Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive401

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

Noticeboard archives


Resolved: is disruptive and disputatious, blocked.

Hi, I'm just trying to get along and do my best here, civilly and with reason.

I posted a question at the Reliable Source Notice Board, "Are a Films credits a reliable source for a Movies InfoBox?"

I received an answer, 'A films credits are a reliable source and are the preferred use for an InfoBox.' I marked the thread as Resolved. Arcayne changed my edit marked it as Unresolved. After a couple of additional comments by Arcayne and no change in the answer to my question, I marked it as Resolved. This is in accordance with the instructions on the Reliable Source Notice Board which state: If you are satisfied with a response, please tag your thread at the top with



Arcayne then removed my entire comments and marked it as Unresolved while stating the following:

"do not ever in you life alter the content of one of my posts, or I shall see you blocked so fast your kids will be dizzy" Arcayne

  • Suffice it to say, I am not comfortable with his obsession with me, and do not feel particularly welcome here, is this just Wikipedia and do I need to toughen up? I'm really not sure what has made me his latest target, I honestly just think he saw me as a soft target of opportunity as I'm just a lowly public editor. Irregardless, he has brought me before more forums, reverted me, followed me and discussed me on more pages than I can possibly count at this point without any evidence that I have done any of the numerous specific

things he has tried to pin on me. Can someone respectfully request that he try to abide by the bare minimum of Wiki standards? (talk) 22:44, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I have now been reverted and a second, nearly identical threat has been left for me by Arcayne: "Do not ever alter (1, 2) the content of my posts in a discussion page again. I take significant exception. If it ever occurs again, I will have request to have you blocked so fast that your kids will get whiplash. This is your only warning in regards to this topic, so I would urge you not to test my resolve on this particular subject. Arcayne"

Sorry to use your time on this. (talk) 22:50, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I have informed User:Arcayne of this conversation, as we usually try to do here. - Philippe 22:53, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Thank you, I missed this one that came with the second one - " if you are looking to get blocked, you are going about it in the right way." (talk) 23:00, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

With respect, manipulating my posts to alter my intent is refactoring. We don't do that here. Yet you seem to feel (1, 2) that you are exempt from this behavioral guideline. You don't refactor another user's comments to alter intent or content, though you can fix indenting and the like (and even that is open to debate). However, after wrning you that this is an unacceptable practice, and my offense to it, you did it again. I subsequently warned you that you were well on the path to being blocked for it, as it is a part of a history of harassment on your part.
Additionally, you have a rather long-standing habit of marking as resolved those conversations where discussion is still occurring. If you feel that the moment you get the answer you are looking for marks the end of a multi-user discussion, you are mistaken. This is why you have been counseled (and, unfortunately, warned as well) to await the conclusions of discussions before taking action.
Perhaps if you are not comfortable with having your actions paid attention to, you should consider altering how you interact with your fellow editors within the encyclopedia. As for my so-called "obsession," with you, I think you are forgetting that you have filed (now) three separate AN/I complaints against me, two of which were dismissed with the advice that you seek DR. When approached by myself to pursue DR, you simply ignored it. Subsequent AN/I complaints have indicated that your editing behavior needs somewhat noticeable improvement. If you are concerned with y attention to your personal attacks on me, consider not making htem in the first place. Try leaving my edits be, without altering them. That seems to be an awfully good start improving how your actions are perceived.
And while we are on the subject of your actions, it has been discussed that you might be a former user. Have you ever edited under a formal ID in Wikipedia before (before the dozen anons, I mean). - Arcayne (cast a spell) 23:04, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm sorry Arcayne, but I will no longer respond to your empty baseless accusations. I'm here to improve the content of the articles that I edit. That is all. I will not waste my time responding to every McCarthy like thumping of your fist upon the "facts". As was once said so eloquently, "At long last sir ..." (talk) 23:10, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Might I suggest that, in keeping with that brand new outlook, that you perhaps stop filing AN/I reports every time your edits get reverted? Or when you are caught trying to conceal your edit history? Or when someone warns you to stop attacking others? Granted, I responded a bit harshly with having my edits altered, but you were the one who altered them. Twice. After I asked you specifically not to. You want to be left alone. Leave others alone. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 23:25, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
I will continue to defend my honest actions and will, as always, abide by the customs and practices here, and I will not stop shining a harsh light upon your actions here when I am your target. I do it not for me, but for the good of the community and in the defense of your future prey. (talk) 23:37, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Sigh. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 23:58, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
That's hardly a civil behavior for a thread where civility's the key. Youv'e been on AN/I before for this sort of combative response to newer editors than you, and the cavalier way you dismiss some aspects of opposition while berating opponents in those backhanded manners grates on others. Those who see the good work you do have spoken to you about this sort of problem before, both on the previous AN/I threads, on the relevant talk pages, and on your talk page. As such, I can't say much more than that if not this time, the very next incidence of such persistent behaviors ought to result in a block, so it doesn't escalate into another drama. ThuranX (talk) 01:57, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Curious edits from multiple IPs: spambot testing?[edit]

The page Talk:Main Page/wiki/The Des Moines Register has an interesting set of very similar edits by multiple IPs over the course of the last month: given the word-salad content of many of the edits, and some of the keywords in the edits, they look like someone is testing a spambot to see if it will be caught by the anti-vandal bots' heuristics. Some of the IPs are from Tiscali Italia, others from various Russian providers. In each case, the IPs have done nothing but edit this particular page, which is not linked to anywhere, and does not link to anywhere else.

The last few edits look like they may have been made by humans, but they are clearly not normal edits, and visibly part of the same editing campaign: I'd be interested to know what the Russian text in one of them means. -- The Anome (talk) 23:12, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

The only Russian word I know is отлично, but I can read a bit of Cyrillic—it appears to be about prostitutes in Moscow. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 23:15, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Googling for the unusual word "sincerelykathy" found in one piece of word salad finds a number of similar examples of apparently bot-generated text in user profiles in various sites.

Talk:Main Page/wiki/The Register-Guard appears to be another part of the same thing: note the attempt to use BBText-style markup instead of Wikitext. The subject line -- "XRUMER is the BEST!" -- is a dead giveaway. The HTML link embedded there also suggests that Image:XRumer_screenshot.gif may have something to do with this, innocently or otherwise. See Talk:XRumer for more about the misuse of this image. -- The Anome (talk) 23:31, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Both of the suspect pages have now been deleted and blocked from recreation. -- The Anome (talk) 00:50, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Indefblocked editor Rastishka (talk · contribs) is again circumventing his block with IPs.[edit]

Rastishka (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log) is editing with one of his confirmed IP socks again, almost immediately after its most recent block expired. He is once again getting involved with Jewish-related topics [1]. IP should be blocked again to prevent this person from making abusive edits, which he always ends up making. Nobody of Consequence (talk) 00:14, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Possible stalking of blocked user[edit]


User blocked for harassment for one month. Orderinchaos 04:23, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

A blocked user, Robert Young, has complained to me off wiki that User talk:Mentality#A new case for you is a case of continued stalking and harassment of him by User:NealIRC. User:Mentality replied to the second point with "I don't know what you're expecting me to do...?", so he does not seem to be involved. The material is now two weeks old. It certainly looks unacceptable to me. Robert says "This is a gross misuse of Wikipedia, and the above comments should be deleted. Not only have I never met this person, I don't want to be associated with him either, yet he continues the myth that I am his 'friend'. I am not bipolar, and my sexual orientation and religious beliefs are none of his business. I would ask that you block Neal to send a message that he needs to stop this." I would welcome advice about what action to take. Remove the material and/or block NealIRC? --Bduke (talk) 03:12, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Ya, that's creepy. I removed the comments. I'm not sure why Mentality didn't have the sense to do it himself two weeks ago. Grsz11 04:10, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
Robert Young has also e-mailed me about this yesterday (I picked up the e-mail today). I had previously noticed the comments (Neal himself pointed them out to me) and I then mentioned them to someone else (I will remove that comment now, as that diff shouldn't be advertised). I should have removed the comments from Mentality's talk page at that point, and I apologise for not doing so. Someone uninvolved should talk to Neal about what is acceptable and what isn't, as a brief look through his contributions and edit summaries shows other problems. Carcharoth (talk) 04:25, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. Removal of the material and someone having a word with Neal seems the right approach. I think I have had too many arguments with him over several issues to be the person to have the word though. --Bduke (talk) 04:42, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
I left a brief comment. I'm thoroughly creeped out by this incident. Grsz11 04:59, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
Indeed. I have also left a talk page note. If he keeps that sort of stuff up I wouldn't think he's the sort of user we would want to have around. Orderinchaos 05:42, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I've blocked NealIRC for harassment. —Moondyne click! 02:24, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Admin abusing his powers in content dispute[edit]

  • Relevant policy violation: Wikipedia:BLOCK#Disputes policy. I think others need to know about this abuse and warn the admin to stop abusing his tools to gain an unfair advantage in this content dispute.
  • Synopsis of facts:

I opposed an admins massive changes after he locked the article to make changes he wanted, himself. I did not violate any policy, but he blocked me when I pointed out his abuse and reverted the massive changes against consensus. He blocked me on a very spurious reason, singling me out when others have reverted too. This is unfair and abusive. Admins should not be abusing their admin powers to gain a content advantage in an article. As a party to the content dispute, (and he is edit warring, too) he should not be using his admin powers to block those who oppose him, esp. when I have not even violated 3RR--yet he blocked me. If he was wrong, someone needs to rebuke his conduct for the sake of the probject.

  • Details with diffs to prove what I said above is accurate:

Admin William M. Connolley (talk · contribs) puts a full protection on page. See:[2][3]

Then, after he protects the page, he starts making his changes to it, by blanking sections. There is no chance given for participation on talk page about what he wanted to do before he did it. No discussion. Its just his unilateral use of admin powers. See:[4]

He continues to make massive changes he wants after he protected the page. See:[5] And, again, he continues, making his mass deletions after he protected the page:[6]

He then unprotects the page and editors restore most of what he has removed without consensus. Then, another admin Rlevse (talk · contribs), comes in and protects the page again for a short period:[7]

But as soon as it gets unprotected,William M. Connolley (talk · contribs) comes in again and does a super mass deletion of this article. See this:[8]

I then complain about this on the talk page, and explain my reason for reverting him. See:[9]

Then he uses his admin powers to block me. Right after blocking me, he reverts back to his version, having rendered his opponent silent. See:[10]

Its not proper for admins to use their powers to protect the article and then edit it: it gives them a content change advantage. I read policy pages and this is not allowed. Since he became involved in content dispute, he should have abstained from using any admin powers on the article to gain an advantage, seeking a non-involved admin. Blocking the editor that he is in a content dispute with is a clear cut case of admin abuse. Just like when he protected the article and then started editing it to his own views--against consensus, and without even bothering to allow for a chance to discuss the massive changes. Also admins should not be edit warring, either, esp. not when they are using their tools to protect and block other editors there.

Also, despite other editors reverting, he singled me out for a block, after I challenged his abuse of admin powers, and calling for discussion to occur before the massive deletions. Other editors agreed with me and have protested his actions.

Thank you in advance for taking this seriously. I hope he stops and follows policy just like the rest of us do.Supergreenred (talk) 10:59, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

  • It's a rather extreme way of dealing with a problem, but what he did was absolutely the right result for the encyclopaedia, removing a series of edits which served to advance a POV. It's also stale. The protection summary was "the usual", which absolutely sums it up. People need to stop edit warring at that article. For values of "people" that explicitly includes you. Guy (Help!) 11:07, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

I just want to add my own opinion that [11] has been extremely abuseful of his administrative powers. He repeatedly erases huge amounts of stuff in many articles even when it is well sourced, and then he threatens to suspend or ban uers who try to put them back in. He has a long history of doing this huge amounts of times, in many different articles. He is trying to censor points of view that disagree with his own. He is against letting articles be balanced. Grundle2600 (talk) 17:28, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Discussion related to content and not administrators action TheRedPenOfDoom
  • Why do we even have that article anyway? Like the Allegations of X arpetheid articles, it's a hive of POV violations and never will be the contrary. ~Frankly, I'll be surprised if it was kept for anything other than wikilawyering. Sceptre (talk) 11:37, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
    Because its a well-defined subject extensively studied in academia. Sorry. --Relata refero (disp.) 12:20, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
Yeah but it's been AfD'd many times and last was a speedy keep. Gwen Gale (talk) 11:44, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
Number of AFDs mean nothing. Daniel Brandt (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) was effectively deleted on the 14th. (and the last speedy keep had nothing to do with AFD number). Sceptre (talk) 11:50, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
Yep (come to think of it)... hmmm... Gwen Gale (talk) 11:53, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
  • It is hard to avoid characterising this complaint as an unjustified rant. I agree with JzG, the conduct of the admin looks strong but about right and those who were engaged in the edit war have to expect admins to intervene without being so argumentative even to the admin. --BozMo talk 11:59, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
Indeed, and once admins become involved it's likely one side is going to complain. I think William made a good choice in trying to make some bold changes. It was ridiculous to then expect him to go find another admin to deal with someone edit-warring.
I have also reported Supergreenred for a 3RR vio. 4 reverts within 26 hours is not abiding by the spirit of the rules, especially given he'd just been let off the block early. John Smith's (talk) 12:05, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
Regardless of the fact that WMC was probably removing nonsense - I haven't checked, but its a safe assumption - why on earth was he editing through full protection? Was there a BLP problem or a consensus on the talkpage? I don't see any other reason why that would be acceptable. --Relata refero (disp.) 12:20, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
Lets not assume. Cause you know what happens then.TheRedPenOfDoom (talk) 12:51, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
AFAICT (and I wasn't around) it was done in direct response to requests for an admin to intervene and do this on the talk page [12]. He even did what was asked and handed it back. [13]--BozMo talk 12:30, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
Asked by one person. I approve of the Liancourts Rocks solution, but its absurd to claim that unilateral editing through protection is a reasonable response in each case. --Relata refero (disp.) 13:26, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
Are you sure about that? There are pages and pages of talk and I don't really have the appetite to go through it. However pruning to basics for a restart seems reasonable to me especially as there wasn't any obvious POV issue in the prune. --BozMo talk 14:03, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Repost of my statement on the talk page: I too feel the need to express concern that the admin who locked the article proceeded to make unilateral edits without prior discussion. Such actions would appear to be contrary to Wikipedia's spirit of Concensus. In Addition, I will point out that none of the Administrator's edits were due to violations of WP:V, WP:OR, WP:RS, or WP:BLP which would require immediate action. TheRedPenOfDoom (talk) 12:53, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
  • I have to add that [14] this sentiment and view toward the article bring even more concern to the admin's previous actions which I initially assumed were simply a minor lapse of judgment. TheRedPenOfDoom (talk) 20:59, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
I guess that comment on the talk page might have earnt you becoming one of five chosen people whom Supergreenred canvassed about this unhappiness? Are the others wanting to comment too? --BozMo talk 13:22, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

:::I cannot know the reason Supergreenred made the posts s/he did, nor can I know what actions any of the other users will take based on those posts. But, perhaps WP:AGF would be applicable? (talk) 13:35, 14 April 2008 (UTC)TheRedPenOfDoom (talk) 13:46, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. That's why I said it would be interesting to see their comments. Otherwise we might as well close this. --BozMo talk 13:41, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
Sub issue of edit-warring on article resolved, per block. TheRedPenOfDoom

Edit-warring by Supergreenred

I filed a 3RR report as I mentioned above. The reviewing admin deemed there had been no violation because there "has" to be at least four reversions within 24 hours. However, as I explained, there are many cases where people are blocked for reverting four times within 24+x hours. SGR is not a new user as he admits, so I think he should have known better.

The reviewing admin said he was happy for other admins to review the matter, so I would appreciate another admin/some other admins to take a look. I think reverting 4 times in 26 hours is not good, especially given he just got off a block and then came filed this report. If he was advised to resolve the dispute through means other than edit-warring by the admin that unblocked him, why should he be allowed to carry on reverting?

The report can be found here. John Smith's (talk) 15:48, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

The question here IMO is whether one of the reasons applies for editing protected pages, as specified at WP:Protection policy, which says in part, "Pages protected due to content disputes should not be edited except to remove inappropriate material or to make changes for which there is clear consensus." It would not be "ridiculous", as John Smith says, to get another admin to do the blocking; it would be the right thing to do IMO if the exceptions noted in this policy don't apply, and might be a good idea (though not required) if it's not very clear to everyone whether they apply. I think an admin should be even more careful about editing after blocking an individual than about editing after protecting a page. Coppertwig (talk) 12:16, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
There were two different reports at WP:AN/3RR by different submitters. The second report led to a 48-hour block of Supergreenred by Jehochman. JEH noted that S. had made 4 reverts in 24 hours and 9 minutes. EdJohnston (talk) 20:52, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
This has been rendered academic-- Supergreenred has been indef blocked as a sockpuppet per [[15]]. Jtrainor (talk) 05:38, 16 April 2008 (UTC)


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.

Enough. The civility issues are not going to require admin action. I suggest filing a RFC if you're actually concerned about getting some input into this. Take the content dispute to the content pages. --Haemo (talk) 05:50, 16 April 2008 (UTC)


I ran across User:Moreschi with this diff, where he blatantly violates Wikipedia:CIVIL#Engaging_in_incivility. "Judgmental tone in edit summaries ("snipped rambling crap") or talk page posts ("that's the stupidest thing I've ever seen")."

I saw that many more of his edits were in violation of WP:CIVIL such as here, here,

I attempted to bring his attention to the policy on his talk page, but his response was to pretend that he does not have to abide by this policy, made clear in the edit summary and gives the actual posted response the feel of a threat. More startlingly, it appears that he is making administrative actions [16] [17] without showing that on the user page or being in such a category. If this is an administrator acting like this, much more civility should be used by an admin at all times. If an admin can discuss this with him, it would be much appreciated. KV(Talk) 17:14, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

While there certainly has been a poor demonstration of civility here, I will point out that admins do not need to mark ourselves in special ways. It really does reflect poorly on Wikipedia's public image when admins don't act in a civil fashion. (1 == 2)Until 17:19, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
Since your comment seems to have been dismissed as resulting from some sort of involvement, I have made an comment as an uninvolved person on the users talk page. (1 == 2)Until 17:24, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
Perhaps I didn't phrase that clearly. It's not worse that he does not display adminship, but that it's an admin being uncivil. KV(Talk) 17:26, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
Thank you btw. KV(Talk) 17:27, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
  • I think Moreschi's edits were right though. I've tagged that article, it needs a serious overhaul. Black Kite 18:18, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I agree the edits were correct. (1 == 2)Until 18:28, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
See also WP:FTN#New project on hermetism. --Relata refero (disp.) 18:44, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
Moreschi's being correct doesn't mean he ought to get away with being incivil. Neıl 18:51, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
Yes, it would be more convenient for us all if he didn't say what we were thinking. --Relata refero (disp.) 19:18, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
No, it would be more convenient for us all if he said it courteously. It isn't difficult. Neıl 20:39, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
Of course being correct does not allow this user to be uncivil. The user has been told just that, and unless there are further problems I think this is resolved. (1 == 2)Until 19:22, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
I tend to agree the discussion is resolved. John Carter (talk) 19:33, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

The resolved tag on this says "try to be correct and politically correct, in future, please", but "civility" is not the same as "political correctness". Is there a reason why "civil" couldn't have been used? Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk / cont) 19:53, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Because some of us don't find Moreschi's edit summary uncivil. --Akhilleus (talk) 21:43, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
But if that's the case, it's not resolved. If it's marked "resolved" then it has reached a resolution, in which case a carping comment is not called for. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk / cont) 01:21, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
I did correct it two edits after you complained, you know. Its resolved to the degree that Moreschi was reminded not to do it again. Please see the relevant edit comment as I changed it. --Relata refero (disp.) 18:45, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Second Issue[edit]

It appear my worries that the dismissal was a threat (Wikipedia:Harassment#Threats) was not misplaced. Soon afterwards, there was a complete onslaught of what I was working on by those working at Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard. Though unlikely to be intentional to be worked this way, the board is working as an informal platform for meat puppetry. Those who frequent the page decided that Hermetic thought in general is a fringe theory and so only the very minimal should be included in Wikipedia and coverage of the subject should be scaled back rather than expanded. Like minds gather there intending to scale back coverage of subjects they consider fringe, even in articles exclusively about them. I want to stress that I am not accusing any user here of concerted meat puppetry, just pointing out that the subsequent actions were effectively the same as meatpuppetry. Concern was displayed over at Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard#New_project_on_hermetism that a project, of which I am the founder and unfortunately still sole member, would be a threat because it is trying to expand the material. As a result, we have multiple users engaging in what can be called Wikistalking. It started with very reasonable edits, such as this, this, and I can certainly see even this NPOV tagging as productive as the article did and still does need a lot of work.

Not that I disagree with him, but we have the same Civility problem popping up here from User:Moreschi, and though I am looking for time to rewrite the section so it does not rely upon the questionable claims of Manly P Hall, which was discussed in the prior deletion discussion, this and this show the same malicious tone. Then he decides to delete uncontroversial material, that has already been gone through by many critics and discussed, claiming the source to be unreliable here. He does not explain how the source is unreliable, and I questioned him on it in Talk:Hermetism#NPOV_tag only to get a statement that completely ignores a large section of Hermetic belief today, which stems from those who read that exact text, which is why it was considered a reliable source for that subject in particular the last time. He also suggests that certain people (which I certainly took to imply me) don't belong on Wikipedia at all. There's many more similar edits by him following that, which one patroller identified as vandalism because of the tone and rapid deletion without discussion.

We also have actions by User:Dbachmann (signs "dab") which were to propose merge and then decide that it is immediately necessary because of an outdated deletion discussion, and does it himself. Of course, the old deletion discussion is noneffective here seeing as it was at the urging of a friend and two sock masters User:Hanuman Das and User:999 who were both banned for sockpuppetry. The third, my friend, User:SynergeticMaggot is the one who recreated the page and dragged it on, telling me to just fix it up, once I found the necessary sources to show that Hermetism was not a term made up by Manly P Hall and peer-reviewed academic sources printed by a University Press at that. Unfortunately, he cannot explain this further currently as he lost his working computer a few days ago, and perhaps the only time we'd be on the same side of a debate on these issues he's muted by fate. However, I will say that when I discussed it with him he did say that the prior AfD was of no consequence at this point. Of course, this is not the only brash action by this user, who decided to edit Hermeticism as well, reverting the page back from before I added a template and rewrote the intro using that university source to cite the difference between the two theories, and reverted to an edit that was in violation of the MOS by a new user who simply didn't know better, and reverted the long established CE/BCE to AD/BC here. He also decided to go and without discussion change the template to include only the offshoot Hermeticism here.

Now, there were many more rapid deletions by Moreschi of course on that article as well. The only other user from there to be involved, User:John Carter, has been relatively a breath of fresh air. Though he is proposing a merger I strongly oppose, he has been very civil and seems willing to have an actual discussion in the interest of improvement as so far as of yet. I applaud him for that.

The totality of what I call wikibullying though, more or less, though it felt like a lot more, comes from User:Moreschi and User:Dbachmann. It's rapid, forceful changes without discussion, at least not on Wikipedia, that strongly appear to me to be the result of me bringing up civility issues here. It is definitive of Wikistalking. I am trying to remain calm here, however the last time I took an extensive wikibreak and thought I would never return to Wikipedia was from actions just like this from two sockmasters and a friend I never agree with. KV(Talk) 03:05, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

the "rapid forceful changes without discussion" are entirely yours. We are just reverting them because your material as you present it has no place on Wikipedia. Please try to understand what this project is trying to do in the first place. What you want to do is write essays on your personal views on Hermetism. That's great, but not something you should do on Wikipedia (WP:SYN, WP:DUE). dab (𒁳) 05:58, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
I sympathize with how you're feeling. Dbachmann and Moreschi can be extremely uncivil, perhaps having no notion of the personal effect it has. Your phrase wikibullying is most appropriate. They get away with it, by and large, because the perception is that they are right enough on content issues, therefore taken as a whole it is a net gain for the encyclopedia. Your calling them sockmasters and wikistalkers does not help, and is itself uncivil, and you would do well to strike those remarks. I note your appreciation of John Carter's manner, and hope that Moreschi that and Dbachmann note it too. (talk) 06:00, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
is this all Wikipedia administration cares about these days, tone and civility? How about some appreciation for defending encyclopedicity? Wikipedia isn't myspace, remember? This is a non-issue. KV is perfectly welcome to present his evidence and engage in meaningful debate. Instead, he goes forum-shopping as soon as his {{essay-like}} contributions are touched. Anyone interested in discussing encyclopedic coverage of Hermeticism is welcome at Talk:Hermeticism. AN/I is not the venue for that. --dab (𒁳) 06:04, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Also, I must disagree on the "civility" issues. Compared to what I have to put up with, I deserve a medal for civility. I must maintain that it is civil to tell somebody "please clean up your nonsense and stop trolling" if the person in question has, in fact, been posting nonsense and trolling talk, it is simple WP:SPADE, with a please thrown in for WP:BATTLEGROUND. An incivil comment would be "stop posting your idiotic drivel you loser": something like that would be justly chastised as violating WP:CIVIL. I do make a point of being curt but civil even in the most hopeless cases. But civility should never stand in the way of calling actual content for what it is: "civility" means, discuss content, not the editor, and treat the editor with detached correctness even if they behave like a four-year-old. --dab (𒁳) 06:13, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Hermetism had certain things wrong with it, which were already acknowledged and intent to fix that up with academic sources has been stated already; and the deletion of things such as what bands mention "as above, so below" added by various random IPs is something I just didn't want to bother with. However, the articles were quite encyclopedic for the most part. Various long-standing sources were simply removed without discussion, at least not discussion on Wikipedia. We have a couple editors who can quite justly said to be of the same group coming in at once to start trying to create havoc as the result of a threat. You have removed peer-reviewed academic sources from a university press without discussion, removing a helpful template without discussion, and changed the CE/BCE scale to AD/BC without explanation or discussion. That is a clear violation of Wikipedia:MOS#Longer_periods, and not once, but twice so far. Drastic changes like this should be discussed first. I did state that I didn't care what you did to the history section of Hermetism, because I knew that that was unencyclopedic as it stood and needed a complete rewrite as soon as I had the opportunity to sit down and do so. Of course, instead of spending time doing so, I find myself in conflict with you and Moreschi. You have had to deal with someone who has added 70 plus academic sources into Hermetic-related articles over the past couple weeks and has deleted large sections of the unencyclopedic parts during that period and rewrote entire sections. Someone who is looking to improve the articles and improve verifiability, and who was in the act of doing just that. Discussion before undoing large parts of cited work from what Wikipedia considers the best possible sources would be expected. The same goes for rewording them to mean something completely different, that the source is not saying there, because you wish to put your own view onto the page without providing any source and without allowing the cited view onto the page. That's what you have to deal with; why should you get a medal for that. How was I posting nonsense and trolling talk? Can you show us diffs, as I have shown for what you have done? KV(Talk) 13:38, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
I could only be called wikipedia administration in the widest possible sense of the phrase, being an IP. And even I, in my way, indicated that you had the general support of the community. But take it as an opportunity to display your condescension, by all means. (talk) 06:51, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
I would like to quote myself:
Of course, the old deletion discussion is noneffective here seeing as it was at the urging of a friend and two sock masters User:Hanuman Das and User:999 who were both banned for sockpuppetry.
Unless Dbachmann is claiming to have run one of these two accounts, I did not call him a sockmaster. And I suppose I would be wrong to call them sock masters as well; it seems they were both sock puppets of User:Ekajati. I did not call Dbachmann a sock master unless he claims relation to these accounts. That was commentary on the deletion review that had been satisfied. KV(Talk) 11:44, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

This is ridiculous[edit]

My patience is rapidly running out. KV is now revert-warring to try to retain some of the crummiest, fringiest material I've seen on Wikipedia in months (not to mention here, some of the most POV). He clearly has no idea about WP:SYNTH, nor a number of other equally important policies such as WP:RS. In the meantime he's trying to derail the process of cleaning out the rubbish from these articles with pointless, wikilawyerish ANI threads querulously complaining about perceived incivility from myself and Dbachmann, who are devoting hours of our precious time sorting out a mess he has created when we both have much better things to do. He keeps on going like this and he's on the fast track for a block for disruption - or, at least, he should be. This nonsense about sockmasters and wikibullies is also far more uncivil than any wording Dbachmann and I have used. Thank you. Moreschi2 (talk) 13:54, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Your patience is running out? When have you shown any patience at all? You've just went through arbitrarily deleting, claiming that you can violate WP:MOS without a good reason for change, and you've deleted much cited text without discussion, and that includes citations from scholarly sources. Where am I violating WP:SYNTH? I have not sythesized anything except where the two subjects do come to the same conclusion, and there I even show criticism of those conclusions. How is the article POV at all? I have been very conservative in my reverts. Which include you deleting the template for discussion of a merger proposed by User:John Carter, well cited text, and violating MOS. Am I disrupting Wikipedia by trying to keep policy the same? The articles were being steadily improved before you came deleting everything, and that included me deleting parts of it myself so I could replace it with more suitable text. Yet, you threaten to use your administrative power to win a disagreement. And if you believe that it is nonsense that User:Hanuman Das and User:999 were sockmasters, how about you explain why they are banned for being sockpuppets? KV(Talk) 14:07, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
I disagree that DBachmann is as rude on wiki as people often claim- he just knows when stuff is not suitable for wiki and deals with it via merges, removal etc. Merkin's mum 19:59, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Comment. The "civility" issues being seen here are an understandable frustration over a long-running issue. King Vegita has been stumping on this issue for quite some time. If recent responses are less-than-complete, that's indicative of nothing more than refusing to repeat oneself to someone who has had the principles and issues involved explained to them many times. The long ongoing nature of the problem shows that the discontentment with KV's advocacy on this issue is not limited to a small swath of "informal meatpuppetry". It is seriously disruptive to have such a long-ongoing issue generated by a single user and it's well past time for KV to work within the content rules that he surely groks by now (or never will). Vassyana (talk) 22:58, 15 April 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.

Block check[edit]

I just blocked (talk · contribs) for personal attacks and trolling User:Gavin.collins and myself, including filing a baseless 3RR report and a baseless AIV report. As I am involved with this user, I want some input on this block. -Jéské (v^_^v Karistaa Usko) 04:58, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Protected his talk page. I would have endorsed a longer block for all of the crap that ensued personally. seicer | talk | contribs 05:02, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
I had half a mind to do so - I believe this is a Grawp IP - but decided against it because as it was I was pushing WP:BLOCK. -Jéské (v^_^v Karistaa Usko) 05:08, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Need Eyes[edit]

Have fun! -Jéské (v^_^v Karistaa Usko) 05:17, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh good god, what have you done. seicer | talk | contribs 05:27, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
?? (is honestly confused) I brought it up here because I see two revisions that need deletion; I see an attack in the making. -Jéské (v^_^v Karistaa Usko) 05:34, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for filling us in... I page protected it for the time being. I don't think the content merits oversight because its not revealing personal information, libelous in any way, or an infringement upon copyright. But if you feel that it does merit it, feel free to submit a request. seicer | talk | contribs 05:42, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
I said deletion, not oversight. -Jéské (v^_^v Karistaa Usko) 05:44, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Users Agenda Pushing & recreating articleBrandon Lang/Brandon lang[edit]

User:JPMcGavin has recreated the previously deleted article at 14:42 on 14th April above using nearly the exact same wording that was deleted recently. I've tagged the article but, am not sure I used the right tags for this category. Could someone look into that and into the reason the user recreated in the first place. If he wants the article reinstated it needs to go to deletion review (or at least that is my understanding) Thank you. Jasynnash2 (talk) 13:14, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Whoever it is, I had discussions a couple of days ago with User:Vince1973 about the recreation of this article - he and his friend (by his own admission) User:JPMcGavin seem to want to out Brandon Link's allegedly dubious business practices despite my telling them that Wikipedia is not the correct forum for their views. The public face of GBT/C 13:19, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Maybe just digging myself a hole but, Users User:JPMcGavin and User:Vince1973 seem to be pushing somesort of agenda against some possibly real person that may or may not be participating in unsavory practices. Their only contributions center on the above and recently to editing the Two for the Money article. Personally; I don't gamble, have never seen the movie, and don't consider myself particularly sporty but, I'd really appreciate it if these two Users could be pointed in the direction of making constructive non-agenda pushing edits. If they really believe that the person they are trying to reference is committing a crime they should go to the police. If they simply want to push the website associated with the name they should pay for the appropriate advertising. If they want to push an anti-"whoever" agenda they should send letters to the appropriate people and places. Wikipedia is not the place for what they are doing and it is proving disruptive. I don't want to push a block agenda but, someone needs to help these two be constructive or show them the door. Thanks. Jasynnash2 (talk) 14:39, 15 April 2008 (UTC)Originally posted as a second section, moved here by me Gavia immer (talk) 14:44, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
For the time being I've reverted to the previous per WP:BLP and fully protected until this is looked into. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 08:17, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
  • They've done it again. JPMcGavin @ 01:59, 16 April 2008 -or- have I just read your post wrong Rodhullandemu? Jasynnash2 (talk) 08:23, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
No, it's just I hadn't got round to deleting and salting the latest Brandon lang. Now I have. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 08:49, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Prede and Lord Sesshomaru vandalizing wikipedia pages rules and copyrighted pages-Urgent[edit]

look at this discussion here These users are vandals and insist to make copyright violations here [URL=][IMG][/IMG][/URL] and here][IMG] plus they vandalize this article information with unsourced personal opinions like this one reference number 30 ^ "Biographies Tien" (2001). Retrieved on 2008-03-14.(-fanboy page) here: --Saxnot (talk) 22:56, 15 April 2008 (UTC)Saxnot

Note: This may be the same report as the one being responded to here: [18]. The IP appears to be the same as Saxnot; see [19] this edit. Note that that doesn't make Saxnot a sockpuppet -- it's perfectly legit for an IP to register an account -- it just seems that there's some history here. Similar reports were made at various places ([20], [21]). Dispute with Prede is something like a month old (see [22], [23]) and the dispute with User:Sesshomaru may have something to do with [24] this warning. -- Why Not A Duck 23:27, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
I just wanted to say we are currently in a discusion about what to do with that page in regards to "tiens third eye and if he is human or not". We are not "vandolizing" any page, nor have we broken any copyrighting laws that I am aware of. I have not posted any of those pictures above anyway. This is an attack on us, becuase we have a "dispute" with this user for awhile now. The article is not filled with our personal opinions. In fact we are working on improving the article, although this user has vandolized the talk page on a number of occasions. Check the history of the talk page here and here (bottom of page) . Also this user has attacked me personally a few times I do not understand how either of us could be "vandalizing wikipedia pages rules and copyrighted pages" . We are dont doing any of that. This is all nonsense. We have already agreed that if the proof is there for the Tien page, being an alien, we will put it up there. We are currently waiting for a response from someone who has the information. - Prede (talk) 00:00, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
What's all the conmotion about? at the very worst this could only be a bit of Original Research wich is not related to the article's content. - Caribbean~H.Q. 00:11, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
Thank you ^ . I do not understand this user. He vandolizes the artciles, and ingages in personal attacks, and then wants us to be banned? Perhaps he should be banned? - Prede (talk) 00:15, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
Being so quick to call these users "vandals" really makes you look like the vandal. JuJube (talk) 04:11, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
He seems more like a SPA, who even has its own version of Nixon's enemies list. - Caribbean~H.Q. 04:22, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
I think it bears noting that before Saxnot posted this ANI, he posted pretty much the same request at Media copyright questions, as well as posting virtually the same thing on eight different editors' talk pages. He's clearly on a mission! -- Hux (talk) 10:06, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I "vandolize",lol.You are funny Caribbean,lol.I provide official information the only one there is and these guys start to call me vandal FIRST. I tried to talk with them,but they insist to keep information without references in the article,these guys also add personal opinions and avoid other users to edit the article with threats and false acusations like this one ex:Impersonation of other editors here: however i only quoted the user folken here Look these guys are kids i don't have enemies in the net,lol.You have a little world,don't you?,lol. How am i a vandal if i don't edit the article?lol

Hey JuJube these guys called me vandal first,huh. I tried to talk with them.They asked me for proof and i showed them OFFICIAL PROOF the only one available about the article. If they want to improve the article why insist they to show fan made information? They ain't nothing,refuse to discuss the subject,make false accusations,etc.I'm not in a mission. Calm down please.--Saxnot (talk) 10:11, 16 April 2008 (UTC)Saxnot

U.S. Courts Central Violations Bureau (Federal Tickets)[edit]

Resolved: Page has since been deleted. dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 08:56, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Creator keeps removing the speedy delete tag, despite warning not to [25] [26]. Aboutmovies (talk) 06:24, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Page has been deleted, for now. dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 08:56, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Persistent and prolific IP Vandal[edit]

Resolved: schoolblocked three months. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 07:05, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

multiple page move vandalism[edit]

Resolved: Blocked and protected. dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 08:58, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Wælgæst wæfre (talk · contribs) has moved a load of pages. Could someone with the right set of tools have a look? Mr Stephen (talk) 08:37, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

The user would also appear to be another Grawp sockpuppet. - Bilby (talk) 08:46, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
The user has been blocked, and his talk page protected (as is custom for Grawps). All looks gone here. dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 08:58, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
Now all that's left is for a CU on the account. If there's one Grawp sock blocked, I can guarantee you that he's got a whole American football roster's worth of men waiting. -Jéské (v^_^v Karistaa Usko) 09:02, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
I have already asked Alison (on her talk page) to do the honours. BencherliteTalk 09:04, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
And I'll bet you money the IP that was there before it is the source IP. Grawp's tactics have made him all-too-obvious recently... -Jéské (v^_^v Karistaa Usko) 09:06, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
The good thing to come out of this is that I now can honestly claim to have deleted the English Wikipedia[27] (and Paris, Venus, Vietnam and some other pages we can do without :-) ). Fram (talk) 09:25, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Unintended damage[edit]

Resolved: Page has been restored to a sensible place

Can a admin please undo my moves? I was trying to archive a wp biography peer review page. This was not malicious. (talk) 09:30, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

That was me. Tenacious D Fan (talk) 09:31, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
Oops...tried to help and ended up screwing up further. Page in question is Wikipedia:Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography/Peer review/2007 (double Wikipedia:), and I'm totally confused. dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 10:32, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

User:Navnløs adding vandalism warnings for non-vandal edits[edit]

Navnløs (talk · contribs) has a bad habit of issuing vandalism warnings for edits that clearly aren't vandalism. against JzG, against Rockismorethanmusic, against Nouse4aname and against SqueakBox Navnløs issued vandalism warnings for edits that were nothing more than content disputes with the other editors. Navnløs has a lengthy block history for edit warring and violating 3RR. I do not see where this evenings edits/warnings are an attempt to shade 3RR but he's come close on at least one. Perhaps someone could have a discussion with the editor on what vandalism really is and what type of edit deserves a vandalism warning. Anger22 (Talk 2 22) 00:16, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I can endorse the above statement. I can't be searching for diffs of the past months right now, but i can confirm that the user has done so many times before. Also, the user is fully aware of the criticism shown towards his actions. ~ twsx | talkcont | ~ 10:00, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Argh. I do a lot of vandalism protection, ok? And sometimes I admit I do pass out a few vandalism warnings too hastily when I'm not understanding what a user is doing from their edit summary or edit. I usually don't do this much, though (almost not at all), but yesterday people have been going crazy over the Eric Greif page (there is a COI issue there being discussed) and I was quite busy with many things and so a few of my vandalism warnings may have been misplaced. My bad, sorry. My past indisgressions do not represent who I am, mostly. I've improved my editing over time, and yes I do edit on an edge/thin line sometimes and therefore have been blocked when editing the way I think wikipeida should be (there is a rule that says ignore all rules, when appropriate, which caters to people like me "living on the edge") and sometimes rules do need to be broken and I have witnessed many an injustice on wikipedia. Perhaps I do not assume enough good faith (I can get sorely pissed when I see a huge amount of vandalism) and yesterday I ussed some unwarranted vandalism warnings (though I issued others that are not being complained about). As for twsx's comment, both he and I have been known to have had a long dispute on wikipedia and so his words must be weighed carefully. I have not issued vandalism warnings easily, though and there are only a few instances when I gave one too quick. I have many people who can endorse my comments as means little. Nor am I aware of "the criticism shown towards [my] actions." Only a few editors have ever complained about me, twsx usually being one of the first. Blizzard Beast $ODIN$ 23:09, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Not to mention, of those four edits, only one of them was really a bad judgement call. Blizzard Beast $ODIN$ 23:14, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
IAR does not justify anything, it merely tells you to ignore a rule if you can justify the action otherwise, as Wikipedia:What "Ignore all rules" means states. I would bet that either Wikipedia:What "Ignore all rules" means or Wikipedia:Understanding IAR also states that you should not use it as an excuse to do anything controversisal, but, honestly, i am too lazy to read those pages right now. Also, if you are really not aware that people are unhappy with some of the things you do (i am SO assuming good faith here!), you should probably read through your talk page. :-) PS: You still haven't managed to get your indenting right! I fixed it for you. ~ twsx | talkcont | ~ 12:03, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Horizon Press spammer who also adds content sometimes[edit] appears to be a Horizon Press spammer. caught my attention. My first three samples of his edits all show Horizon Press links.

But some might be valid additions. This should be looked at carefully without knee-jerk acceptance or reverts. WAS 4.250 (talk) 12:03, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

http: //


Touchstone42 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · AbuseLog · what links to user page · count · COIBot · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Edit filter search · Google · StopForumSpam)

It's definitely spam. The user has not cited any other references than Horizon Press books and it has not occurred to the user in 8 months of editing = 300+ edits just to use the ISBN. Cross-posted to WT:WPSPAM. MER-C 13:20, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I add content to Wiki from scientific books published by Horizon Scientific Press. For Verifiability I understood that the correct citation would be the book that the material comes from. I do not have access to any other published material so the only references I cite are to Horizon Press books. In future I have three options:
  1. Stop adding content to Wiki
  2. Add content without references
  3. Add content with references to Horizon Press books
I welcome any help or suggestions and will take your advice seriously. Many thanks Touchstone42 (talk) 10:04, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, I've heard that excuse before (oddly enough, the pattern of spamming in that case is very similar to what we have here). Google is your friend. So is your local library. You also didn't read what I said above - you could just use the ISBN instead of adding links to the publisher's website, like this: ISBN 978-0-12-345678-9 produces ISBN 978-0-12-345678-9 Parameter error in {{ISBN}}: Invalid ISBN.. Or simply cite other material. MER-C 12:01, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm trying to edit the page on Cholera, which contains three references to books by Caister Academic Press aka. The links seem valid. The references could be kept without URLs, but having a direct link to the books in question seems ok to me. Why not? BTW. the ISBN is also included, the url is simply "extra info". Pvanheus (talk) 12:12, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

See my comments at MediaWiki about the urgency of resolving the issue of >200 articles with now-blacklisted links. To minimize disruption for our regular editors, they either need to be removed ASAP or else the domain needs to be temporarily removed from the blacklist. --A. B. (talkcontribs) 13:15, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
In future I will only use the ISBN as suggested by MER-C. Thanks for all your helpTouchstone42 (talk) 14:32, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Osli73 violating parole, repeat violator[edit]

Resolved: Complaint moved to WP:AE, the proper forum. GRBerry 13:46, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

User Osli73 has a history of willfully violating probations including the use of sockpuppets on articles related to the former Yugoslavia.

One can see at the bottom of this arbitration webpage that he has been blocked repeatedly for willfully violating sanctions placed against his edit warring and sockpuppetry:

For example:

Blocked Osli73 (talk · contribs) 3 months per 1 month tthis AE post. Please note this is Osli's fourth block. --wL<speak·check> 07:40, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Blocked Osli73 (talk · contribs) for 2 weeks for breaking the revert limit on Srebrenica massacre; also banned from editing Srebrenica massacre for 3 months. Thatcher131 02:27, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Blocked Osli73 (talk · contribs) for two weeks for directly violating his probation and revert parole at Srebrenica massacre. --Jayjg (talk) 01:52, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Blocked Osli73 (talk · contribs) for one week for directly violating his probation and revert parole by using a sockpuppet to edit war at Srebrenica massacre. --Srikeit 10:06, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Blocked KarlXII (talk · contribs) indefinitely as a sockpuppet of Osli73 (talk · contribs) proven by checkuser. --Srikeit 10:06, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

On March 19, 2008, Osli73 received the following probation from administrator Thatcher explicitly forbidding Osli73 from more than one revert per week on the Bosnian Mujahideen and Mujahideen article ,

Your topic ban is lifted and replaced with a revert parole. You may edit Bosnian mujahideen and Mujahideen but for one month (from 17 March) you are limited to one revert per article per week. Obvious vandalism is excepted from the revert limit, but you should take care in distinguishing true vandalism from content disputes. You are permitted to revert the edits of banned users such as Grandy Grandy/The Dragon of Bosnia but you should be extremely careful in doing so, because if it turns out the editor you are reverting is not a sockpuppet of the banned user you will have violated the revert limit. It would be better to report suspected sockpuppets to WP:AE or WP:RFCU. Thatcher 14:05, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
see user Osli73 talk page for the above probation notice:

Despite the explicit probation against more than one revert per week on the Bosnian Mujahideen and Mujahideen articles, user Osli73 has again engaged in edit warring, reverting the Bosnian mujahideen and Mujahideen articles repeatedly, for example Osli made the following 8 reverts to the Bosnian Mujahideen and Mujahideen articles from April 8 to April 14:


From his statements, Osli73 has shown that he fully understands the restrictions placed upon him. From his actions, he has shown that he is not willing to abide by those restrictions.

I am notifying the administrators that have sanctioned Osli73 in the past as well as notifying Osli73 of this posting. Especially with articles involving the former Yugoslavia, it is imperative that users respect the limits placed upon their editing. If the more vitriolic editors involved in former Yugoslavia articles see that Osli73 is not held accountable for his his transgressions, then there is greater likelihood of out-of-control edit warring as there has been in the past. Fairview360 (talk) 05:22, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Block request[edit]


I'm requesting that the following accounts be blocked for sockpuppetry actions at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Baronetcy of Srebrenica, as confirmed at Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/TylerDurden1963:

Cordless Larry (talk) 07:13, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Blocked most indef. User:TylerDurden1963 is blocked for one week, being the oldest and possibly main account - will adjust if he indicates another account is the main. Also, no block on the IP since I'm not sure its static. Shell babelfish 08:34, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for your help. Cordless Larry (talk) 08:44, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
One week seems lenient, not even one day per sock abused. Also it appears that the purpose was to create (and impede the deletion of) a deliberate hoax. If this is true it would be a greater problem than sock-puppetry and I would recommend a much longer block. — CharlotteWebb 14:16, 16 April 2008 (UTC)


Kosherfrog (talk · contribs) claims to represent an organisation called ACOR ( that runs forums for patients with particular diseases. Presently, WP:MEDMOS (the medical manual of style) discourages links to closed "support forums" for the obvious reasons. Kosherfrog came to WT:MEDMOS to ask for a revision of this policy, and received much opposition from most editors there. He then made the following threat: "I certainly have gained enough understanding about the mentality of the medical editors of wikipedia to be able to write some really interesting articles in other venues that pay attention to the needs of the long tail of medicine"[28] While this is not a legal threat, I find it very hard to work constructively with editors who threaten to expose Wikipedians in other publications, and claim to represent large organisations to boot.

I asked this contributor to retract his threats.[29] The response was emphatically negative.[30] I was wondering what others thought of this approach. JFW | T@lk 10:33, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

To be direct, is that all? I'd say that first edit reeks more of incivility than any sort of serious "threat". I also think pouncing on this editor over this specific implication would be overdoing it and not good for the project. As long as it can stay civil, opposition to policy can be very healthy. That all being said, if this user continues to support his arguments by claiming he will write on the incompetence of a certain group of editors, then he will clearly be violating wp:civil and should be warned/handled as such. I just don't see us at that point yet. Gwynand | TalkContribs 11:34, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
The policy in question is under continuous scrutiny, and recently there have been several debates on its exact reach and implementation. Other editors made an obvious effort to consider Mr Frog's arguments, and returned with their findings. There is practically consensus that the links in question do not warrant inclusion.
Would you be happy to remind this editor of his duty to remain civil and participate in constructive debate rather than agitate? JFW | T@lk 12:00, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
I've done so here. To sum up, I didn't ask Kosher to retract his earlier statement, but asked him to remain civil in his arguments and advised him of the inflammatory nature of certain discussion techniques. Gwynand | TalkContribs 12:15, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Update: WP:POINT disruption at Talk:Deaths in 2008 - Block review please[edit]

You will remember there was some argy-bargy at Mark Speight the other evening due to myself and User:Islander attempting to keep editing within policy, specifically WP:RS, WP:V and WP:BLP as the death hadn't been confirmed. A user made some inappropriate comments on the above page which I deleted per Wikipedia:Talk#How_to_use_article_talk_pages and Wikipedia:Talk#Behavior_that_is_unacceptable). (talk · contribs), whom I suspect to be the author of the original comments keeps restoring these, citing vandalism, but not policy. Since these edits contain personal attacks on myself, I figure they should be on my talk page or his, but not on a peripherally-related article. I've now blocked the IP for 31 hours but would welcome a review here. Admins need to be able to apply policy without this sort of WP:POINTy disruptions. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 11:14, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I think if you're dealing with angry IPs, you have to expect a certain amount of anger from them. I don't really see where s/he attacks your character in this diff, apart from telling you to grow up; which is not exactly vicious. You could probably have avoided the need to block by rising above it. However, since they were replaced repeatedly, a brief block is in order and since you were there you might as well deal with the minor matter yourself, though I don't really understand why 12 or 24 hours was insufficient. Also not quite sure what your bit about "personal attacks should be on my talk page or his" is about - they occur where they occur and there is no 'proper' venue for them!!
Personally, I think was a rather obtuse interpretation of policy; the subject was dead and the whole world knew it. There is no policy that says Wikipedia must be factually wrong. Insisting that edits be made to maintain Wikipedia's article in a state of containing overtly erroneous facts was not, imo, the optimal course of action. Splash - tk 12:22, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
I take your point but at the time even the BBC were saying "believed to be dead" and I didn't think we should go beyond that. But you try explaining that to an influx of editors who think that Wikipedia should (a) be a news service and (b) "lead the pack", to paraphrase one. Perhaps WP:BLP isn't that strong a policy after all and I've misread it. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 12:30, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

User:Sickoflies22 and Rachel Z's birthdate[edit]

I'm routing this here instead of the BLP noticeboard because of the latest development.

Sickoflies22 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) has made—other than a comment on my talk page—no edits other than to the Rachel Z article. Based on her edit summaries ([31] [32] [33]) she has implied that she is Rachel Z. She has been encouraged to email the Foundation so this can be verified/addressed by Foundation personnel.

Her concern is with her birthdate appearing in the article. This was initially deleted because of lack of reliable sources. However, it has now been found in two sources (Rochester Jazz Festival bio [34] and ENotes [35]), so it was re-inserted into the article in the grounds that it was "widely published".

The problem is she has now made legal threats against the Foundation [36], so this is beyond a simple BLP issue. Hence, I'm bringing it here for other admins to review. —C.Fred (talk) 04:01, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Clear legal threat. Gwen Gale (talk) 04:04, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
(edit conflict)I was reporting this when your report popped up. Seems a clear violation of WP:LEGAL. I'd say block them as per WP:LEGAL, with a talk page note explaining how to get in touch with the foundation. Redrocket (talk) 04:05, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
...and indefinitely blocked until this issue can be resolved or the threat is recanted. seicer | talk | contribs 04:07, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Both those bios are exactly the same, so it's hardly "widely published". WP:BLP specifically states "When in doubt about the notability of the subject, or if the subject complains about the publication of his or her date of birth, err on the side of caution and simply list the year of birth." - so why is it still in there? One Night In Hackney303 04:08, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
It isn't the day that is the problem, it is the year that the alleged subject is complaining about. --Daniel J. Leivick (talk) 04:11, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Ah my bad for not checking the diffs, I assumed it was a common day and month privacy affair. One Night In Hackney303 04:20, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Probably because she hasn't emailed the foundation to try and establish that she is actually the person in question. Unless she does that, this user could be anybody. Redrocket (talk) 04:13, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
I'd be inclined to assume good faith on the part of the now-blocked account, and remove the birth date entirely. Any objections? Antandrus (talk) 04:12, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Why? Because of the legal threat, or of some other reason? seicer | talk | contribs 04:13, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
I've removed it because I'm not sure two websites meet the notion of "widely published." However, please feel free to revert me. Gwen Gale (talk) 04:16, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
(ec) Agree with Gwen, and two reasons from me, mainly: 1) that I think it really is Rachel Z, and if she says it is wrong, it is reasonable to take her at her word; and 2) it's not widely published/known, and it is reasonable to presume the date found elsewhere on the web is in error. Antandrus (talk) 04:17, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Third source at The Rough Guide to Jazz Google Book Search page image. Though I'll concede that all the sources in question could be coming from one erroneous listing, so we can't rule out that the year is wrong. —C.Fred (talk) 04:24, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Looking into this more deeply, I'm finding lots of wide and sundry support for a 1962 birth date. Gwen Gale (talk) 04:29, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Her Berklee alumni blurb also says 1962. Gwen Gale (talk) 04:32, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Well it would, it's an old copy of our article. CIreland (talk) 04:37, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
(EC) I was JUST writing about the possibility that this entire mess is a propagation of errors situation ,where one old error is being spread via citation. It would seem so. Until a serious cause for inclusion is demonstrated, I support removal per BLP, the above cited policy/guideline, and general good sense. She's not demanding whole control of the article, just some accuracy or privacy. the above error CIreland shows demonstrates that in this particular case, verifiability over 'truth' fails. Let's assume the subject knows her own age, remove it from article, and in absence of overwhelming need for inclusion, drop the matter. ThuranX (talk) 04:42, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm all for dropping it from the article, but no error at all has been shown. As it happens, this date has been widely published for years and in sources which are clearly not derived from our article. Gwen Gale (talk) 04:48, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
SO... everyone else doing it, let's do it too? How many of those sources have reliable sources? Clearly, one you brought up does NOT. So we're back to OUR article, which is being refuted by the subject. I'm not arguing for her to get control, but I am arguing for facts, and for BLP. neither supports inclusion right now. I'd suggest instead explaining OTRS to her, letting her and her lawyer has it out with the OFFICE, and until then, keep it off the article. This is NOT an urgent issue, and shes' not a world-stage level personage. IF she says she can prove her age, let her and her lawyer do that. I've yet to see a convincing reason for inclusion. This is a good case of BLP not being robust enough. Delete the info until the OFFICE weighs in. ThuranX (talk) 04:53, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
I think I'm being very misunderstood here. I don't think her birth date should be in the article if she objects to it (privacy, WP:BLP), nor do I think it should be included in any way until this has been resolved. However, I find neither support for the notion this date was propagated only by a single error in our article beginning four years ago, nor any other cited birth year (so far), yet she's a demonstrably notable musician. Gwen Gale (talk) 04:58, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

(OD)If I may suggest a compromise, let's take down the year of birth for a week, and unblock her account to give her a chance to contact the foundation and verify that she is who she says she is. It's not an emergency situation or a clear case of a WP:BLP violation, but I think assuming good faith with her would help this get settled amicably. After a week if she hasn't tried to prove her case, we'll put the properly sourced original birthdate back up. Redrocket (talk) 05:20, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

She's retracted the remark and happily, has been unblocked. Gwen Gale (talk) 05:25, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

There's an open OTRS ticket, and per that, the date has been removed. I think this is settled, and it's good to see someone being sensible and straightforward about this. That she had to resort to considering legal action, and our first response is a block... BLP needs work. ThuranX (talk) 05:31, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes. I mean, the block was lifted fast but why put her through that drama? Might it be reasonable to implement some kind of a block delay on legal threats made by WP:BLP contacts? Gwen Gale (talk) 05:38, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
That's roughly the sentiment that underlies WP:DOLT. It a sentiment with which I strongly disagree (and one that is inconsistent with WP:NLT, which exists for a few important reasons and at least in part at the [less-than-explicit, I guess] behest of the Foundation), but DOLT does well to encapsulate it in any case and would, I suppose, provide the framework for any changes to NLT that one might, per BLP, essay. Joe 06:57, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Legal threats are legal threats. The standard procedure is to block and let it go through the proper channels. There was a very fast turnaround and the matter is now resolved. seicer | talk | contribs 12:33, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
And, as it turns out, this was, apparently, a justified and sustainable threat. The Foundation backs her. Odds are, her lawyer did the talking. Legal Threats, is, first off, a bad way to view all comments about legal action, as it lets ANY mention of getting lawyers involved become a bannable offense, even 'how do I direct my lawyer to the right contact' becomes a 'vague, unsettling implied legal threat', when it's quite possible the person simply intends to 'escalate' to a person whose clout and power mean that clear reasoning and accountability exist. There's a hell of a difference between 'That's libel, and since you won't help me, I'll get my lawyer to make a call to the WMF' and 'if you don't take down my article, i'll sue you and rape your mom while pouring sugar in the gas tank'. One's rational calm people doing what all of us do all the time: Ask to speak to the manager. The other's an irrational moron, nad can be blocked. Our policy needs revision to account for the REAL world. ThuranX (talk) 21:05, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
The Foundation may back her at this point, but even after an editor told her on her talk page who to email to start the process, she responded with "If you do not remove-legal action shall ensue very soon due to the fact that you are ruining my career and my personal lofe and you have no right. I have retained Ken Hertz -a very influential lawyer and will press charges." I think we're looking back on this problem with the information we have currently, and making judgements. When she started editing here, we had no proof that she was actually the subject of the article. She was just an editor who was threatening to bring charges against wikipedia for giving out information that's available other places on the web. To me, the initial block was sound, as was the unblock and removal of the information once the situation calmed down and proper channels were followed. Redrocket (talk) 17:50, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
Having become aware of more details about this, I believe following existing policy with the block was ok. Gwen Gale (talk) 01:59, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
OTRS has rm'd the date from the article altogether. I suggest closing this thread. Gwen Gale (talk) 17:29, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

User:Koalorka and Turkey-related material[edit]


. Ok, not resolved, but dispute resolution is that way, third door on the left. Don't forget to flush. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 21:15, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

User:Koalorka seems to be making edits in relation to Turkey that express a strongly political POV and is reacting uncivilly when contradicted or reverted. See for example this edit. Can an admin have a look and perhaps please have a word with him? --Pleasantville (talk) 18:11, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

From his recent contributions, he seems to be sweeping through articles that have any mention of a Europe - Turkey connection and removing that info on the spot without editorial discussion. Looks like it could be a bigger issue than just incivility. I'm not sure bombarding his talk page with warnings will help. For now I'll post on his talk page about this thread and ask him to respond here. Gwynand | TalkContribs 19:07, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Hello, what is the issue? ETA, "I'm not sure bombarding his talk page with warnings will help" am I to understand I am being setup for a ban? Koalorka (talk) 19:11, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
I think the issue is well-summarized by Gwynand. --Pleasantville (talk) 19:13, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
What type of bigger issue could this be? I'm simply removing incorrect information. Would it be reasonable for me to start editing Denmark as an Asian nation and then demand discussion and consensus building though the claim has no factual basis and is utterly ridiculous? No, it would not be reasonable. That is why I removed the uncontroversial and incorrect content. Koalorka (talk) 19:17, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
OMG, why are you so against Turkey being defined as a European country? Seriously, looking at your edits, you're so fanatical about it. Onur (talk) 19:21, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Because I'm pedantic and do not tolerate misinformation and slanted propaganda. Koalorka (talk) 19:22, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

What's so misinformative and propagandic about it? Its a widely accepted fact that some Turkish territory lies in Europe. Onur (talk) 19:25, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Context: There is some debate about the proposed entry of Turkey into the European Union. Gwen Gale (talk) 19:28, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
The European Union is completely irrelevant in this context. What our argument is about is whether Turkey is classified as a European country or not, because Koalorka keeps on removing the Turkish American article from the Template:European Americans. Onur (talk) 19:30, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for posting that Gwen, although I am not sure if it is relevant. Just to point out that this notice is in no way established to prove that Koal is wrong regarding Turkey, rather this is dealing more with correct ways to go about making mass changes in articles. Gwynand | TalkContribs 19:35, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
I can understand why Onur says there's no link but keep in mind, this has been argued edit warred about at least since Constantine I moved there, though I think much longer. Gwen Gale (talk) 19:43, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Well, I don't mean it's not relevant to a content dispute, I just mean it's not relevant to this incident which has to do with civility and editing procedures. Gwynand | TalkContribs 19:44, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Spot on what I was getting at. Gwen Gale (talk) 19:46, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Please, Onur and Koalorka, remain civil. This noticeboard is not for discussing content disputes. Koalorka, I agree with removing propaganda on the spot, but that does not encompass everything. Sweeping through pages and removing the same info even if it is wrong is not the best way to go about improving articles. I am unaware of the specifics of the dispute and will not get involved, but if you believe you have factual information and believe articles should be changed as such, bring up the info on respective talk pages to gain consensus. Also provide sources. As always, remain civil with other editors as this is the only way to truly be able to discuss the factual points of an issue. Gwynand | TalkContribs 19:32, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

10-4 on that. I do believe in consensus. I'll do my best. Koalorka (talk) 19:33, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
No, I do not accept that! Look, administrators, could you please read mine and Koalorka's debates (here and here) and actually TRY to understand what the hell's going on, please?! Onur (talk) 19:41, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
And that love-hate debate has been going on since the 14th century. Gwen Gale (talk) 20:02, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Does this template apply here:

Avruch T 20:49, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Judging from a look at his most recent summaries, it appears that Koalorka has not taken yesterday's advice to heart. --Pleasantville (talk) 17:10, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
I recommend, because this is a content dispute, to bring it to dispute resolution. Bring the diffs of his recent activity. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 17:13, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Fox News Channel Edit blocking[edit]

The Fox News entry has been blocked to editing because one or two editors continually revert entirely any changes to the lead entry. The majority of editors in an RfC have expressed disapproval with the POV status of the lead. Yet because of "edit wars" that occur when these two editors continually revert changes, an administrator has blocked the page indefinitely. The effect is that an extreme minority of editors and one administrator has ensured that the version the majority of editors has agreed needs to be changed will not be changed... indefinitely.

The admin says to pursue dispute resolution and form a consensus before editing. Now I may be mistaken, but the highest form of dispute resolution I see for content disputes is mediation. I have asked the warring parties to mediate with me, and they have refused. The discussion has hit a standstill as they have made it clear they simply do not accept the reliable sources the majority approves. The primary reverter has never once compromised to to find a common ground, yet the editors in the RfC majority who disapprove of the lead have offered up multiple versions. I don't see how blocking this page is going to solve this problem. Editing is a critical part of consensus building according to wp:CONSENSUS. The "consensus" that is allegedly the goal of this indefinite blocking is a literal impossibility. At least one of the editors in favor of keeping the current version has refused to give any ground and has made it virtually certain he will oppose any changes to the that attempt to create NPOV. Since the admin who blocked the page has said he will not unblock it until there is consensus, this page is the equivalent of one of those ridiculous "locked for editing" pages over at that the site owners worry might actually have some balance introduced if they let people edit. It cannot be right that one editor and one admin can, in theory, prevent the development of a page indefinitely.Jsn9333 (talk) 21:37, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps you didn't read the template and rushed to conclusions. At the top, it reads: "This protection is not an endorsement of the current version..." And to request an edit, to use {{editprotected}}. Try doing that first. seicer | talk | contribs 21:46, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
As the admin who protected the page, I wish to note that indefinite doesn't mean permanent. The edit warring is quite severe on the page so I have chosen not to set an expiry date to the protection. Stifle (talk) 08:59, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
Just a heads up. The owners of this article are pretty militant when it comes to keeping their POV in the article. Good luck anyways. -- (talk) 16:36, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Cory Doctorow[edit]

Hi folks, some IP's have been playing troll and vandal with this BLP article. Can someone review my blocks and keep an eye on it? If I've made an error, please slap me with a fish. Bearian (talk) 00:52, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Um, you blocked indef; I thought WP didn't block anons? And 3 months seems a little long for a first block on -- Why Not A Duck 01:00, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
I've reset it to 3 hours due to dynamic IP usage. As a guideline, we do not block anonymous IP addresses indefinitely. seicer | talk | contribs 01:23, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
Thank you. I do block IPs when there is a reasonable danger of repeated vandalism. Bearian'sBooties (talk) 01:29, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
I unblocked the IP with the 3 month block (assumed you wouldn't have a problem with that Bearian, let me know if I'm wrong), since the IP hopping vandal has already moved on to a new one (I blocked the newest one for 3 hours). If they don't get bored, semi protection should o the trick. --barneca (talk) 01:35, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
I have no problem with that. Bearian (talk) 17:19, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Improper Deletion[edit]

The page, Swift's printers was improperly deleted by user:Geogre. According to here, he claims the following outright wrong items: "he "article" had footnotes to non-existent references, and it contained material that is completely duplicated." The references in the article were completely real and published by verifiable sources. It was also an article just created. The reason why the user deleted it was to make room for his own page, George Faulkner. Did he seek to improve the other page? Did he seek to bother with it? No. He has harassed my talk page and claimed that my writing is horrible, and he goes and deletes things in an improper manner. As you can see from here that he did not bother to even put it up on a deletion board. All that is left is this. This user has abused his administrative powers, has acted in an extremely uncivil manner, and needs to be dealt with. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:02, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure what exactly should be done at this point to "deal with" Geogre, but I'll note that "Duplicate material in Jonathan Swift and articles on each work" isn't part of Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion. Also, saying "Wikipedia is not the Special Olympics encyclopedia" is needlessly insulting. If Swift's printers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) really duplicates material in George Faulkner (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) or in Jonathan Swift (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), then there needs to be some discussion of how to merge the articles and how to best present the information. The insults and the hostility from both sides needs to be calmed down. --Elkman (Elkspeak) 01:20, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
Really? Well, I find "the purpose of Wikipedia is to compliment people" to be insulting, and unnecessarily so, as it insults the work that I and others have been doing for four years. And if you wish to "merge" "he printed for Swift" into an article, then you must really, really want to preserve some contribs, because that doesn't seem like very unique information to me. Geogre (talk) 11:41, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
Note - The original purpose for the "printers" page was to have a place to deal with the printing controversy. It was also to discuss the arrest of Harding for printing two of Swift's works and some of the other problems related to the printing. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:00, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm also failing to see the CSD being used here. This should be undeleted, and it would be very nice if we didn't have to start a DRV just to do that.. -- Ned Scott 04:52, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
If Geogre does not revert himself by tomorrow, I am prepared to do so. I note that this was a clear case not just of using the tools wrong, but of using them to support himself in an content dispute. DGG (talk) 05:09, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
What content dispute did I have, DGG? You know my motivation and my thinking, it appears, and all without the agony of asking me what they were, so I'm sure you're prepared to tell me the content dispute I was in with Ottava Rima over that article. What edits had I made that he had warred over? What did I want in that he wanted out? Either apologize or explain, please. You have accused me of abuse of position and explained why I did it. I would appreciate your supporting that absurd and hideous charge, or I would appreciate your apology. Geogre (talk) 11:41, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
  • If even Geogre thought it was irredeemable, then I think it's fair to say it probably was. It was a personal essay on the printers used by Swift, apparently forked because osme people thought there was too much detail and too much OR in the section in Jonathan Swift. See WP:BAI. Guy (Help!) 08:58, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Going by this Google Cache, I really don't see a reason for such an article. Having sources does not in itself create notability—there has to be some purpose, and I'm not seeing it here...I'm seeing a list of people who printed books for someone. Nah. Take it to WP:DRV if you truely object to the deletion and want some discussion on it—the deletion was not that bad that it should be overturned via ANI discussion, and I urge DGG not do so. dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 09:03, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
      • Just a note: the article had footnotes, but no references. That was one mangling already. It had footnote 9, when there had been only 2 previous notes. Isn't that a little curious? Additionally, the references were 1) Out of date, 2) Commonplace. A person needs a note to the now-archaic Ehrenpreis to say that Motte was Swift's printer? That is found in every edition of GT, in every encyclopedia, in every literary companion, every biographical dictionary, etc. In other words, a footnote there is nothing but glitter. Like I said, though, the references were in some cases wrong. Geogre (talk) 11:41, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
Because the article was in the process of being worked until you came along, constantly harassed me, deleted it while violating multiple rules, and then prevented it from being expanded. And Ehrenpreis as archaic? Oh gesh. You really are a POV pusher in the most absurd manner. Nothing you say is verifiable or accurate. Last time I talked to Dr. Rawson, he still thought that Ehrenpreis was relevant and an important part of Swift criticism. And if you don't understand why Rawson would know such a thing, then you really don't know a thing about the academic circle. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:17, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
  • This is pretty silly, if you'll all forgive me. Do I think the author of the article is a dunce? Yes. Did I delete it because of that? No. My deletion reasoning was as follows:
    1. The material was duplicated in other articles, including articles on the "printers" themselves
    2. The members of this "list" share no outstanding qualities except the accidental association with a client
    3. The article was misnamed, as, while each of these were printers, several were also book sellers
    4. Were there to be an expansion possible, it would belong quite obviously in the biography article Jonathan Swift.
  • So, because duplicate material fails the deletion guideline, because the potential expansion would be logically placed in an existing article, because the article actually prevented readers from getting information because it limited these people to "they printed for Swift," I did a deletion.
  • However, the reason this is silly is that, if people think there is an improper deletion, we need only use WP:DRV. People come to AN/I when they're trying to ring the fire alarm. There is no fire. There isn't even smoke. All is well. Geogre (talk) 11:31, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
Except that there were four printers, and you were the only one to make a page on one of the printers after the fact. The article was only about the printing of Swift's books, which you would have known if you would have bothered to read the page. Furthermore, Wikipedia guidelines point out that not all biographical detail belongs in the biography page, as there are many separate pages for such things. The problem here is that you violated the conflict of interest, have constantly been incivil, and you delete this. You are abusing multiple Wikipedia policies and abusing admin tools in the process. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:11, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

The above user, user:Geogre, still has no ability to act civil. See here for more of his incivility. "he fact that I also regard the author as a bellicose dunce is irrelevant. I'm not the kind of person who uses teh buttons to win arguments. Instead, the ignorance of the article's creator led him to make something that was unnecessary and duplicate; had he simply checked other articles" There is no reason for such comments like this, and Geogre has made these comments on my talk page, his talk page, and multiple forums. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:11, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

We're allowed to delete content that is not useful. We're also allowed to describe and evaluate content, even if this means saying it's not good. If there is a remaining' content dispute, we have talk pages for that. I don't see any remaining problem here to be solved, unless the deletion is still in dispute. But please don't go to deletion review on a technicality. Friday (talk) 14:20, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Friday, please quote from the speedy deletion criteria that allows him to delete such a thing, especially when it is a stub page that is being worked on? Improper procedure along with using admin tools in a content dispute that he started while insulting an editor is not proper admin behavior. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:00, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
Hi Ottava Rima, I've listed Swift's printers at WP:DRV.--PhilKnight (talk) 15:07, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
I made my initial comment and, as the creator, I will only respond to queries in order to stay objective. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:12, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Deletion of article Karo Parisyan[edit]

This article was recently (last night/this morning) deleted by Jeepday as a blatant copyvio of this page. While I respect Jeepday, I believe he made the wrong call. I also believe this merits the attention of more admins, because the copyvio that's happening here is that WIKIPEDIA'S copyrighted material has been lifted wholesale in clear violation of the GFDL.
I posted a fairly thorough explanation for what happened at Talk:Karo Parisyan, but of course that's since been deleted. Hopefully, y'all admins can view the deleted edits. Long story short, our page was in place first, our text developed over time, etc. Furthermore, Karo's official "about me" page contains deliberate factual errors that were demonstrated to have come about via a Wikipedia vandal on Karo's page, and the version that was ripped to Karo's site still contained pieces of that vandalism. I found exact diffs of Karo's Wikipedia entry that matched various sections of the "about me" page and also explained perfectly why Karo's own page would contain deliberate factual errors and contradictory information. After posting this explanation to Karo's talk page (and noting the dispute here on the Copyright problems board), the user who posted the copyvio notice told me that he agreed with my analysis (diff). Furthermore, a review of the source code of the offending site revealed that it still had Wikilinks in place for each and every single thing that we wikilinked on the article. The copyvio notice got removed, and everything appeared okay. The other day, someone put it back without explanation, and the article was subsequently quickly deleted. For obvious reasons, I cannot provide diffs of that.
Now I'm not doing this to start a wheel war or accuse Jeepday of anything. I just don't think he was correct in deleting the page, and in this situation it's creating a dangerous precedent. Here we have a webmaster who has wholesale ripped off Wikipedia's copyrighted material. In response to that, we, the people who created and developed the article, get accused of vi