Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive383

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

Noticeboard archives

Contents

Arsenic99 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)[edit]

User:Arsenic99 appears to be on Wikipedia solely with an agenda of denying the Armenian Genocide. In the last few hours, he created Category:Armenian Genocide Propagandists and added it to several BLPs, including that of Taner Akçam (to my knowledge, the only person whose Wikipedia article has result in the subject's detainment by law enforcement). I've removed the category from all articles and put it up for CfD, but I remain concerned about Arsenic99's editing. This post to my talk page indicates that he doesn't consider the Armenian genocide a fact, only a "historical interpretation". Such an approach is ahistorical and unencyclopedic, to say the least. I think we should consider banning Arsenic99 from editing, or at least consider a ban from anything having to do with Armenia and related subjects. --Akhilleus (talk) 06:55, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I noticed in my talk page, User Talk:Arsenic99 that Akhilleus seemed to have a very hostile reaction (This link) to a simple discussion as to whether the Armenian Genocide is a fact or a historical interpretation based on years and years of research. I didn't deny the Armenian Genocide, nor is that the sole purpose of my account because anyone can see my contrib list, though I do have an interest in the subject which is clear. History changes all the time, which is why events and labels are not declared as facts in history, but simply interpretations based on CURRENT research on the subject. Sometimes research changes, an example would be the research at one time was that the Earth was Flat, but later research confirmed that the Earth was Round. I did not promote any POV, since it is OK to have categories such as Category: Nazi propagandists or Category:Soviet propagandists I thought it was OK to make the category Category:Armenian Genocide Propagandists but a simple renaming to a better term, could have been suggested by Akhilleus, instead he has had an agenda to censor me by deleting my work and proposing the category for deletion and writing numerous incident reports about me rather than discussing the issue with me in a mature manner. He has acted in a hostile manner towards me which I don't believe I deserved, and if I did, please explain to me why. Banning me for simply making one category, while Andranikpasha (who has numerous incidents about him) has been able to make the category Category:Armenian Genocide deniers is simply unfair and excessive. Wikipedia is not a place for censorship or hostility, and I am hoping an apology will be in order, and a pleasant discussion for the category's deletion or renaming will continue. I would argue that declaring a historical name for an event a fact is like saying "Bob is a fact". talk § _Arsenic99_ 07:07, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I hate to do this, but User:Nat earlier closed this discussion because in his opinion, it appeared to be a content dispute. It's not--there is no dispute about whether there was an Armenian Genocide. This is about Arsenic99's disruptive editing. Therefore, I'm un-closing this discussion. --Akhilleus (talk) 08:19, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

It's a content dispute in that the category in question is disputed. Besides, it doesn't seem to be like Arsenic is being especially disruptive. I don't think this is something that merits administrator attention, seeing as dispute resolution is intended for this very thing. But I'm not an administrator, so this is just my opinion as an uninvolved editor. --clpo13(talk) 08:28, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
Shouldn't this be at WP:AE because of this ArbCom's remedies? Orderinchaos 12:56, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
That would probably be more appropriate. I'll try to post there later today. --Akhilleus (talk) 17:20, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to ban Arsenic99 from anything related to Armenian or the Armenian Genocide in a couple of hours unless anyone objects. WP:ARBAA2 is perfectly applicable here. Not sure we really need more tendentious editors like this. Moreschi (talk) 09:43, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I've banned Arsenic99 from Armenian Genocide, Talk:Armenian Genocide, as well as reasonably related articles and their talk pages. Logged at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan 2. Moreschi (talk) 11:55, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Wrong Bot action on 9-1-1[edit]

Resolved: I reverted the bot. ➨ REDVEЯS dreamt about you last night 08:39, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

The bot denies reversal of scrambled latest version of 9-1-1. This is the incident code:(267521) .

The previous version defended by the Bot is scrambled and needs to be either reversed or cleaned up. --OCTopus-en (talk) 08:28, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Expressions[edit]

I haven't seen this immediately, so I'm reporting this with a delay. However, this must be reported. On 8 Feb 2008, User:Kukar wrote: "You must be on some serious hallucinogens Kubura " [1]. This is not a way of communication. I don't find these messages pointed to me as funny. Kubura (talk) 09:35, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I have given the editor a level2 warning for failing to AGF. I can't do more since the incident is a little stale. LessHeard vanU (talk) 14:02, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Abuse of admin tools and harrassment by User talk:JzG, harrassment by user:TenOfAllTrades[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.

Resolved: Will (talk) 16:40, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

JzG (aka Guy) first used his admin status to threaten and intimidate in this diff, http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3A64.236.121.129&diff=196068061&oldid=196066345

This was then followed up by TenOfAllTrades, mocking me on JzG's talk page seen here, http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AJzG&diff=196068724&oldid=196032343

I then discussed comments left on my talk page by users, which JzG didn't like. Note, I did not discuss these matters on reference desks on other public pages. The discussions were on my talk page which others initiated, and I responded to. Regardless, JzG used his admin status to block me since I responded to comments left by other users, http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3A64.236.121.129&diff=196151165&oldid=196115180

The harshness of Guy and TenOfAllTrades has been commented on by user:Lomn as too harsh, seen here. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3A64.236.121.129&diff=196106752&oldid=196102864 64.236.121.129 (talk) 16:33, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

You again? Stop being obnoxious, and you won't get blocked. Friday (talk) 16:34, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
The last diff is misrepresented. Lomn actually says the opposite of what has been asserted. The first few diffs reference sarcastic remarks, nothing improper, and have also been presented in a false light. This IP appears to be trolling and should be blocked if it will not stop. Jehochman Talk 16:36, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
IP critcising JzG, 10OAT. Nothing needs to be said, really. Marking resolved. Will (talk) 16:40, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
For reference, this IP was beating the same drum liast week at AN: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive130#User:TenOfAllTrades yelling to make a point on reference desk, using admin status to intimidate and threaten. Apparently he didn't get the message then that his trolling was unwelcome; perhaps a block is necessary at this juncture, as he is now ignoring the good advice offered to him by multiple editors. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 16:45, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
This user was mocking me in the diff posted above. It is a violation of civility rules. 64.236.121.129 (talk) 16:48, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
WP:STICK covers this nicely, I think. Guy (Help!) 17:08, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
Considering the complaint is against you, that would be a natural retort. 64.236.121.129 (talk) 17:10, 10 March 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.

User:Halo2nutter[edit]

Can anyone see what User:Halo2nutter doing? Special:Contributions/Halo2nutter. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 17:32, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Just fooling around, I guess. Only 3 edits today, nothing serious. Just leave it alone.--Atlan (talk) 18:03, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Random weirdness, potentially disruptive editor[edit]

I don't understand what's going on, but this editor is doing some very strange things. Like edit warring with himself on White Brazilian (add afd, removing it, re-add, re-remove). I suspect there was an attempt to "change username" to Opinoso (talk · contribs) (see [2]), perhaps to make it look like Opinoso was removing the AfD tag? Dúnadan (talk · contribs) (an admin on ca:) seems to be involved, so I've asked them for input here. In short, I don't know that there's been anything concrete, but it sure looks really weird. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 05:09, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I'd suggest that he be blocked for 36 hours, and warned that if he continues being weird that he'll be gone for good... it is very strange, and his edits really don't merit the trouble I suspect he's going to cause!! User:TreasuryTag/Sig2 09:02, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
Even though I have been involved in other discussions with Mhsb, I was not aware of Mhsb recent edits. He is a fairly new user, mostly unaware of the policies of Wikipedia. At first, he seemed to be a very disruptive user at Talk:Mexico, but eventually, after a very long discussion, apologized, and agreed to reach a compromised consensus.
Based on the links above, he inserted/removed/inserted/removed the tag in 4 minutes which to me, suggests that he didn't know what he was actually doing. Trying to change his name to "Opinoso" is indeed a very weird and possibly disruptive behavior, but I don't see that he was warned or asked to explain his actions neither in his talk page nor here. A temporary blockage may seem appropriate as long as he is explained the reasons and also be given a chance to explain his actions. --the Dúnadan 15:07, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
I left a message at User talk:Mhsb inviting him to join this discussion. Without deep investigation, one can observe that his User talk looks very strange. You can tell that a number of editors have already been very patient with him in a variety of situations where his behavior caused some puzzlement. One of those trying to educate him on WP policy was User:Dúnadan, who is an admin on the Catalan Wikipedia. Checking Talk:Mexico you can notice Mhsb using up a great deal of space and receiving some well-informed advice that didn't seem to make much impression. I think he is in the process of running out of good faith very soon now. EdJohnston (talk) 03:37, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Since he and Opinoso have been edit warring on Model (person), which resulted in protection on the article, it would be exceptionally strange for him to try to change his name to Opinoso.Kww (talk) 18:48, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

threat[edit]

Resolved
A sockpuppet by user: Mmbabies made this threat here late last night. What should we as the community do, another guy I know has contacted the FBI, Texas Rangers, Houston PD, and various other people. I filed a abuse report on 3 Feb 2008, and the other guy filed a abuse report on 24 Feb 2008. Can somone please give advice or atleast foward this to Jimbo or the Foundation . Rio de oro (talk) 18:08, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
On wikipedia we get "threats" from users all the time, I suppose posting a thread on here about it, doesn't help because they will have possibly done that looking for attention! WP:DENY. AndreNatas (talk) 19:01, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
The anon user has been blocked for disruption. If he continues, he will get extended blocks. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:18, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
Didnt Jimbo say if someone made a death threat , we should take action(ie. notfiy police...). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rio de oro (talkcontribs) 19:35, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
I've never read anything like that, but I don't see any reason why individual users couldn't report it. Evil saltine (talk) 19:44, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
He's been blocked many times before (see Wikipedia:Long term abuse/Mmbabies). should read before commenting Evil saltine (talk) 19:36, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
Well, I herd that a school bomb threat that was reported here on ANI was reported to the cops , and also Jimbo stated clearly when ever people /person life is threatned we schold contact law enforcement. Should we ask Jimbo Walles or the Foundation. Can an admin or a steward foward this to the Foundation ASAP.--Rio de oro (talk) 22:48, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
Threats of violence made on Wikipedia have been reported to various authorities, although not always law enforcement. Dealing with these sorts of situations is a judgment call and there are no hard and fast rules about how to respond. Some threats have been ignored, some have been forwarded to ISP abuse departments or school authorities, and some have been reported to law enforcement. If you reported this to law enforcement and feel that was the best thing to do, then that's fine. Natalie (talk) 01:41, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
See for example WP:VIOLENCE, (also links to same place WP:SUICIDE for suicide threats). If you see a threat and aren't worried that it's at all credible, we won't make you do anything. If you're worried that it's credible, we feel that it's responsible and appropriate for you to take the initiative and report it to proper authorities. The Wikimedia Foundation also wants to know if you do that, and posting to ANI is also encouraged. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 04:03, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Overlong block of 90.200.0.0/16[edit]

RIPE query block log

A full year for 1/4 of an ISP seems extreme, we have had an OTRS query about the block and I was hoping it could be reviewed. - TheDaveRoss (talk) 04:11, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

To be honest, as a checkuser on enwiki, I've seen this range show up again and again and again at RFCU. The fact that it's blocked AO/ACB is the least disruptive as it allows other, established editors use of this range. Furthermore, without saying too much, checkuser results show that that range is surprisingly inactive apart from one seriously disruptive editor. I'm not in favour of rangeblocks unless they're totally necessary and I'm not in favour of long blocks but in this case ... well, I can certainly see the rationale for applying it here. Would you be willing to share the ticket # here, by any chance? I also have OTRS access and can take a look if you like - Alison 04:26, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
#2008030810014496 - TheDaveRoss (talk) 04:28, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
Okay, it looks like a pretty standard account creation request. You could simply request a username and create the account for them, as we do all the time on the unblock mailing list. That way, they can get to editing through the block without any problems. I wouldn't be in favour of lifting the rangeblock at this time, though, whatever about shortening it - Alison 04:34, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
Seems rather extreme for a well-known IP. Nfitz (talk) 07:29, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
Unblocking seems rather extreme for one account request, given what Alison said above. Guy (Help!) 12:12, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the information. - TheDaveRoss (talk) 20:27, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Real Life Ministries and its AfD[edit]

again, more of an eye since the current vandalism has been reverted. User:Bg357 has 'dealt with' the situation by removing the AfD in the name of vandalism. This article has been apparently host to a number of shenanigans in the past, some of which is quasi-explained at the talk and may ( I don't see or get it) be explained on this blog. User:Rlmmedia may be involved but in an odd way. I think this needs an eye on it more than anything at the moment, with possible admin looking into logs to see if we're rehashing previous issues from other incarnations of this article (which was speedied, I believe). TRAVELLINGCARIMy storyTell me yours 14:52, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Trolling IP[edit]

IP has been used almost solely for trolling talk pages, although I can entertain the possibility it's just an idealogue who doesn't appreciate NPOV. However, in the latter case, I'd expect more mainspace edits to try to "fix" this. Seems most likely s/he's just here to cause disruption. --Infophile (Talk) (Contribs) 16:43, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I placed yet another warning on the IP's talk page, but I will not yet block, as the edits are not technically vandalism. Bearian (talk)
This IP has edited tendetiously for some time, and has started to attack other editors. Given the pattern of edits, this is obviously a single-user IP, and I would fully support a multi-month block on this IP if the incivility does not stop NOW. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 18:29, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
We have a handful of IP's who consistently troll and abuse article talk pages but don't vandalize per se (the Vermont Public Library editor being another prominent example). I think it's reasonable to have some limit on how much we tolerate such (non-)contributors, and agree with Jayron. MastCell Talk 18:46, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
The level of disruption and trolling we put up with here is absurd. This person has nothing worthwhile to contribute to this project and has stated their disruptive intentions on the IP's talk page. This IP need to be blocked Nobody of Consequence (talk) 02:04, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
Blocked for 24 hours after another disruptive edit and various threats to change IPs on the talk page. If they evade by resetting router I recommend a rangeblock as appropriate... Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 05:05, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Please watchlist Eliot Spitzer[edit]

At least for a bit. Eliot Spitzer has been apparently outed by the NY Times for being some part of a Federal prostitution sting, and the attacks/BLP issues are already underway since Drudge broke the news on his site back to the NYT. Lawrence § t/e 19:11, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, and there is a WP:RFPP on him right now. Tiptoety talk 19:14, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Just a heads up, we need more admins on Eliot Spitzer. We have allegations of BLP violations going now. Lawrence § t/e 20:25, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Keep an eye on David Paterson, as well. Corvus cornixtalk 21:46, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
Just FYI, looks like someone has redirected Client 9 to Eliot Spitzer, there is a request at WP:RFPP that states that somehow Client 9 is linked to Mr. Spitzer, but I cant find much. Tiptoety talk 23:29, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
It's been reported that "Client #9" in this ring's files was Spitzer. However, I fail to see how this is a valid redirect - who's going to search for that? Natalie (talk) 23:34, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
Let the edit warring begin [3] *sigh* Tiptoety talk 00:00, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Pgsylv (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log)[edit]

Resolved: Pgsylv blocked for 72 hours. nat.utoronto 22:10, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

This SPU has started posting on talk: Quebec (I've since reverted his post), an article he is banned from editing. GoodDay (talk) 22:08, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

ACLU[edit]

Resolved: user blocked

63.3.10.1 is continually removing referenced material from American Civil Liberties Union with "interesting" edit summaries such as 1, 2, and 3. The IP's sock account (63.3.10.2) is doing the same thing with the same interesting style of edit summary. (1) The first IP has a last warning message on his/her talk page, so is a block in order now or should some other action be taken. I'd suggest using the talk page, but that doesn't seem to be the way the anonymous user wants to handle the situation. There is probably a need for semi-protection on the page, if a request hasn't been made somewhere else already, and the discussion for that is here. AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 23:28, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Nevermind about the first IP, I see someone has just blocked the user. AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 23:30, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Anti-semitic posts from an IP editor[edit]

Could someone please take a look at 70.132.25.45 (talk · contribs)? I guess we normally don't block IP addresses but this one has engaged in long-term abuse with no productive edits ever. Nearly all the contributions are either strongly anti-semitic [4][5], uncivil [6][7][8], contemptuous of Wikipedia's rules, or all three. Given how passionate this person is about Wikipedia issues in their very sporadic contributions, and with a single-minded focus on what's wrong with Jews, I wonder if this is an IP sockpuppet of another editor. Thks, Wikidemo (talk) 23:45, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I do not know what other sysops do, but I will block racist, anti-semitic, homophobic, and sexist comments without all 4 warnings. I have blocked this IP for 24 hours as noted at User talk:70.132.25.45 and in the block log. This is not to punish, mind you, but to avoid further Wikidrama caused by the trolling, vandalism, and edit-warring. Bearian (talk) 23:55, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
So will I. If ever there was a case for WP:IAR, in my book, this is it, and hang the consequences. It's not just the rules here, it's the general rules of society at large. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 00:07, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Brian Boru is awesome[edit]

This user, Brian Boru is awesome (talk · contribs · logs), keeps slashing messages I appropriately gave him last year concerning a few of his unconstructive edits. ASAIK, users are allowed to remove legitimate warnings, comments, etc., but not alter them. Since I don't want to get into an edit war with this guy over this, can someone revert and step in? Lord Sesshomaru (talkedits) 23:47, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I left an amicable note on the user's talk page about the general practice of removing talk page messages. I hope that helps somewhat. Wisdom89 (T / C) 05:50, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Fuck (disambiguation)[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.

Resolved: Let's drop it. -Jéské (v^_^v :L5 Tediz Strong) 02:42, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Thright keeps up putting speedy tag on the article and ignores the fact that the tag is invalid. Some admin seriously needs to step in. TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 01:39, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to watchlist it; if he adds it again I'll decline it and have a chat with him. -Jéské (v^_^v :L5 Tediz Strong) 01:52, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
I left him a warning about this; he deleted it. Incidentally, I tried to report this earlier, but the spam filter kept rejecting my attempts to do so, claiming that I was hyperlinking to a banned site (hatingautism.blogspot.com). Sarcasticidealist (talk) 01:54, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
That's probably because the site got blacklisted as you posted. In any case, he [reverted TBM's concern on his TP as "vandalism"; I reverted it back as it is a valid concern, unintentionally wiping out another user's concern in the process. -Jéské (v^_^v :L5 Tediz Strong) 01:57, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
Well, accusing a good edit as vandalism is vandalism itself isn't it? TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 01:58, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
No; that's called an assumption of bad faith. —Kurykh 01:59, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
Anyway, he seems to have stopped tagging the article; I'd suggest we all just wander away from his talk page. We don't need him to admit he was wrong, we just need him to stop tagging the damned thing. Further tagging of the article would be cause for a short block, I think. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 02:01, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
I readded both TBM's and C1k3's concerns; he reverted them again and called them vandalism. Sarcastic, I'm a bit concerned about this user; he removed three concerns about his behavior and called all three "vandalism". -Jéské (v^_^v :L5 Tediz Strong) 02:04, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
And if he keeps this up, he'll be blocked; I just don't think that continuing to revert his deletion of content, even good faith content, from his talk page serves much purpose. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 02:10, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
Sorry about the blacklist thing, I apparently failed at that. I reverted myself, so it shouldn't be a problem anymore. Natalie (talk) 02:08, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Expect a prod or a AfD notice soon: [9] --NeilN talkcontribs 02:03, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Tomorrow even [10] -- Longhair\talk 02:05, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
I still think it's rude to accusing the messages he gets to his talk page as vandalism. TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 02:09, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
Expect the AFD to be closed as a speedy keep per WP:SNOW... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 02:08, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
I have informed Thright of the existence of this thread. -Jéské (v^_^v :L5 Tediz Strong) 02:10, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
 ? I placed two tags on the page? Second, my talk page is being flooded. Third everything has been backed up according to policy. 4th I have not attacked anyone, all I have done is questioned the content of the page TWICE!! I ask that this be deleted. Furthermore, it has been asked to stay off my talk page and several still change it. Jeske who started this claim keeps flooding my talk page. PLease delete this. Thank you. Thright (talk) 02:14, 11 March 2008 (UTC)thright
I never started this thread; User:TheBlazikenMaster did. I merely responded. -Jéské (v^_^v :L5 Tediz Strong) 02:20, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
As has been pointed out to you, the page does not fall into any of the criteria for speedy deletion, which is the process you were attempting to use. Those particular criteria are very narrow on purpose. If you want to the article deleted you will need to start an articles for deletion discussion which is a longer process and covers more issues than speedy deletion. The issue here isn't with your desire to have the page deleted - the problem is that you are going about it the wrong way. Natalie (talk) 02:17, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
(ec) First of all, repeatedly adding speedy deletion tags after they've been declined is considered disruptive. No matter how right you think you are, please don't do it. Second, you did not cite a single one of the rationales for speedy deletion when you tagged it; those are the only reasons pages can be speedily deleted, and I haven't yet seen you claim that any of them applied. Third, you cannot order people to stay off of your talk page; you can request that they do so, but if they have something important to impart to you, that's the place they're going to do it. Fourth and finally, it is poor form to remove content from conversations that are ongoing, unless there is compelling reason to do so. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 02:19, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
"repeatedly" as in twice! All this over the page entitled "FUCK"! In anycase, I attacked no one, nor was this justified. I am sure if you have seen your child reading the page "FUCK" you would act in the same manner. Now please, stay off my talk page. Thank you. Thright (talk) 02:29, 11 March 2008 (UTC)thright.
Not at all - we'd actually parent. Wikipedia is not censored for minors or morality. -Jéské (v^_^v :L5 Tediz Strong) 02:31, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
(ec) Given that you are permitted to re-add the tag zero times, twice is twice too many to be undisruptive. As for the children thing, people have repeatedly referred you to WP:NOTCENSORED, but you've yet to show any evidence of having read it. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 02:32, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
As a heretofore uninvolved admin, I concur with Natalie and Sarcasticidealist. You'll have to find another way to approach this issue, because consensus is overwhelmingly against you. --Bradeos Graphon Βραδέως Γράφων (talk) 02:34, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
Maybe its time for everyone to let this go. Why the need to keep adding to this? The tags were placed over an hour ago and some - who are admin - keep trying to add comments. I have not added, nor am I going to re add a tag. So why keep this up? I am done, so you should be too! If anything some of your actions towards me were not admin like and maybe you should think about saying sorry. In any case, it is clear that most dont have children. In that event, I will let time take its course. I hope everyone here - when that time comes - remembers this converstion. I hope you reacted the same way when your child watches porn on the internet and googles the word fuck. Take care, and please there is no need to respond.Thright (talk) 02:40, 11 March 2008 (UTC)thright
Yes, apparently there is a need to respond, because you are not getting the gist of this noticeboard. Moralizing at us and trying to gerrymander Wikipedia to promote your worldview are going to get you in trouble here double quick. If you hit a beehive with a stick, this is what happens. You have to assume good faith in discussions. And what does "I hope everyone here - when that time comes - remembers this converstion" mean? Statements like that end up making the issue personal, and that behaviour has to change. --Bradeos Graphon Βραδέως Γράφων (talk) 02:51, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
really let it go. Are you trying to start a fight? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thright (talkcontribs) 02:58, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Ahem. WP:DEADHORSE. --NeilN talkcontribs 03:03, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I actually gave notice to Thright's talk page in regards to that actually. It's becoming tiresome to have to deal with the nagging that goes along with it, at various user talk pages and here. It's a dead issue. And with that... seicer | talk | contribs 04:06, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Fuck (process). :o)

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.

User:Catherine de Burgh[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.

Resolved: Page deleted, sock of Rms125a@hotmail.com fed to the sock monster

Please delete User:Catherine de Burgh - it is an offensive anti-British sockpuppetry hoax (possibly by User:Giano or User:One Night In Hackney). Radoninspector (talk) 02:03, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

The page has been deleted. I would suggest if you are going to accuse other editors of sockpuppetry that you provide some evidence. Natalie (talk) 02:14, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
Ironically, these accusations are coming from someone who has a grand total of four edits, yet knows where AN/I is. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not love) 02:20, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
What a shame. That was one of the funniest pages on Wikipedia. Whoever was running it had extremely sharp wit and was not doing anything harmful. I recommend undeleting the page. People need to lighten up and not take offense at harmless jokes. Jehochman Talk 02:20, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
Nice of Rms125a@hotmail.com to post with his latest sock to ANI where it makes it easy to block. Anyhoo, back to the wikibreak. SirFozzie (talk) 02:30, 11 March 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.

Any chance that 75.3.150.12 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log) is Rms125a@hotmail.com? Corvus cornixtalk 02:50, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

NO!!! R.M. Sieger —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.194.1.81 (talk) 03:19, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
No, as Robert says above, that's not him! :) - Alison 04:25, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

V-Dash again?[edit]

Resolved: According to Alison, no more sleepers. -Jéské (v^_^v :L5 Tediz Strong) 05:26, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

He seems to be trolling articles and users consistent with V-Dash. I don't really care who he is, he needs to be taken care of. Note that this is at least three socks tonight by now.

List of socks
A few example diffs

Loveはドコ? (talkcontribs) 05:12, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I've contacted Alison; I've been blocking and transcluding his pages on sight. -Jéské (v^_^v :L5 Tediz Strong) 05:20, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
Let's close this thread; all are blocked. -Jéské (v^_^v :L5 Tediz Strong) 05:26, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
Annnnnnd -  IP blocked - Alison 05:29, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:ThreatsOfViolence[edit]

The above proposed policy has been created in order to set the standard that Wikipedia takes all threats of violence seriously. This should hopefully put to rest any discussion as to a threat being a hoax, joke, etc. My apologies for posting here but very recent events seem to indicate that wide community discussion is appropriate. Bstone (talk) 05:13, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

We already have one of those: see WP:VIOLENCE and WP:SUICIDE . You should redirect yours to that one... Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 05:17, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
WP:VIOLENCE is an essay only and ideally will be merged into the new proposal. WP:SUICIDE does not include threats against high schools and other buildings and institutions. Bstone (talk) 05:21, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
Both links redirect to the same location. Anchoress · Weigh Anchor · Catacomb 05:22, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
(ec)I just corrected the above when it ECd. My text: WP:VIOLENCE is an essay only and ideally will be merged into the new proposal. WP:SUICIDE, is same as WP:VIOLENCE. In my opinion, there needs to be a policy which clearly states all threats of violence are to be taken seriously. Bstone (talk) 05:24, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
Yes, sorry if that wasn't clear. The essay is the old WP:SUICIDE essay I did, adopted to include threats of violence but otherwise structured and saying the same. It covers this topic. If someone (you) want to make a policy I don't think anyone's going to object strongly, but as this documents what everyone has agreed is the right thing to do and is doing, it seems like just formalizing the essay into policy would be the easy and correct path. But I'm biased, as I wrote the starting essay. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 05:26, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Jjok (talk · contribs)[edit]

Conflicts of interest happen all the time but I think this racial and biased comment of jjok (talk · contribs) is not acceptable in Wikipedia.[11] His saying is Korea built up the miracle by prostitution from his ill faith. I think he needs to hear a proper warning from admins. --Appletrees (talk) 16:14, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

That article is Prostitution in South Korea which is what the edit is about. It also has refs that seem to support it. Do you have evidence to the contrary? All countries have prostitution and the fact that many Asians go on sex tours is well known. Where are the alleged racial slurs in this? I don't see him saying something like "Koreans are (insert slur of choice here). This sounds like WP:IDONTLIKEIT. RlevseTalk 16:29, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
No, he has a long history inserting biased or fabricated contents with alteration to the article like this [12]. The citation has no information about this. Besides, if someone who tends to edit against Japan said that the current Japan is a miracle of Geisha diplomacy, does it sound NPOV? The miracle of Hangang (Han River), a symbol of Korean archivment has nothing to do with the prostitution and if conflicts occurs, Jjok should've just reverted the edit or talked to people who disagree with his version at the talk page. He should not say the comment.--Appletrees (talk) 16:38, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
The cited source is available on Google Scholar. It says that the yakuza have gotten into the sex trade; it does not appear to say anywhere that the Korean government set up official brothels, promoted sex tourism, or gave lectures on the importance of foreign exchange. Ultimately, this sort of deliberate long-term problem may require arbitration to take action against the editor(s) involved. Thatcher 19:10, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Great find by Thatcher. Appletrees-you need to be explicit about the problems someone is causing. Saying it's "racial and biased" only gives a vague idea of the issue. The real issue, as pointed out by Thatcher, is distortion of facts. If there's a long term problem of this nature by this editor or a closely associated group of editors, you may have an arb case here. RlevseTalk 20:37, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Rlevse. I don't know whether you saw my another recent report or not Long time abusing Wikipedia by Japanese editors from 2channel meat/sock puppets, but this is not a mere content issue. I tend to make lengthy or too abstract report for admins. However, Jjok (talk · contribs) is deeply associated with 2channel's disruptive meat/sock puppetry. I think this should go to arbicom case, but they are too many for me to deal with.--Appletrees (talk) 21:42, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
I don't think prostitution was "official", just "legalized".
Somebody needs to monitor these articles for possible WP:NPOV violations. There's a major WP:NPOV issue hanging here, which may need to be resolved at WP:DR. The part I detest is that the word "kisaeng" is being associated with prostitution at all. Despite sources such as this describing it that way, I suggest using the word "brothel" instead of "kisaeng". The Wikipedia articles should be careful to use NPOV words.--Endroit (talk) 21:15, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
Endroit, you so quickly switch your attitude from accusing me of making "snide remarks" at Jjok's talk page to defend for Jjok.[13] You followed me yesterday, so you're acting like a third person at Fut.Perf who takes interest in 2channel's disruption which is really amazing. Opp2 requested your help a lot which are mentioned on 2channel board as well. --Appletrees (talk) 21:42, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
Since Appletrees didn't seem to understand, I'll clarify what I mean: I believe this to be a widespread WP:NPOV problem, rather than a WP:NPA violation by Jjok. And the "snide remarks" I ignored here actually involved possible personal attacks by Appletrees against myself and others.--Endroit (talk) 22:18, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
Endroit, you already proved me that you gave me blatant several personal attacks on me including 'snide mark'. I don't see my any personal attack to you I focused on Jjok's personal and racial attack and you rebutted it with the inappropriate comment. I can point out "one by one" why I have such impression on you. --Appletrees (talk) 22:25, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
Please initiate WP:DR and we'll discuss it.--Endroit (talk) 22:29, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
Why are you on behalf Jjok who violates several rules like WP:AGF, WP:NPA, WP:V, WP:UNDUE, WP:MEAT, WP:NPOV? --Appletrees (talk) 22:53, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
I'm not. Like I've said, there's a likely WP:NPOV violation, so we agree on that one point. I don't support Jjok's wording which equates the word kisaeng with prostitution, although some sources use that word. I don't support Jjok's wording which say that the brothels are "official", despite some sources suggesting support by high level goverment officials. Surely, there's no way that the South Korean government overtly endorses prostitution. That's ridiculous. If you like, I'll comment at Talk:Prostitution in South Korea to that effect.--Endroit (talk) 23:20, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
Well, before going further, Jjok should explain the reason why he did it. --Appletrees (talk) 07:06, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

My disputed comment seems this one in the edit summary:

"it is really a part of the miracle of hangang" (emphasized)

the color is added by Appletrees for the reason why Jjok is reported

Appletrees, you do not have to think that I am saying "Korea built up the miracle entirely by prostitution" and I also recognize other aspects such as the compensation from Japan,[14] $1 billion from US by entering the Vietnam war,[15], as well as sending coal miners and nurses to West Germany and construction workers to the Middle East. In addition, Yakuza also describes in p. 237 as follows:

With tourism as the third- or fourth-largest earning of foreign exchange in these countries, and most of the visitors men, for years local government officials condoned and even boosted the sex trade as means of gaining hard currency. A 1984 report by the respected Korea Church Women United condemned the nation's kiseang houses as "an auction block where girls are bartered in exchange for foreign money." Indeed, these critics charged that the sex trade had become to pervasive that without it Korea's all-important tourist trade would collapse - and with it a startling percentage of the cash needed to pay off the nation's foreign debt. Despite a 1947 ban on prostitution, claim the church women, Korean tourism officials even sponsored ideological lectures for the prostitutes about patriotism and the importance of the foreign exchange they earned.

I did not implement the first paragraph since it may referring to other South East Asian countries, however, the importance of the contribution by those sex workers in South Korea who sacrificed themselves for the economic construction is clear in the text. Appletrees, they may be filthy prostitute for you, however, the miracle of Hangang, a symbol of Korean achievement actually has something to do with the prostitution and I think they should be appropriately acknowledged.

Thatcher, I think I summarized the above description as "official" because of the nature of approval and promotion by the government (and I heard they actually set up two big kiseang houses on the left and right sides of the embassy of Japan in Seoul, which I am still looking for the WP:V source). However, if my summarization is too far, please feel free to change it to appropriate words, such as state-promoted or something else.

According to my old edit that was done when I was frequently editing based on "what I know" and "I saw it on the internet!" (actually, I could not reach the proper references since I retrieved the net using wrong keyword, "kiseang diplomacy", that is rather used in Sino-Korean diplomacy), and I appreciate Appletrees to give me an opportunity to appropriately update the description based on reliable sources.--Jjok (talk) 23:33, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Jjok, you're making further mistakes by saying like the above excuse. Your point of view toward Korean miracle is really amazing. You're not only violating the aforementioned rules, but also, I can say you're editing with WP:OR and your own bias. Wikipedia is not a collection of hearsays and original research. I believed that when you edit on Korean related articles, you're sticking to source. However, my belief turns out to not true. Do you ever think that what you know could be wrong? Your explanation is just absurd. --Appletrees (talk) 23:53, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I cannot confirm any deliberate WP:V violation by Jjok. Jjok's source Yakuza: Japan's Criminal Underworld (ISBN 0520215613) says on p.234:
  • "In every major Korean city, large, government-registered "kisaeng houses" sprang up. One pair of houses sat in a wealthy area of Seoul, on either side of the Japanese ambassador's official residence. Each could accommodate eight hundred men at one time. The owner was reportedly a top politician with past service in the KCIA. Along with the official kisaeng houses arose hundreds of brothels and tens of thousands of prostitutes." (bolding added for emphasis by Endroit)
So that's where the wording "official kisaeng houses" probably came from. As I said above, I believe this wording to be in violation of WP:NPOV, and so I propose this wording be changed to "brothels approved by government officials". And I believe it may be safer to say that prostitution was "tacitly approved" rather than "officially approved".
There's still the question of whether the topic of "prostitution for tourists during the 1970s" is worthy of mention in the article.--Endroit (talk) 00:13, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
Also, with respect to Thatcher's concern about a source for the government giving "lectures on the importance of foreign exchange", p.118 of Women's Lives and Public Policy: The International Experience (ISBN 0275945235) says:
  • "This time the South Korean state encouraged and condoned prostitution because it saw women as a valuable resource with which to earn badly needed foreign currency. The kisaeng, the professional female entertainer, is officially registered with the Korea International Tourism Association (KITA) through the party house to which she belongs. .... KITA also sponsors an orientation program for these women, in which "renowned personages and college professors" give lectures and say such things as, "You girls must take pride in your devotion to your country, for your carnal conversation with foreign tourists does not prostitute either yourself or the nation, but expresses your heroic patriotism"."
It's not clear what status this KITA actually had in the Korean government, if any. But at least, it appears that the stuff added by Jjok is not something he concocted. Major WP:NPOV concerns exist, if this stuff needs to go on the article (ie: that the government "encouraged and condoned prostitution").--Endroit (talk) 01:02, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
Endroit, I think we're speaking of very different things in the thread. What I feel absurd at Jjok's explanation is that he affirms that the success of South Korea is made by not only prostitution but also compensation from Japan and other duty jobs like money from yakuza. I think his point of view is too distorted to contribute to those articles. I also checked out several articles in which Jjok edited show several other problems like WP:COPYVIO.[16] Besides, Wikipedia is not a place to advocate Jjok's political point of view or agenda. --Appletrees (talk) 00:46, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
Appletrees, please clarify if there's more.--Endroit (talk) 01:02, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
Jjok, let me ask you one more thing. You added a citation on gimbap which is a book written in Korean(ISBN 9788985846974) and does not provide any preview over internet and you can't read Korean. How do you know that your quote is from p. 90. "일본 음식인김초밥에서 유래한 것으로 한국인들은 근대 이후부터 많이 만들어 먹었다." --Appletrees (talk) 01:25, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
I have another source for the origin of Gimbap. Yahoo Korea dictionary says: "일본음식 김초밥에서 유래되었다." (My translation: "Gimbap originated from the Japanese cuisine nori-sushi"). Now you guys, will you also stop revert-warring in the Gimbap article?--Endroit (talk) 01:57, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
Endroit, I appreciate your effort, but you're talking totally another story. The example of gimbap is why I can't believe Jjok's credibility so requested how he found the quote. I had believed that Jjok tries to stick to sourcing even though he has several examples to fail WP:V and WP:NPOV such as the first article, chinilpa, dog meat. Most of South Korean know that gimbap is strongly influenced by Japan that is undoubtedly fact, but we need to back up it by reliable citations. I checked on the history of the article which has long history of edit warring for the claim that gimbap is a Japanese dish. Unlike many Japanese editors, jjok said it is a Korean spin-off, so it is not a Japanese food. Due to his saying, I believed that whatever he edit on Korean related articles, his editing is different from Azukimonaka who inserts bogus citations like this.[17] Jjok shows that he acts like a balanced person with sourcing, but if he inserted the citation from some hearsay like his above comment, I can't trust and cooperate him anymore unless he significantly improves himself.--Appletrees (talk) 03:41, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
Appletrees, if our combined vigilance helps reduce the overall revert-warring and the WP:NPOV violations, I believe we've accomplished something here. I don't know if sanctions are warranted against any particular editor at this point, but that's for the admins to decide.
If this case is archived or closed without any action, I will treat this like any content dispute and initiate WP:DR by moving my comments from the above discussion to each relevant article's talk page.--Endroit (talk) 05:12, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
As I repeatedly say Jjok did more than NPOV violations. However, I don't request him to get a sanction, but want to admins just to give an official warning to him. It appears that my wordings are not effective to him at all per previous discussions with him at his page and here. I still think that Jjok should've presented his thought more instead of your talking. He has been silence except the implausible statement. Besides, I or others interested in the articles Jjok edits should first check all of his citations since his sourcing seems dubious. It requires much time for people to look through whether he properly added or not.(he really betrays my WP:AGF--Appletrees (talk) 03:25, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Appletrees[edit]

As well as the source of Prostitution in South Korea having been deleted. Appletrees often tries the concealment of the source.

Case1 Namdaemun[18] Chosun Ilbo introduced Namdaemun. "Namdaemun was specified for the national treasure No.1 by a Japanese empire. The South Korean thinks the succession of the specification of a Japanese empire to be disgrace. "[19]" Appletrees was not able to deny the fact written in this source. Therefore, he tried to conceal this fact shouting, "You are a puppet".

Case2 Japan-Korea relations [20]Chosun Ilbo analyzed "Japanese boom in South Korea". [21] The South Korean was worshiping the electronic gadget made in Japan when South Korea was poor. However, the South Korean enjoys Japanese food and clothes today. Appletrees shouted "Vandallism". And, the source was deleted. He doesn't verify the source.

Case3 Hanbando[22]JoongAng Ilbo explained the movie Hanbando. "The end for which Japan apologizes to Korea will satisfy South Korean's anti- Japanese sentiment." [23] The signature of Ser Myo-ja shouted and he shouted though it was. He shouted though this was an article with the signature of Ser Myo-ja. "That is not a real "article" written by a reporter. Don' try to fool me again" And, the source was concealed. I advised. "Do not delete the source without the reason. "

He answered. [24] "If you continue to vandalize pages by deliberately introducing incorrect information, as you did to Japan-Korea relations, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Again, read the citation, possibly a 2channel meat/sock"

I have been perplexed to his behavior. What contribution can I do? --Opoona (talk) 10:37, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Rebuttal to Opoona (talk · contribs)[edit]

Opoona, you're speaking very selective information and attempt to turn the subject on Jjok. You're certainly not a new user because right after you created your account three days ago, you jumped in to help the banned user, Azukimonaka (talk · contribs). He uses ODN ISP, and obsessed with anything related to Anti-Japanese sentiment in Korea. On August, an odn user who seemingly looked like Azukimonaka inserted the category to the Hanbando article.[25] On March 7th, Azukimonaka (later confirmed) initially inserted just a 'claim' regarding the movie without any source, so I reverted it.[26] Then he reverted my edit to his version with the copyvio addition from the above mentioned dubious source and called me a vandal.[27]. In the meantime, you suddenly reverted the article to the Azukimonaka's reversion as calling me a vandal as well.[28] In this situation, you can't complaint that I gave you a warning sign. Your "shouting" like "Korean vandalism" is nothing but a personal attack on me. Besides, one of articles Azukimonaka gave has no reporter name, and the other is also has no information about who is Ser Myo-Ja and its like an opinion by a non-reporter.

As for Namdaemun article, you should answer that why you and your friends constantly refused to my suggestion to discuss at the talk page. Namdaemun which has several content disputes between Japanese editors and others ever since Namdamun fire occurred on Feb 11th. The former have not show any interest in the arson incident, but just tried to put "two photos" in a row and "National treasure" thing. According to Korean Yahoo encyclopedia, Japan never designated Namdaemun as a National treasure (gukbo, 국보), but just " treasure" (bomul 보물). Moreover, the book title which contains the photos is "Thriving Chosen: A survey of twenty-five years' administration". Japanese editors' intention is so obvious, so edit warrings over the inclusion of the images and the citation have crossed over the whole Wikipedia projects. Some editor provided better and clear images taken by an Australian photographer around 1904 to resolve this dispute. Besides, 3 b/w images taken in similar time are not necessary to include the all of them, because the article is not a repository like commons. As the result of the edit warring, the page had been under semi-protect for 2 weeks. It is later discovered that the news was reported on several pages at 2channel, and they talked the edit warring as well. However, you and your friends insist on putting the comparison pictures after the revelation. So I suggested to take it to the talk page. Now, Opoona, you should answer my question.--Appletrees (talk) 20:22, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Especailly, the InfoWeb ip user has tried to add the photo without any discussion throughout the whole Wikipedia (20 pages), so I can't assume good faith edit by this ISP user. That's why I reverted his/her edit and requested to participate in a discussion but these edit warrings in other language Wiki have been still ongoing. Here are examples.

Edit warrings on Namdaemun for inclusion of the two picture.
Thailand Wikipedia French Wikipedia German Wikipedia
  1. 124.25.228.163 infoweb.ne.jp
  2. 125.0.14.162 infoweb.ne.jp
  3. 61.124.98.90 (infoweb.ne.jp)
#124.25.228.163infoweb.ne.jp
  1. 219.107.205.178 (mesh.ad.jp)
  2. 125.0.14.162 infoweb.ne.jp
  3. 125.0.14.162 infoweb.ne.jp
  4. 61.124.98.90 (infoweb.ne.jp)
  5. 124.25.232.128 (infoweb.ne.jp)
  6. 219.97.123.69(infoweb.ne.jp)
  7. 124.27.145.229(infoweb.ne.jp)
  1. 124.25.228.163infoweb.ne.jp
  2. 124.25.228.163infoweb.ne.jp
  3. 219.107.205.178 (mesh.ad.jp)
  4. 125.0.14.162 infoweb.ne.jp
  5. 125.0.14.162 infoweb.ne.jp
  6. 61.124.98.90 (infoweb.ne.jp)
  7. 124.25.232.128 (infoweb.ne.jp)
  8. 219.97.123.69(infoweb.ne.jp)
  9. 124.27.145.229(infoweb.ne.jp)

--Appletrees (talk) 20:22, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Request for checkuser on Opoona (talk · contribs)[edit]

That's why so many meatpuppets ruined the Wikpedia's Talk:Sea of Japan

As I submit the above reason, I request for checkuser on Opoona. The first three are all using OCN ISP, and show meatpuppting around Azukimonaka.--Appletrees (talk) 19:28, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

File this at RFCU. Then when that's done I think an arb case on the Japan-Korea mess is probably needed. RlevseTalk 20:40, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

We should handle these cases less bureaucratically. Shoot on sight. I've indef-blocked Opoona as an obvious, disruptive meatpuppet. His contribution history was clearly focussed on harassing Appletrees. I say, zero tolerance, from now on. Fut.Perf. 21:56, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

There's way more to this than Opoona.RlevseTalk 03:04, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
Sure, I know. But there's also way more to it than what Arbcom is ever likely to handle. Lots of anonymous IPs and throwaway accounts, disruption spread over a wide range of articles and involving a large, ill-defined set of editors. If this were to come to Arbcom, I bet you any sum they'll do nothing but place the whole area under general probation and "discretionary sanctions" rules like they did to the Balkans and Eastern Europe. Fine. But knowing that outcome we can spare ourselves the trouble and just do it ourselves. Fut.Perf. 08:34, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

User:PatW[edit]

PatW (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) has been warned numerous times for personal attacks, and talk page disruption (WP:NOT#FORUM, and WP:NOT#SOPABOX). Despite the warnings, PatW continues misusing talk page discussions with long diatribes, baiting editors, expressing personal opinions about the subject of the article, etc.

The user, upon my last warning, says that the warnings are "inappropriate and a corruption of honest values. I am fairly confident that uninvolved admins will agree with me and disagree with you. So bring them on by all means. To put it bluntly 'put your money where your mouth is' and lets see just how what others think about this."diff

Note: the user does not make edits in article namespace, only commenting in talk pages, and only about this subject.

The article in question, is on community-enforced 1RR and disruption probation (See Talk:Prem_Rawat/Probation)

Diffs, in descending order:

  • Describing editors as "shameless servants". Diff March 9, 2008

I kindly request an uninvolved admin to review this user's behavior, in the context of WP:NPA, talk page disruption, and the article probation, and his own request to assess if his behavior is constructive or disruptive, and assess the imposition of restrictions if warranted. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:16, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Nice. I would endorse a block just for the bad faith assumptions and personal attacks alone, such as this, this and this if it continues on. Asking for banning with a smiley face is still pretty much assuming the worst. His comments reek of much incivility, and his personal statements against you is much unwarranted -- at Jimbo's talk page, article space and wherever. He's only attention-whoring and seeking as much of it as possible, hence why his talk page is nothing more than a winded soapbox. seicer | talk | contribs 00:22, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
A block certainly seems warranted; such personal attacks have no place here. — Coren (talk) 00:48, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
Although I am not an administrator, I also endorse a block. This user does not seem to have any intentions to civilly contribute to wikipedia. No user should have to endure the attacks as Jossi had. Disclaimer: I have not been part of any of the above disputes, infact I have never seen the Prem Rawat article and I have never met Jossi. (I mearly notice a message at Jimbo's talkpage that led me here.)--Sunny910910 (talk|Contributions|Guest) 01:46, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
If this is some kind of fair trial I am amazed. Perhaps some of you might like to look at my boiling over' comments (which I have apologised for) in context before pronouncing judgement. I think you will find I have made civil contributions to Wikipedia too. I am not perfect but there are two sides to this and I question how well-considered the judgements are here so far. Come and take a look at the actual arguments over at the Prem Rawat article. Your opinions on that I assure you are welcome. Jossi and I have a history of mutual baiting by the way which is not actually as venomous as it may seem. For a start we know each other and I have qualified my attacks re. his perceived COI with some acknowledgement that my animosity is actually intended to be restricted purely to arguments here. I actually like Jossi as a person though that may not come across in my heated objections to the way he handles the Prem Rawat article. Please don't block me I'm going to be good! And I am not seeking attention but am passionate about drawing attention to the article- not to 'me' I hasten to add! Thanks.PatW (talk) 02:12, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
This is not about being blocked or not, Pat. It is a matter of a recurring behavior that it is not helpful to the aims of this project. WP:CIVILITY is not an option. Not making personal attacks is not an option. You have been warned many times, and you always respond with a "yes, I will not do it again", "I apologize", or worse, with a "Obviously we have different interpretations of what constitutes civility". And then you continue with the same behaviors. Some people never learn, PatW. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:31, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
Let's just say I am used to having very heated arguments with people which have room for a fair amount of playful incivility, insults and cynicism which is all taken with good humour at the end of the day. Maybe it's a British trait I don't know. All the same I would prefer that people who rush to judgement about my intentions exercise a little more investigation into the article and my arguments about that before accusing me broadly of bad intentions. Not to do so seems also plainly rather uncivilised. PatW (talk) 03:17, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
a fair amount of playful incivility, insults and cynicism which is all taken with good humour at the end of the day. Not applicable, Pat, and not a good excuse. These issues have been explained to you numerous times, such as recently as Feb 26, 2008 here], in which User:Will Beback said to you that WP:CIVIL is a policy, not a recommendation. People are blocked and banned from this site every day for incivility towards other editors. To put it bluntly, you will be too unless you stop making negative personal remarks. Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not therapy. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:30, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I am among several editors who have warned PatW to refrain from personal attacks and negative personal remarks. He or she has made little attempt to stop them. On that basis I endorse a sanction on this user. However I disagree that PatW has been especially disruptive on the talk page aside from the personal attacks. Jossi appears to condemn PatW for being a single-puspose account, though there are several of those involved in the article, and for only contributing to the talk page, even though he is also only contributing to the talk page (due to a self-identified COI). I urge Jossi to take a less aggressive approach to policing talk:Prem Rawat in order to reduce tensions. Will Beback NS (talk) 03:48, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Jossi, can you tell me something please which I am unsure about? That instance where I called you and Momento 'horrible liars' etc. (for which I have apologised). Did I not delete that straightaway? If I did, wasn't a bit mean to drag it out of the bin to use against me? If I didn't delete it then I owe you another apology. But could you just confirm this as I find it hard to see from the history page?PatW (talk) 17:23, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
I responded in your talk page were you asked. Please do not cross post. A copy of my response, below:

Here, to which you did not apologize, btw. In any case, an apology on its own will not do, Pat, as you have continued with your personal attacks such as in here]. A publicly made commitment never to do that again is what is needed, accompanied by an acceptance that if you do that again, you will accept the consequences. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:23, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:21, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
Jossi you were Prem Rawat's personal webmaster and web PR guy. I am a critic and grateful escapee from Rawat's cult. Do you understand how unpalatable it is for me to lick your boots over this because you demand it under threat? I get the impression you are salivating over making me 'apologise'. What is wrong here is that everyone wants to make me apologise for not only my occasional outbursts but they don't want to look into whether I have actually spoken the truth (ie whether you have actually encouraged or turned a blind eye to heavy POV pushing and lies from followers of Prem Rawat), or to what extent your 'aggressive policing' (which is by no means just my judgement) amounts to thinly disguised baiting on your part. I am happy to pledge politeness to everyone on Wikipedia ad infinitum. I will not however disguise or desist from strongly opposing anyone who appears to be wrongly stifling discussion that is perfectly germane to the article. As I am attempting to argue with you about. Problem is you have such an antiseptic revulsion for ex-followers of your Guru that you apparently won't even answer my questions. (Visa Vi your comments about Sylviecyn and myself) I notice also someone on Wales' page suggested you might want to answer some of my questions instead of just archiving them without any decent response. That would certainly be a step towards less heated complaintsPatW (talk) 23:47, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
As I said before, some people never learn, and Wikipedia may not be a place for them if they cannot WP:KEEPCOOL. As per all editors that have commented in this issue, sanctions may be the only way, given your last comment. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:44, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
On further consideration, I have reached a better understanding of Wikipedia methodology in the light of which I am no longer happy with certain aspects of my contribution to the debate on my Talk Page. I have therefore decided to remove it and to spend some time away from this debate consolidating my understanding of how debate is to be conducted in Wikipedia.PatW (talk) 12:23, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
I think PatW might manage to do just that. :-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 14:25, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
Good. This thread can now be closed, and we can go back to editing the pedia. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 14:43, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
Jossi: Kim Bruning wrote on Wales' Talk Page - "So you would just like Jossi to police talk:Prem Rawat less aggressively? If that's all, that seems easy enough. :-) What can he do to be less aggressive? Also, if that doesn't work out, perhaps you could both agree on a 3rd party to police the talk page instead or as well?
Are you agreeable to her proposal to having a 3rd party to police the Talk Page as well? If so I would ask both you and Kim how this could be best arranged so that the invited 3rd party was obviously neutral? Maybe Kim could choose/invite someone for that role?PatW (talk) 15:15, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
I will refrain from archiving discussions there, and leave that to the archival bot. OTOH, if I see any disruption in talk pages that are not properly addressed by active editors, (such as personal attacks, soapboxing, and misuse of talk page for off-topic discussions) I will bring these to AN/I for evaluation by uninvolved admins, as per the probation wording. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:53, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
What about Kim's suggestion? Is that an agreeable arrangement? If so would that be an 'instead' or an 'also'?PatW (talk) 16:38, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Irredentism vandalised[edit]

I have posted information about disruptive behaviour of the user:VartanM on page Irredentism. New user stpped forward and making aggressive unacceptabe commments and removes sourced information. pls. see his comment