Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive446

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

Noticeboard archives

User:Tennis expert causing disruption[edit]

Basically, a few weeks ago in the Maria Sharapova article, I enacted some fairly non-radical but (I believe) worthy edits, cutting away some irrelevant information and giving the article more flow. User:Tennis expert appeared to take great offence at this, and initially reverted my edits over and over again, until he was defeated by consensus and he subsequently gave up. Since then, however, he has continued to cause disruption in the article and seemingly is intent on discrediting my work on the page without reason: he continually adds tags to the page saying the article requires cleanup, and yet, he never gives a reason for why it requires this and says this in spite of general consensus being that the article is fine as it is. I have repeatedly requested he gives reasons for why he believes the article is poor, and he never gives one, instead just automatically adding the tags back (1). In addition, in what appears to be a further attempt to discredit me, he has in the past accused me of being a sockpuppet of three separate registered users: User:Dudesleeper, User:Musiclover565 and User:Masha4ever, with no evidence to support any of these claims. I have attempted to discuss our issues on his talkpage, but each time, he removes my comements, often with a sarcastic remark (2). Please can he be told he cannot continue to disrupt the Sharapova article in this way. Thank you. Whitenoise123 (talk) 17:58, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

I have not found Tennis expert to be disruptive in my interactions with them. Have notified them so they can comment here. Orderinchaos 19:48, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
Hi Whitenoise123, I suggest you consider filing a request for comment on user conduct.--PhilKnight (talk) 20:35, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
I would rather hear the other side of the story first - I've looked at the history and it seems to be an obscure content dispute to me. Orderinchaos 20:57, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

OK, here is my side of the story.

First, let's deal with sockpuppetry. BanRay started a still ongoing sockpuppetry case that originally involved Musiclover565 (temporarily blocked earlier this year for disrupting the Maria Sharapova article), Masha4ever, and ultimately more than 20 anonymous IP accounts. Whitenoise123 then interjected and said that he owned the IP accounts and that, therefore, none of those accounts could possibly be sockpuppets of Musiclover565 and Masha4ever based on the transparent assertion that otherwise, Wikipedia would not have allowed him to register as Whitenoise123. Because Whitenoise123 publicly claims the anonymous IP accounts in question (and even edits one of their discussion pages), he is also a suspected sockpuppet of Musiclover565 and Masha4ever. That suspicion is logically inescapable. By the way, I never "accused" Whitenoise123 of being a sockpuppet of Dudesleeper - I merely asked Dudesleeper if one of the anonymous IP accounts in question here was his sockpuppet. I have clarified to Whitenoise123 what I did, only to be met with the classic "You say potato, I say pot-ar-to".

Second, I am responsible for initiating the tag in the "career" section of the Maria Sharapova article. The tag in the career section is needed for the reasons stated in the Maria Sharapova discussion page (as I stated in the edit summary when I originally added the tag and on several subsequent occasions) and in the tag itself: (a) the tone of the section needs improvement; (b) the section is confusing or unclear for some readers; (c) the section needs to be expanded; and (d) the section needs copywriting and rewriting. Dudesleeper originally added the tag at the beginning of the article. BanRay and I agree that the tag is still needed. I cannot speak for him about his reasoning for the tag. All I can say is that I believe the tag is justified given the well documented problems that Whitenoise123 and his sockpuppets introduced. Whitenoise123 and his sockpuppets revert these tags whenever they appear based on his sole opinion that they constitute vandalism, are invalid because the complaints on which they are based are invalid, are absolutely unneeded, or are no longer required. See: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12.

Third, the Maria Sharapova article was high quality and stable for months after the problems caused by Musiclover565 and his sockpuppets were finally resolved. See, for example, this version of the article. The article was consistent with the standards that longstanding and established tennis editors had developed for the highest quality tennis biographies on English-language Wikipedia. The detail of the article was consistent with the detail of other biographies of highly ranked or successful tennis players. But then, without prior notice or explanation and without attempting to gain consensus, Whitenoise123 and his sockpuppets arbitrarily cut vast amounts of important information from the article and greatly decreased its quality: 1. Naturally, this was seen as vandalism. When these cuts and quality degredations were contested, he used repeated reversions of myself and other editors to impose his unilateral conception of what the article should be and denegrated all efforts to restore the article as, e.g., mindless, vandalism, and illegitimate. He then shockingly claimed that there was consensus for the article to read in accordance with his efforts when there was not a scintilla of evidence to support that claim. I finally listed on the Maria Sharapova discussion page 32 important things that were wrong with Whitenoise123's version of the article (there were other less important problems with his version that there was no practical way to list). Although he made a few changes in response to the list, he flatly rejected my other suggestions or claimed that he was accepting some of them when in actual fact he did not. To clarify matters, I then on June 24-26 attempted to address each item on my list one-by-one and provided a detailed edit summary for each of my edits. This, too, was rejected by Whitenoise123, without explanation. After butting my head against the wall for weeks, I decided to add the tag to the career section of the article and then leave that section alone because to do anything else was met by passive aggressive obstructionism. But, as I have explained already, even that was unacceptable to Whitenoise123. It was either his way 100% or no way. That is where things stand now. Tennis expert (talk) 21:31, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

I am not going to bother with the sockpuppet claims again. As has been established, apart from being incorrect, they are completely irrelevent considering ML565 wanted completely different things to me.
As for your second paragraph - once again, you do not give proper reasons for why the tag should be added! What is wrong with the tone of the section? How is it confusing or unclear? Why would it need copywriting or rewriting? If you can answer these questions, with examples from the article for each one, then we can talk and improve the article. I probably will not be able to respond until tomorrow though. I am, however, going to take issue with your calling my anonymous IPs "sockpuppets" - whenever I use one of these (my ISP constantly gives me a new IP for some reason), I have always made clear that it is me, so they are not sockpuppets.
I am not going to bother with the last paragraph either. It was established long ago that I was perfectly within my rights to enact those edits, so anything I write now would just be a rehash of something I wrote a few weeks ago. Lets keep this discussion directly relevant to the topic of the complaint please.
And thank you PhilKnight for the advice - I will follow it if Tennis expert continues to add these tags and downgrade the rating of the article without proper, valid reasons. Whitenoise123 (talk) 22:23, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
(1) The downgrading of the Maria Sharapova article to "C class" was done by BanRay, not me. Whitenoise123 promptly reverted the downgrading. Because I honestly agreed with BanRay, I reinstated the "C class" designation. Consistent with Whitenoise123's belief that only he knows what's best and that other editors are therefore wrong, he has repeatedly reverted to the "B class" designation despite his being the only editor who has expressly supported "B class" and notwithstanding that two established editors have expressly supported "C class." Once again, Whitenoise123 makes a lot of "noise" about his having consensus for his edits when the facts clearly show otherwise. This is the typical disruptive tactic that he uses and that his suspected sockpuppets, Masha4ever and Musiclover565, used earlier this year. Notice some of the edit summaries that Masha4ever and Musiclover565 used in January 2008: "As BanRay as yet to provide a legitimate reason for why these edits are apparently not allowed, I'm going ahead with them. Others are more than entitled to edit statements they feel are uncited or POV." "Please do not mindlessly revert my edits." "Please do not revert edits without reason." The similarities between these edit summaries and those of Whitenoise123 (and his sockpuppets) are inescapably obvious. For example: "Please stop mindlessly reverting my edit. Thank you." "Please stop reverting my perfectly legitimate edit or it will be reported. Thank you."
(2) Whitenoise123 himself raised the sockpuppet issue in his initial post here. When I responded appropriately and factually, the issue suddenly is not worth discussing. Very strange, indeed. He also claims that he has no control over which anonymous IP sockpuppet accounts he uses because his ISP "constantly gives ... a new IP for some reason." Again, the facts do not support this story. He rotates among the same anonymous sockpuppet accounts, returning periodically to many of them. I guess that's pure coincidence and nothing he controls.... The problem with sockpuppetry is clearly shown by the edits that Whitenoise123 makes, sometimes with his "named" account and sometimes with anonymous IP sockpuppets. This appears to be a continuing tactic, especially considering the edits made to other tennis biographies from the same IP range as Whitenoise123's admitted IP sockpuppets.
(3) Compare the complaint made here by Whitenoise123 to the almost identical complaint made by Masha4ever here. Are the similarities merely coincidence? I think not. Tennis expert (talk) 03:08, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
You just don't get it. I have provided reasons for why I believe the article is B-Class: It is well-written, has all the essential information, well-structured, and in terms of citations, is extremely strong (and I intend to find citations for all uncited statements / remove all uncited statements by the end of the day). If you believe this not to be the case, you need to EXPLAIN why you think this; for instance, if you believe it is not well-written, you need to give examples and say WHY it is not well-written. I am not expecting you to do this of course, considering you have not done so so far despite many requests, but it is not good enough to just say you think it is C-Class.
And again, you fail to grasp the sockpuppet claims are completely irrelevent to the issue. I only raised the issue to pre-empt what I knew would come from you: an attempt to fight your case using the claims. I needed to make clear that, as ML565 intended completely different edits to me, the claims were irrlevent. If I "rotate" around anonymous IPs (which I'm not sure is true), that is completely out of my hands. I also do not appreciate your downright LIE saying I rotate between Whitenoise123 and IPs... since I registered this account on Monday (the sole cause for this being to make cases like this easier to deal with), I have always operated with this account and never with an anon IP.
All that complaint you cited proves is that your unresponsiveness to my requests for discussions is not a one-off, as you apparently were so in that case too. Once again, in this discussion here, I requested you answer those questions I posed about your problems with the article, and you completely ignored them in your response, instead resorting once again to pretty and irrelevent smears. Instead, you have returned to trolling, restoring your version of 2008 (automatically reverting many edits to the page since) despite consensus having already rejecting it. Rest assured, if you persist, I will be requesting a comment on user conduct, something that would be valid, given both myself and Orderinchaos have requested you engage in a proper discussion about this in the last 24hrs, and you have shown no willingness to do so. Whitenoise123 (talk) 09:08, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
Rest assured that I "get it." I am very familiar with your behavior and the behavior of your sockpuppets (self-admitted and otherwise) since January of this year.
Yesterday, I added back relevant information concerning Maria Sharapova's results during 2008 that myself and numerous other editors had carefully written and included in the article for over 6 months, i.e., since the beginning of this year. Two hours later, you summarily reverted it in its entirety with the following edit summary: "Removing irrelevant information, in line with consensus." Although reasonable people could disagree about the amount of detail that should be included in the article, none of what I added back is "irrelevant." As for your "in line with consensus" comment, where is the evidence of that consensus? It simply doesn't exist. Six months of the article having the detail that I was merely trying to restore is persuasive evidence of there having been consensus to include that detail. You ignored that consensus when you deleted that detail and now you are trying to dress-up your action by claiming a non-existent consensus for your position. What is most telling about your latest reversion is that you made no effort to compromise. You simply rejected everything I did, as you did before. See my efforts on June 24-26 to address each item on the Maria Sharapova discussion page list of problems with your unilateral edits and your out-of-hand rejection of those efforts, without explanation.
The tools you have used since June to defend your unilateral action include, but are not limited to, sockpuppetry, frequent reversions, mischaracterizations of facts, false statements of consensus, and now intimidation and threats to seek administrative action unless I go silent and abide by your wishes. The latest example of your behavior is the third paragraph of your statement immediately above. To be clear about what I'm talking about, let me quote it: "Instead, you have returned to trolling, restoring your version of 2008 (automatically reverting many edits to the page since) despite consensus having already rejecting it. Rest assured, if you persist, I will be requesting a comment on user conduct, something that would be valid, given both myself and Orderinchaos have requested you engage in a proper discussion about this in the last 24hrs, and you have shown no willingness to do so." Let's look at the various aspects of your statement: (1) Name-calling. Calling my behavior "trolling" is inconsistent with numerous Wikipedia policies, including, but not limited to, WP:CIVIL. (2) Falsely stating that I restored my version without regard to intervening edits. First of all, I did not restore "my" version. As I already said, I simply restored the detail that numerous editors (including myself) had included in the article for 6 months before your unilateral action. Second of all, my edit yesterday was not a robotic restoration of the 2008 text that existed before your unilateral action, as this comparison plainly shows. (3) Falsely stating that there is consensus for your unilateral actions. See the previous paragraph. (4) Attempted intimidation and threats. "[I]f you persist, I will be requesting a comment on user conduct, something that would be valid...." (5) Falsely stating that I have not responded to the request of Orderinchaos and yourself to discuss these issues. I can understand your discomfort with my numerous responses to your allegations. But clearly I have responded in full (here and in the sockpuppetry case involving you), and I have reasonably documented your behavior with numerous examples and why I believe it has been disruptive. Tennis expert (talk) 05:59, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
Again, I am not going to bother with most of that; the sockpuppet claims are as silly as ever, and we settled that you were out of line to continually restore your version of the article ages ago, so there is no point responding to your stuff in regards to that. I am going to respond to (4) and (5) though.
"Intimidation and threats"?! Please! You know full well that is not what it is, and this sums up your entire input to this dispute - instead of sitting down and calmly debating the issues, you instead almost invariably resort to stupid accusations, irrelevent points or twisting my statements. This was not a threat, it was merely a warning, which are perfectly permitted on Wikipedia; I think I am probably already entitled to request that comment on conduct, but I would rather not further this dispute if I can avoid it, and so, I was just letting you know that, while I would let you off this time, I would not in the future. As you also know, that warning was not a threat to "keep silent"; as I have said, if you could actually come up valid criticisms of the article, to justify the cleanup tags and the C rating, I would be forced to accept them. But you have not.
It is not false to say you have not fully taken part in these discussions. Orderinchaos and I have both asked you to fully explain why you feel the tags are necessary, and that does not just mean saying "it needs rewriting"; you need to break down by citing examples and saying what you think is wrong with them. If you feel so strongly about how the bad the article is, why do you find it so difficult just to say what exactly is wrong with it? In your next response, please answer these crucial questions, giving examples for each and explaining in full why you believe them to be poor: what is wrong with the tone of the section? How is it confusing or unclear? Why would it need copywriting or rewriting? What is wrong with the grammar? If you do not respond to these questions with valid answers, I can only assume that you do not have sufficient problems with the article, proving you only added them in an attempt to cause trouble, thus completely justifying my complaint. Whitenoise123 (talk) 09:59, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
You would assume wrong. But this is your usual tactic: tell editors that unless they respond in the way you dictate by the deadline you impose, you will assume that they agree with your position. Ridiculous. Tennis expert (talk) 19:41, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
This is almost a textbook case of what C-Class is designed for, in my view. It seems the correct rating for this article to me. Orderinchaos 20:36, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
Would you mind explaining why? It seems perfect for B-Class to me: every single statement requiring a citation now has one, it contains all key results so has no omissions, it certainly has a very defined structure, it is grammatically sound and flows reasonably well even if not perfectly (and certainly much better than the previous version, which for the most part contained statements like "She defeated Venus Williams. She then defeated Lindsay Davenport"), and it does not use overly-technical terms. In any case, it needs to be viewed relatively; there are many other female tennis player articles rated B (such as Venus Williams, Serena Williams and Jelena Jankovic) and I fail to see how they are higher quality than the Sharapova article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Whitenoise123 (talkcontribs) 21:12, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
C-class was introduced quite recently to reduce the gap between Start and B-class. Now that three established editors have graded the article as C, I'm going to restore the C-class template. Now as for this edit, we are still waiting for you to point out the consensus you were referring to. BanRay 13:58, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
And I will revert it back to B unless you start giving proper reasons for why it should be C. If you beliieve so strongly that it is C, how hard is it to list what exactly is wrong with it, with examples? This is a reasonable request, and until you start doing this, how on earth can you expect to be taken seriously?
And the consensus refers to the fact countless editors have edited the page in the past 3 weeks, and none have taken issue with my edits, apart from yourself and Tennis expert, who have not even provided proper criticisms. Whitenoise123 (talk) 14:01, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
WP:CON please BanRay 14:06, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for proving my point. "generally someone makes a change or addition to a page, and then everyone who reads the page has an opportunity to either leave the page as it is or change it. In essence, silence implies consent". Of the countless editors to have edited the page in the last 3 weeks, only two have found issue with my edits. That is realistically as close to consensus as we are going to get. Whitenoise123 (talk) 14:10, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
Another misrepresentation of fact.... At least 4 editors have expressly objected to your edits: BanRay, Tennisboi13,, and myself. How many editors have expressly supported your edits? One. You. At least 4 editors have expressly supported a "C class" designation for the article: SWik78, BanRay, Orderinchaos, and myself. How many editors have expressly supported a "B class" designation? One. You. Tennis expert (talk) 19:11, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
Actually, if I remember rightly, "Tennisboi13" reverted about one sentence. And there is no proof whatsoever that that anon IP is not your sockpuppet. As for me being the only one to support my edits - once again, as the page that BanRay so kindly pointed me to, "silence implies consent".
I also notice you have once again rejected my attempts to reach consensus. I started a discussion about the grading on the discussion page, and posted a polite note about it requesting input on your talkpage... you responded by removing my comment without reason, ignoring the discussion and reverting the grading back. This only leads me to assume you do not have genuine concerns about the article. For now, for the very short term, I will leave the article as C, but unless someone gives full, explicit reasons for why it should not be B shortly, I will revert it back. Whitenoise123 (talk) 20:28, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
See this. Tennis expert (talk) 21:02, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
Stop being patronising. I have gone to the trouble of clarifying my stance, it is now your responsibility to clarify yours. Whitenoise123 (talk) 21:12, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
If all the time and energy in the above squabble over class was put into improving the article, it'd be on the main page by now. 14:13, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
Haha, very true. And I am willing to start working with BanRay and Tennis expert to improve the article further when they start calmly debating the content rather than silly accusations of sockpuppetry or adding cheap tags for no reason. Whitenoise123 (talk) 14:16, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
That's true Tanthalas, but even though I do prefer Tennis expert's version of the article, this isn't as much about the article as it is about the User's trolling and sockpuppetry. So up until the sock case is taken (and with the current backlog it may well take a while), I will try to refrain from any communication with the user. BanRay 14:39, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
And I think that shows how impossible it is to calmly discuss things with this guy. Whitenoise123 (talk) 14:41, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
I have outlined my case for a B rating on the Sharapova discussion page. Any input would be appreciated. Whitenoise123 (talk) 18:15, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Any chance y'all can adjourn to WP:DR? Mediation or whatever? I'm not hearing anything that requires administrator intervention. —Wknight94 (talk) 21:09, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

I have already attempted to start this (see the Sharapova discussion page), but Tennis expert has thus far not responded. Whitenoise123 (talk) 21:14, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Blocking candidate User:Pararubbas[edit]

Dear Administrators,

My name is VASCO from PORTUGAL, i am an unregistered but willing contributor to WP, and i have, upon redirection from friendly user BanRay,[1] come across this section, and will proceed to explain my "case":

I tend to work more on sports (football, basketball) articles, and have come across an user which can be described as anything but useful: PARARUBBAS is his accountname, and his "contributions" consist in: Gluing all the article's sentences/paragraphs into one really big, incomprehensible sentence, removing brackets that are needed for display, but, much much worse, removing just because, ALL EXT.LINKS and REFERENCES!

I have warned him twice (once in portuguese, mine and i reckon his too language, although i doubt he does not speak english, since he writes in this WIKI-version), i have talked with other users (BanRay has also warned him),[2] and he continues to disrupt/remove at will, after being threatened with blocking (either he does not read his talkpage/edit summaries or he does and doesn't care).

Lend me your insights on this issue please, from PORTUGAL, a nice weekend, VASCO AMARAL - -- (talk) 15:16, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

User in question is Pararubbas (talk · contribs). Notified them but haven't had time to dig into this yet. — Satori Son 15:49, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
I have reluctantly blocked Pararubbas for 24 hours for continued disruptive editing. My initial hesitation with blocking was that this may be a language issue, since the user has made zero talk edits of any kind. But they've received numerous warnings and requests to discuss (even one in their likely native Portuguese), so not sure what else to do.
I would more than appreciate a second or third set of eyes on this (and if there's a consensus to unblock, just go ahead - no need to wait for me to come back online). Thanks. — Satori Son 21:13, 10 July 2008 (UTC)


Need help fixing vandalism to Henri Matisse by "The Avril Troll", etc. Viriditas (talk) 15:36, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Done. Firefox running on FreeBSD is hard to squash :) Gwen Gale (talk) 15:43, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

I see it on Tom Cruise. indopug (talk) 19:04, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

AfD participant redacting statement by nominator[edit]

An AfD discussion is currently ongoing concerning Allegations of apartheid, an article that was the subject of an arbitration case last year. Unfortunately one of the participants, Leifern (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log), has repeatedly deleted part of the nominator's introductory statement on the grounds that it is "irrelevant" [3] and "blatant attempt at well-poisoning" [4]. I have asked Leifern to desist from redacting the nominator's opening statement and take it up with the nominator instead if he feels there is a problem [5]. The nominator has also objected. [6] Leifern has a history of doing this sort of thing; he deleted an admin's closing comments during a related AfD last year on the bogus grounds that they were "unauthorized" [7]. This seems to be more of the same.

This clearly isn't appropriate behavior - I don't think I've ever come across an AfD participant attempting to censor a nominator's opening statement before. I would take action myself but as a participant in the AfD I think I would be seen as "involved". It would be helpful if someone could have a word with Liefern about the matter. Given that the AfD itself is getting fairly heated, I think it would also be helpful if someone could keep an eye on it to deal with any further problems that crop up. -- ChrisO (talk) 17:25, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

The content he is removing is links to previous related AFD's and other discussions. I dont see how this is poisoning the well, however providing additional relevant information in an attempt to reach a consensus (based on current and past discussion). I agree it is wrong to remove this section. Chrislk02 Chris Kreider 17:42, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
That was my take on it, too. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Allegations of apartheid (fifth nomination) is (hopefully!) the last in a long series of AfDs on "allegations of apartheid" articles. The issues that have been raised in all of them (basically WP:SYNTH) are pretty much identical so it's quite useful to look back at the arguments that were made in those discussions. -- ChrisO (talk) 17:41, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
I think editing someone else's nom is probably not a good approach, if the nom is good faith and the material doesn't constitute an attack or some other egregiously bad material. ++Lar: t/c 18:06, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
I agree that comments should not be removed from an AfD without a compelling reason, in analogy to WP:TPG, and that such a reason is not apparent here. This should be sanctioned as disruption if it continues.  Sandstein  18:12, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
We've already had one ArbComm case related to these articles, AFDs, and DRVs. Hopefully an uninvolved administrator can proactively manage this without letting it become another major mess. GRBerry 18:16, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
    1. It would, of course, be helpful if you all, before making a stink about this, had checked back at the page and noticed I had, instead of deleting the section, commented on the section after it was restored. So all this is totally unnecessary.
    2. ChrisO is a heavily involved in this issue and has no claim to any semblance of impartiality, nor has he any standing in commenting on what is appropriate behavior or not.
    3. The history that ChrisO talked about was when another editor (I can't remember if it was an admin or not; it should be irrelevant) took it upon himself/herself to write on a page that was expressly closed for further editing. I reverted that in keeping with the text, on the principle that rules apply equally to everyone. Since then, the relevant editors and I have talked and are on amicable terms with each other.
    4. It's my considered opinion that a decision to delete or keep any article should be based on the merits of the article itself. There is no limit to the number of references, articles, etc., one could bring in to "inform" voting editors, and in this case the additional comment was made after the initial nomination. In this particular case, ironically, both CJCurrie and ChrisO have been complaining about an imagined cabal of pro-Israeli advocates that they think have been relating the existence of one article with the existence of others. Yet, they find it appropriate and convenient to make such comparisons themselves when it suits them. So it's my opinion that the AFD is not made in good faith, but it's not my habit to take every and any personal grievance I have to noticeboards and what-not. --Leifern (talk) 18:18, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
The keywords in #4 above is, "It's my considered opinion." We all have our opinions on how things should be done and many of us disagree. That is what the process is about. Just removing stuff you disagree with is how edit wars start. I am glad you stopped removing it, that is comendable, please try not to take the AFD to personally, it is about the article, not about you. Chrislk02 Chris Kreider 18:24, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
I've had no involvement whatever in these deletions, or in any apartheid articles whatever, for that matter. In my considered opinion, Leifern, your considered opinion is quite wrong. The pattern here relating to the articles is useful to see. Further, if the material is irrelevant, trust the other editors and the closing admin to realise that for themselves after you comment to that effect. Further, I don't think there is any arguing with the point that you should not change the words of others except in very limited, very circumscribed, very well understood circumstances. If it comes to my notice that you are doing so in future, you may find yourself warned again, and if that is not sufficient, blocked. Hope that helps clarify matters. ++Lar: t/c 18:30, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
It sure does. I better not disagree with ChrisO again. --Leifern (talk) 18:35, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
<sarcasm>Oh, you are Liefern, by all means nobody should ever disagree with you</sarcasm>. Disagreements are going to happen, even between the most experience editors. What sets them apart is how they handle it. It appears to me that you are handling this pretty poorly. Chrislk02 Chris Kreider 18:41, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
Maybe I could have dealt with it better. But it would be my sincere recommendation that before you make such a judgment, give me admonitions, etc., that you take the time to understand what's going on - especially when the notice comes from an admin who is deeply involved in the issue. ChrisO took this immediately to the AN/I board without raising it with me first, ignored my request to discuss it on the Talk page, and then made additional accusations against me. To boot: all this after it was apparent that the behavior you think was so awful was discontinued. So maybe I screwed up, but I wasn't the only one - and I came to my senses on my own. --Leifern (talk) 18:55, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
First off, I am not involved with this at all which allows me to view this in from a neutral point of view. I reviewed the situation independantly and reached the conclusion I reached on my own (as I am assuimg those who also independantly reviews this did). I take Chris )'s words with a grain of salt as I take yours. both are involved parties and therefore it required independant research. Also to note, I actually complement you above for stopping and engaging in discussion. The best thing to do now is just move forward! Chrislk02 Chris Kreider 18:58, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
It's really not that complicated - as I said on your talk page, there are certain circumstances where you're allowed to edit others' comments, but this isn't one of them. I'm glad you've now chosen to discuss things with the nominator. -- ChrisO (talk) 19:11, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
OK... next time, Liefern, if you turn up here, start by acknowledging the truth of certain things instead of insisting about matters. Or at least start by asking instead of asserting. That will help things go more smoothly next time. As for talk page stuff, yes I agree with that. And Chrislk02, sarcasm probably doesn't help. ++Lar: t/c 19:06, 10 July 2008 (UTC)


User:Cleo123 has refused to respect my wishes and remove off topic comments from my talk page. As you can see here, I made it clear that my talk page is not for those comments. Cleo123's comments were then duplicated here, which verifies that they do not need two copies of the same comments especially when it is addressing that other user. Other pertinent information can be found here and here. Could someone please explain to them about talk page respect? This user insists to fight with other members of the community on my talk page, and I do not enjoy it. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:06, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Remove the comments yourself. Since it's your talk page, you can do that. Then tell him to kindly refrain from posting to your talk page and to use article pages instead. If he persists in this behavior, let us know. RlevseTalk 03:20, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
Did that, twice. Hence why I am reporting it now. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:24, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
For the diffs, see this, this, this, and this. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:26, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
They have responded to my alerting of them of this thread here. As you can see, I am accused of posting derogatory remarks and being incivil by removing comments. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:37, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
Reprinted from my talk page:
":: Well, let me begin by apologizing. I did not intentionally revert your removal twice. I was, in fact, still editing my message when I lost power. I mistakenly thought that it had not posted the first time. You had apparently reverted my remarks unbeknownst to me. I did revert your second removal (which I thought was your first) which occured within one minute of Tendancer's removal of my message from his talk page. Now there is a very odd coincidence! Nice edit summaries - very civil. The time stamps and similarity in tactical strategies, will also undoubtedly be of interest to administrators. [8][9] Perhaps you can explain what would appear to be very uncivil behavior. You and Tendancer post derogatory remarks about me on a notice board with a link to your talk page. When I attempt to respond to these false allegations with facts, both of you seem to be reverting me with in seconds of one another. What's that all about? If you truly object to "our dispute" being on your talk page, please, explain why you haven't removed Tendancer's "off topic" remarks? Cleo123 (talk) 03:28, 5 July 2008 (UTC)"
More pseudo legal threats from the above user and claims about "libel" and "defamation" that are not based on actual text found here. Ottava Rima (talk) 05:46, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
Okay, enough is enough. As the link from the BLP noticeboard clearly indicates, I was explaining WP:LIBEL and WP:BLP to this disruptive editor for the umpteenth time. Can he be blocked for incivility and disruption? This is getting to be ridiculous. Cleo123 (talk) 06:19, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
Agreed. Enough is enough. Forcibly restoring comments which have been removed by the editor on whose page the comments were placed is unacceptable conduct. The editor in question is under no obligation to explain to anyone which comments he chooses to remove. The above editor's failure to recognize this is troubling. John Carter (talk) 14:20, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
Stalking editors from page to page and harassing them, as John Carter has been doing to me for over a year now is unacceptable conduct. It looks particularly bad when an administrator continues to engage in behavior of this sort against an editor in good standing, after they have repeatedly been asked to stop. It looks even worse when that same administrator escalates his campaign of harassment after the editor (who has good cause to complain) supports a motion to have him desyssoped as I did here and here. John, again I ask you to stop following me and attempting to create conflict and confrontation on articles that I am editing. As I have stated previously, I deliberately avoid articles you are involved with. Extending me the same courtesy might be considered conduct befitting an administrator. Cleo123 (talk) 03:42, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
It appears that on top of attacks and claims about rule violation without any real proof, the user also resorts to bullying others as seen here. Not only is the above user dramatically reinterpreting Wikipolicy, but making outrageous claims about US law. This disruption has spread to multiple talk pages and seems to revolve around one person in particular. Ottava Rima (talk) 05:31, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
I have reinterpreted policy? Gee, WP:BLP seems pretty clear cut to me. What part of this do you think I'm misinterpreting?
"Basic human dignity. Wikipedia articles should respect the basic human dignity of their subjects. Wikipedia aims to be a reputable encyclopedia, not a tabloid. Our articles must not serve primarily to mock or disparage their subjects, whether directly or indirectly. This is of particularly profound importance when dealing with individuals whose notability stems largely from their being victims of another's actions. Wikipedia editors must not act, intentionally or otherwise, in a way that amounts to participating in or prolonging the victimization."
Now the numerous sources available make it clear that Steve Windom was the victim of defamation that resulted in criminal charges. The incident is currently discussed in a neutral and fair manner in the article. Yet, you have been arguing for a detailed reprinting on Wikipedia of the material that a court ruled to be libelous. You have even encouraged a new, inexperienced user to create a free standing article in order to showcase this libel, insisting that Windom who you claim to have contacted in real life, (in violation of Wikipedia's policies on original research) will have to sue Wikipedia if he wants to get it removed! When users attempt to explain Wikipedia's libel policy to you, you have repeatedly taken the unusual stance that only actual libel victims are allowed to mention the word WP:LIBEL on Wikipedia.
For the record, I do not think I've made any "outrageous claims" about US law. I've said that a court ruled the material in question to be libelous, which it did. I've cautioned you about knowingly reprinting libel on Wikipedia as you could be exposing Wikipedia to potential legal problems. I think WP:BLP is very clear that libel about living people is to be removed immediately. Please, explain what part of these policies you think I am reinterpreting? And if you are, in fact, so confident that your interpretations of WP:BLP and WP:LIBEL are correct, please, go right ahead and create this free standing article yourself instead of encouraging a newbie to do it for you. Cleo123 (talk) 01:57, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
Did you just admit that your incivil actions are based on the possible language of something you have not yet seen? Ottava Rima (talk) 03:01, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
I have no idea what you are talking about. You entered the article's discussion late in the game and have been defending the view of an editor who was repeatedly inserting defamatory material into the article. It would appear that you may not have taken the time to review the contribution history of the editor you've been encouraging. I have "seen" the material, and removed it from the article in accordance with WP:BLP some time back. The editor in question has apparently "seen the light" thanks to my intervention and stopped reinserting libelous material into the article. As I see it, the conflict between the two editors was resolved a while ago. For reasons unknown, you are still on the page fighting like hell to "mediate" a dispute that no longer exists, even going so far as to contact the article's subject and argue for the creation of a separate "scandal" article for reasons unknown. You seem to be trying to create some sort of new conflict, not mediate one. Cleo123 (talk) 03:23, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
Game? You think this is some game that you can go around making up rules, harassing users, and the rest? No editor is listening to anything you say, because you are a disruption. Audemus and Dem came to terms before you started attacking people. They are waiting for you to stop your harassment so we can continue to expand the page. You already admitted that you are here to attack people, and now you admit that you have no grounds for your attacking people. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:34, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
I am a disruption? LOL! Sorry, but that is downright amusing coming from a user who has been banned from participating in FAC discussions (for behavior that is strikingly similar to your conduct in this matter), cited by numerous editors for extreme incivility and blocked numerous times. I, by contrast, have never been blocked for anything during my years on Wikipedia. Please, do not make false accusations against other users. I have not harassed anyone. I have not edited the talk page of the article in nearly a week. So, I'm not sure what anyone might be waiting for. Although I haven't edited the article in a while now, none of my edits to the article have ever been reverted by anyone. Considering Dem1970's message on your talk page, in which he says I am "right on", your above statements seem to be very misleading at best. Cleo123 (talk) 04:51, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
None of your statements have support except by yourself. That should clue you in about the nature of your comments. Ottava Rima (talk) 11:48, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
I think its obvious to everyone here how blatant your misuse of the truth is especially when you quote that I was "banned" while linking to a post I made in which I stated I would be gone from the FAC review process until the end of the summer. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:22, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
I stand corrected. Upon closer review, I see that the vote was never actually tallied. Although the majority voted to ban you, you essentially banned yourself and took a wikibreak before the vote could be tallied. My apologies. It was not my intention to mislead in any way. Cleo123 (talk) 06:34, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
It's more fact twisting by Cleo123--as usual. Looks to be like John was open to recall for desysop'ing while involved in a content dispute with another couple editors, and haven't even corresponded with Cleo123 for about a year. Then Cleo123 can't let go of his old vendetta after all that time--which's really sad--and WP:STALK'ed in and reposted his old WP:CIVIL-violating diatribe from the year-old and already-resolved dispute from List_of_converts_to_Christianity, a dispute which Cleo123 lost and twice refusing to accept the outcome of mediation (against him) and insulted the mediators, and got his tag-teaming friend User:Bus_stop indef-banned for disruption, incivility, tendentious editing among other vices (The mediator back then already noted Cleo123 has a tendency to misstate facts and "twist other's words in obvious ways", this is just another example). Don't worry, RFC is coming in a few days once I find the time to assemble the factoids, hope you'll all participate. Tendancer (talk) 15:51, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
Please, provide some links for these less than civil allegations. Cleo123 (talk) 04:55, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
You have provided the links re: John's self-open-to-recall which in turn contained a diff directly to your own lengthy diatribe against John Carter two posts above, as if you think your WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL violations are something to be proud of. Not to mention you already twice vandalized my talk page in response to the links I provided re: a mediator's comments against you. In light of that fact and your sudden amnesia about those diffs and your requests for links; it seems at best disingenuity, at worst yet a disruptive ploy to waste other editor's time. The links above to List_of_converts_to_Christianity and User:Bus_stop also contain reams of info about your tag-team edits and how that eventually got Bus_stop banned (while you pretended to go on a wiki-break to hide from actions against you ), it's actually rather comical if you're actually claiming you need links/references to that history as you were centrally involved for months. Please stop being disruptive. Tendancer (talk) 06:43, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
Again, I ask you to provide links to substantiate all of your less than civil allegations. What's the matter? Can't provide any? Oh, and BTW, that's quite a jump you're taking where Bus stop is concerned! Arguing some points on the same side of a debate with someone is not the same thing as "tag team editing" with them. I'll remind you that quite a few admins were involved with the discussions you've referenced, none of them seem to have shared your view of my conduct. I know that it was very upsetting for you that your POV on the Michael Richards article did not prevail. But Wikipedia has its policies where living people are concerned. It's policy. It's not me - and stalking and harassing me for a year does little to change policy. Want to call Michael Richards a racist and Kyle Doss a hero? I suggest you start a blog and stop disrupting Wikipedia with your seemingly childish vendetta. Cleo123 (talk) 06:47, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

I filed a report over Cleo's personal attacks found above here. I do not appreciate being attacked in such a way. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:04, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Don't worry, if you want links at last count I have 23 in the RFC to outline your deplorable conduct, expect that to be submitted sometime within the next 24 hours. Thank you for link #24 with yet another evidence of your WP:NPA violations and yet another example your twisting other's words (as a mediator already pointed out and inventing lies to falsely accuse others of WP:BLP. Why don't you go ahead and see if you can even attempt to find a diff where I wanted to call Michael Richards a racist or call Kyle Doss a hero. What's the matter? Can't provide any because it doesn't exist and is a complete invention? And once again you avoided the question, please explain why you would need links re: John Carter's voluntary recall and a direct diff to your length diatribe when all you had to do was to scroll up and see your own post from Jul 6. (and that reposted diatribe is a year old for heaven's sake, I really hope you still haven't let go because you lost that "fight"? Wikipedia is WP:NOT a battleground. To quote you, please consider "start a blog and stop disrupting Wikipedia with your seemingly childish vendetta" if you're being disruptive because you can't let go. Tendancer (talk) 14:07, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
"Can't let it go?" My contribution history clearly shows that I have avoided articles you and John Carter are involved with. The two of you, by contrast, have been following me from article to article for over a year now, attempting to provoke confrontations with me. During the course of your little cyber vendetta, I've watched the two of you repeatedly flame, knowingly argue against Wikipedia's policies, file bogus complaints and most recently, we have John Carter arguing for the creation of an article designed to malign a living person, just to antagonize me. I am not the one who is disrupting Wikipedia. You two are. The record is quite clear. Cleo123 (talk) 05:09, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Abuse of BLP[edit]

The above user has proven that they are using a misinterpretation of BLP to make unnecessary changes. Look at this current string of actions which incorporates WP:CHILD, a policy that has nothing to do with pages on notable children - here, here, and here. Ottava Rima (talk) 11:48, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Your posting here is quite misleading. Why not provide copies of the messages I've exchanged with CalendarWatcher,[10] which you've clearly seen, as they explain the very routine edit that you are taking issue with. I made a very minor edit to the biography of a child actress, removing the exact day of her birth while leaving the month and year. As I explained:
I believe that both of the policies I cited do, in fact, apply in this case. WP:BLP specifically states:
"Privacy of personal information
"Wikipedia includes dates of birth for some well-known living persons where the dates have been widely published, but editors should exercise caution with less notable people. With identity theft on the rise, people increasingly regard their dates of birth as private. 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."
The minor in question does not appear to be widely notable and her DOB has not been widely published. More importantly, the private information may well have been posted by a WP:CHILD".'
I honestly, don't see what you seem to think is so controversial about this edit. The information does not appear to be publicly available anywhere. The user who inserted it, has edited little other than articles related to the child actress. I think one can safely assume from the user's edits, that they may be a child. More importantly, the young actress does not appear to meet Wikipedia's notability standards. I am simply exercising caution, in accordance with policy. It seems to me that you are following me about. You also appear to be trying to create conflict where there shouldn't be any and disrupt Wikipedia. Please, stop. Cleo123 (talk) 06:06, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
I will also note that considering the substance of Ottava Rima's latest complaint (a minor edit to a date of birth), the title he has given this thread "Abuse of BLP" could be seen as a violation of WP:CIVIL Cleo123 (talk) 06:57, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
Child has nothing to do with pages, only with Wikipedia users. That is just one of a constant trend of outright miss-attributing policy. Furthermore, birthdates are not personal information. They are part of public record. Ottava Rima (talk) 11:49, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
As Cleo123 seems intent on holding up our 'exchange'--not really an exchange since Cleo123 didn't bother responding on my user-talk page, where'd actually see it--I found both responses unconvincing, eccentric, and--especially in the first case--wildly off-topic, Cleo123's original response showing interest not so much in the issues as in scoring points against his or her enemies (the passive-aggressive formulation 'Interestingly enough' absolutely triggered my alarms). The attempt at back-pedalling by claiming that WP:CHILD might apply because a child might have edited sounded particularly grasping at straws. In my opinion, Cleo123 doesn't really understand the actual policies he or she claims to uphold--or at the very least is applying their own standard and looking for justification afterward. --CalendarWatcher (talk) 04:24, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
The editor in question has on more than one occasion cited a non-existent policy that notability requires "wide notability" (an undefined term) and stating that notability should be established by national sources, a statement which is in no way supported by policy. I believe the editor in question would be very well advised to review the policies in questions, and, should they wish to make changes to those policies, to request such on the talk pages of the relevant policies, rather than by fiat elsewhere. John Carter (talk) 14:38, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
Incorrect. Please, do not misrepresent my statements. Cleo123 (talk) 06:09, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
At 9:00, June 30, as per here, you stated the information was not notable on a national level, which is substantially similar to the statement I made above. Also, it has been stated by others that you have yourself at least one leveled an accusation against Ottava which might, in itself, qualify as libel were it to be included in an article. And you also appear to think that inclusion of the subject's date of birth in the Imdb database here somehow qualifies as being not "widely published", a statement I personally find absolutely ridiculous, and I imagine most people would agree with that assessment. You have also made it clear that you are yourself have a good deal of difficulty of assuming good faith of anyone who disagrees with your original interpretations of policy, as can be demonstrated by the recent exchange on your own user talk page. John Carter (talk) 22:17, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
I stand by my remarks. Taken out of context they may appear harsh, and perhaps they are, however, I think that any user who actually takes the time to review Audemus Defendere's contributions to the Steve Windom article and its talk page will agree that the user was editing both the article and the article's talk page in a manner that was clearly demonstrative of a personal vendetta against the article's subject, whom he repeatedly accused another editor of being. Most troubling of all, however, were statements he inserted into the article which seemed deliberately designed to give readers the false impression that material that has been proven in court to be libelous, was in fact true. I removed those remarks from the article some time back and since then no one has reverted my edits, including you. I can only assume that the community agrees with my "misinterpretation" of policy. I stand by my assessment that Audemus Defendere was making Wikipedia a battleground for a real life dispute. Rather than discouraging Audemus Defendere, who seems to have a personal involvement in the criminal libel conviction, you have actually gone so far as to encourage this newer user to create an entire free standing article apparently designed to defame Mr. Windom and showcase salacious details of libelous material. Thankfully, Audemus Defendere has heeded my advice and stopped disrupting the article. You, by contrast, appear to be trying to create a new conflict.
The trial does not warrant its own freestanding article, as it does not meet Wikipedia's notability standards. I am apparently not the only user who has told you this. The criminal trial, which involves misdemeanor charges, did not receive significant national news attention and does not meet Wikipedia's notability standards. That's all I was saying. Please, stop taking my remarks out of context, in what would appear to be some sort of attempt at retaliation for my support for your desysoping.
No one has reverted any of my changes to the article, because my interpretation of WP:BLP is, in fact, correct. If you sincerely feel that I am wrong, well then, please, explain why haven't you reinserted the libelous and misleading statements into the article???? If you really think that this matter deserves its own freestanding article, why don't you create it yourself, rather than encouraging a newbie to do it for you? With the exception of Windom, all of the key players in this event are private citizens who do not meet Wikipedia's notability standards. Likewise, the trial did not receive widespread national news coverage. If one were to logically follow your argument in this situation, Wikipedia would have thousands of useless articles dedicated to local libel suits, just because they are salacious. I'll remind you again, Wikipedia is WP:NOT a tabloid. Cleo123 (talk) 06:22, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
Cleo123, please explain to everyone how you are capable of seeing into the future, because you keep claiming that you know exactly how everything would turn out before any proposals or drafts are made. I'm sure the government would also like to know how you came across such powers. Ottava Rima (talk) 11:51, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
Also, I note once again that Cleo123 seems to repeat, bordering on insistence, that anything be notable nationally to be included. That is, to my eyes, a laughable and possibly conscious misinterpretation of WP:NOTABILITY. In fact, Cleo has made that same mistake earlier, and has had it pointed out before as well. I have yet to see any evidence provided by that individual to support this frankly ridiculous interpretation of policy, but would be very interested in seeing anything which does support such an remarkable claim. And, as Ottava has said above, you seem to be indicating that somehow you have already reviewed all 1600+ articles in the main Birmingham paper, not counting any additional articles elsewhere, to jump to your rather amusing conclusion that the content does not meet notability standards. Have you in fact done so? If not, then your statement is an irrational jump to conclusions by an individual who has to date so far as I can see done no research on the subject at all, and on that basis, basically what it seems to be, an unsubstantiated, pre-emptive, presumptuous, jump to conclusions. John Carter (talk) 20:34, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
John, as you know, I am not the only editor to tell you that your proposed spin-off article, which you proposed titling "The Steve Windom Scandal", does not meet Wikipedia's notability standards and is problematic on a variety of fronts. There are undoubtedly thousands of libel cases filed each year in every state in the union. If this case, which involves misdemeanor charges, is to be dubbed notable enough for a free standing article, it would have to have received significant national media coverage, which would set it apart from all the rest. Your argument that a thousand or more local newspaper articles makes this event notable enough for a free standing article, does not mesh with WP:Notability. For example, my sister lives in a town where local residents are fighting the construction of a power plant. With all the local media coverage, I get over a thousand google hits. Does that mean that Wikipedia should have a free standing article on the subject? Of course, not! If notability were based purely on the number of google hits, as opposed to the quality and caliber, Wikipedia might be overrun with articles on minor lawsuits that received lots of local media coverage. Again, if you think I am wrong, go right ahead and create the "Steve Windom Scandal" article. What are you waiting for? Why waste your time here complaining about my viewpoint? Why do you care what I think? Your time might, in fact, be more productively spent creating this article that you purport to so earnestly believe in. If my interpretation of policy is incorrect, as you seem to think it is, your article will survive a deletion debate. If my interpretation of policy is correct, the article will be deleted. Why not let the community decide? Cleo123 (talk) 03:54, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

outsideish note[edit]

I'm not uninvolved here (see my talk page), but it seems to me like John Carter and Ottava Rima are in the right here. Cleo123, you're GROSSLY overstating the issues here with vague threats about lawsuits and the like. You are not the subject of the article (who I might add, is a public figure, being the Lt. Governor of the state. If the subject of the article has a concern, (apparently not, since they're supposedly in contact with Ottava Rima), they can contact the foundation with any legal threats. You keep bandying about libel this, libel that, without any significant evidence that it is in fact libel. I reviewed the article and found a perfectly neutral article on the subject. Misusing BLP the way you are, and you're starting to edge into the "chilling effect" zone of "no legal threats". SWATJester Son of the Defender 01:08, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes! The article IS perfectly neutral, thanks in large part to my edits! I think you need to slow down and review the article's contribution history and the talk pages, before jumping to conclusions, which is what you seem to be doing. I do not object to the article in it's current state - it's my version! LOL! As I see it, there is no dispute. The dispute seems to have been resolved. The problem is that Ottava Rima, who seems to have appointed himself as some sort of mediator, now seems to be arguing that the libel which was removed from the article should now be expanded upon and showcased in it's own free standing article, based on some unseen offline communication he claims to have initiated with the article's subject.
As for "legal threats" - I have done absolutely nothing of the kind. That's a really outrageous statement. You need to go back and review the discussion. And I am not "bandying about libel this and libel that" - OMG! The article that we are discussing concerns a libel case, for goodness sake! I've responded to Ottava Rima's unusual interpretations of WP:BLP and WP:LIBEL. Cleo123 (talk) 05:39, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
I did not say the article in its current state. I said the article as I reviewed it. You are indeed bandying about libel this and libel that. The article concerns a libel case. Ok fine. It's not libel for us to discuss the case in the article. Commenting on documents of public record, which are allegations made by others, does not equate to libel committed by us. That's the part I don't think you seem to get. I saw the article with all that material in, and I didn't see anything that struck me as BLP-worthy that should bring out the machetes. SWATJester Son of the Defender 21:22, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
Again, I ask you to review the article's contribution history. Why do you speak and offer inflammatory opinions without investigating? At the point at which you entered the discussion, I had already fixed the article! Frankly, I believe you owe me an apology for jumping to conclusions. I think you are way out of line - that's "the part I don't think you seem to get." This is about a user inserting POV commentary from a juror designed to leave readers with the false impression that court proven libelous material might actually be true. Cleo123 (talk) 06:55, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
That sounds like a conspiracy theory to me. And sounds like you have made up your mind, rather than having an open mind. SWATJester Son of the Defender 01:49, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Just a little note - if any admin wants copies of the emails that the Lt. Governor has sent to me, I can provide. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:58, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Email is not a reliable source. At best, you could forward it to OTRS. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 18:57, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
Oh, he has the information, or should have the information, that I sent him about such (in case there was a problem). These are just correspondence about opinion on the matter (Cleo claimed before that the page's subject, Steve Windom, would never talk to someone like me because I am too "libelous"). Ottava Rima (talk) 20:09, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
I never said anything of the kind. I said you do not represent Wikipedia. You are not an employee of Wikipedia. It is very inappropriate for you to be contacting the subjects of articles on behalf of Wikipedia, and having legal discussions with them. Likewise, you should not be asking another user for legal advice for Wikipedia as you did here. Sorry, but I think you are way over the line. Cleo123 (talk) 02:39, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
SwatJester is an active member who has experience with Wikipedia and legal matters. It is quite appropriate to contact people like him in order to get an opinion on how the policy works. Now, here are your actual comments that prove you as being completely wrong: "and we certainly do not go running around contacting the subjects of articles! Oh, ya, right Steve Windom is busy chatting with you offline - telling you it's okay to republish libel about him! LOL! I believe that like I believe a group of five administrators asked you to be a mediator on this article! LOL! BTW- I'm still waiting for the links that substantiate those claims" found here. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:18, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

I have filed a RFC for Cleo123 here —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tendancer (talkcontribs) 06:28, 10 July 2008 (UTC)


Probable sock puppet of banned user Auno3 (see Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Auno3 (5th)) now edit-warring to include a "dysgenics" section in the Human article. Tim Vickers (talk) 23:27, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

As I have mentioned on talk, I believe I have followed all standards as an editor and scientist. Now, Timvickers, Wobble, and another accuser seem to be angry that some editors support my position. I have tried to debate the validity of sources, but they are playing hardball by accusing me of being those editors who support me. If I were a "sock", how come no one has yet come to my defense. That's right. I dont even canvass like what this gang does. I wanted to wait until editors SEE my edits, but Timvickers doesnt even want anyone to see an edit that I made in good faith and I am sure anyone will agree conforms to all of Wikipedia's standards. I can only plead that there are a few people with enough common sense to see through this intimidation. Verwoerd (talk) 23:37, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
Somebody may want to take a look at this diff. Sort of tells us where this editor is coming from.--Ramdrake (talk) 00:15, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
Why, just because of my belief that you are putting this on ANI? To set the record straight, I have been very clear that I believe that races are different, but none is superior. It is just science. If humans were any other species, as biology dictates, the races would very clearly belong in subspecies. It is only because of political correctness that this concept is not upheld. Verwoerd (talk) 00:30, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
That may be your belief, but it is not apparently shared by the majority of the academic community, and thus too much content relative to it would violate WP:Undue weight. Also, the fact that you expressed an opinion which is not shared by the majority of the academic community and are seeking to add material relative to that belief can make you appear to be violating WP:COI, which I suggest you read. If and when the consensus opinion of the academic community changes, then the changes you seek to make might be acceptable. Until then, however, they probably aren't. John Carter (talk) 01:46, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Here are two statements, one from Auno3, one from Verwoerd. The topic for both is "Continuing evolution"

Auno3 "There is no doubt that the human population continues to undergo evolution, a topic which has gained renewed interest when the new research was published. I added the section in the light of the overwhelming evidence supporting inherent differences and fertility between humans. Gold Nitrate 17:44, 20 October 2007 (UTC)"

A duck, for comparison. Tim Vickers (talk) 02:00, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Verwoerd It's a simple matter of two and two is four. If human evolution is not occurring, then obvious dysgenics is moot. But the fact that humans are evolving shows that the theory can be true, that it cant be discounted. And then there is the mountain of research on dysgenics. Verwoerd (talk) 00:00, 10 July 2008 (UTC)"


Here, Verwoerd removes an image from the Interracial marriage article...

A confirmed sock of Auno3 removed the same image from the Miscegnation article. (See Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets/Auno3_(3rd)).

I'm sure we can compile lots of evidence. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 01:51, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Many other editors have supported these actions. Not only me, but the editors of two scientific papers who put their name on the line to publish their research on human evolution. Auno3 may agree with me on many matters, but so does half the editors at many of the articles you just mentioned. An examination of the talk pages of those articles confirms this. These accusers dont want to discuss the matter at hand, only at accusing me of using other accounts to create "false support". I have been acting in good faith, yet these editors have been canvassing and trying to direct attention toward a meaningless and false issue. Verwoerd (talk) 03:19, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Likewise this user is using an inappropriate username considering he's been removing images of people from different ethnic backgrounds marrying, naming oneself after the "primary architect of Apartheid" (Hendrik Frensch Verwoerd) while editing interracial marriage articles must be considered inflammatory behaviour surely? Surely this user should change their username? Alun (talk) 06:40, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

I think this user changing between differnt user accounts is the primary problem. Tim Vickers (talk) 14:38, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
I agree, looks like a duck to me BTW. Cheers. Alun (talk) 15:28, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
I am deeply offended by this. You have all made it much more personal. For what? Because you want to stifle me? Accuse me of having an "inappropiate" username? Verwoerd is a last name of many South Africans. It's like saying that someone can't have the username Bonds because there is a man named Barry Bonds. The inappropiate username rule only applies to a word that is unambiguous. For such insensitivity to a mere name, I believe Tim Vickers has acted in a way contrary to the responsibilities of his position. Tim, Wobble, and possibly Ramdrake are only able to muffle this discussion for so long. No one has come to my defense, yet they say I am participating in sockpuppetry. They couldn't prove that, so now they say there's something wrong with my name. I can only imagine why no one has said anything. Because they too will be accused. I only plead that there are other administrators with enough common sense to see through their objectionable behavior. They have repeatly deleted my revision to Mainstream Science on Intelligence. I did it because there were no sources, it was not expressed in the opinion section of that newspaper. And most science articles are somewhat opinionated, so all they wanted to do was add emphasis and POV push to make the article seem false. Yet, my addition to the Human article is deleted despite having sources. They say Dysgenics is fringe, yet even the largest journals in Biology Nature has commented on the importance of dysgenics trends. [11] I also had a reference linking to the Science (journal) on the current state of human evolution that was deleted. That these people would delete a source from the best journal in the best category of sources according to Wikipedia (third-party peer-reviewed journals) is testament to the inappropiateness of their behavior. Verwoerd (talk) 17:05, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
Don't take it personnally, because it isn't. It's however very much a matter of respecting Wikipedia policy. What you wish to do is in direct violation with policy.--Ramdrake (talk) 18:21, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
Indeed, looking at the book review you linked in Nature it states:

So what is to be done about eugenics? It is now almost universally reckoned to be a Bad Idea, as Elof Carlson's title makes plain. A book, a chapter, or even a seminar tut-tutting about all those famous supporters of eugenics who should have known better — from Beatrice Webb, H. G. Wells and Oliver Wendell Holmes to Julian Huxley, Peter Medawar and Francis Crick — is a sure step to success in today's politically correct academy. And those with the temerity to suggest that the large numbers of the Great and the Good who did support eugenics were not temporarily unhinged at the time should only do so from the safe haven of retirement (like Richard Lynn).

You are misrepresenting references as if they supported, rather than refuted your arguments, and edit-warring against a clear talk-page consensus. Tim Vickers (talk) 17:33, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
Dont misrepresent what I mentioned. I clearly said that they said the topic was important, which they did. So a discussion should be written on dysgenics, though not necessarily supporting it. Verwoerd (talk) 17:50, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
If the topic was important to genetics, it should be easy to find articles from geneticists that discuss dysgenesis. Several of us have gone through this search, to find out zero articles on dysgenics by geneticists. That, in and of itself, should speak to the lack of importance of the subject in genetics. As per TimVickers below, redacting comment. You're absolutely right, of course.--Ramdrake (talk) 18:11, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
This isn't the place to discuss the text of the human article, that is talking place at Talk:Human#Continuing_evolution and a straw poll is showing a clear consensus against adding this material. This is however the best place to discuss what should be done about this obvious sock of User:Auno3 Tim Vickers (talk) 18:38, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
Tim, I believe your edits and accusations have been odious. You have even smeared my name saying that it should be changed because I share it with a controversial figure of the 20th century. Your closely aligned man Ramdrake then said that it was not personal. You should read WP:No personal attacks. Verwoerd (talk) 18:56, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
Actually, it's Alun\Wobble who suggested you should change your handle. And for the record, TimVickers and myself aren't closely aligned at all, except for haunting biological science-related articles,every now and then and for the both of us being trained scientists.--Ramdrake (talk) 19:04, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
I doubt either of you are scientists. Sounds more like Essjay Science Edition. Both of you are afflicted by the most serious form of tunnel vision I have ever encountered. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Verwoerd (talkcontribs) 02:35, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
I love looking at specifics. In this edit, Verwoerd removes the following pictures from the interracial marriage page:
  1. A black man in a tuxedo and white women in a white dress with veil, and a description of "[[:Image:Beach-wedding-couple.jpg|Black male and White female on their wedding day]"
  2. A black man in a tuxedo and a (probably) south-east Asian woman wearing a white dress, veil and holding flowers, in a church, and a description of "A couple leaving the altar
He cites in his edit summary "I think the discussion shows that only relationships where the races are known based on sources should be pictured" - that's kinda ridiculous objection given the descriptions and the pictures themselves. On Mainstream Science on Intelligence, Verwoerd is attempting to describe the Wall Street Journal as a science publisher, when deor accurately describes it as an opinion piece in a newspaper. This may or may not be axe grinding, but it's certainly sloppy editing. Verwoerd may not be stifled but he does seem to be being corrected. Also:
  • This edit contains inappropriate focus on intelligence and evolution and eugenics (which is rejected pseudoscience, when artificial selection would ‘’perhaps’’ be more appropriate). Also, the NYT article linked to does not to support the idea that evolution has been accelerating since 5,000 years ago.
Verowoerd might be helped by a re-reading of WP:UNDUE and WP:OR; if you’re having trouble finding sources that explicitly back up your points, you shouldn’t make them up or extrapolate to a version of the truth. WLU (talk) 20:21, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

User Video777 and Youtube links[edit]

Video777 (talk · contribs) is an SPA who does nothing but link to a specific Youtube video, despite being reverted by both the XLinkBot and me. My concern is that this link violates copyright; Video777 claims the copyright holder uploaded the videos, but I see no way of verifying that. I was going to protect the article or block the SPA, but I thought I'd bring the issue here first for review. Jayjg (talk) 00:54, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

I do not understand why you are being so vague. Beam 01:17, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Vague how? What's vague? Corvus cornixtalk 01:37, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
I chimed in on Video777's talk page and explained that I agreed with you, since there was no proof presented that the YouTube user calling himself Kempler was actually Kempler.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 01:38, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
COuldn't it be further argued that since the film in question isn't even available, it's an irrelevant link; it focuses on the person, not the topic. ThuranX (talk) 02:10, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, he kept edit-warring it in, and got blocked for 24 hours. Let's see if that encourages him to think of another approach. Jayjg (talk) 02:13, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured sound candidates/When Johnny Comes Marching Home[edit]


Can someone close this? Per the instructions on WP:FSC, it's clearly passed (and clearly has run well over the timescale), but Durova was concerned that, since I know her, it might give an impression of impropriety if I did it.

Because, you know, checking there's three supports, that it's run 14 days, and that there's a majority of support cannot be done objectively. Sad thing is, she's probably right that there's people stupid enough to object.

I'll handle the other ones I haven't voted on, but as WP:FSC is so badly managed at the moment, I think I'll be a bit cautious. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 18:46, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Oh, yes, I voted on Wikipedia:Featured sound candidates/Etherea, so someone else will need to close that. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 18:57, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
The recording is so overly data-compressed it's no fun to listen to. Hence, given my selfish take on it, I must recuse. Gwen Gale (talk) 19:02, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
Thanks all; Tawker has closed the nomination. DurovaCharge! 00:07, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Death threats made against user by IPs in the Sandbox[edit]

Example diffs (there are many more from apparently dynamic Roadrunner IPs) - probably connected to User:Inaethofdrug.

[12] [13] [14]

Reporting here just in case. Thoughts?

--Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 01:50, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

(I'm not an administrator)Hi. Have they (~a dozen or more?) all been blocked? Thanks. ~AH1(TCU) 01:57, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
Yes, all blocked as far as I can see. --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 02:01, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
(e/c) You did the right thing. I was just in there using it to preview something, and I happened to glance over the history. I was debating on whether or not I should request semi-protection for the sandbox, of all things. J.delanoygabsadds 01:59, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
I guess it would help if I paid attention to who protected it. I was going to say that you protecting it was the right thing to do, but since you didn't protect it, that may come off as a little strange. J.delanoygabsadds 02:04, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
I've semi'ed the sandbox for a few hours; let's see how that goes. seicer | talk | contribs 02:00, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
I had my finger on the protect button at the same time as you, I guess... --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 02:13, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't think we should punish the "editor" who just refined it to say different death threat, he was just being creative. Beam 02:11, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

What, the guy who threatened him with martinis? --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 02:20, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Just ignore them. Block for death threats, but other than that, don't worry about it. KnightLago (talk) 02:38, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Per Threats of Violence, I suggest you inform the threatened editor and let him/her decide to call the police or not. Bstone (talk) 03:43, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
Hi. That admin has already been informed, and says it's just "stupid 4chan/Grawp wannabees", and ignore. ~AH1(TCU) 13:49, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

IP hopper making death threats in sandbox (redux)[edit]

Resolved: Sandbox protected for 3 hours. –xenocidic (talk) 02:36, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

See . Not sure how to proceed, I just blocked one of the IPs. Botnet maybe? –xenocidic (talk) 02:20, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Continuation from yesterday. HalfShadow 02:26, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
woops - merged. –xenocidic (talk) 02:28, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
if someone will be awake in 3 hours, perhaps remember to put the move protection back on. cheers, –xenocidic (talk) 02:36, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Move protection doesn't work?[edit]


I'm probably missing something, but the page CP-violation was moved despite it being protected (sysop-only move).[15] Any idea what's happening here? Fram (talk) 08:14, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

It is probably a coincidence, but all these pages (there are quite a few with the same problem) were move-protected by User:NawlinWiki (despite some ofthem being move protected already at the time he protected them again). I'll drop a note to get his/her comments. Fram (talk) 08:17, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
Very clever. He actually didn't move the page. He just performed a null edit and created an edit summary that made it look as if he had. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 09:09, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
Does Grawp have anything else to be doing? :( Stifle (talk) 10:52, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
I wish he played Diablo II so I can hunt him down and restore Wikipedia's honor on there. Same goes for every other vandal. -Jéské (v^_^v Mrrph-mph!) 05:34, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Dr. Ward[edit]

Some time ago Dr. Ward, myself, was instrumental in airing an expose on cults. No names were mentioned but the cult and its behavior itself was questioned. Inquiry emails to this group led to attacks from them upon my character. They called my family and terrorized us with threats. They have taken personal information, such as my name, credentials, address, IP address, and added it to a resume I had posted online. They then changed all of the information to say things that would defame my character. They also linked my name to a questionable character that frequents different web blogs, of which I have no associations with whatsoever. It has upset not only myself, but the Church I Pastor, and the organization I belong to. In an email to me he boasts there is nothing I can do about it "because I deleted it but anyone can still retrieve it from the edit history." Going by the name of BlazinPaddles he opened a Wiki account earlier this month and his history shows he has ONLY edited or written about Dr. Ward. He may have found good reason to edit anything anyone had quoted from my books (I did not submit these quotes) that wasn't properly referenced, however, his reason for doing so is revealed in the ridiculing character assassination he has launched. He has written horrible, demeaning things about my person and my biography and linked my name with a quarreling character I do not even know. It is important that all of the history of these demeaning statements be erased. Please help me. Here are pages containing the urls with the statements he posted. You will find they were posted by himself and then deleted by himself in order to create a retrievable edit history:

(every url on this page contains character defamation)

(His addition in green)

( In this one he deletes Dr. Wards name for no apparent reason)

How can I permanently erase this libelous information from the edit history? MrCreveal (talk) 21:30, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Some of the deleted text on User:Blazinpaddles made legal threats, so I have blocked this editor. Tim Vickers (talk) 21:42, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
I'd say that as well ,the entirety of that user page needs to be fully oversighted nad/or deleted. It's a lunatic rant against the man. I'd further state that it appears to be some sort of doctrinal conflict, with Ward supporting a Oneness_Pentecostalism movement in a branch of christianity, and BP opposing it, and the peopel promoting it, on theological (certainly not logical) grounds. That OP page needs a serious clean-up, most of the sources are from writings by the promoters of the movement, not outside coverage, and it reads in sections like a pamphlet. That, however, is not ever enough reason to attack the man, instead of his edits. I might be tempted later tonight to headover and stub back anything not supported by neutral reliable sources, but I also agree with Dr. Ward above. BP needs a block, and a lot of oversighting may be needed as well, per WP:LIBEL and WP:BLP. ThuranX (talk) 21:51, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
I've deleted the revisions. I'm not sure whether oversighting is required, since I didn't see any privacy violations, but I didn't read it that closely, either. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 01:01, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
having read a number of the diffs for the talk page stuff, a lot of it's heavy personal attacks which claim that the victim's been in legal and/or social troubles for various decisions. none of it's cited or links, so I think it's a WP:LIBEL problem, and may need followup. Sarcasticidealist's deletions ofthe user page were a great start though. ThuranX (talk) 04:25, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Muntuwandi indef block=====two cents[edit]

Resolved: Yup, another Muntuwandi sock. Blocked. Stifle (talk) 09:27, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

muntuwandi (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · checkuser (log)) archived discussion Just a correction muntuwandi was blocked a total of 6 times.

  • Elonka
  • Heimstern
  • Ryulong
  • TigerShark
  • Spartaz
  • Seraphimblade

These admins basically modified existing blocks and once found that the indefinite block imposed on MW was not justified.

  • Caribbean H.Q.
  • Neil
  • mastcell

therefore of the six blocks, four were reported by or had something to do with one particular editor. It is pretty obvious who this editor is. This editor for reasons best known to him/herself seems intent on preventing MW making any contributions to articles that he/she WP:OWNs. If MW is so disruptive, why is it that only one editor is constantly crusading to have him blocked. For example, in this last block Muntuwandi was engaged in an edit war with Dbachmann. Yet this same editor came out of retirement almost with the sole intent of reporting MW. One would expect, that it would be dab taking an active role in pursuing a block for MW but dab has not said anything. It seems that this is an issue between these two editors. Muntuwandi has been editing since 2005, and almost all his blocks have been associated with this one editor. It seems almost vigilantish. Umuntuwandi (talk) 05:28, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

I am not sure why Umuntuwandi is bothering to refer to Muntuwandi in the third person. I have no hand in Muntuwandi's month-length block, and I might add that I found that duration somewhat harsh. What brought about Muntuwandi's indef ban isn't his edit wars against consensus, but his incorrigible attempts to evade the block after it had been imposed. dab (𒁳) 07:27, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Block Requested Chronic Vandalism/Abusive Behaviour[edit]

Resolved: IP blocked for 31 hours. --Bongwarrior (talk) 06:47, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

The following user:

Has been Vandalising several pages even after repeated warning messages, they have also sent abusive/crude messages to talk pages of myself and other users. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nolomorte (talkcontribs) 06:18, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

I gave the user a final warning, then blocked them when they vandalized again. For future reference, WP:AIV is geared specifically to handle this sort of thing, but your vigilance is appreciated. --Bongwarrior (talk) 06:47, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Kamma (caste)[edit]

I request administrators attention to the article in which two Users User:Lakshminivas and User:Sriramas have been making inputs inspite of repeated requests. The information they insert is not appropriate for the section "Introduction" and it disrupts the natural flow of the article. The input by User:Lakshminivasin "Surnames" section does not have any basis. It is not supported by any evidence. My editing in this section is being persistently reverted by this user, inspite of my appeals. I also suspect that these users are sockpuppets of each other. Please pay attenton to this matter.Kumarrao (talk) 07:40, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Personal attacks[edit]

Miyokan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) - personal attacks - Need your glasses checked [16] - What the hell are you talking about [17] - your ability to interpret logic is heavily flawed [18] - trolling claims [19] [20] --windyhead (talk) 16:23, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

What personal attacks?--Miyokan (talk) 16:31, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
Insulting or disparaging an editor is a personal attack regardless of the manner in which it is done. - Wikipedia:No personal attacks --windyhead (talk) 16:43, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
And?--Miyokan (talk) 16:47, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
I don't have a big problem with the "glasses" or "what the hell" comments, but the "ability to interpret logic" comment was indeed out of line (comment on the edits, not the editor), and one needs to be very careful about accusations of trolling. I can't say I am innocent of ever calling someone a troll, but general speaking you shouldn't do so unless you have reason to believe that you will never cross their path again on-wiki. Accusations of trolling pretty much destroy any sort of collaborative spirit on Wikipedia.
Miyokan, I am a little worried you don't see any problem at all. As I said, the "logic" comment was way out of line. If personal attacks such as that one persist, it could definitely result in a block. --Jaysweet (talk) 16:51, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
What planet are you on? Minor "rudeness" is not personal attacks, if you want to see personal attacks, check out User:Folantin's insults and racial comments on Russian editors here.--Miyokan (talk) 17:01, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
You're pushing it. Miyokan, do you honestly not see how that could be considered uncivil? Also, your question of what planet he is on is also approaching poor conduct. While I have a really lenient idea of civility, the fact that you can't see how one could take offense by those comments (whether rightfully or not) is more worrisome than the comments themselves. Be careful. (3 God Damned Edit Conflicts)Beam 17:05, 8 July 2008 (UTC) And pointing out others' comments is not a defense of YOUR comments. I want to know that you see how your comments are not helpful and can be taken as offensive, again regardless of the intent. Beam 17:08, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

I thought the glasses comment was funny. Ostap 17:09, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

ok removing it then --windyhead (talk) 17:11, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
I thought the "3 God Damned Edit Conflicts" comment was funny! Bishonen | talk 07:19, 10 July 2008 (UTC).
"what the hell are you talking about" is minor rudeness, I agree (although one could always make a case even that was covered under the civility policy). That's why I wasn't worried about it. Saying that someone's "ability to interpret logic is heavily flawed" is an ad hominem attack, no two ways about it. Calling someone a troll also is a comment on the editor rather than their edits. This is prohibited on Wikipedia, whether you want to accept that or not. Pointing to someone else who has also been incivil and/or made personal attacks is a complete red herring, and we will not be fooled by that. Your actions are your actions.
(BTW, saying "What planet are you from" to me when I am trying to provide a balanced response is in itself highly incivil. That's not going to win you any friends)
At this juncture, you really have two choices: Recognize that some of your comments have exceeded what is tolerable on a collaborative project such as Wikipedia, in which case no further action will be taken; or continue down this path and see where it takes you. I am not an admin and do not have the ability to enact a block, so I am not threatening you -- it is impossible for me to threaten you. However, I have been around the project long enough and am familiar enough with the policies to tell you that if you continue with those comments in an unapologetic manner, there is a high likelihood that it could result in a block. This is just reality, not my doing. --Jaysweet (talk) 18:04, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
  • This should be at WQA - not here. Ncmvocalist (talk) 19:20, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Those comments weren't personal attacks, at worst they very mildy uncivil. Looks to me like you're trying to kick up a fuss over nothing. RMHED (talk) 19:22, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
    • Looks to me that windy here is just upset that he lost an arguement. p.s. I suggest you review the arguments that windy made before you judge Miyokan's "insult" of his logic. --Bogdan що? 19:28, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
It was not me who degraded to discuss the editor --windyhead (talk) 20:02, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

No personal attacks observed. Minor incivility, but this is not a big deal. Closing this as no administrator intervention is required. seicer | talk | contribs 22:03, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

If there was relevant context, Miyokan should have mentioned this instead of ridiculing the entire concept of civility. While I wouldn't ask for action for what I agree are not severe civility issues, it sort of bothers me that Miyokan is like "So fucking what?" and the community is willing to endorse that attitude. But you know, whatever... --Jaysweet (talk) 13:31, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
FWIW, Miyokan sent a gloating message to everyone who expressed concern over his "minor incivility". [21] [22] [23]
It's fine to say, "Look, this is a relatively minor issue of incivility, we are not going to take administrator action. User is warned to maintain civility." It's another thing entirely if a user is saying, "Neener neener, I can be incivil all I want as long as I keep it 'minor'" and for the community to implicitly approve that attitude. As my initial response showed, the concern was not the minor incivility itself, it was that Miyokan thinks incivility is okay as long as it's minor. Perhaps we should change the Nutshell summary at WP:CIV to read "Participate in a respectful and minorly uncivil way. Do not ignore the positions and conclusions of others without first subjecting them to mild ridicule. Don't worry if others are uncivil, and avoid upsetting other editors unless they recently lost an argument with you"? Hmmm? --Jaysweet (talk) 13:45, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
Lol. This is the third dispute I've removed seicer's resolved tag of no personal attacks (although, the other two were on WQA). There are legit. concerns here, however minor they might be. If non-sysops who've expressed concerns about incivility get those sort of messages (noted above by Jaysweet - [24] [25] [26]), then sysops should be stepping in because the message has not sunk in. Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:36, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
+ another diff [27] --windyhead (talk) 09:53, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Another attack, "using someone's affiliations as a means of dismissing or discrediting their views". This clearly constitutes a personal attack as defined at WP:NPA, and I have issued a final warning accordingly. I think a block may be necessary if this occurs again - it's simply causing too much disruption. Papa November (talk) 11:23, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Banning requested[edit]


I am requesting banning of user:PravdaRuss which is SPA account and puppet of unknown user. It is possible to see that he has made 12 edits [28]. 10 of this edits are revert of myself and last 2 are vandalism in "my" articles (articles created by user Rjecina)--Rjecina (talk) 14:30, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

I can add that during time of his edits 17:05-17:15 and latter in 17:27 I have recieved death threat on Croatian wikipedia on 17:19 [29]--Rjecina (talk) 14:36, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
I blocked the account indefinitely. The account was obviously only created to harass Rjecina (talk · contribs). CIreland (talk) 14:56, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Related issue[edit]

Yesterday I started this thread about a user who is similarily reverting all of Rjecina's edits all the while labelling his good faith edits as vandalism in the edit summary of his reverts. Two warnings I left for the editor were deleted and marked as offensive by the editor. Would someone please be willing to take a look at his ( (talk · contribs)) contributions and determine whether a sterner warning by an administrator is due?

Thanks! SWik78 (talkcontribs) 17:56, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Blocked for one month - it doesn't take much to see:
  1. nearly all the edits have incredibly loaded contents or edit summaries
  2. most of them seem to be targetting the one editor
  3. the IP is exclusive enough that what we would consider an unusually lengthy block for an IP would not rope in unrelated good faith editors. Those with already-created usernames can still edit anyway. Orderinchaos 18:46, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Another related user?[edit]

See J. A. Comment (talk · contribs) Corvus cornixtalk 23:40, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

J.A. Comment may or may not be related. Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/ is an open case in which he/she is mentioned. SWik78 (talkcontribs) 12:58, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

And another[edit]

Fiumena (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) ... looks like more of the same. --OnoremDil 11:21, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

And Fiumina (talk · contribs). SWik78 (talkcontribs) 13:06, 11 July 2008 (UTC)


wikkidd (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) was originally brought to this board's attention on one week ago here and was blocked for 31 hours for edit warring. He is back to that tactic on Petroleum again, pushing a wp:fringe topic that he won't let go.[30][31][32] This topic has been kicked around to death on the petroleum and peak oil and other talk pages, and according to scientific as well as wiki-community consensus is fringe at best, and Wikkidd has only repeated what he said over and over again before his block (citing 2 specific researchers as "proof" of his position, who are notable only for supporting this fringe hypothesis).

Wikkidd has also blanked another user's talk comment[33], and started passing out personal attacks[34]. NJGW (talk) 05:33, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Being watched. Thanks, seicer | talk | contribs 13:36, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Probelms with User: [edit]

Resolved: No admin intervention required. WP:BLANKING was explained to the reporting editor on his talkpage.

This person keeps blanking his talk page, and he is linked to a group of other Ips, who vandalise these Intersate topics.. See my contribs. Youll find out what i mean. Thank you. Just find User: II MusLiM HyBRiD II —Preceding comment was added at 14:10, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject U.S. Roads#New code makes Template:Infobox Interstate/Intrastate unnecessary -- (talk) 14:12, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Don't restore removed comments -- (talk) 14:13, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

You'll need to explain how this is vandalism please. —Wknight94 (talk) 14:15, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Anyone is allowed to remove whatever they like from their own talk page. Besides that, this is a content dispute. SWik78 (talkcontribs) 14:18, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

(ec) Yep, any editor (along with IPs) can blank talk page comments as they please, other than active block and sockpuppet notices along with any general info tags about the IP address. Blanking a comment is a very handy means of knowing someone's read it, so there isn't much worry about it. Gwen Gale (talk) 14:19, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

User:II MusLiM HyBRiD II is wrong to restore comments to 75.47's talk page, and is definitely wrong to remove infoboxes from articles. However, 75.47 is not innocent; see Wikipedia:Requests for comment/75.47.x.x; today he was doing his normal mix of good and bad edits. I believe he was uncareful with the infoboxes, saving versions with problems. I'll create the necessary redirects. --NE2 14:21, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

OK, as far as I can tell, here's the sequence of events. 75.47 made edits like [35], which now look fine, but at the time used some nonexistent templates, screwing up the infobox. II MusLiM HyBRiD II assumed it was simple vandalism, and it escalated. --NE2 14:23, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

I left a note on the talk page of II MusLiM HyBRiD II (talk · contribs) to briefly explain WP:BLANKING. Hopefully that difuses the situation a bit. SWik78 (talkcontribs) 14:28, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Involved admin protects BLP article[edit]

Resolved: Nothing actionable.  Sandstein  17:53, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Admin Míkka reverted Michael I of Romania back to a version which reflects his edits -- and has protected it. Before proceeding to make edits, I called for concerned Wikipedians to reject the ownership of the article which has been held hostage since 9 March 2006 by Stefanp/Carbunar/Parisian2006/John Mathis/CrownJewel/Throne&Altar/Lil' mouse/Lil' mouse 2/Lil' mouse 3/Nontricky (several of these accounts were banned as sockpuppets, but a quick glance will expose the striking similarity in the edits & talk page comments of all of them). Although I didn't know Míkka was an admin when he demanded, on threat of my being blocked, an explanation of my edits, I replied at length about the concerns which led me to edit it extensively but selectively. Bottom line: the subject of the article is a living person, and the article, along with several others such as King Michael's Coup and Radu Duda, Prince of Hohenzollern-Veringen (Michael's son-in-law, a living person who has publicly complained about the content of his and Michael's wiki articles!) etc., accuses him of betraying his country to Soviet Communists during World War II by ousting pro-Nazi dictator Ion Antonescu, switching Romania from the Axis to the Allied side, and then fleeing abroad with stolen national treasure. This point of view is not the prevalent view of Michael -- see the more mainstream historical assessment reflected in the Encyclopedia Britannica's article, which gives an almost opposite impression of Michael's wartime deeds. Prior to making edits, I had reported the POV & undue weight, and the ownership which protects it, requesting deletion of King Michael's Coup (and, subsequently, asked that Michael I of Romania also be protected from renewed violations of BLP) at the Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard. Meanwhile, Stefanp/Carbunar/Parisian2006/John Mathis/CrownJewel/Throne&Altar/Lil' mouse/Lil' mouse 2/Lil' mouse 3/Nontricky reverted all of my edits (which had toned down but did not eliminate the article's anti-Michael slant) and he threatened to continue doing so on the talk page. I reverted, however, no violations of 3RR have occurred and the anti-Michael reverts had stopped, so I hoped the "owner" realized that someone is on to the anti-Michael pattern since '06 and has exposed it, and that therefore he would desist -- or at least that it would be a while before the BLP violations were re-inserted. Instead, today Míkka, declaring that the article had become "corrupted", reverts all of my edits on Michael I of Romania, re-instating the reported BLP violations which are pending a decision at Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard -- and then protects the page! Since this concerns a pending BLP complaint, and since the admin had been one of the last 5 editors to work on the article [here] and [here] and whose edit I had removed (in error actually), I request that his revert and protection be reversed, and that Míkka be banned from using his powers as an admin on articles relating to Michael. FactStraight (talk) 06:16, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

You always need to notify people when a discussion is going on on ANI about them; I've just done it for you. That said, it's a bit concerning to call one party's edits in an edit war "corruptions"; I'll AGF and guess this is just some dodgy word choice. It's also a bit concerning that he's already got a 3RR warning from another article and a warning not to threaten to block other parties in content disputes. I don't know who is "right" in this case but he probably needs to be a bit more careful. I don't really see much previous involvement with the page though. Tombomp (talk/contribs) 06:57, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
I was just about to notify him, as I'm still online, but you beat me to it. The real problem here is that the BLP violations have been locked in place by admin revert & protection -- even though we know that the subject of the article's son-in-law (who has his own wiki article) has publicly complained about both articles' content, and the content on Michael I of Romania is radically different from what other encyclopedias say, violating NPOV. Action is needed. FactStraight (talk) 07:39, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Obviously you failed to check your facts first. When I wrote "corrupted" I meant "corrupted". The whole bottom piece of the page (categories, references, bottom sections) was lost in the heat of the war. Obviously the warriors cared more about their egos rather the article. Also, in the talk page I explicitely wrote that any admin willing to be involved in the dispute resolution may override my actions. Because of the stubborn revert war I had to protect the page but it would have been insanity from my part to protect a page with half article missing. My another option was blocking both paries since they both are far beyound 3RR, but I opted for aricle proection giving them chance o contine discussion. Rather than using this opportunity for content discussion despite several invitations, or at least to ask me for explanations user:FactStraight jumped right into complaint departments. Now I have serious doubts as to his willingless to engage in discussions and next time I see him in revert war I will block him instead of protecting the aricle. `'Míkka>t 15:12, 10 July 2008 (UTC) `'Míkka>t 14:56, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Looks like the corruption was due to a comment becoming unclosed out somewhere inside the "Personality and personal interests" subsection; the revert definitely closes out a comment there and it is where the article died previously. Míkka, it would have been better if you had figured that out and fixed just it before protecting. Otherwise, what you did is fine. The alleged BLP violation is too subtle for me to see at first glance; WP:UNDUE is a legitimate concern but not one a quick acting uninvolved administrator can give any help with. GRBerry 15:07, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
If I did like you say, don't you think that the opposite side in this revert war would have thrown the exact same tantrum? As for "suble" thing, this was the exact reason why I notified wikipedia:Romanian Wikipedians' notice board, who are expected to have expertise to mediate. `'Míkka>t 15:16, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
Maybe they would have, but for an edit that trivial (adding " -->" to close a comment) anyone neutral who looked at the diff would have laughed at the description of you as involved, even before you replied. This looked like a substantial edit at first, thus creating unnecessary smoke to support the complainants smokescreen. GRBerry 17:24, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

For anyone interested, this was posted before. I did not see a BLP problem at the time. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:02, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

The comment initiating this thread is too long and confusing. Your chances of obtaining the intervention you request are much higher if you state very briefly and very clearly what content violates WP:BLP, and why.  Sandstein  17:15, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
Michael I of Romania violates BLP's policy that "...the material is written in a manner that does not overwhelm the article or appear to take sides...Be careful not to give a disproportionate amount of space to particular viewpoints, to avoid the effect of representing a minority view as if it were the majority one. The views of a tiny minority have no place in the article." The mainstream view is typified in the online Encyclopedia Britannica's article, whose "take" on Michael is nearly opposite Wiki's. Disproportion, not under-sourcing, is the problem & because Michael's living, must be removed immediately. FactStraight (talk) 04:05, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
The request is not specific enough. You must show what content must be deleted in accordance with