Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive255

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 A block for a MascotGuy sock 2 Witton Albion F.C. 3 Ip User:70.55.88.157 4 User:Herostratus Deleting comments on talk pages 5 Restoration of other's user page after owner blanked it while IFD ongoing. 6 cite reason in afd result 7 User talk:Jugglemuggler 8 BetacommandBot broken? 9 Hello. Possible misuse of userpage? 10 User:Havesmite and User:Onlykeys - sockpuppetry? 11 EdwinCasadoBaez (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) 12 User:Trojani 13 Lord Hume of Berwick 14 User:Matthew 15 Personal attacks on Talk:Hippie 16 Removed speedy template 17 User:Jamez21 18 Juro reincarnation 19 Requesting block of user MGlosenger for vandalism 20 User Sal Slytherin 21 RUReady2Testify (talk • contribs • logs) 22 Impostor 23 Threat 24 Dailykos (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) 25 Dbachmann (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) 26 75.4.23.134 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) 27 Allegations of state terrorism in Sri Lanka 28 User:Auto-revert, User:80.34.17.209 29 User:Hiddensonyvaio and User:JoeBender 30 Sanitycheck (talk · contribs), Jerusalem 31 129.133.124.xxx, second request for admin review 32 Eksdee1 33 Legal threat: Christopher Monckton, 3rd Viscount Monckton of Brenchley 34 69.119.7.8 35 SummerThunder's back again 36 Personal attacks to other editors 37 Problem with editor 38 Douglaswood (talk · contribs) 39 Irvine Laidlaw, Baron Laidlaw 40 M.deSousa using Wikipedia to push off-WP agenda 41 Sockpuppet concern 42 Why hasn't this guy been tagged yet? 43 Block (and now page protection) review 44 Removal of RS sources 44.1 Section break 44.2 COI of Taprobanus 44.2.1 Violation of privacy and endagengering my life 44.3 Moving on 45 Æthelbert of Kent and User:Hel Hufflepuff 46 Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Micronations 47 Fascism and/or chauvinism in Wikipedia 48 Libellous comment by username LibStu 49 Ben W. Bell reinserting attack site links 50 Merrick3x appears to be a single purpose sockpuppet 51 Ongoing personal attacks, assumptions of bad faith and and incivility from Chris Croy (talk · contribs) 52 Julia ison-sterier 53 Xaverian High School (copied from Help Desk, posted there by User:Xaverianhs) 54 Hitachi spam 55 Neutralhomer 56 Block User:Betacommand and terminate User:BetacommandBot 57 Platanogenius (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) EdwinCasadoBaez (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) 58 Another bot mistagging fair use images 59 Brettfern repeatedly warned, continues vandalism... 60 User:M.V.E.i. 61 Mass deletion of television articles by TTN 61.1 Comment 61.2 Update 61.3 The real issue at hand 61.4 Plea for attention by impartial admin 61.5 This is going nowhere 61.6 A proposal 61.7 Comment by semi-involved editor 61.8 Enough, surely? 61.9 Super Mario Bros 3, another stripe on the tiger.. not... Another black rosette in the melanistic panther (TTN)

[edit] A block for a MascotGuy sock

Bigfoot's Curse of the Wild (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) editing style fits the editing style mentioned at WP:LTA/MG. The username is also difficult to comprehend and the account edited the userpages of other MascotGuy sockpuppets. Pants^(T) 21:00, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I used to edit blocked/banned user's userpages, and, actually, I did get accused of sockpuppetry a few times, but just because I edited the blocked/banned user's page (looked like the user you are accusing was correcting templates, like I used to do) doesn't necessarily mean I am a sockpuppet of the blocked/banned user. --əˈnongahy ♫Look What I've Done!♫ 21:39, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Hmm... Well, after taking a closer look, the editing style does kind of fit the style provided on WP:LTA. --əˈnongahy ♫Look What I've Done!♫ 21:48, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

User is blocked. Naconkantari 21:50, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Witton Albion F.C.

The Witton Albion F.C. article is under attack from IP accounts and sockpuppets. They seem to want to alter the seating capacity in the infobox and are removing a sourced number with one they put in completely unsourced. The sockpuppets Eir Witt, Noon went, and Then real have all been blocked. The latter two are sleeper accounts created in April. I have no personal opinion about the article but was alerted to it by this AIV report a few days ago. I have it on my watchlist but some more eyes would be nice. IrishGuy ^talk 22:15, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I saw about this on RFPP about a week ago, and hoped adding a hopefully correct sourced figure would help, but clearly not. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 22:17, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

It hasn't got enough edits for protection, but I've watchlisted it - I've seen them play a couple of time, not sure why anyone thinks they're worth vandalising..... Ryan Postlethwaite 22:19, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I threw on basic protection for new users and IPs...and that is when the sleeper accounts began arriving. IrishGuy ^talk 22:23, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Oh, so you did, well lets hope no more come out of the bag. Ryan Postlethwaite 22:25, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ip User:70.55.88.157

User behind ip address User:70.55.88.157 ignore warnings and talks [1] and simple continue with his own way of editing and spamming. He has been already warned 3 times in total from 3 editors [2]? Thanks --Graciella 01:10, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

This user has not received a final warning yet. So, it is not worthy of WP:AIV yet. If the user(s) behind that IP does it again, then report that IP to WP:AIV. --əˈnongahy ♫Look What I've Done!♫ 01:20, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Blocked for spam. There is no reason to waste time on counting warning templates before blocking in this case. Naconkantari 03:21, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User:Herostratus Deleting comments on talk pages

Like such - !Malomeat 01:44, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

• "This user is a Wikipedian and checks his opinions and ideologies at the door. He trusts that you do, too." hahahaha —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.199.45.54 (talk • contribs)
• It's a very common and accepted practice to remove comments from talk pages that can be clearly seen as trolling. You may disagree with whether or not that was trolling (and so do I; I would not have removed it myself), but it would be better etiquette to take that directly to the user you disagree with. Certainly before posting a new thread at ANI, which is for issues that actually require admin intervention. --Masamage ♫ 01:59, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

that was clearly NOT trolling, but a message of image support, and I agree with his comment. THis is Herostratus' on a personal campaign. He needs to stop, let this resolve here before continuing his repetitive edits, especially in light if his comments to never stop, no matter what. ThuranX 02:01, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

• • Seems like have a go at Herostratus night, SqueakBox 02:04, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

This has the feel of retailiation and harrassment. He is entitled to edit his talk page and him comments as he sees fit. This "incident" should be closed now...This is just plain silly, a waste of time, and plain bad form!!! DPeterson^talk 02:06, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

this incident was lableled resolved by the editor backing up Hero in the OTHER thread here, above. Come on. When did this become 'Save my buddy-Pedia'? Let's keep the Admins uninvolved, eh? and once again, we're seeing that the issues at hand are being ignored.ThuranX 02:16, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

By all means! Keep the admins entirely uninvolved in the "Administrators' noticeboard"! Bladestorm 02:23, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Pretty sure that's not what he meant. X) --Masamage ♫ 02:24, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

You'd be right. Krimpet got on me in the previous thread for bringing up a point made by an anon, and instead of discussing it, invoked POINT. Then he came here and closed this thread. Let's let an uninvolved admin address it. ThuranX 02:32, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Restoration of other's user page after owner blanked it while IFD ongoing.

User:Oh_yEs_itS_caRly said she was leaving wikipedia and blanked her page in response to about 15 images of herself being speedy templated then listed at IFD. User:N keeps restoring a previous version before the page was blanked by its owner.

I do have a dog in this fight. I support deletion of the images in question and I have also made my feelings known in this comment. I think everyone involved could have been more civil. I had a talk with N on my talk page but he just called me daft. I will not edit the page in question anymoer as I have said my peace. Thanks -- Diletante 03:52, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Just as a comment. I do not want this discussion to evolve into conflict regarding my legit edits. I ask that any admin involved in the dispute please recuse yourself from passing any final judgment. The argument is not about your actions, but those of N (talk · contribs) in this case. Cheers, Seicer (talk) (contribs) 03:55, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

N (talk · contribs), your attitude could be a lot better [3]. The three admins did not condemn my legit IFDs, just that it may have been construed as too harsh. At any rate, the user has left Wikipedia; the images were IFDed for UE, and now they are orphaned. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 04:28, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Protected. If she wants to blank her userpage, let her. Don't edit war in her own user space over her removal of her page. You've already driven her away.⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 04:40, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] cite reason in afd result

Notice to admins: Even if full consensus is reached in afd, dont forget to mention reason for the result, be the result be either keep or delete. It will avoid confusion and saves time.

Kindly mention criteria with link in case of delete. also in case of keep mention what were the criteria under contention.

recently in many afd's they have written "result was keep" or "result was delete" in short(i dont wish to cite those here). Please avoid this. thanks Racky pt 04:00, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

According to user page "It is suspected that this user is a sock puppet of Vinay412.

Please refer to Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Vinay412 for evidence." As for what this is about, you got me. But it doesn't belong here. Someone can just archive template this section please. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 04:42, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Why? I mean, if it's obvious, and the consensus is overwhelmingly clear, and the commenters are, for the most part, following policy, then I don't see a reason to write more than the one word result. I'm probably the wordiest admin when it comes to closing these, though I haven't done it for a while (see this for my finest example of wordiness) but I think there's nothing wrong with one-word results in most cases. Grandmasterka 04:45, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

@ User:Swatjester I dont wish to mess up my own thing here.
My point is when someone reviews a closed archived afd, if he gets summary in first line it will save time. And another point is for someone not familiar with afds it is difficult for him to know what exactly were the criteria under contention. Link like deleted under Wikipedia:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion#G5 will help a lot. Or like result was keep, criteria under contention were wp:notability and wp:verifiable. Comments maynot cite the exact policy no. anywhere.
and mentioning criteria wont be of much trouble for you people i think. Racky pt 05:19, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

First of all, a speedy deletion will have a tag, and will be cited. Secondly, the elements under consideration should be clear from the nomination. --Haemo 06:06, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User talk:Jugglemuggler

Jugglemuggler (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) is another probable sockpuppet of User:Danny Daniel. The user recreated Theatre Trash, an article that was previously created by indefinitely blocked sockpuppet User:Sugarkisser. Also see User:Squirepants101/Danny Daniel and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bloody Ghost. Pants^(T) 22:01, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Indef blocked. Has a checkuser ever been run on these accounts? There may be an underlying IP to block. Natalie 06:46, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] BetacommandBot broken?

I just noticed that User:BetacommandBot has now taken to putting image warnings on talk pages (example: Talk:List_of_pigs_over_1000_pounds). Shouldn't this info be put onto user pages rather than talk pages of the article? Kinda a moot point if the uploader can't address the issue when the warning is in a place he or she might never venture into.--293.xx.xxx.xx 22:07, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

that is not a bug, its a feature request. It notifies both the article's talkpage and the uploading user. Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 22:09, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Nope, it's not broken, it's putting warnings on article talk pages that images are displayed on to let regular editors know that the image is going to be deleted. By the looks of things, it's leaving messages on the uploaders as well. Ryan Postlethwaite 22:12, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

• And I just want to say that I am very appreciative that Betacommand made this change. It allows not only the uploader, but anyone watching article to see that an image needs its source. This has been most useful in allowing me to track down and fix the source and FU criteria for several sports logos. Resolute 22:30, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Seconded. I have Citizen Kane on my watchlist, and the message on the talk page alerted me that some images there needed help. With a little help from the crew on #wikipedia, I was able to get proper fair use rationales on the poster images. DarkAudit 23:01, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
• Agreed, this is a very useful feature. Though I still completely and utterly loathe the way the FU purge is being handled, this makes it much more fair for those who would like to keep the images. EVula // talk // ☯ // 23:50, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
• Double agreed. This approach was recommended as a means of enabling all of an article's editors the opportunity to address the issue of the impending loss of an image within the grace period – as opposed to only the uploading editor who might be on vacation, wikibreak, or long since gone. A definite step in the right direction, and I commend BetacommandBot for adopting it! Askari Mark (Talk) 02:45, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per EVula ;-) Very useful, even I have ventured into the image namespace to give a few fair use rationales now (and I normally stay very clear of it). Fram 11:37, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hello. Possible misuse of userpage?

User:Alkivar. Isn't that a violation of WP:UP#NOT? Too much personal information, as well as advertising for himself, what with that big picture and the styles of music he plays?--0rrAvenger 02:07, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

He could tone it down, but a rather smaller fraction would be fine. Try mentioning it to him personally on his talk page; he might not be aware. --Masamage ♫ 02:09, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

It looks thoroughly appropriate to me, he even includes his biases, SqueakBox 02:10, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't appear to be advertising, and it's just a (relatively) brief biography of himself. I don't think this is inappropriate, based on my understanding. --Haemo 02:10, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the input everyone. Also, I just noticed he has spoofed the page title to link to his commercial website. Is that allowed?--0rrAvenger 02:17, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

The layout makes it look like there's a lot more text than there actually is, I think. As for the link, I don't see anything in WP:UP#NOT that disallows that. I didn't even notice it was a link until you mentioned anything. --Hemlock Martinis 02:20, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

It's permissible to have a link to your personal website. This guy is clearly a prolific contributor, so I don't think we need to worry about him being here just to advertise himself. --Masamage ♫ 02:22, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Not to pile on, but I've checked a lot of userpages and I know a "MySpace page" when I see one. Given Alkivar's contribution history, and the relevance of much of the userpage content to Wikipedia, it's totally okay. Placeholder account 04:46, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

He can give away as much personal information as he likes; he's over the age of 18. Neil ╦ 09:05, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User:Havesmite and User:Onlykeys - sockpuppetry?

Recently, Havesmite (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) signed up and began reverting articles about fancruft related to Xenosaga, in defiance of a consensus made at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of terms in Xenosaga and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of terms in Xenosaga (2nd nomination), claiming there was no discussion for the redirects. Yesterday, he was blocked for 31 hours for reverting the changes and attempting to recreate some of the pages, but almost immediately Onlykeys (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) signed up and began reverting the same articles Havesmite was trying to restore. Looks like an obvious block-evading sock to me, but I want to see what the folks with the tools think. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 02:12, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

The place to report this is at WP:SSP. Od Mishehu 14:16, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] EdwinCasadoBaez (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)

EdwinCasadoBaez (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) After EdwinCasadoBaez was blocked [4] He came back under another IP address 69.120.74.120 and 69.119.127.181 . Less than 2 hours later. [5] [6] . He has admitted to this and basically refuses to abide by the block. [7] YoSoyGuapo 10:03, 3 June 2007 (UTC) He was given a severe warning and told to observe his block. [8]

He is now back again with over 15 edits on a talk page being extremely disruptive. [9] as well as removed sockpuppet warnings [10] as well as other irrational arguments [11] YoSoyGuapo 06:34, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

IP blocked, original block extended. Grandmasterka 15:53, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User:Trojani

Following a breach of 3RR at Illyrians that led to a block by Sam Blacketer, Trojani (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) tried to evade it on six different ocassions using IPs at that same article. After receiving separate warnings and resets of said block, and following his latest attempt to circumvent it that took place just minutes ago, I've proceeded to block him indefinitely. Further evidence of his behavior and the IPs he used to that effect can be found at his talk page. Please feel free to review. Regards, Phaedriel - 07:31, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Lord Hume of Berwick

Please could an admin urgently look at the arguments going on with this page. One editor is clearly attempting to push an untested claim to this barony on behalf of a family which is clearly POV. Admin User:BrownHairedGirl has previously looked at it, but that is all and is now away. She suggests another admin (see too her Talk Page). David Lauder 08:44, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Administrators are not magical content deciderers. You need Wikipedia:Request for comment. Neil ╦ 09:21, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User:Matthew

Please don't come here just to argue. Try using your own talk pages, the WP:EPISODE talk page or an RFC. Thanks Nick 10:59, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Personal attacks on Talk:Hippie

Mombas (talk · contribs) keeps using Talk:Hippie to post personal attacks against me instead of discussing the article. His current attacks consist of repeatedly telling me that I am a "control freak" and advising me to "better serve your time by returning to your former role as a member of the cheer squad for the pro-Zionist hecklers", and is now using the talk page to wage a campaign of "either blocking or censoring User:Viriditas".[12] [13] [14] [15] [16] He has also made a large number of false accusations against me, inferring that I am engaging in "persistent vandalism; persistent gross incivility; persistent harassment; persistently posting unsourced or poorly sourced contentious biographical material about living persons; persistent spamming; edit warring or revert warring; and breaching the sock puppetry policy." In response to these persistent attacks, I have asked Mombas to stop twice [17][18]. In response, he has begun claiming that I am making personal attacks and has waged a harassment campaign on my talk page replete with a continued barrage of false personal attack warnings [19] [20] [21] [22] [23] [24] [25] [26] which is quite bizarre. I am requesting administrative intervention by a neutral party. Thank you. —Viriditas | Talk 10:30, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Removed speedy template

User:Eurovision+rain=sad removed a Template:nonsense template that I placed on his article Simon Mistry [27], which I suspect was created in violation of WP:POINT after a I marked an article about his band as not notable. The Simon Mistry article is about one of the band members.

Paul Carpenter 10:40, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Article deleted, user warned for remvoing speedy tags - I'll keep an eye on him. Ryan Postlethwaite 10:45, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User:Jamez21

James21 seems to be a 14 year old kid that wants to create a webpage about his pal. Unfortunately the kid is not notable. Joshua Denis and Joshua denis have been deleted repeatedly, but he keeps recreating the page which is essentially a copy of Origami. Valentinian ^{T / C} 11:53, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

this needs flushing as well. --Fredrick day 11:56, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

CSD tag added to the latter, I don't have the technical ability to delete, so if an admin would... thanks in advance, Navou 12:12, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Juro reincarnation

Svetovid (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) is a very disruptive editor, revert warrer (always playing out the 3RR) [28] [29], has a strong anti-Hungarian sentiment [30], deletes every hungarian words/aliases, despite that those villages/towns have hungarian majority and they are officially bilingual places, very agressive, and constant POV pusher (kinda "slovakia über alles" style). User constantly moves english articles to it's slovak names [31], despite this is english and not slovak wikipedia, deletes every Hungarian stuff from them [32], calling them lies, whoever puts them back, are called ireedentist/nationalist/racist whatever, you know, guess what else. This behave perfectly fits to indefinite banned user, User:Juro, who's behave, style, POV pushing, and deleting of Hungarian names in Hungary-related articles (with the reason given also) are perfectly the same as Juro. Note also, that Juro is a notorious sock puppeter [33], and ban evader [34], [35], and edits from dinamic IPs and proxys, so he managed to use some of his sockpuppets almost half year! He also impersonated other users, user:VinceB [36]. I am absolutely sure, these two are the same, even if IP does not match, Svetovid acts like Juro, speaks like Juro, same POV edits he does, accuses the same with every hungarian users, also deletes hungarian names from bilingual towns and villages as Juro, and also moves articles from english to their Slovak names, as Juro. If these two aren't the same, than they are twins. --193.224.247.34 14:45, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Requesting block of user MGlosenger for vandalism

User MGlosenger has made it his personal mission to vandalise the Spectra-Morphic page by deleting all of the content and replacing it with information on Australian football coach William Lang. Everytime I restore the content, he replaces all of it minutes later. Spectra-Morphic was a legitimate sound technique used in the 1960s and 1970s, and I'm not sure why MGlosenger has taken it upon himself to call it a hoax and replace the content numerous times each day. Any help would be appreciated. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Soundgeek (talk • contribs).

Edits like these ([37], [38], [39], [40]) by MGlosenger (talk · contribs) do seem a little WP:POINTy. However, his point seems valid - without any evidence that "Spectra-Morphic" actually exists (in the form of reliable sources), the article should be speedily deleted as a hoax. I can't get any Google hits for it, but if you can find sources the article could be re-created. I'm going to recuse myself from taking any administrative action here, however, since User:MGlosenger recently managed to bait me into a discussion at Talk:Ephedra. MastCell ^Talk 15:24, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

I warned the user, and told him to take it to AFD if he think it should be deleted. Bjelleklang - talk Bug Me 15:55, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Agree with Bjelleklang. First off, hoaxes are not speedy deletion candidates unless they can qualify as "pure vandalism". Second, lack of ghits is not that convincing to me: this is supposed to be a sound processing technique from the 1960s, I'm not surprised it's not easy to find on the internet. If MGlosenger wants the article deleted, he should go to AfD, not vandalize the article. Mangojuice^talk 15:58, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Please check the history of the article and count how many times Soundgeek has removed the tags asking for sources. It might be difficult for someone else to find sources proving that an obscure recording technique from the 1960s existed. When the person who created 100% of the text of the article can't provide a single source for it and destroys the evidence that he got asked for sources what is the most likely explanation ? 192.250.34.161 14:06, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

MGlosner (talk · contribs) dumping the William Lang text into the article is disruptive, so a warning is totally appropriate. That said, Spectra-Morphic is setting off my hoax detectors; there are a lot of red flags here. Mango may be correct that given the date on this it's probably not going to oozing ghits, but if it doesn't get sourcing sometime soon it will probably end up on AFD.--Isotope23 16:37, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Also look at http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Spectra-morphic&diff=136250633&oldid=136250125 ; why is Soundgeek himself redirecting Spectra-morphic to William Lang ? Could it be that Soundgeek and MGlosner are the same person and he just forgot which one he was logged as ? 192.250.34.161 14:13, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User Sal Slytherin

As predicted in Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Æthelbert of Kent and User:Hel Hufflepuff, User:Sal Slytherin has appeared and is making vandalistic edits like his two Hogwarts-named associates or sockpuppets. Anthony Appleyard 16:51, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

I think they are trying to open the chamber on Wikipedia. NK has blocked him. — Nearly Headless Nick ^{C} 16:54, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] RUReady2Testify (talk • contribs • logs)

New editor from Estonia seeks expert help and guidance, particularly interested in learning more about WP:NPOV and WP:OWN. User:DLX and myself have interacted extensively with him, but he now feels he is being bullied. I left a message for an uninvolved admin to review the situation, but it seems he is off-line. Any help and/or guidance gratefully accepted. --John 17:54, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Impostor

This user is using my name and posing as me, spamming/vandalizing articles that I post at in an effort to blame me. I suspect he's the same vandal that has been dealt with by me at Wookieepedia. I would appreciate it if he could be blocked. Kuralyov 18:19, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

User is gone. Naconkantari 18:24, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Threat

I don't know how serious this threat is, but I thought I would bring it to everyone's attention. IrishGuy ^talk 23:37, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Was indef blocked by Yamamoto. bibliomaniac15 An age old question... 00:36, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Indef block doesn't notify the school. ThuranX 02:14, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I've sent a short email with a link to the diff to the email address on the school website. Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 02:16, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I sent this one to CheckUser. It could possibly be that someone is trying to ruin someone else's name, because the threat included someone's name in it. Once the cops get the IP address used, the cops can use this as evidence to send the death threat maker to the detention home and clear up a possible case of identity theft, because the death threat issuer stated either his name or the name of a person he or she wanted ruined. Jesse Viviano 23:24, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Sounds like a thorough job, thanks to Zman and Jesse Viviano for their follow up! ThuranX 23:42, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I just got a reply from school officials saying thanks, no details. Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 23:34, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Dailykos (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)

I added this to UAA, but it's been sitting for a while and nobody seems to know exactly how to handle it, so I figured that maybe I should leave a report here to open up some discussion. This user, who registered in November of '05 and has edited occasionally since then, has a username that is substantially identical to that of Daily Kos, a well-known political website. In an edit made earlier today, the account claimed to be Markos Moulitsas Zúniga, the founder of the Daily Kos site. It seems to me that we should attempt to verify his identity, to eliminate the possibility of an impostor (and make open any COI issues, since the account has edited both Daily Kos and Markos Moulitsas Zúniga). Does anyone know the right way to ask for verification, and is that the right course to pursue here? -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 19:55, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Block and get them to post on their site stating that the WP user is the same person is the usual procedure. --GDonato (talk) 20:06, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't have The Tools, so if he should be blocked, someone else needs to do it. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 21:11, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

It's now moot, since he's just confirmed to me, via e-mail, that he is in fact who he says he is. Should I file this anywhere (send a copy to the foundation, maybe)? -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 18:08, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Forward it to OTRS. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 22:56, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

How do I do that? Sorry, I find the OTRS page kind of unclear. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 02:41, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Dbachmann (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)

Much too often user:Dbachmann thinks himself qualified to insert his point of view, pretending some kind of undisputed truth or "generally accepted" wisdom without bothering to source. He keeps vandalizing my edits on Nordwestblock on the pretext that he wants to keep Wikipedia "clean from fantastic speculation", even though he comes up with fantastic speculations of himself. Indeed, he deleted a {{Fact}} tag and inserted his OR instead: [41]. I already addressed his inclination to come up with statement of his own, even to contradict scholars inserting unsourced personal views and comments as if he was qualified to do so on equal terms. To get an impression I refer to my extensive admonitions at Talk of the Runic alphabet: [42]. He does not seem to like that I mention scholars that cast doubt on what he likes to prevail as the one and only truth (like the validity of the Kurgan hypothesis or assumed early Germanic invasions originating from Scandinavia) and just keep on contradicting sourced information, and now he violates WP:AGF by reverting edits on the pretext of my alleged "agenda" - thus showing a mere personal grudge against my contributions. The only agenda I have is to contradict unsourced statements taken for granted - such as many of the statements DBachmann is used to impose on Wikipedia. Insisting on obsolete views without bothering to source is WP:OR. Worse, to delete any suggestion of contradictory information is a serious violation of the Wikipedia policy of neutrality. The extreme effort DBachmann invests in Wikipedia are no justification for "not giving a hoot" about the efforts of others to supply valuable information. Please read this argument of DBachmann for reverting my edit, where he admits not to give a hoot and still insists his ideas (of Chatti and Cherusci not being Germanic and instead dominated by a Germanic superstratum) to be "undisputed": utterly untrue, since such ideas are disputed, and his "rectification" is without any sourcing: [43]. His other reverts of this article are disruptive in the sense they intend to destroy perfectly valid contextual information, like here: [44]. I think this kind of behaviour deserves to be addressed. Rokus01 20:15, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Why does this require administrator attention? Content disputes are best addressed through dispute resolution. --Akhilleus (talk) 20:23, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't consider this a simple content dispute. Dbachmann takes the habit of abusing the Wikipedia policies I mentioned on a personal basis and on a large scale. Rokus01 21:46, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

This seems to be a dispute on content. We don't settle content disputes on AN/I, you might want to check out WP:Resolving disputes to see how to deal with this issue.--Jersey Devil 20:24, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I must say in Dbachmann's defense that he is doing some great work fighting to keep local patriotic OR out of the Nordwestblock article. Rokus01 is writing about the pre-historic Nordwestblock by referring to a late Dutch mythology and the genetics of modern Dutchmen.--Berig 20:40, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

This are the words of a Scandinavian patriot, waging edit wars on obsolete "out of Scandinavia" information concerning the Germanic origin. This is also one of the NPOV views Dbachmann adheres to. Both administrators have an habit in deleting information that would be in aparent contradiction to those views. Also, previously Dbachmann did not show any scruples in defending the nationalists of "Greater Iran".Rokus01 21:46, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Please don't use this page to pursue your content dispute, go through dispute resolution instead. --Akhilleus (talk) 21:57, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Could you please specify why you think this is a content dispute? This suggests you assume the dispute on content is more important to me than my denunciation of the violation of Wikipedia policies mentioned above. I don't ask different views on content to be addressed, but the way how simple rules are are disobeyed. According to what I know violation of WP rules is an incident. Rokus01 22:10, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

To ignore an incident (or rather, a pattern of incidents) and dismiss violations of WP policy like this, on this very place, would be an incident by itself. I insist administrators here to specify their reasons for ignoring WP guidelines and call such infractions something else, and subsequently check this subject as resolved. Addressing WP:AGF, WP:OR and a list of other things reflecting NPOV edits and edit warring deals with an incident, not content. Rokus01 05:30, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

There are a couple of arbcom cases relating to Dbachmann at the moment if you have anything to say. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 05:33, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 75.4.23.134 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)

Less than a minute after I mentioned the name of User:Artaxiad on Talk:Armenia, Subartu And Sumer, a likely sock of this permabanned user started trolling and revert warring in the article with claims along the lines of "most" western sources now reveal Armenians have been in the Armenian Highland well over four thousand years", an assertion which has been instantly debunked on Talk:Armenia. Please investigate. --Ghirla^-трёп- 07:55, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

The editing pattern is the one of Artaxiad. The IP is listed in spam databases [45]. I have blocked the IP as an Artaxiad's sock but maybe the open proxy might serve better Alex Bakharev 03:39, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User:Auto-revert, User:80.34.17.209

Not sure if this is the correct area but here goes:

Persistently inserting mention of Barry Ley (determined non notable as in the archives of deleted article Barry Ley) in Dalton, Richmondshire, North Yorkshire, including the freewebs site of Barry Ley

Malicious/spiteful and pointless reverts of user Nate1481: Special:Contributions/Auto-revert

appears to be same person as confirmed sockpuppeteer banned user DrParkes: Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets/DrParkes who is almost certainly Barry Ley himself

Persistently reverting Brazilian Jiu-jitsu to the factually unsupported versions of banned user DrParkes

obvious sockpuppetry and malicious intent in general, including creation of obvious attempts at bot impersonation with User:Helpbot and User:Assist-bot (also check editing histories of those against those of IP listed, Auto-revert, and the banned sockpuppet accounts of DrParkes)

Intervention requested. FlowWTG 08:18, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Only just got on of would have brought this myself, a large proportion of the reverted edits are of me using AWB to change Martial Arts to Martial arts & other bits while working through. The added freewebs link shows Barry Ley as a blue belt in BJJ the second rank so inherently not notable without somthing more. There are also some comments on the Dalton talk page.--Nate1481(^talk/_contribs) 08:29, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Also note User:88.17.108.158 following the same pattern. FlowWTG 08:41, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

I have indefinitely blocked User:Auto-revert for being (or posing as) a bot created without express permission of Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval, causing deliberate disruption aimed to harrass selected users. I do not believe an account created solely to revert war is of any benefit to Wikipedia. Both IPs softblocked for a few months. Neil ╦ 09:43, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

User:PostrevertHas just done exactly the same, including the misleading summaries, on the Dalton page --Nate1481(^talk/_contribs) 11:35, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Postrevert indef blocked, userpages of all of the above deleted (WP:DENY) and some pages watchlisted. Sigh. Natalie 12:22, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Add User:Undo-edit to that list as well. Natalie 14:50, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

User:88.17.112.11 is also following the same pattern Kaly99 17:23, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User:Hiddensonyvaio and User:JoeBender

Both of these users have been very busy vandals tonight. Sheep81 09:13, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism. Neil ╦ 09:18, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sanitycheck (talk · contribs), Jerusalem

I'm apprehensive about blocking Sanitycheck (talk · contribs) as I'm sure someone's going to say "I'm involved" and that "this is a content dispute", but this user has been merely the latest in a string of editors whose primary agenda is eliminating the fact that Jerusalem is the capital of Israel without so much as leaving a word on the talk page. The semi-protection has been helpful, keeping the majority of these issues confined to the talk page, especially with a Muslim extremist site directing people to this article, but there are always a few that get through. There was a temporary reprieve from 3RR for editors reverting such edits while this article was today's featured article (May 23), but I'm not sure if that exemption still applies. Is it vandalism or a "content dispute" that falls under the guise of the three-revert rule? I'm weary about reverting again... -- tariqabjotu 13:11, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

• I blocked the guy for 24 hours for clear 3RR violation yesterday & Yamla just declined the unblock. It's clear that he's here just for pushing his own agenda. If he persists, well, he'll just get blocked for a longer period - Alison ☺ 19:02, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 129.133.124.xxx, second request for admin review

Can an admin please review the edits of 129.133.124.195 (talk · contribs)? Along with this look at 129.133.124.194 (talk · contribs), 129.133.124.199 (talk · contribs), 129.133.124.203 (talk · contribs), 129.133.124.204 (talk · contribs), and 129.133.124.217 (talk · contribs) -- edit patterns show this almost certainly to be one editor. In my opinion, there's a block-worthy history of trolling and incivility there. Posted previously here but no admin has responded and there continue to be more unproductive edits and (what looks to me like) trolling from these IPs. -- Rbellin|Talk 18:26, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't see the problem with these edits. Could you provide diffs for any comments or additions you found objectionable? TimVickers 21:31, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Did you look at the diffs in the previous ANI post I linked? Also, there's this, for incivility; this and this for personal attacks ("I think you're a clown"); this and numerous other similar remarks refusing to provide sources on topics the user edit-wars over. Or just look at the entire Copyvio section of Talk:Kappa Alpha Society for a completely derailed discussion in which the user assumes bad faith of every other editor and ignores even the most basic pointers to Wikipedia copyright policy. And see the bottom of Talk:Wesleyan University for other users' concerns with this IP, and the second round (first is here) of strange imitative non-replies to my concerns about this IP's editing behavior. I really feel this is worth an admin's scrutiny and a possible block for trolling, since the editor several times disclaims any interest in improving Wikipedia articles, but seems interested only in revert-warring or using Talk pages to score points. Please take a look at the diffs here and in the archived post and take the time to read the two Talk pages linked here and see if you agree. -- Rbellin|Talk 01:31, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Eksdee1

Deleted content from Lito y Polaco and replaced it with gibberish. After warning him on his talk page he removed the warning in order to hide any evidence of vandalism. --Pasajero 18:56, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Users are allowed to remove messages from their talk page after reading them. Unless they are committing further vandalism, there is no need for further warnings. Any previous warnings are still preserved in the page history. Vassyana 19:03, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Legal threat: Christopher Monckton, 3rd Viscount Monckton of Brenchley

Could i request someone to look at the page? --Kim D. Petersen 18:57, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Page semi-protected and IP warned. -- Avi 19:05, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Raising this article at WP:BLP/N as well. Vassyana 19:08, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 69.119.7.8

Added nonsense to Lito y Polaco. --Pasajero 18:59, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

The user's last edit was 3 minutes before the first warning. Funpika 19:16, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] SummerThunder's back again

Prepare for another attack by SummerThunder (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)--I just caught a very likely sock of his, 0CD dick (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log). Since his socks usually come in waves, admins need to get ready to play whack-a-mole.Blueboy96 19:09, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Personal attacks to other editors

User:Naus has made a rude comment towards other editors.[53] He has a generally negative attitude as well. [54].

User:JakeLM's negative comments is even more harsh by labeling the talk page of Goguryeo as a "giant circlejerk for Korean ethnocentrists". [55]

I believe that action be taken against these editors. thank you. Good friend100 19:31, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

The former has a warning template posted by you - that is the correct action. The latter's section seems to be gone from the talk page. x42bn6 Talk Mess 22:11, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Problem with editor

Counter-revolutionary (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) insists on restoring a personal attack made by a troll on an article talk page. He has twice restored it claiming it was a good faith edit. General Peabody (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) was a clear troll and not acting in good faith, and the editor in question is merely restoring the comment to be disruptive. Administrative intervention requested, thanks. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 19:32, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

I have found this myself and have not been told by the complainant. I made it clear I was acting in good faith and my soloution was to strke through the text, which I don't see anything wrong with - considering I did not insert it! --Counter-revolutionary 19:42, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

You restored a personal attack on two editors you have previously been involved in a dispute with. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 19:43, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Technically there is no consensus for removing PAs in general. I think it may have been a better idea to goto his talk page rather than going straight to ANI. However we should probably wait for what an administrator says. Funpika 19:53, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

There's no consensus on removing them, but reinserting them - in full knowledge of what they say and even if you didn't originally type it and even if you strike it through - isn't really on. I will re-remove the attack; please don't reinsert it. Neil ╦ 20:40, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Douglaswood (talk · contribs)

The above user, apparently an entertainment executive, is attempting to hijack the Douglas Wood article (which is about a former hostage) to write about himself. Reverted and warned once, but went back and re-inserted the autobiographical material. RJASE1 ^Talk 20:11, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Added a sterner warning; if he continues, he'll be blocked. MastCell ^Talk 20:31, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

He's doing it again, please block. RJASE1 ^Talk 20:49, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Blocked for 24 hours. Ryan Postlethwaite 20:52, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

If that doesn't get the point across, the next block should be indefinite. MastCell ^Talk 20:54, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Irvine Laidlaw, Baron Laidlaw

Long-term, serious vandalism on this page by persistent vandal (see http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Irvine_Laidlaw%2C_Baron_Laidlaw&diff=prev&oldid=136440313). Consider page protection. Batonrouger 20:45, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

WP:RFPP does requests quicker. x42bn6 Talk Mess 22:08, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

User(s) blocked - main vandal now on 6-month schoolblock - Alison ☺ 22:18, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] M.deSousa using Wikipedia to push off-WP agenda

Hello;

M.deSousa (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) has long been using Wikipedia to push the claims of a fringe imposter pretender by the name of Rosario Poidimani (who claims to be "His Royal Highness Rosario Saxe-Coburg-Gotha-Braganza, Duke of Braganza". Obviously, these are fanaticisms with no basis in fact. Manuel De Sousa, however, frequently reverts articles to POV forms which he has edited, even using changing NPOV in a weasel-ish manner in an attempt to foster legitimacy for this self-styled Duke which he has been connected to (Manuel De Sousa used to post on alt.talk.royalty from the email address grandoffice@royalhouseofportugal.org (the sham website purporting to give the truth of the "true" queen of Portugal) click "view profile" near the top of that post). Manuel De Sousa also labels some edits contrary to his as libel. Those might constitute veiled legal threats if you ask me.

I don't know why this man was unblocked in the first place. He had a number of sockpuppets while banned and still has a number of suspected sockpuppets. Going to his contributions page and clicking the differences for just about any of his edits illustrates everything I have said. He tries to "convince" people of the "duke's" claim to the throne of Portugal (Rosario was actually arrested recently for fraud, forging documents, extortion, and criminal association) and Manuel De Sousa is an associate of his making edits for Rosario's vanity and to push his false claims. I feel that he ought to be permanently banned. Dealing with his vandalism is tiresome. Charles 20:50, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

A Wikipedian, Choess, also notes Manuel De Sousa's edits and links to one of his off-site posts. Charles 20:55, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

I thought this guy was banned long ago. At any rate, I've blocked him indefinitely. – Steel 21:15, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I really feel it was what needed to be done. Charles 21:23, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sockpuppet concern

[edit] Why hasn't this guy been tagged yet?

After seeing this via a current DYK article up front, I noticed that both of User:Ultrabeater's Talkpage and contributions look extremely funny. He has been tagged numerous times for uploading copyrighted images and work, and it looks like he hasn't heard of 3RR due to his edits. Does he need a friendly nudge into the right direction or is it suspicious activity??--293.xx.xxx.xx 00:42, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Block (and now page protection) review

I indefinitely blocked Vranak (talk · contribs) today following what I considered to be general incivility and (what I considered to be) a personal attack. This user has a talk page history of other editors complaining about similar general behavior, particularly disruption at the reference desks.

I don't consider an indef block to be out of line for this, however, as this account is indisputably a sock puppet of indef blocked Cjwright79 (talk · contribs). Cjwright79 was blocked late last year for the same type of incivility and disruption, plus plenty of vandalism and sock puppets (see User talk:Cjwright79 for a good run-down, including previous ANI threads). I, and Consumed Crustacean (talk · contribs), knew in December that this account was the same editor, but kept a lid on it as it was generally not abusive and had pledged to leave his disruption days behind.

I've blocked this account because it appears to have generally exhausted the patience of much of the community by acting in generally the same manner as its predecessors, the personal attack (and subsequent snide responses to several editors expressing that such statements were out-of-line) was the proverbial straw. I felt it was no longer necessary to let a previously indef-blocked user be disruptive.

There has since been a denied unblock request and several other comments at User talk:Vranak. I felt that Vranak's most recent edits to the page amounted to trolling and protected the page.

I welcome anyone & everyone's input here: did I overstep my bounds? is the block justified? was the talk page protection justified? If any other admin wishes to undo any of my actions, I will willingly step aside. Thanks, — Scientizzle 01:36, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

I was somewhat involved so I won't attempt to review, but I blocked another sockpuppet of the same guy today, see User talk:Mathiemood. He seems like a garden variety kook/troll to me, but any review or other input is welcome. I don't care one way or another on talk page protection- let him insult whoever he wants, it only makes him look like more of a kook. Friday (talk) 04:20, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Removal of RS sources

After I have a complaint about removal of RS sources from Wikipedia article to an admin (see here) including my intention to use wiki process to resolve the conflict he then began a process of removing sources from articles that I have created (see here), (see here), (see here), (See here), (see here)

There are genuinely differences of opinion about this source in Wikipedia. For example uninviolved neutral user was quoted when confronted with the RS sources of Tamilnet.

“

Comment: Yes. While recognizing that the Sri Lankan-Tamil civil war is a longstanding and viciously contested dispute, I decline to take notice of pissing matches between the various factions as to which source is supposedly discredited by its alleged adherence to one side or another. Fox TV is commonly presumed to be a biased mouthpiece for right-wing ideologues, but I don't think you'd get very far claiming it doesn't qualify as a reliable source on that count. RGTraynor 17:02, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

”

[56]

Then on Sri Lankan reconciliation project the following compromise was reached about the source see here

When such diverse opinion is out there about this source for admin to refuse to follow wiki process that has been suggested is uncalled for and will only lead to edit wars as I am sure more people will revert his edits. Some other uninvolved admin needs to get involved to resolve this issue. Thanks Taprobanus 13:31, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, RGTraynor also suggested that perhaps Sinhalese and Tamil people recuse themselves. Are you going to do so? Blnguyen (bananabucket) 03:20, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I am sorry to say that includes you because although you claim what ever you are to be, your edits parralel edit with other very specific minded Indian editors shows that one does not have to be an Indian or Sri Lankan to be part of a partisan camp. Thanks Taprobanus 14:07, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Ok. So you tell us Taprobanus that there was a consensus reached here at the WikiProject Sri Lanka Reconciliation. Well, has Blnguyen been invited to participate? Has he done it in case he was invited? If you say that you have reached a consensus about TamilNet being a qualified source (QS) than why aren't you using an explicit attribution (TamilNet reports that...)? Maybe Blnguyen was reverting on the grounds that it was used as a reliable source (RS)? -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 16:23, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

He was not part of the decision, but not every wikipedian can be part of such decisions any way. As the reconciliation decision is not a formal wikipedia decision such as a result of mediation or arbitration. It is as binding as suggestion:)

Now if he agrees with the suggestion, (now that he knows about) he can edit using it. But If I am not mistaken he did remove Tamilnet from a statement which explicitly stated as pro-rebel (see here). That means he is not all amenable to any use of Tamilnet in Wikipedia. His point of view is just one point of view.See here for history of involvement in Sri Lanka related articles in the past.

User:RGTraynor another experienced non involved third party (that is not a Sri Lankan or Indian who has an axe to grind in this conflict including me and Blnguyen)said very clearly that he will accept Tamilnet as a RS source.[57] So we have diverse opinion here about this source.

Already Blnguyen edit patterns which went after many articles that I created has resulted in an edit war where there was non for a long time. These were stable articles including an AFD that went through with minimal content deletion including sources. That is a lot of neutral non involved third party editors looked at them and decided that they were written from a neutral point of view with reputable sources. So how do we solve this problem? when we have editors such as myself and Blnguyen who potentially have conflict of interest because of our backrounds who say have such opposite views about this source and yet others who are non involved say it is a RS source. (I will post here other explicit statements supporting this point from number of non involved third paties here) What is the next step ? Mediation and what is the final step ? Arbitration ? I am sick and tired of wikipedians indulging in vicious edit wars based on one source. If we decide it is not RS, then it is not RS. If we decide that it is RS then it canbe used. If we decide is QS then it QS. What ever it is I want more than a mere suggestion. Thanks Taprobanus 17:18, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm not Indian, I am of Vietnamese ethnicity, and RGTraynor did not declare Tamilnet to be an RS. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 03:20, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

We can claim to be what ever we are in the internet. I suppose the French colonials were very fond of the game of Cricket in Vietnam:)) Seriously just like I am a Canadian, similarly you are Vietnamese but your edit patterns in parallel with other very specific minded Indian editors shows that you have very strong conflict of interest in Dravidian and Tamil related subject matters as was noted during many entanglements with now banned User:WikiRaja. So lets us not go there about ethnicities here and lets us stick to the discussion about Tamilnet. Thanks Taprobanus 14:07, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

WikiRaja was a two-bit troll, intent on promoting clouded ethocentric agenda, and racist myths. WikiRaja was an anti-Brahmin also intent in working to denigrate the contributions of Iyers to Tamil culture. Might I remind you that Sarathambal would not be off limits to his ire?Bakaman 03:22, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Just because you've used Tamilnet and other such patently partisan and non-RS on scores of articles doesnt mean they become reliable sources. These sites are avowed sympathisers of the militant outfits and in some cases just the 'media arm' of the militant outfits. They dont stand a remote chance of making it past WP:RS. Any dispassionate editor, editing in good faith wouldnt use these sources, especially since there is no dearth of bonafide reliable sources like BBC or the mainstream Indian media(print and internet) etc.,. This is not some conflict raging in some 'unexplored, unknown to the modern world' corner of the globe. It is happening in SriLanka, a member nation of the UN and the entire world is watching. So, there is absolutely no dearth of reliable sources(and non-partisan ones at that). Of course, if you adhered strictly to WP:RS, you may not be able to keep a score of every gunshot and every loss of limb as you're doing now, but it will leave wikipedia in better encyclopedic shape.

And what do you mean by - "...when we have editors such as myself and Blnguyen who potentially have conflict of interest because of our backrounds..."? Are you suggesting that you have a conflict of interest here? If that is the case, I'd request you to stop editing these articles. You really shouldnt be editing these articles in the best interests of the 'pedia. And as for insinuating that Blnguyen or 'Indian editors' have a COI going here, I'd suggest that you think twice before throwing around such accusations.

And please read WP:RS, WP:EL and related policies once before you infest the references and EL sections with links to google videos, random geocities, tripod sites, blogs, or a random site of some Tamil 'sangam' in some corner of the world etc.. apart from the staple tamilnet, tamilnation cruft. Thanks. Sarvagnya 21:58, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Just a simple question, will you stop editing Tamil related article because of your Bangalorean Tamil backround. Seriously, you have been noted by many editors many times in the ANI. So let us talk about Tamilnet then. Thanks—The preceding unsigned comment was added by notbakaman (talk • contribs).

Blnguyen is vietnamese. He is interested in India (india is one sixth of the worlds population, a lot of people are), and I fail to see a conflict of interest. As for tamilnet, it isnt neutral but not unreliable. The views on it are divided with some calling it LTTE and some calling it slightly biased. Tamilnet shouldn't be, however, the principal source for which notability is established. As for the fighting between editors, Taprobanus has been willing to discuss instead of reverting to trolling like 213.181.56.12 (talk · contribs) who we are led to believe is a Tamil in Iraq (via traceroute). As if the plight of Tamils is the most important worry in Iraq. Back to the subject, the analogy to FOX is interesting and demands some further discussion.Bakaman 22:55, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I have to give my 2¢ here. Partisan websites of any nature or background cannot be automatically classified at not reliable. As per Bakaman, it isn't neutral but not unreliable. I also agree w/ Bakaman in that no article should rely on one disputed source. One thing that i noticed and may not have appeared to you is that after classifying it as a qualified source, it has been inserted as a reliable source. As i said above, if it has to be used, than obviously wording should be like TamilNet reports that.... -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 00:54, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I am more than willing to follow Fayssal's suggestion. Thanks Taprobanus 14:07, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I get the feeling that Bakaman and Fayssal are confusing 'notability' and 'reliability'. 'Notability' is perhaps all that we can concede to Tamilnet and that is why we have a TamilNet on wikipedia. However, just being 'notable' doesnt make them 'RS'. That they have a rather lopsided militant view of the situation doesnt help either. Sarvagnya 01:48, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment: The analogy to FOX is ridiculous. FOX is a professionally run media house owned by News corp., which is listed on various exchanges and subject to routine and professional audits by the best in the business. I am sure it is affiliated to any/all "official" press regulatory bodies that count. It has an editor with rather impeccable professional credentials who has the moral courage to attach his name to a story. If anybody feels that FOX has a slant(to right or left or whatever), then it is their POV. Tamilnet otoh hand is, for all we know run by some journalistic quack who takes his blogging rather seriously. Sorry. The FOX analogy just wont cut it. Try something else. Sarvagnya 01:43, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Your personal opinion or do you have serious citation for what are you saying. I have listed reserach papers others your comments are just WP:SOAP. Thanks Taprobanus 14:12, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Can i ask a simple question Sarvagnya? What if TamilNet announces and acknowledges a terrorist attack via their website? Would we use it as a primary reference? Would it be considered as a reliable source as well? IMHO, if you have reached a consensus in which TamilNet would be considered as a qualified source (everything but a reliable source) than why not all parties try to use the appropriate wording when using TN as a QS?

Whatever is the case, i am still not convinced that you have to sort out this issue in this board. What about an RfC? -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 02:06, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Whether TamilNet acknowledges something one way or the other is besides the point. Also, I was not part of any consensus where a patently non-RS source has been decorated with a "QS" tag. What is "QS" anyway? Are there similar precedents elsewhere on wikipedia? It is not upto any random Wikiproject to get together and hammer out a 'consensus' on matters like this. And I dont see where there has been any consensus regarding this and other similar sources. A quick look at some of the talk pages will tell you that editors have always been against these sources. I can only say that these sources have been used in bad faith. Sarvagnya 02:50, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't believe admins can do something. It is a dispute regarding the reliability of a website. You have some few days to discuss it again before the article is unprotected. If not than obviously a RfC is just next door. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 02:56, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I'd prefer not using FOX either if it was at all possible, or LankaWeb, or Tamilnation or Tamilcanadian. This conflict is very famous, and each time there is an air strike or a suicide bombing, it is covered on BBC, CNN, AP, etc etc, so we can use those if necessary. If it is only noticed by a few small ethnocentric sources, then I would be skeptical. FOX is a proper news source although it is very biased, but I have not seen people say that they present false data and such. It does contain strong editorial bias and such, but when you use a source you should not import the bias from the newspaper and just say "described by .... as "the best" ". But in any case, if BBC or CNN have the same data, it's better to just use them instead. There are many times where a proper newspaper like Sydney Morning Herald and the tabloid Adelaide Advertiser say the same facts, in which case, I would just source the SMH since it would look better. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 03:20, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Can the TamilNet refs be replaced by BBC/CNN ones? If yes than the problem is sorted out. I haven't checked if TamilNet references are unique (i.e. no one else covered it...) -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 04:21, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Not most of the time see my comments below specifically about Sarathambal case Taprobanus 14:07, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

If no non-partisan media are willing to cover such details of a conflict which is on the news all around the world each time there is a skirmish, then I would doubt that they are at all neutral. In any case, see things like The mission statement of Tamilcanadian "Our humble attempt is to broadcast to the world our struggle to preserve and save our culture from the Sri Lankan government's campaign of genocide against the Tamil people." and Tamil Nation] to see what their agenda is. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 07:40, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree that a the WP:SLR community reached a vote to name many sources as "RS", "anti-rebel" , "Pro-rebel" and "UnRs". The problem is that most srilanka related articles do not follow thse branding of articles. If you take a good look at many other articles there are lots of "anti-rebel" sources being used as RS. So if the community is saying that we cannot use tamilnet then why is the same community keeping quite on the other side of the story-using anti rebel sources. Is there something thats missing ? Or has the community not seen these articles ? Anyway if we are going to allow the anti rebel sources then we MUST allow the pro rebel sources so that in the end we will have a neutral article. However, if one is taken out the other should also be taken out to again have a neutral article. Watchdogb 12:09, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I am also the same view after the WP:SLR community has reached a vote to name as "RS", "anti-rebel", "Pro-rebel" and "UnRs", still there are articles which have been sourced using anti-rebel sources as WP:RS. Those who are willing to remove Tamil-Centric souces using as WP:RS for the events purported by the State Terrorism in Sri Lanka in the Tamil areas where the International Press is in total isolation, are keeping silent to the usage of anti-rebel sources as WP:RS in various articles. Whether Blnguyen has failed to see those articles or he has biased view towards the persecution of the Tamil community in the Sri Lanka to be exposed to the world is not still clear. But his vesak wishes to his friends [58][59] who are adamantly against the view there is a State Terrorism in Sri Lanka, is giving some view of his biased nature and will only lead to a RFC against him subsequently.Lustead 13:42, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

“

Websites and publications of political parties, religious groups, anti-religious groups, or any other partisan group, may exhibit bias and should be treated with caution. Neither political affiliation nor religious belief stated in these sources are in themselves a reason not to use them, as these websites can be used to present the viewpoints of these groups, if properly attributed. Such sources should be presented alongside references from other sources in order to maintain a neutral point of view.

”

None of the articles from which I questioned the TNet, TNat, TC websites: Mylanthanai massacre, 1990 Batticaloa massacre, Akkaraipattu massacre, Eastern University massacre, Kokkadichcholai massacre, Sarathambal, Ilayathambi Tharsini or Krishanti Kumaraswamy had Sinhalese groups' references to anywhere the same extent as the Tamil ones, contrary to what RS says. And it says that these sources are only good for presenting the POV of the said groups, not for rock solid statistics etc. It is you who is the single topic editor here. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 07:48, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

If you declared yourself Buddhist and made come into contact with me previously, I would have given you a message as well.Blnguyen (bananabucket) 07:40, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Tamilnet does not file false data, there are serious non Indian and Sri Lankan researchers such as from the United States and Australia who have studied this news site. For example for archived version of the research paper on this see this. Read it in full before making any comments. I can provide more such research papers. I am not arguing that Tamicanadian is a RS source, so let us not confuse the matter here. The discussion here is only about Tamilnet as I said I will take it all the way because I am sure we will prevail at the end when neutral uninvolved Wikipedians see the arguments on both sides not any one belonging to a cabal or faction with and axe to grind.

Tamilnet passes RS because

• 1. It has an editorial board
• 2. It has an editor
• 3. It reviews its news reports for accuracy
• 4. It is used as a primary source by notable media

organizations such as BBC and CNN (just to name a few) to report on information that is generally censored information in Sri Lanka.

5. It is used as a source by notable Human Rights groups such as Asian Human Rights Commission and HRW (just to name a few)

To arbitrarily remove very important information that is particularly important for Sri Lanka conflicted is tantamount censoring information in Wikipedia. By claiming most information is covered by BBC and CNN.because it is not true at all.

For example in the Sarathambal rape and murder case, some one arbitrarily removed Tamilnet source which says that number of important dignitaries including number of majority Sinhalese attended her funeral. That information is not available in BBC or CNN. But that piece information humanizes the Sinhalese people that although it was a Sinhalese person who is suspected of raping and murdering this minority Tamil women other Sinhalese were equally upset about. That piece of information makes the article neutral other wise the article will be completely one sided. To remove Tamilnet from that article now makes it a non neutral one from a neutral stable article.

Then there was a claim that it was a blog ? There was a claim that it was a partisan website ? That it was a lobby group ? Now all this is personal opinion without any credible citations.

I think people simply jump to conclusions without doing serious research. Let us continue this discussion to its logical conclusion. Thanks Taprobanus 13:50, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

They weren't neutral anyway. Some of those articles were 80% TN sourced and the rest mostly HRW or AI. Yes, that tripod site is a random website. and the Socialist News is clearly self-declared as partisan. Just because something is a primary source doesn't mean it is reliable. A political journalist gets info from politicians and bureaucrats speaking anonymously. Does that mean that rumours spread by a politician's secretary become RS and can be taken as real statistics? And you are talking about people with an axe to grind when you know full well my ethnicity and the fact that you are an activist.Blnguyen (bananabucket) 07:40, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Is there any source to back up the allegation that Tamilnet is not a reliable source? Partisan view can never be a parameter in deciding RS. For example, there are hundreds of articles in wikipedia which uses *karnataka* web sites which present kannad-centric views and obviously very partisan. Let's not get into the quality of these websites. Anyways, a simple search in google provided me with these sources.

A PHD thesis of Kasun Ubayasiri, Central Queensland University covers extensively Tamilnet. This is the conclusion that it derives.

"It can also be argued the Tamilnet success as internet based news service has been largely attributed to a unique position it has created as the only ‘independent’ provider of a reliable alternative view in the Sri Lankan theatre, one designed to counter the states rudimentary propaganda machine. Tamilnet has also adopted a reportage style closely resembling a wire service feed identified by western media practitioners as viable and reliable media. The prompt coverage of news both in the government controlled regions and those under the LTTE control has placed the a Tamilnet in the unique position of the being a news service with the widest coverage – a defining attribute in a media theatre dominated by Colombo and south centric media.Therefore it can be argued that Tamilnet’s strategy of providing pro-Eelamist news without any overt LTTE connections has yielded results and coupled with its reporting style and content, paved the way significantly wider coverage in both the internet and through international mainstream media, when compared with any other web based media Sri Lankan media product."^[1] here is the link

Same goes for Tamilnation.org. A simple search in google shows that tamilnation website is used as references in conference papers and other research papers. Associate press & BBC uses these websites as reference too. Praveen 15:06, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

May I point out that Kasun Ubayasiri is an Australian of Sri Lankan majority Sinhalese extraction which makes his point of view even more credible. His reaserch papers have appread in may scholarly jourmnals. Thanks 15:34, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

<deindent>I can't believe that any editor would even suggest that Taminet is a reliable source. Plain and simple, every single news organization that refers to a report from Tamilnet, Reuters [60], AP [61], Xinhua [62], AFP [63] etc etc all call Tamilnet a pro-LTTE website. So does even the BBC [64] ("Tamilnet, the pro-Tamil Tiger website"). The only reason reports from Tamilnet are quoted in international media is that Tamilnet is considered the official news website of the LTTE[65], just like reports by Baghdad Bob were widely quoted by international media.

To give a few examples, Tamilnet sometimes reports incidents before they actually "happened" [66]. Two weeks ago Tamilnet published a bogus news item containing material from an alleged "interview" with the Bishop of Jaffna, one of the highest ranking religious leaders in Sri Lanka. The Bishop later completely denied he even spoke to Tamilnet, saying "Hence I deny totally the report ascribed to me by the Tamil Net"[67].

I simply don't see any reason for this argument to continue. No one - apart from the LTTE and it's supports - consider Tamilnet a credible news agency. Regarding it as a RS for Wikipedia articles would be simply ridiculous, and there should be no two ways about that. --snowolfD4^{( talk / @ )} 16:45, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

No one - apart from the LTTE and it's supports - consider Tamilnet a credible news agency Admins please take note ofthe above WP:ATTACK on wikipedia editors who are trying resolve this matter by amicable discussion. Thanks Taprobanus 16:55, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Just because these news sites call Tamilnet a pro rebel website does not mean that the website fail RS. Also I can remember many protests against BBC for giving one sided information on the LTTE. So if you want to look at it that way then I guess that BBC also a unreliable source. For example- BBC reported that they had credible evidence that shows that the LTTE was running the credit card fraud in UK. However, they failed to show the "Credible" evidence. Furthermore the UK police them self have said that they have NO evidence linking LTTE to these fraud. Does this mean the BBC is not to be used in the SL related articles ? Does that mean that BBC is not a RS ? This argument brings about 2 debates. 1) Since the BBC has made false news blaming LTTE then how can we take their word on Tamilnet being pro rebel. 2) Since BBC has done this sort of biased coverage they can be considred Biased against the LTTE. So does that mean that BBC should not be used as RS ? Also as I have said above other sources have been crammed into wikipedia which are considred Anti rebel. So if thats sites are allowed to be used then why not Tamilnet (playing the devil's advocate) even if its pro rebel ? - watchdogb

Also the story about Bishop of Jaffna is not exactly as Snowulf puts it. Their title was wrong but the story is right. A close associate of the bishop told Tamilnet these stories. Tamilnet went on to say that they made a mistake and that they will change the title. They even made a article on this.

[edit] Section break

I believe i've had heard enough arguments from both sides and at at least i can have my own judgment now. I see that TamilNet respects our policy on RS. These are my reasons:

• TamilNet has been cited and used as a reference in both notable media outlets such as BBC, CNN and news agencies such as the notable Reuters. It has also been used in academic papers and still being used in government websites such as the Canadian immigration and refugee board website. (based on the links provided by participants above)
• Saying a pro-X is biased and unreliable is just like saying that opponent pro-X is biased and unreliable. Defence.lk reporting on TamilNet having lied is not a totally unbiased reporting. They are both partisan websites. In our case here, we only have one partisan side having a say in wikipedia. It is against our core policy NPOV. The article should be balanced. You are talking about "state terrorism in Srilanka" but the main accuser is silenced. Please read the next point.
• Websites and publications of political parties, religious groups, anti-religious groups, or any other partisan group, may exhibit bias and should be treated with caution. Neither political affiliation nor religious belief stated in these sources are in themselves a reason not to use them, as these websites can be used to present the viewpoints of these groups, if properly attributed. Such sources should be presented alongside references from other sources in order to maintain a neutral point of view. (source: RS/Examples).
• The argument that says that TamilNet lied once is just not a perfect one. In the list of journalism scandals you'd find almost every universally notable media. Who doesn't remember the Sorry..We were hoaxed story about the fake abuse photos of prisoners in Iraq? Daily Mirror is still considered notable. Newspapers and media in general sometimes lie intentionally and sometimes unintentionally. You can't be sure about that.
• I am a Moroccan and i use to edit Western Sahara related articles and i've never attempted to claim that the pro-Polisario (the Saharaoui separatist group)arso.org website is unreliable. We use it as a reference in many related articles. Is it biased? Have they lied? Yes, definetely but who and which is not? Many times and the lies have been mainly reported by foreign and NGO media. Has Moroccan newpapers lied? Yes, of course and in many occasions. THEY ALL LIE sometimes, if not all the time. Let me add this to you. Recently Morocco blocked access to YouTube. I was the one who first added the information to [Human rights in Morocco] article. Why it has been blocked? Well, one of the speculations is that Morocco didn't want some videos about abusing rights of some Saharawi students to be available for Moroccan public. Ummm!!!! Than which side is unreliable here? The state owned media or the partisan media who could publish videos of the abuses on YouTube? I am sorry but in this case i SHOULD consider YouTube as reliable and kick the garbage of the other side out of my scope.
• I used also to work on the article about ETA, the Basque separatist group. Everyone knows about the group but only a few would know about Gara. Well, Gara in simple words is the loudly mouth of ETA. Gara newspaper has had the habitof publish/announcing terrorist attacks executed by ETA hours before they occur. It is not only considered biased but it considered to be part of ETA, and therefore a terrorist newspaper according to their opponents (mainly the Spanish gov't) though nothing is sure or otherwise it would have been shut down as they did w/ Egin. Still, we use it as a reliable source in Wikipedia as media outlets around the word do. Do we have any dispute tag on the ETA-related articles? No. Are they protected? No.
• NPOV = Work for balance, that is: divide space describing the opposing viewpoints according to reputability of the sources. And, when available, give precedence to those sources that have been the most successful in presenting facts in an equally balanced manner. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 05:43, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
  • These Tamil sites are obviously politically motivated and do not qualify as WP:RS. The New York Times is RS. I cannot believe we're having so much discussion about something so obvious. -- Y not? 00:54, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] COI of Taprobanus

Taprobanus used to contribute under "RaveenS". In his old sandbox, he declares himself to be RaveenS. In his self bio, it shows that he contributes to Tamil Canadian and some other Tamil websites. A google brings up things like this on TamilCanadian and TamilNation. I believe this constitutes a conflict of interest. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 07:19, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Cannot come with a comprehensive argument so go after the contributer, shows the caliber of argument. I have contributed to both sides of the conflict in Sri Lankan conflict. Tamilcanadian, Sangam.org for the pro-Tamil side and Asian Tribune and The Island newspaper for the pro Sri Lankan government side. Infact my biggest contributions have been to the Asian Tribune news website which is very much anti-LTTE news site. The editor himself is good friend of mine and was dissapointed because I stopped contributing after sI began to contribute to Wikipedia. So just because I have a minor history of contribution to both sides of the conflict (which has been ignored by User:Blnguyen in his arguments) I have a COI ? Although effort has been made to confuse what we are discussing, I need to point out that we are not talking about Tamilcanadian here. The argument is about Tamilnet. I am encouraged by the comments

Tamilnet.org got closed just as I was browsing through it. Perhaps some of their verifiable comments can be taken into account

by Nearly Headless Nick ^{C}. That shows when really neutral non involved editors take a look at this newssite, including editors of BBC, CNN and other major organizations, they decide to use it as it publishes verfiable information. Again we have come to a conclusion about Tamilnet in this ANI. Thanks Taprobanus 23:06, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Also considering that he's been pushing for these sources(Tamilcanadian, tamilnation etc) in scores of articles he's edited makes it an even more acute case of COI. Also in his message to me here, he admits to being emotionally invested in these articles. He claims that he hasnt let it seep into his editing and that nobody has ever complained, but a look at this discussion and the talk pages of several articles and editors suggests otherwise. Not to mention, he himself has admitted to 'COI' earlier in this very discussion. Sarvagnya 10:15, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

It is because he has written a few articles doesn't make him to view, he has some Conflict of Interest over those on-line media until otherwise he is trying to use his own articles as WP:RS or have some Editorial Capacity in those media and bring them as WP:RS.Lustead 14:47, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Raveen's exact words were

"Before his addiction to Wikipedia, he used to contribute to Asian Tribune.com, Sangam.org and Tamilnet.com among other e-magazines and Blogs, but since then he has stopped contributing."

Misquoting to suit one's needs?

Please do not use COI to gain upper hand in POV disputes. Thanks. Praveen 15:59, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

If you must, please take it to COI notice board. Praveen 16:01, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Now we all know why some people are so insisting having racist crap sites like, tamil nation,tamil net,tamil canadian as WP:RS here. First I thought people are just kidding as even a small kid reading those crap sites would know its merely comical to have them here in Wikipedia. But I guess its not, for the contributors to those sites.Iwazaki ^{会話。討論} 03:05, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Iwazaki, i am afraid to disagree w/ your opinion. My reason is that when someone says racist crap, s/he should back h/is allegations w/ fatcs. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 23:01, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Fayssal my good Moroccan friend,here in this case there are no evidence, that's the sad truth. Just go through those web-sites , then you would know how childish are those sites. How racists are those web-sites. And that's exactly why all the media which quote from those sites explicitly say tamil net is pro-LTTTE !! I am not sure how that makes tamil net a neutral source. And for user.raveen, we don not know whether he is contributing to those sites even now, but evidence shows that probability is quite high .And thats may be why, he wants to have those as valid sources here.Iwazaki ^{会話。討論} 01:43, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

I just can't be unfair to anyone. "No evidence is needed" is alarming. Please, just get some. If there are none, then there are none. If we are going to focus on bold text then i have this: denense.lk is pro-x gov't!!. Nick has just said that the website was censured while he was browsing. Who blocked the access to the site? I am a Moroccan and when i talked about my youtube story (including the censorship of my own gov't) i was rational. It just happened yesterday to Nick. Does the Srilankan gov't follow this thread? If yes, then i shall give them my satute. In wikipedia, we got BALANCE. Somewhere else? i just don't care. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 05:54, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Fayssal ,I don't think you fathom what I said, or may be I should have been more coherent. There are tons of evidences to show they are pro-tamil pro-LTTE.. Check out every media,CNN BBC or whatever, they call these web-sites PRO-LTTE.. And why they call them like that? Because that's what they are, extremely pro-LTTE sites !! I was saying no-evidence to refer counter arguments against tamil net.Let me be clear this time, there are no evidence to prove tamil net(or other tamil something sites) are neutral. These are inherently bias sites, nothing else!And how do you know the site got censored by the GOSL ? A site can be temporarily closed for various reasons, I have no doubt that you also aware of this. There is actually no need to censor those sites as they have done enough harm by engaging extrme pro-LTTE stance.To keep a good balance in Wikipedia we need valid,good sources, not some pro-LTTE crap sites like tamil net.Iwazaki ^{会話。討論} 06:45, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

IF tamilnet is not considred as a NPOV site it does not matter. Why ? According to wikipedia rules you have to give the same weight to all sources. I have seen editors used Asian Trubune is anti rebel site in many article. They have also used South Asiah Terrorist portal is anti rebel. These sources do not even have an editorial board. I think those sites fail WP:RS badly yet they are here on wikipedia. Since these sources have allready been used in wikipedia then why not use Tamilnet ? Do you want to have POV articles ? Watchdogb 13:29, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

A cursory look at these websites acertains that they are advocacy websites of some kind. Tamilnet.org got closed just as I was browsing through it. Perhaps some of their verifiable comments can be taken into account, while giving due respect to WP:UNDUE; otherwise, most of them look like propoganda sheets. — Nearly Headless Nick ^{C} 06:42, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

So whats your thought about users using sites like SATP and Asian Tribune ? If Tamilnet fails RS then SATP and Asian Tribune would fail RS 2times as hard. So before talking nonsence go take a close look at the contribs you have made with those sites. Also its not propaganda sheet. Please do some real rescarch on tamilnet and if you would like go ahead and read the article thats allready here on wikipedia. Watchdogb 12:59, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

I couldn’t see the following media as propaganda machinery as they are covering wide variety of news coverage,

• TamilNet

• Tamilnation

and by giving importance to Dravidian Art, Architecture,Culture, Dance and Music.

If some one wants to say randomly they are propaganda sheets, he or she should discuss here in detail.

Note: Beacaue they are covering Tamil Eelam news doesn’t make them propaganda sheets.Lustead 14:38, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Violation of privacy and endagengering my life

As the civil conflict in Sri Lankak got worse during the last 1 year I have progressively requested Wikipedia admins to change my user name from RaveenS to Taprobanus for privacy reason. I also asked a Wikipedia admin to delete contents in the User page RaveenS that showd my full name because of privacy concerns. Both were done, to retrive these information must be misuse of admin authority? People in Sri Lanka or those who visit Sri Lanka are killed regularly for having an opinion that may be considred to be different than the government. This has been documented by Amnesty International, RSF and Human Rights Watch. User:Blnguyen beacuse of his conflict with me has now published information that may lead to my death because of my contribution to Wikipedia that may be offensive to the government of Sri lanka. I want wikipedia admins to take a good look at his behaviour based on this simple violation of privacy as well as putting the life of a fellow Wikipedian in danger.

Also as these sources indicate[68],[69] most of the Journalists in Sri Lanka contribute under duress when their views are different from who ever is in power. Many internationally known contributers such as Taraki, Mylvaganam Nimalrajan and Richard De Soyza have been murdered by government proxies. RSFsee here has documented countless other murders of anyone suspected of being a Journalist with a different point of view during the last 20 years of civil conflict. All this evidence put together and the flippant decision by an admin to out me, my personal information when I had done everything to remove such information from wikipedia has to be investigated. Thanks Taprobanus 17:46, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't see any violation of privacy here. Blnguyen got the info from your subpage. If you want him to stop then you only have to delete that subpage. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 23:32, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

I am not a computer expert, this sub page used to be the starting point for my personal page which I requested to be deleted the comment was too much personal information. Then I blanked the sub page thinking the information is gone. So my intentions are very clear, to protect myself from privacy concenrs. Then I changed my name from RaveenS to Tapbrobanus again the comment was wanting to remove too much information associted with real name. All pointing a wikipedian wanting to be able to contribute without being associated with real name. The intentions are very clear. The admin in question because I requested to him to discuss with me via wiki process how we can resolve the difference of opinion he had with me regarding one source Tamilnet began a pattern of going after articles that I have created, it sort of stopped with the ANI finding. Now he is going after some pictures I uploaded and marking them with various violations (they are legitimate) but he is not informing me of all his findings in my talk page as the template requets. He has now shown to be fishing for personal information about me by going through my sandbox very many levels below where they are all indicating WP:STALK very least if not other violations. This is issue is not black and white as to whether the information was out there or not. There is some Grey involved as I am not a computer expert and I have made my intention to remain private known to Wikipedia as an instituition. This is potentially a life and death issue for me because my intentions were very clear as I changed my name and deleted my user page information that has been fished out by a Wikipedia Admin. Thanks Taprobanus 23:52, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

I do not mean to put your life in danger. I believed that since you posted a very detailed account of yourself with all your achievements etc, on your userpage, that you wanted people to know about your life accomplishments. I am not stalking you. The fact is that you only edit LTTE-Sinhalese related things, so it happens that the pages where you used TamilNet, also had copyright violations. I am adamant they are copyvios and a liability to WIkipedia to say the least. I did notify you on your talk page. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 07:30, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

I posted a very detailed version of myself in my user page then I deleted it using an admin’s help. The sandbaox that I used create that user page, I blanked it number of times thinking it is gone. But you had to fish for that information at number of levels below where that Sanbox was to find information that I erroneously left behind. As an admin and a senior Wikipedia editor that is uncalled for just to make WP:POINT.

I am more than willing to accept for face value that you did not mean to put my life in danger although that's what you did with your actions. At minimum for this issue to go away you should apologize so we understand that you really understood what you have done. Otherwise this will follow the wiki process. When I came to your talk page to talk about Tamilnet, I said I believed 100% in the wiki process and I am more than willing to follow it through to rfa, but not even in my dreams did I think that instead of Tamilnet we will be talking about an rfa about your conduct. But this madness can stop with a simple apology.

Further don’t belittle my contributions as only related LTTE-Sinhalese stuff. Just like you are interested in English game of Cricket for a Vietnamese citizen, I am interested in Human Rights in Sri Lanka and the world at large, my user box says that. If WP:NOTABLE incidents happen in Sri Lanka whether the perpetrator is the government or the LTTE, I will write about it.

About the pictures you tagged, you tagged 5 pictures that I uploaded since this discussion began but only informed me about 1. Why ? Thanks Taprobanus 15:36, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

The reason for your user name change is obvious.. You wanted to cover all your contributions which you made to those racists pro-LTTE web sites. Because that would enable you to play an innocent role here in Wikipedia. But luckily Thanks to great Wikipedians we all know who you are and why you are here.We do not need to go far to see your anti-Government hypocrisies. They were clearly shown by you with your creation of dubious templates(which got deleted) and lots of other non-sense stuff esp you added to Sri Lankan related articles.You have before even collaborated with other users, exchanging pass words to push your anti-government pro-tamil agendas, even calling some of your friends not-pro tamil enough !! And here you are shamelessly trying to play the victims role by accusing probably one of the best Wikipedians we have now. I have told you many times not to tell stories, stories are for kids NOT for adult Wikipedians. And here you came up with another stories. I don't think anyone in the world take what you say seriously.. Death threats ?? You must be kidding here. Why dould anyone want to threaten a person like you ? I have never heard a person got threaten in SL just because he is pro-LTTE..Some members of TNA make comments supporting LTTE in the parliament ,and even call LTTE , we, but still live in peace among the Sinhalese with of course protection of GOSL . There are many tamils openly criticizing Sinhalese people,GOSL and live in peace in Colombo. And why should people take some one like you,who may have not probably visited my country for years,and live 1000 miles apart ?? The whole tirade made by yoou is simply disgusting.ESP because it comes from sone who has no idea about whats going on in Sri Lankan, probably find info by reading those racist tamil web-sites !! Anyway, finally we all know who you are and why you are here. And we even know why you have put your self to such a low position some time.Its all to defend your POV, your bias towards a certain section, your hatred of GOSL, and probably your hatred of the country call Sri Lanka. Iam sorry, I don't think people like you deserve to stay in Wikipedia. Iwazaki ^{会話。討論} 01:43, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

It is well documented fact that people journalists ,political workers and people from all of walks have been killed this includes Tamils,Sinhalese and everyone particurly after 1983 both in North and East and also in the south during the War against the JVP.It is sad fact that journalists are killed in Sri Lanka just for there views by all the sides in the conflict.Paramilitary backing the Sri LAnkan Army ,LTTE and no one is above it.If he wants maintain his privacy as most people do so in the internet it is fine.I do not think anyone can question it .Most chat rooms people avoid giving there real identity to strnagers as it is dangerous.Taprobanus may feel his life is at risk this is true .Not a single sinhalese government staff want to work in the North except the Army in the south Tamils do not want to go to certain parts.This is sad reality of Sri Lanka. Harlowraman 02:25, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

I would like to note to iwazaki that he is just as unabashedly partisan as taprobanus. He is correct that many tamils live in sri lanka and enjoy comfortable lives in a sinhala majority. Another major point is that not all tamils support the LTTE, infact some for religious reasons are more apt to support the sinhala. A prime example is Subramaniam Swamy. This conflict sticks its branches into South Indian politics as well, its not just relegated to Sri Lanka.Bakaman 02:51, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Not 'South' Indian politics... may be just the Dravidian politics of Tamil Nadu. Which is understandable, given the extreme tamil ideological stance that these parties and the ltte share. But it has little to do with any religious ideology, least of all 'Hindutva'. Anyway, thats besides the point. The point here is that Taprobanus has a conflict of interest which not only his subpage, but also his comment on my talk page and his comment early on in this discussion prove. His alarmist pitch now is yet another bad faith mudslinging at one of the most respected and useful wikipedians we have. Anybody, half as concerned about their privacy as Taprobanus claims he is about his, wouldnt even put up their bio anywhere on the internet, let alone on a high traffic site like wikipedia. How very convenient of him now to claim that his life is in danger! All this lawyering for what patently are advocacy sites and propaganda tabloids is now starting to spill over into WP:POINT. Sarvagnya 03:40, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Our "comrades" seem to have connections as well.Bakaman 03:46, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

'Comrades' have agendas and 'connections' in every corner of the globe :) Sarvagnya 04:19, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Taprobanus' concern is correct. Many people who stand up against the GoSL have been killed when they step into Sri Lanka. While it is true that many tamil live happily beside sinhalese and other yet how many of these people speak against the GoSL ? Not many at all. The ones who do speak against the GoSl don't enjoy peaceful life. Now with the bashing aside. This is a serious issue. Taprobanus is really scared for his life. I bet the person who brought his real name up here has a hidden agenda. Every one knows he changed his name for a reason... Why breach his privacy? Most editors allready know who he is (sl related anyway). So I kindly ask the admin to take proper measures not only to hide Taprobanus' real identity but to make sure this type of act will not be followed by any users. Watchdogb 13:17, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

I have already advice raveen not to tell stories and not to attack good/established Wikipedians. And regarding his bogus fear for life, Why would anyone even think of harming him ? When, from what I have seen here, he can be easily out-smarted and out-witted by anyone. The only reason he changed his profile was to cover his contribution to those racists tamil crap sites. Obviously he knew that was going to harm his future in Wikipedia and give him a black mark. After all who on earth take people who write to those crap pro-LTTE sites seriously ? And finally in case you haven't noticed,TNA MP's regularly praised LTTE and live in the comfort of the GOSL.Please at least read news ,if you are serious about contributing to SL'an related stuff here.Iwazaki ^{会話。討論} 14:29, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

WOW IWAZAKI... TNA MP's Praise LTTE and live in peace ? Hmm what happend to Nadaraj (mind you in the tight security zone of SLA controlled area) ? Very comical comment by you. Plus your the one who constantly attack other wikipedians so I think its best to take your own advise. Your argument are pretts nonsence. What does his fear of life have to do with him being outsmarted ? Also how can you say he changed his profile to cover his contribution to those racists tamil crap sites. Who are you to say what he was thinking ? You got proof ? Why can't you take it as it is. He didn't want his real identity to be shown on wikipedia and as he has just shown he is scared for his life. Besides many people (such as yourself) don't even put their real name on wikipeida. Does that mean that you want to hide something from the racist Sinhala sites ? Does that mean that you don't want to have a black mark in wikipedia because you (might) contribute to Asian Tribune? I don't get your point.... So its ok for you to remain unknown but its not ok for someone else to be unknown ? Wonder why that is... It's not proper for a admin of wikipedia to violate someone's privacy. Its even worst when the admin does not take his real name off of the discussion even when the said user is scared for his life. Is this how wikipedia admins their admin ? Watchdogb 15:39, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

We are NOT interested in your content dispute. We cannot, personally, fix the dispute in Sri Lanka. Could you all take this somewhere else? Secretlondon 15:56, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

The revealing of a user's ID after that user pursued anonimity should be taken seriously. There seems to be a small group of editors who regularly show up here on AN/I on both sides of issues and problems here. Blnguyen and bakaman are both well aware of how to act here, and Blnguyen's comment, and actions, are highly inappropriate for a user of his experience. As for Iwazaki, such blatant bigotry for someone whose politics don't match yours do not belong on wikipedia. Your message essentially amounts to 'I hope they catch and kill you, because you're Pro-tamil and LTTE.' As an otherwise uninvolved editor, I'd definitely hope that if Iwazaki has any more such comments here, he receive a cool-off break. Blnguyen knew not to reveal it, too. He's not so dumb as to think that this user really meant to leave his ID behind, and almost certainly exploited the user's error to gain advantage in the content dispute. He ought to be blocked substantially, IMHO. ThuranX 22:52, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Please improve your reading comprehension skills. I have not said anything like that at all. All I said this was, this whole I am in danger drama was created to take attention away from the main issue. Credibility of some one who writes to tamilnet tamilnation or tamil something sites is in question here. His true desire to have web-sites for which he contribute, as Wp:RS, is in question here. I am not sure how these crocodile tears going to take the focus away from the real issues here.Iwazaki ^{会話。討論} 15:23, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Boy.. hold it. Its not like Raveen abandoned his former id or something. Even now, User:RaveenS redirects to User:Taprobanus. And there is no content dispute here which involves Blnguyen with Taprobanus. There are only two issues here - one is the usage of advocacy sites and propaganda sheets by Raveen as sources in dozens of articles which goes against WP:RS. The other is COI(to which Raveen himself confesses). And on both counts, Raveen is caught on the wrong foot. And just because he's been caught on the wrong foot, very funnily, he pulls out the ridiculous "my life is in danger" card out of nowhere and tries to mudsling at respected editors. If his alarmist pitch is really true, the commonsense thing to do would have been to WP:VANISH and probably come back after some time with a new account or something or just vanish from Wikipedia for good. But given that he hasnt done any such thing, I am forced to give more credence to Iwaziki's theory that he just wants to whitewash his true colours and act all innocent and naive on wikipedia. If anything, it is Taprobanus who should be 'blocked substantially'(in your words) for circumventing wikipedia and disrupting. Sarvagnya 01:27, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

As you are good friend of User:Blnguyen, you should leave it to neutral people to decide this vexing issue. Thanks Taprobanus 03:21, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

What is that supposed to mean? Can you be more specific? Sarvagnya 03:28, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

To make my stance clear to everyone at the outset: I'm Indian, but largely apolitical, and have no strong views regarding the LTTE situation. However, I believe it is unfair to accuse Blnguyen of inappropriate behaviour. He has given many proofs throughout his time here that he is completely trustworthy and respectful of others' privacy. I do not believe Taprobanus is overreacting - I will not be so cavalier as to brush off someone's fear for their life, nor call them an alarmist - but I believe he needs to take a giant step back and think about whether contributing here under an identifiable username is a good idea at all. I respectfully recommend that he read WP:VANISH and consider whether editing about a subject which is obviously very close to his heart is going to end up with the result we all want: a neutral, verifiable encyclopedia.

As an aside... we still haven't solved the problem of sources. Riana ⁂ 04:17, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

User:ThuranX correctly said - "The revealing of a user's ID after that user pursued anonimity should be taken seriously". It is something like revealing the penname of a reporter who is handling the issues of State Terrorism / Terrorism or an officer’s identity who was dealing with French Connection. Though the comments of User:Riana are neutral, other than her comment about User:Blnguyen at this incident - "However, I believe it is unfair to accuse User:Blnguyen of inappropriate behaviour. He has given many proofs throughout his time here that he is completely trustworthy and respectful of others' privacy". I don’t believe the open testimoney of some Indian or Pakistani wikipedians, declaring themselves as neutral on Kashmir issue and then commenting on. The same will applicable to the issues related to wikipedians as well. The Vesak wishes of User:Blnguyen to User:Iwazaki of This and User:Snowolfd4 This and then revealing the ID of User:Taprobanus who is differing the views who those received his Vesak wishes and then the actions of User:Blnguyen going after some pictures which have been uploaded by User:Taprobanus and marking them with various violations (when they are considered as legitimate according to the User) without informing him, are highly inappropriate for a user of his experience and making others to suspect whether he is over-estimated his Admin. powers and misusing it or in a state of mental-imbalance. Lustead 07:12, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

I have not used my admin powers. I am not mentally ill. I gave Vesak wishes to whoever I had come across on-wiki and who declared themselves to be Buddhist. You and your friends are not declared Buddhists, so I didn't send them to you. I gave out many of the Vesak greetings on May 31. If you are saying that Indians and Pakistanis are not to be trusted on Kashmir, then why are you here if you are a member of the "involved ethnicities"? The fact is that I saw the copyright pictures on the pages with the TamilNet website and they were clearly not acceptable. Nothing more nothing less. If those pictures are acceptable, which they are not, then they will stay. As they are, they don't pass WP:FUC #8. I would not have revealed Taprobanus' were it not for the fact that he still preserved it in his possession at the time. The fact that you guys only edit one very small focused topic with dubious website s and not academic textbooks says more about why you are here.Blnguyen (bananabucket) 07:30, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

The fact that you guys only edit one very small focused topic with dubious website s and not academic textbooks says more about why you are here What you mean, you guys ? and what reason do to assign to these guys. Assume good faith per WP:AGF and dont no personal attack of fellow wikipedians. I think you may be loosing your cool ever since I posted a simple statement in your talk page that I am more than willing to discuss per wiki process with you as to how to resolve a vexing problem about a source called Tamilnet. Now that source issue is resolved at the ANI level all what you had to do is move on to cricket or what ever you like rather than linger on and make all of us South Asians centric editors look like petty quarrelsome lot unable to accept the wiki process for what it is. Without following the wiki process, we will have chaos and edit warring like what you precipitated in number of articles that only stopped after the ANI findings by a neutral admin then you started it allover again by removing Tamilnet yet again showing a loack of respect for wiki process. I have a job to do, family to take care of and number of notable raped and murdered women, massacres and involuntary disappearances to write about in Wikipedia when I have time. So let us all move on. Thanks Taprobanus 15:52, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

You have the freedom to wish anyone you want in wikipedia or elsewhere by sending Vesak, Christmas, Diwali and Ramadan wishes. But the coincidence of your wishes and your controversial edits alarmed other wikipedians.

I should add one more ethnicty, the Chinese also on Kashmir issue, I don’t trust anyone other than Kashmiri wikipedians whether they are Buddists, Hindus, Muslims or Sikhs and any neutral wikipedians. Kashmir or Tibet can’t be a center for regional powers to show their supremacy at the expense of natives of those regions.

Coming to the point, you are saying - "TamilNet website and they were clearly not acceptable. Nothing more nothing less". But another well reputed wikipedian User:FayssalF, a Moroccan nationality, he qualifies more than you to WP:NPOV is concerned, differing from your view point by accepting TamilNet is meeting the WP:RS. I excerpted here some of his views[70]–"I see that TamilNet respects our policy on RS. These are my reasons: TamilNet has been cited and used as a reference in both notable media outlets such as BBC, CNN and news agencies such as the notable Reuters. It has also been used in academic papers and still being used in government websites such as the Canadian immigration and refugee board website. (based on the links provided by participants above)". So his answer will clear your doubt which you posed – "The fact that you guys only edit one very small focused topic with dubious websites and not academic textbooks says more about why you are here". Lustead 13:16, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Riana, tamilnation.org is run by the guy who served as lawyer for one of the terrorist leaders. On the site, he says that he 'bows his head humbly' to these 'leaders'. In his view, SriLanka is perpetrating a genocide which curiously none of the mainstream press like BBC or the Indian media etc., have reported. In other words, these sites are foisting hoaxes and only a bad faith editor with a COI would be using those sites as sources on wikipedia. Also, tell me what are the credentials of these sites and the people who run it? Are they affiliated to any offical press bodies in any country, for that matter? For many of these sites, we dont even know who's running it. Who the editor is, who the reporters are. In short a benami site. No checks. No balances. Pretty much free to write what they want.

For purposes of Wikipedia, how are these sites different from driveling blogs all over the net? Like I've already argued above, the parallels with FOX etc., is invalid. Even if the likes of FOX or timesofindia or The Hindu or CNN etc., are biased, we have WP:NPOV which takes care of it. But you cant use non-RS sources and argue that you are bringing NPOV to wikipedia. NPOV has to be established only from RS sources. And as far as the affairs of Tamil goes, it is not as if there is a paucity of RS sources. There are more than enough RS sources. There is even a BBC Tamil version. The Indian press covers it widely. Where is the need to even use these propaganda sheets, except to push POV? Sarvagnya 07:15, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

You are absolutely WRONG. Take a good look dude. Our issue here is about tamilnet and not tamilnation.org. So get your facts stright. No, BBC has many times shown bias against the LTTE. So again I ask does this mean that we should not use BBC ? Ofcourse we use BBC. Also last time I check any of the SL articles they are allready filled with POV sources from the GoSL friendly websites. So may I ask Sarvagnya why you would stick with those sources ? Watchdogb 13:50, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Its a tough choice, which is more crappier, tamilnet or tamilnation ? Could be either of them..What do you think ?Iwazaki ^{会話。討論} 15:23, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Here we go. User:Sarvagnya is bringing his crap arguments once again. He has written the same non-sense in the portions above and received a verdict from a neutral editor contrary to his stand (That Tamilnet is a RS). Now his bad faith attempts to accuse Tamilnet as an equivalent to blog (once again) shows his difficulty to understand simple English. I suggest neutral editors/admins to please read the arguments & evidence given in above portion which clearly demonstrates Tamilnet's reliability. Thanks Praveen 13:55, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Instead of calling other peoples comments, craps, could you please go through what he has said here and point out what is crappy about it? And I prefer simple English, too..Thank you

Please, let's not discuss privacy related issues in this highly visible place. I think there is a chance to move on. — Sebastian 17:31, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

There is no privacy violation here. If anything all the details revealed are highly necessary to carry out this debate. It is now pretty obvious why some elements wanted to have crap bias tamil something sites as WP:RS. How can we take someone as a neutral editor, when it is obviously clear that he contribute to pro-tamil pro-LTTE sites ? Iwazaki ^{会話。討論} 15:23, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

It is because, he has contributed to pro-tamil, pro-LTTE and also anti-rebel (according to his statement) sites, doesn't make any sense in wikipedia where each other is known by their User names and a few other details. If you don't mind, why you a few pro-Sri Lankan Government/Singhala - Centric Wikipedians can't be from the Sri Lankan Foreign / Defense Ministries or from the Military. Lustead 07:27, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Moving on

On the top of this page, it says: "This page is not part of our Dispute Resolution process." I believe this page gets cluttered too easily, and this section is a case in point - it has grown far beyond proportion.

I think we can boil it down to two issues:

1. Reliability of Sri-Lanka related sources
2. Privacy violation

I propose we discuss the Reliability of Sri-Lanka related sources on WT:RS. As for the privacy violation, naturally it is not a good idea to discuss this publicly. Since I have experience as a mediator and since I am very sad to see two good and respected contributors locked in this sort of conflict, I offer to do informal mediation. I will contact both parties and see what comes from that. — Sebastian 17:31, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Comment I am amazed that such politically motivated web sites are being used to provide data and citations to wikipedia. A casual read (need to dig in a bit) on "Tamilnation.org" clearly shows how anti-Kannada and Kannadiga it is. On top of all this we now have COI !! I have seen a growing need on the part of some people to use this media source (wikipedia) for political gains, ethnocentric attitudes and blind exclusiveism. This needs to be weeded out before wikipedia no longer remains an encyclopedia. This link is just one among many political propaganda material on Taminnation.org.[71]. One look at Tamilnet.com makes it clear what the main intention here is-Eelam. Dineshkannambadi 11:27, 5 June 2007 (UTC) Support -->blacklisting these two sites "Tamilnation.org" and "Tamilnet.com".Dineshkannambadi 12:04, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, right.... You keep using a Kannad-centric 'history' book by Kamat (Who is a Kannad) and scores of *kannad* websites as 'references' as if there are no neutral history books and now here you are arguing about the quality of Tamilnation etc... Do you have any proof for your allegation that Tamilnation is anti-kannad or is it one more of home-cooked theory by Kamat et al?

Support -->blacklisting of 'history' book by Kamat & "kannad* websites. Praveen 13:50, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Good luck trying to make a case that Kamat and Kamath are not RS. A certain troll did try in the past but ended up like this, this and this. Hoping for some similar entertainment from you too. Thanks. Sarvagnya 16:49, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Comment First of all, there's no point arguing over whether Taprobanus has a COI or not. Even if he does, that alone is not a reason to tell him not to edit Tamil articles. What matters is whether those articles have a NPOV tone and have reliable citations. I believe the NPOV issue will get taken care of eventually since there's so much interest on these articles. The reliable source part is what needs to be scrutinized and if you scroll up a bit, you will see that it has. Since the neutral admin above has given an unambiguous verdict on the reliability of tamilnet.com, I don't see what the fuss is about. If there are other websites that people are concerned about, they should bring up the issue here, with their reasoning of why the said sites are unreliable. Remember, a source can be partisan and still be reliable. this is an unsigned comment. not nishkid's Support --> Keep the websites tamilnation.org and tamilcanadian.org as RS. -- this is an unsigned comment. not nishkid's

Comment I have been a reader of Tamilnet for quite a while. I've always had an interest in the actions of Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam in Sri Lanka. Anyway, now that you know my background, I wish to give my whole take on Tamilnet being a reliable source. Personally, I don't think if neutral reputable sources such as Reuters and Associated Press label Tamilnet as "pro-LTTE", then the site should not be used as a reliable source. Given that the website itself is called Tamilnet, and only reports on news regarding Tamil people and LTTE, I think there will sometimes be a COI in the news material the website publishes (which can be seen in some of the material the news website publishes). With a COI and a reputation of being a pro-LTTE news website, I would disapprove of Tamilnet being kept as a reliable source in these articles. Neutral sources that are not biased should be best used in these type of situations. I think the fact that there has been so much discussion about this speaks for itself. Not everyone agrees that the website is a reliable source, and given its controversial nature, we should avoid using it as a source. Nishkid64 (talk) 20:29, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I couldn't understand the logic of your initial support and then speaking of the controversial nature and telling to avoid the sources. After all you are an Indian Sub-Conntinnent wikipedian and what you should do in these type of situations is to leave other wikipedians to speak of, who are less interest in the region based on their previous edits in wikipedia. Lustead 06:53, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

I am not an Indian sub-continent Wikipedian. I live in the United States. I also rarely edit India-related articles (actually, the only one I really edited was Jarnail Singh Bhindranwale). Given that I have no history of participation with Tamil-related articles or India-related articles for the most part, then I don't see why my opinion is not valued. Nishkid64 (talk) 17:49, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

You are biased because you are openly declaring your Indian nationality, we here need opinion from wikipedians, they are nothing to do with Indian Sub-Continnent in their identification or by their edits. Further, we are here in the process of making a neutral on-line encyclopedia, so when the ant-rebel sources are widely used as WP:RS, there should be Tamil-Centic sources as well.Lustead 07:06, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Like I said, the intention of those who want to use these sites when BBC and Reuters and Hindu and Times of India and CNN are covering this conflict is apparent. Sarvagnya 21:09, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

First off you need to stop accusing people of things. Now I am not denying that BBC and other news are covering the conflict. However, tamilnet has day to day access to all the places in the North and the Northwest that BBC and all the other sites do not have. Tamilnet reports the death of ever single person killed and dumped somewhere. Tamilnet has all the access to the LTTE controlled areas such that they can give very quick news about everthing. For example on the latest clash between LTTE and SLA Tamilnet was the first to report the insident. Tamilnet also released photos of the equipment recovred by the LTTE (they did the same when SLA took over Vaharai). Also NISHKID I would like to ask you to point out to me which part of WP:RS Tamilnet fails. Aside from the fact that some people do not think its not RS.Watchdogb 00:27, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

At WP:RS, it says "The relevant policies on sources are Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:No original research, and Wikipedia:Neutral point-of-view." I do not think Tamilnet provides a neutral view, which in this case, would fail RS. Also, the policy says, "their authors are generally regarded as trustworthy, or are authoritative in relation to the subject at hand." Nishkid64 (talk) 00:48, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Tamilnet reports the death of ever single person killed and dumped somewhere. - And that is not of much use to wikipedia. Wikipedia doesnt 'report' every death and every gunshot fired. It deals only with the notable ones. The rest, sadly, will just have to be statistics. And to establish 'notability' we use reliable sources. Not non-RS partisan sources.

Tamilnet has all the access to the LTTE controlled areas such that they can give very quick news about everthing. - and we dont care about 'quick' news. We can wait till BBC or CNN or somebody like that report it. And if it is worth reporting, they'll sure as hell report it. Sarvagnya 01:16, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Tamilnet and Tamilnataion are blatantly partisan sites and definitely fail to meet Wikipedia's Reliable source guidelines. There are so many other reliable sources (Hindu, BBC, etc) which offer a neutral view on this conflict. As Dinesh puts it, one look at the this page [72] proves the whole point. This site seems paranoid about all ethnicities, who are not Tamil. Such fringe sites have been repeatedly used by Trolls (who have now been blocked) to prove their point ( [73] ), when there are other noteworthy and reliable sites, which say otherwise ([[74]). -- Naveen ^(talk) 02:39, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

You are a wikipedian from Indian Sub Continnent and especially with interests in Karnataka like User:Sarvagnya. So your comment is biased. Your examples are mostly on Tamilnation.org and the issue is based on Rajkumar. Rajkumar is a personality whom everyone in India want to relate with their ethnicity. If Tamilnation.org is trying to relate his mother tongue with Tamil, do you think the Tamilnation.org is paranoid. Every Kannada ethnicity could be proud of their son of the soil - Rajkumar, than other way around.Lustead 06:25, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

These websites are ethnic lobby groups and do not pass RS; furthermore they have a declared mission of criticizing and exposing the Sri Lankan government [75] , [76]. Wikpedia is not the place for that. Wikipedia maintains nuetrality and lobbying needs to done elsewhere. --Dakota 08:17, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

You have failed to take into consideration the Tamilnet that is the major part of thisWP:RS issue we are discussing here. I am in the line of wikipedian User:FayssalF, a Moroccan nationality, he accepts TamilNet is meeting the WP:RS. I excerpted here some of his views[77]–"I see that TamilNet respects our policy on RS. These are my reasons: TamilNet has been cited and used as a reference in both notable media outlets such as BBC, CNN and news agencies such as the notable Reuters. It has also been used in academic papers and still being used in government websites such as the Canadian immigration and refugee board website. (based on the links provided by participants above)". To support further the view of User:FayssalF that Tamilnet could be taken as a WP:RS, I added an example how Tamilnet has given importance to the Sri Lankan President's interview at Al Jazeera television here, where he heavily slammed the LTTE.Lustead 16:19, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Æthelbert of Kent and User:Hel Hufflepuff

• In Wikipedia:Requested_moves#Uncontroversial_proposals I found this entry:-

  Ethelbert of Kent → Æthelbert of Kent — Per recent discussions for Æthelbald of Mercia and Ælle of Sussex, it appears that ligature is agreed to be the best way to name these articles on Anglo-Saxon kings. This is another. —Mike Christie (talk) 03:50, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Accordingly I made the move. But, afterwards, as I cleared up the resulting double-redirects, User:Hel Hufflepuff came after me reverting all those resulting edits to redirect pages. (An example is http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Aethelbert_of_Kent&action=history .)

I complained on User talk:Hel Hufflepuff.

User:Hel Hufflepuff tagged User talk:Hel Hufflepuff with {{db-vandalism}}. I added {{hangon}} to it.

User:Hel Hufflepuff then deleted a line from User talk:Anthony Appleyard for no good reason;and then did the same again.

As:-

1. User_talk:Gryffindor has already been involved in difficulties (see User_talk:Gryffindor#Merano);
2. Gryffindor and Hufflepuff are both founders and houses of the fictional Hogwarts School;

Is there any chance of sockpuppetry here? Anthony Appleyard 05:41, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

• I've reverted some of user:Hel Hufflepuff's changes. Most look odd. I'm done for the night, though. If someone could check the others? Flyguy649^talk_contribs 05:48, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

If you look at the edit summeries, however, you will find that every edit of Hel Hufflepuff has the edit summery of [[WP:IAR]] or [[WP:IAR|rvv]]. I don't see any of this thing with Gryffindor. In addition, since the summery rvv seems to suggest reverts, I checked whether these were actually reverts. The result is that every one of these edits which I checked seems to be a revert of either Anthony Appleyard or of Naconkantari, or tagging a page created by them with {{db-vandal}}. Od Mishehu 07:35, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

While looking through the block log, I found 1 account which does look similar, although it was blocked sooner. This is the Row Ravenclaw account, which seems to follow the same pattern as Hel Hufflepuff:

1. The Hogwarts connection mentioned above - Rowena Ravenclaw and Helga Hufflepuff (bolding the first 3 letters - matches the user names) are both among the founders of Hogwarts. Very likely there are 2 more intended usernames - although neither of them seems to exist - Godric Gryffindor (God Gryffindor (talk • contribs • account creation) and Salazar Slytherin (Sal Slytherin (talk • contribs • account creation)).
2. Edit summeries - Both use a link to WP:IAR as the basis for their summeries.
3. Their edits are completely reverts of some other user.

Od Mishehu 07:53, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

• User:Sal Slytherin has arived, and is monkeying about tagging pages. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Sal_Slytherin . Anthony Appleyard 16:47, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Would it be okay for a good-faith user to create an account which he believes a specific vandal will want, in order to prevent that vandal from creating it? Od Mishehu 07:16, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Micronations

In response to the recent controversies with respect to micronations and cleanup or removal of articles about them, Gene Poole has now set up a wikiproject on the topic. Of course there's nothing wrong with that per se - but the first act of this project is to try and enforce certain naming conventions and infoboxes through voting on them. That sounds like a bad idea; I'd appreciate it if some other people would take a look as well. Please comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Micronations rather than here. >Radiant< 11:14, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

How the heck is this AN/I material? There's no abuse - either the wikiproject has enough members to convince people that it can legitimately consensusly (and polls can be part of consensus building) set Micronation article expected standards, or it does not... Georgewilliamherbert 17:57, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fascism and/or chauvinism in Wikipedia

[edit] Libellous comment by username LibStu

LibStu made a libellous comments here about me that are totally unfounded and off the topic to Wikipedia [[79]] Whilst I recognise the fact that you use numerous aliases, one of which, I might add, Stephen Highbury, has been referred for investigation for the continued harassment of Young Liberal Executive members

I drew attention to this on his talk page [[80]] but he refuses to remove the comment instead of accusing me of being another identity. Michellecrisp 03:30, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, he accused you of being a "Stephen Highbury", who he claimed was under investigation. You do not appear to dispute the fact that Stephen Highbury is under investigation (not even criminal) - rather, you assert that he is wrong in calling you him. If you really are who you say you are, a "Michelle Crisp" then this cannot possibly be construed as libel, since it is prima facie absurd that anyone would think the person named Michelle Crisp could also be the same person as Stephen Highbury. --Haemo 03:55, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

In fact, he even apologized for airing his claims on this site. --Haemo 03:58, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

but he did not delete the statement as per Wikipedia policy (It is Wikipedia policy to delete libellous material when it has been identified from WP:LEGAL). Secondly, I do not know any Stephen Highbury so cannot say if he (if he even exists) is under investigation. But if this Stephen is real and doing harassing (and it's not on Wikipedia) then LibStu is directly saying that I am the one doing it. That is libel. LibStu is suggesting that I am an alias despite repeatedly saying that I am Michelle Crisp. I know it may sound absurd that he is simply suggesting I am someone else but he refuses to delete the statement. Michellecrisp 07:14, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

If you want a statement removed because it's libel, see WP:RFO. Od Mishehu 07:28, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Will do. Michellecrisp 07:33, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ben W. Bell reinserting attack site links

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikitruth&diff=136595033&oldid=136594147 Merrick3x 13:42, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm not even going to bother. Ben W Bell talk 13:44, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Per User:Musical Linguist on WT:No Personal Attacks this is a blockable offense: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:No_personal_attacks#Cowardice Merrick3x 13:45, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Specifically:

"I have removed links, in accordance with Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/MONGO#Outing_sites_as_attack_sites and Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/MONGO#Links_to_attack_site and also Fred Bauder's clarification, and ordinary administrative action against trolling and WP:POINT. I will block the next person who adds them or similar ones. Musical Linguist 18:31, 5 June 2007 (UTC)"

Thank you. Merrick3x 14:03, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

This whole thing (which is, I suspect, the work of a sockpuppet making a WP:POINT) is yet another skirmish over the silly "BADSITES" linking rule... see my essay for more background. *Dan T.* 14:09, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

I got to the part about Nazis and had to stop. Why are you broadcasting your essay all over the place?--MONGO 14:17, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

It's relevant background information. I suppose you could try to get 'wikipedia.org' declared to be an Attack Site because it contains this essay, and then I wouldn't be allowed to post any more links to it. And I anticipated your "Nazi" objections ahead of time, when I inserted a quip about Godwin's Law at that point in the essay. *Dan T.* 14:25, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Then your comparative analogy with Nazis was not in jest, I take it. The disclaimer is simply a strawman.--MONGO 14:38, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

I wasn't comparing anybody here with Nazis... just comparing linking to Nazi sites with linking to anti-Wikipedia "attack sites". *Dan T.* 14:54, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

It is a nonissue comparison then. The Nazi websites don't seem to be actively engaged in trying to "out" the real life identities of our individual editors.--MONGO 15:09, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Regardless of merrick's sockpuppetry status, who cares about the messenger when the message is true. Wikipedia has an article about a Wikipedia "attack site" as wikipedia itself defines in in several quasi-law declarations. What next? WR, WW, ASM get their own articles? They meet the same notability criteria as they have all had multiple cites as subjects of articles from notable sources. So either delete the WT article and "ban" links to it as these other 3 sites, or....just apply the same rules to all "attack sites" if there is going to be such a thing as an "attack site" that is the basis of link deletion and user banning.Piperdown 17:00, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Merrick3x appears to be a single purpose sockpuppet

User:Merrick3x has edited nothing but Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wikitruth (4th nomination) and some related edits in Wikipedia talk:No personal attacks and user talk pages (see this). I't bad enough to have to deal with the real people erasing everything, but this guy is obviously not a real newbie. Mangoe 14:25, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

• I concur... it obviously seems like a trolling sockpuppet attempting to stir things up on this BADSITES issue... but it's rather fun to watch the wikidrama that results (and see how the genuine link-ban advocates find themselves with no choice but to concur and vote "delete" in the AfD that guy started). I just wonder who it really is... but is that "trying to out a Wikipedia editor" to speculate on such things (and it would make this site an attack site if it tolerated such discussion)? *Dan T.* 14:34, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

I have indefinitely blocked Merrick3x. Tom Harrison ^Talk 15:02, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

• And I've speedily closed the AFD discussion. It was obviously a bad faith nomination and an attempt to abuse AFD as a proxy for another debate. Uncle G 15:47, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ongoing personal attacks, assumptions of bad faith and and incivility from Chris Croy (talk · contribs)

I don't really know who this person is, but he's injected himself into an issue I was involved with at the Society for Creative Anachronism, after I posted a question on the admin noticeboard to help clarify a point. I am somewhat new here and still trying to learn how this all works. I all cases, I have acted in good faith.

After I posted my question, he interjected with this personal attack [81]. I civilly warned him on his talk page about making personal attacks, and he responded with this [82]. He's making personal attacks, assuming bad faith and in general behaving like a WP:DICK. The Parsnip! 14:32, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

I have left him a note. Also, please review WP:KETTLE, calling someone a "dick" is like a personal attack in itself. Best, — Nearly Headless Nick ^{C} 14:48, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Citing the famous Don't Be A Dick essay is never a personal attack. Now, as for the substance - Those comments were not personal attacks. 'Utterly retarded' is a nice way of putting it when your VfD is snowballed by Speedy Keeps. Speedy Keep MEANS "This AfD is retarded, close it now." Suggesting you stop nominating articles you know nothing about is not a personal attack - It's a legitimate suggestion because you waste the community's time when you nominate otherwise decent articles that you simply know nothing about. Pointing out that you don't know what notability and verifiability means is also not a personal attack; at this point it's an objective fact. The problem is that you continue to show a lack of understanding for what AfD is for and how you should use it. It's not Articles for Cleanup. It's not Articles I Know Nothing About And Didn't Google. It's Articles The Nominator Thinks Ought To Be Deleted. Pointing out that you don't understand bad formatting systems is also objectively true. I believe I counted six references that weren't to the SCA's website, most of which were external jumps/sloppily written references/. You have repeatedly said the article had no references outside the organization's website, which very clearly isn't true. And finally, my response was a snarky rewrite of the stock NPA template you left on my talk page. If MINE was a personal attack, then that template is too. Chris Croy 15:06, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

That template is meant for users to look at, themselves, personally, and nothing else; and specially not pointing out to users that they are behaving like "dick[s]". I understand that you did not mean it to be a personal attack, but I suggest that you restrain yourself from making such references in the future. Best, — Nearly Headless Nick ^{C} 15:09, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Julia ison-sterier

I tagged this several days ago, under CSD BIO. Very unpromising google results (0) and the only links in the article are a drawing by Ms. Ison-Sterier and a blurb about how she is "one to watch", which I believe violates WP:NOT (crystal ball). This morning, I reverted vandalism on my userpage from an anon who also removed the tag on the article. Could an admin take a look at this?

--Ispy1981 15:44, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Xaverian High School (copied from Help Desk, posted there by User:Xaverianhs)

Xaverian High School has a page on wikipedia, but repeated attempts to delete content that cannot be verified are being hampered by the wikipedia staff or some of its editors. wikipedia cannot verify that the names being submited are indeed graduates of the school or are indeed within the profession that they supposedly say they are engaing in or are famous for a particular act. It baffles us that you allow content ot be added and angered that it is deleted even if it cannot be substantiated. We realize that the page is about the school and that we do not own it but you must realize that some high school students will do or say anything to denegrate the school. Verbal graffiti if you will. We must maintain some type of credibility and not just allow to post content under the guise of free speech.

John L BianRosa Technology Director

YechielMan 16:20, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

User:Xaverianhs seems to have some ownership issues over the article. I can't make heads or tails out of why some alumni should be in the article, but not others. But the Username might be problematic as the user seems to be trying to make claims of authority. Corvus cornix 16:56, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hitachi spam

It's not clear to me whether this is the right place to report this but in any case, I'm interested in advice on this issue. I have just deleted a gazillion pages created by and images uploaded by Robko71 (talk · contribs) (see my deletion log [83]). The account has been, it seems, used solely to promote Hitachi Construction Machinery (see the history of the deleted page) and created a large number of articles for various Hitachi trucks, often using clearly promotional language (sample "With its beefy Benz V-8 engine and effective Allison transmission, the AH500-D has the perfect match of high torque and smooth shifting"). The images were uploaded and tagged as user-created when they were all clearly copied directly from the company's website. That being said, I'm just wondering how to proceed from here and also having doubts on whether it was ok for me to nuke all the images rather than, say mark them as incorrectly tagged. Robko has already recreated the Hitachi Construction Machinery article and I'm hesitant to re-delete it as it quite likely is a notable company. Advice appreciated. Thanks, Pascal.Tesson 02:44, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

I am the one that marked all the articles for speedy deletion. I was repairing dab links and run into one of the articles which struck me the as promotional. After clicking around on the links I came to the same conclusion as Pascal, that the account was used soley to create articles promote this company. As far as it being a notable company I should also mention that there is an article Hitachi Construction Machinery (Europe) that has been around much longer. It seems to be related to the spam company (the deleted page had a link to this article) and does not appear to be promotional in nature.RobDe68 03:00, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

• The images were uploaded and tagged as user-created when they were all clearly copied directly from the company's website: Both statements may be in theory true, if User:Robko71 is writing as a member of Hitachi company and not as a private individual. But that would make it spam. Some companies likely check what is being written about them by the public, including on Wikipedia. Anthony Appleyard 05:17, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Well although Robko71 might be a Hitachi spokesperson, there's still a © on that website and at best that's pretty misleading. Pascal.Tesson 06:35, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

It's been recreated and it is of pretty decent quality, even if it is a little spammy. It suggests that he has been working on this for a long time, since there have been only 2 edits to the page. x42bn6 Talk Mess 13:25, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

He has also re-uploaded many of the images, still tagging them as PD-self. Again, help and advice from a more experienced spam-fighting admin would be much appreciated. Pascal.Tesson 13:34, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

WP:WPSPAM might be able to help. x42bn6 Talk Mess 13:48, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

I removed the {{db-spam}} tag, as I don't consider it to be unsalvagably spammy. It's still a possible COI though, and reads slightly like an advertisement, so I left those tags. —Crazytales (public computer) ^{(talk) (main)} 19:18, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Neutralhomer

Neutralhomer has actually cleaned up after himself, removing all the broadcast schedules. Which saved a bit of time. Guy (Help!) 20:45, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

---

Neutralhomer (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) is causing trouble. He has abandoned two previous accounts, most recently Orangemonster2k1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log), due to "harassment" - which harassment takes the form of lots and lots of people telling him to stop his incessant addition of crap into TV station articles.

These diffs: [84], [85], [86], [87], [88], [89], [90], [91] are trolling and violate WP:CANVASS. I am issuing a final warning. Guy (Help!) 13:11, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Actually the account he just recently abandoned was Orangemonster2k1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) (he just went around signing all his posts as SVRTVGuy) which you can see has several blocks on it. One issue that concerns me too is that he has an odd double standard with stalking. Calton isn't allowed to "stalk" him (particular this thread) yet there have been several incidents where Neutralhomer has gone around stalking Calton's edits and reverting him even when Calton has made valid edits. Such as this fine set of edits at Corbin, Kentucky. Calton reverts vanity/non-notable resident, Orangemonster2k1/Neutralhomer reverts it 25 minutes later, Calton reverts that revert, and then Orangemonster2k1 reverts Calton claiming "Ms. Kenney is notable in Corbin, sorry". Calton later reverts this and, to no one's surprise, Orangemonster2k1 reverts telling Calton to "look her up". Calton eventually reverts again and Orangemonster2k1/Neutralhomer haven't touched it since. For those interested, "Sarah Kenney" gets 774 hits on Google, 43 if you add Corbin.

This continued yesterday where Calton removed links to inactive articles (those articles exist only as redirects to List of Studio 60 on the Sunset Strip episodes) which Neutralhomer came along and reverted (his first edit to the article ever) two hours later. Oops, but then it turns out that Neutralhomer realized that Calton was actually right, so he had to revert himself. So he had revert solely because it was Calton making an edit without bothering to check the validity of this.

Needless to say, this is a major issue that needs to be resolved with Neutralhomer. Metros 13:39, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, yes, my memory was faulty. 62.73.137.190 14:05, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

It wasn't harrassment, it was laziness. I am not going to go around and type something different to each person. I use the ol' cut and paste method.

Calton...don't get me started. You all will see me as the bad guy and him as this great person who should be on a momument somewhere no matter what I say and what he does.

I will readily admit SVRTVDude (one account, just used a different signing name) and User:Neutralhomer are one in the same. No rule, that I can see, that doesn't allow me to do that. Things were going just fine until the whole KXGN-TV situation again.

Finally, don't ask me to post a proposal or post on another board, just to report me here for harrassment. - NeutralHomer ^T:C 19:13, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Block User:Betacommand and terminate User:BetacommandBot

The preceding two have been very uncivil in their comments to users, and treats a certain guideline (Fair use rationale) as if it were policy. I mean, at least User:Carnildo (who is an admin) and User:OrphanBot see that a fair-use tag is enough reason to include an image. When users have brought up their issues to him, he replies with very uncivil comments. I ask that action be taken right away! Tom Danson 16:44, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

WP:KETTLE. – Steel 16:46, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Why not just provide the fair use rationales instead of wasting time here? The bot is doing what it's meant to. Fair use rationales have to be provided, or else images get deleted. Moreschi ^Talk 16:48, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Funny. I'd say that your post to BetaCommand's Talk page entitled "Jawol, mein Fuhrer!" is most definitely an unacceptable and uncivil personal attack warranting at least a strong warning if not a block. --ElKevbo 16:49, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes he has been uncivil. But two wrongs don't make a right. So maybe I should bring up his incivility, but be more civil myself. Tom Danson 16:52, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Or maybe just actually bother to provide the fair use rationales, as is required. Moreschi ^Talk 16:53, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and where exactly has Betacommand been incivil? And if he has? If I was subjected to the amount of bile he's copped for actually asking people to follow the rules, my fuse would be even shorter than it usually is. Betacommand has my sympathies. You, as of now, do not. Your post on his talk page was way out of line and you seem to have chronically abused fair use. Moreschi ^Talk 16:59, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and where exactly has Betacommand been incivil? - Uh, maybe here will refresh your memory. Or here may also help. Jenolen ^{speak it!} 19:49, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Ok, just a heads up and an explanation of what you have read. The Image deletion issue on ArbCom happened ~8 months ago and it was in regard to making a noob admin mistake. As for the statement to Matthew, that was only the second time Ive ever used profanity on Wikimedia. He had been trolling, calling be a liar, incompetent, a software thief, and he had been also making other Personal attacks. He was complaining and raising cane because a group of admins had been enforcing policy and removing Fair use images that he uploaded and used in the List of ... episode pages. Since started a orphan Fair use tagging bot at about the same time he got mad at me because the bot tagged is numerous OFU images. (there were over a 100) and he decided to take out his frustration on me by trolling, insulting my programming skills and other personal attacks, and also claiming that the bot was broken. When asked for examples of how the bot was broken, he wouldn't respond he would just continue trolling and complaining where ever my name came up in a discussion. Finally I dropped the F bomb on him (only the second time ever using that word on wiki) so please be careful and only quote relevant topics when making complaints against users. Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 23:19, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Like, anything other than you complaining and Betacommand not talking (which, admittedly, he should have). Either way, I can't blame him. The amount of venom aimed in his direction for doing the right thing, as of late, has been astonishing. Moreschi ^Talk 19:52, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Did you even bother to read the link? Okay, I'll quote it for you: Betacommand, on his talk page, discussing the BetacommandBot, wrote: "matthew shut the fuck up, I wrote the code my self..." You asked "Where has Betacommand been incivil?" I gave you an answer. If you don't like the answer, that's not really my problem. But don't ignore facts. Jenolen ^{speak it!} 19:56, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Re: 'Astonishing,' by Moreschi, above. Betacommand has been on this notice board consistantly for a while now, it's almost as if he's enforcing a policy which doesn't have community consensus and has been handed down from on high somewhere. (mmmmm 'high'. . . makes me think of both cold and happy at the same time) R. Baley 20:14, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

How can a bot be "incivil in their comments"? Bots can't think. —— Eagle101^{Need help?} 16:54, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

(EC) Deletion of images lacking a fair-use rationale is policy, not just a guideline. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 16:55, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

"Bots can't think" - How insensitive! When the great Robot Wars begin, you'll be the first up against the wall, human! --ElKevboBot3000 16:57, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

I concur. - Aksibot 18:24, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I am providing a fair-use rationale with every image I upload now. Hovever, what I do not see as fair is an "ex post facto" policy, threatening to delete images uploaded before he got so strict on the rationale. So yes, I do think he should be enforcing images currently being uploaded, but not ones uploaded before his bot came. Tom Danson 17:01, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Oh? So we should make no effort to clean up years of endemic fair use abuse? No effort to comply with Foundation dictates? No effort to respect the fact that we are supposed to be a free (libre) encyclopedia, not just a free-as-in-beer one? Moreschi ^Talk 17:04, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Tom, fair use rationales are not a new requirement. They have been necessary since at least February 2004, when processes for handling uploads of unfree media were first introduced. --bainer (talk) 00:06, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Tom that policy pre-dates your account creation, so expo-facto doesn't apply. Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 17:11, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

• Indeed. Concur with Betacommand. Complaining about this policy is akin to complaining about the sand being wet when the tide comes in because you never saw the tide come in before. We are a free content encyclopedia. See Wikipedia:About, first sentence if you doubt that. This fair use rationale requirement has been policy for a long time. --Durin 18:15, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

It might've been said before, but WP:FURG is a guideline on how to write them. Rationales are needed by policy. Will ^(talk) 18:40, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Indeed; Wikipedia:Image use policy is the relevant link. --bainer (talk) 00:04, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Platanogenius (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) EdwinCasadoBaez (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)

• 69.119.56.116 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • WHOIS • RDNS • trace • RBLs • http • block user • block log) sockpuppets of banned user Platanogenius (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) and 69.119.127.181 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • WHOIS • RDNS • trace • RBLs • http • block user • block log) sockpuppets of banned user EdwinCasadoBaez (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) has blanked his page [92] has continued on with uncivil behavior [93] as well as edit warring [94]. He has gone forward utilizing in violation of Wikipedia:Civility calling things non sense [95] [96] [97] stating that people shouldn't have been born [98] . He thought he would be blocked before for his violations but when he wasn't he came right back full force. [99] . This is after his 2nd warning for block violations. [100]. He has violated his week long block 2 previous times and it doesn't seem as if he's going to stop vandalism. please block IPs as well as Full bann of EdwinCasadoBaez. Final warnings were issued. He has even gone for to telling others to vandalize. [101] YoSoyGuapo 18:00, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

IP blocked 2 days by AIV 69.119.56.116 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • WHOIS • RDNS • trace • RBLs • http • block user • block log) [102] but 69.119.127.181 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • WHOIS • RDNS • trace • RBLs • http • block user • block log) is a persistant vandal and acknowledged sock of EdwinCasadoBaez. Due to block evasion a full ban of EdwinCasadoBaez is necessary. YoSoyGuapo 00:16, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Another bot mistagging fair use images

After a tfd for pokemon related fair use images closed as delete ^demonBot2 began deleting the tag from images and adding {{no license}} [103]. I understand that removing these tags from images is a big job to do by hand, but removing the tags from what had been up till this moment properly tagged fair use images and then tagging them as not having a tag is just wrong. If necessary the pokemon templates should be redirected to something giving a reasonable amount of time (say a month) to go through them and retag them all, or should be redirected to the plain {{fairuse}} template (which is checked for usage regularly anyway since it's deprecated). -N 01:36, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

It's not a matter of fairuse or not, it's a matter of having a copyright tag. The copyright tags were considered invalid, so they now have no tag. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 02:13, 8 June 2007 (UTC). Just forget it ok, I'll slap a generic {{fairuse}} on it. Happy? ^demon^{[omg plz]} 02:18, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Should the members of the relevant Wikiproject (in this case, WP:POKE) have been notified about the deletion discussion? -Jeske ^{(v^_^v)} 04:10, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Thank you ^demon. That's more than reasonable. -N 05:54, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Brettfern repeatedly warned, continues vandalism...

Brettfern has been repeatedly warned on his talk page about removing content from various Wikipedia articles, including John O'Hurley, World Wrestling Entertainment, and Donald Trump. His most recent warning was on June 2nd for an edit to the Donald Trump article, and was warned by administrators on his talk page that he would be blocked if this continues.

Brettfern, as of today, has continued to remove content from John O'Hurley, content which is sourced and verified. I would recommend that this user be blocked for his repeated vandalism to Wikipedia. --Mr. Brown 02:24, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User:M.V.E.i.

User M.V.E.i. has been repeatedly accusing me of vandalism, inserting false information and "talking lies". I have asked him to provide evidence (up to a point where I linked my contributions and article history for him) or stop that. Yet that has had no effect, either he ignores my request completely or insists "it is all there". Accusing someone of vandalism is perhaps strongest and harshest thing to say to another Wikipedian - yet I did not want to "bite a newbie" (his first edits are from April 20th) and just warned him repeatedly. However, now that is grown to a point where I believe that his actions can be called stalking.

Instances when has accused me of vandalism, trolling and/or lies:

• [104]
• [105]
• [106]
• [107]
• [108]
• [109]
• [110]
• [111]
• [112]
• [113]

He has been repeatedly asked to behave civilly, not only by other users but by administrators as well ([114], [115], [116], [117]). That has had no effect whatsoever.

• He has been repeatedly insulting not only me ([118], [119]), but also other users, such as administrator Sandstein (who has been beyond patient with him): [120], [121], [122], [123], [124], [125], [126]).

• Deleting material/references from Wikipedia: [127], [128], [129], [130], [131]

• Racist and ethnic slurs: [132], [133], [134], [135], [136], [137], [138], [139], [140], [141], [142], [143], [144], [145], [146], [147], [148], [149], [150], [151], [152], [153], [154], [155], [156], [157], [158]

I am unsure what to do about him. Temporary blocks have no effect, he feels that he is fully just in his edits. Apparently he even doesn't realize that he is insulting other nationalities or editors. DLX 06:37, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Way, way over the line. Indefinitely blocked. Neil ╦ 07:01, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

You could AT LEAST learn the case, i can find you a few that belive that DLX should be blocked for vandalizing articles and starting Edit-Wars. I gave hin exemples of lies he said and he couldn't denie them. M.V.E.i.

IP blocked. Sigh. Neil ╦ 16:49, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Hi, Neil and other admins. I don’t think 24 minutes is enough to make such a drastic decision. Thus, I’d like to clarify some points here. First, DLX is from a group of Estonian nationalist editors, who try to clean up corresponding articles so that the Estonian History would look “ok” [159]. They presumably collude and take active part in frequent edit wars: (only some) instances of such actions can be found in their recent checkuser cases [160] and [161]. (Wars with dropping relevant materials from articles, for instance, [162], is definitely “vandalism”. So I see no problem with this term used by M.V.E.i.). Selected additional evidence of their misbehavior is presented on a special page [163], where some more facts about DLX are also included. (I think enough evidence to block those editors, and DLX in particular, for long or forever will be collected sooner or later. But this is another story.)

Another side of their strategy is to talk an opponent to death or to provoke him somehow (see example [164]) so that he becomes angered and then impolite. And M.V.E.i. case is typical in this respect. Look at the talk page of this new editor. I found 17 lenthy messages from Baltic users, though M.V.E.i. didn’t want the discussion. What was the question of this discussion? DLX stressed many times here and there that “none of Jews were killed by Estonian SS legioners” (e.g., [165]). That was definitely incorrect claim. Even the Estonian official source [166] admits that “the Estonian Legion and a number of Estonian police battalions were actively involved in the rounding up and shooting of Jews in at least one town in Belarus (Novogrudok); in guard duties in at least four towns in Poland (Lodz, Przemysl, Rzeszow, and Tarnopol); in guard duties at a number of camps in Estonia and elsewhere”. I believe such a claim by DLX is nothing else but a kind of Holocaust denialism (thus, “liar” was, yes, harsh, but actually correct name). What thing could anger Israeli citizen, M.V.E.i., more than Holocast denialism? In this context, his claim that DLX is a pro-Nazi is at least understandable, though not fully justifiable.

Finally, I took a deeper look at the DLX accusations (skipping their personal clash [167], etc.). As to cases where “He has been repeatedly asked to behave civilly, not only by other users but by administrators as well”(DLX), [168] and [169], they were successfully resolved without external intervention. Concerning “Deleting material/references from Wikipedia”(DLX): accusations [170], [171] and [172] are taken out of context and thus baseless. Also, I don’t think there are “Racist and ethnic slurs”(DLX) in [173], [174] (this case was quoted twice by DLX), [175], [176], [177], [178].

To summarize, I believe that M.V.E.i. doesn’t deserve such a strong punishment. I’d like to add also that, in a very short period, he created and did constructive contributions to several good articles. I ask admins to shorten his block.

Best, Beatle Fab Four 11:09, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

You might want to review WP:BLOCK. Most importantly, blocking is not a punitive measure; it's a preventive measure. It's not that M.V.E.i. is being punished for being obnoxious; it is that he has shown consistent unability to help with the Project, and thus, he is being prevented from harming it. Digwuren 14:12, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

The message above is a typical example of how they apply their strategy. Beatle Fab Four 14:19, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Than why don't you block DLX for harming the project? Me harming the project?? I for a shurt time created a few articles, added unformation to others. THAT's cheap demagogy! M.V.E.i.

As Beatle Fab Four asks people all ower Wikipedia to comment on this, I would like to express my opinion as well. From what I have seen, I fully endorse the block. Colchicum 14:42, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Sigh. Here we go again. I asked Neil to check my edit history for vandalism here. And I ask anyone else interested to do that - and if I have vandalized articles, then give me appropriate warnings or blocks. Oh, and by the way, BFF, for [179], read at least a lead from an article about Lord Voldemort and try to understand what I said... DLX 15:25, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Just in case this is a reply to my reply, I have nothing against you, I endorse the block of M.V.E.i. Colchicum 15:52, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

No, sorry - that was a reply to BFF, I just left my message to the bottom. DLX 16:21, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Nice to see that User:Beatle Fab Four, who has a history of being blocked twice in a time of an hour [180], [181] has suddenly become so polite [/sarcasm]. But the truth is that this M.V.E.i.'s racial prejudices far extend insulting "Baltic nationalists" - e.g. see these two [182] [183]. Quercus schnobur 16:16, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Don't miss [184], [185], [186], [187] DLX 16:21, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Given facts ([188]) presented in my statement, it is interesting to read this [189] by Quercus schnobur Beatle Fab Four 17:05, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

_{(edit conflict)}You may want to re-read that and your sources. We were talking about murder of Estonian Jews by Nazis. SS-Legion was created after Estonia was declared judenfrei. But this discussion has been going round and round enough - and this is not the place for it. Discuss it on my user talk page, if you want - user pages are available for anyone, as long as they remain civil. DLX 17:38, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

About Beatle Fab Four who currently tries to protect M.V.E.i. we should not forget that edit summary[190].--Staberinde 17:33, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Neil, Colchium and almost everybody else that M.V.E.i.'s behavior deserves a longish block for incivility. On the other hand we usually use escalating blocks then we deal with incivility and personal attacks. Before this block M.V.E.i had received two blocks for 31 and 48 h, both related to his conflict with Estonian users over the Bronze Soldier of Tallinn article. I have looked into the history of M.V.E.i contributions and can not say that Estonia is his main field of interest. He mostly is interested in music from Rachmaninoff to some obscure "progressive rock" groups. Cannot see any civility-related problems there. I suggest changing the block durations to two weeks-one month. For once it is the natural progression of the escalating blocks. Secondly, the conflict over the Bronze Soldier of Tallinn that seems to be settling both in real life and in Wikipedia would be much settled to the end of the block and would not disturb M.V.E.i Alex Bakharev 22:19, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I am unsure about this. In his messages after the block, M.V.E.i. has shown no remorse or understood why he was blocked - so, very likely he will continue the same behavior after he is unblocked. He does not realize that his actions are racist (perhaps good example would be edit summary here,1. It's a known fact that Russian Protestans are Baptists, the Lutherans in Russian are Germans and Balts. 2. Dont put two groups in the same sentence.) or that he is insulting other editors.

Perhaps reduction of the block to one month would be appropriate, if he is not allowed to edit any articles (or resp. talk pages) related to Estonia, Russia, Ukraine or other nationalities/ethnic groups - and an administrator reviews his edits on daily basis. And, to make sure he understands that next racist slur or personal attack will result an indefinite block - and that following Wikipedia rules is not optional. DLX 05:17, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

I am not sure the information of the edit is true but I fail to see what is racist about it. One month block looks appropriate. Proposed article ban may require an Arbcom decision to implement Alex Bakharev 07:09, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

That he expresses his disgust at mention of Russians together with Germans and "Balts" in same sentence? DLX 07:18, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

DLX YOU ARE A LIAR. I know i'm blocked, but i couldn't take the lying anymore!!! When i have said in the Russians article don't put them in the saim group, i meet Old Belivers and Protestants. Because those are different groups. Its like writing:70% of Russians are Orthodox and Deists. There should be seperation. About the Baptists, i said that we should mention Baptizm because there are no Russiuan Lutherans, the Lutherans in Russia are Balts. M.V.E.i.

NOW EVERYONE HAVE SEEN IT. DLX is trying to provocate me by saying lies. The case was about the Template Box for Russians, i wanted to mension about the Russian protestants that they are Baptists, so this argument was so we would mention it. The two froups i wanted to seprrate are Baptists and Old Belivers. Instead of There are some Russians who are protestants and Old Belivers, i wrote Some Russians are Old Believers (a relatively small group of Orthodox Christians). Small minority of Russians are Protestants. My grand-grandgather was Baptists Russian peasant (thought he was born Orthodox). SO DLX, stop lying just to do me harm. M.V.E.i.

Looks like his, M.V.E.i., claim is a true fact. Anyway, he opposes Russians to other nations you know why? Look at the name of the article. "Russians"? Surprise, surprise! DLX is again wrong. Beatle Fab Four 11:52, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Ah... showing your true colors finally here as well. Seems that you missed his edit summary again, though. And, it really doesn't matter. We have more then 25 cases of racism above - and I did not go through all his edits, far from it. And article name Russians does not imply that it is forbidden to mention other nationalities - or that it is OK to be a racist, for that matter. DLX 13:29, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

You guessed right about my true colors. I don't like liars Beatle Fab Four 13:53, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

You must hate yourself very badly then. DLX 15:11, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Again, you are wrong. Don't troll the discussion with silly provocations. Beatle Fab Four 15:18, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to count to three, children. If you don't stop bickering by then, I'll send you into your corners for a timeout. I don't care who started it. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 15:26, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

DLX YOU ARE A LIAR. I know i'm blocked, but i couldn't take the lying anymore!!! When i have said in the Russians article don't put them in the saim group, i meet Old Belivers and Protestants. Because those are different groups. Its like writing:70% of Russians are Orthodox and Deists. There should be seperation. About the Baptists, i said that we should mention Baptizm because there are no Russiuan Lutherans, the Lutherans in Russia are Balts. M.V.E.i.

NOW EVERYONE HAVE SEEN IT. DLX is trying to provocate me by saying lies. The case was about the Template Box for Russians, i wanted to mension about the Russian protestants that they are Baptists, so this argument was so we would mention it. The two froups i wanted to seprrate are Baptists and Old Belivers. Instead of There are some Russians who are protestants and Old Belivers, i wrote Some Russians are Old Believers (a relatively small group of Orthodox Christians). Small minority of Russians are Protestants. My grand-grandgather was Baptists Russian peasant (thought he was born Orthodox). SO DLX, stop lying just to do me harm. M.V.E.i.

M.V.E.i., editing wikipedia articles(i dont mean talk pages but article Russians) while you are blocked [191] is block evasion.--Staberinde 18:17, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Nice coallition against me. NEVERTHELESS, a user wrote that there are two million Russians in the USA, which is not correct, because those are Jews from Russia while the article is about Ethnic Russians, so i returned the previous version. I think that for Wikipedia it is importent to have correct information isn't it? I belive it is so. M.V.E.i.

IP blocked --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 19:06, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

You don't even no the case so why are you playing the cowboy here?? At least learn the case. M.V.E.i.

Following the discussion I decided to shorten the block to 1 month. I was originally thinking about two-three weeks, but the lates block avoidance make 1 month to be most suitable Alex Bakharev 01:50, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Okay, so I guess I'll mark my calendar for July 7, when this discussion will be occurring once again. There is a human being behind this user name; it's not just a "Wikipedian". If this person decides within the next thirty days that he's going to alter his abrasive disposition just so he can be allowed to edit a website, that would be a first. You are free to think that's going to happen, but I'm going to go clear my schedule for July 7. -- tariqabjotu 02:14, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Amazing, everyone have told him that block evasion is not allowed but he still continues doing it[192][193].--Staberinde 17:41, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Given that you did not bother to discuss it with me, Alex, do you even know why User:M.V.E.i. was indefinitely blocked? It was not for incivility, it was for edits describing certain races as "not really human, anyway" and other races as "all Nazis". Hate speech cannot be permitted. I have restored his block to indefinite. Neil ╦ 09:30, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Neil, the block has been discussed here and I assumed you have been a party of the discussion. I have looked through all the presented diffs and while I found a lot of incivility and inflammatory rhetoric from M.V.E.i I failed to find description of certain races as "not really human, anyway". The closest I could find was the statement that World War II Nazis were not human. While this is a strong statement it is only a hateful speech against the Nazis of the World War II time (and not e.g. far right members of some government coalitions). I would dare say that this is within the line and certainly not racist. Usually, mentioning Nazis stops any productive discussion but the subject of the Bronze Soldier of Tallinn somehow provoked that sort of talks. Initially I was trying to abort the discussion of WW2 rather than the article but both N.V.I.e/BFF and Diwulgen/DLX were so eager to talk on the offtopic subjects that it was impossible to stop. I might missed some stupidity from M.V.E.i but I have strong doubts that he meant something racist in his speech. Alex Bakharev 13:39, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

"I have strong doubts that he meant something racist in his speech". What?! Alex, I can only assume you have not read the long list of diffs above, or the ones I provided on your talk page. Neil ╦ 14:06, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Alex, as Neil pointed out M.V.E.i said "Besides, USSR never killed Baltic people (Except at World War 2, but that were Baltic Nazis killed, there not considered people". Among those people who were killed by USSR I also have relatives(and no, they did not serve in waffen-ss). But I guess I am nazi anyway and that means this comment "is within the line and certainly not racist." I am very deeply dissappointed to read such comment from administrator.--Staberinde 15:23, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

The phrase is factually incorrect: USSR certainly killed Baltic people outside the World War 2 (there were e.g. large scale repressions in 1940-1941 and after 1945, Forest brothers, etc., etc.), and those killed during WW2 were obviously not all Nazis (in all wars a large percentage of killed are civilians). I am not sure if M.V.E.i is unaware of this or just did an overgeneralized statement. On the other hand the interpretation of his words that all the killed were subhuman Nazis is almost certainly not what he meant. I knew enough people with similar background to tell what he could and could not mean. He can not bring his apologies because of the block, but I want to say sorry for his clumsy phrase that might be interpreted that way Alex Bakharev 16:31, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Alex, as i stated at the thread below, the indef block is too harsh. However, i can't accept any justification whatsoever about his personal attacks. We can consider them differently (xenophobic, racist, etc) but the bottom line is that they are not accepted. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 16:47, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Obviously, personal attacks on tht level are unacceptable. By putting some effort into limiting the block of the guy, I accept responsibility to keep him under control Alex Bakharev 17:14, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Alex, its quite impossible to interpret his comment differently than all the killed were subhuman Nazis. I somehow doubt that lack of knowledge in English can be used as an argument to justify such remarks.--Staberinde 17:02, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Why don't you accept the obvious interpretation that the only Balts who were killed in large scale with the support of all population were Nazis? The rest of the killings were either not that large scale for him or done semi-secretly by Soviet secret police (with approximetly the same murder rate as for the rest of the Union population). The same logic actually as with Jews who were never killed by Estonians according to DXL Alex Bakharev 17:14, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Could you guys use the new thread below? It is confusing. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 17:18, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mass deletion of television articles by TTN

User has been notified of this action through a message at User talk:TTN
TTN has engaged in a one-person crusade to delete literally thousands of television episode articles, representing tens of thousands of hours of work by Wikipedia editors. These include episodes for TV series like Code Lyoko, Ben 10, and Sailor Moon among others. TTN is replacing the articles with simple redirects to "List of episode" pages. There is no assessment of the articles, not is there any attempt at adding the deleted information to the aforementioned "list" pages. (TTN's "notification" consists of a single message left on each series' "List of episodes" page - which is not necessarily on the watchlist of editors who contribute to the affected articles.) The resultant cleanup, on a massive scale, is being dumped on the editors of the affected pages. All of this is under the guise of the WP:EPISODE guideline.

TTN is also unwilling to engage in any meaningful discussion of these actions. Efforts to reason with TTN are met with dismissive replies, as per the following examples:

"People who disagree with all episodes being removed do not count." (here)

"Who really cares if people don't agree with what I do? Anyone that does disagree is a major inclusionist like yourself or a fan. Frankly, their opinions do not matter." (here)

"It doesn't really matter if people are grumpy as long as I'm removing useless information." (here)

"People disagree with me, big whoop. They can only use false arguments most of the time anyways." (here)

Regardless of where one stands on the issue, the manner in which it is being handled is completely unacceptable. At the very least, there should be some sort of discussion regarding WP:EPISODE. A crusade like this, especially with no attempt at discussion, is divisive and will only damage the Wikipedia community. This is *not* how Wikipedia should operate. Sincerely, Ckatz^chat_spy 08:24, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

They'll come back on summer reruns though. --MichaelLinnear 08:26, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

TTN has been pretty much spot on with his deletions though. Empty articles written using a standard template and containing about two lines of useful text being redirected to a main episode list page is policy. Nick 08:30, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

It seems excessive, and from a cursory glance, heavy-handed and likely to cause more trouble than it's worth. En mass changes of that magnitude should have undergone centralized discussion. That is, beyond a guideline page I never heard of. El_C 09:29, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

He's following guidelines. Problem is, no one has ever noticed this, so it's just been growing bigger. That's why you're objecting, right? Because of the size. I assume those dismissive comments are merely a result of him referring to the same policy over and over again for a number of months. - Zero1328 _Talk? 09:52, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

The messages are presented in a cynical way, but they're absolutely truthful. All comments about this are placed from a personal level rather than one backed by any sort of policy or guideline. They're either grumpy that the episodes are gone or they feel insulted from a lack of discussion (which they don't end up bothering with). I am perfectly willing to participate in a constructive discussion that will bring about good sources. The problem is most people are fine with the current condition of the articles, so they somehow avoid actually finding any. Only one person/group has really done anything, and I have no idea how it has gone this past month. TTN 10:18, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

To El C: This has already undergone a centralized discussion that lead to that guideline, so now it is up to users to find sources for their single series. Further attempts at more discussion leads to nothing more than rambling, paranoia, and yelling. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kept Man for why this needs to be done away from things like that. TTN 10:39, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

TTN, the job you're doing is one that needs to be done, but some of the above quotes show you could perhaps be a little kinder? Neil ╦ 12:18, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Kinder, perhaps, but experience shows that fans will not accept anything less than an article per episode, so sometimes being blunt just saves time. Guy (Help!) 14:55, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Unless if server memory is an issue, I see no good reason not to have articles that obviously a good segment of the community finds interesting or useful. As long as they are referenced and even a handful think they are encyclopedic, deleting them only turns off many readers. We should not be exclusive or elitist. --24.154.173.243 17:51, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Well I took a look myself at this guideline and I would have to say I disagree with the how the episode was dealt with the critics, since a great number of shows would not have this kind of information and I feel that this alone is unneccessary, adding in a plot summary that is not too minor or too detailed with any available data for key members of the production crew, and any avaiable cultrual reference or notable trivia and sources are found. However, the problem with sourcing is that their are hardly any episode books on the market and many of the only worthwhile links come from fansites which would fail Wikipedia's established link policy because it is a fansite with questionable source material. Me thinks that the whole episode policy needs to be re-evaluated and decide which shows should have their own episode page and which one should have a list instead. -24.20.180.73 15:05, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

So what you are saying is that there is a concensus on which shows should be allowed to have their own specific episode articles? -Adv193 15:44, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Other helpful links for this discussion:

1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:List_of_Kim_Possible_episodes#removal

2. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:The_Ocean_Hunter#Deletion_of_useful.2C_relevant.2C_and_interesting_information

3. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:TTN#Ahem

4. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:TTN#Your_behaviour

5. User talk:TTN#Episode pages

6. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Village_pump_%28policy%29#Using_Wikipedia:Television_episodes

7. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Video_games#Mario_character_merges

8. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:TTN#Your_edits_to_List_of_Weeds_episodes

9. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:The_Ocean_Hunter#3rd_opinion

10. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:TTN#Fullmetal_Alchemist_episodes

11. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Television_episodes#DISCUSSING_THE_GUIDELINE

12. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jimbo_Wales#User:TTN

13. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Gwinva#User:TTN

14. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:King_Wagga

15. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Angie_Y.#Third_Opinion_Needed.3F

16. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Vilerocks#Do_you_disagree

17. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:PeaceNT#User:TTN

18. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#User:TTN_marking_every_single_television_episode_for_notability_concerns

I obviously think that it isn't right for so much work done by other editors to be needlessly erased in such a fashion. --24.154.173.243 16:22, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

WP:EFFORT is not a valid argument. —Kurykh 01:40, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Kurykh, WP:EFFORT is only a guideline which applies to deletion discussion. This doesn't seem to me a deletion debate at all. Here we're discussing whether it was a sensible course of action to redirect hundreds of articles without holding any talks beforehand. This move is inappropriate because one single editor shouldn't take it upon themselves to pour cold water on the work of many other editors (again, without consensus), so yes, EFFORT is a valid argument. Peacent 03:49, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Comment

I'll preface my remarks by saying that AN/I probably isn't the place for a discussion over Wikipedia guidelines. With that in mind, however, the way TTN is proceeding - and the scale of it - should not be permitted until a consensus on the larger issue can be achieved. Whether consciously or not, the Wikipedia community has permitted the creation of these articles, and allowed them to develop and grow - not for days, or weeks, but for *years*. This is not a question of a few random pages that don't meet guidelines - we're talking about literally thousands of pages, and tens of thousands of hours of work by good, solid contributors. We're talking about the Television project, dozens of related sub-projects, and all the rules, guidelines, and procedures developed within those structures with the goal of standardizing content and creating professional product. We're talking about editors who - on a daily basis - struggle to maintain a strong body of pop-culture content. Not only are they having to weed out the constant onslaught of speculation, trivia, and fan-boy debris, but they are also having to work within a community that, to some degree, "looks down" on their efforts as being "less than worthy". (See this note from TheDJ) TTN says "go to TV.com and Wikia" - but that is *not* the same thing. Speaking for myself, if I wanted speculation, fan theories, and "what if" scenarios, sure, I'd go to those sites. That, however, is *not* what I want out of an article, and not what I want to work on. Whether you like pop-culture articles or not shouldn't be the issue here - it should be about showing a certain degree of respect for your fellow Wikipedians. TTN's actions, I'm sorry to say, do not meet that mark. --Ckatz^chat_spy 17:28, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

There already is a larger consensus: WP:EPISODE. Just because single editors don't want the articles that they work on to be gone, it doesn't mean this it isn't valid. They all miserably fail that, WP:N, WP:V, and various other combinations of things like WP:NOR and WP:NOT depending on the single articles. Something needed to be done, so I'm doing it. Otherwise, we'll just be sitting around and twiddling our thumbs, all while having an idle discussion that will get nowhere. Plus, the comments that you quoted were not towards editors trying to keep a single series. They were towards people saying that I should not continue just because people disagree with me or people suggesting that I bother with single discussions for every single one (though few are ever responded to). TTN 17:38, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

It's hard for episodes to not fail anything if they are deleted before editors even have a chance to finish expanding them. Clearly there is NOT a consensus on this matter by any means. --24.154.173.243 17:44, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Most of these have existed for well over a year. Time has nothing to do with it. People stop editing after the plot summary is up. Only a little tweaking here and there and the addition of trivia follows. TTN 17:49, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

So, how is having articles that obviously a number of editors and readers find helpful somehow detrimental to this website? If you or others do not like these articles, why not just ignore them or work on other projects than destroy what others have worked on and what others do find helpful? Are we running out of memory or something? --24.154.173.243 17:54, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

We don't keep articles because they're "helpful." This site is based upon building a source of information with encyclopedic and verifiable information. If it is impossible to do that with a subject, it doesn't belong (no matter how "helpful or interesting" it may be). TTN 17:58, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, by your own post then, the articles should be kept, because a) episode information can be easily verified and b) by the definition of encylopedia provided on Wikipedia, they are encylcopedic as they are examples of "general" knowledge "containing articles on topics in every field." See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Encyclopedic#The_term --24.154.173.243 18:02, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I led myself right into that one. Verifiable by this sites standards (published sources), not just from the primary source. It has to be notable in that way, or it is just unencyclopedic. General means general, not in-depth. The general overview is the episode list, not the specific articles. TTN 18:08, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Then, why not just put some kind of request for sources tag on the articles? It shouldn't be too hard for people to add a source for each episode. --24.154.173.243 18:10, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

The tags aren't magic. Sources have to exist and people have to be willing to work on them. The reason they're being redirected is because both of those aren't met. TTN 18:12, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Sources exist on such websites as Tv.com and even on the network websites for the shows. With thousands of editors and an ever growing community, you'd have to think that more and more people will eventually be willing and able to meet such standards. --24.154.173.243 18:14, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Those aren't good enough to build articles (tv.com, for example, is not a reliable source). Trust me, sources don't exist for most episodes, and users don't care for their quality. They just want a place to write summaries. If what you are suggesting was possible, I would be doing that rather than redirecting. You're going down the same exact road as the rest of the people that are trying to keep these, and it's a dead end. TTN 18:20, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Bzz Wrong, this conflict will never be over as long as there are a massive amount of editors that fight for what they believe in, ignoring the rules, and some such as myself who believe that such rules or styles on Episode pages can still be changed. -168.156.153.175 18:30, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

In a very literal sense, this conflict is dividing editors up into two armed camps, one that follows their beliefs vs. those that follow policies and tend to stubbornly stick it out, and both are refusing to give up until they can achieve victory.-168.156.154.155 18:53, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

While the standards TTN is working for aren't rules (they're Wikipedia guidelines, which are more like loose standards), this conflict has brought out far more- there have been not only lots of hurt feelings, [194] administrative misconduct (admin engages in revert warring [195] then blocks the opposing side[196]), insults[197], and even admissions that some editors are even afraid to confront TTN[198]. It's obvious that this quest has had widespread ramifications beyond a simple content dispute, and I fear without some actual discussion beyond what's currently here, that it will only get worse. 76.28.138.83 18:59, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

TTN's actions mirror those of the Admins that were removing all of the non-free images on Wikipedia that did not meet the criteria that was established. All those "list of episodes" pages that had tons of screencaptures had them all removed. The reason it mirrors that, is because all of these articles have been in "stub" hell for months, if not years, and they've only been allowed because people said "they can be expanded". This never happened. Why? Because "plots" do not equate to "expanding" and article, and fluffing it up with other unencyclopedic information doesn't equate to that either. "Featured music", "quotes", "trivia". This still doesn't go on film articles, why would you put it on an episode article? Here's some tips if you want the episode articles to exist. Find relevant, real world information. We have a Wikiquote, so listing quotes is not only unencyclopedic, but irrelevant when we have a place for it. "Featured music" is not encyclopedic, because it isn't an "album" or a "single", it's just sampled music here and there in an article. If you can find out why those songs were chosen then that can be used, but listing a bunch of songs falls into listing trivia. Speaking of, all experienced editors should the rule of thumb when it comes to trivia. Most importantly, and what seems to be the biggest problem, plots are supposed to summarize an episode, not substitute for watching it. Remember, plots are "non-free" information, and we have to establish an encyclopedic right to use them, because they do fall under the republication of copyrighted material. The words may be yours, but the story, and the events are copyrighted by that particular studio. Good examples are Pilot (House), Pilot (Smallville), and Aquaman (TV program). This is what episode articles should strive for, but, as hard as it may be to hear, all cannot attain. 80-90% of these articles will never have that information, why, because it would take too much time for a director to sit down with every episode and commentate, or interview about them. These guys get a few months out of the year for breaks, and then spend the rest working on the next episode. The episodes being redirected, like all those non-free images, do not meet the criteria for an episode article and their existence has been allowed for far too long. TTN's actions may seem drastic (I am actually doing a merge discussion, but that's because I am only concerned about 1 television series, and not about the whole, as TTN is) but he's doing what should have been done long ago. He probably could have handled it differently, and alerted the community, but that's like saying someone should have told you that if you swim with sharks you're going to get bit. Everyone that works on television articles a lot, knows the guidelines for how to handle these episode articles. They even specifically say that not every episode will warrant an article, yet people are creating all 100+ episodes for a given series without even stopping to think if they should.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 21:13, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I know, I mean I personally reverted that insult and that I my preference is to find a fair negotiation rather than be insulting, since I am noticing it is less likely that leaving the pages the way they are will not work otherwise this debate could happen again. -Adv193 21:03, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Update

This is getting completely out of hand - now TTN is gutting series articles without even announcing what is happening. The entire Weeds series of articles has been redirected, without so much as an announcement on either the main page or the "List of Weeds episodes" talk pages. There's only a cryptic "Cut links" edit summary; other than that, TTN appears to have no presence whatsoever on either page. The same things just happened for the series Undeclared. Can't someone do something about this? --Ckatz^chat_spy 20:41, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

That's the way that I have been doing it. I've only posted a message on thirty or so articles. Only eight of those garnered any sort of attention. There is no point if nobody is going to respond. Any discussion can happen afterwards. TTN 20:45, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

The problem is that by mass deleting the work of many other editors and even ignoring the compromise element of the third opinion you requested for the Ocean Hunter article, TTN is effectively alienating and turning off other editors. Look at what happened with http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Ralf_Loire. Check out the conclusion that editor came to at http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard&diff=prev&oldid=136039811. What is he talking about in regards to users giving him a hard time and all, well why not see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:TTN#Ahem in response to:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Ralf_Loire&diff=prev&oldid=135667240

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Ralf_Loire&diff=prev&oldid=135703440

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Ralf_Loire&diff=prev&oldid=135704475

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Ralf_Loire&diff=prev&oldid=135705411

So, how is causing editors to want to disappear a good thing?

TTN requests a 3rd opinion for Ocean Hunter and Bjelleklang replies, "What about creating a List of bosses in The Ocean Hunter article?" Amatulic offers, "If there's a site describing the bosses, go ahead and link to it in an External Links section." How does TTN respond? "We do neither" and "Both of those examples don't help anything." See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:The_Ocean_Hunter#3rd_opinion for the full discussion. He asked for a third opinion and when two individuals offer ideas that were not the full answers TTN as hoping for, he disregards them and deletes the material without accepting these compromise elements of the two third opinions offered. This is really distressing. Wikipedians should not alienate other editors or only selectively listen to 3rd opinions when it suits them. --164.107.222.23 16:21, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The real issue at hand

The discussion is all getting rather heated here, and is complicated by the fact people are concerned about two issues. The first is what does or does not constitute a good episode article. This is best discussed at Wikipedia talk:Television episodes, or Wikipedia Talk:WikiProject Television (ie. rather than expounding at length here your reasons why episode pages should exist). The second is the pertinent issue, which is best considered on its merits alone (ie. not clouded by whether you agree with his/her motives): Is the behaviour of TTN overstepping the mark? The complaint against him/her is:

• TTN is redirecting episode pages for a vast number of television programmes, and:
  1. is doing so with little or no constructive discussion on talk pages or warning of his/her intentions
  2. is doing it as such speed he/she cannot be assessing the articles critically
  3. is choosing to redirect rather than merge (ie. makes no effort to salvage appropriate content for the main series page)
  4. is choosing to redirect rather than flag an article for improvement (eg clean-up or source tags)
  5. is not taking editorial responsibility for his redirects (eg. following broken links)
  6. is carrying on these actions even while aware they are inflammatory and appears to show no interest in reaching a compromise
• Evidence:
  1. a quick view of TTN's contributions will display speed;
  2. discussion above shows TTN’s own admission he/she does not bother with talk pages.
  3. Example of uncritical redirect (ie a redirect without considering potential of episode pages): Yes Minister series. See Yes Minister page for example of references and sources possible regarding this series. Example episode: The Moral Dimension see diff. Note also the only explanation given! This episode would not yet rate as a good article, but it could be brought up to such a standard with critical comment and sources (which are available). TTN is fond of quoting WP:EPISODE. I feel this example (ie all Yes Minister and Yes, Prime Minister episodes), comes under the following:

Note: Stubs are allowed on Wikipedia and many articles are stubs. It may be inappropriate to merge or redirect an article about a television episode just because it is a stub. Before executing a merge, ask yourself: Will the merge reduce the quality or coherence of the target article? Also do some basic looking for additional source material that could be used to improve the article. Are more sources available? If the answer to either of these questions is 'yes', it is probably better to forgo merging or redirecting. Instead, leave the article as it is or consider improving it.

In summary: Many of the episode pages TTN has redirected may be unworthy of having their own pages, but the manner in which TTN is editing is unacceptable, and interferes with legitimate discussion and due process. Gwinva 21:55, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't believe there was any "warning" for all the removals of non-free images. There was one large discussion and it was decided that they shouldn't be included at all if they cannot satify the criteria for them. Well, the debate about television articles has long since past, and the result of that is the basis for the criteria of creating them now. TTN doesn't have to "warn" anyone, or "discuss" this with anyone. If someone challenges a particular episodes redirection then that is one thing, but as a whole, the vast majority are unchallengeable. Articles with plot summaries longer than featured film articles? If someone thinks they can expand the articles, then work on it and then un-redirect them. The whole problem has been that they were all created under the guise that they could/would be expanded, when the sad fact is that most can't/won't be expanded. I've sat and gawked at an episode page that has only grown in words toward the plot for months upon months, until a year goes by. When you can't update something, don't continue to argue for its inclusion when you know it's a lost cause. There are thousands of episode articles on Wikipedia right now (which isn't hard to believe, just think about the average number of episodes for a series and start multiplying). How many are GA status? How many are FA status? How many are even close to fulfilling encyclopedic guidelines? That's thousands of articles that should not have been created in the first place. There is a system to how one should go about creating these articles, and people are ignoring it in favor of the fact that they are fans of a show and the redundant argument of "well others are doing it".  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 22:04, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

The first cannot be done most of the time. It happens when necessary. The second only requires a quick glance for real sources. I may miss a couple here and there, but it won't be substantial. With the third, there is nothing to merge. Plot summaries are a dime a dozen. They don't need to be salvaged. The fourth is just impossible. Flagging only works if people to work on them and sources exist. What are you talking about with five? Double redirects? Bots take care of those. General links to the episodes? That's what redirects are for. And with six, there is no compromise. They either meet the site's standards with sources, or they are removed.

My editing speed is not too quick to ignore good sources. The example you show details nothing but one small development source. The Yes Minister editors have not provided me with one possible source, only stating that "they're good enough." If someone can provide them, I'm fine. Stubs are allowed if they can improve, once they have shown that ability, they're fine. TTN 22:09, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

TTN very much *does* need to discuss this matter first. It is called "common courtesy" - and it would go a lot farther toward achieving his/her goal than the current method. As for the comparison to the non-free image issue, it is a very different matter and as such not relevant to this discussion. Finally, Bignole said that "the debate about television articles has long since past." Well, by allowing the television projects to exist, to grow, and to foster these articles *for such a long time*, the community as a whole is now responsible for having a fair and reasonable discussion as to how to address the issue *after the fact*. You can't just say "Oh, you should have known better, you naughty TV people. Now you have to learn your lesson." If the house is getting cluttered, you don't just dump it all in a bin and put it out by the curb. That doesn't make sense. --Ckatz^chat_spy 22:36, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Pretending to discuss for the sake of discussing is useless. If something useful can come out of it, I will push to discuss. Otherwise, it is easier to let a discussion come to me. It isn't worth it to place messages when only one out of ten is replied to, and nobody actually wants to discuss. It's either "Leave them alone. They're fine" or "Leave them alone. They have sources. You go find them." (without showing them). That isn't productive, but I'll still talk with people like I have been. Again, we have WP:EPISODE to address the issue. They need to meet it or say goodbye. It's better to dump the trash rather than make pointless decorations that only eccentric people find useful. TTN 22:45, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

It maybe courtest, but it was discussed awhile ago. It's something the regular editors of the pages should have imparted on all the new editors before they created the articles. I agree, if TTN had let people know it would have smoothed the process, but then he would have spent even more time dealing with those that cryout over something that should have been down before...oh wait, they are crying out. I guess TTN was damned if he did, damned if he didn't. The idea of episode articles has been touchy, and always will because people forget what Wikipedia is, that's an encyclopedia. This is not IMDb.com, or TV.com, or some fansite. Sorry, but the idea of non-free image is relevant. Why were the non-free images removed? Because they failed the criteria that was set forth a long time ago, but was never really acted on until some Admins said "this is enough". Episode articles that don't meet the criteria were redirected because of that. It wasn't like they didn't have the chance to be expanded with relevant information. Also, what's this "naughty television people". In case you hadn't noticed, I am one of those television people. Of the three articles I listed as examples above (Smallville, House, and Aquaman), I expanded two of them. I'm currently working on a new format for season pages that will allow for the expansion of information regarding episodes, until one gets to the point that it should be split off to its own article. Sorry to dissapoint, but I am one of those "television people", I simply understand the criteria that was established previously for this type of stuff. The fact that it was left without consequences doesn't mean that it should be re-evaluated. What needs to be evaluated is the fact that people have consistently ignored the proper channels of creation. What has TTN removed? Overly long plots? Copyright violations avoided in my opinion? Removal of "list of quotes"? More copyright violations avoided. A list of guest stars? That can all be compiled on a season page, or on a "List of minor characters" page that follows a format similar to List of Harry Potter films cast members. Trivia? I think we all know what is supposed to happen to trivia. The unverified information that has existed in the article since it was created? I believe the rule on that is the burden of evidence falls on the person adding it, and not on any other editor and can by removed on site when there is not source to accompany the information. People say "the episode is the source". Most information that uses an episode as a source is probably original research. Unless you are referring to a commentary, which has its own template for citation.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 22:50, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

A look at TTN's so-called "Contributions" demonstrates that that page itself should be redirected to "Deletions". I can see nothing on it that has constructively improved Wikipedia and a raft of behaviour bordering on sheer arrogance (almost as if he/she "owns" Wikipedia) that has left nothing but division and bad feeling in its wake. TTN, have you ever created an article? Your excuse is you "don't have the time" to improve existing ones, yet you seem to have an overabundance of it when there are pages out there that don't meet your personal view of what Wikipedia should be. I say it's better to keep things that "only eccentric people find useful" instead of discarding what only the narrow-minded find objectionable. Chris 42 23:09, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

These articles have had ample time by the regular editors to be improved. But, when do they do anything regarding them? when someone comes to redirect them. Even then, the only thing done is either a revert or a complain that they were redirected. Have you taken the time to expand any of these articles that were redirected Chris? The door swings both ways. Instead of complaining, people could actually work to find relevant, real world, reliable, verifiable information to expand these articles. Instead, I see lists of trivia copied from IMDb, original research, and overly long plots.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 23:16, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Well in any case I do have to point out that my idea is that for shows that do deserve their own episode pages is to work on just expanding simple episode summaries that are not too small or too broad since this definitly not TV.com. Besides people can watch the show or collect the DVD's to know the entire plot to an episode, so no need for so many episode pages. This is my idea of a compromise since it will follow standards and still provide a simple summary for people to read, the only difference is that the fans are going to have to learn that on Wikipedia they can't always get what they want. -Adv193 23:23, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

It's a flaw in how Wikipedia works, that you get used to having or making episode articles only to have someone come along and tell you no. I know how it feels to just be so pissed, because you worked so hard on all that content, just to have it pulled from under you. The problem, however, gets so big that we can't realistically stop and hold everyone's hand. It's a bad formula. Hopefully we'll be able to improve how we get guidelines to editors before they invest all that time and effort. -- Ned Scott 05:10, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

This is an interesting thread, so I'll offer my two-bits. There are endless TV show episodes and to have an article on each one of them is absurd. The WP:EPISODE guideline seems to address this and TTN seems to be doing something about it. Of course fans will object, but if their not liking it is their only argument, users trying to address a real problem can not be blamed for being a bit brusque. In the same vein as the above comment, there is a flaw in how Wikipedia works: articles on popular shite abound while more serious articles are thin, biased or missing. Fanaticism has no place in an encyclopaedia. --Jack Merridew 08:47, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

I'd just like to add something quickly. While the guidelines that currently exist are in line with what TTN is doing, I don't believe they'll remain so for long when high-traffic articles such as Lost and Simpsons are redirected, and a broader section of Wikipedia users are allowed to contribute to the discussion. Yes, yes, I know you guys all think that because you're better at wikipedia than the average user, your consensus in these out of the way pages is more important than what 90% of Wikipedia users want, but that's not really the case. Sure, most of those episode articles are useless to me, but some of them I look up from time to time if I'm curious about what that song was, or who that character was again - that's why Wikipedia is here. You could say, "look up TV.com instead", but then, you wouldn't tell someone interested in an article on the Soviet Union to go look up their library or Jstor instead. Unless this issue is tackled head on it's going to drag on and on, and after this discussion is over a week or two will pass, he (or someone else) will delete ten more series, and then another one will start. When you can quote the founder of Wikipedia saying he envisaged articles on individual TV shows, and when most users would probably prefer to have them, you have to wonder at what stage do these thing become against the rules? There seems to be this sneaky behind the scenes ruling of Wikipedia happening, and the worst thing is, I have no idea what it's trying to accomplish? Are you trying to save bandwidth? Uphold prestige? Gain popularity with other page-deleters? The encyclopedia is created for the users, not for the contributors.

• Finally, and more to the point, most of the episodes redirected are there after the information from the episode lists was removed because it grew too big. When they are redirected the summaries on the episode lists are either blank or very minor, without any notes on the episode, and so editors who had worked on the articles have to go back and redo every single episode summary. I think, personally, it's wreckless to redirect the episodes without either transferring any important information (if any) from the episode articles, or asking on the talk pages for people to do so before editors have to start trying to access histories for pages that have been redirected.Conor 10:58, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

WP:NOT for plot summaries: instead of creating separate articles because the plot summaries got too long, they should just have been drastically reduced. Retelling the plot of every episode is excessive in-universe detail. Fram 11:23, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, granted. But the people who created the articles obviously weren't aware of that. My point is that there is a middle ground between an overly long summary and nothing at all, or a one-line one. That is, it seems, what should be on the List of Episodes page, and what probably was before the episode pages were created. There are also details like guest-stars, etc. After the episodes have been redirected however, there are usually no details at all left on the List of Episodes pages. And please stop linking to policies, I've seen them.Conor 11:34, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Fram, separate articles for television episodes contain not only the plot summaries but also valuable information about writers, producers, directors, cast, music, etc All of which, unfortunately, cannot possibly be included on the list of episodes. Peacent 15:20, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

I've started yesterday as a test to rewrite the episodes of one season of a major TV series into a season article. In that case at least, I really don't see a problem (and I include writers and so on, as given in the episode articles). I'll try to finish it tomorrow as I'm very short on time at the moment though... Fram 15:18, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

I've said before, although a lot of work has been done, we are by no means in short supply of editors to write plot summaries. As for WP:EPISODE, that's actually a guideline that just keeps getting used more, who's support has gotten stronger even in the days of Lost and The Simpsons (The Simpsons actually has a few good episode articles, actually, because they're able to include a good real of notable real-world information). -- Ned Scott 19:46, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Plea for attention by impartial admin

It's happening again: everyone is being distracted by 'episode page rationale' arguments. This leads to conclusions such as "TTN must be a bad editor because he is reverting episode pages which I think are worthwhile" or the ends-justifies-the-means contingent "episode pages are a waste of time, so TTN is doing the right thing". The point of this discussion here (surely) is because Ckatz requested admin arbitration for TTN's bullying and inappropriate editing. Is there any admin with no particular view one way or another regarding the existence of episode pages who might pass some judgement on TTN's behaviour? If it's appropriate, then a precedent is set, and this discussion serves no purpose: take the episode-page issue to the guideline forums, and stop hassling TTN. If TTN's behaviour is inappropriate, then that needs to be resolved. complaint one: TTN is editing recklessly and without due process... see particularly #The real issue at hand. complaint two TTN's manner is bullying... see throughout this discussion, but also Goodies talk, User talk: Matthew, User talk:Angie_Y. I am sure others have encountered many more examples. (Please note, TTN is not the only 'aggressor' in these debates, of course). So I might make my bias clear, I don't feel strongly about episode pages, and concede that TTN has legitimate concerns about their validity. But I do find his/her methods aggressive, and found myself annoyed by his/her actions on pages I only had a passing interest in (I soon calmed down, however!), so I can believe he/she is stirring up great anger amongst the passionate contributors. I consider his/her manner of editing is creating divisions and inhibiting any consensus on best practice...compromise could be reached (I am sure) if tempers on all sides were allowed to calm down.Gwinva 09:13, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

addit.:This dispute needs some resolution before it escalates uncontrollably. See TTN's concerns posted below at: #User:Matthew. Gwinva 10:51, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I see no problem with his edits, and only some mild incivility which is understandable when you have to deal with the same mostly baseless complaints over and over again. Most episodes will never have a decent article, and even the ones that perhaps could, like the Yes, Minister example you give, don't have any good sources now. I have no problem with anyone making it a redlink, just like I have no problem with anyone restoring it in a decently sourced version explaining why that particular episode is notable. Take "The Bishop's Gambit": why do we have this article? I haven't got a clue, but TTN's correct redirect (with a good reason given in the edit summary) was undone in seven hours time (without a reason, discussion or improvements to the article). I don't think that the problem lies with TTN... Fram 11:19, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Gwinva. It is the — dare I say — 'fanatical' way that TTN has gone about this that has rocked the boat. There are more Wiki guidelines that TTN has ignored than followed. In addition, it is the dictatorial, bullying attitude ('source them or else') that makes people think that TTN is not the sort of person who is capable of a mature and considered discussion on the matter, and so don't wish to engage in one. I am perfectly willing to add to articles as and when I can or wish to: after all, it's a hobby, not a job, so why should I be pressured to improve them on one person's say so? If TTN wishes people to respect his/her views then he/she must earn that respect in the first place. Recommended reading for TTN: How to Win Friends and Influence People (sorry it's unsourced). Chris 42 11:27, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Fram: the reason I gave The Moral Dimension as an example of unnecessary reverting is not because it is well sourced now, but because the WP:EPISODE guideline TTN is quoting to legitimise his redirects expressly states such an article should not be redirected. Quote: Are more sources available? If the answer to either of these questions is 'yes', it is probably better to forgo merging or redirecting. Instead, leave the article as it is or consider improving it. The main Yes Minister page demonstrates the wealth of possible sources available to the editors of its episode pages. To blank and redirect an article beacuse it is as yet incomplete and unsourced is a nonsense... most articles on Wikipedia are in that state. For the redirect to be reverted immediately is not a wrong action, but trying to correct what was perceived to be a hasty action. Nowhere on Wikipedia is it required for an article to be well-sourced and compliant to every guideline before it is displayed in public space (ie not lost somewhere in an edit history of a redirect page). I have never written or contributed to a Yes Minister article, and will have little cause to read them, but I have no doubt most of them have the potential to be brought up to GA status (and commited editors who are likely to work towards that with encouragement) and I am strongly of the opinion that blanket redirection of such articles is unfair, inappropriate and contrary to due procedure. NO guideline is in place to vindicate such actions.Gwinva 13:47, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Hi, I've been following the discussion and thought, as an impartial spectator, I would add to the discussion. The main issues that people seem to have a problem is (A.) The way that TTN is doing things and (B.) What TTN is doing. As someone said above, these issues need to be completely separated in order to reach any sort of resolve. My personal opinion about issue A, is that TTN's attitude is slightly inappropriate and I'm quite sure that if I was having a debate with s/he, the comments used may have stung, and therefore this problem could be addressed if TTN regained civility. I'm not trying to say that all it needs is a magic patch and everything will be alright though. If I was TTN, I'd be frustrated that my attempts at discussion were either being ignored or simply complained about. My opinion of issue B, is that TTN is doing a good job at weeding out problem articles which are copyright violations due to the intense amount of plot and storyline in them. I agree wholeheartedly with Bignole that most of these articles need more than a plot summary to qualify for their own articles; reception and production are areas which make good articles, not fan trivia. I would also like to point out that I love TV! Wikipedia is not a fansite though.

To chris 42: "Recommended reading for TTN: How to Win Friends and Influence People (sorry it's unsourced)." wasn't helpful. If you want to keep respect in this discussion, you should treat all users how you would want to be treated.

Seraphim Whipp 14:06, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

I myself can't really comment on the overall edits of everything TTN's done, but what I CAN say is that I think most people who are upset are that way because of the attitudes and actions of the users involved, not so much the edits themselves. I think that seems to really be the catalyst here. By making such widespread changes, TTN should have EXPECTED some users to disagree with him and try to discuss it on his talk page. But instead, he's tried to intimidate people and eliminate discussion about the edits he's made. It's not helpful, for example, to tell people to "go away" when they are trying to talk to you, nor does it benefit the encyclopedia to tell someone that "frankly, their opinions do not matter". The above noted examples of an administrator hopping into the fray and creating a clear conflict of interest are also concerning. The most amazing thing is that this is all happening over a Guideline, something that's not even an official Wikipedia rule! Look, like I said before, I'm sure that TTN's done some good by cleaning out the cruft. I don't have an issue with that. But what needs to be addressed is the ignoring of other editors, the intimidation, the violations en masse of Wikipedia's civility policies, and the administrator stuff. It's getting out of hand. 76.28.138.83 14:24, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm still wondering why the people that are complaining aren't working on their episode articles. There are some neutral people that find this iffy, but the rest have some sort of connection to a series. Instead of complaining, people should be finding sources, and working on the articles. People can find my method to be crude, but that doesn't mean that the episodes have gained a right to exist. Most that have been reverted haven't even been touched.

Now on to my methods, are they really that bad? I redirect a series. If there are no complaints, it's fine. It's just as if a discussion was formed but nobody replied. If someone does complain, a discussion can be held, which is the same as forming a discussion in the first place. How are those really any different? Then we have my attitude. People just need to suck it up. I don't recall being more blunt than necessary. When I ask "where are the sources?", people should be able to reply instead of going off on tangents about how bad this is in general. I understand that people would rather have a nice discussion, but that becomes impossible after repeating "Do you have sources?" for the fifth time. Discussion requires people to actually discuss; that doesn't happen.

And if an admin reads this, can someone look into #User:Matthew? It was closed for being a discussion, but it is still legitimate. TTN 17:08, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

TTN, as I mentioned above, I don't have any particular issue with the articles you've edited. I can't say whether or not your changes were warranted- that's for the individual authors and you to work out. But what DOES concern me stems from what was raised earlier regarding civility and conflicts of interest. Wiki's "Guidelines" aren't strict rules, but the policies on civility are. Telling people to "go away" or that their "opinions don't matter" really are extremely uncivil things. Wikipedia invites EVERYONE to constructively edit, and all opinions matter equally, no matter who the opinion belongs to. The admin's edit warring wasn't your doing, so you aren't responsible for that. But any and all occurrences of incivility, edit warring, intimidation and such should be looked into very closely, on all sides of the discussion. 76.28.138.83 17:19, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

As far as I can see, User:Matthew is doing nothing wrong and is in fact doing good work. --164.107.222.23 17:38, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

TTN, for your first query, I think your move is unpleasant because you act based on your own will without holding a discussion beforehand. This isn't appropriate especially when your interpretation of the guideline goes against that of many other editors. Also, for your second query "How are those really any different?". The difference lies in your negative approach to the matter. It is always helpful to consider seeking consensus before taking a contentious action, the fact that nobody replied is not an excuse. You should at least do people the courtesy of notifying them of what you intend to do before actually doing it. I doubt if anyone will complain if you actually start a discussion before mass deleting everything. About the thread User:Matthew below, well, an administrator might take a look at it for you (I'm not sure), but in my humble opinion, if you're being bold, please accept that others may revert you (WP:BRD). As I gather from this whole thread and some debates elsewhere, there's no sign of consensus on the matter, which makes it entirely understandable if your edits are reverted. Peacent 17:46, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

(reply to TTN - adjusting indent for clarity) TTN: yes, your methods *are* that bad. (Sorry, but it is true.) To be quite honest, that was the primary reason we ended up on this page. Look, I can appreciate that you obviously feel quite strongly about what you are doing, and that you think you are right. (We'll have to agree to disagree about that, but let's put that aside for now.) The thing is, it appears to me that you have failed to take into account the hundreds (thousands?) of other editors who created the work you are removing. You might feel it shouldn't be there, but that does not change the fact that real people spent real time and effort to create it. That alone should dictate a certain sensitivity in how you approach the matter. Yes, it might mean a lot of discussion, but it would be the right thing to do.

Beyond that, your edits suggest a "brute force" methodology, in that you just redirect *every* article rather than actually examining each one on its own merits. Yes, it might also take more time, but it is again the right thing to do. Finally, you are not incorporating any of the material into the pages you redirect to. Easier, yes, but it means that the arduous task of retrieving relevant information is left for others to do. That is not always an easy task; not every editor knows how to retrieve information from the history, and for that matter material on the now-redirected pages gets "lost" in the system. (How do you find an article that has been redirected when you don't know what the page name is?)

What I don't understand is why you can't approach this differently. Why not tag the articles with a notice regarding WP:EPISODE, announcing that you intend to redirect them in, say, 60 days? That gets the message across, allows a reasonable amount of time for the page editors to a) become aware of the tag and b) act on it. It also means that the community can have a real discussion about the matter - either to reaffirm the policy or to change it, whichever best suits consensus. The current "out of the blue" mass redirects are only going to create needles anger and frustration. What do you think? --Ckatz^chat_spy 17:33, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

LOL! That is the funniest thing I've read. 60 days? These articles have been in existence for far longer than that, and not been touched. Try more like 14 days, or 10 days. I say, if you can prove you can expand the articles to actually meet all the guidelines on Wikipedia (verifiability, reliable sources, out-of-universe content, plots kept in check, etc), then we can talk. Granted, unless there are hundreds of editors, you won't get all episodes of a series expanded within a week, but if you can prove that it can be done (e.g. actually get a couple of them expanded) then people can step aside and say "ok, finish it up and I'll leave it alone for the time being". But you are asking everyone to bend while there's no give in the other direction. How about, if it's clear an episode isn't going to contain more than a plot (i.e. like Be Thou for the People) and some random trivia, with no verifiable, reliable sources, then you should take the initiative and merge the article. Wikipedia is not IMDb, or TV.com, it's an encyclopedia. Don't let the "not a paper encyclopedia" fool you, we still have to develop relevant content. This isn't a place for fanboys, it's a place for encyclopedic information. Then you say "maybe the policy can change"? What, try and convince the community that plots are just fine by themselves?  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 17:45, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

FYI, cast and crew material is undoubtedly suitable and encyclopedic, and of course it is verifiable Peacent 17:52, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but saying "he star, he directed, he wrote", and then having a 1400 word plot and nothing else is not suitable.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 17:56, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but information on writers, producers, directors, soundtracks, etc is fully appropriate. The fact that a list of episodes cannot possibly contain all this material means a need for separate articles, as you can see, they are not all about plot summaries. Peacent 18:10, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

List of Smallville episodes, that seems to contain the writers and directors just fine. A soundtrack is a soundtrack, but a "featured music" doesn't hold encyclopedic value. If you are just listing a song because it appeared in an episode, that holds no value. Now, if you have real world content with that, like what that song was chosen, then it does. If you have information on why the director was chosen for the episode, and what the director did explicitly for that episode, then it does. The same for the writer. But an infobox that lists a director and a writer, with the rest of the article containing nothing but a plot? that isn't. That can easily be merged. A "List of episodes" article, with a couple lines describing the premise of the episode, with the director, writer, airdate, episode number listed is just fine. In fact, I believe we have a few FLs that are set up that way.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 18:36, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm afraid I don't see the essential cast and guest stars information on the list of episodes you mentioned above. Peacent 04:03, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

It's called a parent article. Why would you repeat the same information that doesn't change over and over and over again? As for minor characters, per "writing about fiction" they usually go on a "List of characters" page. But again, cast sections does scream "make me an article". That isn't real world content. How many episodes articles are FA that only have a plot and the basic "director, writer, 'cast'" information you are insinuating makes an article? Absolutely none. That's barely even a "B" class. Further, the merging of that information into more comprenhensive articles does not hinder, but actually works better. A comprehensive list of special guests is better than creating 100+ articles that list 3 people (if that, as some episodes for some series don't have any special guests). The point is, saying "oh the list doesn't include the director, writer, or cast" is not a valid argument for "so lets create an episode article". How about, try and update the "List of" page, or whatever page happens to be the parent of the episodes, to include that information. It isn't that hard to have a couple of sections with nice clean tables that show "Cast and characters". That is the whole idea behind the guidelines for episode articles. It's about expanding what is already there, until it reaches a point that it needs to be split. If you only have the basics, like who wrote, directed, and starred in an episode, it doesn't take a lot initiative to expand a current "List of" article to include what's missing.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 04:07, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

You have to give a reasonable amount of time for people to act. 10 to 14 is unreasonably short - not everyone has that much free time for what is a big job. The point that is being ignored, as well, is that there is no analysis being done - articles are just being redirected en masse. --Ckatz^chat_spy 18:25, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

14 days isn't unreasonably short. That's plenty of time to expand 1 or 2 articles. No one said they had to reach FA status immediately. But 60 days? That's unreasonably long. They get 2 months to do potentially nothing? When you force people to act sooner you get the results necessary. This isn't about having them be perfect, it's asking people to prove it can be done. The idea is that you have 2 weeks to prove you can actually get some of these episodes to fit the criteria, then there is reason to extend or remove any "ultimatum" of redirecting.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 18:36, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Guideline <- The operative word, all that page is really is just that: a guideline, to provide guidance -- firstly they are not set in stone and secondly are supposed to be treated with common sense. The fact remains that there has been severe opposition to TTN's actions... and frankly he's not handled it well. I've personally refrained from making any serious conversation with this user, principally due to the guideline wonkery that is going on. We are here to create an encyclopaedia of knowledge, that extends to "pop culture" as well, even if it isn't desires by a group of editors -- one must remember that in order to live in harmony editors must work together, or we will fail.

Point in fact everybody has their own cruft, be it Star Trek, Naruto, trains, cars, buildings or even adult entertainment stars... and I imagine most would be willing to go to the extremes to defend "their" articles. Consensus is one of the principle components to Wikipedia -- it's how Wikipedia works and it's how we must come to conclusion in this debacle. My own behaviour in the situation has been shameful, but that's me, on the other hand so has TTN's and other users -- I would personally like TTN to cease redirecting articles and to enter into discussion so that we, as civilised human beings and Wikipedia editors may come to consensus, and conclusion. I personally take no enjoyment in having to edit war, and would also make no more reverts edits, it's my hope other users would also stop and enter into a civil discussion. Matthew 17:42, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

The fact that people have ignored guidelines doesn't make them irrelevant. Just because they are not policy doesn't make them less, nor does it say you can ignore them completely. How many articles have you seen promoted to any status that failed any "guideline"? I bet you can count on one hand, probably on a hand with no fingers. Guidelines are there to guide, yes, but they guide for a reason. Encyclopedic content about pop culture doesn't give us the right to ignore the principles of Wikipedia. How long did people ignore the policy regarding non-free images? They didn't change the policy because of that, the enforced what had not been enforced prior. It's like the kid that misbehaves for so long that when the parent disciplines him he thinks the rules should change because it didn't happen sooner. Just because we are "bad parents", so to speak, doesn't mean the rules were not good ones to begin with. And no, i'm not saying that creating an article makes you a "bad child that misbehaves" (it's an analogy), but most people were aware of the guidelines for how to handle the "splitting" of episodes to their own articles, but chose to ignore it on the basis that "others are doing it this way and no one said anything to them". We should all already know that most people don't care so much about the entertainment section of wikipedia, and the smaller you go in the forms of entertainment the less people care.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 17:54, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Bignole makes a really weak argument here. Taking the minimalist approach to Wikipedia just turns away readers and editors. Why destroy work that obviously a good segment finds useful, when those doing the destroying or supporting the destroying could just ignore this stuff? Why should we limit ourselves to what paper encyclopedias contain? We have an opportunity to catalog more human knowledge than ever before and we should encourage people to do so. --164.107.222.23 18:00, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Gee, thanks for the personal attack. Turns away readers? Why, because we aren't a substitution for watching a show? That isn't for your benefit, that's for Wikipedia's. Shows are copyrighted. Wikipedia isn't IMDb? I don't really hold your opinion too high, you won't even register, nor do you probably have the slightest idea of any policies and guidelines on this website. Your "arugment" is that we include everything possible no matter how irrelevant it is? Riiight.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 18:03, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Actually, Bignole seems to be the one launching the personal attack. The other guy criticised your argument, not you personally and they way you went after a new guy just proves his point of discouraging new editors. As history has shown, being exclusive is a bad thing . . . --140.254.69.123 18:39, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

You can't claim that "most people were aware" of WP:EPISODE. In the year-and-a-half I've been here, I can't recall coming across it until this issue came up - and I'm one of those people who actually goes out of my way to read through a lot of the guideline pages. --Ckatz^chat_spy 18:25, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

If you didn't know about then you don't frequent the Wikipedia:WikiProject Television#Individual episodes page. It's there.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 18:36, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Bignole: We're not a travel guide either, that won't stop us from having pictures of buildings/etc. I've not to this day seen an article that could potentially replace an episode (and I've seen a lot of them!) Matthew 18:30, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

You're arguing the semantics of "replacing" an episode. Sorry, but 1400 words for a 22 minutes show...that's virtual replacement. Yeah sure, I don't get the visual medium, but I know everything that happens. And see if that argument would hold up in court. "But your honor, it isn't a real "replacement", it's just words that describe what happens in the episode". That didn't work in the lawsuit against the gent that was simply quoting things from Seinfeld in his book.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 18:39, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

• Did nobody read Nick's closing of this thread? If you have a legitimate issue that requires an admin's attention, great. If you are interested in continuing to bicker about episode articles, take it to one of your talkpages.--Isotope23 18:43, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

That was a different thread, if I'm not mistaken. Beyond that, the real issue at hand still has not been addressed - that is, the manner in which TTN is approaching this issue. --Ckatz^chat_spy 18:49, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes it was, but his closing statement is very applicable here...--Isotope23 18:53, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

I apologise for my earlier comment, made in the heat of the moment, but the manner in which TTN has embarked on this without seeking any sort of consensus has irked me, to put it mildly. I think it's better that I observe rather than participate for a day or two so things can calm down. Chris 42 22:31, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Apparently this whole deletion mentality is garnering outside criticism of the project, which again, seems to suggest that those supporting it are turning people away from the project. See http://www.wikitruth.info/index.php?title=Article_deletion for the time of criticism TTN and others' kind of behavior is attracting. --164.107.222.23 00:08, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Wikitruth criticizes Wikipedia for existing. So using that as proof of outside criticism is not quite useful. —Kurykh 00:17, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] This is going nowhere

I would suggest that this ongoing, lengthy discussion be focused onto two indvidual parts. For the first part, We have TTN following, in his opinion (and several others) Wikipedia's episode policy. Nothing in Wikipedia's rules goes against anything that he's doing in this sense. He's not violating policy here. Discussions regarding whether or not those edits are meritous ala Wiki's standards ought to be discussed in regards to the first part somewhere away from the ANI noticeboard, as this is a place for incidents that relate to violations of the Wiki rules. A place needs to be found where discussion about this can take place. In other words, ANI isn't a place to discuss content. The second part (and one, in my opinion, that is seperate from the edits themselves) is in regards to the behavior of the participants involved in this spat. There HAVE been violations of Wiki's rules here, noteably. ANI (as opposed to the other issue) IS the place to discuss this. What say the editors regarding this? 76.28.138.83 19:18, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree. This is getting out of hand here. We need to find two venues to discuss this. The people who feel wronged by his attitude should stay here, or talk to him personally. The former needs a better place.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 19:21, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] A proposal

It's obvious, as stated repeatedly above, that this discussion has evolved beyond this page. I propose, therefore:

1) The current program of redirects be suspended, and replaced with templates on the episode articles. A suitable period of time should be allowed for editors to respond and improve the articles. (I originally proposed 60 days, Bignole said 14. Let's call it 30 to appease both parties.) At the end of the 30 day period, articles should be assessed on an individual basis, rather than just deleted en masse.

2) A continued discussion here regarding TTN's methodology. My aim, personally, is not to see TTN censured or blocked. It is to get him/her to understand how the actions taken have affected the community. I'm still not convinced that TTN is seeing this... comments like "We don't need to go by the book." and "There must be a way to just strengthen WP:EPISODE enough to just allow us to nuke these things right away." are disturbing.

3) A proper discussion at a different location - probably WP:EPISODE - to get a proper idea of what community consensus really is. Yes, the guideline exists - but does it truly reflect the current interests.

Hopefully, through this process, we can find a way to accommodate the community as a whole, rather than just having a prolonged battle. Thoughts? --Ckatz^chat_spy 20:58, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

You should take that to the guideline talk page, and let this thing die. TTN 21:05, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

In the interests of moving debate about the virtues (or lack thereof!) of episode pages to a more appropriate forum, I have started a new thread at Wikipedia talk:Television episodes#DISCUSSING THE GUIDELINE. May I encourage all those interested to continue the debate there. May I also suggest that WP:EPISODE is linked from obvious pages (such as WikiProject Television, where it seems to be lacking) so people know it exists. The discussion on this page can therefore return to resolving the dispute about TTN's editing practice. Better still, let everyone agree to cease inflammatory editing, reverting, re-reverting etc until best practice is decided on (ie. both 'sides' cool down). Compromise will not be reached, or productive (two-sided) discussion embarked upon if everyone is busy drawing their battle lines. Gwinva 21:18, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree with this. Angie Y. 00:22, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree with it too. TNN, please note that your contributions to the encyclopaedia are noted and very much appreciated. There has to be someone who keeps things in line. At the same time, please do not go about bullying other wikipedians (even if you have to quote the same policy every single time).

This is akin to the argument regarding too much trivia and even there, the consensus was (I think) to add a template and allow editors to do something about the articles rather than have it so abruptly deleted. It takes you a minute to redirect those articles but it took days and possibly years for those articles to exist. I know WP:OWN but that still has to count for something. Otherwise, wikipedia would just not exist. Zuracech lordum 01:24, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

• Comment—a redirect is NOT the same as a delete. Redirects preserve those thousands upon thousands of hours of hard work, so they aren't being completely erased (nor should they; deletion should generally be a last resort). However, I'm not getting involved in the TV episode debate. Alredy in enough as it is :) — Deckiller 02:43, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

• Actually, I want this to continue. We need to develop further consensus here. Angie Y. 03:32, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
  • This isn't the place to discuss a new consensus about a guideline. The guidelines page is the place for that.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 03:34, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Comment by semi-involved editor

Support any actions. We are not Triviapedia, he's redirecting under the guideline, and 99% of episode articles other than Doctor Who, The Simpsons, Family Guy are poorly if at all sourced. Will ^(talk) 10:32, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

And to add my own comment: Don't write it until you can source it. That doesn't mean your "source" is having watched it, that's original research. It means someone independent of the television program and reliable has provided detailed source material on that episode. What? No such material exists? WP:V provides an easy solution to that:

"If an article topic has no reliable, third-party sources, Wikipedia should not have an article on it."

If the article topic is an episode of a TV show, and no reliable, third-party sources exist on that episode (hint: NOT tv.com and IMDb), we shouldn't have an article on it. That means we shouldn't have an article on most individual episodes. It really is that simple. Wikia exists for that type of stuff. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 10:54, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree. It isn't like the problems with these individual episodes haven't come up before, and this "well maybe the guidelines need to change" arugment is like saying "Maybe Wikipedia shoudn't have to required sources as at all". If your article has been existence for a certain period of time, then the time to expand has lasped. I know articles that are over a year old and nothing has been done with them. The solution, and best option, is to merge them all. BUT, when you find real world content, with third-party reliable sources, then figure out if you need to split them off. Splitting an episode article shouldn't occur just because you have two sentences of verifiable information. Create a little "behind the scenes" section on the "List of episodes" article. Put your "hard work" there. If it gets too large, find the episode with the most information and split that one off.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 11:30, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

• Tend to agree with Seraphimblade. I think I'm impartial in this particular dispute. Although i disagree with Seraphim over what a reliable source is. I've sourced from tv.com and imdb before now. Hiding Talk 12:31, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Unless it's for something easily verifiable by the episode, like who was in it, they aren't considered reliable. Not for films, and not for television shows and they are usually ripped a new one during an FAC if they are included. They are both like Wikipedia, and we wouldn't cite ourselves for something.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 12:45, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
    • Well, I used imdb as reference during the FARC on Superman, and they got through fine there. But yeah, there I only used them to cite brief overviews that could just as easily be sourced in the material itself, the general theme of Smallville, the release date, and release date and cast and director detail for Superman Returns. I just have an aversion to blanket statements which aren't true. :) Hiding Talk 13:17, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
      • • Well, what it's being referred to is you cannot use IMDb or TV.com to support the inclusions of trivia. You cannot say "the director meant to do this in the episode" and then cite TV.com or IMDb, it wouldn't hold water. They're usually ok if you need to say "Brandon Routh appeared in Superman Returns", or "Shawn Ashmore appeared in Smallville episode 'Leech'", because their cast lists can be easily confirmed anywhere (most easily in the episode or film itself). The "blanket statement" is referring to challengeable information within the article. Who appears in a film isn't "challengeable" because the film itself proves it, there is no interpretation involved, not actual research. Unlike if you were to claim there was motivation to do something, or explain the procedure involved in doing something, which you couldn't find out by simply viewing the episode.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 14:17, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Enough, surely?

I think this debate here has had its day. Those concerned about the nature (or otherwise) of episode articles and who wish to develop strategies for dealing with those that fail guidelines should see Wikipedia talk:Television episodes#DISCUSSING THE GUIDELINE. Those who are concerned about User:TTN's editing should recognise that he/she has had ample opportunity to hear what others think, and to understand that his/her actions have (inadvertently or otherwise) made people angry. Let's assume good faith, and allow TTN to move on. These issues can always be readdressed as/when/if TTN again steps over the line of what constitutes best practice. let's not assume he/she will. Gwinva 12:32, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. Despite the people who've been trying to make sure this stays soley a dispute about content, the CONDUCT in this dispute between a few editors (and a certain admin) has been entirely out of line. It's all well and good to say, "Gosh, let's just forget this dang ole' thing ever happened", but the violations of wikipedia's civility policies have not been addressed. 76.28.138.83 19:15, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Fellow anonymous IP, not that I think we should be calling anyone out by any means, could you be more specific? Which admin? Which editors? I think a good deal of those of us who have participated in this discussion have been civil and unless if I overlooked it, I don't think anyone has even called for blocks or anything like that. Again, if I'm missing something, please clarify. In any case, have a great evening! Sincerely, --164.107.222.23 22:42, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, like I posted some time ago, A few examples like this, [199] administrative misconduct (admin engages in revert warring [200] then blocks the opposing side[201]), insults[202], and even admissions that some editors are even afraid to confront TTN[203] were not addressed to any extent here- people kept pushing the discussion back to whether or not they approved of TTN's edits, which ANI isn't supposed to be used for at all. 76.28.138.83 23:50, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, let's try to focus on the other stuff, guys, please? I too wanna just calm down and address the important issues. I just seriously wanna get TTN off our backs so that peace can be restored to Wikipedia once more. Angie Y. 03:21, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Super Mario Bros 3, another stripe on the tiger.. not... Another black rosette in the melanistic panther (TTN)

Not much of a surprise to discover this guy has such amount of protests against him... Why hasn't he been banned yet? He bases all his arguments in ad hominem, or, with the numbers of these he uses, on add hominems, as they just keep adding up... When he can't argue through something he calls "twisted logic" to the arguments presented against him, and wotn acknowledge them at all, he would even go as far as to disguise his signature in order to fool others, but he wouldnt' fool an epileptic having a seizure even if the epilectic were lobotomized and TTN's life depended on it. And before you think my own bashing of this misologic beast is itself ad hominem just check the description is secondary to the point I'm making; He does not debates his viewpoints, he just claims they are right and anyone not on his side is wrong for whatever reason he might invent. So, to add to his historial, there's the talk page on Super Mario Bros 3... Undead Herle King 11:21, 28 June 2007 (UTC)