Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive464

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

Noticeboard archives

Contents

I need help[edit]

I've tried everything I can to work with an editor, and they just continue to feet-drag, are disruptive, and talk right past me. The relevant conversation is here. You may note that this person seems to subsist only with reverts to Atropa belladonna. I'm at my wits end. This guy just cannot be worked with, he's outright rude to my research and does not respond directly to my queries. I need some administrator intervention. ScienceApologist (talk) 21:32, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

I can't see any revert wars. Diffs?  Asenine  21:46, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
It's a smoldering edit war that isn't partaking in outright reverts, but the effects of each of our actions is the same. I'm just having no luck getting through my points at all.... Even my attempt at compromise seems rudely rebuffed and almost ignored in a Civil POV-push tactic. Or am I wrong? I'm just so frustrated, I'm trying to get help. ScienceApologist (talk) 22:45, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
It's pro-homeopathy POV-pushing from the "water memory" school. Water memory is completely bogus, and is relevant only to the article on homeopathy, not to anything else. Unfortunately the homeopathy mob seem to want to insert "foo is used in homeopathy" into everything under the sun. Luckily I don't think that anyone's going to be poisoned even if they do accidentally get the one bottle in a undred that has a molecule of the active principle in it, but asking for scientific proof that something doesn't work when it is diluted to the extent of less than one molecule per bottle, average, is rather silly. SA is very isolated and needs support in the numerous places where he resists overt pseudoscientific POV-pushing, so more eyes will always be welcome. Guy (Help!) 22:06, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
It was my understanding that homeopathy as a whole was pretty much "foo". Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 22:13, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
Simular problems have been encountered on various tlak pages relating to homeopathy and other alternative medicla proceudres. I concur with JzGuys statement and I second the cal for more experienced hands to bgo over there and help resolve the current dispute. ScienceApologist, have you ired a Request For Comment? That might help get through to an unusaly recalcitrant editor. Hope that helps. Smith Jones (talk) 22:27, 11 August 2008 (UTC): D
Maybe an RfC, but I really don't have time to go through and dig through all the muck right now. ScienceApologist (talk) 22:45, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
Not quite, Bugs. It is instead, absurdly diluted "foo". Remarkably however, in this application, that small amount of foo is just as effective as a whole boatload of it. JohnInDC (talk) 22:29, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
Correct me if I’m mistaken, but I thought that it actually became more effective through dilution (or whatever they call it). —Travistalk 22:35, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
Absolutely correct. The most common remedies actually contain zero molecules of the thing the remedy is named for. ScienceApologist (talk) 22:47, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
Well, the physical chemistry it takes to understand how it is impossible to "imprint" things in water is a complex field. And it severely impairs the interested student's wonderful imaginativeness. user:Everyme 23:01, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

This is just forum shopping. There are two threads on this at WP:FT/N. The latest one attracted outside comment from Moreschi, Jehochman, DGG, and others. They all say the same thing I said: it is one sentence, sourced reliably, stating that there are homeopathic preparations from belladonna. It's not a big deal. 2 mainstream clinical trials have been done, which unsurprisingly found it ineffective; personally, I think those trials should be included in the sentence, but they aren't currently. 23:03, 11 August 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by ImperfectlyInformed (talkcontribs)

Agreed. This is forum shopping. Also, we are not dealing with any form of pro-homeopathy POV pushing - at least no where I am concerned. I am not pro-homeopathy. I agree that it should be regarded as pseudoscience. I don't believe in water-memory or any of that foo. However, painting me as pro-homeopathy has been a tactic throughout this whole debate. Quite simply, I support the inclusion of a sentence which says it is used in a homeopathic remedy but the efficacy of such a remedy isn't supported by science. If anything, this is an anti-homeopathy POV which I am pushing for (it's actually the mainstream POV). Please read my final entry at FTN to get a clearer sense of where I am coming from. Thanks. -- Levine2112 discuss 23:09, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
I don't see as forum shopping. It appears that he obtained a weak consensus at FTN, and is requesting help in enforcing it. Seems perfectly reasonable to me, although WP:AN seems more approriate than WP:ANI. I do see it as premature, as the current status of Ab seems adequate. (And I'm forced to admit that, if anyone had asked, I would have placed you in the pro-homeopathy camp.) Would the you consider me an "uninvolved admin" for the purpose of this discussion? I've been involved with disputes with SA, II, and Levine. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 23:55, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
There certainly was more than a weak consensus at FTN, but it was one against SA's position. He's against inclusion of any text regarding homeopathy no matter how well-sourced it is. He had also posted previously here and at NPOV/N where once again the large majority of editors were against his position. So with a couple of forums not supporting his position, he now reports here saying that I'm dragging my feet and I am disruptive? I don't think so. ArthurRubin, I don't blame you for thinking that I am pro-homeopathy. The campaign to make it appear that way has been perpetrated by editors for such a long time and done so well, how could you believe otherwise? But make no mistake, I am scientific skeptic thru-and-thru. I don't believe in the efficacy of any treatment unless the science is there to back it. But I am also fair. Just because I may have a personal opinion that something is bunk, doesn't mean that I am going to suppress any mention of the subject anywhere on Wikipedia other than on its main article. Wikipedia is about knowledge. And in this case, the knowledge that "Atropa belladonna is used to prepare a certain popular homeopathic remedy with an efficacy unsupported by mainstream science" is well-sourced, relevant, and therefore can and should be included in the article. -- Levine2112 discuss 00:24, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
What makes it seem more like forumshopping to me is SA's lack of mention of the other discussions, where he didn't get the answer that he wanted. II | (t - c) 02:20, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
I see your point. I also see signs of a admin dispute, as another admin, on User talk:Levine2112, seems to have come to the conclusion that SA is right and Levine is wrong, while my conclusion is that Levine is right, and I have no idea what SA wants. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 02:36, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

ScienceApologist has agreed yesterday to work with a mentor user:AGK and refrain from disputes[1]. Disputes involving ScienceApologist should be brought up with the mentor. MaxPont (talk) 21:11, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

ReputationDefender & Administrator Sanctioned Censorship[edit]

I'm writing about something which seems to be occuring more frequently. A company called Reputation Defender is using multiple novel approaches to vandalising wikipedia articles. ReputationDefender is a service hired by individuals who explicitly want information factual or otherwise removed from the internet. I'm writing about just one of those approaches. The seemingly justified merging of articles. Once the articles are merged, certain information is no longer relevant and removal becomes easier to justify. Below is a description of recent hijinks concerning Ronen 'Ronnie' Segev. Segev acquired Internet fame recently after a customer service alercation with priceline.com

Good or Bad, thr article, and Ronen "Ronnie" Segev, is now part of Internet History as it relates to Internet Censorship. Interestingly there is nothing defamatory in any of the articles. They are simply a statement of events which transpired. This is very basic factual information.It is ironic that the article itself is now the victim of such censorship by a company called Reputation Defender, employed by either priceline.com or Segev himself.

Is this editor Xoloz employed by ReputationDefender as well? This cannot be tolerated!

Why was this article merged? ...when there was no justification for such a merging?

Simple: it's very hard to argue against the relevance of the priceline.com controversy information in a 'Ronen Segev' article, but it is much MUCH easier to argue against such information as relevant in a newly merged 'Ten O'Clock Classics' article...this administrator and this article needs to be reviewed by multiple independent administrators.

--Vancedecker (talk) 03:08, 12 August 2008 (

See Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 August 28, [2] and User_talk:Jimbo_Wales/Archive_27 for the full story on this. I have deleted and protected the latest incarnation. Kevin (talk) 03:34, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

I will not attempt to argue this matter further. As the history of such incidents is against the casual poster. I may post something to Jimbo Wales as my last gasp jumping from the increasingly infiltrated and manipulated sinking shell which used to be wikipedia. On a positive note, I now know where to go if I ever have something I don't like appearing on the Internet, ReputationDefender obviously does a damn good job! --Vancedecker (talk) 03:45, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

There is no cabal... - Adolphus79 (talk) 03:50, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
Could someone besides me keep an eye on Vancedecker's edits? Seems a bit worked up. (I'm one of the targets, and suspect things might get heated, so it's better another admin keep an eye on things.) Tony Fox (arf!) 17:57, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Use of the words "censorship" and/or "suppression" are very close to a 100% accurate diagnostic of an account that should be blocked. The probability that Vancedecker (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) was genuinely new to Wikipedia today is, I venture to suggest, zero. The only question is whether the sockpuppet is evading a block or simply evading scrutiny. Guy (Help!) 20:45, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Need some help here[edit]

Top Gun and Captain are both currently blocked for edit warring on the above named article. Captain was reported by an anon IP which I suspect might actually be Top Gun (CUs?). Regardless of that (there is definitely edit warring) Top Gun has been indeffed in the past, in part for copyright violations, and then unblocked with strict instructions to never do it again. Captain has now accused him of doing it again, with word for word ripoffs of major news websites [3] and [4]. Firstly Top Gun has a hell of a lot of edits in a short space of time to that article - many of which could be copyvios - some help finding them would be great. Secondly - I am inclined to indeff him again, partially for edit warring but mostly for copyvios again - ie breaking the unblock conditions. I know the unblock was a while ago but someone caught with copyright violations should only have to be told once. Feedback (and help!) please? ViridaeTalk 08:41, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

The IP that reported Captain Obvious was me and I'm not Top Gun‎. See Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/3RR#User:Captain_Obvious_and_his_crime-fighting_dog_reported_by_User:92.8.254.213_.28Result:_1_week.29 or this diff [5] for more details. I would have reported Top Gun as well but filling out the report just for Captain Obvious took long enough. I also knew that if he got blocked he'd likely complain about Top Gun and get him blocked as well so I saved myself the extra effort and let him do it. 92.11.162.47 (talk) 12:40, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
Captain's block (for a week) seems a little harsh, considering his edit-warring was reverting Top Gun's godawful edits (which included misrepresenting sources and POV-pushing). I have asked the blocking admin (Seicer) to consider reducing the block's duration. I would also be inclined to indef Top Gun if he returns to POV-pushing or making up death statistics again. Neıl 11:11, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
  • I've cut Captain's block down to two hours, considering the god-awful quality of the edits he was reverting and have also unblocked Top Gun and then reblocked him indefinitely. You can't lie about sources, and he was. Moreschi (talk) (debate) 11:27, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
Indefinite seems a bit high. Can you provide some diffs of all the lying he's done? I can see where he changed a Georgian casualty figure from 200 to 180 for no apparent reason when the reference said 200. That doesn't seem to be a work of a master criminal though. The figures and references and their history are confusing on that page anyway. I think editors have changed some figures without changing the references that supported the old figures that they removed, so some figures aren't supported by their references even though they were if you go further back in the edit history. I can see where he's added correct figures and added accurate references for "citation needed" tags earlier on down the history, before he got into the argument with (a fairly belligerant) Captain Obvious. Not saying he isn't POV, just that an indefinite block seems high, as does a 2 hour block seem low for Captain Obvious 92.11.162.47 (talk) 13:38, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
As ever, indefinite does not mean forever - it means "for only as long as there are unresolved issues." Once issues are satisfactory resolved, then the block can be lifted or substituted for one of an appropriate length. Only when indefinite blocks are imposed as part of a community ban can it be considered infinite - which is likely the period most folk are mistaking indefinite for. LessHeard vanU (talk) 14:19, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
I agree. In fact, many times an indefinite block will eventually be much shorter than a specific time block. Once issues are resolved with an indefinite block, the block is typically lifted. With a block of, say, a week, most editors/admins are more inclined to have the editor just "serve the block time" or something similar. I don't like how indefinite blocks have a stigma of "forever" around here. Tan ǀ 39 14:24, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
My mistake, I thought indefinite meant forever. How about blocking both parties from editing the Category:2008 South Ossetia war articles for a week? They could do with some less confrontational input from other people and there are lots of other articles to edit. 92.8.255.240 (talk) 15:23, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
Frankly speaking, all these activities by anonymous IPs should be investigated, possibly through checkuser. Please see discussion here. First, 92.9.72.131 reports the "Captain". Then, it turns out to be 92.11.162.47. Now 92.11.162.47 (see above) and 92.8.255.240 argue in favor of banned user Top Gun. Please note that User:Top Gun was previously engaged in sockpuppetry.Biophys (talk) 17:39, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
Please refer to that at Requests for Checkuser. I haven't had time to sort out the article today :( seicer | talk | contribs 17:41, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
O'K. I did. Not sure though if I did this correctly. Thanks, Biophys (talk) 18:06, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
I've added two more IP's of mine that you missed to your check user request [6] 92.9.79.191 (talk) 19:40, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
I would welcome any investigation in any form as I have nothing to hide. It appears to me that you're flinging veiled accusations here, in an attempt to obfuscate. Taking your points one by one:
  • "Frankly speaking" - please do be frank. If you have an accusation, please make it in plain, simple language.
  • "all these activities" makes it sound like some conspiracy is going on, which I'm guessing is your intention. Lets be clear here, you're talking about - 1. my attempt to add a "citation needed" tag to a caption on a map - 2. one request to Caption Obvious to use edit summaries (he removed my request for the citation needed tag without any edit summary, which made it difficult to know why he'd removed it) - 3. my request to have a discussion about figures on the talk page rather than an edit war in the article and - 4. a report on the noticeboard about an editor that was edit warring, being abusive and bullying. I've explained each one of those them in detail here [7]
  • "argue in favor of banned user Top Gun" - I feel a bit guilty and bad for the guy to be honest. Because of the wrong IP in my edit war report, you were able to use that to imply [8] [9] something underhand was going on which, in my opinion, contributed to a 1 week block against Captain Obvious being changed to a 2 hour block (!!!) and a 3 day block against Top Gun being changed to an indefinite block. I wouldn't characterize my suggestion [10] that he be blocked from editing the Ossetia war articles as "in favour" either. I've done my bit to try and correct the mistake you were able to use against him though, in favour of your friend [11] Captain Obvious, so I'm really not fussed if he's blocked or not. I am still concerned about Captain Obvious's aggressive and improper way of dealing with anyone that doesn't agree with him though.
  • "Please note that User:Top Gun was previously engaged in sockpuppetry" - again, if you have an accusation to make, please make it in plain, simple language.
I really don't want to have be in conflict with you but if you continue to make veiled accusations against me I will have to continue to defend myself. It suggest you do the check user so you can get over whatever concerns you have. 92.9.79.191 (talk) 18:51, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
So, you are not Top Gun, but all three different IPs (see above) are you? It that what are you talking about?Biophys (talk) 19:16, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
I am not Top Gun and all five IP's listed here [12] are mine (that have been used on Wikipedia) 92.9.79.191 (talk) 19:40, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
Fine. I am sorry. But it would be a good idea if you register as a regular user, instead of using multiple IPs. But perhaps you already did? I suspected you because you behave as a regular user, rather than a newcomer.Biophys (talk) 20:01, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
There is no requirement whatsoever for me to use an account just so I can leave one little "citation needed" tag on a page [13] or report a user that I notice is blatantly behaving improperly while I'm doing so. Your suspicion that I'm a sock puppet of Top Gun was found to be without foundation [14]. If you've now moved on to trying to imply that because I've used Wikipedia previously I'm in some way doing something wrong by making an edit to an article as an IP or reporting a 3 revert violator that is blatantly abusing and bullying other editors then you're mistaken, unless Wikipedia policies have changed significantly in the last year. 92.13.2.162 (talk) 20:31, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Disruptive airport page-moves?[edit]

Resolved: User responded to the warnings and stopped the page moves.

Special:Contributions/Jasepl. He's changing the names of foreign airports to their "translated" official name. Check his talk page, and you'll see it's been quite thoroughly explained to him that this is not how pages are named, and it's been made very clear to him that he is disagreed with. So a few dozen page moves strikes me as fairly uncooperative. Well, I'm going to bed, so I'm just posting this for someone less tired. Someguy1221 (talk) 08:44, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Looks like he eventually listened to and acquiesced to the warnings, marking as resolved. ~ mazca t | c 21:00, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Requesting extended block on 20KBomb[edit]

Resolved

Here are some reasons:

  • Persistent lying about image source and license (see his talk pages, I PUI'd a lot)
  • Posing as an admin (example)
  • Refused to admit source of images even when I asked him (example)
  • Attempting to vote more than once by abusing multiple accounts (example)

Also, can I request a check on User:92.18.180.152? He seems very interested in the case, voting keep with a forged signature and then forging a comment on J Milburn's talk about the same topic... it seems very obvious to me, and if it is a sock then I would ask that we get an indef. block in.  Asenine  18:55, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

WP:RFCU is where you can request Check Users. <3 Tinkleheimer TALK!! 19:06, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
I know. I am merely noting it here since it is alongside. I am going to RFCU in a second. :)  Asenine  19:08, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
Ahh kay, was a little confused. :) <3 Tinkleheimer TALK!! 19:15, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
The posing as an admin thing is kinda' silly; that's the talk page of one of his own socks. No comment on the rest of it. Cheers. lifebaka++ 19:09, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
There is also 92.1.239.69, he was the one doing the egregious signature forging at WP:UCFD. - Icewedge (talk) 19:18, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
CU case here, adding that one too, thanks for that Icewedge.  Asenine  19:24, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
... and CU says  Confirmed re. the above - Alison 19:36, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
On the basis of that checkuser can I request an indefinite block, please?  Asenine  19:51, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
Indef. block done. Adding resolved tag.  Asenine  19:58, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

User:AlexLevyOne[edit]

I posted concerning this matter earlier today at WP:Wikiquette alerts (see here), but it’s become clear that that forum is not really a suitable place for addressing this particular problem and so I am re-posting a revised version here. I feel a bit of urgency because while this editor’s edits are not malicious or extraordinarily destructive, he is very prolific and threatens to degrade a lot of articles in a fairly short time.

User:AlexLevyOne created his account just a couple of weeks ago but has already made several hundred edits. They are of highly variable quality. His intentions appear by and large to be good, and many of his edits appear to be well-informed, but he frequently displays very bad judgment, to the detriment of the subject article – e.g., removing uncontroversial and, to all appearances true, factual material simply because it bears a {fact} tag – then, often not bothering to edit the text left behind, creating non sequiturs and awkward transitions. He collapses short paragraphs into unreadable blocks of text and removes uncontroversial material without explanation (or with a cryptic edit summary); and so forth. Despite the efforts of several concerned editors to engage him on his talk page, has responded simply by blanking their comments. Example here.

This post to the user’s Talk page by User:Deor (blanked shortly thereafter) illustrates several of his problem edits: diff.

To sum up, AlexLevyOne makes some good edits, but many (many) irresponsible ones as well. I’ve posted several template warnings to his Talk page today, along with narrative requests and suggestions that he reflect a bit more carefully on his edits, but he has neither acknowledged them nor slowed his pace. He needs to be reined in a bit; focused a bit better – but given his unwillingness even to acknowledge Talk page requests, I’m not sure how to go about it short of seeking administrative help, which I am now doing here.

Thanks. JohnInDC (talk) 02:46, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

I guess my contribution ws a bit compulsive and fasting as much as I could wich happens to be destructive more than prolific sometimes. I'll try to stop the non sense exercice trying to correct as much as I find informations inappropriate and focus on a few articles in a more accurate methodology. User: AlexLevyOne —Preceding undated comment was added at 04:48, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
If your writing style in articles reads the same as it does here, you might want to consider taking up a different hobby. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 04:54, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
You know, folks around here spend an awful lot of time and energy dealing with civility and other behavioral issues, process issues, sock puppetry, meat puppetry, BLP problems, conflicts of interest, etc. etc. etc., but very little on competency as an issue, and I think perhaps that is a mistake. A well-meaning but incompetent editor can do as much damage to the project as a vandal can, and yet many times this activity flies below the radar, and even when it's spotted, there doesn't really seem to be a process in place to deal with it effectively. Perhaps this stems from the egalitarian "encyclopedia that anyone can edit" ethos, but isn't it about time to realize that although everyone can edit it, not everyone should edit it? Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk / cont) 05:16, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
hold on their chap. The original post ser of this thread acknowledges that MOST of Alexs edits are good and beenficial to the project, and the issue at hand is a very specific patern of mistakes that can easily be corrected. Smith Jones (talk) 05:27, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
I'm with Ed. I wonder if we couldn't set up a 'How to edit constructively' page. One that reinforces that English grammatical rules count, and spelling matters, that added material should be cited, or citable, that we don't deal in rumors and nonsense, that it's not myspace or a public internet forum, that if you don't know, don't touch... all that stuff. ThuranX (talk) 05:58, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
Smith Jones: I think perhaps that JohninDC might have been being polite, because I've just sampled ALO's edits, and the majority of those I looked at were not "good and beneficial". Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk / cont) 06:02, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
maybeso. I dont disagre eiwth you on the larger issue, althought there are a few processes like WP:MENTOR stil extant to help editors become better with their contributions. I took JohninDC at his word when he said that ALO's edits were mostly good. Personally, my comp is way too bad to open all those links to pore through someone elses edits, so I think Ill take you at your word. There are lots of page sup on how to edit constructively, but they assume good fiath, so if a user is just here to prove a WP:POINT it wont be of much happenstance. one example is the welcome template which has a lot of info that I pesonally made use of when I first got here, and it helped get more on the right track afte ra rocky start with my first few edits. Smith Jones (talk) 06:09, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
Actually I said that "many" of his edits were good, certainly not most; but yeah, I still might have been too charitable. "Not obviously problematic" might've been better. Certainly in the course of reviewing most of them for a day I found some that made me think, well, he seems to know something about *that*. I agree that WP might do a better job of helping neophyte editors edit well - but that still wouldn't fix a case such as this one, in which the new and misguided editor simply ignores all entreaties and continues to edit haphazardly and destructively -- yet at the same time not quite running afoul of the various editing guidelines and prohibitions. Perhaps this one will sort out okay - AlexLevyOne has finally commented - but if he hadn't, it seems that the only recourse would have been an edit restriction of some kind. JohnInDC (talk) 11:31, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
I remain concerned about this one. It took bringing the case here to finally get the editor in question to "engage", and I feel that "engage" is overstating the response. Bringing the issue here got no more than a single sentence acknowledgement from the user. The user really needs to understand that when a message is placed on his page, it means that there is an issue that needs to be resolved, and that he must resolve that issue. Mayalld (talk) 12:50, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
I agree. And further, while indifference or inattentiveness can be cured by a sincere promise, bad judgment cannot. I suppose the thing to do is to await some new edits and see if they're sound. JohnInDC (talk) 13:54, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
Would someone with a better understanding of the biological process like to evaluate this morning's edits to Orgasm? Diff here. They are one of many new edits today and these in particular seem rather haphazard to me. JohnInDC (talk) 15:15, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
Deleted some fact tagged stuff, which was potentially OK to do, particularly for the stuff that was long term tagged since last year, but also deleted a whole load of well referenced stuff without explanation. Reverted and {{uw-delete3}} Mayalld (talk) 15:22, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm afraid that matters have not improved much. In addition to the foregoing, here he removes properly sourced material in favor of what appears to be his (unsourced) personal point of view - diff. JohnInDC (talk) 15:26, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, and his edit summaries are becoming less descriptive and more potentially deceptive. Whether that's deliberate or not is hard to say. This editor rather personifies the kind of editing that's so borderline, it's difficult to tell whether it stems from rank incompetence or a brilliant campaign of vandalism. In this case, I lean towards the former, but still, the damage is the same whichever is the cause. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk / cont) 16:26, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
"Deceptive"? to my part, I couldnt understand what that edit sumary was talking about. It didnt seem to have anything do to re: the actual edit that was made. Is there a page here that contains an edit smamary tutorial of some sort? I think that a few people dont understand that edit sumaries are supposed to describe the edit . Smith Jones (talk) 16:54, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
Yes, in looking over the edits I think "deceptive" was not correct - I don't know why I came away with that perception. Some of them do border on incomprehensibility, though. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk / cont) 19:37, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Note: I suspect that this is the same person as Elsass3 (talk · contribs), an account whose editing patterns (removal of sourced information, distinctive spelling errors, repeated blanking of his talk page, etc.) were very similar to AlexLevyOne's, who showed an interest in (and in some cases created) a number of the articles that ALO has edited, and who hasn't edited since two days after the ALO account was created. I haven't seen any evidence of disruptive socking, but I thought I'd point this out to carry ALO's history on Wikipedia a bit farther back in time. Deor (talk) 16:54, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Oh, goodness. Fascinating. And I certainly share your suspicion. Indeed I'd up the ante and say that it is extremely likely they are one and the same -- the two accounts simply exhibit too many peculiar idiosyncracies in common. And, of course, both also reflect the same stout unwillingness to entertain any change in behavior. I think the next question is, then, what's to be done? I don't think it's in the interest of the encyclopedia to let it go on, and I also don't think we're going to see any meaningful voluntary correction here either. JohnInDC (talk) 17:27, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
Just as there is no easy way to deal with sub-optimal editing that hovers just below the level of vandalism, there's no easy way to deal with serial sub-optimal editing, which this instance seems to be a case of. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk / cont) 19:40, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
howevere, they're is a methods to take care of sub-optimal editing that also uses sockpuppetry, and meatpupptry to avoid scrutiny. Smith Jones (talk) 21:25, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, this whole debate is properly amazing ! I didn't expect something that serious and professionnal on my case. It's true i have no real competence in the wiki program set and my english can be a bit weak being french.It makes the whole inention look weird and sometimes look like vandalism. I think when the quotations are missing the text needs to be banned. I fell like rubbing the red key words to black or putting in blue the information i feel appropriate. As a matter a fact Elsaas3 is of course the avatar i used till last time when i lost it for acting to compulsively on the wiki scene.You can block me and i would find it quite normal not being irreplacable but keep inmind I really respect your work and your constant effort. It's an honor to have shared this time on this work since that time it started. Respectfully User: AlexLevyOne —Preceding undated comment was added at 21:18, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

If your command of English is not that good, then perhaps you should refrain from editing English Wikipedia. I, in turn, will refrain from editing French Wikipedia, German Wikipedia, Spanish Wikipedia etc. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk / cont) 21:29, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
ALO is now occupying himself by larding Marc Gilbert‎ (a cornucopia of fractured English about a person of dubious notability, which he created in his Elsass3 persona) with irrelevant images. I tried removing them but was reverted, and I have no desire to get into an edit war with him. The only thing I can think to do is to put an ownership warning on his talk page and walk away. I've wasted too much time on this guy already, and there's apparently nothing that can be done about his disruptions. Deor (talk) 17:39, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
It's pretty much a full time job to follow him around, check his edits for facial reasonableness, and then revert when necessary. Probably one in three, one in two, are plainly mistaken and need to be undone. I am sure that User:Deor and I would appeciate action by, or at least helpful advice from, an administrator about how to bring ALO to heel. JohnInDC (talk) 17:56, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
I guess what happens on other Wikipedias isn't really relevant here, but it's worth noting that on the French Wikipedia a user who is clearly the same person as Elsass3/AlexLevyOne was indef blocked as a disruptive sockpuppet. (I think the French term, faux-nez, is cute.) Deor (talk) 18:30, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
Gee, "sock puppet" is pretty cute too. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk / cont) 06:12, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
Since there are at least 3 4 editors (myself, Deor, and JohnInDC and Mayalld) following this guy around, reverting his unexplained deletion of material and his inserttion of dubious unsourced material and so on, and since he's been singularly unresponsive to commentary, and since (I believe) he's already had a final warning, isn't about time to block this person, in both personas? Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk / cont) 20:08, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

He's added several spurious images to his Marc Gilbert article and has restored them half a dozen times after reversions by the various editors keeping tabs on him. See the history here. Can someone please block him for a couple of days so we can get a bit of rest? Thanks. JohnInDC (talk) 01:46, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

He's been blocked for 24 hours for edit warring; thanks to those responsible. It remains to be seen whether upon his return he will have reformed any. JohnInDC (talk) 13:50, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
Hey, add me to the list of people wasting their time following this guy round fixing the devestation that he causes. The 24 hour block for edit warring is a welcome relief, but I seriously doubt that it will have the slightest effect, and he can look forward to more and longer blocks if he fails to take heed. Mayalld (talk) 07:05, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
I'd say there's a good chance he will simply reincarnate in some new guise; let's hope someone notices him sooner rather than later. JohnInDC (talk) 17:06, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

He's back, and adding the same tangential, decorative images to the same article. Marc Gilbert. In a couple of hours we will probably have another 3RR violation. JohnInDC (talk) 11:27, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

He also blanked his talk page again -- he probably got tired of reading advice about his editing.

I see some small improvement in his edits overall, they're not so egregiously sub-optimal as they were before, perhaps he's really trying to straighten up. Still, many of his edits are unnecessary or show poor judgment. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk / cont) 23:12, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

J.J. Boone[edit]

Resolved: User blocked, waiting for reply. - Caribbean~H.Q. 02:19, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Please check this user's logs, it seems like he is virtually a copyvio-uploading machine, uploading a few dozens of images about the "world's oldest people". Now, he was received numerous automated warnings and at least two user warnings to no avail, but what makes his behavior more disrupive is that he constantly pushes the images back to the mainspace if they are removed. I am quite tempted to issue a block for the huge mountain of copyvios that he has produced, but that may be because I'm becoming annoyed by having to remove his images from Emiliano Mercado del Toro time after time, thus a neutral opinion and/or suggestion on how to deal with this case is welcomed. - Caribbean~H.Q. 19:35, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

I saw this user when I was patrolling NewImages earlier today. On the presumption that he has been warned, I'd guess a 24 hour block would be a good idea - it might get his attention where boilerplate templates don't.  Asenine  20:23, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
After a look, I can see that he has a ton of copyvio tags on his page. I am issuing him an only warning now, if he doesn't stop after then it should be all fine and dandy to block him, right?  Asenine  20:27, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
He's been warned about uploading copyrighted info and the possibility of a block. This user does not seem to respond to messages on his talk page (s/he has never edited a talk/user talk page) and seems to largely be ignoring warnings - a block may be warranted without further warning, imho. Shereth 20:29, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
From my point of view, we should give him until he violates it again. Remember, blocks are a preventative measure, not a punishment.  Asenine  20:30, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Copyright violations, particularly repeated ones, are an area on which good faith may be assumed but less rope issued with which to hang onesself. We cannot allow people to upload content which they don't have the legal right to do so, and which is in violation of the author's or photographer's copyright. I have issued an indefinite block - I am happy with the account being unblocked in 15 minutes if he/she clarify what was going on adequately and this was a communications problem, or if it was copyvios but they acknowledge what it was, accept the policy, and agree not to do it again. But until they let us know what's going on, we can't let them continue to upload. We don't have a 'can't upload' button. We just have a block capability. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 20:37, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree. This user probably could have eaten a preventative block quite a bit earlier, he's uploaded a real torrent of copyvios and we can't afford to be too lenient once the user has been warned - persistent copyright problems are a threat to Wikipedia. That said, I have no problem with an unblock if he clarifies what he's up to and stops uploading copyrighted images - there's no particular evidence he's actually being malicious. ~ mazca t | c 20:53, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
Well, I think this is resolved for the time being, thanks for your time. - Caribbean~H.Q. 02:19, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Hagger[edit]

Resolved: Revert, Block, Ignore. Paragon12321 23:43, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Note Thatrapid contributions: Hagger moves. I have no admin/vandalism tools to revert, but I'm sure someone here can. Gwinva (talk) 23:38, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Ah, see someone already has. Thanks. Gwinva (talk) 23:40, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
I got a few of them, too. HalfShadow 23:41, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

user:Mozart1783[edit]

This is URGENT. Puppet of banned user is trying to organize editors to start edit warring in Balkan related articles. For more information about user:PaxEquilibrium puppets see talk page of checkuser Thatcher section harass accounts. --Rjecina (talk) 23:51, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Note - User:Mozart1783 is blocked indef, along with another recent sleeper sock. Kevin (talk) 02:31, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Another sock of TyrusThomas4lyf[edit]

Resolved

As posted yesterday [15], multiply blocked user TyrusThomas4lyf is IP socking again. He's at 99.145.217.208 (talk · contribs · logs) and making the exact same edits as his previous socks, no talk page edits, no justifications, just edit warring across multiple articles to put in his POV (and false allegations of sockpuppetry [16]). Admin attention would be appreciated. Thanks! Dayewalker (talk) 02:52, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

This user is obviously a sock of User:TyrusThomas4lyf. Please see his editing pattern and Wikipedia:Long term abuse for more detail.—Chris! ct 02:53, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
This IP sock also removed the above message to try and evade detection [17]. Dayewalker (talk) 02:58, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

To admins: this is resolved. account was blocked—Chris! ct 03:06, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Edits by owner of indefinitely blocked User:Whitenoise123[edit]

This issue was archived by the bot before it was resolved. Can the discussion in the archive be pasted here or, if not, how are prematurely archived discussions handled here? Thanks. Tennis expert (talk) 05:47, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Dutch administrators, bureaucrats and editors handling of User:86.83.155.44[edit]

OK, this is a multi wiki case, and I am getting increasingly annoyed about it. The current part is here, I'll leave the other wikis to themselves (but mention them here to show similarities).

User:86.83.155.44 is an IP mainly/only used by (according to the signing etc.) D.A. Borgdorff. DAB came into problems on the Dutch wikipedia for some conflict of interest edits (don't know the case extensively, I am not a regular on nl.wikipedia, though I am Dutch), and apparently there have been some cases about that. I do see that the user indeed has that tendency of linking to own work/books, but if the reference is OK, and the editor is not only adding that, then it merits discussion, not plain blanking of such edits. I'd like to note at this point that conflict of interest edits here are discouraged, but not forbidden. Still, a couple of editors, as far as I can see all originating from the Dutch wikipedia (there are a few edits from 'locals', but not many), have followed this IP around many wikipedia, erasing his contributions (which are quite often indeed involving himself)

I have blocked and unblocked user:86.83.155.44 twice, in both cases assuming good faith on the user, hoping that he would improve his edits (and I think he is, he seems to stay away from the conflicts that resulted in the blocks). I did however quite strongly warn, also after the unblocks.

For as far as I can see, the involved Dutch editors are:

(there may be more)

I have now given user talk:MoiraMoira a {{uw-vandalism4im}} (yes, I know about not templating regulars), for twice reverting user:86.83.155.44 on user talk:86.83.155.44:

  • diff - summary: "please do not remove text of some one else on this talk page" - note that all what was removed was in own comments, and the rest was moved.
  • user:86.83.155.44 reverted the edit, and starts discussing on user talk:MoiraMoira.
  • diff - redoing revert of the edits; summary: "please do respect other people's contributions on this talk page and be so polite to answer questions asked before deleting them which is rather unpolite" - similar as above, nothing was deleted from others, only moved, and deletions only in own comments.

Other interesting diffs:

  • diff - Erik Baas removing a non existing redlink in comments made by user:86.83.155.44 (reverted by me, Erik Baas warned about this)
  • diff (to Tram) and diff (to List of town tramway systems), both without explanation. The removed reference on Tram were there for over 10 months, and 400 edits, and does seem to assert the statement (I have now converted into a more conventional reference). 86.83.155.44 reverted the removal, and was then re-reverted by Erik Baas (both 2 times). Information does not have to stay because it is there for a long time, but this unexplained blanking of a probably good reference is strange.

On many other wikis the user is blocked for various times. I saw this yesterday on it.wikipedia, where this user is blocked for a year after a handful of edits to his talkpage (last revert, diff by MoiraMoira: "Linkspam removed again - user does not contribute to wikipedia, only misuses talkpages for nonsense everywhere" and only to his talkpage since the last block finished!). Note, the 'linkspam' are links to some images in the top of his user talk page. I don't know about the Italian rules, but this seems quite strange to me (example contribution, so the user does contribute). Also, linkspam for me is something that is mainly visible in mainspace, or linked to that, and may be a very promoting userpage, but a talkpage which has a sentence (which may be for own convenience or whatever reason) does not need, IMHO, such drastic action. And I can't see that the self-promotion is quite obvious, but I am not happy that Dutch editors, administrators and bureaucrats are doing this, in this way, here.

If looking around on other wikis, the same Dutch users are involved in many of 'discussion' and blocks. To me this seems harassing/stalking, but I'd like some other comments before I go on. Maybe I am missing something crucial here. --Dirk Beetstra T C 14:56, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

I removed references he included to his book in five other articles 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 in July (together with Tram, this makes at least six articles where he included this reference, which seems a bit much for a local, self-published book (published by a club of tram enthusiasts that is). Afterwards, an edit war occurred between the IP doctor and a few Dutch editors (I was not involved in the edit war or the following blocking). I have today removed the reference to his own work again from Tram (while doing some other much needed cleanup on this poor article), together with the example that was referenced by this book. It added no value to the article at all.
As for the rest of this case: yes, Borgdorff is stalked by Dutch editors, which is bad. But on the other hand, Borgdorff has been IMO a nuisance on many Wikipedias, being mainly a dual purpose account, adding references to his own work and to a fringe scientist, while otherwise mainly being busy making tons of extremely small edits to his signature. It would be better for the English Wikipedia if both sides (Borgdorff and the listed Dutch editors) took there efforts elsewhere. Spamming Wikipedia articles with your own work is a bad idea, and following editors around to other Wikipedia versions isn't much better. Fram (talk) 15:23, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
The behavior of the tram editor is so blatant, and the spam has continued for such a long time, that a 3-month block for 86.83.155.44 (talk · contribs) would be well-justified. (Beetstra's previous talk with this editor seems to have made no impression at all). If this were a registered account and not an IP I think an indef block would be correct. EdJohnston (talk) 15:33, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
I am (not hard) disputing that it does not add .. there now is not a reference for the '150 trams', which is in the book .. --Dirk Beetstra T C 15:26, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
I have put back the reference that was removed again, by another Dutch user. The book nicely illustrates the fact that trams continue to thrive in the Netherlands, while diminishing elsewhere. Guido den Broeder (talk, visit) 21:30, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
Oh, does it? It is not only about the GTL8 vehicle, , but suddenly it is about trams in Belgium and the Netherlands in general? And Dirk, there was no longer a reference for the "150 trams" needed, since the whole sentence was removed as excessive detail (we are talking about the general article about trams in the world, with the history and so on: why was this example of one type in one city so important?[18]). This reference was inserted as self promotion and reinserted as a friendly gesture, not because it is in anyway needed in the article. And Guido, I'm Belgian, not DutchFram (talk) 07:17, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
In so far that the remit of en-WP admins is only to the English language Wikipedia, what is it that you are requesting here? From what I can see, there needs only for some advice to those that are removing ip account talkpage comments by that editor from "their" talkpage that this is not permitted on en-WP unless the content violates en-WP policy. You can do this yourself (although you may wish to link to this discussion when you do). Only if this advice is ignored is there a need for admins to be involved. I would further comment that there is nothing that any editor can do here regarding actions on another Wiki, at least not as an en-WP account. LessHeard vanU (talk) 15:35, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
Since my name suddenly appears here and my actions are judged and condemned by one of you guys I hope you will take the time to read this conversation here on my talk page archive which might give you more insight in the matter. I wish you all good luck in dealing with this troublesome Dutch person. Be assured I'll leave it up to you all to act wisely especially after what happened today on my talk page. Kind regards and good luck with wikipedia-en since this contribution is my final one here. MoiraMoira (talk) 15:59, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
On my talk page Beetstra wrote about dAb's self references "so there is apparently not much personal gain in that than a 'whoohoo, my name is in Wikipedia'. " If that's true, to me that doesn't mean it is OK to make those edits wiki-wide on a massive scale. Most of the self references dAb makes in the Wikipedia's I can only logically explain with a 'whoohoo, my name is in Wikipedia' attitude of the person who puts the self reference there. Mentioning a French book by Vallée in combination with dAb's translation into the Dutch language in an article doesn't make sense to me in a non-Dutch Wikipedia. If the Dutch translation is also not available to the public like in any library (on the Dutch Wikipedia dAb confessed no library he knows of has his translation) or from a book shop because that translation was only printed in about 30 copies in a proof-run in 1973, then mentioning it in the Dutch Wikipedia wouldn't even make sense. Especially since the French book is not even on topic in the article where he mentioned the book. Frequently re-inserting those self references, often while engaging in editwars, spread over some 15 language versions of Wikipedia with also local wikipedians reverting his self references that usually only stops after either his account is blocked or the article is semi-protected proofs to me he is extremely eager to have that self reference in those articles. He doesn't do that to help the readers of say the Japanese or the Bulgarian article because the book cannot be accessed by those readers and those readers are extremely unlikely to be able to understand a text in Dutch about a difficult scientific subject. That free translation cannot serve as a reference in the articles because it is a translation so nothing new will be in the book that's not in the French original and by the way, he always 'forgot' to mention the translation was into Dutch and not in the local language of the Wikipedia he added the self reference. He cannot do it to be able to sell more of those books so what other explanation can be thought of then a 'whoohoo, my name is in Wikipedia' attitude? Fram wrote above that he made self references in 6 articles, well so far I have even found 8 articles on the English Wikipedia (and maybe there are even more) in which he added those self references. I don't see why Dutch users who notice dAb is active with massive self reference spamming on so many language versions of Wikipedia cannot revert that on other Wikipedia's than the Dutch Wikipedia. In the past when I found spamming links in the Dutch Wikipedia and noticed they also occurred in other Wikipedia's, I also often removed those links in other Wikipedia's. If dAb wants to abuse all those language versions of Wikipedia for self promotion, why should I refrain from reverting those edits elsewhere? Especially if he refuses to answer questions on the talk pages of those Wikipedia's why the references were relevant. After months I still wait for his answer on e.g. the Japanese and Spanish Wikipedia. So yes, I could have asked him similar questions on talk pages on the English Wikipedia before removing his self references, but I guess he wouldn't have answered here either. - Robotje (talk) 16:10, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
Re EdJohnston, I think I did make an impression, he has not performed similar edits since my second unblock (he even undid some things on his talkpage after I mentioned something about it on my talkpage). And the self promotion is there, yes, but it was introduced with information, WP:COI does not forbid such edits! We can question if the reference does add or is correct, or if there are better ones, but it does not have to be just removed because he added it (we've been through enough of such cases on WT:WPSPAM, user adding their own external links which were deemed helpful, and hence should not be removed).
Therefor, I feel that I was doing quite well trying to get the edits in line, and he did not do it after the second block. But the edits on his talkpage by the Dutch editors (with twice, IMHO, a false edit summary) does CERTAINLY not help the situation, it only aggravates it further. Therefor, I feel that edits like performed by user:Robotje, user:Erik Baas, user:MoiraMoira (in that way) did not have to be performed, leave the user, and indeed react when the situation gets back to mainspace. There is now for as far as I can see no reason to block him here, he is not performing any questionable edits in a content namespace. --Dirk Beetstra T C 16:21, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
I am entirely in agreement with Dirk Beetstra. This is a stalking mob, although I'm inclined to make an exception for Wammes Waggel whose edits seem sincere and not coordinated with those of the others. There are two things I believe should be taken into account here. First, 86.83.155.44 is someone fairly unfamiliar with internet customs who was unaware of relevant guidelines. He is a good-faith user, a gentleman, with some interesting information to share, but not sure of where to add it. All he needed was some friendly advice and guidance, of which these Dutch users offered none. He has shown willingness to learn and stayed remarkably polite during all the harassment. Second, users Robotje and MoiraMoira have a different opinion about self-references. They, and some other Dutch users with them, believe - as they have openly stated many times - that self-referencing is by definition self-promotion, that this is about the gravest possible offense on Wikipedia, and that anyone who stoops so low is giving a free pass to get hunted down and chased off the planet. Since earlier this year, they have expanded their terrain to harass such users not only on nl:Wikipedia, where they are part of the ruling incrowd and have absolute power, but also on other Wikipedia projects. Robotje has even gone so far as to falsely accuse 86.83.155.44 of copyright violation on es:Wikipedia, and repeatedly deleted 86.83.155.44's citation of the text on Dutch national monument, which belongs to the public domain. MoiraMoira repeatedly brings up her status as a nl:admin to give undue weight to her side of the argument. Together with Erik Baas, who is not part of the nl:incrowd but is played as a puppet, they have violated WP:3RR and similar rules many times, disregarding all warnings. Guido den Broeder (talk, visit) 18:16, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
Hello Guido, in the text above you make several statements about me that are nonsense and/or very incomplete statements as you did multiple times in the past. For example, can you provide me with links where I was violating WP:3RR and similar rules?

A few months age you wrote here my comment was false and for the same edit you gave me a warning on my talk page. I asked you there to specify what was false. You never even attempted to prove anything was false but about a week later you wrote on my talk page immediately under my question "Your edits appeared to constitute vandalism and have been reverted." Well, you did revert it a recent edit of mine, and you even reverted it 4 times within a few hours timespan since I was not the only wikipedian who removed your self reference in an article and as a result you were blocked (see [19]). An independent admin who looked at your unblock request wrote "The edits you were reverting were not vandalism. Period." [20] So you had better given yourself a warning.

Guido himself explained to dAb about the self references on the Spanish Wikipedia:

"A translation of a reference can only be relevant if it helps the reader. So, a translation of a French text into Dutch would typically only be of interest on nl:Wikipedia, but not on es:Wikipedia, while a translation of a Chinese text into English could be worth mentioning here." [21]
So, Guido agrees making a self reference about a translation in Dutch on the Spanish Wikipedia doesn't help the readers. Why then do you think did dAb re-inserted so many times that self reference on the Spanish and so many other non-Dutch Wikipedia's; some kind of self promotion seems to be the first answer that comes up. I never wrote a self reference is automatically self promotion; but in this case it is pretty obvious. You also wrote about me and others in the above edit ".. as they have openly stated many times - that self-referencing is by definition self-promotion ..". Please give me a few links or even one link where I openly stated what you claim I have stated.

Besides, once again I ask you, please specify what was false, and please don't forget to also provide me with links where I was violating WP:3RR and similar rules. - Robotje (talk) 19:15, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Okay, a comment from the victim (dAb): that's me. Though very ample explanation in Dutch and English too, about contents etc. of said books, mr. Robotje, being no expert, is neither able to read nor understand the European and probably World première of this LRV series, researched from the late sixties as power electronics to the present state of the art. The same could be remarked of said reference to the works of the Hon. Prof. R.L. Vallée ing.ESE. I'm respecting the rather negative comments of Fram and EdJohnston either, though not being known as experts too, (unlike e.g. user:Slambo c.s.) from which I'm not being impressed at all, 'cause they are rather off the hooks with their more too personal views, and I don't like being talked over not scientifically enough. So: let it be ... remarkable too. Regards D.A. Borgdorff, retired Rail- and Tramway PE 86.83.155.44 (talk) 21:35, 12 August 2008 (UTC) → PS: for instance on mentioned Japanese and Spanish wikipedias, the answers were given some times ago ... FYI ... one could research it even out.
Well, let's start by looking at the Japanese Wikipedia. On March 4, 2008 I asked dAb 3 specific questions on this talk page about the relevance of that French book and his Dutch translation in relation to the Japanese article. The only reply I got from him on that Wikipedia was on March 10 when he wrote: "Dear Robotje, for the moment because of illness i'll have no problems with it anymore everymore nomore or more whatevermore. Though High Esteem Yours Faithfully &c. - D.A. borgdorff (with small B) by: 86.83.155.44 2008年3月10日 (月) 15:53 (UTC)" [22] So dAb never gave the answers on the Japanese Wikipedia. On this Spanish talk page I asked him twice "Well, then first explain why you so often mentioned your translation into the Dutch language with your name as translator on the Spanish article if your translation itself is not even publicly accessible in The Netherlands." and the reply from dAb in connection with my questions was: ".. This discussion has no fundamental scientific interactions anymore, and lacks judgement on peer review. The discussion partners have no qualification in the Quantumfield Theories at all. Regards: COITI D.A. Borgdorff .." [23] So also that question was never answered too. On the Spanish talk page dAb's attitude was a kind of out of all the people in this discussion I'm the expert so I don't need to explain why mentioning my translation in Dutch of a French book on non-Dutch Wikipedia's is relevant; not even if the book is not publicly accessible. That same attitude is also very noticeable in the reply above. You don't need to be a rocket scientist or an expert in the topic of an article to understand that mentioning a Dutch translation of a French book that cannot be seen in any library in the world is not relevant in any Wikipedia especially not the non-Dutch Wikipedia's. - Robotje (talk) 05:05, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
AFAIK, he did not add the translation after this was explained to him. Anyway, this is in no way an excuse for your behaviour, which is the topic of this discussion. Guido den Broeder (talk, visit) 06:44, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
By the way, Robotje, please stop vandalizing articles about Dutch people that happen to be Wikipedians as you did on es:Wikipedia.[24] Guido den Broeder (talk, visit) 07:20, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
Hello Guido. Regarding dAb stopping making references to his translation, as I explained above, on March 4 I already asked him on the Japanese Wikipedia several questions like why should the existence of a Dutch translation be relevant to the readers of a Japanese article. His reply didn't contain any any answer. I can easily find 50+ edits and maybe even 100+ edits where he wiki-wide re-inserted references to that translation in non-Dutch Wikipedia's after he refused to answer that question. Also on the Spanish Wikipedia he refused to answer similar questions about a self reference his was constantly re-inserting until the Spanish article was protected. On most of the Wikipedia's where he tried to get that self reference in an article that article is (semi-)protected and/or he is blocked. That effectively stopped him from trying again.

About the supposed vandalism. The article about Tjako was 'deleted' (only local admins could see it) on zea-wiki by a local admin on July 21 and restored yesterday as can be seen here in the logbook. So when I removed that interwiki on the es-wiki the article on the zea-wiki was not already removed. This is just another case where Guido blames others for vandalism although there is no vandalism at all. Oh, and by the way, I posted some requests for you earlier today on this page. For example you wrote " .. [Robotje and others] have openly stated many times - that self-referencing is by definition self-promotion ..". I'm still waiting for link because I'm sure I never stated something like that. - Robotje (talk) 09:31, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, your friend Troefkaart removed the article.[25] He is another Dutch user belonging to the same group. A very suspicious one-two. Guido den Broeder (talk, visit) 10:16, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
I was mentioned above, so I'll mention here that I've added a note with diffs to the article's talk page on my own minimal involvement in this dispute. I have not read the reference so I cannot make any statements as to its relevance to the article content. Slambo (Speak) 10:55, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
I thought to stating it very clear: I don't like to be threatened anymore by anyone, not even by somebody like Fram, Robotje, Johnston or whoever may appear to further harassing me with ridicule questions inquisitioning me too. I already was complaining about this treatments to the board of WMF, and I will persist to formalize if hunting as haunting, or inquisitions persists as well. It's a shame to blame my name as e.g. in Italia, Japan, Germany, Russia, Turkey, Greece, Spain, Sweden ... and elsewhere on other Wikipedias to persecution and prosecution people like me. I'm only a innocent sheep, not like those hunters from the more lower-lands. - I'll mostly remain with utmost regards being faithfully yours: D.A. Borgdorff or dAb = 86.83.155.44 (talk) 10:06, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
@ the Dutch editors here (first part bit more specific in answer to some comments from User:Robotje). You state above that you clean cross-wiki when editors are spamming/pushing cross wiki. I know that, I see that around the wikis that I am active on (in my xwiki work and functions), I do encourage that, and I am happy that you help with that. I included your edits above because you did it here IMHO without too much research (though the case was obvious, but it was depriving a sentence from its reference (though unclear it was the reference for the sentence), you could have removed the whole sentence, and said in the edit summary that you did). And it was the first edit that started another edit war with the user. In this case I am inclined to be on the side of DAB, and I explained that (there were 400 edits to the page, and it stood over 10 months without discussion, at least discussion or explanation was at hand there).
The removal resulted in another edit war with DAB, who is there also to blame, and he was blocked for those actions, and I believe that I have given him some strong warnings about that (and seen his edits afterwards, I believe he understands). He should not revert that himself but he should bring it to appropriate venues to discuss (and it is for me not an argument that he does not do that on other wikis either, he should here, and if DAB here fails to do so, then that at least deserves a (final) warning, and maybe blocking, as DAB now should understand that he should stay away from any form of self promotional editing, if the data is appropriate, then others should decide, he can start those discussions). It is this edit warring that gets him blocked on other wikis as well (though lately ..).
But then these three edits:
(and there are very similar things on other wikis, which tainted my feelings about this, but if I only look at these three edits:) These three edits are highly inappropriate, and are IMHO talk page vandalism (editing others peoples comments), and do not serve any function but to aggravate/harrass the user in question, the edits by DAB were reverted, but no message that the edit was reverted was left on the talkpage (e.g. that it is frowned upon that you delete comments from others; still it gives the orange banner), and as such resulted in an edit war on the talkpage. Especially from an admin/arbitrator on the Dutch wikipedia I expect a higher level of concerning the edits of other people (and looking at it more thoroughly what actually was reverted!), the two edit summaries there are untrue, and the user already asked not to do that after the first one. I am sorry, but I'm not willing to withdraw that {{uw-vandalism4im}} for that, and I find it also troubling that MoiraMoira, as an arbitrator, decides to leave in stead of discussing ... they thinks not too good about me (if they insist that I had to be friendlier to him/her, if I see the edits of DAB here, then here no good faith and friendlyness were applied to DAB either, what happens on other wikis does not concern us here), but this does not make me happy either.
You (the Dutch editors involved) did indeed not have to bring your cross-wiki cleaning to the higher boards here, though I would have appreciated that you did after the editor persisted, instead of edit warring, and starting more edit warring. That edit warring resulted in a block for DAB, because he was alone in doing so. But I hope that the group of Dutch editors realise that were removing were, as a group, also edit warring at that point, exceeding as a group 3RR. I do find that not acceptable here. --Dirk Beetstra T C 10:11, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Please use the "local" facilities to pursue problematic editing from "external" editors[edit]

It is also the case that each variant language wiki-encyclopedia generally has its own policies, practices, and standards, and that if editors who are fortunate enough to be able to contribute (or, in the unfortunate cases, vandalise) in more than one language in different wikis then they should adhere to the conditions prevailing there. If there is a editor who contributes (or vandalises, or did vandalise until stopped) on a wiki other that en-WP and who then edits to en-WP then any (perceived) problem with those edits should be brought to the attention of admins here. It is unseemly, discourteous, and even possibly inappropriate for contributors to carry out actions which are permissible on "their" "home" wiki on this variant, unless they are certain that they are acting according to the prevailing rules, policies and guidelines. If there is a question of whether local policies are being violated, there are enough established editors on the En-lang Wikipedia who are familiar with Dutch (or Afrikaans, or other similar European languages) to be able to comprehend the edits and apply the appropriate remedies. I would also suggest that, as the largest of the Wikipedia's, there is a great deal of expertise available in dealing with non-English language (possible) vandalism, and that "external" policing is not needed (although help and advice is always gratefully received).
This matter is a case in point; there may well be some problems with the subject editors contributions. The appropriate manner to deal with them would be to report the concerns to this board, where it is likely that someone with both the linguistic skills to comprehend the edits/sources/links etc. and familiarity with the policies to make a judgement. In this instance a user, who in good faith was attempting to limit what they consider disruption to the encyclopedia, violated one of the local policies - which is not to alter or amend an editors contributions on their talkpage (unless it violated a core policy or rule, which this seems not to). The point is, that they may even be ultimately proven correct - but they were appropriately warned about their actions, to which they have expressed some disappointment. All of this could have been resolved if the proper channels of communication had been used rather than unilateral actions.
Now, after all the above, are there any matters pertaining to the contributions of the concerned ip account that editors to the Dutch encyclopedia wish to raise so they may be reviewed by the en-WP community? LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:02, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Jack the Ripper edit warring blocks[edit]

I blocked both edit warriors DreamGuy (talk · contribs) and Arcayne (talk · contribs) for edit warring at Jack the Ripper. Due to the fact that I've had recent run-ins with both editors, although not at that locus, I thought I'd request review. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:48, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Having seen them both up here recently for the same article and similar troubles, good block, double it for both on general principles, they had warnings nad time to work it out. ThuranX (talk) 17:05, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
[EC] I was going to comment at Arcayne. I'm not going to unblock either of them, as an involved party at Jack the Ripper. I would note this discussion on the matter initiated by Arcayne. That's not the mark of an edit war - although it could be start of a humdinger argument between the two. I don't disagree with your blocking, but IMHO, I'd recommend an unblock, for both of them, on a 0RR parole on JtR for (say) seven days. This matter will only ever be solved by discussion, and blocking precludes them from discussion too. With User:TexasAndroid, we were trying to work up a set of rules to preclude these contretemps, but that doesn't seem to be going anywhere at the moment, this episode might concentrate minds on solutions.
Maybe we could block all the editors? [for a quiet life 8^)]. HTH Kbthompson (talk) 17:14, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
I'm afraid I can't volunteer to monitor special editing restrictions, and I don't think JtR is in a "special enforcement" area, so I can't impose 0RR. I would have no objections to an unblock with those conditions, if I can receive admin assurances that a report of violating 0RR parole will be handled at WP:3RR. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:44, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

I've commented on Arcayne and Arthur's talkpage that I think the 48 hour block of Arcayne is unnecessary and over-aggressive. Two reverts, with civil and expressive edit summaries asking for discussion, doesn't seem to warrant a 3RR-style block for double the initial length. Arthur notes that there is a 3RR block from a year ago against Arcayne, I also don't think that is cause for a block (or longer block) in this case. A warning, for both editors, to take their dispute to the talkpage should have been tried first. Avruch T 17:52, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

[EC] I'm away til Monday, otherwise, if they agreed I'd offer to pick it up - but I feel it could be a way forward. The editing restriction can be implemented if they both agree - hence parole. Perhaps you should have noted Arcayne's 3RR report. cheers Kbthompson (talk) 17:56, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
Arcayne has commented at his talk page, but appears unable to contribute directly to this thread due to the block. I don't think it's an inaccurate summary to state that Arcayne disagrees with the block. Jclemens (talk) 20:09, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't this one of those instances where the venue changes but the disputants are very familiar? Perhaps, if this is the case, we may have to consider some kind of way of limiting the amount and manner in which these two accounts interact? LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:19, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
  • No, they've been here on this very topic, AND other topics. Which is why I supported doubling the block lengths, to be compliant with the constant bickering, tendentious editing, prior warnings, and the block logs of both participants, which show a 96 hour block to be fair. ThuranX (talk) 20:21, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Hmmm. They both think I'm biased against them. Since they have never been in agreement before on anything, perhaps we're getting somewhere.... — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:19, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
    • Then you're doing something right. carry on, wayward son. ThuranX (talk) 21:52, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
      • I should point out that the last episode here was between DG and another party at that fated page. Somehow I never thought I'd say this, but not all disputes at ANI involve Arcayne. In fact, DG was the victim on that occasion - so, eh, has the firmament cracked? Sometimes both parties make genuine efforts to engage, sometimes they end up in this position - usually on the same subject. There needs to be a long-term solution that allows contributions to that article without the petty confrontations. Kbthompson (talk) 23:23, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

User:Arcayne unblocked, per promise not to edit JtR until the matter is resolved. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 23:30, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the opportunity to clear up the matter, at least as far as it concerns me. To begin with, I don't recall any problem I have had with Arthur recently, and a quick view of his history shows the last contact I had with him was in November of last year. If I am "biased" against him or have had some sort of "run-in", I don't remember it.
Secondly, I have not violated any rules or guidelines that warrant a block of any kind. As much as DG would love to make this about me and him, it isn't. It never has been. It's actually about DreamGuy and the rest of the world; or more to the point, that part of the world that disagrees with him. Leaving aside the fact that he is the one on behavioral parole, he doesn't discuss his edits. While being bold has its place, consensus usually follows the model of BRD - bold, revert, discuss. His edits are certainly bold, and are sometimes reverted (by others, not just me). At this point, discussion is derailed, because DreamGuy makes it about the editor and not the edits. Every time. I could literally count on the fingers of one hand the times in the past three years when DreamGuy has worked with other editors to find a consensus opinion. And that's just sad.
This most recent issue began as an argument over a term (Goulston Street Graffito vs. Writing on the Wall) used by some authors. In order to bolster his opinion that "many" or "most" authors refer to it by the 'Graffito' moniker, he added no less than five citations in an attempt to illustrate such (which constitutes a POINT issue), none of which actually said that most, many or even some authors call it that. A consensus was arrived at to include the term and to note that some call it such. As the citations were added to the article to argue a point, they were no longer necessary, and one citation was sufficient, and unnecessarily cluttered the article. This was explained at least thrice in discussion. DG simply disregarded it.
When DG reverted for the fourth time (again, after repeated requests to discuss the inclusion of more than one citation), I decided that if he was going to disregard the rest of us, further conversation wasn't going to help, and would only cause further incivility from DG. I reported him for the 3RR vio and opened a discussion in the article discussion page seeking to confirm what had already been reached by consensus. I am unsure how that was edit-warring, or baiting. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 01:50, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
The only baiting argument I could see would be from the sardonic twist you've added to your discussion topic: The burning, itching need for multiple references. It still wouldn't have resulted in DG talking to us but I could see someone thinking that was baiting. And I suppose it was... which goes to show that you have now resorted to poking, prodding, and cajoling to get DG to even post on the discussion page. padillaH (review me)(help me) 13:00, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
Well, it certainly wasn't intended as such. If anything, it was borne out of my frustration at having to continually revisit the same piddling point that had been addressed days and weeks earlier. I wasn't expecting DG to post - he almost never does; I was seeking to make sure that the consensus for how we presented the info was clear. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 13:23, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Dutch administrators, bureaucrats and editors handling of User:86.83.155.44[edit]

OK, this is a multi wiki case, and I am getting increasingly annoyed about it. The current part is here, I'll leave the other wikis to themselves (but mention them here to show similarities).

User:86.83.155.44 is an IP mainly/only used by (according to the signing etc.) D.A. Borgdorff. DAB came into problems on the Dutch wikipedia for some conflict of interest edits (don't know the case extensively, I am not a regular on nl.wikipedia, though I am Dutch), and apparently there have been some cases about that. I do see that the user indeed has that tendency of linking to own work/books, but if the reference is OK, and the editor is not only adding that, then it merits discussion, not plain blanking of such edits. I'd like to note at this point that conflict of interest edits here are discouraged, but not forbidden. Still, a couple of editors, as far as I can see all originating from the Dutch wikipedia (there are a few edits from 'locals', but not many), have followed this IP around many wikipedia, erasing his contributions (which are quite often indeed involving himself)

I have blocked and unblocked user:86.83.155.44 twice, in both cases assuming good faith on the user, hoping that he would improve his edits (and I think he is, he seems to stay away from the conflicts that resulted in the blocks). I did however quite strongly warn, also after the unblocks.

For as far as I can see, the involved Dutch editors are:

(there may be more)

I have now given user talk:MoiraMoira a {{uw-vandalism4im}} (yes, I know about not templating regulars), for twice reverting user:86.83.155.44 on user talk:86.83.155.44:

  • diff - summary: "please do not remove text of some one else on this talk page" - note that all what was removed was in own comments, and the rest was moved.
  • user:86.83.155.44 reverted the edit, and starts discussing on user talk:MoiraMoira.
  • diff - redoing revert of the edits; summary: "please do respect other people's contributions on this talk page and be so polite to answer questions asked before deleting them which is rather unpolite" - similar as above, nothing was deleted from others, only moved, and deletions only in own comments.

Other interesting diffs:

  • diff - Erik Baas removing a non existing redlink in comments made by user:86.83.155.44 (reverted by me, Erik Baas warned about this)
  • diff (to Tram) and diff (to List of town tramway systems), both without explanation. The removed reference on Tram were there for over 10 months, and 400 edits, and does seem to assert the statement (I have now converted into a more conventional reference). 86.83.155.44 reverted the removal, and was then re-reverted by Erik Baas (both 2 times). Information does not have to stay because it is there for a long time, but this unexplained blanking of a probably good reference is strange.

On many other wikis the user is blocked for various times. I saw this yesterday on it.wikipedia, where this user is blocked for a year after a handful of edits to his talkpage (last revert, diff by MoiraMoira: "Linkspam removed again - user does not contribute to wikipedia, only misuses talkpages for nonsense everywhere" and only to his talkpage since the last block finished!). Note, the 'linkspam' are links to some images in the top of his user talk page. I don't know about the Italian rules, but this seems quite strange to me (example contribution, so the user does contribute). Also, linkspam for me is something that is mainly visible in mainspace, or linked to that, and may be a very promoting userpage, but a talkpage which has a sentence (which may be for own convenience or whatever reason) does not need, IMHO, such drastic action. And I can't see that the self-promotion is quite obvious, but I am not happy that Dutch editors, administrators and bureaucrats are doing this, in this way, here.

If looking around on other wikis, the same Dutch users are involved in many of 'discussion' and blocks. To me this seems harassing/stalking, but I'd like some other comments before I go on. Maybe I am missing something crucial here. --Dirk Beetstra T C 14:56, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

I removed references he included to his book in five other articles 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 in July (together with Tram, this makes at least six articles where he included this reference, which seems a bit much for a local, self-published book (published by a club of tram enthusiasts that is). Afterwards, an edit war occurred between the IP doctor and a few Dutch editors (I was not involved in the edit war or the following blocking). I have today removed the reference to his own work again from Tram (while doing some other much needed cleanup on this poor article), together with the example that was referenced by this book. It added no value to the article at all.
As for the rest of this case: yes, Borgdorff is stalked by Dutch editors, which is bad. But on the other hand, Borgdorff has been IMO a nuisance on many Wikipedias, being mainly a dual purpose account, adding references to his own work and to a fringe scientist, while otherwise mainly being busy making tons of extremely small edits to his signature. It would be better for the English Wikipedia if both sides (Borgdorff and the listed Dutch editors) took there efforts elsewhere. Spamming Wikipedia articles with your own work is a bad idea, and following editors around to other Wikipedia versions isn't much better. Fram (talk) 15:23, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
The behavior of the tram editor is so blatant, and the spam has continued for such a long time, that a 3-month block for 86.83.155.44 (talk · contribs) would be well-justified. (Beetstra's previous talk with this editor seems to have made no impression at all). If this were a registered account and not an IP I think an indef block would be correct. EdJohnston (talk) 15:33, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
I am (not hard) disputing that it does not add .. there now is not a reference for the '150 trams', which is in the book .. --Dirk Beetstra T C 15:26, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
I have put back the reference that was removed again, by another Dutch user. The book nicely illustrates the fact that trams continue to thrive in the Netherlands, while diminishing elsewhere. Guido den Broeder (talk, visit) 21:30, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
Oh, does it? It is not only about the GTL8 vehicle, , but suddenly it is about trams in Belgium and the Netherlands in general? And Dirk, there was no longer a reference for the "150 trams" needed, since the whole sentence was removed as excessive detail (we are talking about the general article about trams in the world, with the history and so on: why was this example of one type in one city so important?[26]). This reference was inserted as self promotion and reinserted as a friendly gesture, not because it is in anyway needed in the article. And Guido, I'm Belgian, not DutchFram (talk) 07:17, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
In so far that the remit of en-WP admins is only to the English language Wikipedia, what is it that you are requesting here? From what I can see, there needs only for some advice to those that are removing ip account talkpage comments by that editor from "their" talkpage that this is not permitted on en-WP unless the content violates en-WP policy. You can do this yourself (although you may wish to link to this discussion when you do). Only if this advice is ignored is there a need for admins to be involved. I would further comment that there is nothing that any editor can do here regarding actions on another Wiki, at least not as an en-WP account. LessHeard vanU (talk) 15:35, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
Since my name suddenly appears here and my actions are judged and condemned by one of you guys I hope you will take the time to read this conversation here on my talk page archive which might give you more insight in the matter. I wish you all good luck in dealing with this troublesome Dutch person. Be assured I'll leave it up to you all to act wisely especially after what happened today on my talk page. Kind regards and good luck with wikipedia-en since this contribution is my final one here. MoiraMoira (talk) 15:59, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
On my talk page Beetstra wrote about dAb's self references "so there is apparently not much personal gain in that than a 'whoohoo, my name is in Wikipedia'. " If that's true, to me that doesn't mean it is OK to make those edits wiki-wide on a massive scale. Most of the self references dAb makes in the Wikipedia's I can only logically explain with a 'whoohoo, my name is in Wikipedia' attitude of the person who puts the self reference there. Mentioning a French book by Vallée in combination with dAb's translation into the Dutch language in an article doesn't make sense to me in a non-Dutch Wikipedia. If the Dutch translation is also not available to the public like in any library (on the Dutch Wikipedia dAb confessed no library he knows of has his translation) or from a book shop because that translation was only printed in about 30 copies in a proof-run in 1973, then mentioning it in the Dutch Wikipedia wouldn't even make sense. Especially since the French book is not even on topic in the article where he mentioned the book. Frequently re-inserting those self references, often while engaging in editwars, spread over some 15 language versions of Wikipedia with also local wikipedians reverting his self references that usually only stops after either his account is blocked or the article is semi-protected proofs to me he is extremely eager to have that self reference in those articles. He doesn't do that to help the readers of say the Japanese or the Bulgarian article because the book cannot be accessed by those readers and those readers are extremely unlikely to be able to understand a text in Dutch about a difficult scientific subject. That free translation cannot serve as a reference in the articles because it is a translation so nothing new will be in the book that's not in the French original and by the way, he always 'forgot' to mention the translation was into Dutch and not in the local language of the Wikipedia he added the self reference. He cannot do it to be able to sell more of those books so what other explanation can be thought of then a 'whoohoo, my name is in Wikipedia' attitude? Fram wrote above that he made self references in 6 articles, well so far I have even found 8 articles on the English Wikipedia (and maybe there are even more) in which he added those self references. I don't see why Dutch users who notice dAb is active with massive self reference spamming on so many language versions of Wikipedia cannot revert that on other Wikipedia's than the Dutch Wikipedia. In the past when I found spamming links in the Dutch Wikipedia and noticed they also occurred in other Wikipedia's, I also often removed those links in other Wikipedia's. If dAb wants to abuse all those language versions of Wikipedia for self promotion, why should I refrain from reverting those edits elsewhere? Especially if he refuses to answer questions on the talk pages of those Wikipedia's why the references were relevant. After months I still wait for his answer on e.g. the Japanese and Spanish Wikipedia. So yes, I could have asked him similar questions on talk pages on the English Wikipedia before removing his self references, but I guess he wouldn't have answered here either. - Robotje (talk) 16:10, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
Re EdJohnston, I think I did make an impression, he has not performed similar edits since my second unblock (he even undid some things on his talkpage after I mentioned something about it on my talkpage). And the self promotion is there, yes, but it was introduced with information, WP:COI does not forbid such edits! We can question if the reference does add or is correct, or if there are better ones, but it does not have to be just removed because he added it (we've been through enough of such cases on WT:WPSPAM, user adding their own external links which were deemed helpful, and hence should not be removed).
Therefor, I feel that I was doing quite well trying to get the edits in line, and he did not do it after the second block. But the edits on his talkpage by the Dutch editors (with twice, IMHO, a false edit summary) does CERTAINLY not help the situation, it only aggravates it further. Therefor, I feel that edits like performed by user:Robotje, user:Erik Baas, user:MoiraMoira (in that way) did not have to be performed, leave the user, and indeed react when the situation gets back to mainspace. There is now for as far as I can see no reason to block him here, he is not performing any questionable edits in a content namespace. --Dirk Beetstra T C 16:21, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
I am entirely in agreement with Dirk Beetstra. This is a stalking mob, although I'm inclined to make an exception for Wammes Waggel whose edits seem sincere and not coordinated with those of the others. There are two things I believe should be taken into account here. First, 86.83.155.44 is someone fairly unfamiliar with internet customs who was unaware of relevant guidelines. He is a good-faith user, a gentleman, with some interesting information to share, but not sure of where to add it. All he needed was some friendly advice and guidance, of which these Dutch users offered none. He has shown willingness to learn and stayed remarkably polite during all the harassment. Second, users Robotje and MoiraMoira have a different opinion about self-references. They, and some other Dutch users with them, believe - as they have openly stated many times - that self-referencing is by definition self-promotion, that this is about the gravest possible offense on Wikipedia, and that anyone who stoops so low is giving a free pass to get hunted down and chased off the planet. Since earlier this year, they have expanded their terrain to harass such users not only on nl:Wikipedia, where they are part of the ruling incrowd and have absolute power, but also on other Wikipedia projects. Robotje has even gone so far as to falsely accuse 86.83.155.44 of copyright violation on es:Wikipedia, and repeatedly deleted 86.83.155.44's citation of the text on Dutch national monument, which belongs to the public domain. MoiraMoira repeatedly brings up her status as a nl:admin to give undue weight to her side of the argument. Together with Erik Baas, who is not part of the nl:incrowd but is played as a puppet, they have violated WP:3RR and similar rules many times, disregarding all warnings. Guido den Broeder (talk, visit) 18:16, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
Hello Guido, in the text above you make several statements about me that are nonsense and/or very incomplete statements as you did multiple times in the past. For example, can you provide me with links where I was violating WP:3RR and similar rules?

A few months age you wrote here my comment was false and for the same edit you gave me a warning on my talk page. I asked you there to specify what was false. You never even attempted to prove anything was false but about a week later you wrote on my talk page immediately under my question "Your edits appeared to constitute vandalism and have been reverted." Well, you did revert it a recent edit of mine, and you even reverted it 4 times within a few hours timespan since I was not the only wikipedian who removed your self reference in an article and as a result you were blocked (see [27]). An independent admin who looked at your unblock request wrote "The edits you were reverting were not vandalism. Period." [28] So you had better given yourself a warning.

Guido himself explained to dAb about the self references on the Spanish Wikipedia:

"A translation of a reference can only be relevant if it helps the reader. So, a translation of a French text into Dutch would typically only be of interest on nl:Wikipedia, but not on es:Wikipedia, while a translation of a Chinese text into English could be worth mentioning here." [29]
So, Guido agrees making a self reference about a translation in Dutch on the Spanish Wikipedia doesn't help the readers. Why then do you think did dAb re-inserted so many times that self reference on the Spanish and so many other non-Dutch Wikipedia's; some kind of self promotion seems to be the first answer that comes up. I never wrote a self reference is automatically self promotion; but in this case it is pretty obvious. You also wrote about me and others in the above edit ".. as they have openly stated many times - that self-referencing is by definition self-promotion ..". Please give me a few links or even one link where I openly stated what you claim I have stated.

Besides, once again I ask you, please specify what was false, and please don't forget to also provide me with links where I was violating WP:3RR and similar rules. - Robotje (talk) 19:15, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Okay, a comment from the victim (dAb): that's me. Though very ample explanation in Dutch and English too, about contents etc. of said books, mr. Robotje, being no expert, is neither able to read nor understand the European and probably World première of this LRV series, researched from the late sixties as power electronics to the present state of the art. The same could be remarked of said reference to the works of the Hon. Prof. R.L. Vallée ing.ESE. I'm respecting the rather negative comments of Fram and EdJohnston either, though not being known as experts too, (unlike e.g. user:Slambo c.s.) from which I'm not being impressed at all, 'cause they are rather off the hooks with their more too personal views, and I don't like being talked over not scientifically enough. So: let it be ... remarkable too. Regards D.A. Borgdorff, retired Rail- and Tramway PE 86.83.155.44 (talk) 21:35, 12 August 2008 (UTC) → PS: for instance on mentioned Japanese and Spanish wikipedias, the answers were given some times ago ... FYI ... one could research it even out.
Well, let's start by looking at the Japanese Wikipedia. On March 4, 2008 I asked dAb 3 specific questions on this talk page about the relevance of that French book and his Dutch translation in relation to the Japanese article. The only reply I got from him on that Wikipedia was on March 10 when he wrote: "Dear Robotje, for the moment because of illness i'll have no problems with it anymore everymore nomore or more whatevermore. Though High Esteem Yours Faithfully &c. - D.A. borgdorff (with small B) by: 86.83.155.44 2008年3月10日 (月) 15:53 (UTC)" [30] So dAb never gave the answers on the Japanese Wikipedia. On this Spanish talk page I asked him twice "Well, then first explain why you so often mentioned your translation into the Dutch language with your name as translator on the Spanish article if your translation itself is not even publicly accessible in The Netherlands." and the reply from dAb in connection with my questions was: ".. This discussion has no fundamental scientific interactions anymore, and lacks judgement on peer review. The discussion partners have no qualification in the Quantumfield Theories at all. Regards: COITI D.A. Borgdorff .." [31] So also that question was never answered too. On the Spanish talk page dAb's attitude was a kind of out of all the people in this discussion I'm the expert so I don't need to explain why mentioning my translation in Dutch of a French book on non-Dutch Wikipedia's is relevant; not even if the book is not publicly accessible. That same attitude is also very noticeable in the reply above. You don't need to be a rocket scientist or an expert in the topic of an article to understand that mentioning a Dutch translation of a French book that cannot be seen in any library in the world is not relevant in any Wikipedia especially not the non-Dutch Wikipedia's. - Robotje (talk) 05:05, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
AFAIK, he did not add the translation after this was explained to him. Anyway, this is in no way an excuse for your behaviour, which is the topic of this discussion. Guido den Broeder (talk, visit) 06:44, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
By the way, Robotje, please stop vandalizing articles about Dutch people that happen to be Wikipedians as you did on es:Wikipedia.[32] Guido den Broeder (talk, visit) 07:20, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
Hello Guido. Regarding dAb stopping making references to his translation, as I explained above, on March 4 I already asked him on the Japanese Wikipedia several questions like why should the existence of a Dutch translation be relevant to the readers of a Japanese article. His reply didn't contain any any answer. I can easily find 50+ edits and maybe even 100+ edits where he wiki-wide re-inserted references to that translation in non-Dutch Wikipedia's after he refused to answer that question. Also on the Spanish Wikipedia he refused to answer similar questions about a self reference his was constantly re-inserting until the Spanish article was protected. On most of the Wikipedia's where he tried to get that self reference in an article that article is (semi-)protected and/or he is blocked. That effectively stopped him from trying again.

About the supposed vandalism. The article about Tjako was 'deleted' (only local admins could see it) on zea-wiki by a local admin on July 21 and restored yesterday as can be seen here in the logbook. So when I removed that interwiki on the es-wiki the article on the zea-wiki was not already removed. This is just another case where Guido blames others for vandalism although there is no vandalism at all. Oh, and by the way, I posted some requests for you earlier today on this page. For example you wrote " .. [Robotje and others] have openly stated many times - that self-referencing is by definition self-promotion ..". I'm still waiting for link because I'm sure I never stated something like that. - Robotje (talk) 09:31, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, your friend Troefkaart removed the article.[33] He is another Dutch user belonging to the same group. A very suspicious one-two. Guido den Broeder (talk, visit) 10:16, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
I was mentioned above, so I'll mention here that I've added a note with diffs to the article's talk page on my own minimal involvement in this dispute. I have not read the reference so I cannot make any statements as to its relevance to the article content. Slambo (Speak) 10:55, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
I thought to stating it very clear: I don't like to be threatened anymore by anyone, not even by somebody like Fram, Robotje, Johnston or whoever may appear to further harassing me with ridicule questions inquisitioning me too. I already was complaining about this treatments to the board of WMF, and I will persist to formalize if hunting as haunting, or inquisitions persists as well. It's a shame to blame my name as e.g. in Italia, Japan, Germany, Russia, Turkey, Greece, Spain, Sweden ... and elsewhere on other Wikipedias to persecution and prosecution people like me. I'm only a innocent sheep, not like those hunters from the more lower-lands. - I'll mostly remain with utmost regards being faithfully yours: D.A. Borgdorff or dAb = 86.83.155.44 (talk) 10:06, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
@ the Dutch editors here (first part bit more specific in answer to some comments from User:Robotje). You state above that you clean cross-wiki when editors are spamming/pushing cross wiki. I know that, I see that around the wikis that I am active on (in my xwiki work and functions), I do encourage that, and I am happy that you help with that. I included your edits above because you did it here IMHO without too much research (though the case was obvious, but it was depriving a sentence from its reference (though unclear it was the reference for the sentence), you could have removed the whole sentence, and said in the edit summary that you did). And it was the first edit that started another edit war with the user. In this case I am inclined to be on the side of DAB, and I explained that (there were 400 edits to the page, and it stood over 10 months without discussion, at least discussion or explanation was at hand there).
The removal resulted in another edit war with DAB, who is there also to blame, and he was blocked for those actions, and I believe that I have given him some strong warnings about that (and seen his edits afterwards, I believe he understands). He should not revert that himself but he should bring it to appropriate venues to discuss (and it is for me not an argument that he does not do that on other wikis either, he should here, and if DAB here fails to do so, then that at least deserves a (final) warning, and maybe blocking, as DAB now should understand that he should stay away from any form of self promotional editing, if the data is appropriate, then others should decide, he can start those discussions). It is this edit warring that gets him blocked on other wikis as well (though lately ..).
But then these three edits:
(and there are very similar things on other wikis, which tainted my feelings about this, but if I only look at these three edits:) These three edits are highly inappropriate, and are IMHO talk page vandalism (editing others peoples comments), and do not serve any function but to aggravate/harrass the user in question, the edits by DAB were reverted, but no message that the edit was reverted was left on the talkpage (e.g. that it is frowned upon that you delete comments from others; still it gives the orange banner), and as such resulted in an edit war on the talkpage. Especially from an admin/arbitrator on the Dutch wikipedia I expect a higher level of concerning the edits of other people (and looking at it more thoroughly what actually was reverted!), the two edit summaries there are untrue, and the user already asked not to do that after the first one. I am sorry, but I'm not willing to withdraw that {{uw-vandalism4im}} for that, and I find it also troubling that MoiraMoira, as an arbitrator, decides to leave in stead of discussing ... they thinks not too good about me (if they insist that I had to be friendlier to him/her, if I see the edits of DAB here, then here no good faith and friendlyness were applied to DAB either, what happens on other wikis does not concern us here), but this does not make me happy either.
You (the Dutch editors involved) did indeed not have to bring your cross-wiki cleaning to the higher boards here, though I would have appreciated that you did after the editor persisted, instead of edit warring, and starting more edit warring. That edit warring resulted in a block for DAB, because he was alone in doing so. But I hope that the group of Dutch editors realise that were removing were, as a group, also edit warring at that point, exceeding as a group 3RR. I do find that not acceptable here. --Dirk Beetstra T C 10:11, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Please use the "local" facilities to pursue problematic editing from "external" editors[edit]

It is also the case that each variant language wiki-encyclopedia generally has its own policies, practices, and standards, and that if editors who are fortunate enough to be able to contribute (or, in the unfortunate cases, vandalise) in more than one language in different wikis then they should adhere to the conditions prevailing there. If there is a editor who contributes (or vandalises, or did vandalise until stopped) on a wiki other that en-WP and who then edits to en-WP then any (perceived) problem with those edits should be brought to the attention of admins here. It is unseemly, discourteous, and even possibly inappropriate for contributors to carry out actions which are permissible on "their" "home" wiki on this variant, unless they are certain that they are acting according to the prevailing rules, policies and guidelines. If there is a question of whether local policies are being violated, there are enough established editors on the En-lang Wikipedia who are familiar with Dutch (or Afrikaans, or other similar European languages) to be able to comprehend the edits and apply the appropriate remedies. I would also suggest that, as the largest of the Wikipedia's, there is a great deal of expertise available in dealing with non-English language (possible) vandalism, and that "external" policing is not needed (although help and advice is always gratefully received).
This matter is a case in point; there may well be some problems with the subject editors contributions. The appropriate manner to deal with them would be to report the concerns to this board, where it is likely that someone with both the linguistic skills to comprehend the edits/sources/links etc. and familiarity with the policies to make a judgement. In this instance a user, who in good faith was attempting to limit what they consider disruption to the encyclopedia, violated one of the local policies - which is not to alter or amend an editors contributions on their talkpage (unless it violated a core policy or rule, which this seems not to). The point is, that they may even be ultimately proven correct - but they were appropriately warned about their actions, to which they have expressed some disappointment. All of this could have been resolved if the proper channels of communication had been used rather than unilateral actions.
Now, after all the above, are there any matters pertaining to the contributions of the concerned ip account that editors to the Dutch encyclopedia wish to raise so they may be reviewed by the en-WP community? LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:02, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Problems with User:Shevashalosh[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Shevashalosh engaging in dialogue with multiple users on user talk page, Ceedjee is unblocked, and other inter-user argumentation should occur on their own talk pages, or more preferably off wiki entirely. -- Avi (talk) 15:48, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

There is a content dispute between this editor and mainly me on several issues.

I tried to bring some issues on the project military history
But he prevented any discussion in attacking me.
I also brought the debate on the talk page of the article Siege of Jerusalem (1948) where he didn't answer. I brought the discussion on the talk page on the Project Israel and again he attacked me.
(fed up, I deleted one of his attacks there)
I have been adviced by Gatoclass to complain here.
I am aware of how to settle resolution dispute but I am sorry, there is no rationale with Shevashalosh and I don't see how to discuss with him.
I would highly appreciate some support because it is not possible to work in these conditions...
Thank you. Ceedjee (talk) 15:10, 12 August 2008 (UTC) NB: I would highly appreciate the intervention of a sysop who agrees to talk a little bit about the content too, because, it is a little bit "too much"... Ceedjee (talk) 15:20, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Note: See Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Ceedjee_deleting_History_again_now_on_Operation_Nachshon.
Ceedjee, this is a content dispute with which I'm very familiar. Sources have sway on these names. If the sources themselves disagree, then community consensus must find a way to handle them. Absent edit warring or true personal attacks (diffs please) I'd say the thing to do first is start an RFC for each article (not on the editor). Gwen Gale (talk) 15:29, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
Hi Gwen. No, this is not a content dispute and you go too far. I gave the sources and they do not disagree between themselves. Please, go on the talk page and read before commenting. That is incredible! I have worked for 3 years on these topics and I have a crazy numbers of books. I have to discuss with a teen-ager who fights and reverts. He refuses to discuss. He writes racist allegations on Arabs. He writes I am a clown. And I should be patient... No, no... That is not possible. Just play with him. Ceedjee (talk) 16:56, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
Ceedjee is an experienced wikipedian with a fine record for both informed edits, quality article creation, and, that rarest of things, a collaborative manner with all responsible editors on I/P articles, whatever their ideological perspective. Though he and Gwen Gale both refer to a 'content' dispute, I don't quite see it as that. One can have content disputes, and yet get nowhere because, as in this instance, an editor shows a poor knowledge of English, which may explain the inadequacy of Shevashalosh's ability to engage rationally with other editors. He certainly needs to rein in a little, spent more time on polishing his posts, and perhaps should seek out an informal mentor on his side to tutor him in wiki procedures. I've provided no diffs, but a quick glance over his record as a newbie shows that many experienced editors on all sides have trouble with his 'creative' brashness. I should declare my own interest. I gave up editing articles (as opposed to occasional comments as an informal metapedian), because of his and another editor's ideological behaviour on the Lehi page, which I found impossible to handle. Nishidani (talk) 15:41, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
This is a content dispute, does not belong here. IronDuke 15:52, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
Thx. And where does it belong ? Ceedjee (talk) 16:35, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

The editor was not notified of this; that has been corrected. It's clear that this is an Israeli editor with a POV problem; one he doesn't seem to recognize he has. Not sure what can be done, as it seems highly unlikely that he'll drop this issue soon. However, he is talking on the talk page, so patience may be needed to get it into his head that just because everyone he knows says something doesn't make it so.ThuranX (talk) 15:58, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes and moreover, although User:Shevashalosh must communicate through the filters of both his own grasp of English and strong PoV (which I often don't agree with), in my dealings with him Shevashalosh has tried hard to stay within policy and a consensus on sourcing is the only way this will ever be handled. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:06, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
Well, someone should advise newbies to show a certain familiarity with talk pages and their archives, Many of the points Shevashalosh presses have long histories of prior debate, negotiation and consensus. He does not seem familiar with them, or the extensive literature on these respective pages. He favours one source for his edits everywhere, Uri Milstein and the Lehi/Stern hagiographical tradition. As I say, there are quite a few fine Israeli editors who have reverted him. Someone there should offer to coach him, since the inexperience is self-evident. This is in the interests of everybody. These articles are difficult enough without their being complicated by tiffs that drag out through sheer inexperience.Nishidani (talk) 16:22, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
Gwen Gale, please : what I am assumed to add ? Discuss patiently ? But what have I done until now ?
All the others. I had to study more than 2 years for wikipedia principles and material to get the expertise I have on these issues. I am regularly discussing with Israeli Professors about this topic. It is true that I don't edit much wp:en but I do so anyway.
Will this become another user:Zeq versus Pitchford or user:Zero0000 ?
We will have to battle during 2 years to be quiet ?
It is not posted at the right place ? Please, have a little bit some respect for people and not for principles.
That's up to you. Nobody has time to lose.
Ceedjee (talk) 16:33, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
Ok Ceedjee, I'll have a thorough look. Gwen Gale (talk) 17:16, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
I haven't had time to look in detail at his contributions, but I did notice that at Operation Nachshon, for example, he repeatedly removed multiple reliable sources and replaced them with a completely unreferenced section angled entirely from an Israeli POV. It seems to me that at the very least someone needs to take him aside and refer him to some of the basic policies like wp:v, wp:rs, wp:npov, wp:undue and so forth. He also probably needs to be informed of the general restrictions pertaining to Arab-Israeli articles and the extra responsibilities they confer on users editing in that area. I've toyed with the idea of proposing a temporary topic ban while he comes to grips with the basics of policy, but I just haven't had a chance to look into enough of his edits to determine whether or not that might be a bit excessive at this stage. Gatoclass (talk) 17:07, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Operation Nachshon

Much to the conteraray:

Adding: 2/3 of article space was added info by ceedjee on the arab-palestinian story - in the last few days (including the ref that Gatoclass is talking about, so those are no "Israeli ref"). I raised no objection to that, since I didnt find anything wrong with what he wrote - and I stiil aprovre of it this very minute.

Changing: The only single change I did on what he wrote was the date. he put (probebly mistaken - nothing wrong with it) that the begginig date was arpril 2. I restated this single sentance to "Oreders were given on April 2, and a telegarph rleased on April 5, confirming the begging of the operation". This was done after I placed the image of this telegraph - stating so. He didn't object to it as well.

Ceedjee deleting - from this point on he kept deleting info, rather the adding info - eliminating the links etc. this is un accepteble.

As to Deir yassin massacre battle article - i'd like to ad info, ---- not delete - the only response I get is a tin ear - on talk page. --Shevashalosh (talk) 18:00, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

You get a 'Deaf ear' (one that does not hear you), not a tin ear (one which cannot appreciate music well). And you get that deaf ear because you're pushing a pro-israeli POV here, one that is NOT supported by sources. Israel isn't lily-white in conflict, and I say that as a Jew. To white-wash Israel on Wikipedia is to do a disservice and discredit to Israel. No one learns truthe from false histories. Read 1984 for more on your redactionist behaviors. ThuranX (talk) 18:11, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
These are racist remarks. --Shevashalosh (talk) 18:21, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
No, they were not. Israel is a country, not a race or a culture. At no point did ThuranX say anything derogatory about Jews (who are also not a race, in the biological sense, but a culture) - nor even derogatory about Isreal (the defence being that of truth). It is apparent that an oversensitivity toward the differences of perception of that subject is one of the major factors behind both the above and the editing issues generally. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:14, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
The hell they are. They're the truth, which you hate to hear. I specifically called them Pro-Israel, not Pro-Judaism. I happen to be pro-Judaism, but I'm not here on Wikipedia to support white-washing of history. And correcting your use of idiomatic english is a service, not insult. ThuranX (talk) 21:16, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Inappropriate block of User:Ceedjee[edit]

I note that User:Number 57 has just blocked Ceedjee for reverting following a warning from 57 at Operation Nachshon. I believe that both Number57's block, and the warning that preceded it, were and are completely inappropriate. Ceedjee is a highly experienced editor who has been trying to clean up problematic edits left by Shevashalosh, who is obviously a noob with very little notion of policy. To treat these two users as if their contributions were equal in value is just plain wrongheaded. To make matters worse, Shevashalosh also reverted Ceedjee's revert almost immediately afterward, but Number57 has declined to similarly block him for ignoring his warning. The length of the block is also excessive - 48 hours.

This is precisely what we should not be doing at Wikipedia - penalizing editors in good standing while allowing ignorant POV warriors to run amuck. Please will somebody review this ill-considered block, and hopefully reverse it. Ceedjee has left the project in frustration before and in my opinion it was clearly worse off without his contributions. Gatoclass (talk) 17:37, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

I tend to agree. Moreover, both articles are now protected. I see no reason for this block at all. Gwen Gale (talk) 17:43, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
Very, very poor block. Does Number57 wish to explain? --Relata refero (disp.) 17:45, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
Just kicking in my 2 cents that this block was poorly considered. I'm not sure that an edit-summary "warning" on the article in question is sufficient, either - a user should be warned explicitly on their talk page rather than in a roundabout way. The length of the block is excessive, and the fact that a helpful, experienced editor is the one being punished here does come across as backwards. Shereth 17:47, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
Just an FYI, but there's also a WP:AN thread. Cheers. lifebaka++ 17:49, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
Another FYI, Shevashalosh hasn't been blocked at all. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 17:50, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
I explained my rationale on the WP:AN thread. It should also be noted that it was Ceedjee's fourth revert in less than 24 hours.[34][35][36][37], so I still feel a block was warranted. пﮟოьεԻ 57 17:56, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
Would you be willing to reconsider the block, given there are a number of us who don't feel it was the right move? Shereth 18:03, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
I won't personally, as I feel it was well deserved. However, I won't kick up a fuss if anyone else unblocks as I can understand the points made above. If he is unblocked, he certainly needs a good 3RR warning. Take it from me, edit warring on Israel-Palestinian article needs stamping out at the earliest possible moment. пﮟოьεԻ 57 18:09, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
Holy heck, a bad block if ever there was. Ceedjee is a POV warrior? Shevashalosh is NPOV? For that gross misinterpretation and over-simplification alone, Number57 should self-revert his blocks, and allow others to review it. Neither is an angel, but to block on and not the other for the edit warring, whne there's an open Shevashalosh thread on AN/I... bad all over it. ThuranX (talk) 18:08, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
Not only that, but Number 57 said on the AN thread that he didn't block Shevashalosh as well because he restored "the NPOV version". By what authority? That doesn't sound like a very impartial judgement to me. Apart from which, he simply hasn't followed through on what was an ill-considered warning in the first place to block anyone who reverted, by blocking one reverter and not the other. It smacks of favouritism, or at best, inconsistency. The 3RR comment also looks like a rationale after the fact, since he failed to mention it in his block statement. Gatoclass (talk) 18:19, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
There seems to be ample justification under the "electric fence" of 3rr. Am I misreading the diffs? IronDuke 18:12, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
Moreover, Ceedjee was reverting unsourced PoV: The pages were later protected and a warning would have been more than enough. 48 hours is far too long either way. Please unblock. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:13, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
Block looks just fine to me. IronDuke 18:15, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Shereth unblocked as I was typing the above. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:16, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

I did decide to go ahead and unblock, as it seems apparent there's a majority opinion that it was not quite warranted, and User:Number 57 did agree to permit it. I did, however, leave a warning on User:Ceedjee's talk page to be more cautious in future situations so as not to run afoul of 3RR again. Shereth 18:20, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
Thankyou Shereth, I think you made the right call. At worst, I think Ceedjee has been a little overanxious to try and rein in a new user who is clearly uninformed about policy. Gatoclass (talk) 18:24, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
If anyone actually bothers to look at the diffs, the edit warring was over the See also section (very lame), with Ceedjee repeatedly inserting Battle of Jerusalem (1948). This was incredibly pointly , as it is the location which he seems to think Siege of Jerusalem (1948) should be at, but doesn't even exist as a redirect! If repeatedly adding a redlink to the see also section is not disruptive point making, I'm not sure what is. Anyway, this is my last comment as I'm off out. пﮟოьεԻ 57 18:17, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
You might have mentioned that Shevashalosh has been edit warring with Ceedjee over the name of that article as well. Gatoclass (talk) 18:25, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
The block was totally appropriate, the unblock totally inappropriate. Well done, all. IronDuke 18:20, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
You know ,we all got that <personal attack removed>. Not sure why you're so obvious in you POV allegiances here, but it's irrelevant, really. Consider this an unblock under IAR in favor of supporting actual NPOV, if it helps your policy wonkery nerves. ThuranX (talk) 21:18, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

I would like to stress that I believe User:Number 57 was absolutely justified in applying the block to begin with, as User:Ceedjee had violated WP:3RR. I don't think it was entirely appropriate but it was most certainly justified, and I don't want to create the impression that my opinion or actions should imply otherwise. Shereth 18:27, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Welcome to the wonderful world of nationalistic ME topics, where even article names stir up a kerfuffle. I wouldn't have handled this with a block either but 3rr is wholly blockable. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:35, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
(edit conflict, reply to Shereth) As I recall, you are supposed to give a user a chance to self revert before blocking for 3RR. I certainly do. But No. 57 didn't even mention 3RR in his block statement. Also, if it was "absolutely justified" to block one user for ignoring a warning—which was the reason actually given for the block—then it would also have been "absolutely justified" to block the other for doing the same minutes afterwards. But thankyou for at least agreeing the block was "not entirely appropriate", and for the unblock. Gatoclass (talk) 18:41, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Back to the matter at hand[edit]

Shevashalosh, if you do not mind, I am going to try and explain a bit what is happening here on your talk page, and why your actions, while justified in your mind, are creating such a severe response. I would request that you hold off any Israeli-palestinian edits for a while. Also, while you may disagree with Thuran's comments, calling his remarks "racist" do nothing other than to further exacerbate an already uncomfortable situation. Technically, they are not racist, as we are not a race, but a unique melange of a religion and an ethnicity. Eevn conceptually, you may feel his remarks were overly ascerbic, but they were directed personally at you, so unless you are a race of one (Face-smile.svg), the worst that can be said was that were a personal attack, (which they were not either, albeit they were not composed in the most diplomatic of tones). So, I would request that you take a break for at least 15-20 minutes, and maybe my unasked for egoistical pedanticism will shed a little more light on this. Thanks. -- Avi (talk) 18:33, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Avi about taking a break, though Thuran's bit about 1984 was well over the line. IronDuke 18:36, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
Very well stated, Avi. Shereth 18:37, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
Thanks Avi. As for Thuran's nod to Orwell I think it was spot on and I don't think it was racist. Oh and yes, Ceedjee was edit warring too. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:43, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
Thankyou very much for injecting some common sense into this discussion Avi, and for your offer to help Shevashalosh out a bit, which I think is the obvious next step :) Gatoclass (talk) 18:46, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
IronDuke, you seem itching for a fight here. Get it under control. ThuranX (talk) 21:24, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
WP:CIVIL Get that under control, and I'm happy to talk. IronDuke 00:14, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
Funny, I wrote that before I noticed your impressive block log, featuring multiple instances of "gross incivility." Noticed some in this thread. Could you please refactor them? Thanks. IronDuke 00:23, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
For calling you out <personal attack removed> and then for taking cheap shots at me? I don't think so. ThuranX (talk) 00:38, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

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

Range block on 190.51.0.0/16[edit]

I have put a range block on 190.51.0.0/16 for the duration of 31 hours. This is a returning vandal, who also was engaging in personal attacks on Talk:Main page today. I put a 3-hour range block on earlier, and he/she came back when it expired. There have been a number of other blocks to this range in the past month, suggesting an ongoing problem. [38] I'm not normally involved in implementing range blocks, so please review. I also don't like to see collateral damage to good users that can come with range blocks of this duration, but not sure what other options there might be? --Aude (talk) 16:13, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Relatively small range; benefits of block outweigh cons. Tan ǀ 39 16:15, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
We have found that 190.51.128.0/18 is probably a better range to block. -- zzuuzz (talk) 16:15, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
I have modified the block, per your suggestion. Thanks. --Aude (talk) 16:26, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
It's probably a good idea not to mention the length of the block: if they know how long they're blocked for, they know when to come back. HalfShadow 16:36, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
Modified the block. --Aude (talk) 16:42, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
For what it's worth, on Aug 8 I blocked this same /16 range twice due to vandalism to WP:AIV and other pages, first for 15 min, then for 1 hour when the vandalism continued. So this is a persistent problem. -- Ed (Edgar181) 16:41, 12 August 2008 (UTC) (Sorry, just noticed you linked the block log, so this is probably redundant.)
Oxymoron83 has helpfully prepared a list of edits from this range[39] (admins only). It has been going on for a few months, and a longer block on 190.51.128.0/18 either now or in the future would not be unreasonable. Editors should be aware that some of the vandal's edits can be very large. --