Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive166

User Hipocrite

User:Hipocrite is deleting comments from other people's talk pages: [1].He is a rogue editor running around acting as an administrator and needs sanctioning. -THB 13:09, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

WP:NPA allows the deletion of personal attacks.Your edit was a personal attack.Consider this a personal attack warning, any further could result in your being blocked.User:Zoe|(talk) 17:03, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Ditto to Hipocrite. There is no call for this ([2] [3]) sort of behaviour. --CBD 17:27, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. The question as to what sort of "standing" the endorsers of this "petition" is is directly relevent to the petition - users not in good standing are not valid endorsers. Evaluation of my standing, however, is not necessary, nor was the diff presented at the top an evaluation of such. Hipocrite - «Talk» 17:34, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

That your violations of the civility and personal attack policies were included in comments that were arguably 'more relevant' to the discussion does not make them any less improper. You were incivil. THB responded in kind. You should both stop doing so and keep your comments polite. --CBD 17:46, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Removing personal attacks is a fine service. And a regular editor has the same authority as an admin, just less power. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 17:34, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

I've removed Hipocrite's "analysis" and THB's response from Friday's talk page and left a warning on Hipocrite's talk page.I suggest further incivilities regarding this matter be dealt with fairly harshly. -- Rick Block (talk) 17:54, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Now that we know the user is well educated in the Civility policy, I tend to agree. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 17:58, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

When will you do something to stop them from harassing Friday, I wonder? Hipocrite - «Talk» 18:05, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Ask Friday to toss the fallacious petition out the window? --²¹⁰physicq (c) 22:42, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Maybe I don't want to get involved, but does Hipocrite ever do anything but hunt other users down and attack them? He's got like 2 article edits in as many weeks. Seems like all his comments are directed at pissing people off as much as possible. All I did was "vote" the opposite way on a CfD and he stalked me to some user subpage and out of NOWHERE accuses me of being a sockpuppet. This manner of dealing with disagreement really shouldn't be allowed to bloom IMO. It seems like Hipocrite just antagonizes others for fun and tries to belittle them as much as possible. "This user is banned from my talk page" - what part can that have in collaborative encyclopedia writing? And edit warring over a petition not involving him on another editor's talk page? What is Hipocrite's purpose exactly? And before I get a "NO U" response from anyone, I'm open to answering the same question. But please ask on my talk page if you're interested so as not to derail this thread.Milto LOL pia 05:44, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

User Tancarville

Tancarville Constantly edits pages without any evidence, he has already been banned once already, but still goes against the grain, he has now started edit wars! Cashj67 18:45, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

• The very latest contributions in Special:Contributions/Tancarville as I write this are these two edits, where xe has supplied a reference for two edits that xe made a week earlier.Since these are in fact the only four edits that xe has made in almost a fortnight, the above statement by Cashj67 (talk · contribs) does not appear to be substantiated.Tancarville was blocked (not banned) for a period back in August, but that appears to be (from reading User talk:Tancarville) because xe didn't understand that blanking a page is not the same as deleting it, and that xe doesn't actually have the ability to delete pages.The repeated blanking was treated as vandalism, rather than (even though the edit summaries gave a clue) as attempts to delete an article by someone who doesn't understand the mechanics of Wikipedia. Uncle G 04:40, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

WP:IAR in practice (revived thread)

I was heavily bold and deleted Serbophobia, Anti-Croatian sentiment and Anti-Bosniak sentiment in the name of symmetry, brotherhood and unity, and WP:IAR. Those were poorly referenced, troll magnet, POV-exchange and hopelessly apples-and-oranges articles serving the purpose of proving a point of how poor us are prosecuted and tortured by them throughout the history.

I stand open to potential deletion review and, if called for, a request for comment and even recusal of administration rights, if the community wants it. Duja► 08:36, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

I'd say deleting them was a good move. - Ivan K 08:40, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

If the related articles were any indicator of the Wiki-ethnic feuding going on there, this was almost certainly a good move. Though Serbophobia would imo be better stubbed to referenced info than deleted outright, since it does seem to have enough references to justify its notability as a term. I think you can safely up your rouge application level to full in that userbox now. --tjstrf talk 08:51, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing this out—Acknowledged

. I know that something could have been salvaged, but e.g. Serbophobia survived the AfDs mostly because it was a larger stub describing only the usage and origin of the term; meanwhile, it humongously grew to describe all acts of violence and discrimination against us throughout history. If I stubbed them, the vicious circle would undoubtedly repeat. Yes, some ethnic groups are hated by some people; that doesn't make the respective articles necessarily encyclopedic. Duja► 09:08, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Discriminations against us throughout history happened for nearly every nation. We have the whole category:anti-national sentiment. Singling out "Balkan wars" was way too bold. You must not sweep national disagreements under carpet. You know what? some shrinks recommend to do just the opposite. `'mikka 19:33, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

• Boy, the way those guys go after each other you'd think someone had started a World War over it. WAS 4.250

• That's a very bold move Duja. You are brave. Blnguyen(bananabucket) 08:58, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

• Hah, that's ROUGE indeed. But I'm all for the deletion of such articles. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:04, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

• Very bold, and effective. Viridae^Talk 11:24, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
• I can't believe that practicing IAR can be sometimes much more easier, funnier and effective than throwing a rotten tomato at the face of a rotten actor! Good job anyway. -- Szvest ^{Wiki me up ®} 12:50, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
• Yes, good stuff.All had gone well past the point of irretrievable nonsense. Guy (Help!) 13:46, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
• Hurrah.What we need here is coverage of ethnic conflicts and rivalry in the Balkans in general.Serbian-Albanian conflict seems to be one of the least bad articles like this, for example.Having those three articles, each of them being a POV fork, is just silly. Morwen - Talk 13:51, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
• The pages sound like they are better nonexistant.But why IAR?Why not follow process?Regards, Ben Aveling 21:10, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Because process is not policy, and process is not, in some people's eyes, required to produce an outcome consistent with core policies. Mackensen (talk) 21:17, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
    • True, true.But in this case, I don't see why process would have been a barrier to producing the same outcome.Regards, Ben Aveling 08:02, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
• No objection from me, but I would say that being poorly referenced, troll magnet, POV-exchange and hopelessly apples-and-oranges articles serving the purpose of proving a point is a better deletion rationale than symmetry, brotherhood and unity, and WP:IAR.Eluchil404 00:06, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
• Pile-on support.This is a good application of IAR. JDoorjam Talk 00:10, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
• Support Duja's unilateral deletion, although he won't be rogue until he deletes Anti-Romanian discrimination and Anti-Hungarian sentiment... ;-) Khoikhoi 10:27, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

  Which ones? I don't see them...

Duja► 09:13, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

• LOL. :-) I was actually sort of joking, but I agree that both of those articles are unneeded. However, since Anti-Romanian discrimination was restored, I'll restore Anti-Hungarian sentiment until we can get a consensus. Khoikhoi 00:37, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

There's also Anti-German sentiment and Anti-Polish sentiment, both of whose neutrality is (surprise!) disputed. Kusma (討論) 09:17, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

There's in fact a huge big lot of them, conveniently listed at List of anti-ethnic and anti-national terms. While I believe most of those ought to go, I don't think speedying them all would be a good idea. We need a proper discussion about what are sensible criteria for inclusion of such articles. Big ugly messy bloody group AfD, anyone? Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:29, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Sounds great! We can have the feuding factions all unite to oppose deletion of their personal victimhood pages. (Or maybe they'll vote, delete all but mine, and we'll get an easy consensus?) Non-sarcastically, please don't nominate too many of them at once. Keep it to an amount of articles you can read in one sitting, so that us outside editors have a reasonable way of evaluating them individually. --tjstrf talk 09:34, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Reasonable. Or maybe a centralised discussion page first, and then individual AfDs spawned off from that? In any case, it's going to be big and ugly and a lot of work, and potential drama. I wonder why we haven't yet seen any complaints of admin abuse for the ones deleted so far? Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:44, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Only a few on my talk page, but far less than I expected.
However, Initially I wanted to clean up only "my" ethnic feud and I don't feel like spreading rougeness worldwide. But those articles should go. They're mainly unsalvageable soapboxes. Like Morwen said, pages akin to Serbian-Albanian conflict (i.e. Foo-Barian relationships/tensions/conflict) could have much better prospects, if only because they would be subject to edit-warring scrutiny of Fooians, Barians and neutrals. But I'm uncertain how to proceed at the moment. Duja► 10:06, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

• Good move by Duja. Before people start nominating these for deletion, take a look at Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Anti-Polonism and at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anti-Polonism. (Don't know if other such "articles" also already had AfDs, this one I just knew from the top of my head.) Lupo 11:02, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Unfortunately, yes, there have been several "keep" precedents on such AfDs - and usually the existence of one page was cited as a reason to keep the other:
    • Anti-Serbianism: survived 2 AfDs (1, 2);
    • Anti-Croatian sentiment: survived 1 AfD)
    • Anti-Bosniak sentiment: survived 1 AfD
    • Anti-Iranianism: survived a particularly ugly and vicious one.

On the other side:

• • • Anti-Georgianism: deleted at AfD
    • Anti-Kurdism: speedied by myself today

Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:58, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

I strenuously object to how this was done. Anti-Romanian discrimination, which had hundreds of edits by over a dozen contributors, including quite a few administrators (none of them me) does not look to me like the sort of article that should have been summarily deleted. It contained significant material (including quite a few citations) that, even if this article is deemed inappropriate, belongs somewhere else in Wikipedia; such salvaging of parts of articles often happens in the course of an AFD, but there is virtually no chance for it when an administrator acts unilaterally. I'll also add that the article did not particularly read like a polemic, and even explicitly acknowledged regions outside of Romania where Romanians are treated well (e.g. "The Romanians living in the Autonomous Province of Vojvodina are very well represented at the provincial level despite their small presence…"). At most, I think it should have been retitled more neutrally to encourage discussion of positive as well as negative treatment, but it seemed to me on the whole to be a decent article. - Jmabel | Talk 17:13, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree. These articles have only produced bad feelings among wikipedians, and hampered friendly collaboration, promoting instead a clan sentiment. I disagree with any attempts to recreate the articles in question.--Aldux 17:38, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Aldux, are you just saying this on general principles, or did you actually read the article I am somewhat defending? - Jmabel | Talk 20:57, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

By the way, the Romanian term for anti-Romanianism is antiromanism: of course, occasionally that same term (usually in English) means opposition to Roman Catholicism, but a Google search turns up literally hundreds of on-topic hits from what are usually considered reliable sources. Some of them are debating whether there is such a thing, others are assuming that there is, but it seems to me that there is plenty here for a topic. Again, there may have been problems with this article, but I would certainly have opposed simple deletion if there had been an opportunity for discussion, and I do not like the fact that discussion is taking place only in the face of a fait accompli. - Jmabel | Talk 21:07, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

For the record, I've tried to spell out my arguments for the deletion of these articles, on Duja's talk page, for the time being - not about the process, but in about the content. Still not sure where such a discussion ought to be conducted best now. We need some venue for assessing and reviewing the remaining articles, developing some kind of common criteria for them, and reviewing the deleted ones in the process too if that turns out to be necessary. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:29, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm almost afraid to ask, because people have been known to follow up on my rhetorical questions by actually doing the thing in question, but does this objection extend to the article on Antisemitism?

No. See the link I gave exactly in the contribution above: [4]. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:07, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

27 December 2006, cont'd

• Hopelessly apples-and-oranges articles serving the purpose of proving a point of how poor us are prosecuted and tortured by them throughout the history.

• Sounds great! We can have the feuding factions all unite to oppose deletion of their personal victimhood pages.

• These articles have only produced bad feelings among wikipedians, and hampered friendly collaboration, promoting instead a clan sentiment.
  • Um, I'm kind of curious about whether these views are going to extend to all the "Persecution of..." articles in Category:Religious_persecution (I'm sure there are few non-religious based persecution articles out there too) e.g. Persecution of Hindus, Persecution of Christians, Persecution of Muslims... that whole series (probably not the one on Ancient Greek religion...). Also there's their opposite numbers, "Historical Persecution by..." in the same category Bwithh 17:23, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Articles restored as blatant violation of WP:IAR, accompanied with incivility. I don't see how these articles "prevent you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia". This one-sided deletion becomes a dangerous practice and a spit into eyes of fellow wikipedians. We are not talking about deletion of obvious trollwork here. `'mikka 19:29, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

"Blatant violation of WP:IAR"??? "Incivility"??? Except for the word "crap" in the deletion summary which admittedly wasn't up to the highest standard, would did please quote the instances of my incivility? And have you read the comments above before you started the undoing, and why do you feel inclined to unilaterally unerase it? I am accountable for my deletions, and I stood up to community's criticism — up to giving up my administrative privileges. But how do those articles, in your opinion, improve the credibility and neutrality of Wikipedia? Duja► 21:44, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Yep, I was referring to the word "crap". Referring to a text by several editors as "crap" is "incivility" and "disrespect" my mama told me. You are indeed not up to your privileges as of the moment, at least until you learn to see logical difference between my quote from WP:IAR "prevent you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia" and yours how do those articles, improve the credibility and neutrality of Wikipedia? .`'mikka 23:14, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

My best friend Hannah always said, "you can strain at gnats all you want, but there are much more important things you should worry about."You're arguing over one word in one log entry.It's unnecessary, it's divisive, and I'd like to either see a flagrant serious policy violation or a retraction of your accusations.Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 23:20, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

And who, pray tell, was Duja being uncivil to? You'll have to find for a better rationale to use as a club, mikka. --Calton | Talk 23:54, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Er, was that directed to me o_o ... the indentation seems to infer so o_o;✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 00:52, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, no. I was referring to Mikka's ginned-up "incivility" charge. --Calton | Talk 02:25, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

If it were up to me, we'd get rid of all of the troll magnet unencyclopedic articles we have here.Just because some self-important college professor or politician invents a word doesn't mean we need an article for it.Plenty of Wikipedians have stupid uncles, but we don't need an article on stupid uncles.But seriously ... ignoring process like this is just going to cause more problems than leaving the thing in place.Unfortunately, it's a fact of life that too many people think Wikipedia is a battleground, rather than an encyclopedia.There will never be consensus to delete most of these things because too many people get too much emotion invested in them.Heck, look at Allegations of Israeli apartheid.It was started as a WP:POINT article by a now banned user and will never be a good article, but people fall over themselves to defend it.Meanwhile, articles about actual encyclopedic topics are neglected. So these things need to be removed ... but the out of process deletions cause just as many problems as leaving them there.See also, userbox wars. BigDT 00:38, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Two things should be separated in this discussion: the contents of said articles, and the wikipedia process and policies. I think most of the neutral readers would agree that the articles are, um, inappropriate and violate many Wikipedia policies. While the said anti-foo sentiments do exist, are there reliable sources dealing with them as such (I say: barely), and have our editors proven able to maintain them up to academic standard (I say: definitely no)? But, as you said, "there will never be consensus to delete, because too many people get too much emotion invested in them". WP policies do not refer to emotions as criteria for inclusion, AFAICT.
That being said, I felt that it was a really goodopportunity to invoke WP:IAR (which is a policy after all) and get rid of those POV-magnets. That action was controversial, and it turned out to produce a lot of drama. It ended up being a test of the overall applicability of IAR as a policy (although it was not my original intention to exercise a WP:POINT). And, 2 weeks later, it seems to have failed. And that turns us to a bigger picture: how come that Wikipedia process (cynics would say, bureaucracy) continues to yield such ugly results, and that consensus (or lack thereof) trumps quality, OR, NPOV etc.? And should we slap {{historical}} to WP:IAR, as no one seems to agree what that policy actually means and implies? If that would turn out to be the outcome, I must say that I'd be highly disappointed, and the whole affair has already seriously shaken my trust into our processes and policies.
I have yet to hear good arguments in defense of existence of those articles; but I've heard (and acknowledged) many, fairly good, critiques of my actions from the people I respect. Which should be stronger? Duja► 08:27, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

I am not an admin (certainly not!) and hesitate to post here, but I do read. I think the combination of WP:IAR with WP:BOLD is a problem. Rather, if you are thinking about implementing IAR, you have to be thinking about it, and if you are thinking about it, bring it to one of these boards. And it might get done. But discuss first, that's what I think. Jd2718 08:41, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

I disagree with the restoration of these articles. Almost all of the admins agreed with Duja's deletion - why does this have to be brought up again? The articles in question are simply POV magnets. Khoikhoi 01:21, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

I certainly don't agree with it. If Duja's edits political articles on former Yugoslavia he better keep his admin fingers away from the delete button in that area. The perceived conflict of interest is just too strong, and we certainly shouldn't support actions that strengthen the already rampant impression that admins usae their privileges to push their POV. Leave it to someone uninvolved to make that call. I certainly wouldn't close an AFD List of Stanford's glorious victories over Cal, no matter how crappy it is. ~ trialsanderrors 06:25, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

If you knew anything about Duja, you'd know that POV-pushing goes against everything he stands for. Khoikhoi 09:47, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

It doesn't matter. Your position requires prior information most users don't have. Don't administer in areas where you also edit is a very simple and consistent rule to follow. And especially don't IAR as admin in areas where you also edit. ~ trialsanderrors 07:00, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

There's nothing wrong with administering "in areas where you also edit". It would be different if Duja was using his admin powers in a dispute he is involved in, but there was no dispute at time. You may follow this rule of yours if you want, but that doesn't mean other people have to. Khoikhoi 07:11, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

It's very wrong if the administrative action consists of an IAR deletion with an edit summary of crap. And it's also still wrong if it's anything less egregious, but shit like this is desysoppable behavior. ~ trialsanderrors 08:34, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Funny, it seems that Tjstrf, Blnguyen, Fut.Perf., Viridae, FayssalF, JzG, Morwen, BenAveling, Eluchil404, JDoorjam, and Lupo disagree... Khoikhoi 08:51, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

And your point is what? ~ trialsanderrors 09:01, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

That saying it's "very wrong" is simply your opinion, which does not reflect that of most of the community. Khoikhoi 09:05, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't think I ever claimed to speak for anyone but myself. Unlike you. ~ trialsanderrors 09:09, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps next time you can say, "in my opinion" or "I think". Much love, Khoikhoi 09:14, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

No. When I claim to speak for someone other than myself I make it clear. I expect as much intelligence from my correpsondents. ~ trialsanderrors 09:19, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Are you calling me unintelligent because of your inability to clarify yourself? Khoikhoi 09:23, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Should I come with an unpopular opinion here? I support Mikka's undeletion because the articles were deleted by means of IAR and not through any process where people are given oppurtunities to voice the good faith objections. When somebody "invokes" IAR to make an administrative action, they should be prepared to relent if anyone has a good faith objection to it. Clearly, Mikka is objecting to the deletion not because he wants to process wonk or be a rules lawyer, but because he thinks the subject matter is valid for an encyclopedia. If there truly is no merit whatsoever for those articles, then waiting a few months for a renomination will usually allow them to be deleted in process, silently and without any fuss or controversy. That is what eventually happened with Religious persecution by Jews and other such articles. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:22, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

The logic that 'these articles are contentious (or "troll magnets" in uncivil vernacular) and thus should be deleted' doesn't really hold up to scrutiny IMO... the most contentious article on Wikipedia (judging by edit count) is George W. Bush - yet somehow it hasn't been deleted. There have been other deletions along similar lines and the scale seems to be 'notability' vs 'disruptiveness'. The more notable a topic is the more disruption we put up with... but this results in the deletion of some articles (as above) which are certainly well beyond the normal thresh-hold of notability. As we don't delete all articles of this sort it also creates the disparity of Wikipedia seeming to suggest that discrimination against Polish, Iranian, and Jewish people (for instance) is more important/notable than discrimination against Croats or Serbs. Should Wikipedia really be in the business of not covering contentious topics? Sure, it would be 'easier' (other than having to constantly stomp them out), but makes us a poorer encyclopedia. --CBD 12:12, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

We definitely should have contentious articles—that is not the point. As written somewhere on deletion-related pages, (citing from memory, link appreciated), "deletion of an article is not a definite statement of an encyclopedic value of the subject; a substantionally rewritten article which satisfies the policies is possible in the future." We don't delete the articles just because the topics are contentious, but, among other things, because they fail our policies, and they get deleted after n-th nomination because, after lots of drama, they get empirically proven unable to get into conformance with policies.
As someone suggested back then, (and I'm starting to think it's a good idea), it might be better though to refactor the similar topics into "Serbo-Croatian relations", "Russo-Polish relations" etc, which would be even more contentious, but would have far better prospects due to a) being far more covered by WP:RS than the current conspiracy theories b) be more narrow in scope c) achieve a certain quality management by the very fact that they'd be under scrutiny of both Fooians and Barians d) in general, Fooians are usually not hated just because they're Fooians (Jews being one notable exception), but they're hated by Barians because they have an unsettled issues from the past with each other. Duja► 13:19, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

...or like what happened with GNAA? It took only... what, 18 AfDs to get it right? Your calming input is much appreciated, but some of us (myself apparently included) don't have so much patience. Duja► 12:29, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry I had not followed this discussion from the beginning. Otherwise, I would have expressed my reservations to Duya for the application of WP:IAR in this case. I don't think these articles should be grouped and deleted in the way they were. Each article should be treated seperately. Despite their huge POV problems, at least two of them (Serbophobia) and (Anti-Bosniak sentiment) look to me notable and may deserve a place in Wikipedia. Thus, I think we should check them one by one according to the existing Wikipedia policies and not WP:IAR (which I regard as a "measure of last resort"). Another thing we could discuss is the merger of the 3 anti-(Bosnian, Serbian, Croatian) articles in one comprehensive one. Maybe, such a solution would also be capable of limiting the edit and POV wars. This is just a suggestion.--Yannismarou 13:17, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Walter Humala

I first noticed Walter Humala (talk • contribs • logs) by his signature, which includes an image (in violation of WP:SIG). I noticed that he had already been told (by User:Will Pittenger) about the guideline and had only commented on how he "cant stand these admins who dislike images on signatures." I asked him, on his talk page, to stop including images in his signatures. His reply was only to add images to Will Pittenger's and my signatures. Now, I find (from messages left on his talk page) that he has repeatedly used fair use images in his userspace after warnings, and has left a personal attack on the talk page of a user who has corrected him before. I believe that actions like these do not positively contribute to our encyclopedia and should probably be looked into by administrators. Wodup 06:30, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Walter Humala (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) blocked indefinitely for disruption. His talk page is full warnings, but he still ignores them and engages in trolling with hate speech templates ("Having followed my advice, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has awarded you a Nuclear missile Now go and destroy the The Zionist Entity") Yes I know it is a joke. `'mikka 08:39, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

So you fought Walter's wikiempire mikka?! What a battle! I support the indef block. -- Szvest - ^{Wiki me up ®} 10:20, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Mall majors and anchors - without source

I am baffled as to how to deal with this problem. User:66.66.165.85 has been adding information regaring anchors and major tenants at probably hundreds of malls. The information is useful, encyclopedic, and no doubt accurate, but has no source provided. I have searched endlessly to find a source for his work, but I have been unable to find any online source for the data added. If I could find the source I would add the reference and try to suggest how this user could did it on his own, but not knowing the derivation of the information makes this impossible. I have pleaded with this individual to provide a source, provided suggestions to add the information to the articles, my talk page or his talk page, but received no response whatsoever from the individual. I have indicated that the information could be removed as original research, but nothing has helped. I really don't want to start reverting useful work, but nothing seems to get through. Any ideas as to how to proceed? Alansohn 15:33, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

• Looking at User talk:66.66.165.85 I see that there are unanswered requests for sources of edits going back to July 2006.Looking at Special:Contributions/66.66.165.85, I see zero talk page contributions anywhere and zero use of edit summaries.Dealing with this user does not (yet) require the use of administrator tools.And the proper venue for addressing the user's conduct is RFC, not this noticeboard.

  The way for you to proceed as far as the actual content is concerned, as opposed to the user's total unresponsiveness, is to start tagging or simply removing the information that you have been unable to find a source for, explaining on the talk pages of each article where you've looked for sources and pointing to the Wikipedia:Verifiability policy.If you've made a reasonable attempt to find sources for unsourced content and have come up empty-handed, then either tagging or outright removal of the content is the next step.See User:Uncle G/On sources and content#How to deal with unsourced content for some advice.

  As for the assertion that the information is "no doubt accurate": You have no way of knowing that.Wikipedia editors and readers have no way of confirming its accuracy.You yourself have tried and failed to find some way of checking it, remember. Uncle G 19:07, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

One could actually go to those malls which are local, and check; unless Alansohn and 66.66.165.85 are in the same geographical area, a high accuracy rate is indicative that the information is probably accurate. But doing so would constitute original research.I'd be surprised if most of those malls have websites which would give the information which 66.66 is providing; if he has lots of time on his hands, it might not be that onerous for him to look up the mall website, and add the info; possibly even assuming that if there's a link at the bottom of the mall's WP article, that that constitutes sufficient citation. If the user is well-intentioned but lazy, cleaning up after him will be a big job. Argyriou (talk) 21:31, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Many large malls have published maps which, though not available online, are potentially citable as dated published matter (if memory serves, the more formal of these maps for largest malls have publisher and date information printed on them).I've never cited such a document myself, but this might be part of a route forward. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 22:45, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

The mall's own website would not be a reliable source.User:Zoe|(talk) 23:28, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

The mall's own website would be, under the criteria of WP:RS and WP:NPOV, be a reliable source for basic factual claims which are subject to outside audit or liability for false advertising. A claim that "Shopping at the WikiMall is the most fun you'll have this december" is unreliable, but a claim that "There's a 90,000 square foot Macy's store in our mall" is, at least for countries with functional commercial legal systems, pretty reliable. More reliable than a newspaper's self-report of circulation, at least. Argyriou (talk) 23:52, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, the mall's own website would be reasonable for factual verification.It would not be a reasonable source for establishing notability, though; third party references would be required for that I would think. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 23:54, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Certainly, the notability guidelines would not allow establishing notability through the mall's own website. But the original point of contention was that an editor has been adding factual information without stating his sources. While the easy answer is to tag the additions with {{fact}} tags, and delete them if no source is provided, that could be wasteful if the information does have a reliable source, but the editor in question is too lazy to provide it. Argyriou (talk) 00:05, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm interested in understanding why Zoe feels that the mall's own website would not be a reliable source for verification of factual information. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 00:18, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Did you read WP:RS?User:Zoe|(talk) 16:54, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Don't be snide. I asked a simple question. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 18:05, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

I apologize if you think my response was snide, as I really didn't intend it to be.I said that, according to WP:RS, we cannot use the mall's website as a reliable reference, you asked me why I feel that way, and I asked if you had read WP:RS.WP:RS is why I feel that way, but since you asked, I assumed you had not read it.At any rate, I feel that way because WP:RS says the sites of the subject of the article are not reliable sources.I hope I have taken away any residual snideness you still feel I am expressing.User:Zoe|(talk) 18:17, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

inserted comment - proximity clarifies Thanks for the clarification.I'll honor your request not to get into a full blown debate on this matter - it's an important topic, but not one that's core to this thread.Regards --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 04:35, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Quoting from WP:RS: "Self-published material, whether published online or as a book or pamphlet, may be used as sources of information about the author". There are a few qualifications, but unless the information is disputed/controversial or if the source is disreputable, it's fine. jgp ^T_C 18:20, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

I certainly didn't post my original comment in order to get into a dispute about the interpretation of WP:RS, but did you also read the part which says A primary source is a document or person providing direct evidence of a certain state of affairs; in other words, a source very close to the situation you are writing about. The term mainly refers to a document produced by a participant in an event or an observer of that event. Primary sources include official reports, letters, eyewitness accounts, autobiographies, statistics compiled by authoritative agencies, and court records. Experts usually have advanced training, and use as many different primary sources as are available so they can be checked against each other. Thus, primary materials typically require interpretation, interpolation, extrapolation, or corroboration, each of which usually constitutes original research. Wikipedia articles may use primary sources, so long as they have been published by a reliable source, but only to make descriptive points about the topic. Any interpretive claims require secondary sources. ?User:Zoe|(talk) 18:43, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

There are a handful of user names that are doing this.I don't know if they are all the same person.I assume it is someone with a financial interest in some ways in shopping malls.One was blocked for spam[5], and had the same pattern of posting mall articles, non-notable malls, with lists of stores, and looks exactly like User:66.66.165.85, with repeated ignored discussions on talk pages of various malls, and the user's own talk page, and the same style of articles, the same content.This information is readily available to all sorts of small business owners in trade journals, through local library resources, and in on-line merchandiser databases that are not free to search.Not everything is on the Internet in the Public Domain.In a discussion about the issue, though, as to whether or not the malls were notable (some are strip malls of 6 stores in a city with 30 other strip malls of the same size, hardly notable), someone else mentioned the utility of being able to find out what stores are in the local mall.While this isn't precisely Wikipedia's purpose, I hesitate to speak out against something that potentially provides a lot of utility for users. KP Botany 00:14, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Backing up a bit as a response to Argyriou: Going to a mall, seeing Macy's as an major store, and adding that to Wikipedia is not Original Research.It's not novel or interpretive, doesn't define something for the first time; it's not original. SchmuckyTheCat 00:32, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

• If the person has edited information about Woodfield Mall, Schaumburg, IL, you can check it here;[6] This might provide some indication of the value of the rest of the edits. --BenBurch 06:10, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

I must agree with Schmucky here. This is, for the most part, basic information pertaining to public buildings which are still standing. Whether it's accurate or not is much easier to verify than the average history-related article (which is under-referenced, yet rarely challenged by anyone). Also I suspect "vandalism" to be poor word choice. Which of the (dozens of) descriptions at Wikipedia:Vandalism do you feel that this matches? — CharlotteWebb 12:14, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

• Disagree with Schmucky because there's no verifiable chain.Original research is where the person who adds the information is also the source.It's not verifiable if I have to phone Schmucky to confirm the verifiability of the information.We don't particularly care about accuracy as much as verifiability.Ascribing a paper source will also allow information to be better presented.If I visit Schmucky's mall and find no Macy's, what ensues?An edit war, with no ability to determine the truth?However, had Schmucky provided any source, such as a local newspaper report, we could date the assertion and allow contextualisation by dating the assertion.It may be that Macy's had closed between Schmucky's visit and mine, but we can't substantiate this.That's why attribution is important. It creates a trail and a context, which allows information to be presented at all times in the best manner.If Macy's website does not list Schmucky's mall amongst its locations, but Schmucky provided that local paper reference, we have a trail and a presentation of information to the reader. Paper said store exists at this date, whilst official website, accessed on this date, makes no mention of a store existing at this location.Thus the reader can determine their own truth from these assertions. Hiding Talk 12:35, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
  • You don't have to call me and ask.You can go there and look.It's verifiable, period.Verifiability doesn't have to be easy.If it is no longer true then the information can be removed by the next editor when it becomes no longer true.At that point if it is still important to reference it historically we probably need something more verifiable - though for something non-contested I'd still accept the original editors assertion. SchmuckyTheCat 17:03, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
    • Hiding going to look would also be OR.We need secondary sources, such as a newspaper article which says "A new Macy's opened over at Ourtown Mall.", or even "Police arrested a shoplifter at the Macy's in Ourtown Mall." User:Zoe|(talk) 21:16, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
    • Zoe, I know, but thanks anyway. I'd take a telephone book that said it was there as long as the year of the directory was provided. Hiding Talk 14:17, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
      • What's original about viewing a shopping mall?There is nothing novel or interpretive, interpolated, extrapolated; ie original, about taking the public bus to the mall and viewing a Macy's.If an editor was making a claim like "there is a lot of crime at the public mall near the Macy's" then there is an act of interpretation that needs more sourcing.A simple statement that there is a Macy's at the public mall isn't OR. SchmuckyTheCat 21:39, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
        • You're hung up on one word, of the title, even.Please read the actual body of the Wikipedia:No original research policy and think about the rationale that underpins it.Firsthand testimony of a Wikipedia editor as to the existence of a shop in a mall is primary source material.Wikipedia is not a primary source.It is an encyclopaedia, a tertiary source.It is not the intention of Wikipedia that readers be required to take Wikipedia editors, with pseudonyms such as "Uncle G" and "SchmuckyTheCat" and about whom readers know nothing, at their words.Readers must be able to check all content against sources outside of Wikipedia.And everything in Wikipedia must have been through a processs of fact checking, peer review, publication, and acceptance into the general corpus of human knowledge.

          If you, as a Wikipedia editor adding content about a mall, cannot point to a source that has already done the research of what shops exist in the mall, and that has a reputation to protect and thus will have checked its facts; and cannot even show that these data are part of the corpus of human knowledge in the first place; but can only say "In order to check this article you must repeat my primary research of physically travelling to the mall and investigating.Failing that, you only have the word of a pseudonymous Wikipedia editor for any of this.", then you are violating our Wikipedia:No original research policy.We don't accept Wikipedia editors' sole words here.Some other encyclopaedias require that readers take the sole words of their authors for article content.Wikipedia does not.

          66.66.165.85's edits require sources just as much as edits that give the detailed geography of Sweden require sources. Uncle G 23:22, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

          • I've read the policy many times.If you are viewing a mall and see a store the location itself is the primary source.Reporting that as a basic matter of non-interpretive fact isn't a matter of OR nor is it creating a primary source.It's verifiable and that is our requirement.Nothing says verifiability has to be easy.Even published sources may only be available in private archives.Does viewing a mall introduce a theory? No.Introduce original ideas? No. Define a new term? No. Provide a new definition of existing terms? No. Introduce a new argument? No. I've got no opinion on this specific user that started this conversation and have never looked at the edits.If an edit is contested, it's an excellent idea to get better sources.But contesting basic facts without a good reason is bad faith. Now, if there isn't a good published source about something it may not be important but that is something else entirely. SchmuckyTheCat 23:50, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
            • Then please read it yet again, because you appear to have overlooked the third and fourth words of its second sentence.Reporting previously unreported data, obtained from firsthand observation, is primary research, which we don't do here.This really is very simple.

              As for "contesting basic facts without a good reason": Basic facts are not exceptions to the rule that everything must be sourced.Indeed, not only are they what require the best sources, so that Wikipedia does not get them wrong, but they are usually pretty easy to source — if they truly are basic facts about a subject.Uncle G 04:19, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

            • To state the obvious: stores are also listed in multiple hardcopy yellow pages, one of mine lists the local mall with its stores, also, on-line in the yellow pages, and white pages, and larger malls may have web sites, and I can find the book store in my local mall by going to its on-line site and entering my zip code in the store finder, probably Macy's also.In addition there are the aforementioned trade journals for mall operators, mall directories, and other resources.Just because the reference is not on-line, doesn't mean the person who listed it used original research.I supsect the poster, as I said before, is using trade listings, as they are listing malls from all over.When I go to market, I get trade publications, lists, e-mails from buyers, publications that lists all of certain types of buyers, all sorts of information about who will be buying at market, on-line, in other ways.Of course going to the mall and looking at the store is original research, and it seems it requires more than just going to the mall, like solid usable original research does, you must verify through the management at the store and probably headquarters that the store is not in the midst of closing, has not been sold in the past week, and plans to stay open.That's part of the reason for not relying on original research, whoever did it, Wikipedia editor or otherwise, the amount of work necessary to certify it.That's where secondary sources come in--they certify the usability of the OR.But really, is the expectation that Wikipedia use only resources that one can find on-line? KP Botany 01:12, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
              • I'm not sure anyone is pushing for online sources, but simply a source above and beyond because I saw it with my own eyes.Otherwise I'll add the info on that UFO that buzzed my house last night which Schmucky will surely accept, since all he has to do is hop round and witness it, adding that it was no longer there when he came if it wasn't. We have these standards of demanding sources because all the easy stuff is easily sourced, and all the hard stuff like Yeti's and UFO's aren't, and so we find it easier to say provide a source than okay, we'll allow your eyes to bear witness for Macy's, but hold the phone pal, you can't expect us to have the same values for Elvis in that chip shop? All information is treated the same, otherwise you are placing a bias on some pieces of information over others, and we don't do that.Period. Hiding Talk 14:17, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

That a mall has a Macy's is verifiable to those with the ability to look.That you saw a UFO last night and got dropped off in the woods with a family of bigfoot is not.Verifiability is our policy. SchmuckyTheCat 08:17, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

You misunderstand our Verifiability policy.I'll quote it for you: "Verifiable" in this context means that any reader should be able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source.Appreciate your thoughts on how "looking at a mall" equates to "published by a reliable source".Your definition of verifiable is not the one used on Wikipedia, so it matters little to the discussion. Hiding Talk 14:13, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Editor being uncivil

Starwars1955 (talk · contribs) is acting in an uncivil way and continues to make personal attacks on his talk page. His behavior is unacceptable, and I would support a one month block for disruption per WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL. Thank you, Yuser31415 00:59, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

I support this recommendation. This user is refusing to cooperate, will not read any policy pages, does not understand WP:3RR (nor does he even try), and is overall just being a nuisance. –King Bee ^{(talk • contribs)} 01:10, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Support as user is making it very difficult to maintain and improve the Brett Favre article. -- PSUMark2006 talk | contribs 02:14, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Goodness gracious, what an incivil editor!Just one read through his talk page upset me.I support such a block, as the user has blatant disregard for WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA.He has been blocked 3 times for personal attacks, incivility, or 3RR, and does not appear to wish to stop.—bbatsell ¿? 02:18, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Just a glance at his talk page makes me support this. jgp ^T_C 02:24, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

I have to agree also; he's been plain old disruptive. I was not involved in the dispute, but it seemed clear to me that he was causing the trouble by refusing to listen to his opponents and simply smearing them. Heimstern Läufer 02:48, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Hold on. User:Starwars1955 was blocked 72 hours on December 22nd for making personal attacks; I don't see a personal attack by him since his return. In the absence of a diff demonstrating that he has violated the policy since the last block, there is zero justification for a new block. Furthermore, Starwars1955 has a right to remove comments from his talk page, and other editors who have been revert-warring with him over that matter should stop. | Mr. Darcy talk 02:57, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

No, he can't remove legitimate warnings from his talk page without a very good reason. And do you not call this a personal attack? Yuser31415 03:12, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, he can remove legitimate warnings. There is no policy forbidding this. And no, that's not a personal attack. It's rude, but hardly a personal attack. | Mr. Darcy talk 03:52, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

This might be an even better link to illustrate the point. Heimstern Läufer 03:20, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Worse, but I'd like to see something more severe to reinstate this block. Incidentally, a one month block - proposed by Yuser31415 - would be completely inappropriate, given that his last block was 72 hours, and the worst thing he's done since then is call someone an idiot and do it on his own talk page. If he disrupts another article, or starts with the name-calling on an article talk page, post it here or on my talk page and I will post him up for 96h. | Mr. Darcy talk 03:52, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Excuse me, is this a joke? Calling someone a 'stupid idiot' and asking them to 'shut up' not a personal attack???!!!! Sorry, but I'd prefer to wait and see what other admins think. Yuser31415 04:06, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

It's not a joke, so simmer down. Telling someone to "shut up" is not a personal attack. Kindly review that policy, particularly Examples of personal attacks. You reported the incident, and received a comment with conditions for a fresh block of the user in question. If you can provide diffs of a more serious post-block violation of any Wikipedia policies, please do so and I will implement the block. If not, then let it go, because the more you argue, the more it calls your motives into question. | Mr. Darcy talk 04:58, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I'm going to have to respectfully, but firmly, disagree with your interpretation of WP:NPA.First of all, just because a particular turn of phrase is not listed under "Examples of personal attacks" does not mean it is not one (as it states at the beginning of that section).Secondly, the examples state that, "Laura is a bad editor," can be considered a personal attack.How then, exactly, is repeatedly calling editors with whom one disagrees an "idiot", a "vandal", telling them to "shut up", and repeatedly calling their good faith contributions vandalism [7] in line with WP:NPA or WP:CIVIL?The policy, in a nutshell, is, (and I quote), "Comment on content, not on the contributor."The editor in question has repeatedly failed at this, has been blocked for it, and continues to act in the same manner, despite a multitude of warnings.I jumped the gun on endorsing a month-long block because I was appalled at the level of incivility, but a week-long, or even a 2-week-long block is most certainly not out of line with this user's behavior.Warmest regards, —bbatsell ¿? 05:31, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, now he's engaging in sockpuppetry. He is logging out and using an anonymous IP address to blank his talk page. I strongly suspect it is him as he is using IP addresses that were used by anon user(s) on the Brett Favre page where this whole nonsense started. If this user isn't someone who deserves a 1 month block or a permanent block, then I don't know who does. However, I'm sure that he'll just stick with editing anonymously anyway if/when he is blocked. –King Bee ^{(talk • contribs)} 06:21, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

I support as he was stating a policy on Wikipedia that doesn't exist. Starting a revert war the day he gets back is not helping this encyclopedia. He kept saying that sourcing...

In the middle of writing this I noticed the Brett Favre page changed again. how can this be helping Wikipedia? I fixed the citation where it appeared twice and combined it into one, I remove a stat that doesn't make sense, I removed an unsourced statement, I source a statement and in the remove a sentence that I couldn't source and he reverts it. Cause why?

"(Don't remove the stats, favre marino and elway win loss record is fact and don't remove it aviper2k7: aviper2k7, king bee and PSUMark2006 have BROKEN the 3RR, now suspend them, aviper2k7 is vandalism)"

I've left him three different messages and he still will not look at WP:CITE. Please do something about this. I did not violate the 3RR once and he is calling me vandalism.

And you shouldn't remove messages on your talk page. "Actively erasing non-harassing personal messages without replying (if a reply would be appropriate or polite) will probably be interpreted as hostile. In the past, this kind of behavior has been viewed as uncivil, and this can become an issue in arbitration or other formal proceedings. "

WP:TALK says to archive, not to delete everything if it gets too long.++aviper2k7++ 05:10, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

User is now using his IP's as Sock Puppets to delete his talk page. Please see this edit.

Has the following names for proving that his IP is the same as Starwars;

• Special:Contributions/4.245.120.154
• Special:Contributions/4.245.120.144
• Special:Contributions/4.245.121.193
• Special:Contributions/4.245.120.62
• Special:Contributions/4.245.120.215
• Special:Contributions/4.245.121.236
• Special:Contributions/4.245.120.67
• Special:Contributions/Starwars1955

I think between calling people idiots or vandals, blanking his talk page per WP:TALK, completely ignoring talk pages all-together unless to blank them, quoting Wikipolicies that do not exist, completely ignoring WP:V after repeatably being notified of it, and now Sock Puppetry, he could quite justifiably use a vacation for awhile. Starting edit wars on the day you get back from a ban is not good form.++aviper2k7++ 06:18, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

I completely agree. It would be possible to block the IP range for a long length of time (not indefinitely), invoking autoblock, and stopping account creation, if a CheckUser returned that they were confirmed sockpuppets being used abusively. Yuser31415 06:31, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, aviper2k7 has to go say the same thing I said above...only about 10¹⁰ times better. Very good evidence, very good reasons to send him on a vacation. –King Bee ^{(talk • contribs)} 06:51, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

You both have been incivil. A user can blank talk his own talk page and edit warring over a non-policy like WP:TALK (it's actualy a HELP page, not a policy) is disruptive to the building an encyclopeida.

Back off and away from the user.This is why we should alwase assume the blockie wants to come back and place nice with a fresh start. If he starts problems again, THEN deal with it then. ---J.S^(T/C) 06:54, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

The first two edits he made upon returning were to remove references from the Brett Favre page, citing that the records and milestones were "all correct;" i.e., need not be verified for some reason. We then posted messages to the user concerning WP:CITE, which he promptly blanked, ignoring. While WP:TALK may be a non-policy, I really don't think that means that you should brazenly ignore it just for the hell of it. –King Bee ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:50, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

User:Starwars1955 violated 3RR this morning and was blocked 72h, to which I added 24h due to more name-calling (like this). With that done, I second J.S.'s call for Yuser31415 to back off. | Mr. Darcy talk 15:48, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

User:12ptHelvetica

I've indef. blocked 12ptHelvetica (talk · contribs) for sockpuppetry.User:Zoe|(talk) 02:26, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm...This does not show in the logs.Do those take a while to come into sync? --BenBurch 03:29, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Log —bbatsell ¿? 03:38, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks.Must be a hardware error with my computer;The loose nut behind the keyboard. ;-) --BenBurch 03:57, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

And I got an email from User:BryanFromPalatine complaining about the block, calling Helvetica his "friend" who came to his defense.My block stands.User:Zoe|(talk) 17:03, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Daniel Rodriguez

Can I get some other admins' eyes on the related articles Daniel Rodriguez, Jorge Novoa, Broadway Magic, Victoria Ulanov, Chelsea Opera Company, and Maryann Mootos? These articles are all being edited by several editors who have edited only these articles, and all in the past week:

• Abby01 (talk · contribs)
• Broadwaydad (talk · contribs)
• JournalSquareNYC (talk · contribs)
• Leah01 (talk · contribs)
• Maggiesings (talk · contribs)
• Operadog (talk · contribs)

These articles are all very PR-oriented in phrasing, focus, and citations. Although I at first assumed good faith, it seems more and more to me that these may be done as part of a PR campaign. I'm not entirely sure how to proceed with this. A Checkuser? What else? --Chris Griswold(☎☓) 04:10, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Daniel Rodriguez seems to pass the notability guideline, but I've cleaned it up. I'm working through the others - this isn't really an admin issue at the moment, but more of a content matter. If you think there's some sockpuppetry going on, take it over to WP:SOCK instead; I'm not sure that that's what we have here. | Mr. Darcy talk 05:05, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Follow-up: I've speedily-deleted the other three biography articles as non-notable persons; two lacked any sources, while the Novoa article included two sources, one of which mentioned him in passing while the other didn't mention him at all. | Mr. Darcy talk 05:08, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Could use some help here: I prodded Chelsea Opera Company, although I think it's probably a CSD-A7, and one of the editors listed above put this note on Talk:Chelsea_Opera_Company: I and our team, can't do what you are requring... Am I just paranoid, or is that some evidence that there's some shady behavior here? Who edits Wikipedia in a "team?" I'm not going to take any action against these users unless there's some consensus, but I'm a lot more skeptical of their motives now. | Mr. Darcy talk 16:01, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

WP:AFD/Human rights of Kurdish people in Turkey (2nd nom)

I feel vote stacking as it happened on the first nomination is going on again. --Cat out 12:16, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

An AFD not going in your favour is not vote stacking. Do you have links to diffs to prove your claim? – Chacor 12:51, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

I find it odd that a number of Greek voters popped up on the past 'Kurdish Genocide' afd voting keep. The article was not related to Greece or Greeks. The Kurdish Human rights article is being written by a Greek person (according to his userpage). The articles current situation speaks for itself.

Historically Greeks and Turks don't tend to get along well. I am concerned by the objectivity of this group of Greek editors involved with the article and/or the afd.

--Cat out 15:26, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

• Cat out, decide what is exactly your problem. Vote stacking or lack of objectivity of some Greek users (according to their userpages - at least their usepages inform the world about their nationality)? You are confusing me. Please, take a desision, so that I can properly answer you.
• Statistics: From the 10 "keep" votes of the 2nd AfD only 3 come from Greeks. Aren't you concerned for the objectivity of the other 7? Even if the 3 Greek votes are taken away, we still have a 7-4 for "keep"! You see: Mathematics do not help you.
• And I ask every Wikipedia to check the current situation of the article. IMO it is much better than many other encyclopedic articles not only of Wikipedia but of other encyclopedias as well.--Yannismarou 15:34, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

This may come surprising to you but I am asking for admin review. AfD is not a vote.

Yes 3 greek votes when there really should be none. I nominated that page for deletion discussion yesterday, thats quite a lousy coincidence.

--Cat out 16:16, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Why there should be none?!!!! Am I deprived from my right to vote in AfD?? This is outrageous! I keep the term "lousy coincidence" in mind. Because it seems to me extremely offensive (among the other things you have said). The mathematics, Cool Cat! The mathematics!--Yannismarou 16:33, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

You are welcome to be outraged at the coincidence. --Cat out 17:34, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

In the first AFD the argument of vote stacking was the participation of Greek voters. In this case, what is the argument? Hmmmm ... Let me think. We must find something common among those voting "keep". Wait! I found it! They are alliens! Yes, that's is, unidentified invadors from the universe united their forces, and decided to prevent the deletion of this article. And you know what is the worst part of this universal conspiracy: some users went through a mutation. Aldux, for instance, was a "delete" voter in the first poll (and a non-conspirator) and an allien "keep" voter (and a conspirator!) in this vote.

What is most peculiar in this AfD is Cool Cat's attitude who opened a new AfD for the same article within 10 days (or they are too many!). As RockMFR said (you know: he is one of the alliens!): "you cannot continue nominating the same article over and over until you get a "good" decision".

Since Cool Cat opened this AnI, I kindly ask him, for one more time (he has until now refused to do it and responds with ironies [8]), to substatiate his accusations against me personally and all the other "keep" voters. I think this is something he owes me. Otherwise, I will be obliged to launch the proceedures for the initiation of a RfC on him per Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Request comment on users. This is the only way I find in order to protect myself from unproven slanders. Thanks!--Yannismarou 14:27, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

IMO the only one who needs an RFC around here is cool cat himself. Baseless accusations all the time of personal attacks, of vote stacking and other conspiracy theories are quite funny at first, but they get tiring after a while. //Dirak 15:36, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Closed as speedy keep. I share the sentiment that this wasn't a particularly good nom so soon after another AfD. | Mr. Darcy talk 15:39, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

I really hope, Dirak, I won't be obliged to initiate such unpleasant things. I honestly do not like them! These are unpleasant solutions of "last resort". See my relevant opinions here [9]. I am waiting for a sincere apology from Cool Cat. And I really believe he has the necessary quality to understand that he owes this apology.--Yannismarou 15:42, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Feel free to RFC or even RfAr me and see if I care Dirak. Yannismarou my complaint stays. I feel there is vote stacking on both AfD's. --Cat out 16:16, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Cool Cat, you lost my respect with "Yes 3 greek votes when there really should be none." Why should Greeks not be allowed to vote (or !vote if you prefer) on an AfD just because it isn't about Greece? As far as I can tell, you are trying to come up with justifications for going against concensus, and I'm having trouble assuming good faith... --Tango 16:25, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

I dislike it when my statements are misrepresented. I am not saying Greeks are to be prohibited from voting or participating in the discussion. All I am saying is that it is highly unusual for three people of same nationality/ethnicity participating in an afd on a topic not concerning them. They do not appear to be regular participants to afds either. I would be suspicious if it was three Chinese or three Mexican users (I picked the nationalities at random), this has little to do with them being Greek.

Ideally AfD's should be reviewed by impartial people. Surely no one is suggesting that it is preferable to have potentially biased people participating on an afd as a group. People of Turkish origin should not be involved with Afds exclusively Greek related articles in groups either. You are welcome to challenge this logic.

--Cat out 17:34, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

I am not misrepresenting you, although perhaps you didn't write what you intended. You said "there really should be none", did you mean "I would expect there to be none"? I think you're wrong, but it would be a more acceptable thing to say. We allow anyone to contribute to AfD and trust them to be impartial, and trust the closing admin to notice if someone has a conflict of interest. --Tango 17:51, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, although he reminds himself about "good faith" in his talk page, he fails to implement it in praxis. Are you mature enough to acknowledge when you are wrong, Cool Cat, as you also say in your talk page? Let's see!--Yannismarou 16:33, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Why are you trying so hard to avoid an independent review? It is nothing personal you know. I do not apologize when ordered/required to do so. --Cat out 17:37, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

I dislike it when my statements are misrepresented'says Cool cat. Well, I dislike it when other people's statements are misrepresented (how did Yannis try to "avoid" any review?). Neat, eh? As far as I'm concerned, any Wikipedia editor is welcome to give his or her views and reasons for them on any issue without his or her views being dismissed only on his or her nationality. I find it most interesting that Cool cat, whose editing on Kurdish related articles has been described as "POV" in an ArbCom ruling [10] tries to de-legitimize an AFD on an article on the atricities committed against the Kurds by the Turkish authorities (and yes, they did happen - it wasn't a state sponsored kindergarten) fails. //Dirak 17:43, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

I strongly suggest you stop. The topic is weather or not AfD's had vote stacking or not. --Cat out 17:47, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

It has had multiple independant reviews by multiple admins since you brought it here, and we've all come to the same conclusion - there is nothing wrong with the AfD. --Tango 17:51, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Fine, I guess we can go that way too. --Cat out 18:14, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Matthead (talk · contribs)

Yesterday I filed a report here concerning Matthead (talk · contribs). He refuses to discuss matters on talk pages and instead insults me and spreads libel on me in his edit summaries. He was warned by the admins yesterday but he just keeps on going. Can someone make him stop? Rex 11:07, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Anyone?Rex 21:04, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Rex Germanus (talk · contribs) is trying to accuse me again. I've answered at his original entry [11] -- Matthead ^discuß!     O       21:55, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm not accusing anyone. "To accuse" means it still has to be proven someone did something. That's not the case here as you clearly did it . You even did it on this noticeboard on the link you yourself provided above. I'm giving the admins here facts and hope they deal with them.Rex 22:23, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, it'd be helpful if you provided diffs to back up your claims, rather than making people run them down on their own. EVula // talk // ☯ // 22:26, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

I understand. I will provide them shortly after this post.Rex 23:09, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Some examples:

• here
• here
• here
• here
• here
• here
• here
• here
• here

Rex 23:20, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

I didn't "warn" Matthead and I'm not an admin.I just asked him/her to discuss the disagreements between you two on the article discussion pages and to respond constructively on both of your talk pages as well as to provide edit summaries.If that's still not happening please provide evidence of it in a concise manner. Cla68 23:23, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

I know how to solve matters, I just can't stand it that this *** goes through my contributions and reverts at random without good reasons and spreads his bias and libel on me on nearly every talkpage. Rex 23:26, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

You two are having a content dispute.I'm not sure if his/her accusing you of having an "anti-German" bias is a personal attack or not, but he/she is using the edit summaries and discussion pages now to discuss the matter.If you two can't find a compromise on your own, perhaps other avenues of conflict resolution might be appropriate. Cla68 23:37, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

I've just had made an entry to my talk page that may be helpful in getting an overview. Rex caught my attention when trying to delete several well-establish German words from English Wikipedia (see e.g. Kaiser and Sprachraum), while at the same time adding rather surplus Dutch ones elsewhere (Moselle River, Geldern). My recent behaviour might not have been a good example of solving conflicts (especially during Christmas holidays), but it came in response to Rex' actions and attitude. -- Matthead ^discuß!     O       23:48, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Rex has just called me "this ***" a few lines above, right here on Administrators' noticeboard. I'm surprised that this is accepted here - or is it? Also, he had called me "a hypocrit" and the "latest protégé" (Meatpuppet) of Caranorn (talk · contribs). My "behaviour disgusts" him. He also said that he "will go through the whole RFC, Mediation and Arbcom procedure if he keeps purposely obstructing my wikipedia work". Well, I will have a close look on my watchlist - on purpose.-- Matthead ^discuß!     O       00:29, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

The Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ulritz, the following is stated

2) Rex Germanus is placed on standard revert parole for one year. He is limited to one revert per page per week, excepting obvious vandalism. Further, he is required to discuss any content reversions on the page's talk page. - Passed 5 to 0 at 06:05, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

4) Rex Germanus is placed on Probation for one year. He may be banned from any page or set of pages for disruptive edits, such as edit warring or incivility. All bans and are to be logged at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ulritz#Log of blocks and bans. -Passed 5 to 0 at 06:05, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

This was less than 2 months ago. Is all of Rex' behaviour since, especially against me lately,acceptable then, and he is not even under scrutiny for disruptive edits, edit warring or incivility? -- Matthead ^discuß!     O       00:41, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

1. a protogé, is not a meatpuppet.
2. My attitude is not caused by your nationality, but by your actions after accusing me of an anti german crusade and the concequent reverting of my edits and providing libel just as you've done above this post.
3. You are not the victim here, I am.
4. My arbcom case is not your, or any one elses (who wasnt directly involved) bussiness. And if you continue to purposely spread information and biased claims about it because you can't winn a civel argument then so help me I'll be having an arbcom case again, and you're in a lot worse than Ulritz was.Rex 10:32, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Comment from an uninvolved party: I just stumbled across this report and have had no prior interaction with either of the editors involved.Upon reading through the diffs in question, it seems clear to me that Rex is making disruptive and POV edits by removing or attempting to remove legitimate information on German topics.His edits and justifications therefor have a clear anti-German bias (e.g., attempting to remove "Kaiser", but not "Tsar", on the basis that it is synonymous with "emperor".)Matthead, on the other hand, has remained civil and has even provided reasoned explanations on talk pages on why Rex's edits were inappropriate.Contrary to what Rex claims, I see no evidence of any libel against him.I believe that Rex's actions, and this report, is a violation of the terms of his probation regarding disruptive edits and incivility. —Psychonaut 12:54, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

This is outrageous. If you don't see the evidence, then you're blind as I just posted a ton of it above. I made this report because Matthead is biased and obstructs my wikipedia work.

All my edits were validated by edit summaries and talk page discussions.

Ps could we finally get an actual admin here, so we can attempt to resolve this?Rex 13:04, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Pack it in the pair of you

Neither of you are behaving civilly in your discussions or edit summaries, so pack it in.Anymore edit summaries like [12], [13], [14], [15], [16], [17] on the part of Rex Germanus (talk · contribs) or [18], [19], [20] from Matthead (talk · contribs) will see me blocking you for incivility.

• Matthead, if you think Rex Germanus is breaching his parole, the place to note that is here, not in edit summaries.Writing provocative edit summaries helps no-one and merely inflames the situation, causing it to become harder to decide who is at fault.
• Rex Germanus, you are on probation.You shouldn't need one, but take this as a warning that that parole will be enforced.I will block you from any page on which you make an incivil comment or leave an incivil edit summary, per that probation.Incivil edit summaries are disruptivewhether you make them or somebody else does. And don't throw the term libel around so liberally, ultimately it is a legal threat and people who make such are blocked from Wikipedia.

Now the pair of you go and edit constructively and engage with others civilly. Hiding Talk 14:05, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Another victory for Wikipedia resolving disputes. I wonder why I keep trying to resolve things anyway.Rex 14:39, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

And which part of editing constructively and engaging civilly does that fall under?Good day and happy editing. Hiding Talk 18:49, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

How should I know, I'm just an illminded impolite ass on parole aren't I?Rex 19:13, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Erroneous sockpuppet finding

There has been a finding that DP1976 is a sockpuppet of mine. This is an erroneous finding. It is a shared IP address belonging to not just DP1976 and I, but several thousand other employees of a corporation scattered at five sites throughout the Great Lakes region. [21]

1. Farmington Hills, Michigan;
2. South Bend, Indiana (where the server is located);
3. Hoffman Estates, Illinois;
4. Mt. Prospect, Illinois; and
5. Broadview, Illinois.

How do I get this ruling reconsidered or appealed? -- BryanFromPalatine 12:46, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, this is the right place.But I don't think anyone - myself included - will believe you. Proto::► 12:57, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

This person's story keeps changing, and I don't think we have seen the last of his or her's use of socks and IPs to evade bans and disrupt consensus editing processes.How do we proceed to seek a ban on these accounts and the associated IP addresses? --BenBurch 15:38, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, this is the right place. But I don't think anyone - myself included - will believe you. Why not? There are thousands of people with access to this IP address. Even visitors who aren't employed by the corporation have access to a terminal in the company cafeteria. I work here. What would it take to convince you, Proto? - DP1976 16:00, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

What?So you can change your story again to match whatever he says would convince him?Cut the pretense of innocence here - you have been caught.I don't think that there are any editors here that appreciate lying and cheating through abusive sockpuppets.Please stop and please go find somewhere else to make a nuisance of yourself, Bryan.And some free advice; stop using your employers computers to do things like this unless you want to get caught there too and lose your job. --BenBurch 16:30, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

I wouldn't be so quick to dismiss it.I learned in the last week of my last job that I was connecting to an IP address in Florida, although I was in Massachusetts.The company I worked for had 36 locations connecting to Florida - it does happen.Not sure what the user's history is, but don't dismiss that it may, in fact, be true. --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:55, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Clerk Note • Dmcdevit has used checkuser on these accounts and confirmed they are socks.This is not likely nor possible - it is confirmed - language we only use in checkuser when certain the two are socks.Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 17:21, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

How can this be "confirmed" when there are thousands of people with access to this IP address? - DP1976 17:37, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank you!If anybody is interested in the particulars of this case, look here; [22] --BenBurch 17:34, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

While it may be true that DP1976 & BryanFromPalatine are 2 different individuals on a shared IP, from the looks of it they were engaging in some meatpuppetry and there really is no way to absolutely prove they are 2 different individuals.I would suggest they cut their losses here.--Isotope23 17:42, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

... there really is no way to absolutely prove they are 2 different individuals. Yes, there is. Would copies of two separate IDs, bearing different names, mailed to an administrator work for you? - DP1976 18:42, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Stop it, Bryan, so you convince some drinking buddy to let you use his license.What does that prove?You were caught.Give it a rest already. --BenBurch 18:53, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

WP:AGF, but that wouldn't prove anything.There is no way to definitively tie those ID's to Wikipedia usernames; besides the fact that you would have to find an admin silly enough to give out a mailing address... again, I'd suggest you just cut your losses here and move on.--Isotope23 19:10, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Congratulations, Ben. You have just succeeded in getting rid of the only "new editor" of Free Republic who was considering an alliance with you and FAAFA. I'm a liberal Democrat and I still have a Dennis Kucinich bumper sticker on my car. But now I'm gone. - DP1976 19:22, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Bryan, I'm not buying what you are selling. --BenBurch 19:32, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Note: That corporation has a block of IP's ranging from 209.221.240.0 - 209.221.255.255 not just one. Blocking the one offending IP,209.221.240.193, along with DP1976 and BryanFromPalatine is in order. Please continue to investigate 12ptHelvetica. (evidence coming) - F.A.A.F.A. 21:04, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Evidence: On 12/21 DP1976 (confirmed sock of BryanFromPalatine) edited the comments of 12ptHelvetica on a talk page, adding content HERE. Such actions strongly suggests that 12ptHelvetica is yet another sock ofBryanFromPalatine. - F.A.A.F.A. 21:31, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Discussion on blocks

Zoe blocked 12ptHelvetica indefinitely, I blocked DP1976 indefinitely, and I also blocked BryanFromPalatine for one week.I invite community discussion on whether the block on BryanFromPalatine should be shortened, or lengthened; it seems that he's sockpuppeted at least twice, so I think a week is good for now, in the absence of any further evidence.Ral315 (talk) 11:45, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

I think a week should do this time, though we had some troubling IP activity (three reverts of the Talk:Free Republic area in a row) last night after 12ptHelvetica was blocked, and there is still the question of whether User:ArlingtonTX is a sock or meat puppet of this editor. --BenBurch 20:47, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Harrassment of User:Felix-felix

User:Felix-felix appears to be on the receiving end of harrassment by Meaders - who is adding fake and false warning tags saying Felix has been blocked etc. Reinstating them again and again and so on. On behalf of Felix, could I ask administrators to warn Meaders not to continually add these tags - and to watchlist Felix's page to ensure they don't return. Thanks.--Zleitzen 17:44, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

I've just left a final warning at their talkpage. -- Szvest - ^{Wiki me up ®} 17:57, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

I am afraid your "final warning" is a bit in haste. Both sides are accusing each other in vandalism. Judging from this edit,Meaders seems simply misunderstands the "test" templates. He should be pointed to proper ways of conflict resolution rather than slapped unilaterally. The goal should be to educate users to carry out disputes correctly, rather than to threaten them with punishment.`'mikka 19:13, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Edit warring and accusations aside, Meaders has put several times {{test5}}, {{3RR5}}, {{genblock}} templates on User:Felix-felix's talkpage. The thing is that Felix-felix's never been blocked. -- Szvest - ^{Wiki me up ®} 21:01, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

User:Hillock65 and "Jewish atrocities during the Ukrainian famine"

User:Hillock65 has been repeatedly inserting material about "Jewish terrorism" claiming "Jewish atrocities during the Ukrainian famine" into the History of the Jews in Ukraine article; e.g. [23] He's basing this on his own original research concerning an article written by Winston Churchill in 1920 for the Sunday Herald, and on the fact that Lazar Kaganovich was an ethnic Jew from the Ukraine.

After being reverted by a number of editors, he claimed to be leaving, returned to the Ukranian Wikipedia, wrote an "Israel practises apartheid" article as "revenge", and started recruiting Ukranian editors for the purpose of edit-warring. He managed to recruit User:Bryndza, who normally just inserts Ukraninan interwikis, to revert for him, and User:A4, who also normally just inserts interwikis, along with vandalizing Holodomor and removing warnings from his Talk: page. Bryndza has, in turn,recruited more Ukranians on the Ukranian notice board. Rather ironically, both Hillock65 and A4 have most recently reverted using the edit summary "rv mass delition without discussion", though Hillock65 has not responded to several questions on the Talk: page, and A4 had never edited it at all (A4 obviously just copied Hillock65's misspelled edit summary). Now, based on this recruiting, User:Yakudza has shown up to revert, and "warned" me as well, while still not contributing to the Talk: page discussion.

My patience with this kind of nonsense is low; I'm recommending a preliminary block of 1 week each for Hillock65 and A4, and of 2 days each for Bryndza and Yakudza, but I'm open to discussing other penalties. Thoughts? Jayjg ^(talk) 19:14, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Ever tried full protection? --²¹⁰physicq (c) 19:16, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

I can't protect the article, as I've reverted the antisemitic conspiracy-mongering, and I think that it will take more than protection to discourage this kind of extremely bad behavior. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:18, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm protected the article, though perhaps to the wrong version.I'm agnostic about blocks at the moment.Bucketsofg 19:25, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

It's clearly on a wrong version, I'm uncomfortable with the article containing antisemitic conspiracy mongering in it. I also think blocks are called for here, based on the page history alone, not to mention the use of intimidation by bogus "warnings" etc. FeloniousMonk 19:30, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

I've reverted to the less controversial version.Bucketsofg 19:36, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Block them as contentious edit warriors. This nonsense is unsourced OR - remove it, ask others to help keep an eye on the article. One puppy's opinion. KillerChihuahua^?!? 19:34, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

This Jewish co-conspirator endorses blocks. Lazar, we will avenge this dishonor. - crz crztalk 19:38, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

In principle, I'm hesitant about blocks that haven't been preceded by multiple warnings.Bucketsofg 19:41, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Endorse also. I have the plans. Oops, I leaked it. --²¹⁰physicq (c) 19:41, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Hillock65, at least, has had multiple warnings. KillerChihuahua^?!? 19:55, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Endorse, a short-block (less than a of one week for User:Hillock65.I oppose blocks against the others at this point.Bucketsofg 19:56, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

User:A4 has had multiple warnings as well; he just recently deleted them from his page. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:57, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

In fact, he's been blocked twice for 3RR, false edit summaries, and vandalism. [24] I'm not sure I'm seeing the positive contributions that outweigh this. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:05, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

I endorse the proposed block for A4.Bucketsofg 20:09, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm not convinced that a block is justified for User:BryndzaBucketsofg 20:14, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

He edits rarely and intermittently, mostly interwikis, yet he was the first recruit to show up to edit war for Hillock65, without any participation on the Talk: page, and he also recruited every other Ukranian editor. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:17, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but couldn't that be a heat-of-the-moment sort of thing?I would lean toward a stern warning at this point. Bucketsofg 20:40, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Bryndza is the user who called me a vandal for reverting him.[25] Beit Or 20:45, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

A misused 'vandalism' accusation is pretty common in revert wars.Again, a caution seems to me more appropriate.Bucketsofg 20:54, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

I endorse the proposed block on Yakudza.Bucketsofg 20:40, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Hillock's defence

Allow me to clarify a few things. Apart from grossly misrepresenting the events the accuser makes several slanderous and unfounded accusations. First of all, there was no mentioning of "Jewish terrorism" it is a lie. You can check the original name of the article here. One can hardly equate Jewish terrorism with Red Terror and indeed no one even attempts to. As well, the mentioning of atrocities has been dropped out from the title, but the accuser neglected or purposefully mislead the others again. An example of twisted truth is also in allegation that it is based on original research. There was no research on my part, an article of Sir Winston Churchil and quotation by Robert Conquest are there to prove the point that Jews from Ukraine did indeed participate in the Red Terror of the Russian Revolution. This is a well known and proven fact, the article by Winston Churchill is only there to illustrate the point. Another monstrous lie is that I allegedly wrote an article "Israel practises apartheid", you don't even need to know Ukrainian to see where it links to and what are the titles of corresponding articles in English and Russian. However, I do encourage other people to familiarize themselves with it before the accuser can use his ignorance to mount personal attacks. I also consider slanderous, unproven and unfounded accusations that I recruited someone, as another example of personal attacks done in extremely bad faith. I attempted several times to discuss the matter civilly and to come to an acceptable mentioning of Red Terror and Lazar Kaganovich, instead, some people assumed ownership of that article and presume to decide what should and should not be included at all. I dare to disagree. I have a different point of view from theirs and I am intent on making it - personal attacks and slanderous accusations will not prevent me from recounting the well known facts and supporting them with credible sources. I would cordially advise whoever is going to look into this matter to look beyond prejudice and intolerance and see who is really trying to manipulate the truth for their own ends and check all the facts that I have mentioned. Thank you.--Hillock65 21:07, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

If I may, Hillock65, the material that you're including is clearly not appropriate, as was explained to you on the talk page.The block that you're going to receive, however, is not only about the content, but your unwielding stubbornness in insisting on its inclusion in its present form through edit and revert warring.Bucketsofg 21:17, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

You can see that I tried to convince them to include it. I was open to variants but numerous people reverted it without trying to reason. I also added completely neutral material from Encyclopedia of Ukraine and it was deleted again. Without any discussion. Where is my stubborness in trying to at least include that material in the article? What's wrong with that? --Hillock65 21:32, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately for you, uk:Звинувачення Ізраїлю в апартеїді only translates the anti-Israel side of the enwiki article, ignoring all the pro-Israel counterarguments. You're beind disingenuous. - crz crztalk 21:19, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

It is what it is, I translated what I found relevant, I haven't had any objections from anyone yet. And that is beyond the point. The lie is that the article was titled "Israel practises apartheid", it is not. It is up to the people at uk:Wikipedia to improve it. --Hillock65 21:32, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

The problem is that you only find relevant what can be useful for Israel bashing. Beit Or 21:35, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

You will have to prove that, where do you see examples of that? Even if the article is POV, as indeed many are - it is there to be improved. This is not the reason for slanderous accusations. --Hillock65 21:38, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Consensus on Blocks?

In summary, then, am I right to conclude that there is a consensus about:

• block Hillock65 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) for a week
• block A4 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) for a week
• block Yakudza (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) for two days

If an admin doesn't object within an hour, I will go ahead.Bucketsofg 21:42, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Endorse. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:05, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Do it. I am quite unhappy with the verbal gymnastics that serve as a crappy veneer to a vicious bias.- crz crztalk 22:11, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

• Please report point WP:BP. I fairly well sign with rule, I bureaucrat on ukrainian Wikipedia. And I have not found the reasons for my blocking. I have one revert, recoil having written reason (Added text is founded on neutral sources. Does Not follow because of one POV sentence to delete whole text.). Such blocking will be a breach of the rules WP:BP. --Yakudza 22:46, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

From WP:BP: "A user may be blocked when their conduct severely disrupts the project — their conduct is inconsistent with a civil, collegial atmosphere and interferes with the process of editors working together harmoniously to create an encyclopedia."The consensus of admins above is that a block is in order.Bucketsofg 23:01, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

You suppose that one enough clearly motivated editing, interferes with the process of editors?As your offer matches in such event to participate in discussing the article (refer to User talk:Bryndza) with threat of the blocking. As Bryndza or I can participate in discussion if he will be disarmed. --Yakudza 23:14, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I can't understand your meaning.Can you try again in different words?Bucketsofg 23:19, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

You have written on User talk:Bryndza:

The best thing you can do now is to join in the talk page and help work towards a consensus version of the page one step at a time.

А on this page Youthe proposed block on several user. As these Users can take part the article in discussing if they will be blocked? Why must be blocked Hillock65, which put into article sufficient amount sources. As he will discuss the article. You do not allow him to voice its standpoint. This censorship? --Yakudza 23:37, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

He's obviously using robot translation. - crz crztalk 00:44, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Not at all.It is a behaviour issue.The blocks will not be permanent.Once they have passed, these users can join in the discussion.In your case, it seems clear that your English is not strong enough to engage in that conversation.I would strongly advise you in the future to avoid becoming involved in this kind of dispute, since your participation might be taken as meat-puppetry.Bucketsofg 00:29, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Per all of the above, I endorse blocking as well. Khoikhoi 00:31, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

• Update.Yanksox has now blocked Hillcock65 and A4 and Yakudza.Bucketsofg 00:38, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

I reiterate my endorsement of these blocks. You do not balance an article with perceived attacks on Ukrainians with attacks on Jews, and then deny it. --²¹⁰physicq (c) 00:38, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

• Strong support for the block. I explained my position in detail at the talk page. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 01:37, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

• Object to block of Hillock65. The user is a good content contributor, I have been collaborating with him on Bohdan Chmielnicki and several other articles. I'd strongly advice probation - if he breaks the 3RR again, then block him for two days given his block record, but for now his other contribs are quite valuable and I don't think his violations in one article are enough for a week long block PS. I don't see that the user has been notified at the talk page why he was blocked; what's the reason for such an ommission?.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  03:24, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

With all due respect Piotr, it seems to me you just admitted a conflict of interest in your objection.✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 20:18, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

User:Bryndza

Regarding User:Bryndza, if you look at the Ukrainian-German collaboration during World War II article, he showed up there to revert war for Hillock65 and Yakudza; this was another article where, for some bizarre reason, Hillock65 felt it was necessary to remove fact about Jews being killed in WWI, and instead insert and revert yet another conspiracy theory about "Zionist-Nazi collaboration" [26] [27] [28] [29] [30]. Anyway, after Hillock65 was reverted a half dozen times, Bryndza showed up, first to vandalize the page 3 times as an IP editor [31] [32] [33], then to revert war under his userid and under his IP, violating 3RR in the process [34] [35] [36] [37] [38] I suppose he thought he could evade blocking by editing as an IP as well, so no-one would know. Based on this, I recommend a week block for Bryndza as well. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:46, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

• I don't understand how we know that that IP is Bryndza.Can you clarify?Bucketsofg 00:51, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

I notice that an IP editor had been doing multiple reverts on the page; it looked like someone was logging out in order to violate 3RR and not get caught. A CheckUser proved that to be the case. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:35, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

• No 3RR-violation here that I can see (my review is at User_talk:Bucketsofg/temp); I'm inclined to accept his explanation for the one IP-revert as having forgotten to sign in, since it is several hours since his previous edit.The deletions as IPs were excessive and deserve a strong caution, as do several of his edit summaries and comments here.I think it is important that we not make him responsible for anyone's edits but his own and several of them seem to me to be well worth considering. Bucketsofg 17:38, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Bryndza to Bucketsofg

To Bucketsofg. If these guys are so insistant, then several remarks and questions:

1. Why reverts [39], [40] by User:Beit Or withought any discussion (please find me at least one his post at Talk:Ukrainian-German collaboration during World War II) can not be called vandalism but my edits and contibutions where I acctualy write text into article and provide support to calims can?
2. Why Mr Beit Or can easily revert my edits ([41],[42]) where I add a sentence: The first written document, Kievian Letter, that acknowleges existance of jewish community in Kievan Rus' is dated byearly 10th century (or possibly 11th century). (BTW, what wrong do you find in it?) without any discussion. Do you find something wrong in this sentense? Or this is just because he is not violating 3RR rule when doing this only twice in a row and then turn goes to Tewfik [43], [44] and then Jayig comes into play [45] and so on.
3. Now I'm listing my blunt reverts here: two of the Beit Or's vandalism ([46], [47]). Do you see more? Others are corrections, requests for facts, adding constructive information. Even when correcting vandalism by 7x sockpuppet User_talk:Yarillastremenog. User:Humus sapiens and User:Carabinieri, you are the only two who actually contributed to the article (not just reverted it). Do you find my edits violating some rules at WP?
4. Now can you explain me please how User_talk:Yarillastremenog can get out from this war without even being banned, but User:Hillock65, User:Yakudza, User:A4 get overly lengthy bans for nothing but ... for what actually? I did not really get it.
5. Now I'm relisting logs that Jayig claimed above to be my revert. I comment them shortly. Please confirm yourself:

   [48] (adding fact templates, some corrections of hyperbolyzed terms, adding 2 sentences), [49] (similar edits as most previous were removed by "warriors")[50] (Unknown IP edits) [51] (rv of Beit Or) [52] (again rv of Beit Or). Where is 3RR violation here? And where are actual reverts?

6. You do not find that well coordinated "work" of User:Beit Or, User:Jayjg, User:Tewfik, User:Yarillastremenog, User:Crzrussian, User:Humus sapiens and User:Carabinieri and others from this Co on both articles: History of the Jews in Ukraine and Ukrainian-German collaboration during World War II is a war? But only User:Hillock65, User:Yakudza, User:A4 were the "warriors"? Did you actually check what are some of these people are "writing" about? Well, to keep story short, I find once again that great idea of WP failed as a project (at least in English version). I value my participation here only marginaly for a long time already. So your decision whether to ban me or not may finally help me to make firm decision to leave (as many ohters already did). Thanks.--Bryndza 06:55, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
7. BTW, just noticed another hero on the scene: User:Redstone357. Just take a look [53]. Seems like User:Yarillastremenog is back on trail of war. Sad. In fact it only discredits all Jews...--Bryndza 07:02, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Reply from Bucketsofg.

(1)Vandalism on wikipedia has a very specific meaning: see WP:VAND.The important point of which is that vandalism is a deliberate attempt to harm vandalism.It goes to motive. It seems obvious to me that Or's edits were motivated by a desire to improve the article by removing questionable material.You disagree with his opinion here, as is your right, but to call it vandalism is simply wrong and does not help your case.

LOL! I just improved the article "by removing questionable material" inserted by new sockpuppet.Is that OK? [54] using same approach.

(2)In revert wars it is often the case that good material gets tossed out with bad.This is part of the reason that revert wars are so harmful.In this case, you might have tried re-inserting the Kievian letter and {{fact}}-tags by themselves and tried to build a consensus around them before moving onto the more difficult material.

(3)The edits which you cite are not in isolation terribly problematic: your edit summary is incivil (please see my comment about vandalism in §1).The question now is whether you've also used socks in light of Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Bryndza .

(4) User:Yarillastremenog received an indefinite ban (as black a mark on a record as can be given) that has subsequently been lifted [55].Given Piotr's intervention on behalf of Hillock, it is not impossible that Piotr's Hillock's block will be shortened. Bucketsofg 14:37, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

(5) On 3RR.1RR, 2RR (as IP 65.94.19.47), 3RR. I do not see a fourth reversion and therefore find no breach of 3RR, but I remind you to avoid getting into reversion wars. 4RR is here.I've reported it at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/3RR#User:Bryndza.E2.80.8E_reported_by_User:Bucketsofg_.28Result:.29 if you want to double check the evidence.A block will be coming shortly.Bucketsofg 23:24, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Follow up:

The last revert is reverting recently banned [56] open proxy vandal User:Redstone357. Cyting 3RR policy on this matter:

• Reverting edits from banned or blocked users

Editors who have been banned from editing particular pages, or banned or blocked from Wikipedia in general, and who continue to edit anyway, either directly or through a sock-puppet, may be reverted without the reverts counting towards the limit established by this policy.

Therefore this revert does not conform the 3RR requirement. Plus it was provoked by yourself, Bucketsofg as I applied your justification to the revert. Please see (1) in [57].

Also I would like to cyte another paragraph from 3RR policy:

• Intent of the policy

The three-revert rule is intended to stop edit wars. For your information, article Ukrainian-German collaboration during World War II have been blocked from editing and revert war stopped. I'm still awaiting your advize where I can file a complain on your handling of the cases. I would appreciate much if you help my finding appropriate authority (3-rd party able to review actions of admins) as I'm not familiar with your rules here.--Bryndza] 05:20, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

(6) I encourage you to consider those editors as individuals making individual decisions about what edits are appropriate--that is, WP:AGF.Do not lump them into a group and make them all collectively responsible.Indeed, I'm concerned that you are yourself at the receiving end of a similar lack of WP:AGF.You are responsible only for your own edits; each of them is responsible only for his or her own edits.Some of those you mention seem to be behaving inappropriately.Most of them, however, are making honest efforts to make the article better.Also, please be patient.I have other things I have to do today.Bucketsofg 17:11, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Bucketsofg, the IPs are mine. I feel free to use "multiple account" like Yarillastremenog and even sometimes forget to log in. Now show me three consecutive reverts involving these IPs and fill out request for my 3RR block approprately. Please do diferenciate between reverts and edits. And finally please provide me with a link to some page where I can contest your judgements of the recent blocks and overall handling of the cases. Where can I complain about your work? Especially when after yuo follow "recommendations" to give a one week ban for 3RR of sockpuppets.--Bryndza 15:06, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for that.I encourage you to consult WP:SOCK about when multiple accounts are appropriate.If you reread my point #5, you'll see that I find no violation of 3RR.(If others want to review my reasoning, see User_talk:Bucketsofg/temp).Also, if you see below, I have not yet endorsed any block against you.Indeed, I'm inclined against any block at this stage.Please, however, do not make my job of arguing against a block any more difficult.Bucketsofg 16:45, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

OK. Yet I disagree with the harsh measures towards Hillock65, Yakudza and A4. Would my objection below Piotru's make any difference? And another question - how Piotrus can shorten his own ban by objacting against Hillocks65 ban? I'm a bit confuzed about these WP rules.--Bryndza 16:52, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

I advise you to leave advocacy for those users to Piotrus, who is highly regarded and will surely do them some good.Your involvement in that issue will probably not help.Bucketsofg 17:11, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Discussion of block

I support the block based on 3RR violations as documented by Jayjg, continuing accusations of vandalism, and gratuitous attacks on Jews like "In fact it only discredits all Jews". Beit Or 07:37, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

• Endorse week-long block for Bryndza. This is beyond ridiculous. One edit "discredits all Jews" but your edit warring and POV pushing doesn't totally discredit you? Gimme a break... Grandmasterka 08:38, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

I support the block together with Beit Or and Grandmasterka. Enough of this POV-pushing. -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 14:29, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

• I oppose a block at this point. I'm not yet convinced a block is appropriate. Bucketsofg 16:59, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
• BTW, please allow me to file a complain first and then block me. --Bryndza 15:08, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse per Grafikm.TheQuandry 19:45, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Ukrainian-German collab article

Article Ukrainian-German collaboration during World War II was written sock puppet User:Hcirehcok and reverted sock puppetUser:Yarillastremenog and User:SirMole. She is typical POV and Attack page, She contains several xenophobic phrases. And so she has caused indignation many ukrainian (and other) editors. (see Talk:Ukrainian-German_collaboration_during_World_War_II) --Yakudza 00:02, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

I totally agree with Jayjg. Enough of this anti-semitic POV-pushing. -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 00:09, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

I ask to bring proof or apologizes for their own insults. What our editing the article Ukrainian-German collaboration during World War II is anti-semitic. This only attempt to bring about NPOV of the article by writtenned vandal-sockpuppet. --Yakudza 00:24, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Judging from the discussion it seems a pretty preconseived matter. While everyone discusses at will who vindalized what, everyone seem to forget that many other users, like Jayjg resorted to reverting before discussing. And only because he filed the complaint his side it taken for granted. As of yet I haven't seen an objective and level handed judgement of this matter. Things need to be checked on both sided, not just one, and blame if there is any should be shared equally between users likeBeit Or 27 December 2006, who hasn't left a single comment and reverted multiple times. Fairness goes both ways, not just one.--Hillock65 00:17, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

If you're inserting gratuitous attacks on Jews, they're right to revert you without comment, and the edits of yours that I've seen did amount to that. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:21, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

I suppose that a prejudgement coming from an administrator, I suppose. I guess bias agains Ukrainians is less gratuitous for you. Very balanced attitude. It speaks volumes.--Hillock65 00:29, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

FYI, active inciting and recruiting is going on in Ukrainian WP under the banner of Ukraine-phobia, assailed Ukrainian honor, patriotism, etc. [58] Our "victims" here are very proud to suffer for the motherland. Hillock65: "Take a look here. Christians and Muslims have religious terrorism. But Jews don't, even though redir leads here. So make conclusions who is in charge in English Wiki." [59]. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 05:22, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Mea Culpa

Big time. I actually had techinical issues with my computer while giving these blocks out, and I was under the inclination that I had alreadly posted messages on talk pages. Obviously, this was not the case, and to put it simply, I just screwed up. I've posted messages on the blockee's pages, and am willing to discuss this at further length with more depth. Yanksox 06:00, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

As stated above, I consider a week long block for Hillsock65 an 'overkill'. I find blocks based on 'disruption' and content issues (and this is one of those) greyish; in this case looking at the article's talk page we can see discussion ongoing, and co majority support for any side. The procedure in this case should be to protect the article, not to block one side. I certainly don't want to wheel war, but I'd urge you to either 1) unblock the users and protect the article until they agree on a version on talk or 2) at the very least, reduce Hillock's block to 2 days (doubling of his last one day block).-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  12:49, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Is the Germ-Ukr-collab article a pov-fork?

It seems to me that an underlying problem here is that the German-Ukr-collab article is a pov-fork which is, if you'll excuse the expression, a shit-storm waiting to happen.By its nature it creates a defensiveness amongst Ukranians.Yes, many Ukranians collaborated, but many resisted, and naming an article collaboration by its nature practically defines those who want to include resistance as pov-pushers. One solution that we have to consider is finding a name for this article that at least has a prayer of producing a balanced presentation of a very difficult period of the human experience.Bucketsofg 17:26, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

I have suggested editors merge this article with History_of_Ukraine#Ukraine_in_World_War_II or create a new article History_of_Ukraine_in_World_War_II.Comments?Bucketsofg 17:47, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

I find it very reasonable solution if my opinion matters. Merging is preferable. --Bryndza 19:41, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Bucketsofg, out

Hi all, I'm away now for a few days.I've done my best to be fair to everyone, and to treat each editor as an individual. I'm going to have to leave much unfinished business here for the other admins.Bucketsofg 23:28, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! You performed right, I think. I consider creating article Occupation of Ukraine by Nazi Germany which will cover specified subjects. Hope that will be better (but I'm not sure, someone will not start another war edit there... I'll notify, if any) --Galkovsky 01:44, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Abuse of blocks as a way of resolving disputes

Why exactly User:Hillock65, User:A4, User:Bryndza, and User:Yakudza were blocked?

User:Hillock65 recently joined English Wikipedia, and in the last 2 weeks wrote from scratch such artciles as Battle of Konotop, The Ruin (Ukrainian history), Hryhoriy Hulyanytsky, expanding others, such as Bohdan Khmelnytsky.

Then, a week ago, a sock-puppet wrote Ukrainian Nazi Collaboration during WW2, a one-sided provocative article, in which the author was focusing entirely on presenting evidence of participation of Ukrainians in extermination of Jews in WW2. Holocost is one of the biggest tragedies in the history of the world; it was a deliberate genocide of one nation. Yet, what User:Hillock65 was pointing out is that while there are evidences of cooperation of Ukrainians with Nazi, there are also evidences of Ukrainians hiding and sheltering Jews from Nazi. In fact, if we were to present the true picture, should not both sides of the relationship between Jews and Ukrainians be presented? At the end, if we are down to the single most important fact then the fact is that the absolute majority of Ukrainians were in Soviet Army fighting Nazi.

But, the attention was moved to History of the Jews in Ukraine. User:Hillock65 presented evidence of Jews being overrepresented in Soviet government, and connected the dots with Bolshevik's terror, and Holodomor, one of the biggest tragedies of Ukraine. In response, he (and other Ukrainian contributors) were blanked by User:Humus sapiens, User:Jayjg, User:Beit Or, and User:Tewfik ([60], [61], [62], [63], [64], [65], [66], etc.) with the summaries such as "remove obvious antisemitic conspiracy mongering", "rv biased original research", "rv political POV", "this is already covered in NPOV way in Jewish Bolshevism", etc.

Then, User:Jayjg posted it as an incident on this noticeboard, claiming that "his patience is low", and asking for the blocks of his opponents. But, wait a moment, a block for what? True, what User:Hillock65wrote was rather POV, but blanking him, and blocking him does not make it right. What was a dispute subject to Wikipedia:Resolving disputes, what needed to be converted into NPOV (rather than blanked), and being resolved in civil ways, such as mediation, or other step outlined in Wikipedia:Resolving disputes, was resolved by blocking 4 Ukrainian contributors. Was it the right way to resolve the dispute? Or, was it "no man, no problem" principle? If they are blocked for "edit warring", did they really fight with each other, or with the other side, which turned out to be more powerful?

We are writing articles about history, but do we really learning from the history? --KPbIC 23:56, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Blanking of article

An article previously went through an AfD and it was decided the content should be merged and redirected. The content in question was Paul Thompson (researcher) and its redirect is to his book The Terror Timeline. Since the closing of the AfD the author has appeared in Congress, given over 100 interviews on numerous outlets including Fox News and Air America, his research has inspired a movie 9/11: Press for Truth, he appeared in Esquire in their "Genius Issue" being cited as a terrorism expert, his research is used by Richard Clarke to teach a course on terrorism at Harvard.

The problem is the page is now being reverted back even though it now meets WP:RS and WP:V and notability guidelines. Can I please have an admin put an end to their reverting of what is now a detailed and fully sourced article.

Previous version: [67] Current version: [68]

An uninvolved admins assistance is requested. --NuclearZer0 16:48, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

The consensus of the AFD was merge and redirect. I suggested that the user obtain consensus to recreate the article before recreating the article. I reiterate that suggestion. Hipocrite - «Talk» 16:49, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

The page has been vastly expanded. YOu deny this because you previously voted to delete the page, not exactly non-bias. Further we have articles on his book, the movie which his research inspired, but not him, that makes little sense. --NuclearZer0 16:51, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

There is WP:DRV if the original reasoning the the AfD is no longer valid. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 16:52, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Why use DRV when you can just edit war and get BadlyDrawnJeff to edit war right along with you? Hipocrite - «Talk» 16:53, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

DRV is deletion review, this was a merge, odd you would say that after your noticeboard buddy jumped in to assist in your edit war --NuclearZer0 16:56, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Assuming that he has corrected the problems with the prior article, Nuclear's actions seem to be within policy.The relevant section of the Guide to Deletion states:

If you think that an article was wrongly deleted, you can recreate the article. If you do decide to recreate it, pay careful attention to the reasons that were proffered for deletion. Overcome the objections, and show that your new, improved work meets Wikipedia article policies. It can help to write down the reasons you think the article belongs on Wikipedia on the article's discussion page. If you manage to improve on the earlier version of the article and overcome its (perceived) shortcomings, the new article cannot be speedily deleted, and any attempt to remove it again must be settled before the community, on AFD.

Of course, Hipo isn't speedying or blanking, he's replacing with a redirect.Is there a way you two can work together on this?TheronJ 17:02, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

I was and remain willing to discuss the article in whatever venue he would like to discuss the article in. The shortcomings have not been overcome, as the expressed increases in notability are not accurate (interview count is fabricated, no congressional panel, article is only about his notable timeline). Hipocrite - «Talk» 17:04, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

There is a source given from House.Gov proving he was asked and did appear at a cognressional hearing regarding the final 9/11 commission report, I can even dig up his exact words if need be. The interview count comes from a WP:RS source, if you read the source you would have seen that. Any more objections? --NuclearZer0 17:07, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

The word "hearing" has a specific and defined meaning. What you reference describes an informal briefing, not a hearing. Hipocrite - «Talk» 17:13, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

my deepest apologies, I will change from hearing to briefing. Doesn't change the notability. He was still called before Congress as an expert on terrorism. Also making up how many people were there of fthe top of your head is bad =( --NuclearZer0 17:21, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Opps nothing to change, I did list it correctly in the article. --NuclearZer0 17:23, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

It was not before Congress. It was before the two congressmen in question. It was not before an authorized comittee or subcomittee. It was not before the whole body. Hipocrite - «Talk» 17:24, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Where does your magic count come from? He was invited by McKinney, do you really think that the cosponsor means they are the only other person to show up? You can watch a special on PBS about co-sponsoring and how its just a show of support, not a count of people showing up. --NuclearZer0 17:29, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Please cite a reliable source for your statement that other congress people attended this informal briefing. Thanks! Hipocrite - «Talk» 17:30, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Kristen Matthews. "Tracking The Terror", The Sunday Star Times (republished), March 13, 2005. Its listed in the article. --NuclearZer0 17:31, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

I followed this procedure to the T,[69] I originally voted to delete, and after hearing more about him and him being an inspiration for a movie, I went and researched more. On the talk page you can see I highlighted the reasons listed, one being his book would fail AfD as well, which it did not. Other reasons had to do with sources, which I provided plenty of. I think the items I listed establish their notability. --NuclearZer0 17:07, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

• If you guys want a suggested compromise, I suggest (1) Nuclear work on Hipo's objections for as long as the two of you think is productive, and then (2) the two of you jointly re-nominate the article for AFD to test whether Nuclear has corrected the problems. (I'm not saying that either of you is required to do that; just that it might resolve the issue constructively) TheronJ 17:22, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

• Hipo states he believes the article doesnt meet notability, I think it surely does and if Hipo was not a person who voted delete before and now seems to not even be reading the sources before stating that they do not contain the information, I find this all in bad faith. HE wrote a published book, a movie was based on his research, which spans before and after the book, he has been asked to testify to congress, done over 100 interviews, including fox news and air america, was cited by esquire , used by richard clarke to teach a course ... there is no real pleasing Hipo I believe as this shows. --NuclearZer0 17:27, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

• Please cite a source for these 100 interviews that exists in the article, as I have now requested three times. Thanks! Hipocrite - «Talk» 17:28, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

• Addressed on talk page already, thanks for playing. --NuclearZer0 17:29, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Just as an update, both users above were blocked for WP:3RR, one plans to "game the shit" out of 3RR once the block expires.--badlydrawnjeff talk 22:09, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Tellyaddict (talk · contribs)

I am concerned that this user appears to be deleting messages on his talk page, even after I've warned him not to do so.Also, he is a bit keen to {{prod}} pages and also doesn't seem to understand WP etiquette.It's not a major problem, but he's had words before and I think he needs a chat from an Admin. He's not malicious, but a bit too keen to "wade in with his size nines" without fully appreciating what he's doing — superbfc [ talk | cont ] — 19:56, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Diffs would be helpful here so an admin doesn't have to comb through his whole edit summary. Deleting messages on his own talk page may be bad ettiquette, but it isn't against any core policy to the best of my knowledge (someone correct me if I'm wrong).Can you provide examples of of incivility or misues of PRODs?--Isotope23 20:01, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

I took some time and looked into a couple of recent edits and I don't think there is any reason for anyone to warn User:Tellyaddict.He removed a rather incivil rant from another editor and was the soul of civility in his response to said editor.I asked him to please use edit summaries when he CSD or PROD's an article.Other than that I don't see anything actionable here that an admin would need to address.--Isotope23 20:37, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Okay - thanks.Sorry to have troubled you, I probably put 2 and 2 together to get 5 — superbfc [ talk | cont ] — 21:48, 29 December 2006 (UTC)