Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive350

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

Noticeboard archives


Edit war over multiple articles[edit]

Osli73 (talk · contribs) and Grandy Grandy (talk · contribs) are edit warring over a large number of articles, reverting each other and calling each other vandals. Corvus cornixtalk 22:39, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

It looks like a case of them falling out somewhere and taking it personally. They should be told not to approach each other if they can't act maturly.--Phoenix-wiki 22:44, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

@OSLI73 is the one who starts edit wars and other examples of vandalism:

@OSLI73 Block log:

  • 12:23, 5 December 2007, Stifle blocked Osli73 (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 24 hours ‎ (Three-revert rule violation: Bosnian Mujahideen)
  • 07:45, 24 July 2007 WikiLeon blocked Osli73 (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 1 month.
  • 07:37, 24 July 2007 WikiLeon blocked Osli73 (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 3 months.
  • 02:26, 23 March 2007 Thatcher131 blocked Osli73 (anon. only, account creation blocked, autoblock disabled) with an expiry time of 2 weeks ‎ (violating revert limit on Srebrenica massacre see Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Kosovo)
  • 01:48, 1 March 2007 Jayjg blocked Osli73 (anon. only, account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 2 weeks ‎ (violation of arbcom revert parole on Srebrenica massacre again)
  • 09:48, 18 December 2006 Srikeit blocked Osli73 with an expiry time of 1 week ‎ (Sockpuppeteering and directly violating his arbcom probation and revert parole)
  • 00:49, 5 September 2006 Blnguyen blocked Osli73 with an expiry time of 96 hours ‎ (did about 10 reverts on Srebrenica massacre in about 2 hours)

Sometimes he is signed in, sometimes he is not, but he vandalised the articles all the time. Do smth! --Grandy Grandy (talk) 22:45, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I would like to clarify that I have not called Grandy Grandy (talk · contribs) a "vandal". I have, however, reverted his deletion of tags and clearly WP:POV and WP:OR edits which he is not willing to discuss or seek mediation for. I realize it's inappropriate and I'll stop immediately. It's just so very frustrating dealing with these types of editors...Osli73 (talk) 22:50, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
I would also like to clarify that I will stop it, but @OSLI73 obviously won't. The others called him a vandal as you can see from his block log: * 09:48, 18 December 2006 Srikeit blocked Osli73 with an expiry time of 1 week ‎ (Sockpuppeteering and directly violating his arbcom probation and revert parole).--Grandy Grandy (talk) 22:56, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I blocked Grandy Grandy for 24 hours for breaking the 3RR rule on the Bosnian Genocide page. I did not know that this discussion was taking place at the same time or I would have mentioned it here sooner --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 13:50, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi. I think it is OK you blocked Grandy Grandy (but according to the rules you had to warn him befor the third revert which you didn't). The real problem is you didn't block Osli who also violated the 3RR, which is very strange and unfair as you two share the same POV regarding Bosnian Genocide article. Osli also broke 3RR in Bosnian Genocide, he wasn't just signed-in for the first time. Someone should do an IP check: [1] to see if Grandy Grandy accusation is correct, I am sure it is. It is an IP from Sweden, and Osli is from Sweden too with the same interest regarding the articles. So in my humble opinion Phillip's action was biased and unfair. Regards. The Dragon of Bosnia (talk) 14:03, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
See what I wrote under User talk:Grandy Grandy#Bosnian Genocide 3RR (Revision as of 00:33, 5 January 2008) the mention of this section was not placed on his on his page until 05:48, 5 January 2008 so when I put the block in place I was not aware of this conversation. But as I made clear on the talk page not only did I block Grandy Grandy so that there would be no accusation of bias I protected the Bosnian Genocide page for 24 hours with the "wrong version". --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 16:51, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

The page is usually protected with the current version (The last version was by Grandy Grandy), so you haven't done anything special. But, I would ask someone to do an IP check, and compares it with Osli's IPs as I am sure it is his address. Osli was earlier blocked for sockpuppeteering, so his word is just not enough. The Dragon of Bosnia (talk) 21:18, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) This whole thing is a mess, it has led to a lot of damage to the Wikipedia. I first noticed that Osli and Dragon were edit-warring over links to the article Bosnian Mujahideen, which is something of a POV fork from The role of foreign fighters in the Bosnian war. Then it spilled over to 7th Muslim Brigade which is a POV fork of the POV fork, not to mention the creation of Serb propaganda which is a POV fork of a whole lot of articles, and basically a dumping ground for accusations against Serbs and Serbia.

Maybe we should just community topic-ban all three. <eleland/talkedits> 21:33, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Let's go back to the case and summarize this:
Philip Baird Shearer, Osli, The Dragon of Bosnia, Grandy and sometimes Live Forever and Dchall1 are involved in the discussion about Bosnian Genocide.
  • Philip Baird Shearer and Osli support one version, the rest of disputants (among them Grandy) the other version.
  • Osli and Grandy started an edit war.
  • Philip Baird Shearer as an admin involved in the discussion didn't warn Grandy/Osli for a breach in the 3RR policy.
  • Osli and Grandy decided to stop it here.
  • Philip Baird Shearer blocked his and Osli's opponent Grandy after they stopped edit warring.
  • Philip Baird Shearer didn't block Osli.
  • Philip Baird Shearer claims he was not aware of their conversation here.
  • The Dragon of Bosnia claims Philip's action was biased.
  • Eleland suddenly showed up and decided to defend Serbia and Serbs from accusations against Serbs and Serbia.
People let's get real. Regards. The Dragon of Bosnia (talk) 22:07, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Abmin abuse Pats1[edit]

I hope I am going in the right direction now, I was in error a coupple of times and then cut and pasted here. I was informed by an upper-Admin (I htink) that I may have reported somehting in the wrong area. The note from (talk) was cut and pasted with the rest. . . .

Here is my concern is a user: Pats1 twice threatend me with being banned without explanation. I may have been at the prompting of a user: chrisjnelson. I detected a possible familiarity with them. There was, I thought, a legitmate mistagging of trivia. There where three users who looked like they had a kind of history of being unkind. I had asked for a dispute resolution the best I knew how . . . After that occurred Pats1 came in and said I was doingsomething that was wrong --- he put in in his warning . . . and I thought it was mistaken. When I saw the second one I saw he was deadly serious. I then researched how he was supposed to handle things and what the rules were, especially with the power to block and in my view, I think he was in the wrong. I don't think I deserved that kind of meaness and what I think may have been a possible abuse of his Admin power. All I ask is to be treated fairly. I have not been perfect before, butonce I learned there are rules, I became confident this kindof abuse wouldn't occur.

Maybe I was wrong to assume that. It seems Pats1 had only been a Admin for a couple of months and maybe that kind of "bullying" has worked with others, but I like to edit and I think I have some things to offer and would not want to be banned inappropriately. It is scary to think that a person who may have had a connection to chrisjnelson would just jump and threaten a ban with hardly the time to investigate. It really seemed like an abuse of his "banning power". That is my view.

After all, this was a dispute. One that had occured a couple? of days ago and it was discussed. Then there was an attempt to bring in the "bigger guns" and all along, I was simply disputing the tivia tag. It is my view that Tivia is discouraged, but if you read the objectors chrisjnelson and others. . . it was the content the objected to, not the style. In the Tivia instructions there is a section "What this guidline is not". It is that I think is right.Nonetheless. when I was warned it was not for 3 RR as Pats1 NOW claims in my talk page. It was for essentially deleting portions of an article, which was never true. I removed a trivia tag I thought was in error. I also looked at the track record of chris and the others and in that Ted Ginn, Jr. article he even was pretty non-wiki friendly to another poster about things. So, I was dubios of those who objected to the content. It was almost like trying to misread to Trivia guidelines. But, I cannot be sure.

I didn't like being treated badly, espaiclly when I was following rules the best I could and since there is a record of what was done I think you can see that Pats1 overstepped his authority when he didn't give the correct reason for a potential band, made it seem to me it was to be punitive for perhaps defying him. He wouldn't communicate, well, until he knew I was serious about going "over his head", as it were. Only then did he try to explain and that was about as insulting as anything else.

So, I was hoping for an explanation and an apology but it has gone too far. I don't feel safe in editing with a person whose actions are so drastic and terse. I just don't think it was needed and I think you might want to reviewthis case, In fact I ask you do do that. Thank you. (talk) 06:02, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

I note Pats1's edit summary : "(There isn't any "dispute" here. Trivia sections, no matter what they're named ("Notes" or "Personal" or whatever) are "to be avoided" unless temporary, when they're tagged to be inserted in prose.)" seems a little erroneous: There is no policy saying they are to be removed, & this does not justify a total removal of the material. The place for this, though, Is AN/I. DGG (talk) 05:41, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
Response from Pats1 - I was directed to Ted Ginn, Jr. by User:Chrisjnelson on my talk page. As an admin, I checked the situation, saw that this IP had been reverted by a few different users after this IP renamed the trivia section of the Ted Ginn, Jr. article as "Notes" and removed the trivia tag that had been previously applied. Keep in mind there was a source code comment explaining why the tag was there - the section was trivia, no matter how you sliced it. There was a note about Ginn's learning disability, another about a lyrical reference, and one with his jersey number history. Under WP:TRIVIA, applying the trivia tag to call for the insertion of these trivia items into the prose was perfectly acceptable, and as I've seen, removing such a tag is generally considered to be removal of material as long as the tag was appropriately placed. This IP then "called for arbitration" in the matter. Quite simply, there was nothing to arbitrate. And in essence, I was the "arbitrator" - I was an admin called to the situation. But apparently this IP didn't agree with the simple Wikipedia guideline I was applying, and called for me to "find another admin" - which was totally unnecessary - any other admin who knew WP:TRIVIA would say the same thing. This IP then "called for dispute resolution." Again, DP is a set of procedures to follow if there is a content dispute. First of all, I think this IP mistook it as a process for some third party "arbitrator" (was I not that third party anyway?). Secondly, the removal of an appropriate tag is not a content dispute. This IP also went ahead and found a couple of comments from previous, totally irrelevant article discussions made "the objectors" - those who had reverted his attempts to remove the tag, including me. Additionally, this IP left a series of messages on my talk page, telling me about how my talk page warnings to him/her were "threats" and how they "proved X, Y, and Z about my administrator status." This IP also went and posted his/her grievance with me and the article at AN3 (3RR), which was quickly removed by User:B. B then went to the Ginn discussion, told the IP he/she had violated 3RR, and that his/her argument was both directed to the wrong noticeboard and, in general, not valid. The IP instead posted his/her grievance at the Admin talk board, where User:DGG made the post above. I then informed DGG that the dispute I was "involved" with was only about the removal of the tag, and not for the removal of the material. Chrisjnelson had gone in and integrated the trivia into prose, which was what WP:TRIVIA calls for, so I'm not sure if that's what DGG was referring to or not. Quite simply, this is the case of an IP not understanding some of the warning/dispute processes of Wikipedia and then blaming it on me, leaving a serious of messages about my "abuse." Pats1 T/C 00:16, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Back from ban and back at it[edit]

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

Referred to ArbCom

I have refered this matter to the Arbitration Committee - see Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#Matt_Sanchez. WjBscribe 04:12, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

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

vandalism and reverting more then 3 times in less then 24 hours[edit]

the user vandalised and reverted more then 4 times in a day without giving reasons this article In addition he refuses to discuss the reasons in talk page. Adrianzax (talk) 15:54, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

I think you'll want to report this at the three revert rule noticeboard. Shell babelfish 16:08, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Kie250 (talk · contribs)[edit]

I feel like someone should have a look at this user's user page. Almost every edit they've made has been to their user space, and the ones they haven't are generally vandalism or inappropriate. Her edits should also be oversighted as she's given out her age and full name and she's an underage user [2].--Crossmr (talk) 17:11, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

The user page appears to be a clear violation of WP:UP#NOT. I'll list this at WP:MFD immediately. Caknuck (talk) 17:44, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
Looking at her contribs, I see no intention after over 100 edits to use Wikipedia for any purpose other than voicing her personal opinions. Someguy1221 (talk) 18:33, 5 January 2008 (UTC)


I need some help from a fellow administrator with a situation I've fallen into with User:Lumturo. On December 22nd, an AfD process (in which I was not involved) deleted two related articles; Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Begriffsschrift and Interlingua compared and the same AfD covered Interlingua and the characteristica universalis compared. Since December 22, he's recreated the first article twice and the second once, most recently yesterday. I deleted it for the obvious reason that it was a recreation of AfD'd material. The user has many Wikilawyerish reasons why the policy about recreation of AfD'd material doesn't apply to him, even though the article has the same title it's different, and that sort of thing. He's been telling a non-administrative user, User:CastAStone, that CastAStone's attempts to keep him to policy are "disruptive" and "harmful". I told him in no uncertain terms that his only option was Deletion review, but I'm afraid I've completely lost patience with his antics, and said so. Rather than follow my instincts and block him for disruptive editing, I've decided to ask someone among my fellow administrators to deal with him because my emotions are now engaged, and that's wrong. I note as I write this that he's posting another Wikilawyerish note at Help desk because he's "threatened with a block for re-posting an encyclopedic article", and I now throw up my hands -- this has to be someone else's problem, I'm sorry to say. If there's something further that I need to do, I'd appreciate knowing about it from a more experienced administrator than myself. Accounting4Taste:talk 18:02, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

I am otherwise engaged in the real world and need to be offline for some hours; my apologies for leaving this situation hanging. Accounting4Taste:talk 18:09, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
Oooh...I've never been mentioned at the Administrators Noticeboard before...exciting... Anyhoo, User:Lumturo has been making fallacious arguments and repeatedly asking for policy to back up consensus even though I explained to him that policy is based on consensus. While he did accuse me of being "disruptive" and "harmful", Lumturo has assumed good faith and been civil with me, and has not attempted to recreate the pages since the lengthy part of this discussion started. Frustrating and disruptive have a line between them, I do not believe that Lumturo has crossed it. If someone can present him with a better explanation that I did it might be helpful, but I do not believe that his actions at this point warrant administrative action, beyond perhaps salting those pages for a time.--CastAStone//(talk) 18:27, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
User: Accounting4Taste is not telling the whole truth. The bottom line is that I haven't done anything wrong or prohibited on Wikipedia, and User: Accounting4Taste has threatened to block me. I said at the help desk that I think this block should be prevented, and I'll say so here.
Before I reposted the characteristica article, I responded to the reasons for the deletion by revising it and thoroughly sourcing it inline with reliable references. I think it was encyclopedic to begin with, and if it wasn't, it is now. As far as I know, it's perfectly acceptable to repost an article after thoroughly revising it in this way. I have also revised and throughly sourced the begriffsschrift article, and I was ready to post it when User: Accounting4Taste threatened to block me.
I never suggested that any Wikipedia policies didn't apply to me. What I said was that the deletions of my articles were contrary to Wikipedia policy. First, my articles were prodded, which shouldn't be done because they've been through a deletion discussion (WP: PROD). Then, they were speedy deleted, which also shouldn't be done because they were substantially revised to address the original reasons for deletion (WP:CSD).
The other user also wasn't trying to hold me to policy, which I was already following. He was saying things that, as far as I know, are not in policy in the first place: that any article comparing two things is original research, that the inappropriate deletions were within process, and so on. When I asked him to support his statement about articles comparing two things, he answered that it wasn't written down but was still a widely accepted guideline. In responding to him, I wasn't bucking policy but simply saying that I thought he was mistaken. I did say that his actions had disrupted my evening because they had, and that it was harmful to delete encyclopedic articles, because I think it is. I also suggested that he should just move on, because this was taking his time and mine.
I don't know what User: Accounting4Taste means by Wikilawyerish. I do think administrators should understand and abide by Wikipedia policies, and that I am already doing that.
Thank you, CastAStone, for responding in a balanced way and saying that I've been civil and have assumed good faith. I always try to do that, and really my concern has to do with User: Accounting4Taste - especially since he's an administrator.
I'm pretty sure I haven't made any fallacious arguments. I don't know what "asking for policy to back up consensus" means, but again, what I've said is that the prodding and speedy deletions of my articles were contrary to policy.
My main concern is that I don't think I should be blocked. I have two articles that are carefully written and are thoroughly and reliably sourced; I think I should be permitted to re-post them without fear of a block. I did that with the characteristica article, and User: Pedro was fine with it. I also think I should be able to write other reliably sourced, encyclopedic articles if I choose.
I would be glad to post the Begriffsschrift article somewhere, since it isn't available in its current form. I'm sorry this is so long-winded! Thank you for your help, and have a good day! Lumturo (talk) 20:14, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
If a person were sincerely interested in doing what's best for the community, with a minimum of disruption, one would rewrite the article in their User space and then post a request for review at WP:DRV. The fact that the user has not done this and instead has made attacks against the admin who is trying in good faith to get procedures followed, would tend to indicate, to me, that they're not interested in collegiality, but are more interested in an agenda. Corvus cornixtalk 20:35, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
I didn't even know that was the deletion review procedure. I still don't know how to do it or what user space refers to, but I would be glad to read at the link below and try to follow the procedure.
At this point, it's more likely that I'll just resign from Wikipedia after the way I've been treated. Now I'm being accused of insincerity, attacking an administrator, being uninterested in collegiality, having an agenda, and apparently of not following procedure. I don't think any of that is true or fair. Lumturo (talk) 20:56, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

There's not an argument here to make. If an article has been deleted through AfD, then the recourse is at Wikipedia:Deletion Review. Any arguments made there need to indicate why an admin was incorrect in deleting the article (i.e. the deletion was done out of process, that it did not represent consensus, or that it was in violation of policy), rather than rehashing the reasons given in the AfD. Only in the most extraordinary of cases will an article be restored after an AfD without going through deletion review. Really, that's all there is to it. I'll post a message on User talk:Lumturo emphasizing this. Tijuana Brass (talk) 20:37, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Papa Smurf 690[edit]

Talk page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kannie (talkcontribs) 22:51, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

This user has made several inappriorate pages, all of which so far have been speedily deleted. Due to the frequency and weakly bad already demnostrated of repeating this over and over again, he started out on second level warnings. He is up to his last vandalism warning because of this behavior, and I believe he will do it again. Adminstrater action may need to be taken. --Kannie | talk 22:47, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Since the users' final warning at 22:42 (UTC), the user hasn't created any more pages. - Rjd0060 (talk) 22:50, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Unapproved bot?[edit]

Chankara (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Made a few edits with summary "robot adding..."...but as far as I can tell, this bot isn't approved. - Rjd0060 (talk) 22:48, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps they're a non-native English speaker, and are just copy/pasting the edit summary used by the bots who add inter-wiki-links without knowing what they mean? Have you tried asking them what they're doing?-- (talk) 22:55, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
Nope. Rather than wait for the user to continue, if it is an unapproved bot, I brought it to Admin attention. Then I was sidetracked, but I just left a note. - Rjd0060 (talk) 23:01, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
So far they seem to be editing at a rate of about 1 inter-wiki link every 4 hours... I would think that an actual bot account would have a slightly higher throttle.-- (talk) 23:05, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
When I try google searching for Chankara and Wikipedia I get ru:Участник:Константин С. Белик, could this be the same user?-- (talk) 22:58, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
Your guess is as good as mine, considering I speak English. - Rjd0060 (talk) 23:02, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

(ec x4):::No, I guess he's adding names in Telugu for the India Wiki, given the name. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 23:08, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

My best guess would be that this person is of a foreign language; the ru: user has 'chankara' in their email. Probably doesn't speak English and just copy and pasted an edit summary (yes, I just compromised two ideas above).   jj137 23:04, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
Or, perhaps, they are just working with bot software. I remember one time I was working with my pywikipedia bot software and accidentally made an edit saying in the summary: Robot: Clearing sandbox.   jj137 23:06, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
Re to Rodhullandemu: Perhaps he has interwiki accounts set up.   jj137 23:14, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
Possibly. Chankara is an Indian name, if the Russian wiki account is his, that would explain it.--Rodhullandemu (Talk) 23:19, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
The Russian account is named "Konstantin S. Belik" - not a very close match, and I think it's a coincidence. But this account at the Telugu Wikipedia te:సభ్యులు:C.Chandra Kanth Rao must surely be the same person. I think he's simply tranlating articles into Telugu and then adding interwiki links. Doesn't appear to be a bot at all. Someone could try adding a message to the talk page on Telugu Wikipedia, but I don't think there's any problem beyond the slightly confusing edit summaries. --Reuben (talk) 00:15, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
I have left a message on the Telugu Wiki explaining the issue, asking him to not use "bot" in his edit summaries here, and inviting him to contact me for clarification. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 01:39, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

TfD page not updating[edit]

The bot which used to update the TfD page is no longer working. For some reason, Zorglbot no longer updates the TfD page like it used to. Could someone who owns a bot that is authorized to do this sort of thing please fix this? Thanks. RyanGerbil10(Говорить!) 00:49, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Block and ban needed[edit]

ElectricEye (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) has come out of "retirement" to harass Theresa knott on her talk page (starting with the fifth comment down in this thread). In May of 2007 EE changed their talk page to read, "Electric Eye has withdrawn his support of Wikipedia and has joined the ranks of those who oppose it." (diff of user page change and link to user page). He/she has continued to reiterate this point to anyone who leaves a message on his talk page. As of this writing, they have also begun commenting on Jimbo Wales' page (diff). Intimidation, harrassment, whatever you want to call it, coming from someone who has "joined the ranks" of those who oppose WP (whatever that means) demonstrates that they do not need an account here and should (imo) be blocked if not permanently banned. Thank you, R. Baley (talk) 23:20, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Notification of this thread here and here. R. Baley (talk) 23:27, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
Too late; I blocked him while you were leaving the messages. Happy new year, TenOfAllTrades(talk) 23:34, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
Good call IMO, TenOfAllTrades. This alone seems like a pretty good reason to block, as you mentioned on his talk page. That statement is a fair warning that the user was going to be disruptive. - Rjd0060 (talk) 23:43, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
Hi, I would like to request that you reconsider and unblock EE.
This whole incident is making a lot of people upset. A lot of people on all sides are being uncivil and snippy with each other. None of this is good. ElectricEye was not doing good things. But he was doing not good things in response to stuff that he saw Theresa Knott doing on the Arbcom case which was also not good.
No warnings were left for EE that his behavior had crossed the line into abusive enough for user behavior sanction until I did just a bit ago, right before you blocked.
Blocking in this instance without warning and trying to calm the situation down is likely to lead to more drama, not less. Many involved parties in many parts of this dispute have been warned or asked to calm down by several people now. Please extend drama-reducing civil behavior requests rather than blocking as a first response. Thanks. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 23:47, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
I told him what he was doing was harassment here. And respectfully, I would disagree with your assessment whether I had left one (of sorts) or not. R. Baley (talk) 23:53, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
Yes, and the one edit EE made after that warning was still confrontational, but much more civil. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 00:08, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
After that, he went to Jimbo's page to spread it around. I would strongly object to any unblock. R. Baley (talk) 00:21, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
I seriously don't think he is upset. Because unless he is a sockpuppet, and I don't think he is, he is completely uninvolved. Check his contributions. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 23:53, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
You weren't directly involved in the Jimsch62 / VO / OrangeMarlin case either, and look how you ended up feeling about it, Theresa...
The case is making a lot of people crazy, both what happened and how everyone is responding to what happened. This is really bad. Arbcom members are explicitly leaving civility warnings on arb case talk pages, several relatively uninvolved people are asking people to calm down, etc.
I don't honestly see what he did on your talk page as worse than the worst you did on the case talk page.
You have acknowledged and responded to requests to calm down; I think we owe him (and everyone else) at least one round of the same courtesy and chance to stop the problem behavior. Even if they are mostly uninvolved in the project now, they haven't been trolling elsewhere that I know of to establish that they are in fact operating just in bad faith, so we need to AGF there (and elsewhere, about everyone involved). Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 00:01, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
Yes I ended up, after mutiply tooing and froing quite angry. That's not the case here. He's trolling. But if you want to unblock him and block him later I don't care to be honest. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 00:06, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
He opposes Wikipedia and there is no evidence to suggest that any contributions he makes will benefit the project. He is trying to stir up further trouble with the arbcom case and is simply trolling. I would support a ban at least for a while - maybe he will return with a positive attitude, but running to Jimbo and trying to cause trouble is in no way useful. violet/riga (t) 00:14, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
(scratching head) Surely you didn't just imply that we should ban people for complaining to or appealing to Jimbo... Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 00:18, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
Nope. We ban people for stating that they have "joined the ranks of those who oppose" Wikipedia, and follow through on that statement for most of a year, and then start the new year coming out of nowhere to be an Arb gadfly and to bother editors who are interested in contributing to Wikipedia. Really, if there were any evidence at all that this individual were interested in adding to the project I might have given a warning—but I just don't see that evidence. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 00:33, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
For most of the last year, they weren't editing at all. Is there behavioral evidence off-wiki somewhere I need to be made aware of? Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 00:44, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
Obviously not - that wasn't the only thing I said in support of the block. violet/riga (t) 00:37, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

George I think it would be fair to say at this point that you are unlikely to get the agreement of the blocking admin or to get concensus that unblocking is the right way to go. Which leaves you with a choice, you can choose to go it alone, or defer to the judgment of the multiple people who who think the block is good. If you choose to go it alone, and he reoffends you'd better be willing to block him yourself sharpish . But if you are willing to do that, and take the risk that he will disrupt when you are not around and so people might think you were foolish to unblock then go for it. I've unblocked people unilaterally before, usually stating on thier userpage that I am staking my own reputation on thier good behaviour. This sometimes works as the unblocked person doesn't want to let you down. Other times they can't help themselves . Anyway it's not that big a deal either way.Theresa Knott | The otter sank 01:08, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

I was going to add my opinion to this matter, but after his last comments on his Talk page (which included promises to breed incivility & evade blocks ), Coren protected EE's talk page -- an action I support, FWIW. The matter is now moot. -- llywrch (talk) 09:07, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually, he not only promised to evade blocks but flat out stated that it is a regular activity of his. I would have stated something in the thread here about my protection if I had remember that's how he ended up on my watchlist in the first place. For what it's worth, I would oppose unblocking an editor that actually promises to be as disruptive as possible and break every policy in the book. — Coren (talk) 21:52, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
Ah, yeah, with that set of comments I no longer have any interest in supporting an unblock. AGF is no longer warranted. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 06:12, 6 January 2008 (UTC)


This user keeps adding "External Links" to a research paper mill website, "". These are the only edits this user is making. All of the links so far have been removed. This user needs to be watched. Victorianist (talk) 17:56, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

At least give further notice on the user's talk page per WP:TT. The edits are infrequent enough that this doesn't require immediate administrator action. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 18:17, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, I'm new to the process. I'll know next time. Victorianist (talk) 16:03, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
I took the liberty of adding in the next level of warning. This should be continued for further link spamming, but the admins only really need to intervene if the problem becomes serious and continuous over a period of time. Otherwise, watching, reverting, and warning will probably suffice. Gromlakh (talk) 02:55, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for helping out.Victorianist (talk) 16:03, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Incivility and assumptions of bad faith by User:Blueanode[edit]

Dear fellow Wikipedians, please see [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], [16], [17], [18], [19], [20], [21], [22], [23], [24], [25], [26], etc. Within the past week and half, this user has gone from aggresively criticizing Judgesurreal777 to now going after me. I am not sure how to react to these, i.e. if I should just ignore him or if this is a pattern of behavior that merits administrator attention. Incidentally, while I may disagree with Judgesurreal777 about article notability, we have been civil with each other elsewhere: [27], [28], [29], etc. As for the accusation against me by Blueanode, I know I am a strong inclusionist, but I really consider AfDs a minor aspect of my contributions here and spend much more time welcoming new users or using the random article feature to check articles for grammar, references, and the like. And as another editor noted, I participate in a number of discussions nominated by different users. It has nothing to do with who nominates them. I just use this page to see if there's any that I think are worth keeping and/or that I think I can help improve. If something is a total hoax, I am more than willing to suggest deletion, as I did here. Sure, not everyone agrees with me in discussions (although a good deal have) and I think many administrators are able to decide for themselves if my argument is valid or not. Anyway, I just thought I would seek input on this matter. Thank you for your time and consideration. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 19:13, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't know the background of this, but messsages like most of the above ("deletionist troll", "pathetic", "yoy bastard" [sic], "I despise you") are not tolerated per WP:NPA. I have issued this user a final warning, and he should be blocked after the next edit in this vein. Sandstein (talk) 23:50, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
Dear Sandstein, thank you for the fair response and have a pleasant evening! Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 00:04, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

This is not justified, leave me alone. Blueanode (talk) 10:01, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Banned sock puppet is back, Cody Finke aka MascotGuy[edit]

Codyfinke15 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Banned sock puppet


This guy just keeps going and going and going...

The Energizer bunny from hell.

- Jeremy (Jerem43 (talk) 01:05, 6 January 2008 (UTC))

Codyfinke is not MascotGuy. MascotGuy acts differently.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 01:07, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
Both refuse to edit Talk pages, both make unsourced, untruthful edits to articles about TV shows and Southern California subjects. Both refuse to stop editing no matter how many times they're warned and blocked. How is this not MascotGuy? Corvus cornixtalk 04:29, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
MascotGuy has a known user name pattern. The Codyfinke user does not match that pattern. As MascotGuy was discovered to have autism due to editting patterns and subjects, it is highly unlikely that he changed any way that he edits. The two may edit similarly, but they are still two different individuals. I only yesterday blocked a set of users because it's activity that MascotGuy does. I haven't seen what Codyfinke does, but I can tell that this is not MascotGuy.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 04:38, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
To summarize what I just said, Codyfinke and MascotGuy are two separate entities that act similarly in edits, but differently in other ways (MascotGuy accounts are named differently than Codyfinke accounts, for one).—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 04:45, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
MascotGuy was only identified as autistic by someone claiming to be his mother. Corvus cornixtalk 05:01, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
Okay then. Still, Codyfinke ≠ MascotGuy based on behavior outside of article edits.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 05:11, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

I did not identify him as Mascot guy originally, some one else did and I went with that figuring they knew better. - Jeremy (Jerem43 (talk) 07:48, 6 January 2008 (UTC))

Balouch (Kashmir)[edit]

The user who created the Balouch (Kashmir) article doesn't have a very good grasp of the English language, and has written a rather poorly-written article. Editing tags have been placed on the article and the editor added him/herself as the source for the information and wrote on the Talk page that somebody could email them at their supplied email address or can call them on their supplied phone number to verify the information. I blanked the Talk page and requested that they not provide personal information. I then added a cleanup-rewrite tag on the article. The editor responded by removing all of the cleanup tags and putting an aggressive "mind your own business" reply to me on their Talk page. I've pointed to WP:CIVIL and WP:OWN. What would be the best way to approach a new user whose primary language is obviously not English? I've never run into a situation like this. Corvus cornixtalk 05:55, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

He's now making unuseful edits to Wikipedia:Verifiability. Corvus cornixtalk 06:17, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

  1. Try and determine his native language.
  2. Ask users who speak that language to get involved. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 08:15, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Slow revert war on Iron law of oligarchy[edit]

An anonymous user User: keeps reverting to a polemical version of the article. From discussion on his talk page, it looks unlikely that he will accept other views. Please keep an eye on that article, thanks. Kosebamse (talk) 10:42, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

User:To the lake[edit]

Anyone feel like peeking at Special:Contributions/To_the_lake? Seems to have quite a problem with WP:CIVIL, but that may be just me. Yngvarr 11:12, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Also plenty of nonsense at WP:RfA and his sig links to

The file above's purpose is being discussed and/or is being considered for [[Wikipedia:Deletion policy|deletion]]. See [[Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2009 August 3#File:Fellatio.png|files for discussion]] to help reach a consensus on what to do.
. Seems like a disruption only account but would like a second opinion before taking action. -- Mattinbgn\talk 11:30, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
Sure seems to me like a disruptive, WP:POINTy account. Seems to be also someone who is already pretty knowledgeable for a brand new account. Pastordavid (talk) 11:42, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
I blocked him for disruption after he nominated himself for adminship. I don't trust self noms. --Bongwarrior (talk) 11:47, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
Well done. Snowolf How can I help? 11:51, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
And I struck his comments from all RFAs to which he "contributed" with explanatory note added. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:59, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
User:The Rambling Man filed a checkuser case and linked back to here. The case is now complete and has turned up some rather interesting results - Alison 13:09, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
I've blocked all accounts that were still not blocked. John Reaves 13:20, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Suspicious account[edit]

Derias (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log) is a single-purpose account uploading images of military insignia; another user has expressed concern that the user is a sockpuppet of blocked Roitr (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log) and that the images should be deleted as hoaxes. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 13:09, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

I saw > 100 images at CAT:CSD tagged with a link to Wikipedia:Long_term_abuse/Roitr and have deleted all of them. --After Midnight 0001 14:14, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Farsi --> Persian[edit]

Every month or so someone decides to start to change every instance of "Farsi" on the wikipedia to "Persian".

The most recent person to decide to start this campaign, like many of his predecessors, is prepared to make this change -- even in direct quotes, as they did here.

I am not a linguist. I didn't study linguistics at University. I don't know whether real linguists think Farsi should always be replaced with Persian. However, even if I had studied linguistics, wouldn't it be a violation of WP:OR to make this change? Verifiability is a core princiiple. It seems to me that if the source we are referencing uses "Farsi" our article should use "Farsi", and if our source uses "Persian" we should use "Persian".

This particular user has made this change to dozens or hundreds of articles in the last couple of days -- all without any edit summary. That is disturbing.

FWIW previous anti-Farsi vigilantes seem to have largely succeeded. All the DoD documents about the Guantanamo captives use "Farsi". According to these DoD documents, and some other documents, Farsi is the other major language spoken in Afghanistan. But, according to the wikipedia, Dari (Persian) is the name of this language --Farsi isn't even mentioned. I think this is a disservice to our readers.

I have asked some of these anti-Farsi vigilantes to explain what they are doing. It has seemed to me that those prepared to offer an explanation innocently offer one where they acknowledge their efforts are based on what more experience wikipedians would recognize as original research.

Some other wikipedians have noted a phenomenon they find disturbing -- participants who have engaged in spirited partisan edit-warring in the non-English wikis carrying those partisan battles over to the English wikipedia. I am wondering whether this isn't another instance.

Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 13:48, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

  • Based on your comments this appears to be a content dispute, and not an area where administrators can intervene. You might attempt some of the elements of dispute resolution outlined at this page. If there are conduct issues regarding specific editors, please clarify and provide diffs/links. Avruchtalk 17:54, 6 January 2008 (UTC)


sfacets (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) has just finished a block and piled straigh in with this: [30]. As far as I'm concerned this is deliberately pressing the self-destruct button, I have blocked for a month because it's clear that everyone who's ever come across this user has to watch his behaviour whenever he is unblocked at present. I'm not opposed to shortening (if someone wants to take on the job of helping him not to disrupt, push POV, harass other users and in sundry other ways be a dick) or lengthening to indef if people think we should wash our hands of him. Guy (Help!) 13:20, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

This is just one in a long line of reasons that I believe we would be better off without this particular user. The user has uploaded some suspicious images in the past, fought to keep them from being deleted by making many contradictory claims (including having taken pictures before he was born) and attacking those involved in the deletion discussion and now re-uploads them on the sly despite being warned not to. This most recent action is more harassment of the editor who originally discovered the copyright infringements. Since the user does not seem to care about violating copyright, its unlikely that his presence will do anything but hurt the project. Shell babelfish 13:30, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
I have engaged in a discussion on his talk page - it is not going well. He seems to feel that his harrassment of Will Beback and re-uploading the image which has already been deleted something like 8 times are ok. The edits to the archived RFCU page might just be a mistake, but the others seem implausible to have any non-disruptive interpretation, and he is sticking with his story that he hasn't done anything wrong.
More uninvolved editors taking a look at the situation and commenting on his talk page may help clarify in his mind that he really does have a problem. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 21:18, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
Opinion provided and unblock request declined. Sandstein (talk) 22:08, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Sfacets indefinitely blocked[edit]

Following the discussion on Sfacets' talk page, I have concluded that he is too disruptive and not willing to contribute to the encyclopedia under our community policies and guidelines. Pursuant to that, and given that he believes his disruptive actions were perfectly ok, I believe there's nothing we can do to reform him and that an indefinite block is in order. He has a long problem history, and is entirely unrepentant.

I have unblocked him and reblocked him indefinitely, both to clear the JzG block (legit appearance of conflict of interest question over RFC filed against JzG, though I don't believe it has underlying merit) and to impose the appropriate indef block.

As with any block of mine, especially indefinite ones of longstanding users, I invite other admins to review in detail and if you disagree feel free to undo it. I believe that this is going to be a community ban, and that he is not reformable, but I leave it up to the rest of the administrator communities' judgement whether I have acted appropriately here, etc. Thanks. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 01:10, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

When someone's block log is so long that you have to scroll down to read the whole thing, you get the impression that they may not fully embrace Wikipedia's norms. Support indef. Raymond Arritt (talk) 03:24, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
Support indef. His behavior was why I chose not to reduce a previous block I had extended. --Coredesat 09:33, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
Can't disagree. Ah well. Guy (Help!) 23:04, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
I support the block. At some point it's no longer effective to try and reform a user, and we just need to block them and move on, rather than continuing to waste time which could be better spent elsewhere. --Elonka 06:52, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
I also support the block. I've watchlisted and engaged with articles where Sfacets has been active. That user has been a POV pusher from his earliest to his latest edits. He's repeatedly overstepped the line, and this is just the last of many blocks. I can attest to his disruptive behavior and recalcitrant nature. I don't think that further engagement will reform him, and I think that it's reasonable to say "enough is enough." ·:· Will Beback ·:·

Repeated removal of tags at Holodomor denial[edit]

Since the creation of this page, supporters of the article have repeatedly removed every disputed tag placed on it, in spite of the fact that a substantial minority has questioned whether the article meets encyclopedic standards.

  • 9:36, 25 December: User:Horlo creates the page.[31]
  • 16:27, 25 December: User:Irpen tags the page with POV and OR templates.[32]
  • 8:05, 27 December: User:Horlo removes the tags with the edit summary removed tags - no reason given for their being here.[33]
  • 6:57, 28 December: Irpen tries to rewrite the intro to conform to NPOV.[34]
  • 7:01: Horlo reverts Irpen with the comment Irpen, this is not a soap box. This is an article about Holodomor denial. The lead paragraph must explain that.[35]
  • 7:04: Irpen reverts to his version with the summary I clearly explained at talk.[36]
  • 7:28:Horlo reverts Irpen again, with the summary Please do not make any changes without a discussion on the talk page, not just a statement on the talk page.[37]
  • 7:39: Irpen adds a totallydisputed tag with the summary: totallydisputed per persistent insertion of factually false info.[38]
  • 8:50: Horlo removes the tag with the summary: Removed numbers and tag.[39] (Note that at this stage, Irpen seems to have gone on wikibreak, along with a number of other editors who were expressing concerns over the page).
  • 4:39 30 December: Having arrived at the page from DYK, and noting several POV problems that will take time to fix, I add a POV tag to the Duranty section,[40], and add a comment to the talk page to explain some of my reasons for doing so.[41]
  • 5:00: Having read through the article more carefully and seen what I regard as major problems, I move the tag to the top of the article,[42] and leave another note on the talk page explaining my reasons.[43]
  • 18:03: Horlo removes the tag without comment.[44]
  • 18:07 I restore the tag with the comment Please don't remove disputed templates when there is obviously a dispute going on.
  • 18:46: User:Bandurist removes the tag without comment.[45]
  • 19:18: I restore the tag, with the comment Please do not remove disputed templates when there is clearly a dispute. See Wikipedia:NPOV dispute.[46]
  • 18:20, 31 December: Horlo removes the tag without comment.[47]
  • 6:58: Frustrated at the tag-team tag removal and the stonewalling on the talk page, I add an AFD template in hopes of at least getting more eyes on the page. (This is the first AFD I have initiated in almost two years at the project BTW).[48]
  • 14:40, 2 January: Having realized that I am in fact not alone in my concerns about the page and that many other editors have expressed the same or similar concerns, and also having realized what a singularly inappropriate forum AFD is to try and promote debate about content, I withdraw the AFD and restore the totallydisputed tag instead.[49]
  • 21:23: User:Vecrumba removes the tag, with the summary withdraw your AFD and instead immediately tag the article? after your ethnic insult, this is nothing but WP:IDONTLIKEIT, tag removed.[50] (I must add that this is prototypical of the kind of response my attempts to get a discussion on content going at the article's talk page have been met with).
  • 6:53, 3 January: I restore the tag, with the summary: Replace tag. Multiple editors have expressed the view that this article has serious issues.[51]
  • 7:32: User:Termer removes the tag with the summary: the tag "Totallydisputed" not justified for well referenced article, please do not misuse tagging.[52]
  • 12:27: I restore the tag with the comment: Well referenced when you don't even have a reference for the article's major premise? I don't think so. Please stop removing tags when you know perfectly well there is a dispute here.[53]
  • 13:46: Bandurist removes the tag without comment.[54]
  • 23:55: I restore the tag with the comment: For the last time, please stop removing the tag. If it's done again I will have no choice but to take the matter up with AN/I.
  • 00:03, 4 January: Bandurist removes the tag without comment.[55]

To summarize the situation, a total of about 18 editors have commented on this article at the talk page or at the AFD. Of those, six, or roughly one third of editors including me, have expressed serious reservations about the page's title and/or premise and/or content.

  • User:Irpen opened the talk page discussion with the comment The article is a soapbox and should be deleted. I would welcome serious contributors to help in covering this topic on wikipedia but that kind of soapboxing is totally out of question...[56]
  • User:Hillock65 concurs with the comment I have to agree. The title itself is an attempt to mimic the Holocaust denial, which is troubling. There is no basis for that. All of that can be mentioned at the Holodomor article, it doesn't warrant a separate article. If there is a vote, I support redirect to the main article.[57]
  • Kuban Cossack made a number of comments, including There is argument over keeping the article...knee-deep in nonsense...This article needs a lot of work![58][59]
  • User:Molobo (a user who appears to support the article) poses one of the same questions I have: Isn't Holodomor denial also a term for denying that it was a genocide?[60]
  • User:Jo0doe accuses the article's supporters of tr[ying] to exploit WP as a soapbox".[61]
  • In addtion, at the AFD, User: Lankiveil recommended a rename (now my own preferred option) commenting that the name was inherently POV and that the article Definitely has the look of a POV fork.[62]
  • User:Bogdan, at the AFD, also expressed the view, which I thoroughly endorse, that the accusation that 'Holodomor Denial' is an original research statement must be disproven in the very first sentence of the article (i.e., which published works cite the term) should be explained where such terminology originates (hopefully, not the Ukrainian government).[63]

My point in posting this is not to try and demonstrate that "I am right" in my concerns. It's simply to show that there is substantial dissent about the suitability of this page's title and content, surely more than enough to justify a POV tag.

I regard the removal of a POV tag to be a highly questionable action at any time, but to repeatedly remove a tag when there are clearly major concerns from multiple editors is I believe completely unjustified. POV tags are often the only method that users in the minority have for expressing their concerns about a page and for encouraging debate about content at the talk page.

The users who support this particular page have shown almost no interest in discussion of the article content or in resolving disputes, instead contenting themselves with an endless stream of bad faith accusations or at best red herring obfuscations. If the POV tag is removed, what incentive will they have for entering into debate at all? They will just ignore any concerns raised and ensure by sheer weight of numbers that they get their way on the mainpage. Gatoclass (talk) 03:24, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Response by User:Vecrumba -- I came to this late and have been met only with comments about Eastern European editor "axe-grinding". Gatoclass fails to mention that his AfD nomination went nowhere (all keep with one rename as I recall), and once he withdrew his AfD since it was obviously failing he then immediately retagged the article. Most recently, I invited Gatoclass to apologize for his uncivil and insulting comments, he asked when we would get back to discussing the article, I asked for specifics, and his response was to open the above, choosing not to respond to my request for his specific top three problems so the discussion could move forward. Gatoclass' blanket assumption of bad faith on the part of Eastern European editors and, for example, myself insisting I am participating only to shed light on the past being proof of his charges of Eastern European axe-grinding ("hoist(ed) by my own petard") is unfortunate at best. Then there is Gatoclass' statement he owes no apology (re: axe-grinding et al.) for "stating the obvious." One only has to read the current Holodomor denial article talk page. I'm sorry, but if Gatoclass is looking to identify recalcitrant parties, he only need look as far as himself. —PētersV (talk) 04:29, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, but this incident report wasn't made "in response" to your supposed generous offer, you made that post while I was busy preparing the above post, and I didn't see it until I had posted here.
But in response to your purported offer to bury the hatchet, I invite users to take a closer look at the post of PetersV to which he refers, and ask themselves just how conciliatory it actually is:
...(Totallydisputed) tagging does not connote assumption of good faith on your part, I expect the tag to stay off. Let's deal with any specific factual problems first. If you apologize for your uncivil conduct and are prepared to abide by the consensus of editors once factual errors are corrected, we can make progress. If you think the editorial community here is a axe-grinding cabal out to get any opposition (you), I'm just as happy to go to arbitration enforcement over your conduct. Everyone here has better ways to spend their time than indulge spleen venting.[64]
Note that after his threat to take it to arbitration, to which I reminded him that all users conduct is put under the spotlight in an arbcom case,[65] he responded thus:
I'm sorry, but I am also tired of "reminders" about what ArbCom is going to do to me. I have asked you to deal with any issues of fact specifically one by one and you have obviously made up your mind already. I suppose this means you're not apologizing either. This would appear to conclude our dialog here. [66]
Note how his threat to take me to arbcom is parlayed into my alleged threat to take him there. I'm afraid this is a classic example of PetersV's modus operandi, which is to say his apparent inability to take responsibility for his own attitude and conduct. Gatoclass (talk) 08:13, 4 January 2008 (UTC)]]
Oh please. You threaten AN/I and indicate the conduct of *all* (your asterisks) editors will be under scrutiny should things go to Arbcom. I react to your threat saying I tire of those tactics and say fine, take this wherever you want to go with it officially, and that's now me attacking you? You can't see past your bad-faith blinders. I'm sorry that you've had editorial battles that have caused you to carry a bucket of tar and bag of feathers wherever you go to apply to axe-grinding (your perception, your words, sorry you'll keep seeing them) editors. —PētersV (talk) 16:17, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
And where have I even dealt with you that you, Gatoclass, know anything about my "modus operandi"? I've managed to reach consensus on content with paid (and now banned) propaganda pushers. Perhaps the lack of consensus here isn't all my doing. I have no conduct to be ashamed of or any responsibility to shirk for any actions I've taken. Frankly, I don't think I've ever seen anyone assume as much bad faith on the part of other editors as you. —PētersV (talk) 16:27, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
And on conciliation, yes, I do expect a {{totallydisputed}} tag to not be used as a tool of intimidation while editors work toward a consensus. 10, 100, 1,000 {{fact}} tags? Have at it! After an editor denigrates their editorial opposition, I would expect an act of conciliation on their part. No, just more diatribe here on how I've unfairly set upon Gatoclass in keeping with my M.O.. —PētersV (talk) 16:49, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
I did tell Gatoclass I expected him to assume good faith and not re-tag the article and instead come up with specific items. His response was to post the above instead. His characterization of my removing his immediate tagging upon abject failure of his AfD as "prototypical" of editorial behavior he has encountered is little more than acting as sheriff, judge, and jury. From my perspective, his immediate lumping me into his cabal of prototypical Eaastern European axe-grinders is proof that Gatoclass is all about preconceived stereotypes, in fact, seeking battle (when did you last read of an editor invoking petard hoisting?) against an editorial enemy he has already convicted--and not about reaching consensus on content. —PētersV (talk) 05:06, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
A typical content dispute... I personally believe that User:Gatoclass is fighting against a consensus of several good users who worked hard to create and improve this interesting article.Biophys (talk) 05:22, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
I read through the links above, the talk page, and so on. Horlo's intro para, the first one, is bbetter than Irpen's. Irpen's second para ought to be incorporated into the lead as it now stands, which is solid and neutral. The talk page is Gatoclass VS a stack of editors who have provided sources, and tried to engage him. maybe I'm missing something ,but it reads to me like
  • 'get me sources, cause i don't like or believe this'
  • "well, here's these books, these speeches, and this stuff that supports us"
  • 'no no, get me the sources I want'
  • "Like what?"
  • 'Well, like those books and sppeches and stuff, but saying hwat I want them to say'
  • "Which is?"
  • 'What I believed at the very beginning, stop challenging my preconcieved notions and agree with them.'
  • "what can we do to change your mind?"
  • 'get me sources, cause i don't like or believe this'
GOSUB line 20.
This is a content dispute that one person refuses to let go of, despite sources and consensus. Why? Don't know. b ut the race-baiting might be a clue. Gatoclass needs to find other articles to work on. ThuranX (talk) 05:33, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
In 1932-33 the Ukrainian ethnographic territory was divided up primarilly between Poland and the USSR. The Holodomor is the term that Ukrainian people use for the Great Famine of 1932-33 which took place on the Soviet side of Ukrainian Ethnic territory. Many Ukrainians who lived on the Soviet side of Ukrainian ethnographic territory died. Some say up to a quarter of the population. It was initially denied by Soviet authorities. Various journalist also made reports denying the Famine. Visiting dignitaries also made reports denying it. In 1983 the Ukrainian community in the diaspora made a concerted effort to bring public attention on this act. As a result the first secretary of the Communist Party in Ukraine acknowleged that the Famine happened in 1987. In circa 1991 the term Holodomor was introduced by a Ukrainian writer from Ukraine to specifically describe the great Famine of 1932-33 in Ukraine. In 2006 the Ukrainian parliament passed a law stating that the Holodomor was an act of Genocide and made it a criminal offence to publically deny its existence. many countries have also joined in labeling it an act of Genocide

The Holodomor and aspects related to it have been the subject of heated debate since 1932-33. During the course of history numerous people have denied that it took place. This article gives a concise list and references to the people, companies and organizations that made statements of denial of the Famine. Despite the Holodomor having been acknowleged by the Ukrainian government and many other governments, Books and materials written specifically to deny the existence of the Holodomor have continued to be published by organizations (up until 2002) and despite some being withdrawn from sale are available to download without explanation that they were withdrawn from sale or to the inaccuracies within them. These writings continue to be quoted in various disgusion groups. Early scholarship on this topic has been quite poor, with examples of incorrectly labeled photographs and poor access to source materials which initially hampered the subject and which continues to cause problems. There exist a small group of editors who are vehemently opposed to this topic for reasons that are not clearly explained, who continually obstruct the work of the editors of this article by the continuous placement of various labels, discussions not related to the topic and general rudeness. Bandurist (talk) 05:37, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

For 5 or 6 days now, Gatoclass has done nothing but attack the recently started article on Holodomor denial, which by the way was proposed for a DYK, before this relentless campaign against the article, and its editors was started by Gatoclass. (See here for more comments about the DYK nomination.) After all sorts of claims about the article, including that clearly sourced statements by Walter Duranty were only "alleged", and that using "denial" to refer to what Duranty, Fischer, and others did with respect to the Holodomor was "odious", Gatoclass took the article to AfD, where his nomination was soundly rejected by a vast majority (I'd say, near-unanimity). In the process, Gatoclass harassed many of the editors expressing opinions contrary to his, implying that their opposition to deletion was based on their supposed ethnic origin, stating:[67]
"Did I ever stop to ponder why so many disagreed with me? Sure I did. And in that regard I couldn't help but notice that all of the editors of the page apart from me appear to be of East European origin, with potential axes to grind against their former Soviet overlords. Just as this AFD is currently accumulating a host of "Keep" votes from Latvians, Lithuanians, Ukrainians, Hungarians and so on."
I personally was outraged by this. Several other editors expressed their dismay: [68],[69]. Gatoclass never apologized for these remarks, but only continued his campaign of tagging and random accusations, despite repeated attempts to come to an understanding, clear the air, and move to a more productive, dignified discussion -- most recently by PētersV. How much longer do we have to put up with this kind of attitude? Turgidson (talk) 06:14, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
Turgidson purports to be "outraged" by the fact that an editor should suggest that someone's national or political loyalties might possibly influence their political viewpoint. That he should seek to twist such a banal and everyday observation into some kind of insult only demonstrates how desperate he is to find a weapon with which to attack me. For the record, I did not volunteer this comment - I am not normally in the habit of commenting on users at all, as it obviously isn't conducive to a co-operative atmosphere. The comment was made in response to Turgidson's own question regarding what I thought might be motivating my opponents, in which case I gave him a frank reply. (If someone solicits my opinion about an aspect of their behaviour and I oblige, am I to blame if they don't like the answer?). But if I'd realized then what a meal he would try to make of this passing comment, I might nevertheless have been more cautious in my response.
I can't help but wonder now whether his question was merely a means of setting me up in order to denounce me for my "prejudice". Either that, or he must be about the only editor left on Wikipedia who is yet to acknowledge the problems that nationalist POVs present to this project. And I suppose I may have been put somewhat offguard by my participation at the Arab-Israeli pages, where editors are openly referred to as "nationalists" and even "ultranationalists" with barely a murmur of protest. If I'd realized what a bunch of shrinking violets our East European editors were by comparison, I'm sure I would have been more circumspect. Gatoclass (talk) 07:37, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
My dear Gatoclass. You obviously have not stopped to consider that Baltic/Eastern European editors are well aware of what misperceptions still linger after 50 years behind the Iron Curtain. That means said editors make absolutely sure they have reputable sources before even starting on an edit because they know they will be challenged by those who hold onto misconceptions. You, however, see heritage merely as an affliction which apparently is so well-known to induce bias that to make note of it is "banal." And then "wonder" (accuse) whether Turgidson, among the most reputable editors I know, made you a victim of a setup? You need to work on adjuting your perspective of the Gatoclass-centric universe. Any other conspiracies you'd like to propose? —PētersV (talk) 17:30, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
I note that some of my opponents have described this as a "content dispute" and I quite agree. That's why I tagged the article. These users are trying to present this article to the readership as issue-free when multiple users have raised serious questions about this article.
WP:NPOVD states the following:
Sometimes people have edit wars over the NPOV dispute tag, or have an extended debate about whether there is a NPOV dispute or not. In general, if you find yourself having an ongoing dispute about whether a dispute exists, there's a good chance one does, and you should therefore leave the NPOV tag up until there is a consensus that it should be removed...the tag should be removed only when there is a consensus among the editors that the NPOV disputes have indeed been resolved.
Just because the other editors who made the same complaints about the article as I did currently appear to be taking a Wikibreak, does not mean that "disputes have indeed been resolved" - clearly, they haven't. I am simply asking for some support from the community for what I regard as a fundamental policy - the right to tag an article which is in dispute. If there is no community support for even such a basic principle as this, what is to prevent a majority of likeminded users from totally controlling an article by sheer weight of numbers?
One more point - as usual there have been multiple attacks on my character in the responses above, falsely accusing me of "bad faith" (when a look at the talk page will reveal that it is I who have been subjected to a relentless stream of bad faith accusations), of "general rudeness" (when I have bent over backwards to remain civil), of having some sort of vendetta against East Europeans (I haven't made a substantial edit to a page involving Eastern Europe for eighteen months - take a look at my adversaries' contributions by way of comparison), and even, ludicrously, of "race-baiting" (Eastern Europeans are a race?). I'm afraid this has been the general tenor of "debate" on the article talk page from the outset. So when reading about my alleged breaches of good conduct, please take note of these ad hominem attacks and ask yourself which party is bent on personalizing this dispute. Gatoclass (talk) 06:50, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
Like already pointed out to you several times, Gatoclass. Please feel free to follow WP:NPOV by adding any alternative takes in to the article according to any published sources of your liking. Misuse of tagging such as adding "totallydisputed" to the well referenced article is not going to be tolerated. Thanks for your understanding.--Termer (talk) 08:04, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

RE: Gatoclass And in that regard I couldn't help but notice that all of the editors of the page apart from me appear to be of East European origin, with potential axes to grind against their former Soviet overlords. Just as this AFD is currently accumulating a host of "Keep" votes from Latvians, Lithuanians, Ukrainians, Hungarians and so on."

Whoa, even if it was the case, which is not, everybody who has bothered to check out the userpages who have voted at the AFD can see that the alleged "East European origin" is a speculation at best and in fact there were editors involved who have clearly identified themselves as not of East European descent. But the point would be arguments like this shouldn't be used really on WP to support your opinions as far as I'm concerned. Regarding grind against their former Soviet overlords, that must be a joke since Soviet Union collapsed about 20 years ago if I'm not mistaken.--Termer (talk) 08:21, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Good work Termer, you guys just keep beating me over the head with the same comment I made several days ago after solicitation of my opinion by one of your own number. Don't forget to alternate it now and again with the "Hoist by your own petard" comment or people might get bored.
Update: User:TableManners restores the tag,[70], User:Biophys deletes it.[71]. Gatoclass (talk) 08:37, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
Update: User:TableManners has not participated in article discussion, did not post a notice of their tag insertion, and so far have not responded to what, specifically, needs to be corrected. Total and complete contribution = reinsert tag with a "please" don't remove comment. Exactly how is this a constructive step toward consensus-building? Tagging with no further input? Whether or not it was what the editor intended, for all functional purposes, that's no better than WP:IDONTLIKEIT. —PētersV (talk) 17:10, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
Update: User:Crotalus horridus retags and adds WP:OR tag instead of responding to where I indicated his conclusions were mistaken (for example, apparently one can't call Duranty a "Holodomor denier" even if he's a "famine denier" before the word Holodomor was widely adopted to refer to the famine). More tagging and pushing editorial viewpoints by editors who have apparently said all they have to say. Don't agree with them? Here come two tags. —PētersV (talk) 18:33, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
Update: Consensus has been reached on a rename which User:Crotalus horridus et al. agree contributes to less room for misinterpretation which spilled over into and prompted his WP:OR concerns. —PētersV (talk) 19:25, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Gatoclass. And sure, unless I have missed something and you have apologized for supporting your opinions with commenting the possible ethnic background of your opponents instead of the content or referring to any published sources, always ready to help to remind you your mistake. that keeps at last you from repeating it I hope.--Termer (talk) 08:47, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
PS. How about my suggestion feel free to follow WP:NPOV by adding any alternative takes in to the article according to any published sources of your liking. you keep ignoring for some reason?--Termer (talk) 09:02, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm not going to apologize for giving an opinion that I was asked to contribute. An opinion moreover that ought to be self-evident to anyone with a lick of sense. And I am certainly not going to apologize to people who in my opinion have been roughly an order of magnitude more uncivil than me.
I'm not asking for an apology and I don't need one, but if you want an apology from me, you folks will first have to apologize for the way you have pilloried me these last few days for happening to hold a contrary opinion. Gatoclass (talk) 09:22, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Since you keep ignoring my request for any alternative published sources that would be in conflict with the denial of the famine called holodomor [72] [73] [74]; to back your opinions or the tagging, please let me remind you that the rules are simple. Any material that is challenged and for which no source is provided may be removed by any editor according to Wikipedia:Citing sources. therefore feel free to ignore the request for alternative published sources and tag the article, until no source is provided to back up the opinionated tag, it's going to be removed by any editor. Thanks--Termer (talk) 09:29, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I forgot to add a comment about that. My response as always is that this is not in my opinion a dispute that can be resolved with the addition of a few extra sources. It's a dispute about (a) the name, about whether or not "Holodomor denial" is an encyclopedic topic, and (b) if it is encyclopedic, where are the scholarly sources to validate that, and (c) if (a) and (b) are satisfied, is the current content truly reflective of the article name and if not, should we be adopting a different name that reflects the article content, or should we keep the name and dump the content? So you see it's not something that can be fixed just by adding more info to the article, it's a structural problem that really needs some planning on the talk page first IMO. Gatoclass (talk) 09:44, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
It is strange that you bring up issues over here that have been addressed on the talk page several times. whether or not "Holodomor denial" is an encyclopedic topic is pretty straight forward in case you have looked up one of the primary sources, it's an encyclopedia. But just in case, I'll just cite it once more: the famine is called holodomor ...Denial of the famine declined after the Communist Party lost power.... So in case you have any alternative encyclopedic perspectives on the subject, please do not hesitate to provide some published sources to back up your opinions. thanks!--Termer (talk) 09:55, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Hello, in reading over the debates and discussion, I see two separate issues: first, one of content; second, one of procedure. If I may, I would like to deal with them in order.

First, the issue of content. Very early in the existence of the article, a POV tag was added, with no appropriate discussion on the talk page. Therefore, I removed the tag. User:Irpen added another tag, stating that there were some questionable numbers in the lead. [75]. I removed the numbers, re-wrote the lead, and removed the tag. [76] There has been no issue with user:Irpen since that time. Every effort has been made to cite only verifiable - and non-offensive - sources, including changing citations, such as here: [77].

The second issue is one of procedure. An editor appears and applies tags without any discussion on the talk page or any attempt to improve the article. As discussed above, issues are dealt with in good faith. User:Gatoclass's issues are repeatedly addressed, for example here: [78] and here: [79] and here: [80].

One editor does not agree with a consensus. An AfD is initiated. This is understandable, especially considering user:Gatoclass's closing comments: it was an attempt to bring more people to the discussion, and that is a good thing. Unfortunately, even though that AfD seems to have ended on a positive note, a POV tag was added to the article immediately after the AfD was closed. This seems to have become personal to user:Gatoclass, and that is a bad thing. To me, this AnI appears to be arena-hunting.

What really offends me is dismissive statements such as "editors of the page apart from me appear to be of East European origin, with potential axes to grind against their former Soviet overlords". User:Gatoclass has no idea where I am from. I understand that such things may be written with no subliminal intent, but they do highlight the difficulties in writing articles about Eastern Europe, and possible biases towards the articles and editors.

Hopefully, now, a larger number of editors has been reached. Again, thank you to user:Gatoclass for bringing wider attention to this topic, and I look forward to any help in developing this article, Horlo (talk) 09:30, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

What really offends me is dismissive statements such as "editors of the page apart from me appear to be of East European origin, with potential axes to grind against their former Soviet overlords".
Good, thank you for reminding readers of my sole purported transgression once again, it's only two minutes ago since Termer reposted it and they may have forgotten already.
There has been no issue with user:Irpen since that time.
Irpen has been on Wikibreak since 28 December, along IIRC with some of the other editors who expressed objections.
An editor appears and applies tags without any discussion on the talk page
I have commented exhaustively on the talk page about my concerns. It is just extraordinary for you guys to keep making this absurd claim that I have not tried to initiate "discussion on the talk page". Unfortunately though, I have had next to no response to my requests for a genuine good faith discussion. Except, that is, for a barrage of bad faith assumptions and trumped up charges in regards to my character.
In any case, I don't think this is the place to discuss the parameters of the content dispute itself. I opened this discussion solely to try and establish the principle that a minority of good faith users in good standing has the right to expect that they can tag a page with a dispute template without having that template continually removed when it's clear that consensus is yet to be achieved. That's all, it's nothing complicated really. Gatoclass (talk) 10:04, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
Surely "the minority" has the right to have their POV attached to any article as long as it's based on a published source. Since you have failed to provide any...I hope that I don't need to keep repeating it. Good night from LA--Termer (talk) 10:10, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
No Termer, it's not me who has failed to provide a scholarly source, it's you who has failed - to provide a scholarly source which proves that the very topic of your article, holodomor denial, is a precise concept that really has some recognition and a discernible meaning beyond the assumption you have made about what it must mean because you think it's self-evident. Or which proves that it isn't just a political slogan used to promote a particular version of history, ie that the holodomor was a genocide. And so on.
I don't have to provide a source Termer. The onus is on you to provide a scholarly source to prove that your topic is genuinely encyclopedic in some way and not just another political epithet designed to attack someone. Gatoclass (talk) 10:44, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
you don't have to provide a source? Then you shouldn't be surprised that your opinions are going to be ignored as you have ignored the sources provided in the article. --Termer (talk) 17:24, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I have to admit some confusion. Gatoclass is maintaining that Stalin suppressing news of the famine, denying the famine where the outside world was concerned, how that campaign was conducted, who assisted (Duranty), what the impact is on current perspectives is not a topic worth encyclopedic attention?
  As I just mentioned on the article talk page, it's silly for editors to contend Duranty hasn't been called a "Holodomor denier"--Holodomor has not been in popular use for that long. There are plenty of sources that discuss suppreession and denial. We can call it "Suppression of news of the Ukrainian famine and denial of its existence". Gatoclass doesn't like the topic, the title, or anything about it. Perhaps it's not the most constructive place to be contributing.
  I haven't "threatened" Gatoclass over anything, in fact it takes little effort to read the talk page to see where I suggest not invoking the "Digwuren" ruling, to give Gatoclass an opportunity to be more constructive. As for Gatoclass' calumnies over threats and personal attacks, no one has threatened or attacked him. I'm sorry for whatever editorial battles he has had elsewhere, but frankly I don't care. I have never dealt with Gatoclass before and I expect better than jumping to petard hoisting conclusions proving conspiracy and axe-grinding theories that exist only in his brain.
  I have no problem with negotiating through content disputes and have reach compromises with editors whom I agree not one whit, as long as we stick to sources. Therefore this is not a "content dispute". Gatoclass has attacked me but has not negotiated with me over one shred of content. (Except to note my alternate title using "suppression" not "denial" was "accusatory".) This is an editor, Gatoclass, deciding to conduct his activities along battle lines that are only in his mind and, in keeping with that plan, attacks reputable editors as adversaries instead of resources with whom he should be working to build consensus. —PētersV (talk) 17:59, 4 January 2008 (UTC) <- sometime earlier, accidentally deleted signature

Exit death spiral?[edit]

To Gatoclass: if you can admit that your (to you "banal", to your targets, "offensive") stereotyping of editors was a mistake, perhaps we might resume more constructive uses of our time and get back to article specifics on the talk page. A friendly word of advice--don't think that those who tag or otherwise disapprove of articles in the Baltic/Eastern European space are acting 100% in the defense of "NPOV" and not their own POV. I can't speak for the other editors, but since you appear to have come in on something that started before you and have not dealt with a number of the editors here before and have obviously acted based on misperceptions--I certainly haven't dealt with you before this, a small act of contrition on your part might allow us all to put this to bed and move on. —PētersV (talk) 17:56, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Meaning whether or not your opinion was solicited, that it stereotyped editors was a problem, not that you don't apologize for your opinion (whether or not it was solicited is immaterial). You're entitled to whatever opinion you like, but the rules are different if it's regarding editors with whom you are attempting to engage in discourse. —PētersV (talk) 18:05, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, but I can't apologize for something I haven't done. I never accused anyone, specifically or even generally, of "axe grinding" in relation to this page. I merely noted - in response to the question put to me - that one could hardly fail to observe that editors from former Eastern bloc had potential "axes to grind" in relation to the USSR. Which is to say, I don't know whether or to what extent this apparent COI might be effecting someone's judgement, but that the potential is there for it to do so. Would anyone seriously want to dispute such a self-evident statement?
So hopefully now that I have offered this clarification, we can move on. Gatoclass (talk) 04:53, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
This would have been the appropriate response instead of your whole sorry petard I condemn myself with my own words affair, which I and I suspect others took as you confirming your low opinion of Eastern European editors. And now you're off demanding apologies genuinely feeling you owe none of your own. Your lack of sensitivity on the topic of Eastern European and focusing on items more of style than substance to me indicates you might want to do some serious reading first (real books written by acknowledged experts, not Wikipedia) before you're ready to contribute in this arena. —PētersV (talk) 22:26, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
P.S. Taking your above response at face value, I should let you know that there has been a history of heavy pro-Soviet axe-grinding going on in Wikipedia which you are likely not aware of. For this reason, the Eastern European editor community that have survived and not given up in simple disgust, some of whom you've dealt with here, go out of their way to always insure that they have reputable sources. (Some opposition editors have contended they need no sources to back their obvious position.) Your response and combative followup with its assumptions of bad faith, wondering whether you were being set up, etc. were naive at best and, IMHO, merit an apology. —PētersV (talk) 22:59, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

So whats wrong with these now democratic nations telling their stories on WP, according to the published sources of their imprisonment by the totalitarian regime that was no different from Nazi Germany? Again, in case you do have any alternative POV-s you might support, like the conservative-communist-stalinist revisionism would fit well the pattern of ideas you have been representing, why don't you just add the POV to the article? Or doesn't the "denial of the Holodomor denial", the stalinist-soviet sympathizer ideology allow any room for alternative viewpoints like it was common practice also for the totalitarian regime, suppress the liberal and free thought and ideas? I'm not getting it, what exactly do you think you're going to accomplish here? Even though the article is currently about the denial of the famine, not about the denial of the famine as a genocide, sooner or later there are going to be more and more countries added to these 15 who have recognized holodomor as a genocide. The soviet union is in the histories garbage bin and there are free nations emerged who are free to express their POV on WP like any other party, including the conservative-communists who might hold, in your words "axe-grinding" against Easter Europe because they helped to end the prison state -communist-Soviet-empire. The WP:NPOV requires, in case there are conflicting perspectives, each should be presented fairly. So why do you hesitate adding the POV you support to the article instead keep trying to put the subject away by any means possible including listing it for deletion and bringing it here at the notice board?--Termer (talk) 06:30, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, at LEAST we've got Gatoclass' objection down. He doesn't believe there IS such a thign as the PHRASE 'holomodor denial'. are there any sources out there which use it? Link them here, and we can bring them to the article, and then we can address Gatoclass' bigoted 'you're all a cabal' racist attitudes. ThuranX (talk) 06:57, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

The question has been addressed several times including at this notice board [81] One of the primary sources in the article, the Encyclopedia of Genocide and Crimes Against Humanity has the following take on the subject the famine is called holodomor ...Denial of the famine declined after the Communist Party lost power... So incase the article needs to be renamed exactly according to the encyclopedia Denial of the famine called Holodomor , that would be fine by me in case Holodomor denial by itself would be too Easter European POV-ish. just that also the suggestion to rename according to the encyclopedia has been ignored and rejected--Termer (talk) 07:12, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Good enough for me, we don't need a ridiculously cumbersome title like that, one which plays foolish grammar games to appease Gatoclass' POV issues. Now we can get onto his bigoted statements. ThuranX (talk) 07:19, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
I take exception to being referred to as a "bigot". You would be well advised to withdraw that fatuous remark. Editors have been banned from wikipedia for such breaches of WP:CIV. Gatoclass (talk) 07:54, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

As far as I can tell nobody has called you Gatoclass a "bigot" here. However I have to admit that I agree with ThuranX regarding your opinions and statements that you haven't even bothered to back up with any references or sources have been bigoted indeed.--Termer (talk) 08:45, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Gatoclass, you have not yet apologized for your skewed (kinder--one which you have not earned--version of bigoted) view of Eastern European editors, nor for acting on the basis of your gross assumptions of bad faith of that entire group of editors. Yet you get on your high horse and notify Termer you expect an apology. Sorry, your behavior here continues to be one of your demonstrated self-perceived superiority over editors of Eastern European heritage, your demand for an apology clearly indicating that you don't treat editors of Eastern European heritage with the same level of respect with which you expect them to treat you. You are clearly clueless as to how egregious your behavior has been. Despite your return to the article's talk page, perhaps you're not ready to exit the death spiral after all. Termer is a motivated, reputable editor, but someone who will not stand for insults. You might want to consider the basis in your behavior for Termer's words above and alter your conduct instead of continuing to escalate along the same line of self-righteous assumptions of bad faith on the part of other editors and now accusations of incivility. —PētersV (talk) 16:30, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
For all it's worth, here is the latest sourced added to the article: Lubomyr Luciuk, Searching for place: Ukrainian displaced persons, Canada, and the migration of memory, Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2000, p. 413. ISBN 0802042457. Here is a quote from the book: "For a particularly base example of famine-denial literature, see Tottle, Fraud, famine, and fascism: the Ukrainian genocide myth from Hitler to Harvard." And this is just one of the many examples in the article, but it sort of gives the gist of it. I mean, when you have a guy publishing a book with a title like this, and various other authors quoting him approvingly (including at least one academic, and a bunch of guys at the Stalin Society), well, that pretty much establishes that the phenomenon of denying the Holodomor is still alive and kicking (of course, it was very significant and widespread in the 1930s). This, plus all the (denial-of-famine-related) Pulitzer Prize controversy around Duranty and the NYT, and the current intense debate (and legislative action) in Ukraine establishes the notability of the subject, and the validity of the title (in whatever variation it will settle on), pretty much beyond a doubt, I submit. Turgidson (talk) 07:41, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

I've renamed the article per article talk to Denial of the Holodomor to make it easier to tell apart from "Holodomor denial" used to refer to denial of the Holodomor as genocide. —PētersV (talk) 02:36, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

I would just like to commend the users who have built up this first rate article from nothing, in the face of abuse and insinutaion, mockery and obfuscation. That you have conducted yourself so well in the face of this onslaught despite the fact the enslish is not your first language it to be commended highly. Lobojo (talk) 10:45, 7 January 2008 (UTC)


I don't think this debate is achieving much, and as pointed out above the page being protected prevents it from being improved. What do folks think about unprotecting it? --kingboyk (talk) 17:50, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

  • Unprotect. The protection is preventing this article from being improved by impartial editors. The dispute should be discussed on the article's talk page, with neither party editing this article further until they can come to a compromise. Seraphim Whipp 18:43, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
I have boldly unprotected the article, since it's at AfD. There's a chance folks there can improve it to such a level as to prevent deletion, and I wish to support that opportunity. - Philippe | Talk 18:51, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Jon Awbrey Meta*SockPuppet[edit]

Resolved: Blocked already—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 04:55, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Mrs. Lovett's Meat Puppets (talk · contribs) - blanking the Jon Awbrey articles per the request at WR. Corvus cornixtalk 04:52, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

You may want to request checkuser to identify any other socks in the same drawer. Jehochman Talk 04:57, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
Why would I want to do that? I have no idea what other users may be the same people. Their edits are specific enough to make it obvious. Corvus cornixtalk 05:00, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
Because checkuser can identify sleeper accounts that the banned/blocked user might use when the accounts they are currently using are exposed. -MBK004 22:44, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
Their edits are specific enough to make it obvious on WikiPedia, but if you would do some forensic analysis of their behavior correlating to their activities off WikiPedia, you may find an interesting connection that may shed light on an issue at hand. But do not get involved in such actions unless it is absolutely necessary. And if you do, you may want to ask assistance of an experienced Wikipedia SA. Igor Berger (talk) 23:00, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
Igor, the last time I requested CheckUser on an Awbrey sock, it turned up a number of sleepers that had not yet been blocked. Awbrey has to use sleepers to overcome the autoconfirm limit as these articles are semiprotected. Guy (Help!) 08:11, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

See my user contribs. I think you all will be pleasantly surprised :) Raul654 (talk) 14:10, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Dark Sunshine[edit]

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

I have an issue the user Dark Sunshine seems to have been blocked from editing before and admits it. I have marked the user's userspace for speedy deletion for vandalism due to the inflammatory comments on it. I am bringing this up because I do not know what the users other account was. Rgoodermote  20:33, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Sockpuppet of Kie250 (talk · contribs), blocked. east.718 at 22:04, January 6, 2008

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


Resolved: User warned. Rjd0060 (talk) 04:33, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Personally attacking another user[82]. Warning is probably warranted. VartanM (talk) 00:23, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

So warn him. OK, I've done it for you.--Docg 00:29, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, I'm another Armenian user, if I warn him, it will only flame the situation. VartanM (talk) 00:39, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
Understandable. In the future, Vartan, you might want to mention that right away. Otherwise it seems kind of odd why you don't warn the user yourself. Natalie (talk) 00:49, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
Thanks Natalie, I'll keep that in mind. VartanM (talk) 01:01, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Naomi Almeida[edit]

Resolved: article speedy deleted (A7) by User:Alison

Can someone help please. I have been trying (see edit summary on article) to make a 3rd nomination for deletion on this article based on WP:N and WP:MEMORIAL, but I do not know how and don't want to make more of a mess.

Thanks, Yellow-bellied sapsucker (