Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive334

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

Noticeboard archives


Morris (Slang Term)[edit]

A new user has just created this article, and I simply can't figure it out. That he created it fully wikified with a formatted referenced and proper link to Wiktionary is suspicious enough. On top of that, this article came complete with maintenance tags and a semi-protection template. I just have to be convinced this was copy pasted from somewhere, I simply can't figure out where. Someguy1221 (talk) 06:38, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Looks to be from Cool (aesthetic), with certain words changed. Already speedy-tagged. Kelvinc (talk) 06:56, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I tagged it. The article was created with a ?{{pp-semi-vandalism}}? tag by a new user. The speedy's been removed another editor; awaiting an explanation on the article's talk page. --健次(derumi)talk 07:03, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
I've gone ahead and deleted it... the speedy tag removal appears to have been from before the revelation that this was a vandalized version of that article, so the concern expressed at the talk page appears to be moot. --Kinu t/c 07:05, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
(e/c to Derumi)That would be me, and now it is deleted. I thought it might be a legit editor, hence the removal of the speedy and the welcome note, but it looks like a re-creation of "cool" but named as a neologism... :-\. Who knows, maybe the editor will still become productive! :-) --Iamunknown 07:08, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
Yes that is probably reasonable. --Iamunknown 07:08, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
Y'all move so fast, I feel like I'm playing some weird WP version of phone tag. :) I've posted a reply to your comment from the deleted article on your talk page; if the reason I gave (even if the article should be deleted) was illegitimate, I would like to know for sure so I don't repeat the mistake. --健次(derumi)talk 07:14, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
Recreated, and redeleted by myself, it indeed is Cool (aesthetic). -- lucasbfr talk 09:24, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
I see now why the article started out with the tags in place. --健次(derumi)talk 16:51, 29 November 2007 (UTC)



DYK needs to be updated. Three hours late. Great job, admins. Miranda 07:27, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Updated. Spebi 08:47, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

A request of the community's opinion[edit]

I absolutely had it with this user/puppetmaster. User:LionheartX (now User talk:Master of the Oríchalcos) is at it again. (don't be surprised if he trolls this very page, I'll bet on it) This time deliberately trolling my username change request. [1] as well as starting several bogus pages to tarnish my reputation. [2] [3] He was blocked in May for baiting me [4] to violate my arbCom parole (currently under review). He harassed me in ever page I previously edit in (including my userspace). His first account was User:RevolverOcelotX. He was community banned in this account (sockpuppet) User:RaGnaRoK SepHír0tH by former arbitrator User:Dmcdevit. [5] Dmcdevit said he not only a sockpuppet but a troll. "Surprisingly enough, people who, within one day of editing, engage in stalking and massive edit wars across many pages without productive edits, and are merely reincarnations of earlier problem users, aren't welcome here. Maybe I could have been more accurate in my block log, but I think you are a troll, and I don't use that word lightly." [6] Other socks include User:Apocalyptic Destroyer, User:Guardian Tiger User talk:ApocalypticDestroyer's (especially note the long chit-chat between this banned sockpuppet and his advocate User:Ben Aveling) and they were all banned after I reported them.

The last sock User:LionheartX took longer to block. When Durova finally blocked, [7] [8] , he somehow managed to get the block lifted under questionable, controversial circumstances (a behind the scene scheme by members of WikiProject:China?)

It seems like somehow, my editing record is worse than his. Somehow, he has the right to change his username from LionheartX to User talk:Master of the Oríchalcos after so many sockpuppet abuse while my username change request should be stalked, disrupted, harassed, and denied.

I was his favorite target. His long-term abuse and harassment (since summer of 2006 under various accounts) stalking, trolling, and abuse has taken a heavy emotional toll on me. (Full disclosure: I was away from 'pedia from June to November recuperating after his repeated, non-stop harassment caused a decline in my mental health) Please either permanently keep him away from me or ban him, please. If not, I got nowhere to go but to leave the project. I'm too emotionally-fragile to take this anymore. Let today be judgment day, I will leave to the community to decide who should go. Thank you. For more information please refer to User_talk:Certified.Gangsta#View_by_Certified.Gangsta, User:Certified.Gangsta/RevolverOcelotX, and,User_talk:Certified.Gangsta#User:Guardian_Tiger_Timeline--Certified.Gangsta (talk) 10:29, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Hm, ironic. I'd need to do some 'sleuthing' to check all that out, and you wouldn't want that would you?--Docg 10:36, 29 November 2007 (UTC) Strike - not helpful.--Docg 10:38, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
I assure you that I am editing in good faith, no matter if you believe it or not. I also truly care about the future of the project. Please don't play these jokes on me, especially not when I'm on the verge of an emotional breakdown.--Certified.Gangsta (talk) 10:40, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
Doc, you know what? Sometimes, I envy those who are blocked, relieved from duty like Durova, so they will not have to go through the traumatic experience I am going through throughout my years here.--Certified.Gangsta (talk) 10:42, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
Good grief! (anything else I could say on the subject would be uncivil) Wikidemo (talk) 10:50, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
CG, note that User:N1u was first tagged as your sockpuppet by Nlu in May 2006, though the evidence seems unclear (I really dislike when people link to just the contribs page as "evidence" when it's not blindingly obvious). His issue with your rename request seems like a valid one, even if the source doesn't have the best of intentions: I had the same concern actually, but withdrew my comment because I wasn't sure of the procedure. - would you be OK with an entry placed in your new block log referring to all three of your old usernames? That said, User talk:Master of the Oríchalcos's behavior does seem problematic. The reaction to your previous rename request combined with this one makes the link between at least those two accounts clear. —Random832 14:14, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

DYK late again[edit]


Archtransit (talk) 17:32, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Can someone update it please? Gatoclass (talk) 16:14, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism and terrorism from Jjs8 and Lalalajane[edit]

In the last week, sourced sections from terrorist Jane Alpert have been deleted, chiefly by User:Jjs8 [9] and User:Lalalajane [10].

The sourced material is always deleted after having been restored by many editors: [11], [12], [13], [14], etc.

This is a whole group of terrorists and radical feminists trying to whitewash articles about the Weathermen and taking turn to delete material; it also includes User:Historytrain, User:Tjcjaj, User:Ubothell1, and more. They've been warned on user and article talk page but they have no respect for life or law. It's going to get ugly if basic rules aren't enforced. (talk) 17:02, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

First off do not get on with assumpsition that they are terrorist accusatastion like that get innocent people arrested. But it is fairly likely that all users are socks if what you are saying is true and if it is they are breaking a guidline or two. But before I go out an say anything I wouldn't mind if an admin took a look at the case. Rgoodermote  18:01, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

I do not see much of a problem, the users seem to have been involved in an edit war. It seems that things have cooled down. So I doubt at this moment they are much of a problem. Though they probably should be watched in case they start another edit war. Rgoodermote  18:06, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Re: Dynamic anon IP stalking 2 users[edit]

New accounts, signed up solely to attack one article and its creator via WP:COI/N and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject LGBT studies, has a Verizon IP address tracking to Newark, New Jersey ( matching many others previously reported for the same pattern of attacks. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 04:47, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Seems to have stopped for the last day or so; however there is something to be concerned about here. Definitely seems to be pursuing someone. If he starts up again, a block for disruptive editing and wikistalking should be strongly considered. Daniel Case (talk) 05:20, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
It's useless here, Daniel, as the stalker is on a dynamic IP that changes faster than Washington State's weather. -Jéské (Blah v^_^v) 02:39, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
Another new account - same IP origin at - is continuing the attack as (talk · contribs). [15]. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 22:20, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
See this discussion Mangojuice's talk page, as well, This has been going on for over a month. It seems from previous discussions that there is little to do about it, but it is distressing to the prime target, Benjiboi, and those of us who are his colleagues here. Is it not possible to range block? I mean, if we can block all of Qatar from editing, can't we block a few anons who happen to be Verizon customers? Jeffpw (talk) 09:04, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
Contact the ISP and tell them about the harassment and where it's coming from - I'm certain that harassing others falls under the things that can get someone's Verizon account terminated. Otherwise, we can't rangeblock except for short periods due to collateral damage. I am, however, starting an independent sockpuppet investigation page on this guy; I have dealt with him on Sister Roma. -Jéské (Blah v^_^v) 05:27, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
The 2 IPs listed here are on 2 different /11 ranges. Blocking them both (if we could do it - we can't) would potentially block millions of people. Mr.Z-man 05:52, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the intel, Z-Man. Maybe an abuse or LTA report is in order? And could we get someone to close the COI/N thread he's started as bad-faith? -Jéské (Blah v^_^v) 05:59, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
A sock is continuing to add to the thread at WP:COI/N despite it being formally resolved. What's the protocol? Can we delete it as vandalism? Move to the poster's Talk page? Gordonofcartoon (talk)
The IP is dynamic, so he will miss talk page notes. I've since protected COI/N since at this point he's simply using it to troll and harass Benjiboi, leaving a link to a section on my talk page for IPs to submit COI reports. -Jéské (Blah v^_^v) 02:15, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

ISI Page[edit]

I have a screamsheet on him up here. Feel free to add onto it if you have information. -Jéské (Blah v^_^v) 06:13, 28 November 2007 (UTC)


The diffs in the COI case were utterly unconvincing and countered his own claims. I have closed tyhe thread; can we get someone on the phone to Verizon's NJ headquarters to report this person for harassment (if possible)? -Jéské (Blah v^_^v) 02:58, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Could we PLEASE get someone to contact Verizon?! -Jéské (Blah v^_^v) 20:17, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
Whois shows a phone number as "OrgAbusePhone". Perhaps we should try that or "OrgAbuseEmail". SmileToday☺(talk to me , My edits) 02:29, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
I'm asking if someone will do it because, in off-Wiki communication, I am rather meek when asking others higher in station than myself unless I'm familiar with them. -Jéské (Blah v^_^v) 05:27, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Semi-prot review[edit]

I have semi-protected WP:COI/N to stop the person behind the IP from using it to keep needling Benjiboi. I request a review of the prot. -Jéské (Blah v^_^v) 20:25, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Violation of agreement - Icsunonove[edit]


No admin action necessary

Several weeks ago, Future Perfect at Sunrise mediated between myself and Icsunonove for a permanent topic ban on editing with regards to the South Tyrol page/talk page. In a very short time, it now seems that Icsunonove is showing his true colors by ignoring/violating the ban with no regard to what was reached. He seems to be hoping the few short weeks have subsided and he can go back to status quo. With this, it seems there is no honor to such an agreement? Or is it that Icsunonove does not think that he was mentioned for a permanent topic ban and can just go about his business without regard? Rarelibra (talk) 08:14, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

  • "Showing my true colors?" There was never any topic ban, and I really don't know where you get this. Can you show me where this ban was made? If not I think you should take back those offensive comments you can't seem to keep to yourself. I personally think any sort of permanent topic ban is ridiculous, unless a user is truly malicious. On this topic, if there were to be any such bans, one would have at least a dozen Editors to censure. Icsunonove (talk) 19:07, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
Since Rarelibra has been banned from editing this topic because of the edit-war between him and User:Icsunonove, it indeed raises questions. Either User:Icsunonove honours the agreement, or User:Rarelibra is free again to edit as he pleases. Gryffindor 09:04, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
Link to prior discussion: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive320#User:Rarelibra
(copied from my talk page): Sorry guys, but as far as I can see, my proposed ban on both parties didn't at the time gain the consensus support it needed, and there certainly wasn't an "agreement" he subscribed to that he could be expected to "honour" now. I guess that's mostly due to Rarelibra's freaking out as he did, and his offence overshadowing those of Icsunonove in the perception of other admins. So, upshot is, Rarelibra's ban was a no-brainer, Icsunonove's not (unfortunately, I'd still say.) Right now, I see him editing more or less constructively, so there's nothing much to do. Fut.Perf. 09:16, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
So basically I am honoring the agreement and Icsunonove isn't - because he can go around and throw all kinds of insult around (as was proven) and provocation, yet continue to do as he pleases - just so I am totally clear and understanding this. It would be more suitable to ensure that he does not edit on that topic again - especially when there were more users who noticed how callous and insulting he was - whether or not my own actions overshadowed. I owned up to my actions, he NEVER has. But that's fine - I'll walk the high road. I only ask that the moment he starts to insult and slander someone off-topic that he is quickly and thoroughly stopped. Rarelibra (talk) 13:53, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
Wow, and I really thought your apologies were sincere from a few weeks ago. Take the high road? Like you are doing on here? I really thought you were going to go and do your own thing, and I had plenty sympathy if you have issues at home/work. You say I'm callous and insulting, and yet you guys are not? If you indeed want to take the high road, why did you find it necessary at the time to make those insults of "Italo-Fascist" when I was not even active on Wikipedia? Thought you might get away with it? You completely instigated this, you used profanity, you made legal threats on Wikipedia, you sent that sick e-mail. I defended myself, and I've apologized more times on here than your lot combined. So, that last sentence you wrote, I think it would be very wise if that applied to you. I just find it incredibly thick-skinned that you can do what you've done on here, offer up an apology, and then continue to try and point the finger at someone else. Find some way to relax... Icsunonove (talk) 19:07, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
Reviewing the thread Future Perfect linked to, I see no agreement and no community decision. I do think an RfC on Icsunonove might be a good idea; but it would be better if Rarelibra is not one of the certifying editors. Future Perfect, do you think that you and Septentrionalis/PMAnderson are both in a position to certify an RfC? GRBerry 14:43, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
Sure (although I haven't got the time and energy to bring it forward myself). And, as I said, right now I can't see much need for immediate action. With his main opponent removed, Icsunonove seems to be currently editing a lot more constructively. Whether that is because he now has free reign for his POV-pushing, I can't say right now.
I'm also not sure whether RfC would really be of much help. We really don't need more talking about who did what and who thinks what of whom. If and when this needs action again, the only thing that will need talking about, in my opinion, is who will be banned, from what, and for how long. Be that at admin/community level or at Arbcom. No more "intermediate steps" in dispute resolution, it's been going on for long enough that this should go straight to sanctions. Fut.Perf. 18:12, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
Fut.Perf., I really can't figure out what you have against me. "free reign for his POV-pushing"? You told me you are not involved in this topic, nor taking any side, but it seems you have some issue with me personally? Rarelibra is not some main opponent, and I don't even know why this stuff has to be stated in such a way... Icsunonove (talk) 20:33, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Before I get attacked on here yet again, lets do a little review here. I was on break from Wikipedia for quite awhile. I came back to see that Rarelibra and PhJ were slandering me to a new user, calling me an "Italo-Fascist". That's called instigation. I defended myself by pointing out that these guys have their own "history" on here, and are by no means neutral. This was returned to me through profanity and multiple threats of taking legal action. Rarelibra told the Admins he did not mean real legal action, but then sent me an e-mail through Wikipedia stating real legal action. I don't believe this was ever fully addressed. Then Rarelibra made an apology to both me and Septentrionalis/PMAnderson, stating that he had issues at home/work, and I left it at that. I'm easy to forgive and forget. Somehow he assumed that there was a topic ban, and I guess he was actually satisfied that he had taken one for the team to get at least me off of the discussions? Maybe that is why his apology was so forthcoming? I see no place that I've ever agreed not to work on the subject I care about; does he want to stop making maps?? Lastly, if there was ever to be a topic ban on this subject it could not be simply two editors. There have been many involved, including the Admin Gryffindor who arguably started a lot of these nasty debates back in 2005, and has been reprimanded many times by other Admins on his dubious actions. If you really want to start asking for RfCs I would suggest starting with Gryffindor on this topic and Rarelibra on the continued threats of legal action over e-mail (I still have the messages). They seem to have a need to go around Wikipedia stirring things up on multiple topics. I've worked a lot on these pages to come up with neutral solutions that have finally started getting the arguing to calm down and have pages that incorporate the multi-ethnic backgrounds of these places. What have these others done? All I get now is being made out as the bad guy by the German crowd? All along I've supported preserving both the Italian/German/Ladin language nature of these regions. Lastly, I do not understand why I keep getting accused of harassing Septentrionalis. I have no problem with Sep, it has been Rarelibra that has gone after him. Also, I don't know why out of the blue Future Perfect at Sunrise has laid his target on me. I have no problem with this Admin, except I do take issue with being singled out like this. regards, Icsunonove (talk) 18:56, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
The difference is, I don't instigate or get in any trouble making maps. Nor do I offer up insults, personal attacks, or other such negative behavior. Just know that any such behavior will be swiftly reported in the future - and I'll be the 'nice guy' (I guess) in avoiding the topic... no matter how POV. Rarelibra (talk) 00:40, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, that all sounds very nice, but you and PhJ were still the ones who found it necessary to go around calling me an "Italo-Fascist" when I wasn't even participating in the discussion. I guess you can sweep that fact under the rug, even though it is -- you know -- documented in the logs. Or did I misunderstand you, and you are actually saying that you don't instigate or make trouble when you make maps? Ok, I'll give you that one... :))) You can accuse me of being "POV" all you want, I've always attempted to be all inclusive and not biased to either point of view. That is nice that you'll be monitoring me; though I still think you should spend more time dealing with your own behavior and addressing those legal threats with the Admins. Anyway, lets see if this time you all can leave me the heck alone... Icsunonove (talk) 00:58, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
You fail to address your own actions. You come in acting like you are innocent. Your words of "I've always attempted to be all inclusive and not biased" smack of irony. You need to focus on your own actions. Just know that we'll make sure you stay respectful and professional - because it is easily proven across many talk pages of your own instigations and unprofessional slanders and personal attacks. Rarelibra (talk) 14:09, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
Enough already... You came on here and accused me of something I simply did not do, which only shows that you continue to make this personal. It is just another waste of mine and others' time. You've also tried to avoid your own AIN with regards to legal threats, profanity, and racist remarks by turning around and pointing the finger at others. By the way, you began this page with "instigations and unprofessional slanders and personal attacks". So much for your, and I quote, "I offer up a full apology to Icsunonove - who I ask of this, let us share the olive branch, go our separate ways, and contribute to wiki with positive and constructive vibes."; now there is some real irony! You don't even seem to realize that you are back attacking me in less than two weeks, after offering that olive branch, and for me doing absolutely nothing. Are you able to make that connection?? Is that a nice thing to do? Take some time and try to figure that out. See ya around. Icsunonove (talk) 22:33, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
Enough out of you! I came on here because I thought it was agreed upon - but yeah, Future Perfect proposed it. I guess you weren't going to abide by it either way. So technically, it would still be open for discussion amongst admins - that I am abiding by it in spirit is one thing, that you refuse is another. It just shows the true colors. I am not attacking you, either - what paranoia brings that on, well, who knows. I am merely pointing out that you, as I, should respect a permanent topic ban and edit elsewhere. By the way, I haven't avoided anything - I owned up to my actions. You haven't owned up to anything... and like you state, it is easily traceable in the history of many talk pages to see your unprofessional behavior and constant personal attacks - that was observed by several others besides myself. And it was commented on here on ANI. So you best reflect and remain professional yourself. Rarelibra (talk) 13:58, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
Your apology to us was false, obviously only based on your desire for a topic ban. But get this straight: there is no topic ban; there never was. I'm not wasting anymore time on you. Your anger/home/work issues, good luck with them, seriously. ciao. Icsunonove (talk) 22:38, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Careful - you are borderline attacking me. There was a proposal for a topic ban - that we could easily ask admins for further review. It's funny how you like to put words in people's mouths or statements of gradieur. Good luck with life - you are going to definitely need all you can get. Rarelibra (talk) 04:19, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Executive summary
There was no topic ban.
Icsunonove has violated no agreement.
End of story.

Ian Spackman (talk) 20:43, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

  • Anyone dispute Ian's executive summary? If not, I will simply close this thread with the comment that dispute resolution is right here.--Isotope23 talk 14:14, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Amen; resolving disputes is great. Icsunonove (talk) 22:33, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
If capable. Rarelibra (talk) 13:58, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Deletion of User:Etheltrust.[edit]

Resolved: page kept, no deletion, change made to WP:CSD policy. Tiptoety (talk) 06:20, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

To my understanding, userpages still fall under speedy criteria due to the fact that they are still classified as a main space, per here and here. I have marked this page for deletion multiple times and it has been denied, would like over all opinion.

Also take a look at this convo i had with an admin. Tiptoety (talk) 01:55, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
I was the second admin to decline to delete. The main part of my reply to Tiptoety about this was: "Hi there - I've no problem with deleting userpage spam under G11, or userpage attack pages under G10, but if someone wants to have a bluelink for their username and is happy with just having "la" on it to prevent it being a redlink or as a test edit, I don't see the problem personally. If there's a real problem, why not ask the user to add something in line with WP:USER rather than go for the speedy button? Technically, you may well be right, but frankly WP:BITE applies too. This editor got whipped with a speedy delete warning the very same minute that the account was created!"
Comments welcome about whether I'm misapplying the criteria but, to me, trying to delete one brand-new editor's user page three times is, well, perhaps over-enthusiastic. BencherliteTalk 02:11, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
I have to agree with the above, but I would like to add that the user page seems to have nothing that would constitute as a page worth of deletion. It is not like the user pressed every key and then cussed on the page. The user simply added "le" I see no problem with that. Rgoodermote  02:14, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
Maybe WP:CSD should be revised so userpages are exempt from G1 and G2. ~Sasha Callahan (Talk) 02:17, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
I declined as well, and removed the warning templates; I've been known to tag or delete attack pages or spam, but "la" doesn't make me want to delete. There are pages like this all over userspace, and it hurts nothing. Acroterion (talk) 02:18, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
It does seem to fall under the speedy criteria, but the possible harm of scaring away a new editor vastly outweighs the benefit of saving 2 bytes of space on the Wiki servers. --Bongwarrior (talk) 02:21, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
Now that is rash, no simply put it is two letters. If it is a problem instead of speedy delete suggest to the user that they need to make it more than just two letters. But again it is not like every key was pressed and they typed random racial slurs. Rgoodermote  02:20, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
Okay, Thank you for your comments, i guess i have just read the policy and was tagging it deletion because it did not meet it. I second the idea of re-writing the CSD policy. I did not mean to violate WP:BITE, and try very hard to welcome users, which i have proven i do quite often. You are right that the deletion warnings on the users talk page were a bit much, and if i could get WP:TW to stop doing that i would. Tiptoety (talk) 02:24, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
We don't need more rules. A user-page is an individual's for however they feel like using it — so long as it helps them collaborate. If they think that adding "la" to their page helps them collaborate in whatever way then we should be okay with it if it doesn't have any demonstrable harm, even if we don't understand it persay. --Haemo (talk) 02:22, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
I have my doubts that a re-write would be affective, but I will third it if a reasonable re-write can be decided. Good Night Rgoodermote  02:27, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
  • How about these:
    • G1-Patent nonsense and gibberish, an unsalvageably incoherent page with no meaningful content. This does not include: poor writing, partisan screeds, obscene remarks, vandalism, fictional material, material not in English, badly translated material, implausible theories, or hoaxes of any sort; some of these, however, may be deleted as vandalism in blatant cases. Pages in userspace are exempt from the criterion.
    • G2-Test pages (e.g., "Can I really create a page here?"). Pages in userspace are exempt from this criterion.
      • Just remember, userpages can still be deleted via PROD or MFD if needed. ~Sasha Callahan (Talk) 02:37, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

A user planning to take any action should ask himself or herself whether, apart from technically complying with policy, there is any purpose to that action? Tiptoety, what did you think that seeking to have this page deleted would actually accomplish? Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:39, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

As i stated above, i do not think it would accomplish anything, yet it violated policy so i tagged it. And that was that, after re-thinking maybe i could have just ignored all rules. I am all up for fixing up the CSD. Tiptoety (talk) 02:42, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
I would never put a speedy delete tag on a user page for something like that, especially not soon after creation. Not all of us is handy with a keyboard. The user may have been thinking up something to write when the speedy delete tag went on. I know from personal experience how confusing and alienating that can be-- the first article I tried to create was speedied because I had saved an empty page. My next edit would have created a stub, but the speedy delete tag scared me off. , Dlohcierekim 03:01, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

The criteria for speedy deletion do not, and were never meant to, require that any matching pages be speedily deleted if doing so would otherwise be counterproductive. Since WP:CSD did not actually clearly state that anywhere on the page, I've added a paragraph about it to the intro, for the benefit of any other newcomers who might otherwise end up similarly mistaken. (Feel free to improve the wording.) I've also added a specific exemption to CSD G2 for test pages created in users' own user space. I think that ought to be sufficient to address this issue. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 16:38, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

You dont think that should first be discussed on the CSD talk page first (though i do like the addition)? Also it still contradicts the sentence where it says that CSD applies to all mainspace areas (which includes userpages). Tiptoety (talk) 00:02, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

CSD Policy Change[edit]

You dont think that should first be discussed on the CSD talk page first (though i do like the addition)? Also it still contradicts the sentence where it says that CSD applies to all mainspace areas (which includes userpages). Tiptoety (talk) 19:26, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia policies are primarily descriptive rather than prescriptive, and I do sincerely believe that the edits I made reflect existing Wikipedia policy as currently enforced in practice. Certainly I have not seen anything, based on my participation in past discussions on the CSD talk page and other related forums, as well as my reading of other policies (such as Wikipedia:Deletion policy and Wikipedia:User page) and observation of past and current practical policy enforcement, that would lead me to believe that the interpretations of policy which I've sought to state explicitly with these edits would not enjoy broad community consensus. If you (or anyone else) believe this not to be the case, you're welcome to revert them and to seek wider community input on suitable forum — such as here, on the talk page and/or at the village pump — in order to determine consensus. (The latter is not absolutely required, as indeed few things on Wikipedia are, but it would be the polite thing to do when one is aware of the existence of a potential disagreement.)
In any case, I don't see any actual contradiction with the sentence you mention. The part about the general criteria applying in all namespaces simply means that, unlike the rest of the criteria, they are not restricted to any particular namespace but apply, as the name says, in general. Even if one were to interpret that sentence in the prescriptive sense you seem to be reading into it, that would simply mean that the general criteria, in their entirety, including G2, and including the exception to it, apply in all namespaces — G2 simply happening, thus, to have no effect in user space (as it has never actually been enforced there anyway). Anyway, you might want to note that a similar "contradiction" is already found in criterion G4 and, most blatantly, in G8. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 00:32, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
Well said, and i completely agree, just wanted to make sure the community did as well. I think we have beat this topic into the ground, and thus i will mark it as resolved. If someone does wish to argue the changes made to the CSD policy, you can do so on the appropriate talk page. Tiptoety (talk) 06:19, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

User:G-Dett's civility issues[edit]

Could someone please look at this edit summary -which is just the latest in User:G-Dett's routine behaviour, and remind her that WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL is in fact WP policy. Thanks. <<-armon->> (talk) 04:13, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

WP:NOFEEDING, WP:SPADE, and WP:NOSPADE are the relevant guidelines, but consider me reminded.--G-Dett (talk) 00:08, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
Actually, WP:CIVIL will be sufficient. If you want to add more, start with WP:KETTLE. <<-armon->> (talk) 02:29, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
Calling a point made by another editor "deceptive, insulting and stupid" seems pretty uncivil to me. Perhaps if G-Dett had left out the "stupid" part it might be different, but she didn't. 6SJ7 (talk) 10:38, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, 6, for your princely moderation.--G-Dett (talk) 00:08, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
I find it hard to believe that anyone could defend G-Dett's behavior in any situation, let alone in a routine content dispute when the other editor did nothing particularly unusual.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 12:15, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
Moshe! As someone who's sat meekly at your feet and learned about cheetahs, and in an effort to learn more regarding same even posed some precocious questions of my own, I am hurt and offended.--G-Dett (talk) 00:08, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
Note Phral Phrallington has since been indefinitely blocked as a sockpuppet. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 12:22, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
Wrong section I think.--G-Dett (talk) 00:08, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
i suggest G-Dett apologizes and agrees to be more civil in the future. JaakobouChalk Talk 16:57, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
Hey Jaakobou, the words you quote were up for a grand total of 12 minutes before I took them down. Glad to see you're such a fan/archival completist of my work.--G-Dett (talk) 22:56, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
Unbelievable. Don't people have anything better to do than judge the merits of other editors humor/sarcasm? (No offense G-Dett. I find you highly entertaining myself, but really.) Tiamut 00:44, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
Guys, I think you're making this too big a deal, honestly. Maybe a simple note on her talk page saying, "Would you mind refactoring," would suffice (and it seems would be moot, in any case). There is so much really harsh stuff that gets thrown around on a daily basis that's way worse than the above... there may come a time when the WP culture as a whole gets a lot tougher on anything that smacks of incivility, but we're a long way from that now. Also, if G-Dett really wants to be uncivil, I'm expecting/hoping for something much funnier... <<scratches head and wonders if it will be at own expense>> IronDuke 01:47, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
I don't expect a big deal to be made of this and I could care less if she apologizes. I'd just like her to stop the routine incivility and personal attacks. WP is not supposed to be a battleground, and it appears that she needs someone outside the conflicts she's engaged in to point out that there are in fact, behavioral standards here, and why that's so. <<-armon->> (talk) 02:29, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Alright, alright, I'm sorry. For now. To Tewfik, I dedicate a larded roast of his favorite mammal. Peace!--G-Dett (talk) 04:26, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Problems finishing a discussion[edit]

Can someone politely tell JzG and the other admins to let me please, pretty please finish my conversation with Haemo on my talk page? I got a sneaky (no warning, nor even a notice) 7 day block for 3RR, which was then made into a 1 month block for just using a "mocking" tone, which oddly became an indefinite block, again without discussion, nor warning, nor even a notice on my Talk page. Now bear in mind that even my worst detractors can't point to any "sins" by me apart from very vague accusations regarding my attitude -- which was the topic being discussed. Try to think of any other editor who got indefinitely blocked and has drawn such hostile comments without doing anything bad-bad -- no vandalism, no sockpuppets, no obscenities, no direct insults, nor any such nonsense -- just edits that have been accurate and consistently supported by refs and discussion on the appropriate Talk pages, with the only fault -- maybe, perhaps -- of not showing enough diplomacy at times. If you follow the discussion I started regarding my getting unblocked, you will see that it gets interrupted twice right in middle of my chatting with Haemo, first by MaxSem and then by JzG. Despite somewhat disengenuous claims to the contrary, there was no "soapboxing, etc," -- just go check.

I hope I'm not asking for too much -- I basically just want to be allowed to finish discussing my case for removing the indefinite block. I think December 1st would be a reasonable deadline -- it's just a couple of days off. And it is just my Talk page. Some of you might know that there could possibly be underlying off-wiki reasons for some of the things going on, but I promise to avoid bringing those up in this discussion -- I'll just stick to Wikipedia only topics. Thanks in advance for your consideration. (By the way, I'm not using any real "tricks" to post here -- my block is just kind of weird). -BC aka Callmebc 17:12, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

So you're bypassing your block to request it reconsideration? I have to say that this is not very likely to help your case. If you wish to appeal your case, you can do so on your talk page or contact an administrator by e-mail to make a posting here, but you should not do it yourself. TSO1D (talk) 17:50, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
His user talk page has been protected by JzG with the comment 'Changed protection level for "User talk:Callmebc": Incessant trolling, no realistic chance of an unblock. [edit=sysop:move=sysop]', so that avenue is blocked. I agree that he could have e-mailed an admin. I think we should be very cautious in protecting the talk pages of blocked users. Bovlb (talk) 18:13, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
Can someone point out the reason he was originally blocked?—Random832 19:01, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
Which time? He's been blocked ten times. See [16] Corvus cornixtalk 19:21, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
Umm, information without context is no information at all. Editing the Killian wikis is a tough, thankless endeavor. -BC aka Callmebc 03:51, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Callmebc was blocked for violations of WP:BLP following multiple complaints to OTRS over an extended period of time. The talk page was locked several times due to soapboxing and continuation of the same problem. Guy (Help!) 22:11, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Guy is omitting one or two minor details: the "OTRS" business involves...hmmm, how can I put this diplomatically enough....a little, some might say politically driven, "story" that doesn't seem to quite meet standards for WP:VERIFY and WP:PROVEIT (for starters) that a reference was added to back in September. There was, shall we say, a long, LONG "discussion" about how best to deal with said story by me and others that went on for a couple of months. While I was blocked from editing even my page, it was somehow decided that the discussion actually involved my casually maligning "people," so a whole bunch of redactions like this were made to both my page and the Killian wikis. And I don't quite get this "soapboxing" thing -- it seems whenever I try to defend my actions or explain anything, regardless of detail and circumstance, I get vaguely accused of "soapboxing" without any specifics given. It's like: Defending one's actions == Soapboxing. And it's a bit difficult to get a handle on there being a "continuation of the same problem" since nobody seems willing to talk specifics (or respond on point in general.) -BC aka Callmebc 03:51, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
That may be so, but I was watching the discussion and almost reverted your blanking and protection of the talk page as soon as I saw it. If Callmebc addresses the concerns, the block becomes putative rather than preventative. Haemo was giving Callmcbc a chance to change, a chance I believe he deserves, and you cut off their discussion without warning. Not the best move I've seen made. When the page was blanked and protected, Callmebc was not trolling or being disruptive. He was discussing the potential for being unblocked. - auburnpilot talk 01:17, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. You and I have had our differences, so I really do appreciate that comment. I was indeed discussing some options. I had already agreed to keep content disputes off the main article and try other means like RFC's to deal with what I would consider to be false info. And even if all the Wikipedia options to resolve it fail, I'll just suck it up and leave it alone instead of creating another revert war. As an admin basically told me in an email, if the consensus is that 2+2=5, then so be it, and if I find that frustrating, I probably shouldn't edit Wikipedia -- it's just a collaborative website. I don't know if this is a generally believed wiki-philosophy, but the discussion I was having on my Talk page was just getting into the nature of my attitude, especially in regards to other editors. One thing I did for a little while on Global Warming, which has chronic edit/revert disputes, was try to get discussions going on the Talk page rather than in back and forth edit summaries. I think I can make that my more usual approach for dealing with content issues. Bear in mind that I really have strong feelings about how Wikipedia, like any reference, should emphasize accuracy above all else. But I'm also well aware that a community atmosphere and a sense of collaboration is very important to regular wikifolk, many if not most of whom spend an enormous amount of time dealing with vandals and doing many small bits of copyedit-type work. These two aspects of Wikipedia are not completely incompatible, I suppose, if I can avoid stomping on people's toes in my usually impatient rush to get things done and over with.
So there are some things, I do believe, that are worth finishing up in discussion, if I am allowed to do so.... -BC aka Callmebc 03:51, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
That all sounds very reasonable to me (I'm unfamiliar with the background). Can't he be allowed to prove if he's a man of his word? Give him enough rope and all that?Alice.S 04:45, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
The background, in a nutshell, is that the articles involving the Killian documents are sort of like the haunted houses of Wikipedia, with long, strange histories and seemingly derelict -- until you try to bring out the mop & bucket (never mind the hammer & nails), when things then tend to become more like the House on Haunted Hill. (Which I suppose fits in well with giving me "enough rope," eh?) -BC aka Callmebc 13:05, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
  • I've been talking to Callmebc by email, and we'll see what happens. We're just talking at the moment. --Haemo (talk) 01:54, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Edit warring abrew[edit]

As I mentioned obliquely earlier, it looks like two editors -- mathewignash (talk · contribs) and The Matrix Prime (talk · contribs) -- are in a spat over a category name. It hasn't gotten to the 3RR level yet. Additionally, in my experience, neither one is big on talk-page discussions and both have a history when it comes to assuming good faith. This time, it's over Category:Primes and Category:Primes/Primals. Ultimately, my own thought is that the contentious nature stems from the entries' inclusion in one/the other is WP:OR; it comes down to "I think this" or "I think that" or "it's sooooo obvious this or that is true." More immediately, though, they've gone back and forth blanking one category then another and re-categorizing related articles. Take a look at the categories' respective edit histories to get a sense of it, although note that Category:Primes/Primals was earlier CSDed as being an empty cat. (per one editor or another's transition to Category:Primes.

Anyway. Toodles. --EEMIV (talk) 00:16, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

This is an odd creature: a category that looks like an article that also happens to improperly display a fair-use image. Regardless, it falls far short of the WP:FICT guideline, so I went ahead and left a note [17] on the user's talk page. If mathewignash and The Matrix Prime cannot resolve their differences (and manage to avoid 3RR violations), you might consider directing them to WP:DR. --Kralizec! (talk) 21:33, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
  • It should also be noted that mathewignash (talk · contribs) averted an indefinite block by promising not to upload any fair-use images and/or make any edits to image space articles. As is transparent from his talk page this hasn't happened. --WebHamster 21:52, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
When was the promise made not to upload fair-use images? The current fair-use warnings on his talk page are for images uploaded in October 2006, April 2007, and September 2007. --Kralizec! (talk) 21:59, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
It's all there on the talk page. Promise made: 28 October 2007, Deleted disputed fair-use images: 22 between promise and 26 November 2007. There are also more disputed fair-use warnings that haven't been deleted. And there are 3 no fair-use warnings 26/27 November 2007. --WebHamster 22:10, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
Incidentally, the admin who unblocked based on the promise was Steel (talk · contribs)--WebHamster 22:13, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
Sorry I was not more clear. All the fair-use warnings I reviewed were for images that were uploaded back in April or September this year, or October 2006. None of these warnings appear to be for images uploaded after September 2007. --Kralizec! (talk) 22:58, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
Also, I did a spot-check of ten recently uploaded images, and all were tagged {{GFDL-self-no-disclaimers}}. Are you sure you are not confusing the date the fair-use warning was issued with the date that the image in question was uploaded? It often takes BetacommandBot weeks (months?) to catch up and check all the uploaded images. --Kralizec! (talk) 23:03, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Troll gone wild![edit]

WTF is this..? Have a look at these contribs! Ira01 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log). Is this aceptable?--Hu12 (talk) 03:43, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

I can't tell from here because I'm uninvolved, but informing all interested parties of a MedCab case is acceptable. If they're requesting those users from a specific side of the dispute or uninvolved parties, then it becomes a question of canvassing. -Jéské (Blah v^_^v) 04:13, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
Uh, first edit being to a mediation? In fact, ALL edits being to a mediation? Sounds like an SPA to me. I'm not going to block, but someone else should. His very first edit was to start a MedCab case against Hu12, and nearly all of his edits are canvasing, editwars, etc.SWATJester Son of the Defender 04:39, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
According to Ira01, he signed up with a user identity because he could not go into mediation without one. That is why his first contributions under that identity all have to do with mediation.Gothere (talk) 23:18, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
Sounds like a plan. Dlohcierekim 04:43, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
I would block if I was an admin. I would suggest just blocking anyway, Jester, as the issue is already before the community, and if anyone really disagrees. This has WP:DUCK written all over it. The Evil Spartan (talk) 05:41, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Rylong blocked him. Seems fine to me. --Akhilleus (talk) 05:48, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Ira01 is requesting a review of their block. The block appears fine to me as well, but I am not familiar enough with all of the details of this case to handle the request. — Satori Son 21:51, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
I am not requesting an unblock for Ira01 right now since it is both temporary and I think a cooling off & educational time period should be helpful. Ira01 is not trying to be a troll. He really is a clueless newb. If anyone else would like to assist in educating him about wikipedia & a handful of other potential contributors about the philosophy, culture & processes surrounding Wikipedia please join in the conversation here:
Although Ira01 did screw some things up. I really do think it is from lack of education. This quick block process has not left him any wiser. I post in that forum as 'onthefence'. Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions or concerns. Thanks. Gothere (talk) 23:18, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
While I am sure your jesture is well ment, its quite unclear why wikipedia would need to provide a platform for anything related to wikipedia policy and behavioral guidline?--Hu12 (talk) 00:08, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
I tend to agree (if it matters). But then where to have the discourse Gothere suggests? NewHorizon (talk) 00:48, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
The reason why I suggested it is because with Wikipedia discussion format is a little difficult for new people to utilize. Ira01 is clearly confused. I was looking for a little bit of expert help in clarifying matters, but if you are not interested, I don't blame you for not wanting to get tied up in another forum. In the mean time, I will see if I can convince Ira01 to sign up for the "adopt me" program. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gothere (talkcontribs) 01:22, 30 November 2007 (UTC)Gothere (talk) 01:23, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Want point out that there are serious conflicts of interest in all the editing that has occured.→ It appears all the disruptive editing was a result of Prosper lenders, reverting in order to use Wikipedia for promotion. clearly Violates WP:NOT!--Hu12 (talk) 01:38, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

"It appears... in order to use Wikipedia for promotion." Want to point out that your presumptive characterization of this segment of the Prosper community, of their motive(s), and of the neutrality of the site is an ad hominem attack, entirely unfounded, totally incorrect, and generally runs counter to the theme of the "good faith" otherwise prevalent among WP admins. "Everyone was new once, and most of us made mistakes. That's why we welcome newcomers and are patient with them, and assume that most people who work on the project are trying to help it, not hurt it. ... Before a block is imposed, efforts should be made to educate the user about our policies and guidelines, and to warn them when their behaviour conflicts with our policies and guidelines." NewHorizon (talk) 02:27, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Testing the Limits of Username Appropriateness[edit]

Resolved: WP:RBI, WP:DENY, etc.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 09:58, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Bonerific (talk · contribs) was blocked for their username and attempted to make a case about working in a meat plant as a deboner of animals or some such possible trolling. Soon after their unblock appeal was rejected, Cocktastic (talk · contribs) showed up on the scene, preemptively claiming to be a farmer of gamecocks, etc. Essentially a similar telling of the story with slightly different parameters. So... is it safe to assume that this is likely continued trolling by the same person, or should there be a WP:RFCU? Or should I assume that the story about this editor's occupation is true? I'm shaking my head and rolling my eyes here, so maybe this is an obvious block of some sort. Ideas? --Kinu t/c 05:26, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Pretty obviously the same person. I asked Cocktastic if he knows Bonerific. Cheers,JetLover (Report a mistake) 05:35, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
(EC)The story seems unlikely at best, but a block for their name is appropropriate anyway, because even if it is inoffensive to them, other people aren't going to see it that way. A checkuser would be a good idea, just to clarify things--Jac16888 (talk) 05:36, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
If it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck... The Evil Spartan (talk) 05:40, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
Not duck but dick, I think. Such sensitivity! If it's named like a dick, who cares? If on the other hand it behaves like a dick, then take the appropriate measures (even if its name would satisfy "Focus on the Family"). -- Hoary (talk) 05:48, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
Sounds about right. And it wouldn't surprise me if the recently created Bonerfide Editor (talk · contribs) was somehow related to this too. --Kinu t/c 05:50, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
Stop listening to sob stories. If it's likely to offend, it's offensive. User:TheCockGobbler does not get a free pass because they used to eat male chickens. --Haemo (talk) 05:56, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
Who, me? I've heard no sob stories. I didn't even notice what "Bonerific" might be about till I read on and was primed by "Cocktastic" in the same context. And "Cocktastic", which I did immediately understand, didn't offend me in the slightest. I suggest (i) that people have more important things to do here (let alone elsewhere) than zap UIDs that somebody somewhere might find offensive, and (ii) that anyone offended by "Cocktastic" (let alone "Bonerific") thereby demonstrates a very odd combination of readiness to see dicks and sensitivity to colloquialisms about dicks. -- Hoary (talk) 06:08, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
These accounts are being created just to be annoying and disruptive as evident by a recent post here by one of the various users. They are here to be disruptive. No one named "Bonerific" or "Cocktastic" is going to be a serious editor.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 06:11, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
That I can believe. I'll buy "Username suggests that he'll behave like a dick". Still, why not wait for him to behave like a dick? As it is, people banning his usernames are wasting more of their time than his (assuming he has a thesaurus at hand), as they can never be sure which UID he'll think of next. -- Hoary (talk) 06:25, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
I had no idea this would generate such discussion. Alas, here you go: behaving like his namesake. Very mature. WP:RBI. --Kinu t/c 07:13, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
It is not a stretch for someone to see the term "cock" or "boner" as offensive. --Haemo (talk) 06:17, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
It isn't? But the person would have to parse "bonertastic" (or whatever it was) as "boner"+"tastic", and then read "boner" as "erect penis". Let's see ... my mother wouldn't have known the word "boner", and if she had she'd have merely shaken her head at this person's puerile choice of name. So who's offended here? (Shall I phone my wife and ask her if she's offended?) Yes, all in all I'm in favor of his use of a stupid UID: it's a convenient sign that he's a fool. Have him call himself something innocuous, and his edits then wouldn't ring alarm bells when they appear in edit histories. -- Hoary (talk) 06:25, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
How else do you parse it? It's how I parse it, and while I don't get offended easily, I definitely don't feel that people running around with usernames about their erect penises is an attractive environment to contribute in, and could definitely see how someone (indeed, people I know) would be offended. --Haemo (talk) 06:29, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
I didn't parse it as I read it, just as I don't parse most people's usernames. (Incidentally, I take yours to mean "blood", which has a lot of unpleasant associations for me, but about which I don't complain.) Ah, I now see it was "Bonerific". I suppose "rific" looked reminiscent of "terrific"; I didn't think of "bone" as it has so many meanings -- unless of course you're primed by "cocktastic" or whatever (or, to phrase it unkindly, are obsessed with dicks). ¶ It's not hard for me to come up with usernames that I think would be offensive to most people (including myself). (I could for example use "lynch" and "nigger" in close combination.) I wouldn't defend such usernames. Meanwhile, the fact (in Wales's view a glorious fact, in mine a dismal one) is that any damn fool can edit Wikipedia unless he's persistently and blatantly stupid. Yes I'll agree: "Cocktastic" is the UID of a fool. Again: better that he consistently calls himself "Cocktastic" than that he pops up every day with yet another among the millions of potential ways of praising his own dick, or, worse, edits stupidly under an innocuous and thus inconspicuous UID. (In my unjimbolike opinion, much better still if everyone had to apply via email for permission to edit WP, whereupon fools like this would be around for a maximum of one day per month -- but that's not going to happen.) -- Hoary (talk) 06:45, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

No offence intended but I love the irony of this thread about a phallus related username being marked resolved by an admin whose name parses as "Are You Long?" :) --WebHamster 10:30, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

LOL. Dlohcierekim 14:51, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
My name is parsed in two different languages and not pronounced that way. "Ryu" and "Long" are each one syllable. I'm also too lazy to come up with a more creative name.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 22:26, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Violation of WP:NPA[edit]

User Chanakyathegreat has violated WP:NPA. See this [18]. He commented about me 'Ota crap is a fanatic Christian fundamentalist. More religious than the pope. His version is to spread Christian propaganda. He has started multiple articles with links to fundamentalist Christian websites. He need to be banned and all the edits by him reverted'.

User Nikkul had violated WP:NPA. He commented 'This user's intentions are obvious'. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 08:17, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

That latter would not be a violation of WP:NPA, but possibly of WP:CIVIL. Corvus cornixtalk 18:37, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
No, wait, I take it back, I missed the misnaming of your Username. Sorry. Corvus cornixtalk 18:45, 29 November 2007 (UTC) (talk · contribs · WHOIS)[edit]

Resolved: No further action required.

I have a little conflict with, who keeps re-inserting a rather POV "Critisism" section on Kitchen Nightmares (talk), linking to his own blog and breaking virtually every other rule in the book as well. I've tried explaining him why the section doesn't meet Wikipedia standards, but the editor seems to ignore my arguments, and has now broken 3RR as well. I can't make any adminstrative action, as I'm now involved. EdokterTalk 15:32, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

I think I may have waded into the dispute. I saw the ip's edit on Recent Changes and reviewed it, then removed the section with WP:RS as a rationale. I didn't see the back and forth until I checked the history - and saw that you posted it here. Fumble on me. Is there already a 3rr report in the works, or should I leave it be? ZZ Claims ~ Evidence 16:18, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
There's no 3RR report yet; I was hoping some outside view might settle things without resorting to blocking. If anything, your revert helped establish some consensus. Giving your view on the article talk page might help, as the editor did request third opinions. EdokterTalk 16:38, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

I am the editor in question. Here is some background for you to consider.

The section in question is about criticism of the TV show for portraying events in an untruthful or misleading manner. It's relevant especially because it provides larger context to the lawsuit issue which is addressed in the entry. This section was not created by me; I was completely unaware of it until I noticed hits from it coming into my website.

I came in and noticed two things. First, the cite was done incorrectly - it should have be listed as a footnote, not a link dropped in the middle of the article. I specifically did NOT change this myself, because I didn't want to be seen as linking to myself. Second, the original poster of the section had a fact incorrect. I fixed that and added two other facts.

Are blogs reliable sources? They can be. I would argue that on this subject and these facts, my blog should be considered reliable. I am a subject expert on media and television production and anyone who needs references can email me for more. I have spoken at dozens of conferences, given published articles in various magazines and was an editor in chief of two magazines, both of which had national newsstand distribution. The cites were to posts where I reported on interviews that I had with the people involved in the show - not rumors I heard or something I read somewhere but direct interviews with the subjects. My blog contains many posts on the subject of Kitchen Nightmares specifically and at least three people involved in the show have also commented directly on my blog themselves about the show - and I spoke to them to confirm that it was actually their comments.

Additionally, there are multiple sources - not just my blog - that confirm an unusual level of fakery with Kitchen Nightmares. I was in the process of trying to cite those other sources - when the entire section was pulled down.

The admin could have asked for another cite or asked me a question. Instead, it was deleted. And when the admin states that I was "breaking virtually every other rule in the book as well" you can tell that he is going for drama, not a clear and concise explanation. I didn't ignore his arguements; they weren't valid.

Ultraexactzz waded in and stated that 'blogs aren't reliable sources'. This is not Wikipedia's position. Yes, there are reliability issues that are raised with self published material - and I am more than willing to answer any issue that I haven't already addressed here or to clarify anything. If anyone wants to check my facts, they are welcome to do so, too. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 16:59, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Reverting back and forth and making your arguments in edit summaries is usually not a good way to go - this applies to both sides. if you have other sources, etc, go ahead and state them on the talk page. And, it's regrettable, but people do tend to assume the worst of non-registered users, and that may have contributed here. —Random832 17:18, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree about the problem with reverting which is why I am not going to revert the entry again. And I also agree about the non-registered user thing, but I've stated clearly who I am...and I can't change the past.

Now the issue to me a correct view of Wikipedia policy. Stating 'blogs aren't reliable sources' without further clarification or facts isn't correct, is it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:22, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Generally, blogs are considered unriliable sources. Blogs are self-published, which makes them count as original research. See Are weblogs reliable sources?, which is linked from the reliable sources page. Also, I did not asume the worst, I simply saw an editor not understanding the rules, and trying to correct it. Had I asumed the worst, you would heve been blocked by now. EdokterTalk 17:40, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that's what I said. Generally, a blog may not be reliable - but if you read the cite you sent there are exceptions. Generally does not mean 'no blog may be a source' - self published material may be cited as a source. So - why specifically was my cite considered unreliable? Specifically, not 'because it's a blog'. Have you read the articles cited? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:47, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

And what administrative action is required here? east.718 at 17:50, November 29, 2007

I didn't move the discussion here, Edokter I don't know, really. I asked him for a Truce so I could add references. He said no. I asked for him to switch it to another editor. He said no, but one someone sort of agreed with him he said it added consensus.

My issue is simple. What facts are in dispute? What statement was non-neutral? Where is the specific reliability issue? I keep asking for specifics - over and over - and not once has a specific example given about the facts or cite being questioned.

Usually, there's an example. "UserX cited sourceY about something. SourceY is unreliable for reasons A, B, C - plus it's a blog." I'm just getting 'it's a blog!'. Yeah, it is. Where's the rest? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:01, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Shorter - in absence of any supporting specifics to refute the entire Criticism section, and given the history I stated above - the Admin action is 'please restore the Criticism section on Kitchen Nightmares' so that I or other can expand it. I'd consider that a truce, I guess. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:06, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

(ECx2) The main problem is (un)verifyability, not truth. Facts are not important if they cannot be cited by a reliable, secondary source. Then there are other issues. First neutral point of view; No-one will dipute that the show is dramatised. In fact, it is a public secret. However there is no need to analyse this particular instance. Doing so puts an undue negative point of view to the article. Second, we have conflict of interest. It does not matter who put the link up first; by putting the link back, you create this conflict of interest, as you have a direct interest in that link being present. You wrote that blog post, meaning the cite is no longer neutral. Which bring us to the third issue: Original research. As you wrote the blog post, it's content is a direct result of your own research. Last, as all material needs to beverifyable, it needs secondary sources. Currently there are none. All these things combined makes the Criticism section over-all unallowable. I hope that explains it a bit. EdokterTalk 18:08, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

east718, given that some time has passed with no further activity, I think that there's no need for any admin action at this time. Edoktor's argument above is persuasive, but - if there's a source somewhere that corroborates the claims made on the blog - maybe some of the information can be kept. There is discussion at the talk page, and I'll see if I can contribute there. Thanks, ZZ Claims ~ Evidence 19:03, 29 November 2007 (UTC)


Resolved: Temporary glitch

This article has been the target of some anon IP activity today due to the "Teddy-bear" incident. This is likely to continue. In fixing the vandalism, however, the inline refs seem to have got mangled. Could someone check this out & confirm this, then semi-pp for, say, 24 hours please? --Rodhullandemu (please reply here - contribs) 19:48, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Vandal returned[edit]


Could someone check out (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). New run of vandalism after two previous blocks. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 19:40, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Reported at WP:AIV --Rodhullandemu (please reply here - contribs) 19:46, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
And as I see he's blocked for a month, even though I am not an admin, I call this resolved. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 19:50, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Corrado 72 (talk · contribs)[edit]


Would someone mind reminding Corrado 72 (talk · contribs) to be nice? His edits and tone... are a bit extreme. [19] [20] [21]. Thanks. • Lawrence Cohen 20:29, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Clearly a sock of Layla27. Blocked. IrishGuy talk 20:42, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

FYI, recent glitch involving tags[edit]

As being discussed on Village Pump Technical, there appears to have been a glitch involving a few tags. Some pages have been corrupted that were edited during that time frame (currently 19:16 to 19:30 but could be larger). This page was not exempt from the corruption. One sign is if the page contains the UNIQ...QINU string which is a previous tag that has been corrupted. Just making everyone aware of this. spryde | talk 20:35, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Also some discussion at WT:AN. The end time is whenever they locked the database which I remember happened after several minutes of this stuff going on. NoSeptember 20:46, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Wacked out diff examples[edit]

Regarding this diff: This afternoon I went to apply an {{update}} template to Comparison of BSD operating systems (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) without substituting the template. I edited the page via the standard form-style webpage editor provided by Wikipedia (no external editors or utilities) using Opera 9.24 (build 8816) under Windows Vista, and the only change I made was inserting {{update|article|date=November 2007}} (standard syntax for templates). I did not subst: the template, and I'm pretty sure I used the Preview option before submitting without noticing additional changes. I cannot explain how the rest of the changes occured, and am unsure if it's a broken template, a bug in the software, a problem with my browser, or what. Any help would be appreciated, as I am hesitant to make additional contributions to the project until I know what happened. DANKOO MULTIPASS. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 20:38, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

I got two as well, here and here that someone else found. • Lawrence Cohen 20:40, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
See the section above. spryde | talk —Preceding comment was added at 20:43, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

vandalism and agenda pushing in 2007 civil unrest in Villiers-le-Bel (France)[edit]

please can you monitor and stop ongoing vandalism by agenda pushing users in the 2007 civil unrest in Villiers-le-Bel (France) article. these people are removing sourced facts and adding false and unsourced statement instead, and they are also adding confusing characters in the said article. thank you. Cliché Online (talk) 21:07, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

I am uninvolved in the content dispute, but I have been posting messages warning Cliche Online that I will block him/her if more civility is not shown. Cliche Online has also been edit warring and accusing other editors of vandalism, though this is clearly a content dispute and the other editors simply disagree with Cliche Online regarding the content. Cliche Online's position also appears to be on the short end of the developing talk page consensus, for what it's worth. I issued a final warning to Cliche Online just before I saw this message, encouraging him to discuss the situation civilly. · jersyko talk 21:12, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
I have blocked Cliche Online for 24 hours for edit warring and continued incivility. Cliche Online continues to refer to the users on the opposing side of the content dispute "vandals". My suggestion is for Cliche Online to read WP:DISPUTE. · jersyko talk 21:18, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Who'm I gonna call?[edit]

OK, on the talk page of User:JNW we have recently seen an entity describing itself as User:Whistlersghost sending him comments in ye olde Englishe seemingly telling him to leave certain pages alone. Those edits have been the only edits this editor has made under this name [22], [23], [24], and [25], other than one edit to create a userpage here. Presumably he called himself something else when he was, um, living. Which of you all around here handle exorcisms? John Carter (talk) 22:15, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to guess that this is either a new account for someone who was editing previusly on a different one at James McNeill Whistler, or someone who is just pulling JNW's leg for other reasons. JNW's edits to that article are reasonable. I can't see anything that needs administrative attention at this time, but this will change if wg repeats his behavior. Feel free to speak to the ghost and advise him that his conduct is not appropriate, and that exorcists and ghostbusters are available should the need arise. GRBerry 22:33, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
Blocked for trolling and attempted harassment. Exorcised as it were. IrishGuy talk 22:34, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
Wow, you all work quickly! While all manner of phantasmagoria exist in artist's studios, it is disconcerting to encounter them online. Thank you, JNW (talk) 22:46, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Apparent sockpuppetry[edit]

I can't do a checkuser to be absolutely positive, but it would be most improbable if these accounts weren't sockpuppets, or at least meatpuppets. User:Xantheif src created Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/xantheif src at 23:10, editing it again at 23:19. Then at 23:22, User:Commonthoughty11 !votes support at the RFA (the account's only contrib). Then User:Judaspolice !votes support at 23:24 (the account's only contrib), using the same format. Putting two and two together: sockpuppets. Useight (talk) 23:44, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

You don't need a checkuser to call these guys sock/meatpuppets. Someguy1221 (talk) 00:03, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
I don't have checkuser and I called them socks anyway. Either way, it's irrelevant whether I called them socks or not, they're definitely socks. I just couldn't do anything about it, so I brought it here. Useight (talk) 00:10, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
I'm sorry if my comments/edits seem hurried or hasten right now, I'm actually at work and can only edit in quick spurts. Useight (talk) 00:16, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
(EC) If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, it's probably a duck. нмŵוτнτ 00:27, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
I didn't bring this here for confirmation as to whether these accounts are socks or not, and I am already aware of WP:DUCK. I brought this here so the sock accounts could be blocked. However, I don't know what I was thinking (it's been a long day and I'm editing from the office so I get interrupted a lot), I should have taken it to AIV in the first place. I'll report it there now. Useight (talk) 00:46, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
Upon actually getting a response from the user, I don't think there was any malicious intent in the use of socks. Just a newbie who didn't know the rules doing something silly. Block the socks, sure, but I don't believe any action is necessary against the puppeteer. Someguy1221 (talk) 00:53, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
After I reported the socks to AIV, they were both blocked. I also agree that no action is required against User:Xantheif src, just some guidance as he gets started. Useight (talk) 01:09, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Speedy Delete Help[edit]


attack page User:Lilsweetie07 11 deleted. Pegasus «C¦ 00:36, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

I am having problems keeping a speedy delete template up and keeping the user from blanking the content before putting up a hangon tag. Could some one take a look at it

User:Lilsweetie07_11 also it seems that not only is his user at it but User:KyAngel7. But it seems that both users know each other in some way based off of this. Both users seem to not have any knowledge of Wikipedia guidelines. Rgoodermote  00:26, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

User:Critical Reader[edit]

Critical Reader (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log), is an WP:SPA whose edits revolve solely around the promotion of Norman Golb and the dismissal of any views that criticizes Golb's views.

He edits exclusively on related articles:

Critical Reader has created several sockpuppets, or has likely engaged in canvassing to attract like-minded new people which have interacted on these articles, and has already been found of using sockpuppets to promote his opinions. See Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets/Critical_Reader

In addition, the following aliases are likely meat/sock puppets for 'Critical Reader':

All of the above user accounts:

  • are single purpose accounts, editing/commenting exclusively on these articles and about the debate invlving Golb's views
  • created on or about the same time period
  • use similar style, grammar, vocabulary
  • all use a litigious, combative approach
  • possess knowledge of the debate

I came across this user and these articles upon a posting at WP:BLP/N which I monitor, attempting initially to address some BLP concerns related to the William Schniedewind article (see Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard/Archive23). Later on I became involved in actively editing these articles, only to become the target of this user and his sock/meat puppets's vitriol and personal attacks.

I had enough now, and intend not to continue developing these articles with these people around: I do not need the aggravation. Left unwatched, these articles are likely to become a POV magnet for this user, which has already been found out to be off-wiki, a very prolific poster of the same exact arguments, and with the same style, in blogs, and in comments made to online newspaper articles on the subject. This information is available to interested admins upon request.

There are additional concerns filed in OTRS ticket #2007112710018004 by a third party.

I request an indefblock, topic ban, probation, or other such remedies for user:Critical Reader for repeated violation of WP:SOCK and WP:SOAP. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:14, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

I have indef blocked the three new obvious sock, and blocked Critical Reader (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) for one week for repeat violation of WP:SOCK. Let's hope he gets the hint this time. — Coren (talk) 04:38, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
Our friend has returned, minutes after his block, to evade it with a new sock (Myriamyst (talk · contribs)), and has been blocked indefinitely. I would recommend that he not be unblocked without a serious parole, possibly involving a topic ban. — Coren (talk) 05:11, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Page Protection Abuse[edit]

I did an edit on the Kitchen Nightmares page in reference to a lawsuit, with a clear cite to the legal papers of the suit. An Admin took down the edit as 'original research' and put the page on protection. The Admin in question lists their status as 'Retired' and 'Traveling On Business'. [26]

I have had a miserable day on Wikipedia. Help me, Obi Wan're my only hope. LeeStranahan (talk) 04:54, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Guy is neither retired nor inactive. east.718 at 04:58, November 30, 2007
Hi, I can explain this. You need a reliable source before you insert such information, and the admin did not protect the page just because of your edit. Checking the history, many people inserted unsourced edits. Cheers,JetLover (Report a mistake) 05:04, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

So - the legal papers are not a reliable source of information about what is in the legal papers?

And if he is not retired or inactive, why does his page say that? —Preceding unsigned comment added by LeeStranahan (talkcontribs) 05:06, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

A secondary source which discusses the legal papers would be sufficient. His talk page says he's tired, by the way. east.718 at 05:08, November 30, 2007
JzG's user talk page has the "re" in "retired" crossed out so it says, "this user is tired of silly drama in Wikipedia." Also, maybe you could cite a website. Cheers,JetLover (Report a mistake) 05:09, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Ok - I didn't get the Re Tired pun thing. Thanks.

I cited a web page that had the legal papers. All the secondary sources I've seen were extremely thin as to the actual content of the case - they were more 'Celebrity Sued!' types of articles.

Shouldn't have the Tired guy said some of this, however? —Preceding unsigned comment added by LeeStranahan (talkcontribs) 05:16, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Bot or not?[edit]

Resolved (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) is currently making bot reports on UAA. I would like to know whether it's a bot or someone impersonating a bot. -Goodshoped 04:57, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

It's H's bot, it's just logged out. east.718 at 04:59, November 30, 2007
Tried to do a WHOIS and it failed. Maybe it is a bot. Cheers,JetLover (Report a mistake) 05:00, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
The RDNS resolves to - User:HBC NameWatcherBot is operated by User:Krellis. Looks like the bot just got logged out. Mr.Z-man 05:02, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
Alright, then, never mind. -Goodshoped 05:04, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
Not really "never mind." All bots are meant to check if they are logged out, and stop if they are. Three times in that contributions log it's made several edits in a row while logged out. Probably needs a slight tune-up? - CygnetSaIad (talk) 06:23, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Aron Tendler[edit]

Lobojo (talk · contribs) is readding content to this article that I feel is clearly in violation of WP:BLP. The content concerns rumors of sexual misconduct by a Rabbi who has not been charged with any crime. The reporting of rumors has no place o Wikipedia, in my opinion, and I would ask an impartial admin to review. I would note that two other admins have been involved, one of whom reverted to the rumorless version, and the other to the version including the rumors. However, the latter admin did not respond after discussions on the talk page and let the version without the disputed content stand. This is not a content dispute, as i see it, but a policy dispute. Jeffpw (talk) 14:41, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

  • I also do not care for being called an "lazy academic infant". This user seems to have something to learn about WP:NPA. That's just one of several diffs directed at me. I also don't think it's kind to our project to be told that Wikipedia is "worse than tabloid journalism", as a rationale for adding rumors to a BLP, and referring to Wikipedia's owner as "Jimbo Christ" because of his position on BLP. Jeffpw (talk) 15:01, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

This individual is apparently a brother of Mordecai Tendler, whose article was recently AFDed. The AFD, history, and talk page of the brother's article are relevant context for understanding inter-user disputes here. GRBerry 16:12, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

I see the Mordecai Tendler article was Kept at the AFD.DGG (talk) 17:30, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
Err, the article in question is Aron Tendler, not his brother. The only things relating them are the fact that they are brothers, the articles were created by the same editor, and both contain rumors which have not been substantiated. What separates the two is Rabbi Mordecai Tendler denied the rumors (apparently, anyway--there are no inline cites in the text), while Rabbi Aron Tendler has not commented on the rumors. The fact that the Rabbi did not comment makes the rumors unfit for his biography, in my opinion. Jeffpw (talk) 17:39, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
Aron has not been charged or sued in either a U.S. or Rabbinical court, but his brother has. Allegations against Mordecai, although also unproven, were investigated by the Rabbinical Council of America. In comparison, claims against Aron are sourced by reliable sources to internet forum rumors. Deletion was correct. Cool Hand Luke 10:29, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
are you saying they are more likely to be verifiable if they are denied?DGG (talk) 19:52, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
I am saying that the fact that the subject has spoken directly about them makes it allowable in the encyclopedia. The fact that the subject of this article has not commented makes it even more so just rumor and speculation, and thus a violation of WP:BLP. There is precedent for this position: Just look at the discussions on the talk page of the Clay Aiken. Though media sources speculated about his sexuality, that didn't make it into the article, because he didn't directly confirm or deny it, Only the quotes he himself made were put in the article, per BLP. That same principle should be applied here. It frankly amazes me that there is even a debate bout whether this material shoudl be excised. It is against policy, pure and simple. Jeffpw (talk) 20:03, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

BTW, neither Aron nor Mordecai Tendler have been charged with any crimes. They were forced to quit their posts by colleagues and congregants who require a high and irreproachable standard. It is certainly not the job of Wikipedia to act as a (kangaroo) court of law nor is Wikipedia a sex offender registry of any kind. Until such time that a charge is brought, or an allegation is proven in a formal court of law, then any aspersions cast against anyone is a violation of WP:LIBEL and I would not be surprised if the offended parties would get angry enough to sue, but evidently some editors and admins do not realize this, so they allow yellow journalism and muckraking to exist and pretend that it's a legitimate "biography" when it is not. Reports in newspapers are not much more than hearsay when it comes to such legal situations, so everyone concerned needs to be very cautious before creating more of these articles which are nothing more than ticking time bombs waiting to go off. IZAK (talk) 11:10, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

It is appalling that I should be attacked in this way openly, but behind my back so to speak. I was not informed of this discussion by the one who initiated it, as I should have been. Lobojo (talk) 15:00, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
I don't see anyone attacking you here, Lobojo. I see instead a discussion of the BLP policy and whether the article violates this policy. Please don't take things personally. I would also ask that an administrator explain to Lobojo what our civility and NPA policies mean. After attacking me here, and being warned here for the second time to stop contacting me on this issue, and rather discuss on the article pages, he has persisted on leaving annoying messages on my talk page. I'd like it to stop. Jeffpw (talk) 15:19, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
You should have notified me, as you well know you are trying to create a sense of great tension around this issue. You have needlessly escalated this issue all over wikipedia for no good reason and you are making edit summaries to make it seem like I am being uncivil, when I am behaving quite properly. You should have notified me of this discussion, you did not do so, I'll turn the othe