Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive522

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

Noticeboard archives

Contents

Long-term socks & evasion of accountability[edit]

I am certain that Partisan1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) (and Catherine2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)) is the newest reincarnation of Bloomfield (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) (35 identified socks since at least 2005). See this edit where Partisan1 in essence reverted the article to October 2006 version by his other sock AHAPXICT (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log). All older socks are too stale for a checkuser. This user has a very long history of (at best) questionable edits: he creates what seems as legit content, but upon closer investigation becomes clear that it's total OR & POV. It literally takes years to clean up after him. See my ANI report in 2007 His latest hobby is copy & pasting bits & pieces of WWII articles about the Baltic states.

Opinions what to do? Renata (talk) 03:16, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

For future reference, the {{user5|Username}} template helps provide us much easier access to analysis links/tools - if you're making a complex report here, I recommend its use.
I'm looking into the histories now. Are you aware of archived sockpuppet / checkuser investigations on this set of socks?
Thanks. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 03:25, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, I changed to the user template. The main checkuser is here: Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Bloomfield. There has been additions to it in Dec. Here's another: Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Kidsunited. And for a desert: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tõnu Trubetsky. Renata (talk) 03:37, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for updating the report... I agree with the behavioral evidence on these two. I have indefinitely blocked both of them on that basis. Also see below... Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 03:41, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

I just discovered this thread. Sorry for being late, but the indefinite block is a very serious matter and has to be supported by foolproof evidence, which is NOT there. I looked carefully at all the links provided and wonder why there was no request for check user filed in light of such serious accusations of sockpuppetry. User:Renata3, who is Lithuanian, is also User:Partisan1’s content opponent over a series of controversial articles written by Partisan1 about Lithuania including Kaunas massacre of October 29, 1941 and Lithuanian partisans (1941) , which I edited also by adding Google book references to it. In my opinion the article was legit, but was replaced with a disambig and vanished without as much as a deletion request (an insidious way of getting rid of controversial content). Renata claims in her opening statement (above) that Partisan1 is a sock of AHAPXICT, but please consider that there’s no proof of that other than her own earlier suspicion dating back to February 2007. None of the links to earlier incidents are about Partisan1, so where is the fail-safe connection to Bloomfied? I don’t see it. In any case, the decision to block this account indefinitely was made entirely on smoke and mirrors. That’s not good enough. --Poeticbent talk 18:28, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Here are two more of Bloomfield's socks who I believe have falsely been accused of being someone else's socks: Poetcourt1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) and Belarus2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log). -- Petri Krohn (talk) 23:36, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Community ban proposal on User:Bloomfield[edit]

Resolved: Ban enacted. Ncmvocalist (talk) 12:46, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Per multiple massive sockpuppetry incidents listed above, numerous indef blocked sockpuppets - I believe Bloomfield (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) has reached the community ban threshold. I recommend that the community ban him from editing on an indefinite basis, confirming the repeated indef blocks already handed down into an outright ban. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 03:41, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, please. Long overdue. Renata (talk) 03:46, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
And can we please {{db-banned}} some of his recent creations? Like Anti-partisan operations in Belarus which is a copy&paste from some POV book? Renata (talk) 04:09, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
Thoroughly supported, though I don't doubt the person in question will continue to drain the time of normal editors through later socks. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 04:11, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Support one of the most persistent "crazy sock" on Wikipedia I personally have happened to come across, and the guy keeps coming back again and again. The clean up work after this guy has been tedious and is a neverending story. He has created a number of hoaxes as his specialty has been nobility and fake states, for example the Kingdom of Livonia [1], [2],[3] etc. and the United Baltic Duchy [4] [5] get reverted into an insane version in regular bases. The most amazing hoax created by the sock I have come across has been WP:Articles for deletion/Principality of Estland. The guys has been also very active on his family history and attempts to get this WP:OR sorted out has been failed. [6] etc. The only good thing about this sock is that his edit patterns are very easily distinguishable. well, at least for people who are familiar with the problem. His favorite area of editing has been anything that has to do with the historical Polish, Baltic-German, Belarusian and Lithuanian nobility and states.--Termer (talk) 05:27, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Support. I also suggest keeping this and this updated. Ncmvocalist (talk) 07:49, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Support - Not much to say, really. — neuro(talk) 19:51, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Support Kill it; kill it with fire. HalfShadow 23:57, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Support, user is obviously not here to help the project. Lankiveil (speak to me) 01:05, 15 March 2009 (UTC).
  • Support long overdue; keep Category:Wikipedia_sockpuppets_of_Bloomfield, too. --Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (woof!) 09:47, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Support - the level of sockpuppetry is absurd. ╟─TreasuryTagcontribs─╢ 09:52, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Support, has worn community patience down far enough.  GARDEN  10:35, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

For what it is worth, I support and express my surprise that it had not been formalised yet. ΔιγουρενΕμπρος! 12:51, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

 Done PeterSymonds (talk) 12:54, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User Delibrately Creating false pages[edit]

Resolved: With user in question blocked and his hoaxes deleted, I'd say reopen if another user pops up. As per Ohana: If we're talking about 5 or 10 different accounts creating hoax articles on this topic, then that's another story. Only then is something other than a block in question. Cheers. Imperat§ r(Talk) 12:43, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Washingblack, a new user here at Wikipedia, has very recently begun creating obvious hoaxes. In addition to being unsourced, there is not a single piece of evidence. I suggest that the community take the appropriate action through deleting the entire list of articles and proceeding to either give a final warning or block directly. Cheers. Imperat§ r(Talk) 21:20, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

I chose option #2. DS (talk) 21:21, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
I'd be careful when nuking, however. His article Chapple Norton has had a source added, [7]. ∗ \ / () 21:22, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
What happened to dont bite the newbies. Have we thrown that out the window? SunCreator (talk) 21:26, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
Norton fought in the War of 1812 but was born in 1731? That's what I'd call a spry senior citizen. arimareiji (talk) 21:51, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
Houston, we have a problem. While a bunch of these are hoaxes, a few are actually real. I'm individually searching the authentic ones now...Cheers. Imperat§ r(Talk) 21:32, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
Can you give an example of a hoax? The few I checked all looked sensible. SunCreator (talk) 21:37, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
Sure. One of them, Scottish_Captain_Donald_McDonald has been already deleted. Would you like more? Cheers. Imperat§ r(Talk) 21:44, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
And another. Cheers. Imperat§ r(Talk) 21:45, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
one we could actually look at would be helpful. Artw (talk) 21:46, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
Whoah... Articles about people who took part in the American War of Independence, where, on checking sources, seem to veer off into fantasy. Rings a bell, that does. There were a couple of those a few weeks ago from a different user. Going through my contributions of two weeks ago, but style and content is very familiar. FlowerpotmaN·(t) 21:51, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
I was about to say the same thing, it's very familiar. Mfield (talk) 21:52, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
Which resulted in me posting this ANI :) Cheers. Imperat§ r(Talk) 21:54, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) OK, Adelhoch (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) is who I was looking for. The problem a couple of us had there was that while the articles were built on existing redlinks, the details didn't stand up to any scrutiny. There were a couple of members of the British artistocracy mentioned, and a quick look through the various copious sources available indicated that the details of the lives, even birth and death dates were fabricated. And all the articles created related to participants in the Ameerican War of Independence, on both sides. I notice at least one of this batch of articles has a reference to the Battle of Flamborough Head, which was something that popped up in one of Adelhoch's articles. FlowerpotmaN·(t) 22:04, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

In the above-referenced article on Chapple Norton, some facts matched the source and some appeared to have been created from whole cloth. arimareiji (talk) 22:18, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
Yup, that's about the size of it. I came across Adelhoch while I was patrolling at New Pages when I was looking at the Henry Mowat article. I originally thought all the article needed was a few sources and an unref tag , as Mowat did exist and was involved in the Burning of Falmouth. I was looking for a few quick sources just to send the article on its way, and noticed that the article asserted that Mowat was later killed at the Battle of Flamborough Head, and that's when Houston was called, as none of the sources there mentioned anything about him, which was a bit unlikely. Really, everything will have to be checked thoroughly in every article created this case. (Yes, obviously by that statement I mean "more so than normal" :)) FlowerpotmaN·(t) 22:30, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

I've had a quick look at this - my initial impression is that he's being quite sly about this, he's picking people who *could* have been involved in such battles at that time and in those places. However when you dig into the sources, it certainly appears that the battles and events are fabrications. --Cameron Scott (talk) 22:33, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

  • I think this is almost certainly Adelhoch (talk · contribs) back again. He did James Campbell, 5th Earl of Loudoun - a real person, with all sorts of picturesque detail, and when checked every single detail - dates of birth and death and marriage, father's name, wife's name - was wrong. He's doing deliberate fiction, and should be blocked a.s.a.p. It's bed-time here, but I'll help clear up in morning. JohnCD (talk) 22:46, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
Considering the incredible effort this person put into these hoaxes, I suggest we do a checkuser. I'm guessing this is one of those "prove that Wikipedia is unreliable" editors. I doubt this is their first time, or that blocking would stop them. Dcoetzee 23:02, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
Checkuser isn't for fishing. Unless there is some evidence of a link between this and another account checkuser would be inappropriate. ∗ \ / () 23:07, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
There's an obvious link between Adelhoch and Washingblack. And, frankly, CU should be used for fishing. Yeah yeah, I know. Never happen. But we'd have FAR fewer problems. //roux   23:11, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
Sigh, I actually passed several of those articles as "patrolled" when doing some new page patrolling, and worked to do some cleanup (spacing and spelling type issues), categorization, and adding relevant wikiprojects. What a waste of time, and that was probably far less than that spent by many of you in cleaning up after this guy's mess. :( Aleta Sing 01:37, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
Have to disagree with you about you wasting your time :). Categorization and adding relevant WPs will at least send the article in the right direction and people specializing in the relevant area would soon spot the fraud. All of these articles were based in some sort of fact and at least one or two facts at the start of each article would check out. I have seen a lot of articles that were in a lot worse condition that these ones, but were the basis of useful articles. Doing a bit of gnoming on articles that aren't in the best of condition when they arrive is a heck of a more useful time spent than tagging for speedy deletion anything that arrives at New Pages which isn't a perfectly formed Featured Article candidate. FlowerpotmaN·(t) 02:51, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
Thanks, you make some good points, and I appreciate hearing them. Aleta Sing 03:13, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
I have optimistically filed an RFCU at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Adelhoch. We'll see what transpires, I guess. Looie496 (talk) 05:22, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
Request denied by OhanaUnited. See reasoning above. Cheers. Imperat§ r(Talk) 12:45, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Edit war at Socialist Unity Centre of India article, breaches of WP:NPA, allegations of sock-puppetry[edit]

Resolved: banned user IP socking, dynamic IP, may be reverted on sight, further discussion here unnecessary. --Abd (talk) 14:20, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Could someone take a look at Socialist Unity Centre of India and the editors involved with it at present? User:Radhakrishnansk left a message for me after seeing that I'd tried to intervene in a previous dispute on that article, and it looks way too messy for me to work out what's going on.

As far as I can see:

This has occurred before, in case it seems familiar... I gather the dispute boils down to sectarian differences between various factions of India's communist parties.

(Adding: both parties have now been warned for WP:3RR by me (as well as by each other), and been notified about this thread. I've also received this charming message from the IP.)

Cheers, This flag once was redpropagandadeeds 16:56, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

  • The article has been a site of frenzied manipulation by group accounts of this fringe cult and it finally resulted in blocking all those role accounts. User:Suciindia, User:Sekharlk etc. User:Radhakrishnansk is a new avatar of this group account. I am of course what I am accused of, but if you look at my edits on the article you will see that they are valid additions based on reliable sources whereas the group account is trying nastily to whitewash the image of the party by removing criticism parts. If this herd instinct is allowed a free rein here, the fringe will have a field day. 59.91.253.27 (talk) 17:09, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
  • I am no puppet of any user. I know some of these members and I happened to review a lot of material regarding them while I was editing the Nandigram violence page. He is calling a party with members and state committees in several states of India as a fringe group or clut. Another User: Soman also refuted his argument, but he seems sticking to calling this party a fringe group for some reason; most probably his personal hatred. If it was not his personal hatred why is he worried of only a single wikipage? Admins please intervene. --Radhakrishnansk (talk) 17:25, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
  • You seem to have the wrong link for the "charming message". I assume you're referring to this? --aktsu (t / c) 17:10, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
Hmmm, oops! The IP has left a couple of messages for me, both seem to leave good faith well alone.
Incidentally, I've been trying to go offline all day and it looks like I'm finally going to run away. I have no strong view on how this could/should be solved - I'm not convinced merely protecting the article will be enough to end the personal attacks and allegations - so I'm happy to raise this and run away ;-) Cheers, This flag once was redpropagandadeeds 17:15, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
Just to see how fringey this fringe group is look at the edit made by the Radhakrishnansk (talk · contribs) here [8]. How he cites a self-published article of one of his party apparatchik on Einstein to prove that his guru is a theoretician after all, wow. 59.91.253.27 (talk) 17:17, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Well, we now have a case of disclosure of personal information here [9]. I wonder if policies are worth the salt now. 59.91.253.27 (talk) 17:22, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
  • I have deleted the edit, and warned the editor. Per WP:AGF I have not blocked in this one instance. LessHeard vanU (talk) 18:11, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Well if your edits were Wiki like and if you had not abused people, they may not have been interested in finding out who you are. I have the email from another Wiki editor as evidence and if the admins require it I will post it to them.--Radhakrishnansk (talk) 17:32, 14 March 2009 (UTC)'
  • Do take note of the fact that this puppet of User: Kuntan is pasting personal threats in my discussion page. All the more reason for him to be banned.--Radhakrishnansk (talk) 18:08, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

R left some appallingly badly formatted reports at WP:AN3, but after amusing myself with sarcastic edit comments I did get round to blocking the anon, who had clearly broken 3RR. R probably has too, but wasn't so obviously incivil as the anon, so I didn't block him, though it might have been pleasingly symmetrical.edit made by William M. Connolley 20:57, 14 March 2009, note by --Abd (talk) 04:11, 15 March 2009 (UTC)]]

The IP editor, above, acknowledges being the banned User:Kuntan, and has acknowledged in an edit to your talk page, William, being a banned user. Edits of this banned user may be reverted on sight, and the decision not to block R was correct. Many editors encountering situations like this, being inexperienced, will file badly formatted reports; we should try to look for the substance. Been there, been disregarded for not knowing how to put a proper diff together, even though I did provide contributions links that clearly showed the behavior, arguably more efficiently than the expected diffs, and the result was continued disruption for some time, ending when a new sock puppet of the same puppet master, User:Nrcprm2026, rather stupidly created specially for the purpose, filed a 3RR report on me, and the admin took one look at the situation and blocked everyone in sight, including me, then unblocked me when he realized what I'd been facing. Congratulations, William, for dealing properly with the report in spite of bad presentation. Some admins wouldn't do that.--Abd (talk) 04:11, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Dear Admins, another puppet of User:Kuntan has appeared. It is User:59.91.254.3. Please check the discussion page of User:William M. Connolley challenging every one to go for another range block. I don't know what a range block is, but it seems that he is going to continue his miscreant efforts.--Radhakrishnansk (talk) 08:38, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

William is more than capable of dealing with posts, by whomever, on his talkpage. I see that this is the ip's only edit this month, so there is nothing a block can achieve (and I am not even considering thinking about possibly raising to the bait of blocking another range - one wonders why the ip would suggest it if there was not the possibility of collateral damage). As far as we have got in WP:RBI - William may or may not Revert as he chooses, and I don't believe Blocking to be justifiable - why not just put the "Ignore" part into practice? LessHeard vanU (talk) 11:41, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
Please, Radhakrishnansk, do not make more reports to AN/I about this. It's not necessary. If you need help with this, and well before you hit 4RR, as you did yesterday, you should go to WP:RFPP and request page semiprotection, or ask an admin or other experienced user. You could be blocked by an admin who shoots first and asks questions later, and, though you could be unblocked rather easily, given the circumstances, there is no need for the disruption and fuss. I'm watching the page now, but I'm not reliable for rapid response; encouraging a few other responsible editors to watch the page will help. Yes, the editor switches IP constantly, within the range. I've suggested that R scrupulously avoid incivility, it is not necessary to make any accusations at all toward this editor except "banned." The IP has acknowledged being the banned User:Kuntan. While it isn't terribly useful, it also isn't terribly difficult to short-block the IP, but the first and most effective line of defense is users like R who will see the edits routinely and can revert them without comment other than to note the ban. This makes no assumption at all about other behavior of Radhakrishnansk, but R is acting properly here in reverting these IP edits.
For the information of others, I'd removed an edit from related IP from User talk:William M. Connolley from this IP. WMC would still see it, of course, and remained totally free to deal with it as he chose. He left it deleted, and then deleted another comment from the same IP with "you are banned." Yes, WP:RBI. Editors reverting disruptive edits from this IP are simply enforcing a block with a little more intelligence than the automated block tools. --Abd (talk) 14:15, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

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

Apologies for posting after closure: I just wanted to say thanks to all who have dealt with this. Cheers, This flag once was redpropagandadeeds 14:25, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Bill Ayers / BLP vio[edit]

Resolved: pages protected - discussion moved elsewhere Toddst1 (talk) 00:21, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

I am up to 3RR (and believe I should revert indefinitely) what looks like a very significant BLP violation at Bill Ayers - a poorly founded accusation of murder, made for political purposes. This is a placeholder. I will comment in more detail in a bit, once I have found the extent of the problem. If any admin is tempted to block me, please just warn me instead and I will stop. However, BLP violations should not be allowed to stand in the encyclopedia, particularly accusing well-known people of murder. This comes on the heels of the media hoax by the Web News Daily reporter on the same subject. Wikidemon (talk) 19:45, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

For convinience: Ism schism (talk · contribs) is inserting [10] this text repeatedly. It has references, though I haven't checked out how reliable they are.--Pattont/c 20:05, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
I have looked into it and those three supporting references appear reliable. Don't know about the format of the info and having it in its own section though.--Pattont/c 20:06, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

FYI, Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Bill Ayers, Bernadine Dohrn, and Weatherman (organization) BLP issues?.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 20:17, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Page is now protected for 24hrs to sort this out. Toddst1 (talk) 20:43, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
Thanks. My battery just died and I have to leave for a few hours to attend to other matters but I'll see if we can figure out the best forum for discussing this proposed content addition, which as I said I think is a pretty grave BLP vio. There are 42 current google news sources on this latest thing (including unreliable ones), and this one at least[11] suggests that it is a politically motivated statement rather than a legitimate accusation. At the very least we should frame it correctly. However, when political partisans accuse people of murder there is a very high threshold regarding whether the information should be repeated at all. We've dealt with this very issue a few times before, in this specific article. Wikidemon (talk) 21:37, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
Thanks to the wise and fast administrative action for diffusing / calming with the least fuss. This gives me hope that not everything here creates drama! Given that the discussion is over at BLP/N now, maybe we should mark this resolved as a "pages protected - discussion moved elsewhere". Cheers, Wikidemon (talk) 21:50, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
There's one article you missed, which the editor in question has continued to revert war on: San Francisco Police Officers Association‎. Could you please edit protect that one as well? Wikidemon (talk) 13:07, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
  • This is a notable event that has been the subject of numerous reliable sources. Wikidemon has yet to show where there is any BLP violation in including this event in related articles. For more information, please see;
San Francisco Chronicle - S.F. police union accuses Ayers in 1970 bombing
The Politico - Group puts Ayers back in spotlight
Fox News - Report: Police Union Accuses Ayers in Deadly 1970 San Francisco Bombing
WorldNetDaily - [http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=91546 Cold case: Will Ayers be brought to justice?]
Fox Business - San Francisco Police Officers' Association Supports Effort to Bring Charges in 1970 Bombing Case
FrontPage Magazine - A Murder Revisited
KGO-TV - Union accuses Ayers of 1970 bombing
The San Francisco Examiner - Police union targets ’60s radical
Chicago Tribune - San Francisco cops target Bill Ayers

Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 13:49, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Ism Schism is not dealing a full deck here. Edit warring that into five articles at last count is just just plain tendentious. The editor recently edit warred it back into an unprotected article, after three other articles were protected due to the edit warring, and left me a 3rr template (and a cut-and-paste of the above list of sources) in the process. This whole thing is another tentacle of the fringe stuff that just caused so much trouble on the Barack Obama page, with the same off-wiki cast of characters. Wikidemon (talk) 14:25, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
These are members of a police union, in conjunction with a partisan organization called "America's Survival Inc."speaking out about their personal opinion of the matter, rather than the result of an official law enforcement investigation. If you actually read some of the links above (apart from WND and FrontPageMag, which do not meet Wikipedia's WP:RS criteria), no one has ever been charged in the death of Sgt. Young. The articles also state that there is no evidence to connect Ayers, or anyone, to any of this.
This isn't an issue of reliable sourcing at all. It is an issue of whether or not the personal opinions of private citizens in regards to Ayers being responsible for a murder are fit to be included in the Wikipedia. IMO, any sane and sensible reading of WP:BLP policy would find that it is wholly unfit for inclusion. Tarc (talk) 14:28, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

continued edit warring at Rigveda[edit]

Resolved

Knowledge is free for all (talk · contribs) was blocked for 24 hr on March 11 for edit-warring at Rigveda. Following block expiration the edit warring has resumed -- the editor continues to revert the same material into the article against a consensus of at least five other editors. Looie496 (talk) 16:58, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

  • Blocked for a week - pretty clear resumption of the problems that resulted in the first block. Black Kite 17:26, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

User:Axmann8 yet again[edit]

 See section above, as noted below.

Axmann8 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

The user was unblocked on the promise to stay away from Obama-related stuff. It did not take long for him to break his pledge, as he posted a bad-faith nomination for deletion Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:JustPhil/Userboxes/Obama against a user who has a little userbox that's pro-Obama. Axmann8 clearly cannot keep his word. Can something be done about this? Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 17:53, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

please see my comments about that deletion in the section further up from a few minutes ago. Mfield (talk) 17:56, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Barack Obama[edit]

I have unprotected Barack Obama as things seemed to have calmed down. I ask that everyone keep an eye on it for the next few days to prevent further trouble. Thanks! KnightLago (talk) 01:55, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Ok, but please don't refer to the POTUS as an "it" ˉˉanetode╦╩ 02:12, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure the secret service spends quite enough time keeping an eye on him (Obama), but I expect they leave the keeping our eyes on it (the Obama article) to us. :-) — Coren (talk) 03:02, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
Reminds me of John McCain's infamous "that one" gaff. :-P Dcoetzee 03:16, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
This is a joke right? Keep an eye on the Obama article? Ok, I'll add it to my watch list. Maybe you should also advise the BLP board so we can make sure we have enough eyes watching it.(jokeing) Tom 03:24, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
Someone else can watch it this weekend. I dealt with enough of the killer mushrooms last weekend. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 22:28, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
Please tell me your're not serious, the president article is the most vandalized page on all Wikipedia! The Cool Kat (talk) 12:50, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
What you call vandalism, some of the rest of us call properly cited, verifiable, and notable material.--Jojhutton (talk) 13:29, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
You may well be right about that. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 13:07, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
Just a note -- you didn't unprotect, you changed from full protection to semi protection. Different kettle of fish. :) Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 19:28, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

User:Rastrojo[edit]

This usuary have a point of view that is different of the one I've been working for months. He simply told me he went to erase revert all my articles he didn't like, maybe because he has a political orientation like he says in his userspace, and don't understand that in wikipedia can be other points of view than his categorizedand don't respected the rule of trying a consensuos. He "advertised" to me and undid again my work. I would like this actitud will finish, because I spend a lot of time creating articles and improving them everyday and this user comes twice a month for destroying. Thank you--Auslli (talk) 18:22, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Could you provide diffs? Or at least what articles you are talking about? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 21:43, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
I think the auto edit summaries in a large portion of Rastrojo's contrib history is some indication, a lot of reverting of one editor over a range of articles (although the subjects appear to be often related). I will have a look at some examples, and see what is being reverted... LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:54, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
That's true, I do, he revert. There is no dialogue, he just threat me User_talk:Auslli.--Auslli (talk) 11:31, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
Okay, this appears to be a content dispute - Auslli adds the category Kingdom of Leon to articles, and Rastrojo removes them (with terse messages to Auslli giving notice). I don't believe this is an admin related matter, as the obvious path is to dispute resolution. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:02, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
It seems a little more general than that. The dispute is whether places and institutes in the area that what was once the historic Kingdom of Leon should go in categories saying so--involving both places & things which were present in the area of that Kingdom at some time during the period when it existed, and those which did not come into being until later. I have no person opinion. There needs to be a centralized place to resolve this, and I suggest either the ethnic conflicts noticeboard or the talk page for the Kingdom. DGG (talk) 22:51, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
I agree with all the porposals that signify dialoghe where everyone can show their opinions. I'm against politics of threating usuaries if tehey don't agree with political opinions like Rastrojo ones.--Auslli (talk) 11:31, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
Well, first of all, I consider that Auslli is violating the NPOV. He's adding the category Kingdom of León to all the articles related to the provinces of Salamanca, Zamora and León. Some examples: Baloncesto León (Basketball Club of León), Roman Catholic Diocese of Astorga, List of municipalities of Salamanca and a lot of examples. Then, he has added the leonese names to some articles (León airport with "Llión" and curiously, he does the opposite thing with articles about Asturias and Asturian names: Luarca, deletion of the Asturian name) and he has created some categories like Category:Airports in Llión (deleted) with a bad name and no sense, because there is one only airport in the province of León and the articles can be added to Category:Airports in Castile and León. Another example can be Category:Political parties in León, that can be included in the category about Castile and León, but the user says that there're parties with activities only in León... so what? UPL has activity in Zamora and Salamanca, so the correct category is Castile and León, or should we categorize those articles with the province and not the autonomous community? I don't want an edition war, but I consider that Auslli is categorizing articles with political interests (Leonesism: es:Leonesismo) and the NPOV is being violated. Best regards, Rastrojo (talk) 23:19, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
It is a matter of obtaining a consensus; do articles that may have an affiliation with a historical kingdom that is now incorporated into a sovereign entity have a category in respect of the historical political entity (much the same argument could be made of the historical kingdoms that made up England, which is now part of the United Kingdom - noting that England/Scotland/Wales/Ireland (and Cornwall...) a still categories within the larger - might be so categorised) or not. It is not a matter of reverting, it is a matter of finding what practice and consensus and policy seem to determine. NPOV is not one middle ground viewpoint, but a distillation of various viewpoints that are noted within the context of the subject. Start an RfC, go to mediation, ask for a third opinion but please, do not edit war, do not try to get each other banned, do not seek to divide opinion but resolve the matter through discussion, compromise, and polite debate. LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:59, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
Well LessHeard vanU, I think that you've expressed the sensible point of view of the trouble: what Auslli is doing is like if I put the category Category:Catalan Countries in all the articles related to this territory, or in historic terms Category:Crown of Aragon. What is the reason for categorise the articles with "Kingdom of León"? Simple: political interests. Best regards Rastrojo (talk) 20:24, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
Catalan Countries are a political purpose. The Kingdom of León is a territorial and historical fact, like England, Scotland or Britanny.--Auslli (talk) 11:31, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Rastrojo has undid some articles only because he has not the same point of view I have. He didn't respect the Wikipedia politic of good practises. There is nothing incorrect in what I did is reasonable, and could be a valid point of view. There are arguments that support this fact. But what I want to resalt is the way of undiding my work is no correct, it is absolutely unpolite and there are places for arguing and he didn't do it. He just imposed his points of view, and that's opposite of wikipedia rueles. Here we are not talking about if the content is reasonable or not, and we are seeing there are different points of view, we're talking about Rastrojo simply undid articles becasue he didn't agree. A lot of articles. It can be said that the only contributions he did in wikipedia in the last months were to undid the articles whose he didn't agree politically. I have more or less created almost 70, I have more than 1,000 edited articles and undid less than 20. He has created non article and undid more than 30. That's a fact. I suggest a bit of respect for the work I've developed, and I can understand that a category I did could be debatable, and I have tones of arguments for suppoting my point of view, but the way he undid my work is absolutely unpolite and the threats he let in my usuary talk, I guess are not compatibles with Wikipedia.--Auslli (talk) 11:31, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Users continually re-inserting LINKVIO links[edit]

At We Don't Wanna Put In, there are users continually re-inserting WP:LINKVIO links into the article. [12] [13] [14] [15]. I left a warning on the talk page at Talk:We Don't Wanna Put In, advising people that these are linkvios, yet they have been re-inserted; first by an IP user and then by a user who has previously re-inserted the links twice. I have asked for lyricstranslations.com to be added to the blacklist at MediaWiki_talk:Spam-blacklist#lyricstranslations.com due to the re-insertion of the links by the IP user, but the re-insertion by an established user is just not on. I think I have made it quite clear why these links have been removed, and why they should not be re-inserted, and it's unacceptable that users continue to re-insert them, even after being advised why they have been removed. Admin presence is requested here. --Russavia Dialogue 07:38, 15 March 2009 (UTC) I have also alerted the latest registered user to reinsert the links on his talk page at User_talk:Hapsala#Admin_intervention_has_been_requested. --Russavia Dialogue 07:48, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Did you try to have a discussion with any of these users on their own talk page? From what I can tell, you haven't. -- Darth Mike  (join the dark side) 13:29, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
From what I can tell, he has: [16]. It seems, that User:Hapsala has now reinserted the WP:LINKVIO material for the fourth time, all the warnings given: [17] Offliner (talk) 13:50, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
Indeed, and it would be likwise helpful if you could provide any proof, or substantial indication, supporting your assumtion about copyright violation in this case. --Hapsala (talk) 15:06, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
The "discussion" was a notice of this AN/I report, not an attempt to resolve the dispute before that. We should generally request that editors attempt to resolve disputes directly before coming here. This is not a claim that there were not such attempts before, but only that this was not shown here, nor is this any claim of the propriety or impropriety of the link insertion itself. --Abd (talk) 15:02, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
Your diff is the equivalent of standing in front of your neighbour's house and yelling "I'll sue you bastards!". It's definitely no attempt to discuss. ΔιγουρενΕμπρος! 15:51, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

I am not entirely sure the linked Youtube videos are copyright violations. The uploader seems to specialise on this type of video, and recently Youtube has been used by some copyright owners to promote their material, e.g. the Monty Pythons or Sesame Street. [18] [19]

I have not seen, here specific allegations of WP:LINKVIO (i.e., why? what specific problem?). Copyright law effectively prohibits knowingly linking to a copyright violation; there seems to be some difference of opinion on "assumption" of copyright violation as far as Wikipedia is concerned. (Is "proof" of compliance needed? What kind of proof is sufficient?) Clearly, however, we should not link to a site which, more than exceptionally, contains copyright violations, nor to any known copyvio page. Before proceeding with this, and especially with blacklisting, consensus should be found that it is violation, or that the violation is clear such that the legal situation applies. Until then,, this is an ordinary content dispute and should be resolved as such. Simply giving warnings, if they were no more specific than this, does not cut the mustard. --Abd (talk) 14:53, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, but there's only so far an ignorance defense can protect a site. When something is brought to our attention, good faith defense whenit comes to a lawsuit is to treat such claims as serious and to perform due diligence into investigating them. Just assuming that any claim of copyright violation must be wrong and insisting some iron clad proof -- especially in what appear to be bloody obvious cases -- is just the equivalent of sticking your finger in your ears and hoping it goes away, which is not a sound legal response to complaints. DreamGuy (talk) 16:03, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Looking at the nominator's tireless lovefest at the page of Vladimir Putin, it's obvious that the real reason for this complaint is the belief that the lyrics are not lovely enough, and the LINKVIO alphabetsoup is merely a pretext. Dismiss with prejudice, as Wikipedia is not censored. ΔιγουρενΕμπρος! 15:17, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Vladimir Putin is just one example of how Russavia and Offliner are working notably closely together... --Hapsala (talk) 15:24, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
Can I ask WTF the Putin article has to do with it? Just because I dare protect the article against people who wish to make "grotesque" articles? Listen Digwuren, you are so far off base with your nonsense, that I see that a link to eurovision-georgia.ge has been provided on the article. As this is an official site, and content on it would be licenced, or permitted, I have no problem with this link. Your lack of assumption of good faith in this matter just makes you look drongoistic. --Russavia Dialogue 00:22, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

OK, this seems pretty straightforward:

  • Lyrics sites, unless they are the official site of the band of the label are songs so old the are out of copyright (ancient folk ballads), are clear copyright violations. This has been demonstrated over and over and over again. Between being lyrics of an entire song instead of snippets and not having any sort of educational discussion etc., it's just a sraight forward infringement. The one being added is clearly a violation, and thus cannot be linked to.
  • The video on YouTube is not necessarily a copyright violation, as the uploader maybe somehow has the rights, but it seems extrmely doubtful, and the assumption on YouTube links from the massive amount of copyright violations there should always be that it's a violation unless demonstrated otherwise. On top of that we don't normally link to YouTube. Both of these issues have been extensively discussed on the talk pages of the policies in question, and recently at that.
  • The BBC news link, however, that I saw in one of the edits being complained about, is perfectly fine.

The alleged political motivations of the poster aren't important to determining whether his claims of infringement are correct. He may or may not be biased, but two of these three links quite spectacularly fail our very clear rules. DreamGuy (talk) 16:03, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure about translations. The actual lyrics aren't on the site, these are translations into English, and I don't know copyright law or policy on that point. I've advised the editor who was adding the links to avoid edit warring and also allegations of bias, they are irrelevant, in fact, content and content policy are what may control here. "Official band site" certainly establishes copyright legitimacy, but it does not follow that "other site" is then necessarily violating copyright, and the matter may be examined specifically, and should. It's clear, as well, that YouTube pages may be linked to under some conditions. Discussion is required, which is why AN/I is the wrong place to try to deal with this. AN/I is for administrator intervention, which should generally be avoided when it's a content dispute. On the other hand, alleged copyvio is indeed grounds to keep the link out unless consensus for inclusion can be found. That's what's missing here: adequate discussion and use of DR procedure. --Abd (talk) 16:18, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
No comment of the rest of this, but US law is pretty clear that a translation of a copyrighted work is a derivative work. Unless it's clear that the lyrics on that are authorized by the original copyright holder, we shouldn't link to it.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Gavia immer (talkcontribs)
I would agree that the discussion doesn't belong here. Discussing these kinds of rules on article talk page is also usually a waste, as the people actively following a page are usually unfamiliar with our rules and laws. I recommend the people who are still confused check out WP:EL and raise any questions they have on that talk page. DreamGuy (talk) 17:05, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

User Jersay again[edit]

In spite of repeated warnings 1, and a block 2, Jersay continues to revert sourced and notable information from List of terrorist incidents, 2009. He's been given many warnings in the past week, yet User talk:Jersay continues to edit in the same manner. It is becoming literally impossible to add additions to the article when he reverts everything, revert 1, 2, 3. I included the IP because that user is editing the same articles Jersay frequents so I just assumed. Wikifan12345 (talk) 21:15, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

There is only the one edit since the block expired, so this is pretty much the same problem revisited since the last complaint. However, I would comment also that in the 250+ edits since the beginning of the year exactly zero are to any page outside of article space; the only way this editor is interacting is in infrequent edit summaries and their reverts/edits. If the earlier patterns of ignoring pleas for discussion and making edits against consensus continues then I would support an indef block for as long as they are unwilling to discuss concerns. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:18, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
He refuses to respond to discuss edits and rarely leaves edit summaries. Jersay removed a source believing it to be an act of "sectarian violence" rather than terrorism. The source explicitly refers to the act as terrorism. He continues to edit but under an IP rather than user a name: 1. I'm almost 100% certain it is him. Wikifan12345 (talk) 22:30, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, it's definitely him. He has removed this edit twice already: 1. Please do something about this. Wikifan12345 (talk) 22:32, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
He continues to remove cited content: 1 without a summary or any explanation whatsoever. Wikifan12345 (talk) 22:40, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

User:Axmann8's User page[edit]

Axmann8 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Is the campaign image on User:Axmann8 acceptable? Besides the fact that there is no copyright statement attached to the image (the Palin campaign probably would not mind the image being put up wherever they can get it), is the use of a campaign image a violation of the no polemical statements provision of WP:USER? Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 20:22, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Other than the copyright thing, I don't see anything too wrong with that. We have "this user is a democrat/republican/anarchist/whatever-the-hell" userboxes which more or less serve the same purpose. The image isn't attacking anyone or deliberately provoking them, so it can stay until it's deleted for the copyright thing. Hersfold (t/a/c) 20:27, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
Is he still here? Huh. *checks* Oh, he only got a week this time. I've seen some other similar pages, doesn't really bother me either. (Besides, I have a strange suspicion that editor won't be around much longer anyhow.) Tony Fox (arf!) 20:29, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
As much as I disagree with him, I dont take issue with it, Its a copyrighted image, so thats the only issue. As was said earlier, we can have userboxes that say "This user voted for hope and change, not country first." --DemocraplypseNow (talk) 20:31, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
I'm a stolid Democrat, and I don't see any problem with it. The sour-grapes item about Obama is gone, and that was polemic. Wishful thinking about a possible future candidate, in a positive way, is harmless enough. Besides, she's cute. :) Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 22:31, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
And I see the image was deleted, so it's a moot point. Good thing I downloaded it already. :) Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 18:31, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

User now appears to have stirred up further controversy by nominating another users obama userbox for deletion (incorrectly the first time). He first jumped into voting on a rash of AfDs, with very brief comments or misused terms and then did that one. I suspect his first wrong attempt was from not understanding Twinkle properly. Anyway, the above nom looks like a WP:POINT thing. I have left him a message[20] urging him to stay away from deletion noms, certainly in controversial areas, until he is fully familiar with policy. I think this is erring on the generous side, as nominating an Obama related item for deletion with his specific block history can only be seen as a bad faith act. Mfield (talk) 17:02, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm going to go out on a limb somewhat and guess what Axmann's argument is going to be on his own behalf. Henrik offered to unblock Axmann on the condition that he stay away from "Obama-related topics". [21] Axmann only promised to stay away from the Obama article specifically [22] and made no promise to keep away from Obama topics in general, and he is liable to argue that he has stuck to the letter of what he promised. [And my prediction was correct. See below.] In essence, he stomped on the good faith that Henrik showed him by unblocking him. Axmann has been blocked 3 times in 3 weeks for this kind of behavior. Can something be done? Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 18:10, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
The thing is given his interest in political issues, attempts to force him to stay away from anything connected are going to be impossible or fruitless, at that point he may as well stay away entirely. As far as I see it right now he needs to stay away from the kind of disruptive editing as demonstrated by such actions as nominating things for deletion to make some kind of point. Those kinds of issues are very black and white whereas conditions on what he can edit are open to a degree of interpretation and bending. Continued violations of WP:POINT or disruptive editing on the other hand have clear sanctions and will eventually get him blocked indefinitely. If his next block is not indefinite then it needs to have explicit conditions, delivered as part of a consensus of his actions, that are not open to any reinterpretation. Mfield (talk) 18:21, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
As someone pointed out on his talk page, there is plenty of room for positive contributions, if he wants to. He's so hung up on the negatives and the rumors that he can't get past it. What's happening with the Obama stuff, especially since the election, is similar to what was happening in the Palin article from when she got the VP nomination until the election - the article was besieged by all manner of attempts to post gossip, rumors, inuendos, and every negative thing they could pull out of thin air. If someone wants to really grow as an editor, they should try taking an article whose subject they disagree with, and fight off the POV-pushers and keep the article neutral. That takes some serious discipline. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 18:28, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
I've been trying to gently steer him away from the sort of non-productive polemic editing he has engaged in, and I'm urging some patience here. Mind you, I'm not interested in giving infinite amounts of rope; another stunt like this deletion nomination and he'll be very close to exhausting the community's patience. At the same time, he is willing to engage in discussion and seems willing to listen, but still hasn't quite grokked the community standards. I still have some hopes of reform, but it would help if he didn't have the sort of attention he has attracted with many watching for the slightest mishap or borderline behavior.
On another note, The easy solution would of course be to ban every problematic editor, but we should be ready to recognize the need for a diverse set of editors, including those who take a bit longer to catch up to the community standards. henriktalk 20:27, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
If it pleases, I'll stay away from Obama-related topics. Staying away from the Obama article was the only explicit stipulation. I will fully admit to have broken WP:POINT, but I very much take offense when people nominate my images on my userpage for deletion when 1. I had no idea this was even a discussion here until another user pointed it out and 2. It seems like anyone who doesn't support Obama is automatically outcast and thrown to the dogs. I see there is an Obama-supporting article with the blatantly anti-American statement "I voted for hope and change, not country first", however there was no such McCain-sided userbox created to negate that blatant disregard for NPOV. If my direction is to stay away from the political topics at all, for say... a month? I'd be willing to do that, but blocking me would only prove my point that Wikipedia is liberal-leaning. -Axmann8 (Talk) 21:09, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
I'm fairly certain that blocking you would prove that you are not working well in this collaborative project rather than proving any perceived biases. That being said, I do believe that some sort of topic ban is appropriate and one with terms that he can't wiggle out of. AniMatetalk 21:38, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
Axmann8 - admitting to the WP:POINT violation is a good sign, and your acceptance of the fact that you might have to stay away from whatever topics are stipulated for a while. I think if you immerse yourself into some other areas of wikipedia, some other non controversial topics that you are interested in, you will find that you will learn a lot about the way things work and the reasons why policies exist without the danger of getting into disputes that end up in going from bad to worse. This is a large and diverse community that has built up a lot of guidelines and policies over time and navigating and understanding them takes some time. You just have to give it the necessary time and other people the necessary respect in the mean time. Mfield (talk) 03:01, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

His userpage as now stands is fine. As has been said in many of these types of discussions, until Userpages are strictly limited to On-Wiki subjects like articles created, GA/FA lists and personal 'toolboxes' of links, then simple pro-candidate, non-advocacy, non-confrontational messages shouldn't be a problem; if anything, they help concrete complaints of POV pushing, which Axmann8 really does have issues with. It seems we're drifting into the area of topic bans, and I'd thoroughly support a block for a three month period on Barack Obama-related pages, and 6 weeks on all political pages. take him out of the echo chamber and the arena, and the young man may learn to chill more. ThuranX (talk) 22:13, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

I'd support that. //roux   22:27, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Noroton[edit]

Noroton (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log), blocked 1 week last fall,[23] and then three,[24] for incivilities, edit warring, threats, etc. on Barack Obama and Weathermen-related articles, vowed to devote himself to "stopping" me,[25] and harassing me and other editors claiming an "ongoing conflict", "harassment", etc.[26][27][28][29]. Has now reappeared to badmouth me in a WP:BLP/N discussion of the same Bill Ayers and related articles that got him in trouble in the first place: a drive-by accusation of "hypocrisy", "politicking for a cause", purports to expose "how Wikidemon operates, regardless of consensus... [and] Wikipedia policy can see him at work", "continued obstinancy", "I've never seen Wikidemon or his allies provide one", etc. In the last AN/I report over this here an administrator commented "This type of continued @#$^ is simply unacceptable" and "Any further harassment from this account will result in a block". There was further harassment, and he was blocked. He's harassing yet again. Can we please do something? Thanks, Wikidemon (talk) 21:32, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Note - I am going to collapse his personal attacks on me at WP:BLP/N. I would normally let harassment slide but he's trying through his personal attacks to derail an important discussion on a BLP violation and three edit protected articles.Wikidemon (talk) 21:35, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
I said nothing untrue and provided links to past discussions related to the same topic or on the same topic, then mentioned, in passing, that Wikidemon has not answered the other side's points in past discussions and was not doing so in this discussion; that Wikidemon would not accept consensus in the past (and therefore may not in the future); and that unending partisanship is no way to treat other editors. This is how Wikidemon, in the midst of complaining about me, talks about others in the same discussion: Noroton was a long-term tendentious editor trying to disparage Barack Obama last year [30] ... ''Repeating poorly founded murder allegations certainly causes harm, and the entire point is to cause harm - to Obama, by bashing Ayers again. [31]
This is how Wikidemon deals with others: He collapsed everything I said in certain comments whether or not it all of the sentences mentioned him. Interestingly, that removed from view my arguments about the topic at hand. This is underhanded behavior. Why doesn't someone who is not involved review the collapsed matter and decide what should be collapsed and what shouldn't. Preferrably not some editor who's partisan.
I've already posted in the BLP discussion that I am done commenting on Wikidemon. I've said what I have to say. I assume that's why he's posting here at this point, because without further comments from me his accusations here will look increasingly ludicrous. And who's trying to "derail a discussion" if my comments not involving Wikidemon are being collapsed? [32] -- Noroton (talk) 22:20, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
From a review of the previous ANI and the BLP/N discussion I see exactly the same problem arising; that reliable sources reporting a non reliable sourced comment is being used to certify the comment - in much the same way that newspapers of record publishing stories of some eccentrics theory that the world is flat might be suggested as indicating that reputable sources consider the world as being flat. This is exactly the same discussion as before, and last time it was reviewed it was considered that Noroton was "tendatious" in his pursuit of it. It appears that nothing has changed, including the targeting of the other editor(s) rather than the substance. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:31, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
Your comments on the content disagreement are inaccurate and belong on the BLP/N page where the discussion is taking place, and where I'd be happy to respond to them. (Briefly, when the accuser publishes a book in 1977 and the accusations from his U.S. Senate testimony are reported in another book by someone else in 2008, neither published by fringe groups, we have editors and lawyers involved and something different from "look what the fringe groups are saying"; we have news reports that relied on law enforcement sources as well). You also misrepresented the nature of my comments which were almost entirely about the issue and addressed Wikidemon as an aside. -- Noroton (talk) 23:16, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Noroton-Wikidemon break 1[edit]

Both editors really need to do a better job of observing WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA. At the BLPN board, Wikidemon had a problem with WP:AGF with other editors, and Noroton needlessly commented on Wikidemon's alleged motives. The BLPN discussion is a mess that isn't going to resolve anything, so both editors might want to disengage from it. On the underlying content dispute, it's mysterious to me why a plausible and reliably sourced allegation that Ayers was behind a fatal bombing has been scrubbed from the William Ayers article; BLP sure doesn't demand that result.[33] THF (talk) 22:35, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Umh. You might want to consider this very first edit of Noroton [34] as the starter.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 22:52, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
(ecX2). There is no "both" editors issue here, and I have no issues with AGF or civility. I am the one keeping the peace, and responding here to hostile personal nonsense from a rogue editor. The substantive question of the BLP violation we can handle elsewhere as long as people don't try to revert war it back into the various articles now that edit protection has expired. On the behavioral issue, Noroton seems to have a vendetta against me and does not seem to have taken his behavioral blocks to heart. If he truly refrains from attacking me again then fine, although if he is gearing up to restart his disruptive ways on Obama and Weathermen articles that is a problem to deal with. He is, and should be noted as, a long-term problem editor on these articles. I'm not adverse to giving Noroton one last chance to stay out of trouble - he is a smart, capable editor and good writer when he is not going rogue on us. Wikidemon (talk) 22:40, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
Why is it that Wikidemon can't comment on me without attacking me (rogue editor)? Why is it that Wikidemon's version of "keeping the peace" is removing my entire comments, both sentences that mention him and sentences that have nothing to do with him? THF has a point. I'll refrain from commenting on Wikidemon. I've said my piece about Wikidemon's method of operating and I don't need to repeat it. -- Noroton (talk) 23:16, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
Can you explain me why you're first edit (at BLPN) was in part commenting on "the" editor (as I pointed out above)?--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 23:41, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
I thought Wikidemon's past behavior of avoiding substantive discussion in favor of obstinate disruption was worth mentioning to editors who were dealing with him on the same issues. Only after I commented that Wikidemon was not addressing the issues brought up by the other side in the BLP/N discussion, he started addressing more than his own strawman arguments. He blocked a 2/3 consensus that went against him at an RfC, and closed discussions when they weren't going his way. He's done that in the past on the issue addressed at the BLP discussion and similar issues related to the same articles. I'll find the difs and put them here. Now that I think about it, I could have informed those editors just as well by email, but informing them is a good idea. -- Noroton (talk) 00:14, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
After the RfC closed, on October 10, I attempted to implement it with an edit. First Grz (who's shown up for this discussion, see below) reverted against the consensus of the RfC. After I reverted, Wikidemon did the same with this dif (note the edit summary) [35] I don't see that as an honest interpretation of Talk:Weatherman (organization)/Terrorism RfC#Noroton's proposal #3 -- for Weatherman (organization). I call that serious disruption. As I recall, it was at this point where I finally lost patience with Wikidemon and was intemperate in my language. As I recall, no admin gave a damn that the consensus had been subverted on changing the various articles. Not one admin gave a damn. It was reported at AN/I and simply ignored. The article remains to this day without the information that a consensus of editors approved for it. -- Noroton (talk) 00:40, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
"He blocked a 2/3 consensus that went against him at an RfC...". You point this out w/o pointing it out. Any link for that and any links for "He's done that in the past..."? "...informed those editors just as well by email...". Sounds like some kind of canvassing and "who are the editors you want(ed) to inform??? Please explain as I always listened to you before posting and/or making up my mind. Thanks, --The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 00:32, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
As I said, I was looking for the diffs. I just posted a couple at 00:40 just above. Here's one example of where the discussion was going against Wikidemon on the Weatherman talk page, and his response was to close the discussion, charging that it was becoming "too uncivil to be productive". [36]Please look at the discussion and decide for yourself whether or not it was uncivil at all. As I recall, this matter went to AN/I, Wikidemon received no support there, then he started the Terrorism RfC. The same Terrorism RfC that resulted in consensus that Wikidemon then blocked (see links at 00:40 post, above). Now, it appears I distracted the discussion at BLP/N more than helped it by referring to all of this over there, but at least I was telling the truth, as these diffs show (similar diffs can be found, I think on the Ayers and Dohrn talk pages). -- Noroton (talk) 01:34, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
From this edit [37]: "...but not give in to what look like delaying tactics...". In the middle of the election and you (Noroton) forgot that there is no dead line at WP.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 02:04, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
Oh, I'm more than happy to review how Wikidemon was stalling in that discussion. He essentially had stopped raising points relevant to the matter at hand and raised issues outside the scope of the talk page. Keep in mind, it was a 3:1 consensus, with him on the short end. The discussion started Aug 29, Wikidemon participated until 16:21 Aug 30, I waited for him to respond to comments I'd made directed toward him, and waited and waited three days, until I made another proposal incorporating some of his objections on 16:10 Sept 2. Twenty minutes later, he responded with a suggestion that sounded more like playing power politics than attempting to get information into Wikipedia to serve the readers. Please read it:
I do not support the introduction of a section discussing the Weathermen as terrorists unless we agree that: (1) we do not officially endorse the characterization of Weathermen as terrorists, and (2) this is not used to shoehorn discussion of terrorism or classification as terrorists into the Ayers, Dohrn, Obama-Ayers, or other related articles. Although a section along this line may be okay I think there is somewhat too much weight devoted to the subject, and it relies fairly heavily on evocative quotes by sources of limited reliability. I am leery of participating further in this discussion given that it so recently broke down (so as to keep this page calm I will reservfe discussion of that to the article probation page). Until and unless we can have normal editing here I remain opposed.Wikidemon (talk) 16:30, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
The incivility he referred to was sparked by his unprovoked 04:33 Aug 29 statement This is part of Noroton's long-running WP:BATTLE to make Wikipedia mirror the current language of the political partisans who [...] link Ayers and Dohrn to Barack Obama. [38] (he later redacted this to replace "Noroton's" with "a"). The discussion history clearly shows we'd gotten past that and actually made some progress on language acceptable to all of us when Wikidemon took a break from the discussion. His comment on returning, quoted in full above, was just bizarre in stating until and unless we can have normal editing here I remain opposed. Now please read the weird turn the discussion took when I responded to the 16:30 comment above, rejecting his conditions:
Please limit discussion to the topic of this article. This is not an Obama-related article, even broadly construed; nor will you ever convince a consensus of uninvolved admins that it is. Your "using this as a shoehorn" is itself trying to shoehorn concerns onto this page that simply don't belong here. The topic is important to this subject quite independently of anything to do with Obama. This discussion should proceed normally. We have waited long enough for you to respond to previous concerns. Your actions have amounted to delaying this matter. There are no BLP concerns whatever with well-sourced material and NPOV concerns will have to be elaborated. This proposal appears to me to reflect what the sources say about this topic. You would need to make a good case for our acting here any differently than we would act in building any other article. -- Noroton (talk) 17:42, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, there is no discussion at this time - you killed it. Now stop please. You need to step away from this subject, at least for a while. Wikidemon (talk 17:50, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
Delay for days, come back with strange conditions for his approval and announce he was shutting down the discussion (and then he unilaterally closed it with a box [39]). I don't know what to make of it other than as a delaying tactic or some kind of politicking that isn't in the best interest of Wikipedia's readers. Three of us were in agreement and only he was opposed. He edit warred a bit when we added the information to the page, then went to AN/I, then did a smart thing by starting the RfC. Where he lost, 2:1. And then he, along with Grz, edit warred on whether to impliment the RfC consensus. You should see the tons of evidence I hauled into that RfC and the tens of hours of work I put in researching and writing proposals. All so that in the end he would refuse to accept the consensus and edit war. That was when I blew my top and eventually got blocked. Tell me, TMC-k, does that 16:30 Sept 2 comment by Wikidemon make you feel more or less confident that he's here to serve the readers or serve Obama? Is information to go into or out of articles based on what's best for the readers of that article or based on horse trading among editors to get some kind of political edge? Personally, I'd rather walk away from a discussion with none of my proposals approved rather than horse trade in a way that's not in the best interests of the readers. Because I'm not here to get an edge for my "side" but to present, as best I can figure it out, the fairest description of the article's subject as I can get. I don't see how the horse trading in Wikidemon's 16:30 Sept 2 post can't be attractive to people interested in educating, only, it seems to me, politicking. That's not supposed to be what we're about. If you look at the RfC, the Archived Weatherman page and now the BL/P discussion, you see me presenting research to convince people, not horse trades to keep information from readers. -- Noroton (talk) 04:07, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
Again misleading Noroton. The RfC was clearly no consensus, which you edit-warred against. Grsz11 01:39, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
Point of order: how can you edit war against a lack of consensus? Sceptre (talk) 02:51, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
My bad, he edit-warred on the article claiming it was consensus. Grsz11 03:28, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
I made an offer to Wikidemon that we hand over the decision on whether the RfC had achieved consensus to someone -- I suggested NewYorkBrad or FT2 -- who was uninvolved to judge. NYBrad even said on his talk page that he was open to doing that, but Wikidemon refused. The matter was brought to this page and completely ignored. I got so upset at that point that I was incapable of discussing this calmly, and I haven't been able to discuss it this calmly until now. -- Noroton (talk) 04:07, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
I am not the subject of this report, so let's not allow a problem editor to twist it that way. An administrative complaint is by definition an assertion of bad faith and accusation of an editor. It violates policy only if unfounded. When founded, complaints about the behavior of other editors are one of the precise subjects of this administrative page. No doubt about it, Noroton has gone south on us again and if he continues we need to fix it. I collapsed the entire personal attacks as a less intrusive alternative to editing them to extract the small amount of legitimate commentary. Noroton, despite seeming to promise here that he would not make any further personal attacks on me, went ahead and re-introduced them by reverting me.[40] Re-posting personal attacks is the same as making them again. There is no legitimate reason for Noroton to insist on disrupting the project in this way. Having reverted him a second time, I will not do so further, but please, folks, can we please get him off my back? If Noroton wants to make his point without personal attacks he is welcome. If he wants to continue his vendetta or POV/BLPvio push, no. I'll be offline for a while, but I would really appreciate if we can take a no-nonsense approach in putting an end to this. Thanks, Wikidemon (talk) 23:27, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
At BLPN, you've attacked every single editor who has disagreed with you, not just Noroton. THF (talk) 23:54, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
Dismantling and debunking the poorly-constructed, POV-tinged arguments of others is not an "attack", no. Also, regarding an earlier statement, if you think that "BLP sure doesn't demand that result", "that" being the removal of one person's accusation of another of murder without proof or without charged ever having been filed, then I'd have to say that you really do not understand the Wikipedia's BLP policy. No offense. Tarc (talk) 00:04, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
Assuming bad faith, as Wikidemon did in accusing those of wanting to add reliably-sourced information of trying "to cause harm to Obama" (14:19 15 March), is not acceptable. I'm not going to relitigate here, but your understanding of BLP is incorrect--and if you really believe that that is the BLP standard, I look forward to you edit-warring to remove the allegations of cocaine use and insider trading from the George W. Bush article. THF (talk) 00:16, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
Wikidemon might sees it more as trying to harm Obama; I see it as a coatrack that harms in a libel way the individuals at the article(s) like Ayers' and that's where we have to focus on. As for W. Bush: What does it have to do with Ayers'?--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 00:56, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
It has to do with BLP. The argument is that a reliably sourced news story about a pipe-bombing being attributed to Ayers can't be included because there have been no charges filed against him for this particular pipe-bombing, though he admits being involved in other pipe-bombings. Yet that BLP standard is not applied in a featured article. The claim of "libel," quite frankly, is ludicrous: the San Francisco Chronicle faces zero legal risk for its reporting of the story, and so would we. THF (talk) 01:01, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
Two wrongs don't make it right. If there are problems at an article don't mirror them on another one.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 01:40, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
Friendly suggestion: Will everyone please take BLP discussions to the BLP page and leave this discussion to just how naughty certain editors are? Thanks. -- Noroton (talk) 01:34, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
You don't like it here? Here it is about you - over there it is about Ayers. Different issues I might think (and I don't think I'm naughty).--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 02:36, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

I said at BLP/N: Wikidemon, your previous statements and actions in this matter look, to me, more like politicking for a cause rather than helping Wikipedia present the closest version to the truth that we can. See how this compares with Wikidemon's Our standard for accusing someone of murder here in the encyclopedia isn't "not outlandish". BLP rests on two pillars: avoiding committing libel, and avoiding harm to living people. Repeating poorly founded murder allegations certainly causes harm, and the entire point is to cause harm - to Obama, by bashing Ayers again. (14:19 March 15). Despite Wikidemon's assertions that he hasn't done anything wrong at all, he and I both made similar statements, and I think they both either went up to the line or went over the line: commenting on others' motives without proof, and in the wrong place, even if each of us hedged in various ways. My point that Wikidemon doesn't respect consensus when it goes against him has been proven by the diffs I've cited here. But I made my point in the wrong place, so I'll withdraw all of that from the BLP/N page. If I have anything to say about Wikidemon's conduct in the future, I'll say it on the appropriate pages and accompany it with plenty of diffs. -- Noroton (talk) 01:34, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

I was not attacking anyone's motives in discussion, and beyond that I won't dignify tit-for-tat nonsense accusation with a response. My edits are not at issue and have never been at issue. Noroton has been a long-term problem on these pages and gone through all the warnings and escalating blocks for this behavior, the last being three weeks. He started it again with a sneak attack while we were dealing with a different tendentious editor and BLP problem. It is onerous to have to deal with this kind of attack, and it should not be the price of editing articles here. Either he's going to desist or not.Wikidemon (talk) 02:48, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

AIV backlog[edit]

Resolved: Sorted. — neuro(talk) 04:53, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

AIV is currently backlogged, can someone please look into it. The Cool Kat (talk) 22:51, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Sorted. — neuro(talk) 04:53, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

massive disruption[edit]

New editor Telepatty900 (talk · contribs) is on a rampage, making a large number of dubious (but not obviously vandal) edits to medical articles at a rapid rate, without edit summaries, and failing to respond to talk page notices. It seems that a block might be the only way to get his attention. Looie496 (talk) 19:32, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

I am considering a short-term block, but I need to examine the diffs. Graham Colm Talk 20:08, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
I have examined the diffs - I am professionally qualified to assess them - and have blocked 72 hours. --Anthony.bradbury"talk" 20:18, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
(Edit conflict) - Another admin (thanks Anthony) has just come to the same decision that I was about to implement. Graham. Graham Colm Talk 20:23, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't call the user's edits a rampage nor massive disruption, and certainly not vandalism. I checked @all of them and all that I checked clearly are good faith edits. Some are improvements; some are not, but I can see the user was trying to improve the article. As for lack of response, is a new user supposed to know that a response is expected? This user made only one edit (19:13) after the level 3 warning by Nubiatech (19:08), and before the ANI notice by Looie496 (19:34). A 3-day block seems excessive, and I am disturbed by the blocking admin's ad hominem remarks.[41][42] I hope some admin reading this will choose to unblock the user. --Una Smith (talk) 01:36, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

In my opinion the blocking admin's remarks were rather restrained. There are only two possibilities: this editor is either a vandal or else very misguided. The blocking admin assumed the latter, and made an effort to get that message across to the editor (who still has not given any response whatsoever). Sometimes it is more important to be clear than to try to save somebody's self-esteem. Looie496 (talk) 06:43, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
I agree, good block - while the edits possibly were made in good faith; this situation perfectly demonstrates the concept of a "preventative" block - well-intentioned or not, these were contentious and often dubious edits, marked as minor, by a user that was refusing to discuss them. A block is the best, and only, way to get them to stop doing it until they discuss it. If the user agrees to slow down or justifies his edits sufficiently there is no problem with removing the bock - but I certainly agree that one was warranted. ~ mazca t|c 09:06, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Got a Problem[edit]

Resolved: No admin assistance needed. Looks like the unified login created an account on the Volapük Wiki for me. Carry on. - NeutralHomerTalk • March 16, 2009 @ 07:27

I just got an email from the Volapük Wikipedia (vo.wikipedia.org). The problem is, the entire email is in Volapük (some weird kinda German but not lauguage, I didn't know exsisted). It also seems I have an account at the Volapük Wikipedia (never signed up for one). Is there anyway someone can translate this for me and figure out how I have an account on a Wiki I didn't know exsisted until just now? - NeutralHomerTalk • March 16, 2009 @ 06:40

m:SUL, no? 69.212.19.124 (talk) 07:21, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
I do use a unified login, but I didn't know it created accounts for all Wikis. I thought it was just for Commons, Meta, stuff like that. My main concern is my personal email account was used in this.....that worries me. - NeutralHomerTalk • March 16, 2009 @ 07:22
I got the same. Yes, SUL automatically creates an account for you there the moment you only open a page on that wiki while you're logged in on some other. The e-mail is just the automatic "notify me if someone posts to my talk page" feature. Don't know why, but somehow they seem to have that automatically activated by default for all new accounts. And the post you are being notified of is an automated welcome message from a bot. I doubt it's very clever of them to post bot welcome messages to automatic SUL account creations that have never even edited there, but then again, heck, no harm done. Fut.Perf. 07:29, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
Got the same thing the other day from the Romanian Wikipedia. Freaked me out a little, but no harm done. arimareiji (talk) 13:34, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
Perhaps it'd be worth looking into a way to turn off the receive e-mail feature for SUL-created accounts when the message is from a bot... —Anonymous DissidentTalk 14:11, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Edit warring, plus suspected sockpuppetry on both sides.[edit]

86.156.208.244 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Wikireader41 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Nangparbat (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Hkelkar (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Kashmircloud (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
86.151.123.189 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

-
86.158.236.94 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
86.163.154.190 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
81.158.129.140 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
86.162.70.84 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
The involved parties are 86.156.208.244 (talk · contribs) and Wikireader41 (talk · contribs). They were arguing over the reliability of government pages. I accidentally stepped in the middle by making a revert with huggle, and have ascertained that they both suspect each other of sockpuppetry. There is a lot of discussion relating to the matter at my talk page, and at User_talk:Wikireader41. Thank you Fahadsadah (talk) 17:29, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

I suspect 86.156.208.244 (talk · contribs) is a sock of Nangparbat (talk · contribs). he has generally been very incivil and is pushing pakistani islamist POV on multiple articles even as the # 9 Failed state#2008 of Pakistan is sinking deeper into crisis and needs to be blocked. The Indian govt websites are widely regarded as a credible source of info about India. I dont wear socks ;-)--Wikireader41 (talk) 17:45, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

The above is Wikireader41's accusation of sockpuppetry. 86.156.208.244 appears to be away right now, but he accused Wikireader41 of being a sockpuppet of Hkelkar: [43]. Fahadsadah (talk) 07:57, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

AS Admins can see his hate and POV pushing for pakistan is clear his edits are similair to Hkelkar and Kashmircloud (who suddenly disappeared) anyways as his comments have shown his pov motives he speaks of matters not relating to this issue e.g failed state i will continue to remove his vandal edits 86.151.123.189 (talk) 13:34, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

it is clear here that 86.156.208.244 (talk · contribs) and 86.151.123.189 (talk · contribs) are the same person. isnt that what sockpuppetry is all about. if he is innocent why does he not register. it is a well known and concerning fact that Britishers of Pakistani descent have extreme views and are being investigated by CIA. CIA warns Barack Obama that British terrorists are the biggest threat to the US ????--Wikireader41 (talk) 16:22, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

I have added {{Userlinks}} tags for all involved and allegedly involved parties. Fahadsadah (talk) 15:35, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Without checkuser evidence nothing can be proved. Fahadsadah (talk) 17:40, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

As admins can clearly see this hater of pakistani people has created a new article against us and i will not rest untill he is removed from the pages of wikipedia forever bring it on HKELKAR or is it kashmircloud ? 86.151.123.189 (talk) 18:44, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

No one has created an article 'against us'. No article is an attack on you personally. The (well sourced and wikilinked) article is about notable extremist Pakistanis in Britain. It is not accusing all Pakistanis of being extremist, you are the one inferring that. If it were unsourced that would be another thing, but these issues are well documented and reported by primary reliable sources. It is a matter of record already. Personalization of the issue displays a clear POV and incapability of remaining neutral on your part, as such you should clearly not be editing the article at all. If you have sourced information to refute claims in the article then provide them at article talk. Mfield (talk) 20:28, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Please check his new pathetic article which is another attack on pakistanis 86.151.123.189 (talk) 18:51, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

This is spilling over now...

Earlier today I blocked 86.151.123.189 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) for personal attacks and disruptive editing, and then about 10 mins later the following sock IPs - 86.158.236.94 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log), 86.163.154.190 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) and 81.158.129.140 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log).

All the argument this time was over Islamic Extremism among British Pakistanis which was being blanked with no discussion. The last IP was making claims about the article "attacking us" and posting talk page messages[44][45]