Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 07:58, 12 January 2008

• WP:ANI
• WP:AN/I

This page is for urgent incidents or chronic, intractable behavioral problems.

• Before posting:
  • Consider other means of dispute resolution first
  • Read these tips for dealing with incivility
  • If the issue concerns a specific user, try discussing it with them on their talk page
  • If the issue concerns use of admins tools or other advanced permissions, request an administrative action review
  • Just want an admin? Contact a recently active admin directly.
• Be brief and include diffs demonstrating the problem
• Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead go to Requests for oversight.

When starting a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page; pinging is not enough.
You may use {{subst:ANI-notice}} ~~~~ to do so.

Closed discussions are usually not archived for at least 24 hours. Routine matters might be archived more quickly; complex or controversial matters should remain longer. Sections inactive for 72 hours are archived automatically by Lowercase sigmabot III. Editors unable to edit here are sent to the /Non-autoconfirmed posts subpage. (archives, search)

• Refining the administrator elections process
• AI-generated images depicting living people
• Blocks for promotional activity outside of mainspace
• Voluntary RfAs after resignation
• Proposed rewrite of WP:BITE
• LLM/chatbot comments in discussions

User:Utcursch

User:Utcursch is abusing authority and showing discrimination towards Hindus. User:Utcursch is a Sikh Extremist who is influencing hate between Hindu and other religon communities.

due to 1984 terrorism in India. you can see page Bhindranwale who was a famous Rebel Saint who kills hindus, doesnt need to be locked and has been locked for a really long time. User:Utcursch has shown discrimination to me as well and has caused tensions between religons.User:99.237.253.131

... HalfShadow (talk) 05:15, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Hezbollah userbox

User:Raggz

slakr

User John Celona

• John celona (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

I would like to request a block for this user. He has disregarded the consensus for an article which took days to determine, has blatantly used inflammatory/hateful language on edit summaries despite requests from other editors to stop, and now he is making POV edits in a vindictive way. Others have experienced the same thing, pls see: http://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:John_celona -- there are many editors who have asked him to stop with the repeated bad faith accusations -- pls see Peter Yarrow talk page...Oh, and I forgot to mention that he has made several edits to the article using a suspected sockpuppet, pls see: http://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:David_in_DC#Checkuser_.3F--- --Jkp212 (talk) 03:02, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

I believe I made exactly one post having forgotten to sign in. So much for sock puppets. User Jkp212 should be blocked as he has posted inflamatory language falsely claiming that a judge claimed a 14 year old girl "coerced" a 30 year old man into sex. This is not true. In fact, the child "resisted the advances" of the molester. ,, Despite being asked four times to provide a source for this alleged quote (made at 20:00 on the Peter Yarrow discussion page) user Jkp212 is unable to provide such a source.John celona (talk) 04:46, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

I dispute Jkp212's primary charge, that John celona has disregarded consensus on . The minor content issue in question (whether to describe a prison term as "short" or "three months long") hadn't been specifically agreed-upon. Regarding the other charges some diffs or other evidence would help. Editing without logging-in isn't sock puppetry unless the editor attempts to make it appear that he's different people to violate 3RR or skew consensus. I don't see any blockable offense. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 07:06, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Will, User John Celona did much more than try to add "three month". That is a huge misrepresentation -- pls read his edit history. He repeatedly added inflammatory material to the article and edit (without discussing it on the talk page) DESPITE being asked kindly to avoid such edits. He attacked every other editor on the page, and he made vindictive POV edits as a fighting tool. Have you actually looked at his edits? And yes, there WAS a consensus reached, which is why several editors kept asking John to respect the consensus. --Jkp212 (talk) 16:34, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Any fair reading of the Yarrow talk page shows Misplaced Pages at its best, including one RfC that reached a resolution, thru December 15th. From December 21st on, the date of John Celona's first edit that upset the work of a hard won consensenus, everything degenerates. In this case, reading the actual talk page, with a keen eye to the chronology, tells the story better than any recapitulation would. David in DC (talk) 16:26, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

On Dec 21, user Sarcastic Idealist asked John to avoid use of the word "molest" and other inflammatory language in edit summaries. He did so on the talk page, and John clearly saw this, and then went on to use the word and other inflammatory language in edit summaries numerous times. --Jkp212 (talk) 16:57, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

No, the word "molest" is in any number of the verifiable links I posted on the disussion page. I believe 10 of them were posted. On the talk page, not the article. John celona (talk) 01:33, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree that the user in question is being somewhat tendentious (as is, truth be told, User:Jkp212 from time to time), but I don't think we're anywhere near blocking territory. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 18:01, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Amen to that: if anyone deserves to be warned about anything it is Will and Jkp212. They are trying to bite a newbie because he disagrees with them. Yes John seems to be seems to be a bit tendentious at times but he seems to be learning from his mistakes.

John Celona is adding to the problem by making WP:POINT edits to Gene Krupa and Charles Lahr. David in DC (talk) 02:08, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Willbeback and Sarscastic idealist But allow me to put things in another perspective by saying that John celona is a newbie who seems to be learning from his mistakes while David and Wkp212 are continuing to try and find ways to vilify him for haying opinions that are at variance with there own. : Albion moonlight (talk) 09:47, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

You have got to be kidding, Albion. We have tried numerous times to make very civil requests on Celona's talk page or on article talk pages (as have you), and his edits seem to be getting more combative. disruptive, and POV, with absolutely no good faith toward any editor. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk:Frank_LaGrotta&diff=prev&oldid=183323574 or take a look at the yarrow talk page. --Jkp212 (talk) 15:57, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree that http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk:Frank_LaGrotta&diff=prev&oldid=183323574 is combative, disruptive, and POV, with absolutely no good faith toward any editor.   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 17:56, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

In addition, John celona stated that "The final solution is a hoax" in this edit concerning articles Holocaust and Holocaust denial. He has not backed down from that statement. Holocaust denial is uncivil and offensive.   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 18:30, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually, you will find that was in reponse to a threat from a user on another page to my posting of my mother's experience in WWII France. The user threatened that by posting my mother's truthfull recollections I would be prosecuted in France! My response, while "in your face" and sardonic was not unprovoked by such a ludicrous coercive threatJohn celona (talk) 00:39, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Are these the "truthful recollection" that you refer to, which are essentially Holocaust Denial? : http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk:The_Holocaust&diff=prev&oldid=144901749 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jkp212 (talk • contribs) 01:31, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

That comment, while offensive and totally a jerk move, was also 7 months ago. The time to complain about it was then, not now. I agree, however, that running to other articles to edit them to his idea rather than find consensus and then act isn't the best solution, and that having been asked to wait for that consensus, any further edits of the sort are POINTy. A warning is urgently needed for such system-gaming, and maybe a block. ThuranX (talk) 18:44, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't see how a BLP dispute on one page has any connection to pages on deceased persons to whom the BLP doesn't apply. If an administrator tells me to desist from putting these verifiable links to pages on dead people I will do so. John celona (talk) 00:39, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

It seems that user Celona has violated the 3RV policy over the last day or two. --Jkp212 (talk) 19:49, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Okay, could you provide us with one article where that is the case?John celona (talk) 00:39, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Gene Krupa --Jkp212 (talk) 01:18, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

::::::False. As anyone who goes to the revision page can plainly see. ] Please point out where I made more than 3 reverts? If I had, you would have had me blocked in 5 minutes flat. Perhaps you should be blocked for posting false information, removing properly sourced material from non-BLP articles for BLP rationales and posting false and unsourced material (as you did on the Peter Yarrow page at 20:00 on January 8, 2007) claiming a Judge stated a child "coerced" her adult molester into sex while the sourced material clearly states she "resisted the advances" of her molester. John celona (talk) 01:43, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) I've reviewed the edit history of the article, and while there's clearly some edit-warring going on (for which it takes two), I don't see a WP:3RR violation. Could you provide diffs of the three offending edits by John Celona? Sarcasticidealist (talk) 01:26, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Below are some of the edits. I will note that there were a number of editors who had requested that he not make those edits at this point.

http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Gene_Krupa&diff=prev&oldid=183097877

http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Gene_Krupa&diff=prev&oldid=183112037

http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Gene_Krupa&diff=prev&oldid=183304527

http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Gene_Krupa&diff=prev&oldid=183320993

http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Gene_Krupa&diff=prev&oldid=183531276

http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Gene_Krupa&diff=prev&oldid=183624764 --Jkp212 (talk) 01:40, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

I should add that I'd rather not have anyone blocked, and if user Celona now understands how disruptive this type of thing has been, and avoids doing it, then I would prefer that there not be a block. --Jkp212 (talk) 01:52, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

From 23:19 8 Jan and 21:56 9 Jan, he reverts three times to a version initially edited in just a couple hours earlier. If it's not an actual textbook 3:24 ratio, it's close enough, especially in light of the repeated requests for him to wait and find consensus. Add to that his current wiki-lawyering attitude, and it's enough for a block to prevent more reversions without consensus, and to allow consensus to begin to form. That way, after 24 or 48 hours, there will be some premises regarding consensus to whihc he can add a statement, one which he'll have 24-48 hours to prepare. ThuranX (talk) 01:51, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Neutral Good

• Neutral Good (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• Waterboarding (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Can someone please tell this person to lay off the accusations, innuendo, and personal attacks? He has received final warnings from two admins (Henrik and Jehochman) and is still continuing. He just caused Waterboarding to be reprotected a 5th or 6th time with another edit war. More chestnuts:

• here
• here

He had posted the same text on Ned Scott's page here on ANI, and then pulled it. I have several times publically asked this person to stop with this poisonous atmosphere, and have largely abandoned that damned page because of his POV pushing and harassment. Lawrence Cohen 04:04, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Lawrence is leading a cabal of meatpuppets from the Blackwater Worldwide artiole, pushing his own POV with a Caterpillar bulldozer (which is what attracted my attention in the first place), and trying to intimidate editors who disagree with them by making false accusations of sockpuppetry, in an obvious effort to WP:OWN the article. An illustration of how Lawrence tells you only half the truth: both Henrik and jehochman have taken his side in this content dispute. Lawrence is in the habit of marching over here to WP:ANI or WP:RFCU on an almost daily basis, telling half the truth and spin-doctoring it as well, in an effort to get editors who disagree with him blocked. I survived two consecutive findings of  Unrelated on RFCU within a week. That is the Misplaced Pages equivalent of a body cavity search. And I'm supposed to just shut up and take it? Get him off my back, and stop him and his meatpuppets from WP:OWNing the article. Allow me to thank any admin in advance who is contemplating an effort to get Lawrence Cohen and his meatpuppets under control. Neutral Good (talk) 10:07, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

This is not an endorsement of Neutral Good's methods but I have a problem with this posting by Lawrence. Both Lawrence and Jehochman are active and biased editors on the article in question. They disagree with Neutral Good. I have detected a consistent pattern on the part of Lawrence and Jehochman to eliminate people from the article who disagree with them using administrative measures and influence to the point that it may reach to harassment and could cause someone to say the sorts of things that Neutral Good said. Other editors that Lawrence and Jehochman agree with are left untouched by these complaints even if they are also problematic. Jehochman has engaged in general threatening of editors on the page on very flimsy grounds. Lawrence has engaged in personal attacks. If I were another neutral admin, I would proceed cautiously and not automatically assume that either Lawrence or Jehochman come with entirely clean hands to the matter.

Incidentally, I consider the edit war to be the result of actions by another editor, not even mentioned here, who initiated edit changes witout consensus. However, Lawrence happens to agree with this other editor so he could not be the source of the problem. --Blue Tie (talk) 11:34, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Blue tie, I disagree strongly with your analysis. In the case of Misplaced Pages:Requests for checkuser/Case/GooseCreek I identified a group of checkuser confirmed sock puppets. In a second case Misplaced Pages:Suspected sock puppets/Shamulou I identified yet another group of editors who had collaborated off wiki and then put forward a proposal without identifying their connections to each other. Both situations were serious violations of policy. Alison decided to unblock Shibumi2 early because he had come to an agreement with her via email. That may be forgiveness, not vindication. Jehochman 14:16, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

For the record, that was forgiveness and understanding but not vindication - Alison 15:42, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm only peripherally acquainted with this article, but the claim by User:Neutral Good that it was POV-pushing that "attracted his attention" to the article strikes me as rather rich, given that he is a single-purpose account, 99% of whose edits are to this article and related talk pages. BLACKKITE 13:38, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Reliable sources almost unanimously state that waterboarding is torture. A few fringe sources, as well as editorials and political pundits claim that waterboarding is not torture. Blue tie and Neutral Good have been attempting to synthesize the viewpoints of these different sources to say that the classification of waterboarding as torture is controversial. This is not a verifiable fact; it is their own original research. As a matter of verifiable fact, there is no legitimate dispute that waterboarding is torture. (See Talk:Waterboarding/Definition, the RfC page.)

Misplaced Pages is not a battleground, but Neutral Good in particular appears to be to making it one. He appears to endlessly argue against consensus. His editing has contributed to the article being protected endlessly. Jehochman 14:16, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Notice how deeply involved Jechochman is in the article content. Though this particular page that we are reading right now has NOTHING to do with the content of that article, he brings the whole debate from that page here, where it is irrelevant. I will forego proving his contentions wrong, as they belong on that page not this one. But, the important thing to notice is how he is using wikipedia administrative practices to push around people that he disagrees with on the article. Before any action is taken based upon his words, his motives and demeanor should be examined as well. --Blue Tie (talk) 02:57, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Completely false statements by both Neutral Good and Blue Tie. I came into that article after an edit war I found via RC, and that Alison locked down. I stuck around, and occasionally helped out on talk over the months, and finally helped to get it unprotected--I have nearly no edits to the article itself, beyond gnome work like reference formatting. I have consistently asked for more people to look at and watch the mess on Talk:Waterboarding as the situation had begun to deteriorate: why would I do that, exactly, on multiple noticeboards over the past 6-7 weeks, if I was doing something illicit or trying to hide some nefarious activity? If there is some sort of contested situation I believe the only people who would not want more attention drawn to it are the people who are wrong, and arguing from a position either not supported by policy or by facts. I've told both Neutral Good and Blue Tie to get more attention from admins on the article themselves if they wanted. They complain rather loudly when I do so, myself. Why is it they want less attention drawn to Talk:Waterboarding...?

The waves of SPAs then all arrived en masse for whatever American election cycle reason. Either way, this has nothing to do with the waterboarding article specifically in this posting I did--it is not a content matter. It is about the aggressive SPA Neutral Good, who does not contribute to anything but one topic (Waterboarding), runs around this site in my wake, waging some sort of campaign against me. He appears to be either a troll or bad hand account. Lawrence Cohen 14:44, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

(conflict)

That "waterboarding is torture" is indeed reported by many reliable sources. That "waterboarding" is an buzzword that has a variety of confounding meanings with other tortures -- even within those hallowed sources deploring it -- seems to be irrelevant. htom (talk) 14:48, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

What does this have to do with Neutral Good running around Misplaced Pages, leaving nasty messages about me after receiving final warnings from two administrators, and complaining bitterly when I ask admins to review the only page he focuses on? Lawrence Cohen 14:51, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Neutral Good has spoken out (unfortunately in a sarcastic and confrontational manner) about a problem that has concerned many of us on the Waterboarding article. Please do not disregard what he says simply because of the way that he says it. Lawrence, Jehochman and their friends came up empty-handed on their first two Checkuser attempts, were partially (and only briefly) successful on their third and, despite all of their caterwauling, the influence of the Harvard Law students has been positive, thoughtful and well-measured. They are abusing the administrative processes in an attempt to WP:OWN the article, and should be banned from it for a week. Maybe even a month. Regards, Bob 68.31.166.239 (talk) 15:47, 9 January 2008 (UTC) This template must be substituted.

And now, if you don't mind, I'll respond to the preceding sneaky, underhanded attempt to delegitimize me by labeling my account as an SPA. I happen to choose to edit anonymously from an IP address, as I have every right to do. I happen to have an ISP that gives me a rapidly shifting IP address; otherwise, I could point to a trail of thousands of edits on hundreds of unrelated articles, going back more than two years. This SPA tag is precisely what I'm talking about when I say, "They are abusing administrative processes in an attempt to WP:OWN this article." There is a constant level of low-level needling and baiting coming from them and it is destroying WP:CIV. I will not tolerate being delegitimized in this fashion. Please do something effective about this sneaky little pack of trolls. Forgive me for this outburst, but they are really getting on my last nerve. Regards, Bob 70.9.48.23 (talk) 18:34, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Proposal: Temporary topic ban

OK, as I've become more frustrated with the ability of tendentious single-purpose agenda-driven editing to stall improvement of articles, I'm going to propose something here, as an admin uninvolved in this dispute. Neutral Good (talk · contribs), based on current contribution history, appears to be an aggressive single-purpose agenda-driven account with evidence of edit-warring and tendentious editing. S/he is by no means the sole problematic presence at the Waterboarding page, but his activity has been signficantly unconstructive and is unbalanced by positive contributions elsewhere.

I propose that Neutral Good be banned from article/talk pages relating to waterboarding, loosely defined, for a period of 1-3 months. This will provide an opportunity for this user to contribute elsewhere on the encyclopedia (they have expressed an interest in improving several unrelated articles: , ) and develop a track record of positive contribution. The waterboarding article will still be there in a few months. I'd like to hear thoughts on this proposal, ideally from uninvolved editors and admins. MastCell 19:21, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

As long as it is the first step, and that any other edit warriors who pop up get the same treatment, I would endorse this. SirFozzie (talk) 19:29, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Yesterday I protected the article again only a few days after it came out of the previous protection. It's clear that what we've been doing up to now hasn't worked. I don't know the positions or histories of the combatants, but any admin who has the fortitude to dive in and start topic banning (or blocking) the most troublesome edit warriors has my support. Raymond Arritt (talk) 20:23, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

(ec) I like the imagination behind this solution. "If you aren't a single-purpose account, then prove it by editing other articles for a while." This solution should be used more often. -- llywrch (talk) 20:27, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Support a topic ban. I believe that without this editor the Waterboarding dispute will be resolved more quickly, and allow Neutral Good to improve unrelated articles in the meantime. henrik•talk 20:29, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

And what were the lot of you planning to do about the editors who "are abusing administrative processes in a campaign to WP:OWN the article"? Three-month article bans for them as well? That would be the only fair solution. If you're going to ban Neutral Good from the article for three months, ban the people who have been abusing admin processes in their effort to harass Neutral Good and others who disagree with them. Otherwise, you endorse abuse of admin processes, and you endorse this violation of the Misplaced Pages policy known as WP:OWN. 209.221.240.193 (talk) 20:44, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Suddenly, I hear crickets chirping rather loudly ... 209.221.240.193 (talk) 21:06, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry that 20 minutes were allowed to lapse before your comment got a response. I don't see evidence of "abuse of administrative processes in a campaign to own the article." I see a tense situation involving a number of otherwise productive contributors and at least one tendentious, single-purpose agenda account. My instinct is to remove the single-purpose agenda warrior from the equation temporarily and allow the other editors, who generally have track records of constructive collaboration and encyclopedia-building, a chance to work it out. On Misplaced Pages, it's very easy for one person shouting at the top of their lungs to drown out 10 people trying to be reasonable. If you have actual diffs and a more compelling argument that some sort of abuse of process is taking place, then please present them, but rhetoric alone is not particularly convincing. MastCell 21:34, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry that I didn't respond sooner, but I only look in on WP:AN/I about once every day or two -- I find it more enjoyable to spend my time working various articles than to opine on disputes. But I stand by my earlier statement: if a given editor appears to have no other other goal than to force her or his own point of view on an article, that person should be encouraged to work on other parts of Misplaced Pages for a while -- regardless of allegations of "administrative abuses" or whether I agree or disagree with the point of view in question. The fact is that we have over two million articles here; getting into a long, tedious fight over one of them is counterproductive at best -- & self-destructive at worst. -- llywrch (talk) 07:07, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, I couldn't help noticing that the endorsements of a block for Neutral Good were coming like machine-gun fire about two minutes apart, and in fact encountered an edit conflict with one another; but the moment I suggested some equity, the machine gun fell silent. If you want diffs, I'll look them up tonight and post them on your Talk page in the morning. Fair enough? In the meantime, try reviewing the Talk:Waterboarding page and the edit histories of Badagnani (talk · contribs), Inertia Tensor (talk · contribs), and Lawrence Cohen (talk · contribs) over the past couple of weeks. That's where I'll be looking. Thanks. 209.221.240.193 (talk) 21:44, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Inertia Tensor (talk · contribs) certainly looks bad from a brief skim, but has not edited in the past 2 weeks, so I'm not sure what you expect me to do with him unless he acts up again. I'd recuse myself from any action regarding Badagnani (talk · contribs), since I seem to recall we've had some fairly heated discussion on diet-related articles. Lawrence Cohen (talk · contribs) has a track record of positive collaboration and encyclopedia-building, including several FA/GA's, and I don't see anything in his contribs there warranting sanctions, though diffs are always welcome. MastCell 22:09, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Inertia Tensor: I've been silent recently, because I've been in this cyclical wheel for a long time, as see no point in repeating myself on the talk page. I've been staying off the article main page, and even the talk recently as it is pointless. As soon as consensus is achieved, the article is unlocked, it then hits the fan again. If people would rather I would keep on ....? I'm tired of being baited by puppets and trolls there. You will note I did not get involved in this latest go at Neutral Good. Since when was backing off bad? Unrelated, I have no issue with IP editors, I preffered to do so as an IP but eventually had to switch to user with all the RfCs to vote (as annoyingly, IPs are banned there) - plenty of bay area comcast IPs before the creation of this Inertia Tensor account were me. Inertia Tensor (talk) 08:23, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I've gotta stick my nose in this. I keep seeing SPA being thrown around as a pretty bad thing over and over lately. It is not inherently a bad thing. It is not against policy. Some here do seem to be trying to turn it into a bad word though. Arkon (talk) 21:46, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

SPA's are not inherently bad. Some of our best articles are written largely by SPA's. However, SPA plus soapbox plus tendentious editing is a noxious and all-too-common combination. MastCell 22:02, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Neutral Good has already explained, on Talk:Waterboarding, that he had an extensive history of editing as an anonymous IP. Again, that is not inherently a bad thing, nor is it against policy, but some her do seem to be trying to turn it into a bad word. 209.221.240.193 (talk) 21:52, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Leaving aside the SPA issue, are Good's edits tendentious or needlessly provocative? Looking no further than his contributions from today, I see edits along the lines of this. Raymond Arritt (talk) 21:55, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Yeah not a particularly good comment. However, considering the heat on the topic, my completely uneducated, uninformed, worthless opinion is that it isn't worthy of a topic ban of any sort. Arkon (talk) 22:03, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Support ban as a marginally involved editor with this page watchlisted for a while. ➪HiDrNick! 02:05, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

It seems to me that a 3 month ban for violating something that is not policy (SPA) is extreme. If the problem is WP:TE, I was unaware that TE was a policy either. If you are going to exercise a ban, it really should be for something that the community has agreed to by policy. But realizing that wikipedia does not always operate by either consensus or policy but on some other indescribable basis, I would at least suggest that there should be better evidence of evil than has been presented here. The frustrations of two highly biased admins (at least on this topic) who are pushing other editors away from that page should not be sufficient testimony for extreme actions. I do not like to communicate the way that NG does, but as with Arkon, I just do not see a serious violation in his comments. And I believe it is incorrect to say that NG was the cause of most of the protections on the article and it is inconceivable that he is the only cause ... yet he is the only one accused. I get the feeling that this is a case of scapegoat.--Blue Tie (talk) 03:08, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I think every good editor agrees that incivility and disruptive editing are not helpful or wanted on wikipedia. Accusing admins of being biased is not going to help. They are chosen for their track record in good editing practice. If you find yourself in confrontation with one you should be questioning your behaviour and your bias. In my opinion there is clearly enough evidence on the talk page. --neonwhite user page talk 03:39, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

You're damn straight, Blue Tie. Here's what I've seen in Internet communities and this one is no different. The trolls pick on the new guy. The new guy reacts a little strongly. The community, to the astonishment of the new guy and any detached observers, rises up in defense of their trolls because they are, after all, THEIR trolls. Neutral Good (talk) 03:24, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, on the other hand, you sort of play right into it and do yourself no favors by calling people trolls. I suspect, like many people, you are getting emotional over these things (feeling targeted can do that too). I recommend that if you feel emotional, you take some time off to cool down. --Blue Tie (talk) 03:33, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I take time off to cool down on a regular basis. In fact, I just came back around Christmas from (approximately) two months of Wikibreak and saw this mess. I also take at least two eight-hour periods off every day, to work and to sleep. There appear to be several editors on the article who don't even do that. Neutral Good (talk) 03:39, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

A BETTER PROPOSAL would be to instead LOCK the article and the talk page thread each for 16 hours each day to allow editors a hance to cool off and relax withoitu worrying that the others guys are fucking around with the original ocntent. Smith Jones (talk) 03:46, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

That makes no sense. Tendentious editing is a subset of disruptive editing. Which is a guideline. As I said, Neutral Good is not the only problematic presence on the article, nor is s/he the root of all evil. On the other hand, the other editors currently involved generally have a track record of being able to work collaboratively elsewhere. Neutral Good has a track record of unmitigated tendentiousness. The idea behind the topic ban is not to excuse everyone else, but to a) temporarily remove a particularly inflammatory and unconstructive presence, and b) to give Neutral Good a chance to build up a better track record of collaborative editing on other articles before returning to waterboarding. Trust me, the article and the issue will still be there in 3 months. MastCell 03:46, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I see a problem with you last statement based upon the history there. Previously (before I edited there), there were apparently disputes. Supposedly they came to some consensus. Some of the editors now claim that regardless of right wrong, left right, etc. they are simply seeking to preserve consensus. The argument boils down to "We already decided so it must not change". If that philosophy prevails, then when he returns in 3 months, the chorus will be "We already decide now go away". I must have missed it, because I do not see NG's edits as being especially bad on that page, and I think it should bear some weight on the matter that he was, almost immediately accused of being malicious (as I recall) based upon the fact that he was new but seemed to know wiki-editing. When an editor is greeted with that, and treated badly by a small mob, their reaction to that treatment can look like tendentious editing. And perhaps it is. But it is not exactly one sided.

I believe a real solution to the problems on that page would be to ban anyone who insists on only one form of wording and nothing else. The only folk left then would be those who are willing to consider other wordings. Such people are able to negotiate and eventually come to consensus. People who are intractable, not just on principles but on exact wording cannot come to consensus if anyone else disagrees with them. That is a big part of the problem there. --Blue Tie (talk) 06:35, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

A summary of the problem

Yes, it's long. Sorry. Please read it anyway.

The problem is that Waterboarding is a massive hot potato in the current American election cycle, which is attracting more and more people that want to install an American-centric POV onto the article, irregardless of minor details such as the fact that American politics are a tiny fraction of what has significance and weight in Misplaced Pages articles. 144 sources say Waterboarding is torture, a solid half dozen to a dozen say it's not. The ones that say "not" are all American, right-of-center types. One political viewpoint of one idealogical bent getting to install modern American POV onto a topic that dates back to around the year 1400, predating the United States, is the problem, but no one is hardly willing to come out and say that in the interests of WP:AGF. I'm going to suspend AGF a moment here, which I know I shouldn't do, but someone needs to try to summarize this mess. If this goes to Arbcom this is probably going to be my statement.

That is the crux of the entire problem--it's a pure push to minimize and downplay the wording and effects of the article, specifically in calling waterboarding "torture". That simple facet is a content dispute, but an extremely, extremely weakly positioned one, that virtually every new person to the waterboarding page has agreed is a weak position--the views of the American Right are a lone viewpoint in general, and the view that waterboarding is not torture is a very, very small minority viewpoint. Various courageous warriors however are trying to inflate this fictional disparity into something on the level of the debates on abortion, Holocaust denial, or global warming. It simply isnt. It's a small number of Americans saying that after 9/11, it's not torture. It doesn't work that way, because that violates NPOV. It can argued it may be disputed in some American political circles, but it's preposterous to say that globally waterboarding is contested as a form of torture. Any suggestions that the article and in particular it's lead reflect a global world view primarily are met with scorn. One person even was so bold as to say that foreign opinion is irrelevant, because they haven't been through what we Americans have.

That is the problem: a tiny minority group of very vocal tenditious editors are insisting that a minority American point of view needs to have elevated, weight-enhanced authority to preserve NPOV. Everyone else says that in the interests of NPOV, the exact opposite needs to happen, with the minority American POV (that is held by very few sourced, notable authorities) being relegated to the WP:FRINGE side of things per WP:WEIGHT. Neither side is willing to budge, and with each verbal body check it just gets worse each day, until the past 24 hours when we finally had people running around virtually waving their arms screaming "FIRE! FIRE! FIRE!" in all directions, on every side, following the Harvard class experiment that en masse decided to decend on the waterboarding debate to weigh in (just when you thought it couldn't get any more bizarre).

Before waterboarding was on the news media every day the page and talk were quite manageable. Things went downhill civility-wise here (no offense: just saying this based on chronology, not saying they were directly responsible) after Neutral Good arrived; after 209.221.240.193, a confirmed IP address of User:BryanFromPalatine/User:DeanHinnen arrived, and several weeks after Blue Tie arrived further. Those were the basic landmarks for downward progress as I recall. Add in the confirmed per User:Alison sockpuppetry involving Shibumi2 and others, and the random ever changing massive cloud of Sprint Wireless IPs that sometimes (but not always) calls itself "Bob" was just the icing on the cake. Other than that, debate had been quite civil, barring the occasional drive-by lunacy, until roughly the past three weeks.

I am routinely astonished that one side of the debate goes ballistic with anger and innuendo whenever any user attempts to get more eyes on the problem. I and others have been derided for having the nerve to ask in places like the RS noticeboard, Fringe theory noticeboard, and here on ANI, and was accused of using requests for more people to review a situation as an attempt at canvassing. If some were so convinced that they were truly defending Misplaced Pages in the name of NPOV, why would they be so upset at the fact that I wanted more people to review the situation? If the defense of NPOV was true, then all the "new" people would side with the correct side of the NPOV debate here. The fact that nearly every single "new" person has sided with the "Is torture", global sourced view, over the past week since this got wide exposure after civility went out the door, has caused civility on the talk pages to completely flush itself down the toilet in response. Make of all that what you will. Lawrence Cohen 07:14, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. The problem has nothing to do with the Election Cycle. The fundamental problem is simply that the issue is disputed in society at large and wikipedia, for better or worse, reflects society. However, that basic problem is compounded when editors not only refuse to assume good faith but actively look and seek for ways to discredit anyone who disagrees with their perspective. The post above is an example. Sure... he does not "say" that certain people are responsible, but he names names, one after the other, of people who disagree with him and says the last one "puts icing on the cake". It throws gas on the fire for an admin to take a strong partisan view and then post about the guilt all around him, while he and fellow sympathizers are innocent victims tolerating hoodlums. One would think that only the people who disagree with Lawrence are causing problems. I guess if everyone who disagree with him would go away, things would be just fine. But that works both ways. Sure, he's not canvassing for support. He's just dragging the content debate from that talk page over to this one -- and complaining. No, that's not canvassing. That's getting "more eyes". Look at how hard he tries to convince everyone here that his position is the right one... even before you get to that talk page! But its all in the name of keeping you neutral when you arrive. And to emphasize how neutral his position is, he asserts that all the new people agree with his view. He then asserts that these new people joining up on that side have enraged some small minority to ferocity, apparently because they are somehow outnumbered. Well, from the perspective of editing suggestions for the articlethat is simply not so. New editors have stated that the firm stance that the article takes "Waterboarding is torture" is not correct and should be adjusted. In fact, there really has not been a terribly uncivil situation on that page that I have seen. It has been very active. Sometimes heated. But the uncivility has not been all that bad until tonight when an admin imposed new rules on the page, but then did not enforce them -- leading to a sense that things were "unfair". THAT is the problem and it will soon die away. But meanwhile, Lawrence comes here and salts the well against the people who disagree with him by claiming that they are unreasonable, uncivil and basically horrible --- so all fair minded admins can know exactly what they should do or who they should target when they arrive if they are even remotely sane or good people.

Other than the fundamentally difficult nature of the topic, the most important contribution to that article's heat has been a constant drum-beat of subtle and overt provocations and bullying actions by admins who take a strong pov in the debate. Perhaps due to the nature of the issue, it is impossible for an admin to be unbiased. But I do not agree with the causes that Lawrence postulates above. --Blue Tie (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 08:13, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

What you decline to mention was that this fake consensus was the pre-made meatpuppetry from Harvard, that has already been discredited here: those people are all the admitted Harvard classmates that made a decision ahead of time, in real life, then all came to Misplaced Pages to post that very section. Abusive meatpuppetry. Lawrence Cohen 14:57, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Probably because it was not discredited.--Blue Tie (talk) 19:43, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I originally got involved after a posting by Lawrence on WP:RSN asking for uninvolved editors to contribute. After watching for a few weeks, I will agree with him that the presence of certain editors is extremely disruptive to the consensus building approach. Almost every posting by a certain editor is designed to drive other editors apart and provoke confrontation and endless argument. The endless contributions from anonymous Sprint wireless IP addresses, the confirmed sockpuppeting from those addresses, Neutral Good's Request for Adminship for the sock-puppeteer, the support of those addresses here etc. I don't know how these editors are connected, but it seems to involve Free Republic somehow. While all of this is going on, any attempt to build consensus will fail, and editors will be driven away from the article.

I also agree with Lawrence (and disagree with Blue Tie): this disruption is completely about American politics. There are absolutely no citations from before 2001 questioning the status of waterboarding as a form of torture. The dispute is wholly as a result of its use by the CIA, and those who wish to justify that use. Chris Bainbridge (talk) 12:40, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I think it is possible that there are no sources prior to 2001 that use the term waterboarding at all. If you have seen any, I would be very excited to read them. --Blue Tie (talk) 19:45, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

The origin of the English word "waterboard" is an interesting question, but does not affect the meaning of what I wrote: every reliable source reported the drowning technique as torture when done by the Spanish, Japanese, Vietnamese, Khmer Rouge etc. Nobody claimed the technique might not be torture before 2001. Chris Bainbridge (talk) 20:23, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

It seems to have been used at least as early as 1946 in UN documents. All evidence I have is the second entry on this Google Books search, I have no easy access to these documents to check it any further. Fram (talk) 14:40, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Jon Awbrey and socks at it again

Hello, this another request for page protection due to vandalism from Jon Awbrey and socks he has instigated here. Could someone please get all the pages that are unprotected? You can find them in this user's contributions. Thanks, GlobeGores (talk | contribs) 04:16, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Was an IP check ever done here? - Rjd0060 (talk) 04:29, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Not sure what you mean by that. Most of the users anyway are now blocked and tagged with {{sockpuppet|Jon Awbrey}} , but more and more keep getting created. I thought IP addresses of usernames could only be obtained by checkusers - correct me if I'm wrong. There were a few IPs originally, but I can't find them. Let me look for some. GlobeGores (talk | contribs) 06:12, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Checkuser can indeed find the IP addresses of usernames - there's an IP check section on WP:RFCU. Jon Awbrey has been suspected of using 12.75.19.10, 217.237.149.143, 12.75.18.31, 12.75.20.26 and 12.75.22.13 which looks like a dynamic range to me. All the articles he blanks are now semiprotected so he's forced to use sleeper socks to blank the pages. Hut 8.5 07:48, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, the IP check section is what I was referring to. I am no expert on ranges, but is there no way to knock out most of those with a range block? - Rjd0060 (talk) 16:50, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't see the point in IP checking, since it's hardly likely Awbrey doing this. There is an oustanding request over on WR for anybody to come over here and disrupt these articles. It's more likely these people are meatpuppets. And what purpose does doing an IP check accomplish, anyway? The vandal will get blocked, the pages reverted, rinse, repeat. Corvus cornix_talk 18:37, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

• Last time CheckUser was run it turned up a number of sleepers. Awbrey is clearly not going to give up, this obsession behaviour is part of what got him banned, so it's not a waste of effort to run checkuser when a new batch of socks starts to mess about - better than locking the articles, since that reduces the chances of their being expanded and/or merged. Andif anyone feels like starting that logic of Charles Peirce article to merge the stubs on terms only he really used, now would be a good time :-) Guy (Help!) 23:46, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

i have nto been folowing the controsversiy but it hitnk that it would be betetr if jon awbery were listened to. he might have some valid auobjections to the way wiki proceudr eworks sna dit would be betert to listen tohim and get his input to se eif he is genuinely trying to be construcitve or is actually just an ordinary vandal. if he is genuniately trying to be constructive, then it would be best to appease him by bbaning all of his sockpuppets except one andf orce him to use his remaining account to take on a leading role in repairign adn reorganizing the articles he damaged. i am a firmly believer in diploamcy as a way for encyclopedic success sand he current fascist slash-and-burn tactics of only hunting down the symbtoms of a potential vandals' behaivor rather than the root cause is antithetical to both the idea of fredom of speech and that of diplomacy. Smith Jones (talk) 23:52, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually, from what I gather from all the activities of the sock/meatpuppets, they seem to be blanking the pages based on a remark made by SlimVirgin on User talk:Jimbo Wales Awbrey's work; according to them, she said "... it's probably all original resource for which a realiable source might be hard to find." Awbrey took offence at that comment and instructed users on WR to blank the pages. Am I correct? GlobeGores (talk | contribs) 00:46, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

(side-remark,

• The related discussion is archived at User talk:Jimbo Wales/Archive 31#JzG
• A subsection of that section (User talk:Jimbo Wales/Archive 31#Original Research accusations) dispels at least part of SlimVirgins contentions.
• Making a link to that archive subsection (e.g. in an edit summary ) appears to talk sense to those who thought wise to follow JA's advise.

Hoping for non-confrontational solutions... --Francis Schonken (talk) 21:54, 11 January 2008 (UTC))

iv that is indeed the case that it would be beter for this issue to be taken to arbitration betwen slimvirgin, jw awbrey and this thugs, and user; jimbo whales to discuss this issue. baning random sockpupets wll only increase teh amount of restnetment int hte atmosphere, leading to a rbeakd own of order on wikipeida and a lot of hurt feelings on either side. it might ahve the neegative efect of even driving away awbrey and causing him to even stop blanking th pages, which would be an unfortunate since the loss of ANY editor, no mater how seemingly problematic, robs this encylcopedia of a valuble and priceless source of experince, dedicaiton, and wisdom. Smith Jones (talk) 00:52, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I think this is more of an overreaction to one editor's comment by another editor. I don't think ArbCom is required for something like page blanking and simple vandalism, even if it is on behalf of the author; I'm fairly certain that Awbrey's work on the logic articles (in fact, pretty much all of his article space) Never mind, it was universally agreed upon that that is not true; only logic-related articles were useful. GlobeGores (talk | contribs) 02:49, 10 January 2008 (UTC) was much appreciated; however, in Misplaced Pages- and other spaces, he created several disruptive pages (see here for the discussion that let up to his ban). Wiki-editors make comments that others construe as offensive. Maybe we should accept that everyone here does not know everything and move on. ArbCom is not needed for something like this. Awbrey was warned to stop with the "project-spam" and didn't. GlobeGores (talk | contribs) 02:45, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

you may be right about arbcom but then again i never actally mentioned Arbitration Committess- that was an issue that you brought up, wich many people might see as a strawman argument. when i said the word 'abritration' i meant an informal dispute resolution betweenthe two users either on the talk pages, on this page, or privately via email or osme kidn of chat program. obviously slimvirgin and awbrey are having an intense, unresolvable dispute regarding whether or not certain thigns should have been said or not said, but that does not mean that we should rnadomly accuse someone of vandalism and block the to solve the problem. arbitray rule-enforcements only isnpire resentment and lead to further vandalism and bad faith assumptions down the road. the best and the onyl realy moral and decent path is conflict resolution that invovles both parties on an equal disucssion ground rather than having one person act as an inquisitor and the other serve as a tdefnese. this is really disturbin and if the behaivor does not stop then a permanent ban from the internet might be required but it woudl bemuch better if this can he headed off since it would be far beter to have awbrey continue to blank pages here than to have him banned forever and lose anoter great mind that can help use improve this encyclopedia for both our generations and genreations to come. Smith Jones (talk) 03:21, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Hmm... From what I can tell, the general term for taking something to the Arbitration Committee is "arbitration." The more general term is "dispute resolution," which is I now see what you actually meant. Also, as said above, it may not be Awbrey himself that is doing this, but rather a parade of meatpuppets. The proposition about letting Awbrey come back to edit is an interesting one - however, this is a community thing, so the Misplaced Pages community should be the one to decide whether or not Awbrey merits a second chance. As an aside, this is getting a bit long, maybe it can be moved to a user talk page? GlobeGores (talk | contribs) 05:34, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

whose talkpage?> i dont like it when peopel post things to my talkpage a lot and im not sure tha tit belongs on your talk page either. mayb e if jon awbrey could login or somethign twe could continue it there. and i agre ewith your reservationsr egarding the community; my sugestion was only a suggestion that the admins or the wikipeida community at large to consider. a full iunvestigation sohould be launched to make surte that it s acutally aubrey who deserves to be baned and if there is no other way to resolve this disupte otherwise. oh, and i dont think that the word "abritration" was invented by the Arbcom and they shouldn tbe the only ones who can control that words meaning. Smith Jones (talk) 20:24, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

The issues between Awbrey and Misplaced Pages are not at root a personality conflict; at least, nobody's personality except his. Awbrey considers himself an expert on certain subjects in which he is not considered by many to be an expert, and in which he has no formal training to the best of my knowledge. This led him to attempt to write a number of Misplaced Pages articles slanted towards his own personal POV without sourcing in most cases and without regard for bias and undue weight, since his ideas and theories do not conform to the established academic consensus on them. When informed that Misplaced Pages's policies forbidding original research and unpublished theories did not permit what he was doing, he attempted to change Misplaced Pages policies to let him publish his theories here and was disruptive in so doing.

Essentially, Awbrey was banned for being a disruptive user who refused to accept certain set-in-stone policies. Whether or not any personality conflicts resulted, I submit that the results would not be changed either way; Awbrey's beliefs and attitudes conflict with what we're trying to do here and thus with fundamental Misplaced Pages policies, and he has been extremely disruptive when Misplaced Pages users and admins prevented him from ignoring Misplaced Pages policy. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 20:36, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

One slight complication is that Awbrey apparently has, or has had, some sort of proxy- or account- sharing arrangement with other abusive users such as MyWikiBiz - previous checkuser requests have come across nests of sockpuppets that seemed to have both Awbrey and MyWikiBiz sockpuppets intertwined with each other. But either way, if a sockpuppet is disruptive, we can simply block it no matter who it is. :) krimpet✽ 05:45, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

If you look at my contribs from January 7, you'll see that using checkuser, I blocked a whole lot of Awbrey socks. I think I got most or all of them that existed at that time. I also range blocked him to make sure he can't register anymore. If you see any new Awbrey socks popping up (new as in they edited after Jan 7) please let me know. Raul654 (talk) 22:02, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Deletion & Redirecting of an Article Without Consensus

moved to talk page for continuity of discussion, especially as discussion was complete here.

Ursasapien and WP:EPISODE

As some may be aware, there has been a lot of discussion of late over whether WP:EPISODE should exist as a guideline or be merged into Misplaced Pages:Manual of Style (writing about fiction). The guideline was tagged for merging on December 21st by User:Ursasapien . Discussion commenced and there was no clear consensus for a merge (equal number of supports and objectors with valid arguments on both sides. Despite the lack of consensus and on-going discussion, on January 7th, Ursasapien decided to "be bold" and redirect WP:EPISODE to the MOS with the edit summary of "redirect per WP:BURO and WP:CREEP.". It was reverted as vandalism after a few hours, but Ursasapien just redid it minutes later now claiming it was based on consensus. His redirect was undone by a different editor and a note left on Ursaspien's talk page. On the 8th, Ursaspien tried a different tactic and replaced WP:EPISODE with a "disambigutation" page. I reverted as, again, there was no consensus and the discussions were still on going.. I also left a note on his talk page. He redid within minutes, and a different editor reverted moments later.

Despite now having four different editors undoing his actions and even more telling him to stop, he continues to try to argue the case. He claims he is "enforcing" policy and removing "guideline cruft". He is deriding those who have undone his edits as a "local consensus" and only acknowledges arguments supporting his own position. He also put in a call for more comments at Misplaced Pages talk:Manual of Style (writing about fiction). In his message there, he blatantly lies by falsely claiming there was consensus for his actions and in claiming that the people who reverted his edits never participated in the discussion (while at the same time claiming two of the people who have reverted his attempts to clear WP:EPISODE as supporters of his efforts on his talk page). (historical links in case of changes: talk page discussions and his post on the Fiction MOS talk page.

At first, Ursasapien was given the benefit of the doubt, probably because he's only been editing for about a year and seemed to be acting in good faith, but his actions are becoming more and more disruptive. He waited just long enough on his last revert to not quite fit 3RR, but he continues to ignore multiple editors telling him he is not acting appropriately. I feel at this point an administrator needs to deal with this as he has made it very clear that he does not care what other editors think or what consensus is dictating. Collectonian (talk) 07:37, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Response by Ursasapien

I have been editing WP since September 7, 2006 but many of those edits were before I registered. I have been very active in television projects but I have varied interest. There was a long discussion regarding whether or not WP:EPISODE violated WP:BURO and WP:CREEP. This led me to propose a merge and redirection of the disputed guideline into WP:FICT and WP:WAF. Further discussion ensued, but since it was over the holiday break, it was agreed that discussion should continue through January 7th. Discussion appeared to have ended by January 2nd. The discussion seemed to be split between those who saw the merge as a good idea and those who said, despite this guideline violating policy, they liked it or needed it and it should be kept. I boldly implemented policy and consensus. I was reverted. I discussed and made the change again. I was reverted a second time. I reopened the discussion and answered objections. I got further guidance and won over those who had previously objected. I boldly attempted to implement the change again but was immediately reverted. Despite Collectonian's contention, I feel I have not been given the benefit of the doubt, have been sujected to bad faith, and have been treated uncivilly. My actions were done in good faith but I misinterpreted suggestions and, apparently, moved too fast. I have not been "disruptive" by any stretch of the imagination. I consider this report to be vindictive and just another attempt to wear down opposition to policy violations. However, I have agreed to wait for further discussion and to get another editor to make these corrections. Ursasapien (talk) 08:30, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't think we need any admin action here. We're all a little frustrated about these things, that's all. Given a little time, this should be fully resolved on WT:FICT, WT:WAF, and WT:EPISODE. -- Ned Scott 09:06, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

I might agree if Ursasapien had acknowledged he made an error and acted hastily. However he continued reverted despite multiple editors telling him otherwise and only stopped when he would have violated 3RR. He also continues to state that he is only enforcing policy, despite not having a clear agreement that WP:EPISODE violates any policy, and seems to be out to make a WP:POINT more than anything. He continues to discount the words of other editors, repeating the same mantra over and over. Perhaps he will be more willing to acknowledge and adhere to remarks of an administrator. Collectonian (talk) 09:47, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry. I meant for the sentence, "My actions were done in good faith but I misinterpreted suggestions and, apparently, moved too fast," to be an admission that I messed up. I have not seen an apology regarding your incivil discourse, assumptions of bad faith, and vindictive filing of this request (despite the situation already being resolved). You appear to discount everything I have said and assume the worst motives on my part. I welcome an administrator looking at our respective post, but I think it is a waste of time as this "content issue" is resolved, for now. If you have a problem with my editing, I encourage you to work through the steps of dispute resolution. Ursasapien (talk) 10:35, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

There is nothing vindictive in my filing. I don't ANI people just cause I don't like them. I feel your actions need reviewing and possible admin comment or action. You decided on your own that consensus had been reached, when it clearly had not. You decided to take action against the guideline and what that action when be (without even knowing the proper way to do it). You then continued trying to remove the guideline after you your first attempt was undone and you were told no, consensus wasn't reached yet and you shouldn't be doing it by no less than four editors. You arbitrarily decided that discussion from December 22nd was no longer relevant to justify your saying that those who reverted hadn't participated in the discussion (when, in fact the comments are recent enough to still be very much relevant). While you stopped shy of breaking 3RR, I feel you were disruptive to the point of needing administrative attention. This isn't a content issue, it is a much bigger issue regarding your inappropriate actions regarding a Misplaced Pages guideline that some could view as vandalism, and your snide and uncalled for remarks against anyone who reverted your efforts.

I also find it disturbing that you are keeping an "interesting editor list" that seems to be more of a like a list of editors you don't like, and it seems odd that you would have such a list for any good purpose considering the remarks and diffs you've made by some of them. Collectonian (talk) 16:19, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, that has to go. Considering I had to remove a whole two people from -my- userpage listed under "list of people whom I think should not be able to use the edit button", that is way in excess. Jtrainor (talk) 02:59, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

There is a long history of editors keeping list of other editors. This list serves many purposes. This list has nothing to do with editors I like or do not like. To be honest, some of the list was used to compile evidence of incivility. Others are editors that I truly admire and wish to emulate. Some editors turned out to be sockpuppets, as I suspected. Perhaps the list needs to be trimmed a bit, as some of the editors are no longer interesting to me. There is nothing derogatory like Jtrainor's list. I find it disturbing that Collectonian's assumptions of bad faith have now sent him on a witch hunt. Ursasapien (talk) 05:49, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

For future reference, I'm a she not a he. I am not on a witch hunt. I stumbled on the list after you added me to it. Collectonian (talk) 06:30, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Having a list of editors is not necessarily a bad thing. As part of my efforts as a member of the Kindness Campaign, I keep a list of my favorite fellow Wikipedians, i.e. those I admire or who have been kind to me. This positive list helps me when I want to post holiday greetings on editor's talk pages or serves as a reminder of who to ask for advice from, exists also to make those editors feel appreciated, and so on. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles 20:06, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Jayjg

On 3rd January I suggested here and here the deletion of this section on the Khazars page and it’s replacement with a summary on the grounds of relevance (for it’s current detailed form). Some editors agreed and the section was deleted by another editor. Several editors disputed and reverted. These editors gave reasons such as the deletion violated WP:NPOV and was WP:Fork but none addressed the issue of relevance. I replied to this stating I had no problem with the reliability of the sources used but that my concern was that the section was being used to reach a specific POV not proven by the evidence given by the sources. I had already given a RS that reached this same conclusion so my concern had a basis apart from my own OR. I pointed out that a WP:RFC would not be reliable due to WP:COI and asked for reasons for relevance instead. At this point Jayjg posted basically accusing me of anti Semitism. Jayjg posted the following examples of edits I had made over the previous year as proof of my “interests”:

• I claimed Israeli’s were responsible for 9/11.

The edit actually made no claim of responsibility and Jayjg ignored other 9/11 edits I made that debunked Israeli involvement such as this this one, this one and this one.

• Israel was culpable in the liberty incident. .

This was a reply to a question from another editor in talk and I made no claim at all.

• David Irving is a legitimate historian .

I claimed he was a "British" historian discredited for his views on the holocaust. The dispute was over whether he was discredited for everything else not related to Jews.

• I ”Passionately” defended Ernst Zundle on the Zundle talk page .

I was defending the inclusion of NPOV content not his views. In the previous edit I said Zundle was "an idiot with ridiculous ideas" which supports this.

• Jayjg claimed that because I had edited the Hamas and Ahmadinejad articles this was a clear indication of my bias. However he did not point out any edits as proof.

I was, and am, deeply offended by being accused of anti semitism on such flimsy grounds. These were obviously the worst edits he could find as he had to go back up to a year to find them which would have taken considerable effort. The accusation seems to be for no other reason than an attempt to discredit my work and I asked for an apology. I also asked for an explanation of why the section is relevant. Not only did he not apologise but replied to me saying “the section is relevant and should remain. Please respect that consensus”. I have used Jayjg's talk page before when we've had conflict and his "I am right, you are wrong" attitude has led me to believe doing so for this would be a waste of time and also pointless as he has offended me in public. This arrogance has upset me to the point that I am reconsidering continuing with WP if this behaviour is condoned. Because of the high profile Jayjg has on WP I feel I can expect to now be dismissed as an anti semite whenever I try to edit anything remotely controversial in future. Something should be done to censure Jayjg and clear my name with the WP community. Thank you. Wayne (talk) 09:15, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Wayne, as I'm sure you're aware, the Israeli/Palestinian conflict is perhaps the most bitter dispute on the Internet, and tempers will flare. Personally, I've decided to steer clear of it for now, despite having some expertise in that area, because I'm sick and tired of being accused of bias. It becomes especially difficult when an administrator is making the accusation against you. Please be patient. If an admin hasn't addressed this situation within the next few hours, I'll try to get someone's attention. Neutral Good (talk) 10:12, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Before this thread gets out of hand (not aimed at the above comments but at the usual result of threads regarding this) you may wish to take part in the ArbCom case regarding this and present your evidence there. EconomicsGuy (talk) 10:16, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Instead of focusing on one editor, these types of conflicts need to have a permanent neutral mediator assigned to the articles to maintain stability on a daily basis. I recommend that the Mediation Cabal and the Mediation Committee get together to try and figure out a solution. —Viriditas | Talk 11:18, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

I have just given an outside opinion on the articles supporting the inclusion of the material as supported by the scientific consensus--basically supporting Jayjg's position. But the comment made by Jayjg is entirely out of line, and seem to represent a straightforward personal attack. No WP editor should be making dubiously based accusations of anti-semitism about another editor on an article talk pafge. If I were to do it, i would expect to get immediately blocked. DGG (talk) 13:35, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi DGG, can you point/link to the post where Jayjg accuses this user of anti-semitism. I don't see it above. TIA --Tom 16:43, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Wayne appears to be referring to this edit. Thatcher 17:22, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

That's quite unfair a comment to make. It goes against both WP:AGF and WP:NPA. Also, this issue was discussed in the Arbcomm on Allegations of apartheid. At the time, editors expressed concern about the chilling and poisonous effect such comments have on the editing environment. Jayjg's name was mentioned at the time, but the arbitrators chose not to include anything on the subject in the Proposed decision. The entire case was closed without any conclusion. Perhaps this should be taken to the Arb Comm currently in place for Palestine-Israel articles here? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tiamut (talk • contribs) 23:07, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

If any more parties are added to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict RfArb, I think the conflict itself will end before the RfArb for it does. -- tariqabjotu 00:09, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

What do you suggest be done then, Tariqabjotu? Tiamut 00:46, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Ban them all and let God sort it out. --Carnildo (talk) 06:41, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Everyone has a personal bias. From each person's point of view, one's own views are precisely neutral and everyone else has some bias or other. To interpret what Jayjg wrote to be an accusation of anti-Semitism, one would have to make the unwarranted assumption that Jayjg thinks everyone who has a bias other than pro-Israel is anti-Semitist. Please assume that Jayjg is assuming good faith. --Coppertwig (talk) 02:35, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Can a personal attack be in good faith? If I showed a marked bias then maybe, but I ask you to check the above edits and decide if they support what Jayjg intimated they did. The problem I have is that most editors wont check them but accept Jayjg's word (implication) that I'm anti semitic. I'm sorry but anti Semitic is the only word I can find that applies to these "interests" I supposedly have and is a word many who read his post will assume. Wayne (talk) 08:05, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Please strike out the words "Jayjg's word that I'm anti semitic" in your comment above or provide a supporting diff in which that word and that allegation actually appear. --Coppertwig (talk) 13:35, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for striking out the "word". What "personal attack"? You claimed that you "have no personal bias" and Jayjg disputed that. You've also implied that others are biassed mentioned COI and POV in connection with other editors-- were those personal attacks? Re checking the edits: If you wish to discuss factual errors, my suggestion is that you post corrections on the article talk page or an appropriate user talk page, or if really necessary, bring it to this noticeboard, but not in a thread in which you also make an exaggerated and inflammatory accusation. --Coppertwig (talk) 23:47, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Jayjg disputed my claim by posting my edits and making incorrect claims for their intent. When this was pointed out, by me posting corrections on the article talk page, he refused to apologise (which i would have accepted) as he should and would have done if he had made the claim in good faith. That makes it a personal attack. As you appear to support Jayjg's attack on me as justified I ask you to point to what in those four edits even implies possible prejudice on my part. I didn't claim bias. As there were no actual facts in dispute and none of the dissenting editors would support their claim of relevance despite being asked, my claiming COI (personal interests) and POV (a mental position) was justified and not a claim of bias (unfair influence) against anyone. Check the dictionary for the meanings of those three terms, it's called semantics.
Let me point out that I made that claim after an editor suggested the purpose of the edit was to hide information. The discussion was relatively civil until Jayjg (who had never posted here before) jumped straight in with his accusation. Wayne (talk) 08:39, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I wonder if you would also consider striking out or modifying "being accused of anti semitism" earlier in this thread? --Coppertwig (talk) 02:23, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorry NO. It's correct English. From my high school dictionary:"anti-Semitism • noun: hostility to or prejudice against Jews." Prejudice is what he accused me of. Wayne (talk) 08:39, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Please provide a relevant diff in which Jayjg used the word "prejudice", and then replace "anti semitism" with "prejudice" in your comment closer to the beginning of this thread. Until I see such a diff, it's my understanding that Jayjg disputed your claim to have "no personal bias", but that "bias" and "prejudice" are not the same thing. It's important to be very precise with words when discussing these highly inflammatory issues. --Coppertwig (talk) 14:30, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I've struck out a comment by me about "bias" above, but note that in the comment I struck out, I didn't say that you "accused" anyone of "bias": I used the word "implied". Note that I've nevertheless struck it out. You could similarly strike out your words above where you say something about Jayjg "imply(ing)" anti-Semitism. Since he did not use that word, I think words can be found, not using that particular word, to summarize what he said that would give a more accurate impression.

I'm not defending any attack by Jayjg and I'm not making any judgement in this situation as to whether what Jayjg posted was or was not accurate or was or was not an attack. If you had brought forward an accusation against Jayjg without yourself making an exaggerated and inflammatory claim, I might have followed some other path. --Coppertwig (talk) 14:44, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

There are very intense emotions connected with this topic. It's important to act in such a way as not to engage those emotions in others any more than necessary. If someone accuses you of "prejudice", while it might according to the dictionary be correct to say "anti semitism", it would also be correct to say "prejudice"; and saying "prejudice" would have the advantage of not bringing in a word which also has other definitions, definitions which will tend to pop into peoples' minds at least briefly when they read your comment, inflaming those emotions. In this particular detail, I gently suggest using the least inflammatory wording that correctly conveys the situation. --Coppertwig (talk) 15:13, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

He's not an 8 year old kid. I am crediting Jayjg with enough intelligence to know that many if not most editors would assume that is exactly what he meant. That's the way I took it and I doubt many here can claim they would not have at least considered that was what was meant. This is upsetting enough without being condemned for complaining. Leave it for the admins to work out as they have access to more info than either of us and can make up their own minds about what was said and meant. Wayne (talk) 19:03, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, this is hardly the first time that User:Jayjg has made accusations of this sort. WP:AGF isn't set in stone (it's a guideline, not a policy), and it shouldn't be used as an excuse to defend indefensible personal attacks. CJCurrie (talk) 02:47, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Jayjg's comment doesn't actually accuse Wayne of anti-Semitism, but it continues the use of subtle and condescending personal attacks that Jayjg uses to attempt to obtain the upper hand in content disputes, in addition to off-wiki canvassing and cabalism (). Since the "Allegations of Israeli Apartheid" ArbCom decision apparently hasn't stopped this nonsense from Jayjg and his associates, then perhaps it needs to be brought to the ArbCom's attention again. Cla68 (talk) 02:54, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Tying up arbcom with endless disputes doesn't work. I think my solution will work best and produce immediate results: modify the controversial article template, adding new parameters that allow editors to request mediators on the talk page rather than separate mediator subpages. Mediators can watch categories for these changes. Now, for enforcement, add "admin requested" params. that will also populate watched categories. Anyone abusing these requests will be warned and if needed, blocked. This will reduce the load on admin noticeboards by 50 percent, and require active particpation in analyzing and resolving conflicts, rather than passive discussion and arbitrary decisions. Mediators will participate where needed, and neutral admins will step in to enforce. Problem solved, and everyone can get back to writing great articles. —Viriditas | Talk 00:10, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Harassment Notice

Yes, I am currently being harassed by the admin known as Jeske. He has recently threatened me for no reason on my talk page and merely provided a very vague reason why. Someone apparently vandalized my talk page, yet he chose to accuse me of it days after he gave his threat. Now, he has been trying to bait me on and on into arguments with him, and I have my best to avoid him. Yet, he is always around no matter where I go.V-Dash (talk) 19:45, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

• Jéské Couriano has been notified of this discussion. - Rjd0060 (talk) 19:52, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh dear. Why not forget about this dispute and go edit some articles? What you're doing here certainly does not look like you're trying to avoid him. Friday (talk) 19:51, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

:( It's no use Friday... Wherever I go, he's there right behind me...V-Dash (talk) 19:53, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

• For background see Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/V-Dash. Corvus cornix_talk 19:54, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

• Just for the record, my eyes just sort of glaze over when I read "admin harassment" and it isn't followed by diffs showing the accused administrator's actions. Can you provide said diffs? EVula // talk // ☯ // 20:54, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Although not an administrator, I would like to note that, having witnessed these clashes from the very beginning, I do not believe Jéské to have done anything wrong. V-Dash has claimed above that Jéské "threatened" him for a vandal's comment, yet this diff and the several subsequent edits show differently. Jéské merely warned him against making further personal attacks after it came to his notice when another user, User talk:Orange Boomerang removed that comment over a month later (for the record, after Orange Boomerang removed that comment, V-Dash posted on their talk page stating "stay off my talk page." V-Dash's conduct towards other editors has been poor at best, and I do not think it is surprising that conflict has arison. V-Dash has previously accused Jéské of Wikistalking, created at least one sockpuppet in an effort to have Jéské banned, has created several other sockpuppets used for other purposes, and has dared Jéské to ban him at several points in time; something that Jéské has refused to do because he is a part of the conflict.

Having observed this conflict from the moment that it started to the present moment, and V-Dash's conduct to other editors prior to his clashes with Jéské, I do not believe that Jéské has harassed V-Dash at all. I am under the impression that Jéské has dealt with the situation admirably considering all that has occurred, at one point even offering to protect V-Dash's userpage from the heavy amounts of vandalism that were occurring from anonymous IPs; an offer that V-Dash was quick to accept. MelicansMatkin (talk) 21:12, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

One thing that I think is telling of V-Dash's attitude is his userpage; in it he states that " is always right." Further, other users have come in - I believe them to be GFAQs members - and have stated (with accuracy, as I have noticed) that V-Dash has selective vision and flat-out disregards anything that does not fit with his view or involving his behavior (as can be seen on my TP). Also, as his RfC (and the evidence on it) points out, the assumption of good faith between V-Dash and I was never reciprocal: V-Dash always jumped to conclusions and accused me of sockpuppetry, WikiStalking, and trying to get him banned (while the latter has merit, I only asked for bans because it was, and still is, becoming increasingly apparent that V-Dash is merely being disruptive now).

While I have blocked V-Dash in the past twice - once before the conflict (a 3RR block on Pokémon Diamond and Pearl) and once even more recently (a mistaken block I later rescinded after checkuser confirmed he was not SPD V (talk · contribs) - initially "Inconclusive"), each time I made a mistaken block I rescinded it. Part of this problem is GFAQs user PolluxFrost (Dash Jr (talk · contribs) here), whom seems to know how V-Dash acts and uses this information to successfully impersonate him via sockpuppetry. Not helping the matter is the fact that V-Dash feeds them by cursing them out on his user talk page and their own TPs.

In closing, I have little doubt that this AN/I thread is an attempt to get me sanctioned because I have told him - in no uncertain terms - that he will end up blocked and/or banned if he continues on the way he is now, and he decided to ignore that warning. What little good faith I had in him has vanished, and I thus made the RfC to bring this to wider attention. Any more discussion from me on this matter will take place there. -Jéské 23:59, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

True, while I have being a bit harsh to this Pollux and Dash_Jr characters, Jeske's behavior is still a bit questionable as an admin. He's constantly tried to bait me into arguments with him. He even argued me down for weeks about me calling DnD a board game. Now I did NOT even touch the article on DnD, yet he has constantly harassed me about it asking me for these websites and such. He's even cussed at me on his talk page. He's supposed to be an admin, yet he's one of the main ones who tends to incite arguments rather than try to calm them down as other admins like Friday has done. See how he blamed me for being SPD despite me being sick the day those edits happened?V-Dash (talk) 15:30, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

That debate about Dungeons and Dragons happened because of your query on the Dungeons and Dragons talk page, IIRC, which was then continued on the user talk page. Asking for sources to back up a statement =/= harassment. MelicansMatkin (talk) 18:28, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually, Melicans, I challenged him on it on Talk:Diamond and Pearl to begin with. However, I still requested proof of his accusations (i.e. "D&D is a Board Game") and all he came up with was a picture of a minis campaign in progress and a board-game website that also sold D&D materials (and a wealth of miniature wargaming materiel); not definitive proof. I have since dropped the argument - V Dash has stated that he hated the game, and I realized then that debating him on it is like debating Jimmy Hoffa on not vanishing into thin air. -Jéské 18:38, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

He admitted it see... I told you Jeske esculated that argument on the DnD Board. It actually started on the Pokemon D/P Board before he incited a debate to occur on the DnD. Afterwards, he's been harassing me since about my statement on DnD.. How can an admin try to calm things down when he's the one who starts them?V-Dash (talk) 21:39, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

v-dash RAISES a good point. perhaps it woudl bet better if someone else form the editors or another admin come in to mediate this bedispute. i am not assuming bad faith on th epart of Jeske but it owuld be more fair if someone neutral and uninvolvedin the dispute were to enter into this debate. Smith Jones (talk) 21:45, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

That's part of the reason why I opened the request for comment above. -Jéské 21:54, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Jeske, you know you were wrong just as much as you accuse me. Remember, you have esculated several of those arguments. I mean, this all stemmed from the DnD incident you went overboard about.V-Dash (talk) 22:01, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I dropped that argument long ago and have no ill will over it, V-Dash. You, however, seem to think I'm my own cabal (I don't even have the secret password yet!) -Jéské 22:06, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

An argument is still an argument regardless how old it is Jeske. Or did you forget about the very vague warning you put on my talk page? Sorry, but rules can't apply to one party and not apply to the other.V-Dash (talk) 19:01, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Anyone here can see I apologized for it. The only reason you can't is because you tuned out the warning that went with it and thus the whole paragraph. -Jéské 19:47, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Jeske Jeske, let's not even forget about the part where you cussed me just because I questioned your vague warning. See, this could've been avoided had you not came onto my talk page and tried to incite me into an argument with you. Quite frankly, I'm very suspicious of your behavior as an admin. I mean, how can you uphold things when you're the one who causes them? Yes, I am accusing you of something. Remember the DnD arguments? Yes, YOU told ME to go to the discussion page and call it a board game. Then you berated for weeks just because I refused to see it your way.V-Dash (talk) 21:41, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Diffs or it didn't happen, V-Dash. After you call "Admin Abuse" or "Harassment", you need to provide proof. -Jéské 01:28, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Proof? What the fudge did you think I was talking about earlier Jeske? Remember the vague warning? The constant banter at me for calling DnD a Board game?V-Dash (talk) 02:28, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

<Jack Sparrow>But where have the diffs gone?</Jack Sparrow> -Jéské 02:32, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

So you're referring to movies now Jeske..V-Dash (talk) 04:23, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

<Yahtzee>Also, you have one second to name any administrator's noticeboard where coming without evidence is a good idea. Time's up. That's what I thought.</Yahtzee> -Jéské 05:10, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Could someone take a look at this...

Resolved, reviewed and fixed by Rschen7754. Edit Centric (talk) 03:16, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Recently, I filed an SSP case against a user. This evening, upon returning to Wiki, I see that the case has been closed by one Ember of Light. I've checked the list of admins, he / she is not on it. First question: shouldn't this SSP case have been closed by an admin? Secondly, the SSP template was removed from the puppetmaster userpage. Second question: shouldn't the template's resulting "confirmed" page have been updated to reflect the additional confirmed sockpuppet instead? Next, there is absolutely no indication that either user has been blocked, however Ember of Light states that the puppetmaster account has been blocked for a week. (Please see Talk page discussion, and the archived case at EoL states the user blocked for a week. Could an admin that is experienced with the particulars of closing an SSP case please take a look at this? On the face of it, this looks like the case was closed by someone inexperienced in dealing with these instances... Edit Centric (talk) 03:05, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

User:86.162.214.179 reverting my edits to Tony Hawk's Project 8

Basically, in the article, someone put that 2 extra skaters, Neversoft Mascot and Voodoo Doll are available on the XBOX 360, however, I have the game, fully beaten and they aren't there. Then User:86.162.214.179 came along and re-added back in. I asked him not to revert my edits, but he's done it twice now, so I figured I'd report him here. 70.49.204.73 (talk) 06:53, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Two interestingly intertwined issues here. The first is that your playing the game isn't Misplaced Pages-standard evidence for putting something into or removing it from an article. It's original research and won't do. The second is that the person adding disputed material must provide a reliable source for it.

The problem is that you two are both IP editors. When a dispute like this breaks out, I'm inclined to semi-protect the article. But this would lock both of you out of it. And I'd semi-protect whatever version was on the screen when I hit the button, regardless of the issues behind it. There's therefore little that can be done, other than for you to find a reliable source saying for certain that the characters aren't in the game, which changes the equation: the other IP is then, in effect, removing sourced material and can be done for it. It might help to try to talk to the IP, although I appreciate that is awkward with IP addresses - as you know. Therefore it might also help if you logged in or created an account. ➔ REDVEЯS says: at the third stroke the time will be 15:13, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

To be fair, the other IP isn't producing reliable sources that the characters are in that version of the game, either. Remember, the burden is on the person adding the new information - not the person removing it, as 70.49 is doing - to provide sources. 70.49 here was doing the right thing in removing the information, although Misplaced Pages:Requests for page protection is where he should've taken this to. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 08:50, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

And 70.49 did try to talk to the IP, but IP of the adder seems to change on a daily basis (note all these edits by IPs from the 86.x.x.x range adding the same info: , , ), so communicating with them would be near-impossible. Frankly, protecting the article would be the only solution at this point. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 09:05, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

The entire list is unsourced, so all of it should be removed (along with most of the article). However, I'm inclined to discount the 70.49 IP edits because he's basing his edit solely on the fact that he played the game. The full list probably came from some gaming site or product documentation and just wasn't noted. Pairadox (talk) 09:26, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Ehud Lesar

User:Ehud Lesar was blocked, then unblocked, and then reblocked for allegations of being a sock of temporarily banned User:AdilBaguirov. The block was made on arbitrary basis, without a single proof supporting such allegations, just because some admins believe that the 2 users might be related. However checkuser showed no relation between these 2 users: I don't think that permanently blocking people without any reliable evidence is appropriate. I would like to ask for independent investigation of this situation. I believe that before blocking people some sort of an official investigation should be conducted to verify any connections between the two accounts. However this was not done, and this block is highly questionable. Thanks. Grandmaster (talk) 07:29, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Checkuser cannot prove a negative. This report is worth a look. (I speak this neutrally). Durova 11:03, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

But that report cannot be a proof of anything. It is just a collection of unrelated diffs, put together with an obvious purpose. Has anyone tried contacting Ehud and verifying his actual personality? I just received a communication from Ehud, he told me that he is willing to provide any information that admins may require to ascertain that he is a real person, not related to Adil in any way. Grandmaster (talk) 11:10, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Also note that Fedayee's accusations were rejected by the admins at WP:AE board: Grandmaster (talk) 11:24, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I handled the unblock request in this case. I did not see any evidence linking the two, so I accepted the request. It has sense been overturned after a conversation on my talk page. As I stated there, I do not agree with this method of blocking and did not endorse the reblocking of this user. Lara❤Love 15:25, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I think it would be much easier if blocking, unblocking or independent administrators simply contact each of the blocked users to verify their identity. I have asked for this earlier at WP:AE as well. After all, the verification of physical identity to determine that Adil Baguirov is not Ehud Lesar is more legitimate than a wholesale assumption, based on nothing but User:Fedayee's speculations, often including simply harassment and attacks on the identity of User:Ehud Lesar. I mean look at this ,, what does the proclaimed Jewish identity of Ehud Lesar have to do with this? Or does it really mater in Wiki what ethnicity the contributor is? Or should any Jew from Azerbaijan editing in Misplaced Pages be assumed and blocked now as a sock of Adil Baguirov, just because User:Fedayee believes so?

But there is more, which has to do with AdilBaguirov than with Ehud Lesar, because User:Khoikhoi was inactive, for several months. Then he suddenly shows up and blocks User:Ehud Lesar, as a sock of User:AdilBaguirov. Checkuser denies any connection, and I would also like to remind that right before getting blocked after the first ArbCom, User:AdilBaguirov attempted to file an RfC - on User:Khoikhoi conduct, which, however, didn't gather enough support. So perhaps, sudden reappearance of User:Khoikhoi and blocking of just anyone as a sock of Adil, based User:Fedayee's speculations, has something to do with their conflict.

As far as User:Alex Bakharev's conclusions go, I shall remind him that previously, he also mistakenly blocked User:Londium on a conviction that it was a sock of User:AdilBaguirov - , an allegation which turned out to be untrue later . On another instance User:Alex Bakharev unblocked the reported and even confirmed by RFCU as a sock User:Pam55 of User:Behmod, against the protests from admin User:Allison - . Yet later User:Behmod was again caught with another sock . So perhaps, assuming good faith, Alex Bakharev's conclusion is mistaken in Ehud Lesar case as well, and needs another review. Regards. Atabek (talk) 20:04, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Alex and Khoikoi are the two admins who know Adil Baguirov’s way of using socks the best, there is Francis Tyers who comes next and who was an Admin, Francis_Tyers was the first to submit a checkuser because he thought it was Adil and this much before the evidence was accumulated. Then there is Golbez to ask, but since you have ousted him, I doubt you will listen to anything he says.

The evidence provided is not the only one I have. The Church of Kish alone is a giveaway. The Church of Kish doesn’t even qualify as very notable. Less than 5 people have studied it and published anything about the church. One of those who 'studied' it was Adil Baguirov. (from his zerbeijan website he initiated the Albanian nature of the Church) scroll and you will see his picture with the church, and his 'research.' The person who created the church article was a throw away account who created an article on Adil’s OR. That account was created at the beginning of March (the period in which Adil created his other Jewish account ) and was obviously Adil. Ehud was engaged on that article and another which both were also edited by Adil socks in the same period of time. Another giveaway: You're free to be either obsessed with or pretty much obviously impressed by him, but please stop dragging me into "being" someone I am not just NOT. Here, Ehud Lesar, who claims to be a Jew and uses this to make himself sound neutral, is claiming that another member is obviously impressed by Adil who thinks a lobbyist who acts as an ambassador of Azerbaijan in the United States is someone to be impressed about. He repeats this more recently: I must say that it's rather positive that you're so impressed by Adil Bagirov; so impressed that you happen to follow his life cycle, but I think you should free your mind from the name Ehud Lesar. Ehud knows that we know he is Adil, this comment is the same sort of sarcasm Adil was using or his other socks were using.

Also, all of Ehud’s theories are identical to Adil’s, here in his defence he provides himself more evidence , In the part that starts with secondly you will see the subject of the speeches Adil Baguirov gives whilst his lobbying outside Wiki and at large Azerbaijani-American gatherings. And it was according to him that Misplaced Pages should be edited to balance this myth he believes in.

Putting the emphasis on checkuser when the rest of the evidence is screaming I’m Adil is irresponsible. It would take one user registering an account to proxy for him, and this fixes the issue of open proxy and IP address, checkuser will fail. This was why Vartan and I brought Elsanaturk and from Ehud’s answer it seemed that there was something true in there. The reason we suspect Elsanaturk is that there is evidence that he already proxied for him, but this is another issue and unless it could change anything on the blocking of Adil, I don’t think at this point it is necessary to post the evidences. When we brought the issue, Ehud’s reply was this Neither I or Vartan said this explicitly anything such, we only said that we believe that Elsanaturk might be involved. Not that he was Ehud, Ehud expanded this and insinuated and blew it out of proportion to discredit us.

I am ready to furnish more evidence upon the demand of the administrators.

And BTW, Londium was a sock of Adil, Alex was right; checkuser should not be run to catch Adil, many of the socks of Adil, which were registered the same days as other confirmed socks, failed the checkuser test when they were obviously Adil. Ehud is one example. - Fedayee (talk) 21:31, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Fedayee, you're going to furnish evidence that Ehud Lesar is a person Adil Baguirov? Or in statements like "We have Ehud, who we all know is Adil", who is "we", are you claiming you have a group "working on Adil/Ehud case"? Will you also please produce physical evidence that user Ehud Lesar is the identity of Adil?

Your evidence here does not establish such link, it only makes allegations about Adil having used socks. The fact that both users referred to the fact of Zangezur and Geycha republic is not an evidence of sock- or even meatpuppetry. And let me remind you of evidence you did not include in your report, while reciting various usernames in your assumptions of bad faith:

• I, Atabek, was once blocked at Yeprem Khan - , reported for reverting the edit of one of those sock accounts attributed to User:AdilBaguirov - .

And again, what does the ethnicity of Ehud Lesar or your conclusions about them have to do with Misplaced Pages? I believe pursuing someone's identity or attempting to expose their ethnicity, especially when you're not an administrator in Misplaced Pages authorized to do so, is considered falling under WP:HARASS policy. I recall there was another user "blocked indefinitely" for doing so, see first block comment.Atabek (talk) 23:23, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&action=edit&section=62#copyright

ibe leive that this issue is a simple makstake, but i must cuation all the admins involved to avoid any esemalance of impropriety. when problems go wrong its easy to just round up and get rid of all the jews but history should so now that its the wrong decison to make. ethnic claims sould not be used solely as a deicsion whether or not to blok or unlblock a user, since even if the block was otherwise justified sit makes it seem like itwas an expression of racial hatred REGARDLESS of the admins' intent. i would recomend having this case looked over by a panel of admins to make surethat there were no mistakes or fualty assumptiosn makes on the behalf of any of hte usurers hereon this bebopard. Smith Jones (talk) 23:29, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Read Fedayee's evidence carefully. There was no ethnic motive behind the block at all. Nishkid64 (talk) 23:36, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi all, just my 2 cents, I don't know Ehud or Adil, just general thoughts. The checkuser uses IP address, so once changed it doesn't work. Now to detect user by his behaviour can only humans that knew him for some time and his style of communication, and humans are pretty good at it. So Fadayee and Vartan, who knew Adil confirm Ehud to be Adil based on the little clues lie type of communication etc. And they are pretty confident that he is Adil. They didn't accuse any other user, like Grandmaster or Atabek or me to ne Adil, the specifically targeted Ehud, so there is a reason why. Now what are the reasons for anybody else to believe that he is not Adil other then failed checkuser? I didn't find any. It looks like evrybody knows that he is Adil and Azeri side is interested to keep this user Adil even under different name... Steelmate (talk) 23:38, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Also this Adil is blocked in "Misplaced Pages for a period ending August 23, 2008" so only 8 more month and he is free? Shouldn't there be more harsh mathods applied to this user who is using sockpuppets? Steelmate (talk) 23:41, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Steelmate, your question is very illogical. How can anyone accuse me of being Adil’s sock, if I was here long before Adil joined? I’ve been editing for more than 2 years and have more than 10,000 edits, accusing a long time editor will not work. Same with Atabek, he is a long time user and he is well known to everyone involved in editing region related articles. Ehud was targeted for a simple reason that he is a relatively new user with a very limited number of contribs. So it is relatively easy to link him to a banned user and get him banned. This happened despite no real evidence being presented and cu returning negative results. Grandmaster (talk) 06:09, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Nishkid, in such cases a questioning admin may contact individual contributors and ask them to identify themselves instead of blocking contributors based solely on the report of the individual from another side of conflict. Fedayee's evidence as well as list of users he cites in his report is based on ethnic motive, which is already known and defined in two relevant ArbCom cases, to which he was a participant. I believe if there is continuous assumption on behalf of some admins that Ehud is Adil based on Fedayee's report only, while others ask for additional review, then it may be expedient to perhaps request User:Jimbo Wales to investigate the issue and identify whether Ehud is Adil or not. Atabek (talk) 23:45, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Evidence was posted by an individual on the other side of the conflict. Three neutral administrators familiar with the AA situation evaluated Fedayee's evidence. Furthermore, Jimbo is human, so asking him is just the same as asking any other administrator. They have their own take on the evidence, which means they have no real way of knowing the truth. Also, I contacted Ehud and asked him what proof of identity he was willing to give (Grandmaster mentioned above that Ehud could confirm his identity). Nishkid64 (talk) 00:13, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Nishkid, at least 3 other admins, including those handling reports at WP:AE on a regular basis did not find Fedayee's evidence compelling. Clearly, there's no consensus among the admins that this user is a sock and that Fedayee's evidence can be taken seriously. And Khoikhoi's sudden appearance looks very strange. Have you personally tried contacting Ehud and verify his real life identity? If not, why haven’t you done so? Grandmaster (talk) 05:53, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Nishkid, returning to Misplaced Pages after a two-month break to block a contributor based on Fedayee's report or attributing several socks to a banned user, when they're found later not to be such, is not quite neutral. And especially this past mistake shows that evidence needs to be reviewed again by another administrator. Thanks. Atabek (talk) 01:49, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Khoikhoi was asked to review this user's edits a while ago. He took his time, but he finally reached a conclusion and then issued a block. As a neutral administrator, I reviewed the evidence posted by Fedayee and other stuff brought to my attention. I re-blocked because I believe the evidence shows that Ehud Lesar is a sockpuppet of AdilBaguirov. Nishkid64 (talk) 04:26, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Smith Jones, I apologize, I did realise that an element of the evidence seems just that. It was perhaps my fault since I did not develop about the relevancy of that bit about Jews. What is questioned here is that Ehud is a Jew to begin with. If you browse the evidence you will see that Adil pretended to be several ethnic groups with several names. The evidence about the ethnicity was that Lesar is Sephardic, even the thesis that he was from Azerbaijan does not make sense, most Jews in Azerbaijan are not Sephardic, and most names are Russianized, Lesar can not be an Azerbaijani Jewish name (which would have been the only escape route). The point here is that he falsified an identity like he did previously and even after he created that account.

The other evidence about the Algerians and Jews also is not meant to have any ethnic motive. The claim of Algerian Genocide is mostly defended in the international arena by lobbyists of the Turkish republic, one of the most active ones on the web run a journal in which Adil contributes in.

Atabek’s request on the identity of Lesar should be considered as invalid given that in the past an obvious sock and throw away account has requested such and was unbanned. Adil has relations across the globe and would have anyone proxy for him giving fake identity, he is not just some user. The Lesar family (David Lesar at its head) runs Halliburton which has a major contract in the Baku-Tbilisi Ceyhan main oil export pipeline project, Adil work for those projects too. The sock created the name by association (the Israeli prime ministers name, and the president of the Halliburton familly name).

Also Atabek, unlike what you write, Zangezur and Geycha claim was in fact specific to Adil, there is no published material anywhere which claims a republic such as Geycha. Ehud dismissing it qualifies as evidence and on several occasion when this was brought he failed to provide any source. Having failed to do such, this remains specific to Adil Baguirov.

One more thing which fails comprehension. Grandmaster, how in the world did Ehud contact you when it is impossible to email him, because he did not provide an email address. He could not have emailed you unless both of you communicate elsewhere and he would have known your email address off wiki. Please provide some explanations here as someone can not contact if that person does not have an email address set. - Fedayee (talk) 01:19, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Fedayee, I don't believe Misplaced Pages registration anywhere says that new user needs to ask approval of Fedayee to register a certain name. Ehud has a right for his name as well as his claimed identity. I don't know what makes you believe that you're granted a right to question someone's ethnicity and use that as a justification for blocking him. There are thousands of Jews and mixed people living in Azerbaijan, often under Azerbaijani, Jewish, Russian, or mixture of names. And I believe you need to one more time review WP:HARASS. Adil Baguirov has a publicly available profile, major webpage, publications, which everyone can view, read and interpret, and already have been discussed across various articles in Misplaced Pages, such as Azerbaijan for example. Where is your proof that everyone reciting his writing is just him? Atabek (talk) 01:49, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

And Fedayee, per your claim from your report that "Zangezur and Geycha claim was in fact specific to Adil Baguirov" - here . Is this also Adil Baguirov? Again, I believe administrators need to be seriously familiar with the topic of the conflict, before reading your report and making conclusions over it to block people. Atabek (talk) 02:05, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

It’s not his claimed identity which is given justification, but the fact that he created sockpuppets to sound as neutral non-Azeri or non-Armenian contributors. There are thousands of Jews living in Azerbaijan, but Lesar is not an Azerbaijani Jew name and Fedayee proved that in his evidence.

This is becoming ridiculous, do you really think that the claim that Ehud might be reciting Adil publications hold water? No one bothered reading or reciting his work on Geycha alleged republic here on Misplaced Pages, but Ehud Lesar, who happens to have registered hours after it was a confirmed that Adil will be banned. This same person who happens to have read something which was not used by any other contributor, also was the only one who was missing when Adil's sockpuppets were at their pick, and the sockpuppets only stopped when Ehud reappeared. There was a clear correlation between Ehud's presence and the end of the sockpuppetry issue. Also the Church of Kish, which was again obviously created using Adil’s OR and you guys continued editing it. Then when it was questioned, Ehud came in and defended using Adil’s OR or the other socks which were at the time just recently blocked.

Also Atabek, you misunderstood Ehud's claims. The link you provide relates to 1992, where few Azeris near Sevan and Zangezur created a flag claiming independence as opposition to the declaration of the NKR. Adil Baguirov's claim has nothing to do with that flag, his claims are pre Soviet Union. In fact, the only claim on the web coming close to it, is from Adil’s website. VartanM (talk) 03:25, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

VartanM, there was a South-West Caucasus Republic in 1918, an unrecognized Muslim Turkic state created for few months on the territory of Erivan governorate, what's now called Armenia. There is a reference and as far as I remember a whole paragraph or two about it in Firuz Kazemzadeh, Struggle for Transcaucasia: 1917-1921, New York Philosophical Library, 1951. Also, there were 200,000 Azeris prior to final exodus from Armenia in 1988, and the historical name of "Sevan" is Lake Goycha (Gokcha), that's how it's recorded on maps in references of that period. What Adil was doing with Zangezur and Goycha, and whether Ehud was reading his material online or not, is the separate business. But you can't claim that this was Adil also. Atabek (talk) 13:27, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

This case can be easily resolved. One of the admins needs to contact Ehud and verify that he is a real person, and not a sock. This can be done by phone call, chat or even a webcam chat. There are many ways of doing it. So far none of the admins even attempted to do that, and this shows that no serious investigation has been conducted. Strange appearance of Khoikhoi after many months of absence also shows that he was apparently contacted off wiki and given misleading info. There were too many arbitration cases covering Armenia - Azerbaijan issues, do we really need another one? Why this issue cannot be resolved without the need to get involved in a lengthy litigation? Grandmaster (talk) 05:46, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Khoikhoi independently reviewed the contributions of this user over a long period of time. I was informed that Khoikhoi was reading through this user's contributions more than a month ago. This tells me that he did not make some quick decision. He examined the user's contributions, and found evidence of a connection to AdilBaguirov. I contacted Ehud about confirming his identity. He suggested a webcam chat. A webcam chat or a phone call would not prove anything. How would I know from a webcam chat or a phone call that I am talking to the real "Ehud Lesar"? Also, put aside the AA differences (doubt this will happen, but it's worth the suggestion). It seems this whole issue has escalated to mudslinging from both sides. I will ask some other uninvoled administrators to review the evidence and make their judgments. Nishkid64 (talk) 05:56, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually, this is what I'm asking for, a real investigation, and not a block based on personal assumptions. Webcam is not the only way of proof, Ehud can give you more personal details proving that he is a real person. Just ask him for whatever proof you need. It is no good that you don't even attempt to make any real check. Also, I find it very strange how some admins handle this sort of issues. Just a few days ago a compelling evidence of disruptive activity of User:Andranikpasha across multiple wikimedia projects, English wikipedia included, was presented, but no action has been taken against that user. At the same time Ehud was blocked without any real evidence or investigation. Is this a proper way of dealing with this sort of issues? Grandmaster (talk) 06:22, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

• Ehud account was created the same day it was confirmed that AdilBaguriov will be blocked for a year by AA1
• Ehud Lesar claims to be Askeranzi Jew from Azerbaijan, but the last name is not Azkeranzi and neither it is Azerbaijani Jewish
• Ehud edited the same articles and supported the position of Atabek and Grandmaster, just like Adil used to do
• Ehud edit warred in the Church of Kish article which is hardly notable both in wiki and realife. Adil has a webpage devoted to the topic and has writen about it extensivly.
• Ehud had the same exact claims as Adil about Geycha republic, which no other Azeri user claimed. And the only thing is even remotely written about this is again Adil's website.
• Ehud never contributed when there were other Adil socks and only came back when others were blocked.
• Adil's socks so far impersonated Armenians, Jews, Russians and English.

There are way to many coincidences to AGF and think otehrwise. VartanM (talk) 06:39, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

None of the above is a proof that Ehud is a sock and does not exist in real life. Admins need to verify his personality, and Ehud is willing to cooperate. Grandmaster (talk) 08:22, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Here is another non-confirmed, blocked as a SPA, then unblocked, most likely Adil account , Batabat also claimed that his not an Azerbaijani, voted in support of Atabek and Grandmaster and pressured administrators that he wanted to call them and that he can prove it on webcam. We've been habituated with Adil's tricks long enough. There should be limits to all of this. VartanM (talk) 08:31, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Just look at you arguments.

Ehud edited the same articles and supported the position of Atabek and Grandmaster, just like Adil used to do

And you and Andranikpasha edited the same articles, to which most of other Armenian users did not contribute, does it mean that you two are socks? Of course not.

Ehud edit warred in the Church of Kish article which is hardly notable both in wiki and realife. Adil has a webpage devoted to the topic and has writen about it extensivly.

Ehud had the same exact claims as Adil about Geycha republic, which no other Azeri user claimed. And the only thing is even remotely written about this is again Adil's website.

There are plenty of publications about both church and Geycha in Azerbaijani press, the fact that you are not aware of any is not a proof that Ehud is a sock. I mean how can anyone seriously consider such arguments as a basis for a permanent block? And Batabat was not a sock either, the allegations about him were proven false. Grandmaster (talk) 08:39, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh good lord, where is this going to end. Grandmaster, if Batabat is not Adil, then he is some clone. These are his first four contributions on Misplaced Pages. , , , . Very Adil (we can actually use his name as a verb now) of him to replace Persian with Turkic. Then the next thing he does is to go to Khoikhoi's talkpage to defend Adil, ehmmm…, I mean "Dr. Baguirov" from his words. , . Then the next thing he does, he votes to keep the FORK article , , which was deleted regardless after you guys voted en mass by coordination to keep it. Then he voted with you guys to oppose an FA article. He becomes member of the Azerbaijan Wikiproject. Then he pushes Adil’s sarcasm to its end, with a 100% Adil comment on his userpage. After that comment he is blocked as a sock. This obvious sock then wants to be unblocked. , he emails an Admin and wants the email to be posted here. Check the similarities, he proposed to call him or webcam him to prove his identity. Batabat after being unblocked claims that he has to finish two books excusing his future absence. This was on March 13, two days after the Church of Kish article was created. The logical explanation would be that the email to the Admin was made hours or a day or two later, which closes the gap for those two days. Fedayee’s assertions are without a doubt correct, such obvious cases with a mountain of evidence would nomrlaly not even require a checkuser. Also Gm, your claim as well as Atabeks on so called "Geycha" does not make sense. Firuz Kazamzadeh's reference was regarding the Ottoman backed territory, which was away from "Geycha", "Geycha" wasn’t even included in the maps of the Azeri representatives at the Paris Peace Conference. Only Adil came up with these bogus claims. -- Ευπάτωρ 21:09, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Resolved

Resolved – Blocked indef, page protected due to refusal to comply with WP:NLT and unblock abuse⇒SWATJester 01:46, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Resolved – user blocked

Resolved – Article deleted

Resolved

Resolved

Resolved – IP blocked Woody (talk) 13:28, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Resolved – Blocked indefinitely by Nakon. - Rjd0060 (talk) 16:59, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Resolved

 + and anyone guide me a little? 
 + i just want to make a page with eonon and sbo2 information 
 + i didnt want to advertise or anything like that. I just want people 
 + not to get confused with eonon and sbo2~ 
 + i just want to put some facts.. i didnt even put anything about eonon's product.. 
 + *crys* 
 +  
 + i just wanted to make a simple page of the existence and sbo2~ 
 + i the deletation is ok but why block me.. i will write a better one.. 
 + i mean it took me the whole night figuring out how wikipedia works with  
 + the scripts and everything.. 
 + please please i bag of anyone with power here give me a chance.. to repair  
 + my page.. i need guidance and tips 

i think i am starting to understand.. ok i should have read more about the information 
 + but i am not really good at writing.. i will not edit or create any pages for now 
 + but how can i be unblocked? i will look for someone else with better understanding to  
 + write the page without sugar coating everthing.. because some thing like meizu i guess is  
 + good enough i just want people around the world to understand our company when they search on wikipedia 
 + because if you type the name eonon in google there are alot of people in forums asking about eonon 
 + ive seen people mistake Sbo2 and eonon.. when they are the same company~ i just want to provide information 
 + but maybe its my love for the company i beautified it alittle. is there a way i can look for someone to write  
 + about eonon in a right way?  

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards