Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive384

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

Noticeboard archives


Over-long nonsense article[edit]

The newly-created article Really, really, really good quality is a cut-and-paste from elsewhere but is so long (nearly 4Mb) that the system will not let me edit it to put a db tag on. Could someone delete it? JohnCD (talk) 10:27, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

It is copy-pasted from Wikipedia:Glossary. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 10:29, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

The "Wikipedia Mafia"[edit]

Heads up, more anti-Shankbone trolling. [1][2][3] With respect to David, put it on badimages? Will (talk) 10:28, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

BBC news article[edit]

Just a notice to ensure admins are aware that Wikipedia is making headlines in the mainstream press. The BBC article here appeared this morning on BBC News Online, one of the world's major news websites (in the top 5 in terms of Alexa ranking), and the story is currently linked from their front page under the tagline "Wiki boss 'edited for donation'". The article itself seems fairly good, actually, reporting the strong rebuttals from Jimmy Wales and the WMF. The article also has a better understanding of our page protection policy and the role of admins compared to previous news reports (ie. saying that it means (in practice) that no-one can edit the page, rather than "only administrators", which had implied that administrators routinely edit protected pages). I've mentioned the news article over at the Wikipedia Signpost tip page. Carcharoth (talk) 11:06, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

  • I just noted that at WP:AN. It's Jeff Merkey, whose interpretation of things is not always wholly reliable. I talked to him at length about this, and I thoguht I'd managed to rid him of the illusion that Jimbo had offered him some kind of favour in return for donations, but apparently not. Guy (Help!) 12:33, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

An image with a duplicate name has eliminated a previous image[edit]

This isn't the place to report this but I couldn't remember where exactly to go. Someone has uploaded an image to Wiki-Commons named Image:CCR.jpg. Problem is there was already an image on Wikipedia with the name CCR.jpg. This image was of the original line-up of the band Creedence Clearwater Revival. Now in the band article infobox... instead of a picture of the four band members the image shown is a scanned document. Can someone send a message over to a Commons admin to perhaps rename the new 'scanned doc' image to something and retrieve the earlier band image. Thanks. (talk) 11:09, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Not sure if this was the same image, but placed another I found in commons. Equazcion /C 11:15, 12 Mar 2008 (UTC)
The commons image has been there for a long time, but was masked from, because we had an identically named image. The Creedence Clearwater Revival image was deleted due to an invalid fair use claim, and as such we now see the commons image at that name. The commons image hasn't deleted the image that used to be there. Deletion has deleted that image. Mayalld (talk) 11:17, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
Deletion does tend to delete things. That's one of its caveats. Equazcion /C 11:18, 12 Mar 2008 (UTC)
Indeed so! The commons image is a complete red herring here. The image that the complainant wants to see has been deleted. The fact that the software now displays another image from commons under this name is neither here not there. Mayalld (talk) 11:22, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Noticed the replacement image. Problem there is that album covers are only fair-use in the article about the source of the album cover itself. I guess the CCR band page will have to do without an image until someone uploads a proper free-use image. (talk) 11:26, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Return of a sockmaster[edit]


ACMEpedia looks for all the world to be related to the sock farm at Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Gsnguy. The "banned by Jimbo" template at the bottom is his doing. Though THIS incarnation, other than the template, has done nothing actionable, in his previous incarnations he was not a pleasant companion; could we check this new guy's pedigree and utz him if necessary? Thanks....Gladys J Cortez 15:18, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

So nice of him was to admit whose account it was. Blocked. Thanks for reporting, Gladys. MaxSem(Han shot first!) 15:35, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Eliot Spitzer - please watchlist![edit]

For those living in a cave the past 4 days, the New York State governor in America is about to resign in the next 30 minutes over a major prostitution scandal. The article on him has almost 200,000 views just in the past days. Please watchlist this; it is a possible BLP nightmare: Eliot Spitzer. Lawrence § t/e 15:33, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

If you ask me, cavemen are stupid. <so that lawrence doesn't have a heart attack, I admit that this comment used to be something much more offensive.> Equazcion /C 15:56, 12 Mar 2008 (UTC)
That's a very inappropriate comment. Please remove it. Lawrence § t/e 15:58, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
It is? How so? Equazcion /C 15:59, 12 Mar 2008 (UTC)
1) He's a BLP. All BLP subjects are treated with respect, irregardless of their foibles. 2) Advocating vandalism is simply inappropriate. Lawrence § t/e 16:01, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
Just for clarification it was $5,500 per hooker (according to RS). --Fredrick day (talk) 16:02, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
I removed it per WP:BLP and WP:IAR. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 16:03, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
Anyone with a brain knows I was joking. And if they didn't know, they do now. Aside from the vandalism remark, the rest was a statement of a verifiable fact, not in vio of BLP. I have replaced it (per IAR?). Equazcion /C 16:06, 12 Mar 2008 (UTC)
Joke or not, it's been redacted again. Do not violate BLP again. We don't joke around with that crap, especially in a super high profile case. Lawrence § t/e 16:09, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

<outdent> and telling me I don't have a brain (because of your "joke") is a personal attack. Please stop, Equazcion. You're being pointy, to say the least. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 16:10, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I'd like someone to tell me specifically how this violates BLP. (that was no personal attack either, keeper, let's keep this realistic at least. ) Equazcion /C 16:11, 12 Mar 2008 (UTC)
Given the context of his scandal, you said his page ought to be vandalized for using prostitutes. If you can't see commentary like this is inappropriate, you don't need to be editing. We don't joke about BLPs in this context. Ever. At all. Lawrence § t/e 16:28, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
Hmm I think you already said that someplace. Well I disagree. But enough people seem to be against me, so I'll leave it gone. If enough people asked nicely that would've accomplished the same thing without the drama though, just for future notice. Equazcion /C 16:30, 12 Mar 2008 (UTC)
And I asked you nicely, at first, but you chose the drama route. Keeper then redacted it, and you screamed CENSORSHIP! on your talk page. How nicely were we supposed to ask you to remove the BLP beyond "Please remove it"? Lawrence § t/e 16:35, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
One person's concern wouldn't make me remove it, on the first comment, no. I wanted some explanation first, which I think was a reasonable request. I didn't scream censorship anywhere. You're thinking of other such people who complain abut removed comments. Don't lump us all together now. I've removed my fair share of talk comments too, bub, and heard it all. Equazcion /C 16:38, 12 Mar 2008 (UTC)

Just a note that Equazcion keeps removing the evidence that a BLP violation him was removed here to make a point that he believes he did not violate BLP. I will not revert that again, but lacking that visible evidence makes this entire BLP violation defense by him appear out of context. Lawrence § t/e 16:39, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Just a note, Lawrence is making unfounded assumptions. I am not attempting to destroy evidence :) I'm just trying to replace the attempt at humor with one that couldn't possibly be construed as offensive. Equazcion /C 16:41, 12 Mar 2008 (UTC)
People trying to change established discussion is never a good idea, except to remove BLP violations. The entire thread and your defense of the BLP vio previously was taken totally out of context by your simply replacing the "refactored" note with a totally "new" comment made it unclear that you had to be refactored several times. The bigger problem was that you kept reinserting a BLP violation, and then appeared to be sweeping it under the rug. That's not an assumption; it's what happened in the edit history here. Sorry, I don't care for people gaming the system. Lawrence § t/e 16:46, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
Your recounting of what happened wasn't assumption, no. Your declaration of the reason for my actions was: "to make a point that he believes he did not violate BLP." That's a pure assumption. Equazcion /C 16:50, 12 Mar 2008 (UTC)

Rickyrab (talk · contribs) on Eliot Spitzer[edit]

Could someone have a word with him ASAP? Calling a BLP <redacted> and ongoing edit summary commentary on the BLP are completely unrequired.[4][5]. I left him a note on his talk page but it does not seem to have helped. Lawrence § t/e 16:15, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

You mean your repeated dodging of my kind request that you clarify your problem with my comment hasn't helped? What a surprise. Equazcion /C 16:17, 12 Mar 2008 (UTC)
Are you Rickyrab? This section has nothing to do with you. Rickyrab is a different user altogether. Lawrence § t/e 16:23, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
(ec) :D My apologies, I totally misunderstood. Equazcion /C 16:26, 12 Mar 2008 (UTC)
No worries, on that. Lawrence § t/e 16:27, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
We've had quite a few mea culpas so far. — Rickyrab | Talk 16:31, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
Let's not get into a flamewar about it. I nicknamed the soon to be ex-governor as a <redacted> twice, I already explained why I did so and what I meant about it, it was meant solely as opinion and not as fact, and I tried to modify my comments to make it understood that I strictly meant that I thought his actions related to the scandal were stupid, but nothing else. The only way I could think of to make that abundantly clear in edit summaries was to make new edit summaries. — Rickyrab | Talk 16:22, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
Ricky, there's such a policy called WP:BLP, and if you violate it once more, you'll be blocked. Your actions are completely inacceptable. MaxSem(Han shot first!) 16:29, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
Um, the term is "unacceptable", first of all, and show me exactly how WP:BLP was violated in the comments section, ok? — Rickyrab | Talk 16:31, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
Ahem. Why would comments section opinions violate WP:BLP? Or how? And why make such a policy to begin with? Comments are often used for opinions. They aren't official, they're not on the front page or anything. — Rickyrab | Talk 16:33, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
BLP applies to any and all visible anything on Wikipedia. There is no BLP-free zone here. Calling a BLP another language's name for genitals is as flagrant a BLP violation as you can ever get. Lawrence § t/e 16:34, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
If I could just chime in here, the B stands for biography. So it's reasonable, IMO, that people wouldn't consider discussions to apply there. Equazcion /C 16:36, 12 Mar 2008 (UTC)
You are wrong. BLP applies on any page you can see anywhere on "". Lawrence § t/e 16:37, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
READ the comment: I said it is reasonable for people to think it. They wouldn't necessarily be right. We are not in disagreement and neither of us are wrong. Man, you need to lighten up, seriously. Equazcion /C 16:39, 12 Mar 2008 (UTC)
People trying to defend BLP violations in any gaming sense (you before, Rickyrab here) don't engender me to lighten up. But yes, we are on the semi-same page in spirit, perhaps. Laxness in BLP hurts people. Lawrence § t/e 16:43, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
...and destroys families. Equazcion /C 16:46, 12 Mar 2008 (UTC)
  • I've blocked Ricky for 48 hours after he restored his obscenities yet again[6]. MaxSem(Han shot first!) 16:45, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
Good call, it was needed to prevent further BLP violations. We need to show a good face to the world and that kind of nonsense can't be allowed. (1 == 2)Until 16:55, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Trolling by User:User:X5up41337ki114xxx[edit]

Resolved: indefblocked 17:01, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

X5up41337ki114xxx (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

This user, in his only edit, basically admitted to being the sockpuppet of two blocked users. Please block him with autoblock on, and consider a checkuser to root out any more socks. Shalom (HelloPeace) 16:42, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Taken care of by another admin... He's been indef blocked. 17:01, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Itihaaskar (talk · contribs)[edit]

I am the user Itihaaskar and I was blocked by requests from Shshshsh (talk · contribs). We we were engaged in a debate on the historicity of Jodhabai being the wife of Akbar. I have been writing that modern historians like Irfan Habib, Harbans Mukhia ( etc categorically dismiss the idea that Jodha was the wife of Akbar. Shshshsh (talk · contribs) on the other hand contends that this is not the case. I requested User ShShShSh many a times to come up with a reference from modern historians to support his POV. Till date he has been unable to do so. On the other hand I provided unanimous agreement of modern medieveal historians that Jodhabai was not the wife of Akbar.

You can see the debate here where Shshshsh (talk · contribs) does not even know the names of modern historians whose reference he wants to overturn by his POV:

Even if historians say that such name did not exist, they are just hisotorians. Their opinions do not constitute a fact. Also, there is no sign of them being notable at all. Who are they? Are they prominent?

Then he was told:

Please be a bit more serious. Irfan Habib is a well known historian. You not knowing him is irrelevant to this debate.

. . . . .

Leading scholars of medieval history, Irfan Habib, Satish Chandra and Harbans Mukhia, categorically dismiss the idea that Akbar had a wife named Jodhabai.
It is high time you show us some references to back up your POV. Otherwise it is blatant POV pushing from your side! WP does not entertain such behavior. Sorry.

Till this date he has not shown us a single reference from a peer reviewed historian that Jodha is the wife of Akbar.

Yet he wants to own the aricle and wants to have only his POV be written:

Even now the article tries to give an impression that movie is "historically accurate" when infact the name in the title itself, Jodha, is historically false.

Mediveal historians have consensus that Jodha was the wife of AKbar's son as the genealogical records from the house of Marwar (the princely house in which she was born) clearly indicate:

  • 20 Raja UDAI SINGH 1583/1595, born 1539, married and had issue, 17 sons and 17 daughters. He died 1595.
    • Rajkumari Man Bai (renamed Taj Bibi but better known as Jodha Bai), married 1588, Shahzada Salim (later Padshah JAHANGIR, Emperor of Delhi), born 1569, died 1627. She died 1603.

I have a couple of questions:

  • a) Can a user write there POV without citing a single reference?
  • b) Can you get others blocked because you are friends with some powers that be?

I have only edited from my IP address and my user name yet I cannot edit using my username for last many days.

What should I do? (talk) 05:20, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

What are you asking admins to do / look into here? Orderinchaos 10:56, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Is the taking away of my editing privilege justified? Secondly please guide how to deal with a person who does not cite any peer reviewed references and just wants to write there POV as is the case with Shshshsh (talk · contribs). (talk) 11:27, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Reblocked for sock evasion. Blnguyen (vote in the photo straw poll) 00:40, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

What do you mean sock evasion? I hope you understand how DHCP works. ISP's provide you a dynamic IP address in internet cafes. 124.125.208.* is what I get assigned. I cannot control the last octet. This is really high handed ness on your part to keep accusing me of sock puppetry. (talk) 02:21, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
Can someone else please look into why Blnugyen is blocking me repeatedly? (talk) 06:27, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Deleted material[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.

At MFD now. -_Haemo (talk) 03:38, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

User:Justinm1978 nommed User:Allstarecho/scouts for deletion. After Justin's canvassing (here and here) and User:Dreadstar's speedy closal, it was deleted. No problem, I'll take that issue to DRV. The problem I have here, and am requesting that be restored, is Dreadstar's further deletion of User:Allstarecho/cfireusa. I created this second userbox during the MfD as an alternative to anyone who had an issue with the first one, so it wasn't created as a WP:POINT issue nor was it created to cause disruption, which Dreadstar has threatened to block me for. The second box does not "attack" anyone or any organization and does not even mention the Boy Scouts of America. Dreadstar was out of line for deleting it as G4: Recreation of deleted material. Thanks. - ALLSTAR echo 05:59, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Except for the very prominent Boy Scouts logo with the cross through it. If I made a userbox that said "This user supports anti-Imperialism and an end to war" with a big US flag with a cross through it, would that be considered divisive? Would it be considered materially different from a userbox which says "This opposes the US imperialist war machine"? --Haemo (talk) 06:12, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
That's not the Boy Scouts logo or else it wouldn't be hosted on Commons as a free image. So what happens if I create it again without what is perceived to be the Boy Scouts logo? Will Dreadstar still block me for "disruption"? I mean, seriously, he is out of line for deleting the second version. It doesn't mention the Boy Scouts of America anywhere in it. - ALLSTAR echo 06:20, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
What did the second version say? Ice Cold Beer (talk) 06:27, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
If you're an admin, you'll be able to see both versions. The first one made reference to supporting Campfire USA instead of the BSA because of the BSA's homophobic policy. The second one did not mention the BSA at all. - ALLSTAR echo 06:43, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
It's the gold BSA logo (minus the eagle, but absolutely recognizable), the rainbow flag, and the text "This user supports Camp Fire USA because they do not discriminate against gay members and leaders. The claim that it "doesn't mention the Boy Scouts of America" is technically true, but the logo is clearly recognizable (despite the lack of the eagle). --Haemo (talk) 06:35, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
It seems to me, then, that many of the arguments for deleting the first userbox would also apply to the second userbox. I don't see a problem with Dreadstar's actions here. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 06:39, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
The problem here is that the second version does not mention the Boy Scouts of America at all, which is why the first one was deleted: as an "attack" on the Boy Scouts of America. - ALLSTAR echo 06:43, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I've recreated User:Allstarecho/cfireusa to address the issue of the logo, even though it is not the logo of the BSA and therefore really didn't fall under "recreation of deleted material". The version now does not include that image, and it still doesn't say or link to anything about the Boy Scouts of America. Therefore, it is not in violation of any policy now nor is it recreation of deleted material as it is substantially different than the originals. - ALLSTAR echo 06:53, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

  • While polemic userboxes of any sort never fill me with delight, that one looks OK now. No doubt, this being wiki, someone will take issue with it though. Black Kite 07:33, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
  • The problem is the "because..." part. As such, it is an inflammatory and divisive userbox, and I really thought we had gone beyond that. Wikipedia is not a social network or a venue for advocacy. Guy (Help!) 12:36, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
  • I understand where you are coming from, but you would need a pretty massive change in Wikipedia to do that. There really isn't a logical difference between "I support the Salvation Army because of the work they do helping the poor" and "I support the Campfire Girls because they don't discriminate against gays". I don't know why editors feel compelled to mention these things at all, but I don't know how you can distinguish them.Kww (talk) 13:02, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Just because lots of things exist doens't make it ok to keep something that is inflammatory and divisive. What prompted the deletion was the author's unwillingness to compromise by either removing it from the Scouting WIkiProject template list because it places one program of scouting over another, or re-word it to be generic ("This user supports "Camp Fire USA") without the polemic statement. He refused to budge, so it went to MfD, where it was speedy deleted. I haven't decided if I'll be putting the replacement up for MfD or not yet, as it is still divisive and using a logo in a userbox that wasn't designed for a userbox. I'm hoping that the creator will wisen up that not everything has to espouse an agenda and do the right thing, but failing that, I'll probably be nominating it for deletion in a day or two. Justinm1978 (talk) 15:14, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
  • And I'll probably be recreating it in a day or two as well. Firstly, there's no policy that says you can't use a free image in a userbox. Only non-free images. Secondly, the way the box is now, there is no attack on any organization, nor is there anything divisive in it. It says I support Camp Fire USA because they do not discriminate against gay members and leaders. Period. That's all it says now. Nothing wrong at ALL with it. Don't wikilawyer with all this "othercrapexists" just to make sure you get your way in the end. - ALLSTAR echo 16:59, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
  • You have been quite uncivil with all of this. Just as you are using the avenues afforded to you to reverse deletion, I have the same right to use the avenues afforded to me, and will continue to use those so long as I have options. I expect that you will do the same, since you bothered to bring this to ANI. Suddenly I'm a wikilawyer because I'm citing policy rather than trying to bullty a personal agenda, and then go to the admins when I don't get my way? WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS is there for a reason. Perhaps you should spend less time pushing your personal agenda and a little more time understanding policy and collaborating to make Wikipedia better? Just a thought. Justinm1978 (talk) 17:28, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
There is nothing at all inflammatory and divisive about saying one supports an organization because it does not practice discrimination. DuncanHill (talk) 17:35, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
The current version is neither inflammatory nor divisive. --Orange Mike | Talk 17:47, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
The current version is fine and should remain undeleted. Careful, Justinm1978, to avoid the appearance that you are crusading against this users personal viewpoint as expressed on his page - such expressions are commonplace, and not disruptive solely because you disagree. Avruch T 20:50, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
User is entitled to at least a small userbox expressing his viewpoint/ personality. The special, the random, the lovely Merkinsmum 00:21, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
The appearance of a "crusade" has manifested at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Allstarecho/cfireusa, which I request to be speedily kept just as the first one was speedily deleted. - ALLSTAR echo 00:25, 13 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.

Gonezales (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)[edit]

As I am fairly sure that I will have no luck in reverting Gonezales (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log), I am bringing this to the noticeboard ahead of time. It would be appreciated if someone could have a word with this user about WP:NPOV. See my note on his talk page for an example. The Evil Spartan (talk) 06:31, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Or perhaps I will; it appears he was already reverted once, and would have to break 3RR in order to continue. Consider this thread closed unless a) 3RR is broken, or b) someone would like to give an explanation anyway for the quite-likely next-time. The Evil Spartan (talk) 06:51, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
And perhaps someone should have a chat with you about not deleting encyclopedic material. Please note that the other editor who initially erased the section immediately reverted themselves. --Gonezales (talk) 06:57, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
~Yawn~. If you can't see why your edits violate the neutrality provision, and are thus decidedly not encyclopedic, then you'd probably be better off not editing here at all. The Evil Spartan (talk) 07:10, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
Well excuse me for putting you to sleep - however you really need to take a chill pill and refresh yourself on policy, especially Assume Good Faith. --Gonezales (talk) 07:25, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
No, those two sections you're adding pretty blatantly violate neutral point of view. The first one is sourced to an opinion piece, so that's inappropriate for citing unattributed opinions right off the bat, and for the second paragraph you must be reading Bush's mind, because that source you give definitely doesn't say that. I'd suggest you stay off topics you have strong feelings about, as the only other way for this to end is your being blocked. Someguy1221 (talk) 07:33, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
If it was an opinion piece, there are a hundred other references that it could be replaced with, and your reading of the second article seems a bit odd. The purpose of my edits is not to express an opinion, but to find the truth. --Gonezales (talk) 07:45, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Further discussion on the content of the edits themselves at the GWB talk page (rather than splitting discussion) is encouraged. The Evil Spartan (talk) 07:39, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Also, not to mention Gonzales's blatant vandalism. DiligentTerrier and friends 18:56, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
Excuse me? Good faith edits are not vandalism. I have never vandalized any page. Gonezales (talk) 19:28, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Equazcion: Harrassment and Edit Warring[edit]

Resolved: Appears to be an incident by a user who has now been blocked for socking

Rudget. 11:53, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

This person is accusing me of "sockpuppetry." I wasn't even sure what it was until now. He is edit warring on anti-Americanism and in order to "win" his war now he is using accusations like this. He is blocking warning templates that say people are concerned whether the article is encyclopedic even though it is OBVIOUS people are expressing that concern. He is threatening to block people for edit warring but if you look at the history he had made 3 reverts just today. He says I am "taking over reverts" well the last time I looked at the page it was blocked from editing so I stopped looking. Also people were being rude and I was getting mad, so I decided to take a break. This person is making up accusations to harrass and intimidate me out of editing on wikipedia. Rachel63 (talk) 09:24, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Most of the people at that article are against the particular warning tag in question. I wasn't the person who brought up the sockpuppet possibility, I just filed the report. As for edit warring, Rachel63 has violated 3RR on this article (her suspected sock nearly did, but not technically yet since < 3 reverts). I'm not sure what the point of this ANI is. I'm sure checkuser will sort everything out one way or the other. Equazcion /C 09:36, 12 Mar 2008 (UTC)
PS. I certainly haven't harassed anyone, and I'm not trying to intimidate or stop anyone from editing. I'm just expressing a concern. If it turns out to be wrong, then you won't hear from me again Rachel, I assure you. Equazcion /C 09:43, 12 Mar 2008 (UTC)

It's been concluded that this user is a sockpuppet of User:Bsharvy and both have been blocked indefinitely: Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Bsharvy. Equazcion /C 11:51, 12 Mar 2008 (UTC)

Bsharvy has requested a checkuser and I encourage you to request one. --Pixelface (talk) 18:59, 12 March 2008 (UTC)


NOTE: This has been moved from the WP:AN board, it seems a better fit here. I have notified User:Tortugadillo about the move. Redrocket (talk) 11:04, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

User:Tortugadillo appears to be taking ownership of the Hoofer Sailing Club article. He has made quite a few edits in the last 24 hours, and is adding a great deal of criticism to the article. That's obviously not a problem, but his source appears to be a mailing list from the University of Wisconsin. Here's a few of the quotes and references:

"In 2005, in response to ongoing complaints about mismanagement and abuse at Hoofers, a Sailing club BOC member proposed a new Code of Ethics. However, the proposal was ultimately defeated when the Sailing Club president voted against. [7]"

"The Head of Instruction is hired (and re-hired) by the club's governing body, the Board of Captains (BOC), some of whom are paid staff. They in turn are hired (and re-hired) by the head instructor. It is a system that invites abuse of power and borders on illegality. [8]"

"It is a system that invites abuse of power and borders on illegality. [9]"

I have opened up a discussion about the validity of this source on the article's talk page, and also on the Sources noticeboard [10]. However, User:Tortugadillo has not responded in any form of discussion.

In addition, he has repeatedly marked any other edit that removes his text as vandalism, as seen here [11] [12] [13] [14]. At this point, he's also in violation of WP:3RR. I warned him about this prior to his last revision, and he responded with a threat to me on my talk page [15].

The RS board doesn't seem to be heavily trafficked and this matter spills over into other wikipedia issues, so I thought I'd bring it here. I won't enter into an edit war over it, but I'd like to see what more experienced editors think on the matter. Thanks in advance. Redrocket (talk) 08:21, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

UPDATE: While I was posting, he did respond to the RS board here [16], then left a message on my talk page calling me a vandal and threatening to have me banned. [17]

  • Wow. Redrocket seems to have a strongly vested interest in this article. I don't know what he means by "taking ownership", though, because others, e.g. Fleetcaptain, have made far more edits than i have in recent weeks (check the history page). The real issue is this: Redrocket, Fleetcaptain, and others are Hoofer leaders who want very much to use WP as free advertizing for the club and so must make it sound as wonderful as possible [refs to be added]. I have added some criticisms--as have others--but these are consistentl being removed by others. In fact, i've tried hard not to be overly critical, and i've documented the criticisms better than the rest of the article. As for threats to have Redrocket banned from posting, i'm not sure if what he's done is vandalism or not. Repeatedly reverting my posts..? If that's not vandalism, then certainly nothing i've done could be considered vandalism. I'll try to add some refs/links here tomorrow when i have more time. Thanks. (Tortugadillo (talk) 08:56, 12 March 2008 (UTC))
I won't use this board to continue the discussion, but I should correct the above statement by saying I have not, and have never had any connection to this article before tonight. I also haven't repeatedly reverted his edits, I removed a bit of WP:OR (that has since been taken down by another editor). I reverted it again when he referred to me as a vandal, and I have left it alone since then so as not to participate in an edit war. Redrocket (talk) 10:13, 12 March 2008 (UTC)


See my related interactions with Tortugadillo, there would seem to be a trend.

Jeepday (talk) 13:44, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I just removed a personal opinion and conclusion by user:Tortugadillo from the Hoofer Sailing Club article. Tortugadillo must learn that in order to make such edits, he/she must cite reliable sources who are making the claims. Corvus cornixtalk 21:20, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

And Tortugadillo restored it. I have re-removed it and put a uw-2 level warning on his page. Corvus cornixtalk 21:49, 12 March 2008 (UTC)


The Natalizumab page, which other contributors and myself had worked on extensively over the last several months (not to conventional perfection but the CONTENT was balanced), was completely gutted later in February, largely by WLU, a contributor who has seniority. I honestly thought it was vandalism, which may have inflamed matters. A discussion has ensued daily since March 1st on the Talk:Natalizumab page, where WLU referred to "myriad Wiki policies", despite the fact that he had in making his first ever edits (including deletions of sections) to the page, had totally ignored the Talk page including an earlier comments' section lamenting skewed/useless historical content on the page. When this was pointed out to him, it resulted in an expletive by reply (which he later redacted off the page).

Specifically, after minimizing other content, he had then created a huge "History" section, more than half of the entire Wiki page, but barely relevant. His authored first line of this History section describes, not the unmet need nor the clinical development and approval, but the drug's withdrawal from availability due to a fatal adverse-event (AE). What is most revealing then is this revision - - where he aded this same fatal-AE content into the very first few lines of the Wiki page, such that it reads like a page from one of those ambulance-chasing-attorney web-sites.

Once the discussion started on the Talk:Natalizumab page, others (3 or 4 posters) weighed in and stated that the Page needs to show more of what the Drug actually does – and no-one supported WLU’s obsessions. However, he has continued to show great “diligence”, subsequently creating new sections and exaggerating the most trivial potential for adverse events. You can read about the discussions on the Talk page.

In the last few days, he has again edited the introductory words of the Page to lead off with the “deaths” story -

TO THE POINT: I wrote on the Talk:Natalizumab page yesterday: "I say you are consistently desecrating the page by repeating safety issues in FOUR (4) different sections (introductory words, interactions, contraindications, and history) - all without precedent on Wiki - while at the same time minimizing the perception that this is a medical advance by subordinating the proven benfits to a difficult-to-read paragraph - and despite the WP:3O's offered on this Talk page." - and also I wrote, for the 2nd time, that he should show me "ONE drug treating a serious progressive disease for which the Wiki, in its introductory words, has your standard of profiling potentially fatal AEs"

However, he has replied with fresh expletives this morning - this time as yet unredacted.

CONCLUSION – Maybe he doesn’t have a COI in the normal sense, but he gives an enormous perception of an agenda to make the Wiki page inaccurate and inconsistent with the precendents used in this area of Wiki. And this Wiki page will always be a bad one until he is banned from editing (talk) 18:02, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I see this as a content dispute, but would welcome comment from any admins in case I am indeed making an error. And to respond:
  • I did indeed refer to many policies. I try to do so as much as possible as they are the bedrock from which pages are written. It's a point of pride for me. For instance, WP:LEAD, which says that those first few lines should summarize the salient points of the article below, according to their weight.
  • The Natalizumab#History section is currently two short paragraphs. I initially put a large chunk of text in that section because I was at a loss for other places to put it, but have since trimmed it to its current length by wording changes and moving information to other sections (and several other editors have also trimmed and altered the section)
  • In response to many of Io io editor's comments, I have made further edits to the page - when concern was expressed that insufficient weight was given to the drug's effectiveness, I adjusted the lead twice ([18] and [19]). When Io stated I had removed lengthy quotations on the mechanism of action, I wrote, referenced and wikified two new sections on the mechanism of action of the drug ([20]). I have attempted to respond to the concerns of Io in a neutral, productive way, despite what I feel to be a failure to AGF on his/her part. And I've sworn twice - once redacted and today to express frustration (unredacted)
  • No actual WP:3Os were given - there are other editors involved and they ventured some opinions. A WP:RFC might be appropriate given the multiple editors, but since I think I have been responding, with reference to policy, to Io's concerns, I don't really see a need for one. But Io is free to do so.
  • In regards to the fatalities, the drug was pulled off of the market for over a year due to its association with Progressive multifocal leukoencephalopathy when used in combination with interferon. It was later re-approved. This is reflected in the history and interactions section, and in the lead. I think this is appropriate, since it is unusual for a drug to be pulled, then replaced. Wikipedia is not a Merck manual, so it requires more than just the medical and biochemical information, history is also important.
  • Regards to the concerns expressed about balance, I believe Io is referring to this section, which is nearly a year old. Though it might be this section. I don't have much to say, when a pubmed journal says the drug is effective, and it comes to my attention, I try to edit this into the page. I'm less likely to do so when it's a company's material sheet - that information should come from a peer-reviewed journal anyway, so I'd rather cite the original source. Though this section and this section both have the clinical benefits of natalizumab in them. Though some of the references are to news stories rather than pubmed citations, which bothers me (per WP:MEDRS).
If any admins or other editors reviews my contributions and finds them problematic, I would appreciate the feedback as I am finding it increasingly difficult to be civil and objective. I don't believe I am editing tendentiously and I am trying to AGF, but this is difficult when I'm constantly accused of having an agenda. But I do make mistakes and try to fix them. I'm not perfect. WLU (talk) 20:37, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
I removed the phrase 'An Agenda at Work' from the header, since headers are expected to be neutral in a dispute per WP:TALK. User:io io, if you have a content dispute on this page, I urge you to pursue dispute resolution. For example, you could open an article WP:RFC on a specific issue. I'm sympathetic with WLU's work, since he has a history of working out compromise solutions in hotly contested areas. The tone of your commentary at Talk:Natalizumab is starting to strain the assumption of good faith. Enthusiasm for the drug seems to be making you critical of the other editors working there. Such well-known desperadoes as User:Fvasconcellos and User:Jfdwolff have recently edited the article, and I hope they will join the discussion here. If it's just a matter of sorting out the facts and evidence, I don't see why that can't be done calmly. EdJohnston (talk) 21:35, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
OK, will everybody just relax. Io io, please refrain from making statements such as "this Wiki page will always be a bad one until he is banned from editing it". You are both clearly compromising here, and there's no need for that kind of comment. This is a content dispute, and I do not believe administrative intervention is required here. Since more opinions have been requested, I'll comment at Talk:Natalizumab. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 22:06, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
Hadn't noticed the 'banned' comment. That does irritate me, more than a little. WLU (talk) 22:38, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
You're doing a good job staying civil in general, given the tenor of the discussion page. I've offered the editor a cup of tea, and I'll be happy to help work on the content issues on the page. You can also ask Jfdwolff and Fvasconcellos, though I think they might already be on the case. Since User:Io io editor is a relatively new editor, I don't think there's a need for administrative action unless there's a continued insistence on making things personal. MastCell Talk 23:27, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
Agreed that there is no need for admin action for either myself or Io - a complex misunderstanding. WLU (talk) 00:22, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
1. This is not new, it has being going on daily for 10-12 days now. I had already seen dispute resolution, and had initially approached then-recent posters (like Jfdwolff), as the process suggests, and although deferential to someone they already knew from Wiki, their comments clearly supported the idea that the page should be more informative, and should be revised along the lines I had suggested - see Talk:Natalizumab - see also edit descriptions. And so I thought dispute resolution was long past over.
2. I do not buy that WLU rigorously followed Wiki standards...his deletions, among them some major ones, have shown no respect for the time people put into the page, contrary to the WP:5P, and in no way was the January version un-balanced. particular look on the N Talk page for the discussions of 5th March, he had deleted wholsesale (see - note that this initial deletion was without preservation or para-phrasing of ANY of my material) my work quoting the titles of medical presentations as adding "little to the page beyond the promotion of the drug"; (and see also where he deletes two FDA statements, one clearly explaining what the Black Box warning means, the other defining the FDA recommendations for Tratment); whereas, to give skewed relevance to the most trivial safety issue, he himself added this FDA "authoritive" quote a few days later (see at end) - - so much for the Manual of Style, the means justifies the ends.
3. And now to the central issue - I would ask that Wiki Admins please focus on content first, and editors second, because what follows is what I just wrote on the N Talk page, and most of this is a repeat, as it has been ignored....
WLU wants to condense ... the benefits into a single paragraph and elsewhere litter the page with death-potential - because death-potential is what appears in FOUR (4) different sections.
And this is what I wrote, now for the 3rd time, and I ask you for an answer, just ONE example:
"You are applying Wiki standards selectively here. May I direct you to - - can you show me just ONE drug treating a serious progressive disease for which the Wiki, in its introductory words, has your standard of profiling potentially fatal AEs? (For example, look at, it is very hard even to spot the safety concern ANYWHERE on the page)"
"Or choose from the PML page -, which you yourself have editted to actually duplicate N's listing as a cause, and reveal application of the same standard? For example, look at, which has a long list of safety concerns, many deadly, and none appear in the introduction."
In short...I believe the page should be treated like any other Wiki pharma page.......why is that a problem?
4. Right, what happens next, do I have to move this to that other "Disputed Content" page ? (talk) 03:32, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Block of User:Naerii[edit]

Resolved: AGK § 19:55, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Folks, I'd just like a review of my recent block on Naerii (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log), and editor who's contributions have recently included, to take but one example, nominating the ArbCom for an MfD. Any comments welcome. AGK § 19:11, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

As I said on your talk - I believe the block is excessive. Naerii has participated in some trolling, but she also has some extremely useful contributions on this, and her previous account that certainly should be taken into effect. I think an immediate unblock is in order with a warning about expected standars here. Ryan Postlethwaite 19:21, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for all your opinions, folks. Whilst the block was not a cool-down block (N.B., I've been publicly against those in the past), I do believe it was necessary: as one who took to browsing User talk:Naerii would observe, it has prompted some admission from Naerii, that her(/his?) contributions have been disruptive, and that that has to be remedied; hence, an agreement has been reached, whereas Naerii has indicated that she will refrain from disruptively editing the project. To that end, I'm willing to (and, for the public record, have) lift the block, in the spirit of WP:AGF and second chances. AGK § 19:55, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Requesting semi-protection on Bharatiya Janata Party[edit]


Some nut with a dynamic IP keeps readding a hateful spiel to the article on this Indian political party. Most of the recent history of the article is people reverting him. These edits reverting him show the particular quality of what's being added... it ends "Electing this dirt to power would certainly endanger the existence of this world and lead to its destruction." [21] John Nevard (talk) 21:19, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Correct place for this is WP:RFPP but the pace of vandalism is not at present enough to justify protection. Please report if it gets worse. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 21:24, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Single purpose account hijacking Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America[edit]


This was posted on the NPOV board, but since then the editor is on a tear, ripping through the article and deleting sourced info, etc. and basically taking ownership. Editor Gni is apparently a single purpose account intent on inserting the POV of the Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America in a handful of article, including that one. This editor has been edit warring over formulations in the article, belligerently replacing well sourced phrases such as the organization being "pro-Israel" and supporting boycotts with PR phraseology lifted from the CAMERA website. While CAMERA (or any organization) may certainly wish to portray themselves a certain way, for tax purposes or for whatever reason, an encyclopedia describes an organization based on what reliable sources say. Ther article also has a section Accusations of anti-Israel bias made by CAMERA, comprised of a selective list of such accusations against NPR, major media, Steven Spielberg, etc. Gni keeps deleting balance added to this section (specifically, a response from NPR's ombudsman) with the somewhat idiosyncratic (and WP:OWN) claim that "This section isn't for comments about CAMERA."

An outside look at this would be appreciated. Boodlesthecat (talk) 21:22, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Why is this on AN/I? Bstone (talk) 00:05, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
He likes the drama. --Calton | Talk 00:43, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Abusive edit sumaries[edit] (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

--Hu12 (talk) 23:10, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

It's also clear that English may not be his first language so may well be used to a more informal style of discourse without fully understanding how others may take it. However, his edits look good, and all I propose is to leave a gentle warning on the talk page; however, he may well use a different IP later, so will not see it. Don't see what else we can do, there is no obvious policy breach here. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 23:18, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
Is something wrong with the signatures here? *confused* -- Naerii · plz create stuff 00:12, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
Same... Tiptoety talk 00:15, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

User:Brody, Kyle and Lucas[edit]

As the username implies, User:Brody, Kyle and Lucas is an account which purports to be used by three people identified on their userpage. I have warned the user(s) on their talk page that sharing an account is a violation of policy and that they should each register separate accounts. Should the shared group account be blocked? --Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:01, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

If they don't start separate accounts, yes. This causes GFDL problems. I suggest we wait & see. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 02:35, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Gothic rock and User:Breathtaker[edit]

Breathtaker (talk · contribs) was confirmed by Checkuser for abuse at Gothic Rock. The user removed the Gothic Rock genre from Cruxshadows, and after the user was sanctioned, it was followed up by (talk · contribs). I've protected Gothic Rock for 1 week and may extend that to 1 month based upon this comment. The Checkuser case was from November 2007 so this is not a short-term issue. I've also protected many of the various IP addresses that are obvious socks of Breathtaker for 1 month based on contribution histories such as this.

What course of action can be taken here? Outside of protecting the pages, I'm afraid that this abuse will only continue post-block. Since this is not a rather new issue and has been ongoing for months, perhaps a range block is necessary? seicer | talk | contribs 02:41, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

And based on the vandalism at my talk page (and user page), the IP addresses are changing literally every few minutes. I've also semi-protected L'Âme Immortelle for similar abuse. seicer | talk | contribs 02:47, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Based on WHOIS, it's a shared IP range ( - I would try to request blocking the range since he is coming back on 87.122.*.* Blocking them one by one is a tedious task. you would have to block Momusufan (talk) 03:58, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Disregard for blocking policy (II)[edit]

On the 28th of January, I was blocked [162] by William M. Connolley, with whom I was involved in a content dispute at the time. I pointed out [163] that he had breached blocking policy, specifically:

"Administrators must not block users with whom they are engaged in a content dispute; instead, they should report the problem to other administrators. Administrators should also be aware of potential conflicts of interest involving pages or subject areas with which they are involved."

On the 5th of February, I asked for an undertaking that this breach would not be repeated, and then on the 8th I asked again. I'm still waiting. This is the second time I've become involved in a content dispute with a block-happy administrator, and it's not getting any more pleasant.

Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 12:54, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

If you don't want it to happen again, I suggest you cease inserting content without sourcing, and heed administrator warnings. KillerChihuahua?!? 13:39, 28 February 2008 (UTC) William M. Connolley did not breach the blocking policy and was not involved in a content dispute with you. Just because an admin reverts you does not automatically make you untouchable. You were blocked because you continued to repeatedly revert and insert unreferenced text despite having been warned several times. Nothing wrong here. Shell babelfish 13:42, 28 February 2008 (UTC) P.S. This request is ridiculous. Shell babelfish 13:42, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Connolley was involved in a content dispute with me. He still is, and it's not the only one. I have linked to a plethora of outside sources, only to be told that I was doing too much unnecessary referencing. Automatically assuming admins are in the right at all times do neither of you any favours.

Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 13:23, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Without looking at the specifics, this is a rediculous interpretation of policy. If correct, a user could become exempt from being blocked by vandalising each admin' s talk page. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 13:52, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
Indeed. Undoing the work of a disruptive user is NOT a content dispute. I see no evidence of that here. Admins, and indeed ANY editor, is within their rights to stop disruption. 15:12, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
An admin has the right to prevent further vandalism of his/her user page(s). Bearian (talk) 16:02, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
This is the second time you've brought this up on WP:AN/I ([22]). Last time you didn't get the answer you wanted; asking the same question again a week or two later is forum-shopping at best and WP:POINT at worst. You've had your feedback. Continuing to hunt for the response you want is disruptive. MastCell Talk 19:58, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Exactly when does this:

"Administrators must not block users with whom they are engaged in a content dispute; instead, they should report the problem to other administrators. Administrators should also be aware of potential conflicts of interest involving pages or subject areas with which they are involved."

apply? Each of you seem to be taking Connolley's assertions at face value. I'd prefer if you had a closer look.

Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 16:02, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Your concern has been addressed in several forums by a number of uninvolved administrators. It would seem that most or all have actually reviewed the incident in question. Continuing to push the same issue in different forums in hopes of getting a different answer is disruptive and inappropriate and is highly unlikely to have the effect you desire. If there is a major issue with abuse of admin tools, consider WP:RfC, which is the normal mechanism for dealing with such things. If you continue to forum-shop this in inappropriate venues, you'll end up being blocked for disrupting Wikipedia to make a point. MastCell Talk 16:51, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Some of the comments above (e.g. those relating to vandalism of user pages) tell me that, far from having "...actually reviewed the incident in question.", they haven't the slightest clue of the what the dispute concerns. I don't understand your references to "different forums", I've brought the issue to the attention of admins here and nowhere else. I refer you to the excerpt of blocking policy above. How can it not concern an administrator with whom I am still involved in a content dispute with? (See Shell to Sea.)

Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 12:09, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

User:Christopher Mann McKay[edit]

Resolved: PER WP:BOLD WP:NOT#CENSORED Nothing to see here -- move along

Can someone please explain how this user page is not polemical and a violation of WP:USERPAGE. I have tried to have it MFD'd once before yet was howled down and blocked for doing so. I still do not see how this helps create an environment of encyclopedia building. Prester John (talk) 02:13, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

The page is completely against WP:UP policy. It's completely offensive, and potentially disruptive if the user wishes to edit regularly. Be WP:BOLD and delete on sight. If anything, I'll nominate it for WP:MFD if there is a problem. I personally am not offended, however WP:SOAP. Wisdom89 (T / C) 02:17, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
It should probably be noted that a MFD exists [23]. - Caribbean~H.Q. 02:21, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
Yes, at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Christopher Mann McKay, Prester John nominated this, 3 months ago. That discussion was speedy closed as keep and Prester John was blocked for point disruptions. Metros (talk) 02:25, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
What were the other cases of point disruption besides the MFD? Wisdom89 (T / C) 02:27, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
I honestly don't recall the surrounding context right now. But if you're interested, explore his edits and the history of his talk page for early December 2007 to see what else was up. Metros (talk) 02:34, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
Prester John's userpage was MfD'd (I won't go into why, don't want to rehash, but there was ample cause, at least in the opinion of many involved). In response, he MfD'd quite a number of the uerspages of people who had raised the concerns about his userpage. Completely POINTy. --Cheeser1 (talk) 05:12, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
Interesting. The only thing that troubles me is how several of the userss said it wasn't illegal to burn the flag. I'm not entirely sure that's the issue, or was the issue. And if it was, it's erroneous. However, wikipolicy is still wikipolicy. And according to user page policy, anything that is likely to cause widespread offense is deemed inappropriate. Just my two cents..three or four. I'd advocate asking the user first to remove it though. That would be the better approach. Wisdom89 (T / C) 02:26, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
Well at the previous discussion, the page looked like this. The flag was just a smaller part of the user page. Also note that the basic reason for deletion was that it, according to Prester John, displayed the flag which is an illegal act (which is not true). It's just like his calling WebHamster's image child pornography without any factual basis or truth. Metros (talk) 02:45, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

You're right that discussion was erroneously snuffed out after 20 minutes and 4 votes. I believe it was kept in error and warrants input from the wider community. The "keep" votes in that archive never detailed 'how' this page is in line with WP:USERPAGE and why this does not qualify as a "polemic" statement. Prester John (talk) 02:28, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Lets please not start this all over again, I see no disruption to the project (other than this thread) , and no violation of WP:USERPAGE, if you dont like it, then dont look at it. Tiptoety talk 02:35, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
I think that the userpage should go right now; it is a clear violation of policy, deliberately meant to provoke and insult. The WebHamster incident is in no way relevant. IronDuke 02:40, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
Then are we going to remove the image from this userpage as well? Tiptoety talk 02:42, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
I'm almost curious if PJ will be complaining about every user page that may so offend his overly strict definitions? At least he hasn't started forum/admin shopping about this bit yet. seicer | talk | contribs 02:48, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
It's all quite amusing given the previous battles over his own polemical userpages and userboxes in times past. Orderinchaos 10:40, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
It is not polemical because it is not an argument "written specifically to dispute or refute a position or theory that is widely viewed to be beyond reproach". In this case, the argument is contained in a visual representation of an activity which the United States Supreme Court has ruled is a valid expression of free speech, in Texas v. Johnson. The issue as far as Wikipedia is whether it prevents cooperative editing, and that is a subjective test. The fact that you find it offensive is neither here nor there; you are not compelled to view that user page, and the overall impression I get is that you continue to make these points as retaliation to the deletion of your own user page some months ago. I suggest you move on and edit some articles, if that's what you're really here for. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 02:41, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Let's all look at the relevant part of user page policy [[24]]. And I quote from the policy; "There is broad consensus that you should not have any image on your userpage that would bring the project into disrepute (per Jimbo Wales), and you may be asked to remove such images". Do you guys really believe that this image does not bring the project into disrepute? If you honestly do believe it, would you hold onto this principle if I include on my userpage a "Koran being flushed down the toilet" picture? Prester John (talk) 02:53, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Either is perfectly legal; how would perfectly legal behaviour "bring the project into disrepute"? --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 02:56, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
@Tiptoey: absolutely remove it. Political userboxes are an inherently bad idea anyway, but if we have them, let's not allow (literally) inflammatory ones. Rod is right that the test here can only be subjective. I personally find it quite offensive. IronDuke 02:56, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
This violates the WP:Soap portion of WP:USERPAGE. It's a no-brainer, I think. IronDuke 02:58, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
(ec)Then I suggest you send it to MfD to assess community consensus. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 02:59, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
Agree. Tiptoety talk 03:02, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
It looks to me as if it's already been sort of deleted. I'm now very confused. See: [25]. Someone clue me in? IronDuke 03:07, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
  • The deleted image was hosted here; the one on the user page in question is on Commons. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 03:11, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
But the link to the user page image, when I try to edit it, tells me I'm recreating it. Sorry if I'm being dense, appreciate the help. IronDuke 03:16, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
It shouldn't. If you click on the image on the above user page, it takes you to commons, where the image was moved from here. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 03:24, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

And what would happen if somebody decided to this is literarily? The username was "BurningtheAmerianFlag!!!". The username would be reported to UAA and then instantly blocked. Wisdom89 (T / C) 03:11, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

No, the difference is that the username would show up in every edit, whereas the image is only on the userpage, which people are not forced to visit. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 03:13, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
"People are not forced to visit" it is not a valid argument for allowing it. That would open the door to pretty much any image, as long as it wasn't a copyvio. IronDuke 03:18, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
So? WP isn't a soapbox. but WP isn't censored. Seems to me there is a potential conflict there serving those two goals. Loren.wilton (talk) 03:19, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
That's why it should go to MfD. This debate is obviously going nowhere. Clearly nobody is keen on deleting the image right now, and it's an issue where consensus should be sought, including, if necessary, clarification of policy. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 03:21, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

"bring the project into disrepute" - Not at all. WP:SOAPBOX - so far-fetched, it's laughable. And offensive is the most objective word--for me seeing a Wikipedia userpage displaying the American flag not burning is extremely offensive because it is showing that user is proud of a country that is directly responsible more injustice than any single nation on earth. This effort to tell me how large my images can be on my userpage is unnecessary censorship.—Christopher Mann McKaytalk 06:34, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

People love to invoke WP:CENSOR without appearing to have read it. This policy guideline is explicit in describing how it is applicable to wikipedia "Articles" only. WP:CENSOR does not apply to userpages. Let us read from the policy; "some articles may include objectionable text, images, or links if they are relevant to the content (such as the articles about the penis and pornography)" User pages are not protected by these rules and are kept with the will of the community. For McKay to justify his refusal to remove this image as; "the American flag not burning is extremely offensive", is so moronic that it defies belief. Prester John (talk) 06:40, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for pointing that out. Nevermind that then.... I just don't understand what the issues is: the size of the image, or the image itself?—Christopher Mann McKaytalk 06:50, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
We should all be aware of Prester John's biases/opinions/beliefs, and his angle on this issue should be clear (PJ, let's not hash that out, I'm just making clear what is a visible thread in what you've already said). I don't agree. I do not consider this image to be intentionally or fundamentally offensive - offensive to some (e.g. PJ), but not offensive prima facie (and certainly not illegal). Content that is by its nature questionable, illegal, or restricted to certain viewership should not be displayed on userpages - that issue is certainly not universally agreed upon, but if I had a public domain HD (1080p) picture of a penis and stuck it on my userpage, I think I'd get in trouble. Even though this is not comparable to your image, it is still problematic on similar grounds - WP:USER makes it clear that the purpose of userpages is to facilitate building the encyclopedia. While we are given great latitude (using that picture in a userbox, for example), there still has to be a clear indication that your userpage is primarily or deliberately designed to benefit/build the project in some way or another. Up until recently it has, but then you changed it to just this image, which doesn't seem to fit the bill anymore. OH and a note to Prester John: please refrain from making personal attacks like calling people "moronic" - it's not necessary, you can make your point without further inflaming (no pun intended) the situation. --Cheeser1 (talk) 07:03, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

(OD)I agree this should go to MfD. There's no clear policy here, and no consensus will be gained here that matters. It's a policy dispute, and should be settled officially. For the record, I think making any kind of political statement on here with your user page is kind of silly (including userboxes), but it doesn't bother me. I think it's up to wikipedia to make an official policy, though, on what's offensive. Four years ago, we would have been talking about banning people with "This user listens to the Dixie Chicks" userboxes. Redrocket (talk) 07:43, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

That would be opening up a hornet's nest - many of our users are not from the same geographical regions or political viewpoints and as such it is likely impossible to satisfy everybody. There's a smell of WP:POINT lingering over all this, anyway. Orderinchaos 10:42, 12 March 2008 (UTC)


I just reverted a gloating message from Christopher Mann McKay on Prester John's talk page (who is currently blocked over an unrelated issue), in which he claimed "You get to show your support for this unmoral horrible country and I get to show my hate for it--that is how Wikipedia works--get used it to buddy :) :)" Trolling aside, I reckon that statement confirms that Christopher Mann McKay's user page is a blatant case of disruptive soapboxing. Hesperian 23:12, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Short of a policy that such is forbidden, though (a quick scan of many people's userpages reveals userboxes or statements which love or hate something that is likely to be controversial to somebody or other) I think MfDs are a better venue to resolve such. Prester himself has been no stranger to such controversy in times past, with blatantly offensive userboxes and the like. A couple of his pages got deleted or redirected at MfD, and in recent weeks he's been making something of a point of bringing any user page which disagrees with his own opinions to AN/I - some of which have subsequently been kept at MfD. As they were previously not issues, and the only reason we're discussing them is their raising here, I tend to agree with the "nothing to see here, move along" closure of this debate. Agree that the gloating merits a block (which I note has been issued) for personal attacks... there's simply no room for that kind of conduct here. Orderinchaos 09:22, 13 March 2008 (UTC)


I need any and all administrator input on the actions of User:Sandstein against me. Most of the discussion is on his user talk page. It all rests on his misunderstanding changes made to the Talk:Lake of Gruyère page by User:Docu who did not understand the wiki guidelines of being able to enter in line item comments (as I did). I also followed up with an edit to ensure his signature to the line items so that no confusion would occur.

Sandstein is threatening me, even after being addressed by another admin (User:Ezhiki), as seen on Sandstein's talk page. I would like further input from other admins as to clarity in this matter.

Thank you. Rarelibra (talk) 17:33, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Ah, the Cabal strikes again! KnightLago (talk) 18:59, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
There is no cabal. And the cabal will ban you if you so much as suggest otherwise. Guy (Help!) 19:11, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

WTF? Rarelibra (talk) 20:09, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Sandstein's judgment is pretty sound. The edit he asked you about (which you never directly addressed yourself) does appear to be you editing the meaning of Docu's comment. If your undo was a mistake, you should've said so. If you in-line someone elses comments and they remove it, you should respect that and not do it again. You don't have an inalienable right to interleave your own views with the views already expressed by someone else - many, including me, find that annoying. Otherwise, this is a tempest in a teapot. You weren't blocked, you were warned not to repeat prior bad behavior that seemed to connect with the edit Sandstein posted 4-odd times in the discussion on his talkpage. Avruch T 21:03, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
Biggest thing for me is, I don't take kindly to being threatened. And it is quite clear that he threatened me - twice. All over something that was within my right - whether or not the person liked the fact that I interwove the comments like I did (and like you stated annoyed you)... but is covered in wiki guidelines. His whole beef was about reverting the summation comments that were unjustified after I restored my interwoven comments. But again - I don't take to being threatened if I am not breaking any rules. The edit he posted 4-odd times is his misunderstanding the whole situation. Rarelibra (talk) 21:21, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
Whatever the situation that sparked this, no one was blocked, injured, maimed or killed. Let's keep things in perspective and try to find common ground instead of looking for things to argue about (this is meant as a general comment, not directed at anyone in particular here). Let's forget arguing about whether you did or didn't observe the talk page guidelines, and who threatened who. Let's just all agree that we'll observe the talk page guidelines going forward, and move on. MastCell Talk 23:33, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
One wonders why we don't have a guideline as Wikipedia:Mummy, the nasty man shouted at me!. Guy (Help!) 13:08, 13 March 2008 (UTC)


Hello! I'm not sure why were Aziz1005 blocked. He is very useful user in English edition of Wikipedia and Arabic edtion of Wikipedia. I haven't found a checkuser page for him. Is there a valid reason for this action? Please don't lose Wikipedia's users!--OsamaK 20:27, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

According to the declined block request it was because of WP:SOCK#SCRUTINY. Wisdom89 (T / C) 21:09, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Shouldn't there be at least a minimal effort to demonstrate that accusation, instead of merely stating it? Thanks. -- (talk) 21:13, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

According to the declined request, a WP:RFCU was performed in conjunction with edit examination. Wisdom89 (T / C) 21:28, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
Even without checkuser request? Anyways.. Be more fixable. English Wikipedia has too many users and you don't care about your user (Maybe). But, remember that your actions in English Wikipedia doing reactions in Arabic Wikipedia. Users who leave English Wikipedia will leave Arabic edtion too!--OsamaK 06:46, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Canvassing talk pages for survey[edit]


Bestchai (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log)

Hi xxxxxx. I'm running a small survey about wikipedian barnstars. If you have the time, I would really appreciate you taking a look and participating. The survey can be found . Thank you! Bestchai (talk)

Seems there is some canvassing for a barnstars survey by the user, Bestchai.--Hu12 (talk) 23:15, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi, is this a violation of policy? Should I not post this message on any more user talk pages? This is a pilot study for a class I'm taking. I've posted this message on 23 user talk pages, and am not planning on posting more than 5 more perhaps. Bestchai (talk) 23:26, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
Yes, it is a violation of policy, please take a look at WP:CANVASS, along with this. Tiptoety talk 23:29, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
Your best bet would be to post it once at some central spot, such as the Village Pump, and link to the page. Corvus cornixtalk 23:31, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
I wanted a controlled turnout as this is meant to be a small pilot study. I won't post any more, and will use the Village Pump in the future. Thanks. Bestchai (talk) 23:35, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
I was under the impression WP:CANVASS related to violations which impacted editing or voting or other community processes on Wikipedia, rather than what is probably better described as a mass invite which does not itself impact upon Wikipedia. This doesn't fall under any of the five categories of "Types of canvassing" in the above document. Orderinchaos 09:37, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

This is not canvassing and should not be treated as such. dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 10:11, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Not disruptive, but...[edit]

I didn't really see the need to put this on the sockpuppetry noticeboard, as it's not disruptive, but probably warrants further investigation.

Earlier today, a number of different accounts began editing Grime (music). All of these edits were constructive, but seemed very similar. When I probed further, I found that all of these accounts (listed below) had been created at roughly the same time in January and had (1) edited much the same material and (2) done it at roughly the same time. I contacted these accounts on their respective talk pages, with a message similar to this one:

I noticed that you and several other editors (Marissa22 (talk · contribs), Leorga (talk · contribs), and Eduhkay (talk · contribs)) edit in a very similar manner on the Grime (music) article. None of these edits are disruptive or violate Wikipedia policy that I know of, but they do come from accounts that seem very similar. All were created during a very short period of time (see [26], [27], [28], and [29]), and have edited around the same times ever since. All have edited Grime (music), three have edited Cuban hip hop, and two have edited Reggaeton. I wonder if these accounts may be used by one person, because of the similarities I have noticed. Please respond if I am in error or if you have any comments. --Kakofonous (talk) 22:41, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

List of users

I did not receive any responses, but, a couple hours after I had last edited Grime (music), another account with a similar edit history to the others edited the article. The problem is that all the contributions of all the accounts seem to be in good faith. Suggestions? Somewhere else I should move this thread? --Kakofonous (talk) 01:26, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I understand that this looks odd, but if the edits are constructive, there's not really a problem to be dealt with. Unless and until the accounts start editing disruptively, this isn't an issue. --Akhilleus (talk) 04:25, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
It does seem odd. A week ago something similar, but on a larger scale happened on the Tanzanian hip hop article. 20/30 new(ish, they were mostly about a month old, with most having no more than 20 previous edits) editors added to the article in 1-3 edits each, and in two days of almost constant edits it went from being a redirect to being 43,000 bytes long. While the article doesn't seem bad(perhaps a tad spammish) is still seems strange to me. I brought it up here, and recieved a similar response to what i expected - edits are fine, therefore not a problem. However, with this too, i wonder if its some set of class projects or soemthing.--Jac16888 (talk) 04:39, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
Class projects was my guess. We seem to have had a rash of students recently on the most obscure topics. Orderinchaos 09:57, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

User:Christopher Mann McKay #2[edit]


"This user believes the world would be a better place if most Americans were murdered :)" -- From User:Christopher Mann McKay. Reverted once on the basis of civility, WP:UP, personal attacks, divisiveness, inflammatory, etc. Anyone else want to have a go? Equazcion /C 02:06, 13 Mar 2008 (UTC)

I've reverted his undo. Pretty much a clear case of WP:DICK. --NeilN talkcontribs 02:13, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Blocked indef. Disruptive editing including trolling, abuse, incivility, you name it. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 02:15, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
Good. I reverted some of his trolling at Prester John's talk page a little while ago too. Clearly no interest in collaborating on an online encyclopedia. Hesperian 02:19, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
On second thoughts, if there is no problem with this users' contributions, it may be more appropriate to simply withdraw the privilege of having a user page, by deleting and protecting it. Hesperian 02:29, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
That would not deal with his general attitude, which is amply demonstrated elsewhere than on his user page. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 02:32, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
I'm inclined to support Hesperian's proposal. All it would involve is deleting and protecting his user page, and would seem to deal with the specific disruption. Orderinchaos 09:31, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
I've also removed the image and caption from his user page since it's now obvious to me he was only using it to goad other editors, and that cannot be acceptable. I was prepared to cut him some slack last night but I've run out of patience with him. We just don't need people like that here. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 02:31, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
User is requesting an unblock. PS. This seems like common sense, but for those users who cry policy when getting blocked for such reasons, I made an addition: WP:UP#What may I not have on my user page? - [30]: "Statements that encourage violence against any person or group." Equazcion /C 04:05, 13 Mar 2008 (UTC)
Careful with that. Make your wording specific and narrow, otherwise we'll go through a TON of problems with every user who feels that one side or another in a conflict should 'resist', be it Hizbullah or Tibet. ThuranX (talk) 04:18, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
Tweaked it to "Statements that specifically encourage violent acts against any person or group". That should include murder etc. but not support of questionable regimes or organizations. Equazcion /C 04:23, 13 Mar 2008 (UTC)
I believe the block should be shortened to either 72 hours or one week, based on his general lack of prior form (one previous block in December) and his generally helpful edits to Californian topics - indefinite seems a bit extreme and people do get a bit silly in polemical arguments. This appears to be a relatively isolated incident and he should realise that the community does not approve of such conduct, but if he sticks to helpful edits then no further attention need be paid. 09:30, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
Ah, seems it's been resolved. Black Kite unblocked him after extracting a promise the stupidity would cease. Orderinchaos 09:56, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

The sentence does not advocate violence towards Americans in any way, shape, or form. (talk) 04:54, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Murder is violence. If you say it's good if people die via murder, you are advocating violence. Equazcion /C 04:58, 13 Mar 2008 (UTC)

User: Niranjandeshmukh[edit]

Background: Let me first admit that I had a small fight with this user few days back. Matter was quickly settled with an advise to me and warning to this user. History rests here.
Issue:Later, while working on my native city's page - Nagpur, on which I am working very very hard for past 2 months, I happened to land on page Katol which is of nearby town. Unfortunately, I found a few images which I thought are copyright violations. These images were uploaded by my not-so-friendly friend. I marked them for speedy deletion, with original source specified, but later user:mecu said they may not be so. See the discussion on our talk pages. After little more discussion, mecu pointed that I mark them at WP:PUI, which I did. A bot and me left message on talk page of Niranjandeshmukh saying please clarify. No images have been ever deleted. All well till now....
Suddenly today - very abusive response came from User: Niranjandeshmukh and later I found this image - check the comments column on this image page. I take this as a very very offensive comment against me. This user has been warned once. I am in no mood of responding to these A-rated comments and so did not demand an apology to forgive him. Instead directly reporting him here for second time. gppande «talk» 07:54, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I see other incidents being replied quickly by admins. Am I invisible? gppande «talk» 12:25, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
I've given Niranjandeshmukh (talk · contribs) a final warning for personal attacks. If he does it again, then blocks are in order. However, your spat with him a few days ago is obviously still a sore point and nominating his uploads for deletion is whacking an already buzzing hive. You might want to disengage from the user for a while. ➨ REDVEЯS is a satellite and will be set alight 13:19, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for your notice. Actually this image was not nominated and deleted by me. I had nominated 3 other images still present on Katol. This image was removed by some bot for lack of licensing information. However, today I noticed the image is again uploaded with this horrible comment. I would certainly want to get that comment removed. gppande «talk» 13:39, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
Regardless of what may have gone before, that image summary needs to be edited.DGG (talk) 13:39, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
My impulse is to delete the whole thing and then re-upload the image, but can I then declare the image public domain per the original uploader? The summary is OK, as it stands, but the upload log still has the personal attack - which deleting should fix, because the replacement image would have a new log, yes? UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 14:10, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
Someone please do the needful as I have been told to stay away from Niranjandeshmukh. If I nominate it for deletion it would incite him again. gppande «talk» 14:25, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
I agree, in that it's not worthwhile to continue to engage this user. The image is acceptable under our policies, except for the upload log, which is being fixed. As I advised last week, I'd let it go. Thanks, UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 14:26, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
I have deleted and reuploaded the image, removing the personal attack from the upload log. UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 14:36, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks Ultraexactzz gppande «talk» 14:47, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

User:TharkunColl: Opinions welcome[edit]

Is this disgusting, racist link on this user's user page acceptable in Wikipedia? Bill Reid | Talk 10:07, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

  • No, and I have removed it and warned the user. Black Kite 10:36, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Further: I had to remove the link three times and threaten a block before TharkunColl stopped reverting it. He then posted on the page instructing people to look back through the page history to find the link. I have therefore wasted more of my time deleting all the revisions containing the link, and am very close to blocking merely for disruption. However, given this user's unwillingness to stop editing tendentiously (the extensive block log, this particular episode, and the image on his userpage being typical), I wonder whether we are approaching the point at which community patience runs out? Black Kite 11:52, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
It is not racist to express an opinion about an ideology. I have now removed all reference to the link on my user page. I was under the impression that user pages were precisely the place for one's own opinions - apologies if I have been under some sort of misapprehension about that. TharkunColl (talk) 11:58, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
What about the alleged sockpuppetry? Rudget. 12:01, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
There is no suckpuppetry. TharkunColl (talk) 12:07, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
  • (edit conflicts) TharkunColl's very lucky a more block-happy admin wasn't around. I was watching the whole thing and waiting to see how far it'd go. He received a two-week block for similar anti-Muslim misdemeanors a little while ago. Having said that, since I think TharkunColl may interpret the community's distaste as an attack on his freedom, maybe it'd help if it was explained to him why such things are unacceptable in wikipedia policy. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 12:00, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
    Wikipedia has no place for racists. Joshuarooney2008 (talk) 12:15, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
Once more we see an example of a mindless, knee-jerk reaction. Stifle all debate by shouting "racist". Criticism of Islam is not racist, for the patently obvious reason that Islam is not a race. Incidentally, I just happened to notice that you're a member of Wikipedians against censorship. Is there such a thing, I wonder, as Wikipedians against hypocrisy? TharkunColl (talk) 13:03, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
I'm not sure TharkunColl can really be accused fairly of racism. My take on him as of now is that he is reactionary and strongly motivated by anti-"political-correctness", like many users (e.g. User:Tymek). He does need to review WP:BATTLE, to learn discretion and to respect (and not get annoyed by!) people's sensibilities. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 13:18, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
I am pretty sure it's possible to be "anti political correctness" (usually just an excuse for being offensive in my experience, but whatever), without having an image on your use page that says "Islam sucks" and a link to a very offensive anti