ‘Guy’ is still guilty of libel and defamation by repeating false claims in this way." ([24])
User:MEagenda: "If Mr Guy Chapman holds any documentary evidence from any source (including from Prof Wessely, himself) that supports any claim or implication that I might have "harassed" Prof Wessely, in any way, then I suggest that he set them before me in a paper letter or in electronic form in order that I might forward them on to my solicitor to deal with." ([25])
Either those are textbook legal threats against an editor, or we've entered the Twilight Zone. Or, most likely, both of the above. MastCell Talk 16:12, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
How about: She wants to go after Wessely. If Guy thinks she has libelled him, forward the evidence to her so her lawyer can deal with them (IE, Defend her). That is what I get from the gist of the whole matter. Legal threats against Wessely and defense against Guy. Spryde 17:26, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
I still read it as threatening to unleash a solicitor upon Guy, and I note Angela Kennedy has not denied that on her talk page in response to the block message. Even if we go with your version, Spryde, whoever they may be against, they are legal threats. NLT does not draw a distinction betwen legal threats against Wikipedia, Wikipedians, or non-Wikipedian groups or people, and nor should it. Neil  18:54, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
Agreed. Just pointing out another angle people may have not considered. That is all. Spryde 23:50, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Point by uninvolved editor: It probably should raise some red flags when someone's username contains "agenda". shoy 13:12, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

  • Point by involved target: I never said who did the harassing, and certainly not down to the level of individuals, only that Prof. Wessely told me in an email that he had been harassed and threatened. It looks very much as if they were trying to iport their external battle, whihc is what they've been doing all along. I have no real opinion on the block, other than that it probably saved a tedious ArbCom case. Guy (Help!) 18:35, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

@Mastcell: I'm very serious, I'm inclined to consider this an abuse of power. It further troubles me that after my comment above, I have been called a liar by Neil, and suddenly the article ME/CVS Vereniging was deleted without discussion. Is this what Wikipedia is coming to? Guido den Broeder 00:02, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

I have to agree with the admins on this: these are legal threats. However, why was User talk:Angela Kennedy deleted to remove the history? Also, why was Guido not alerted to the addition of the speedy tag to ME/CVS Vereniging (eg with {{nn-warn-deletion}})? Guido openly admits a COI in this matter; I hope the admins here hold themselves to a similar level of openness and transparency in their actions. --h2g2bob (talk) 23:38, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

I think the ME/CVS vereniging discussion should go to DRV, rather than be shlepped along here for an unrelated reason. Guido should not have created the page to begin with, and it most definitely did not assert notability. We don't have articles on very large UK and USA patients' organisations (thankfully) for CFS/ME patients.

As for deletion of Angela's and Suzy's talkpages, accusations of libel were being made on Angela's talkpage. When I attempted to challenge these accusations, my posts were reverted. The only upside was that the user briefly stopped making threats. The wikilawyering would have continued on these very talkpages.

The subject of the article in question, Simon Wessely, has a number of critics. One is Malcolm Hooper, associated with MEaction.[26] Another is Martin Walker.[27] Most of the criticisms have been made on websites and in blogs, in self-published books, and in publications by membership organisations. A big WP:V problem, in other words. The only external sources on the conflict that we could identify were a newspaper article in The Guardian (which was challenged) and a short mention in an unofficial report by MPs (the "Gibson Report"). The latter source makes an unsourced mention of harassment by patients' activists, which is why Kennedy & MEagenda attacked its use so vocally. Never did JzG or myself directly accuse any person of harassment, and this troublesome comment was never actually part of the Wessely article.

I would hope some admins would be kind enough to keep Talk:Simon Wessely on their watchlists. The feelings that have fed the most recent spate of edits are not going away. JFW | T@lk 10:56, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

The correct way to address the removal of ME/CVS Vereniging, an article that was added in light of the Wikipedia:WikiProject Netherlands, is to approach the administrator who removed it. This I have done; I am now waiting for a reply. Please refrain from suggestive remarks v patient organizations ("thankfully"??). Guido den Broeder 11:06, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
I have replied on my user talk page. Basically, the article clearly fell under Speedy A7, as it made no assertion of notability whatsoever. If you disagree, take it to WP:DRV. Fram 08:54, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
With regard to JzG's accusations, see [28]. Guido den Broeder 11:27, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

I said "thankfully" because any article on a patients' association is fraught with WP:V problems. Also, I am entitled to my opinion. I am more than a bit worried by this user's further attempts at reopening the debate on Talk:Simon Wessely,[29] as well as less than pleasant remarks at MastCell (talk · contribs) on Talk:Myalgic encephalomyelitis.[30][31] JFW | T@lk 11:56, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

User:Azukimonaka Eugenics in Showa Japan[edit]

User:Azukimonaka has been carrying on with what has been rather Tendanacious and Disruptive editing on the article on Eugenics in Showa Japan.

The page has probably suffered from breach of the 3RR - see history [32].

User:Flying tiger has been working to improve the article by finding references and supplying further information. He has been accused of innacuracy and anti-Japanese bias. See [33]. This has including deleting sourced content that he deems innacurate[34].

User:Azukimonaka has been active on the Talk Page

However, he is quite obviously not a native English speaker. His sentances are very hard to understand, and he displays repeated signs that he is unable to understand the sentances or meanings of other editors actions.

He contends that permitting see also to related topics of Japanese socialism, facisms and war-time history link Japanese Eugenics to Japanese war-crimes. He also doesn't seem to understand that the article is not only about official legislation.

I have tried to address several of his valid concerns, as well as pointing out that several of his points are based on his misunderstandings of English. I even attempted to breakdown an edit as to why it was being reverted [35].

I think a (temporary) topic ban may be needed.--ZayZayEM 02:12, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

This article is an article that relates to Japan. Therefore, an original source is Japanese. They are rejecting an original source though I pointed out the mistake of the translation.
They are advertising the cruelty of the war crime of Japan though I confirmed their edit histories. (I do not criticize them because I understand the reason why they dislike Japan. )
I do not deny the Nanjing slaughter. However, Eugenics of Japan is a topic of the medicine and welfare. Neither the war crime nor the fascism relate.
For instance, it is not the military but the Japanese doctor societies that promoted the Eugenics law of Japan. Moreover, Birth control of Japan was promoted by Margaret Sanger and Marie Stopes. They relate even Recreation and Amusement Association established to defend the public peace of Japan to eugenics. (They falsified the source. )
This article is confused by their violent edits.
It was deleted by them though I wrote Eugenics in See also. And, they wrote. Japanese fascism, Japanese nationalism, Xenophobia in Showa Japan, Reproductive rights, Japanese military-political doctrines in the Showa period ...etc. Recently, they added the Leprosy quarantine policy of "Korea under Japanese rule". This is a topic besides eugenics.  
I proposed to make Timeline so that they might understand. I proposed to make them Timeline. However, my proposal was disregarded for the reasons that my English ability was low.
I think the eugenics of Japan to be an article on the medicine. However, they insist that the eugenics of Japan is a war crime of Japan. I think that it is useful to make Timeline to understand this article. Can they agree my proposal? --Azukimonaka 09:18, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

The problem is obvious. I worked a lot to translate the obscure sentences added by User:Azukimonaka, meanwhile, it is impossible to do the same with his exclusive japanese sources. His english is far better here than it is in the article.

The main problem is however User:Azukimonaka keeps deleting sources and categories from many weeks. I warned User:Orderinchaos about it on 9 October. [[36]]. Currently , he is accusing me of "falsifying sources" even if I just want to keep in the article a clear reference (with page number) from a well-known history book. He earlier acted the same way on Manchukuo but finally renounced.

We tried to explain him that we do not want to refer to eugenism in Shōwa Japan as "war crime" but simply keep the categories about the military and social context of the era but he keeps arguing this is Japan-bashing. There is simply no way to discuss with him as he has been agressive to me from the start, repeatedly changing my pseudonym and accusing me of being "bad faith" and ignorant of the "basic history" of Japan. --Flying tiger 14:45, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

This topic is an event of Japan. Therefore, the first information becomes Japanese.
And, eugenics is a history of medicine. Therefore, the history knowledge of the medicine of Japan is needed. Moreover, the knowledge of the welfare policy of Japan is also necessary.
You like to indict the war crime of Japan. (The east Asian who wants to advertise cruelty in Japan is not unusual. ) 
You are groundless though you added Japanese fascism, Japanese nationalism, and and Xenophobia in Showa Japan etc. Do you relate eugenics to the war crime of Japan based on what grounds though I define eugenics as the medicine policy of Japan?--Azukimonaka 17:52, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
If Timeline is used, it can explain the relation between the militarism of Japan

and the eugenics of Japan is low. (For instance, compulsory sterilization was done in 1948 though the law of Leprosy was approved in 1905. Flying tiger is being written that sterilization was begun in 1905. )

Could you agree to the description based on the Timeline? --Azukimonaka 17:58, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

I will answer to your comment even if it is not the place to discuss about the content of the article but about user's behavior and reporting incidents.

Your tendency to make superficial judgments makes you wrong once again. First, I am not "east asian" as you insinuated above. I am canadian and white skinned... Second, all the categories you keep deleting were in the article since the beginning (I warned you about those deletions on 4 september [[37]] but you did not even answered) while "xenophobia" and "military-political doctrines" were added by ZayZayEm. We explained to you a hundred times it was linked to the political context not "war crimes" but you keep arguing about "crimes". Third, I never wrote "sterilization begun in 1905" . Where is your source for 1948? This article [[38]] indicates that 57 seven babies slain between 1924 and 1956 were preserved in research center. "More than half were collected prior to 1948...." even if the law of 1907 did not permit therapeutic abortions. Fourth', this is an english site, if you want to write here, the least you can do is to bring english sources in priority. One or two can be OK when there is nothing more but ALL your sources are in japanese. How can this be useful for other users ? Do I bring french or italian sources here? Five , you have no excuse for your arrogant behavior and accusations of falsifying sources. The citation from Bix is clear, the Higashikuni and Shidehara cabinets had power to make administrative decisions whether you like it or not. Six, what is this "Timeline" stuff, I never read anything about that. What would be the aource ? Would it be in the article ? Please, answer in th article.--Flying tiger 22:17, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

This discussion is not about content. It is about behaviour. User:Azukimonaka has repeatedly deleted sourced content without valid explanation. He has misconstrued other editors behaviour and repeatedly deleted additions (namely relevant see also) under bad faith, and refused to accept other editors rationale for inclusion. User:Azukimonaka has displayed an inability to communicate and understand communication in English - I really hate to use this as a point, but when your lack of English comprehension creates edit warring scenarios, it is an issue. User:Azukimonaka also has a clear agenda to minimize any reporting of Japan in a negative light. This article does not really portray Japan negatively, nor does it tie Eugenics with any war crime or military movement, yet he insists it does.--ZayZayEM 23:13, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

I regret that you do not refer Eugenics very much. This article is protected now. I keep persuading slowly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Azukimonaka (talkcontribs) 12:46, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Problem of Flying-Tyger[edit]

1. Headline

Flying-Tyger wrote. Eugenics in Shōwa Japan were supported by politically motivated movements that sought to increase the number of healthy Japanese, while simultaneously decreasing the number of people suffering mental retardation , disability, genetic disease and other conditions that led to them being viewed as "inferior" contributions to the Japanese gene pool.[1][2].

The content being written in two sources is "The purposes of this law are to prevent the birth of inferior descendants from the eugenic point of view, and to protect the life and health of the mother as well." He concealed "and to protect the life and health of the mother as well". and emphasized inferior.

"while simultaneously decreasing the number of people suffering mental retardation , disability, genetic disease and other conditions..." is also wrong. Source 1 is written, "Only hereditary disorder". Source 2 is written, "or hereditary malformation, or the spouse suffers from mental disease or mental disability". However, this is an explanation of The Eugenic Protection Law approved in 1948.  --Azukimonaka 13:51, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Bad Faith User[edit]

Budlight (talk · contribs) recently tagged two articles I created (both over a month ago) for speedy deletion under G1 ([39] and [40]). This came minutes after I nominated a page he created for speedy under G1 [41]. He's obviously trying to make a point. SashaCall (Sign!)/(Talk!) 05:13, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

I was looking at this because your page is on my watchlist. It seems quite obvious that Budlight was trying to retaliate by nominating an article you created for CSD. Clearly a violation of WP:POINT. I suggest that a warning be left for this user before any action is taken. Ksy92003(talk) 05:16, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
I have left a warning (and removed the other speedy deletion tag). — Coren (talk) 05:19, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Can an admin also remind him that I can remove what I want from my talkpage. SashaCall (Sign!)/(Talk!) 05:21, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
I linked him to WP:USER in my last revert. I'll leave a note for him on his talk page. I also left him a warning of a near 3RR violation here. Ksy92003(talk) 05:25, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
Alison (talk · contribs) and I have just left him notes on his talk page about this. Alison has said that if Budlight re-instates the comment, then she will view it as disruptive and act accordingly. Ksy92003(talk) 05:29, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
I also see that Budlight just left Sasha a warning for 3RR, which isn't valid because Wikipedia:User page and Wikipedia:Don't readd removed comments allows her to remove comments from her own talk page at will. If this continues, then a block should be in order for disruption. Ksy92003(talk) 05:32, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Those articles are super-stubby, but they have context and notability. Pretty obvious POINTy retaliation to your proposed deletion of his joke (even if a pretty funny joke) Adam Cuerden talk 05:54, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Does cuerden mean anything in Spanish? It sounds like a Spanish word to me. This is killing me, because I speak fluent Spanish.
Anyway, the one thing that kind of made it clear that this was just retaliation was the template that Budlight used: {{db-nonsense}}. This is at least the wrong template to use because it isn't patent nonsense, the text is coherent, and there is meaningful history behind The Four's (best sports bar in the country by SI) so it was even the wrong CSD template to use. It seemed quite obvious to me that this was just a disruption/retaliation move by Budlight. Ksy92003(talk) 06:05, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
Quite. (Also, Cuerden is a suburb of Preston, Lancashire. I'm told it's an Anglicisation of the Welsh word for Rowans.) Adam Cuerden talk 06:14, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, I can't think of cuerden anywhere in the Spanish language. The only way it could possibly be a real word was if there was a verb corder or cordir, which I'm almost 100% certain don't exist. But the "uer" and "den" syllables are quite common in Spanish verbs. Ksy92003(talk) 06:17, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
People always say that, or French. I think it's because it's such a little-known place, and similar to words like guerdon. Adam Cuerden talk 07:18, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
Folks, this was poorly handled. This wasn't a "Bad Faith User" as the title proclaims. This was someone positively contributing to the encyclopedia who was affronted by a mistaken characterization of his work as 'nonsense' and acted badly in response. There actually IS a popular rephrasing of the 'Golden Rule' as 'he who has the gold makes the rules'. The only CSD this might have been speedyable under would be A7 (no assertion of notability), but even that is debatable as he did say it was a popular take on the concept... and no way no how was Golden_Rule_(Competition) a G1. Yes, his subsequent actions were disruptive... but so were the tagging and deletion under an incorrect premise and the fact that nobody took him at his word that he was trying to improve the encyclopedia rather than writing 'nonsense' or a 'joke' as has incorrectly been claimed. He was trying to add a valid use of the term. It is debatable whether there is enough notability and non-dictionary content to that use for inclusion (I think there probably is - though he had not yet provided evidence of such), but the article and his repeated statements about it being a serious effort should not have been dismissed out of hand as they were. --CBD 13:51, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

In regards to Golden_Rule_(Competition), I came here as a result of looking for that wiki page. I am searching for the history of the phrase, and similiar variations. If anyone can help me with this please leave a note on my talk page. - ---Wolfe (talk) 23:51, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Nazi Punk[edit]

I'm taking heavy-handed action against pro-motional links which for long have accompanied the entry. [42] El_C 11:42, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

  • Oh yes, do just that. 90% of those are promotional, not reliable sources. Nuke away. Guy (Help!) 11:51, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Thanks. Just noting that I was met with limited opposition. [43][44] El_C 11:55, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
Whilst I do not wish to furthur my involvement in this debate, I give reasoing for my original decision to revert here. [[Guest9999 12:08, 21 October 2007 (UTC)]]

Note that Guest9999 now agrees with me & apologized for reverting (which I gladly accepted). Unless someone objects, I'm staying the course. El_C 07:04, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

A little help please[edit]

Two days ago, I protected Bălţi for six hours because a slow edit was about to escalate. That got the two soldiers Dc76 (talk · contribs) and Moldopodo (talk · contribs) talking. I did remove what I believe to be a personal attack from Moldopodo user page (twice) and as a result, they are now fighting it out on my talk page. I expressed that I cannot give any more advice as my knowledge in the matter is absolute zero. I'm hoping someone more knowledgable in the subject is willing to step in as a mediator. EdokterTalk 22:22, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

They've asked me to become involved, but I have no knowledge about the subject matter. Corvus cornix 17:45, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Block of User:Voltron[edit]

Based on behavioral evidence collected by myself and Sarah, as well as checkuser evidence brought to me by Dmcdevit, I have concluded that Voltron (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) is a sockpuppet of indefinitely banned user EddieSegoura (talk · contribs ·