User talk:Will Beback/archive18

St. Augustine High School Revert

Will Beback, I'm just wondering, why did you revert 68.6.197.46's editSpecial:PermanentLink/134980218at 17:27. I didn't see anything wrong with it and I was wondering why it was reverted. Perhaps this will help me become a better editor. Thanks, Tcpekin 05:10, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I see that now. Tcpekin 16:37, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Command responsibility

Maybe you protecting the article was somewhat premature since discussion was and is ongoing at the Military Commission Act page and here. Would you mind unprotecting since TDC himself agreed uipon undoing his edit pending discussion. Cheers. Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 19:44, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Some Advice Please

Would you please advise regarding what I should do regarding a potential disagreement. On the article for Dae Gak, one of his students is removing information. This user, Durruti36, has deleted Zen Master Dae Gak's real name and the notice: unreferenced||date=February 2007 claiming that "Dae Gak is a published author and his book is listed." He also deleted the discussion page. Those are my major objections. A minor objection is that he has added a vanity reference to becoming a teacher in that tradition. I can live with the minor issue if the major issues are resolved. I undid his changes and he attacked me for being an unregistered user. Before a flame/reverting war ignites, would you please suggest a way to handle this? Killerbeez 19:23, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

P.S. Is there a registration process I do not know about? If there is, please tell me about it. Thank you.

Thank You

Thank you for your advice. I support you in this matter. I foolishly assumed that because he published a book, we was eligable for a Wikipedia entry. On a similar note, would you please delete The Lexington Zen Center. It was a non-notable Zen center entry once connedted to the Dae Gak entry that was deleted. But this redirect was forgotten. Thank you for your kind words. Killerbeez 23:02, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the speediest delete in Wikipedia history. Supersonic! I will composed something for the delete comments. It might take a day or so. I want to make sure it accurately reflects his situation. Killerbeez 23:14, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Two More Questions

1) Is there a place where I can learn more about how to edit Wikipedia? I am learning through hit and miss now and it is not the most effective process. 2) Wasn't there a criteria (it might be some time ago) where an author only needed to sell something like 5,000 copies of their books to be included in Wikipedia? Has that changed or is my memory bad? Killerbeez 23:31, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Revert War

Hi again Will,

A revert war has started about the citations notice on the Dae Gak entry. What is a grown up way to handle this? Killerbeez 00:19, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Killerbeez 00:33, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

As you might have seen when you posted Durruti36's 3RR notice, I wrote a cordial letter on his discussion page asking for discussion and a settling of our differences. I received no reply do far. But, since it indeed takes two to tango, your warning is noted. Killerbeez 13:26, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

I am planning to remove the "sourcing" tag again

Please see the talk page on Dae Gak for more information. Durruti36 16:40, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

A few questions have been left for you on the Dae Gak talk page. When you get a chance, would you pop by? Thanks, Killerbeez 17:55, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for your help with Hyo Jin Nim's article. Steve Dufour 02:50, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

LordPathogen

— LordPathogen (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. He is a problem with an axe to grind. --evrik ^(talk) 14:47, 4 June 2007 (UTC).

Yeah, you keep harping on this kind of stuff but don't do much refutation of facts... As I have stated before, I'm not interested in contributing to several articles like you. I heard about this case on the news, looked her up here, found the article laden with your POV and set about adding some balance by quoting facts stipulated to by Ms. Arellano herself. And what exactly is wrong with that? LordPathogen 15:51, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Since we are examining behaviour, however, let's look at yours as well...

• 1st revert: [1] Removed category Fugitives. Ms. Arellano has an outstanding order for Deporation by US Immigration and Customs Enforcement and they have publicly stated she is a "fugitive."

• 2nd revert: [2] Removed category Mexican Criminals. Ms. Arellano has been convicted of using a counterfeit Social Security card which is a felony in the United States.

• 3rd revert: [3] Restored deleted Mexican American link under "See Also". Ms. Arellano is a Mexican national only and does not fit the description of the category, only the looser defined project. This Admin specifically stated she does not belong to the category on the Talk page. Not sure why then a link to the Mexican American article is required since she fails the description set forth in the first line of that article, "citizens of the United States of Mexican descent." Seems misleading to readers not familiar with the Arellano article. It should be on her son's page, not hers.

• 4th revert: [4] Inserted category Mexican American Leaders. If, as per this admin Ms. Arellano does not fall under the category Mexican Americans, why then should she fall under the category Mexican American Leaders? Seems like basically trying to revert Mexican American category. LordPathogen 16:09, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Will Beback, can you please advise who I complain to about abusive behavior by Ekrik? He has gone and changed all my signatures on the Arellano talk page to read "— LordPathogen (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic." The article on Single Purpose Accounts states: "Please note that any other use of this tag is highly discouraged as it can be interpreted as a personal attack that may lead to action being taken against you." Well I sure feel like it is a personal attack on me and want it removed. I also think it is an attempt by him to sway opinion rather than make cogent arguements himself. LordPathogen 16:09, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

OK... I removed them... again. I still would like to know who I complain to about it. This is clearly a personal attack. LordPathogen 16:54, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

• ... and now you're being cited as the reason why the article is being changed here. --evrik ^(talk) 19:47, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

I think I quoted you accurately about the category Mexican Americans but if not please advise. And as I have noted several times to Evrik, how can you belong to the category Mexican American Leaders and not Mexican Americans? As for the Fugitive and Mexican Criminal tags, I have documentation stipulated to by Ms. Arellano herself in the form of a legal brief. Hence I put those categories back, unlike Evrik who removed them without comment and offers no sources explaining why the categories are inaccurate. He just does not like them. LordPathogen 20:20, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Immigration law

Thank you for fixing the vandalism and reverting to my edit. You are free, of course, to make any relevant, NPOV changes. The article could use some work. Bearian 01:12, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Brentwood School (Los Angeles, California)

Will Beback, please revert edits made to the Brentwood School entry. These edits were made by an authorized user at Brentwood School in Los Angeles to reflect current and correct information about the school. Bwscampus 05:57, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Notability Questions

As I was examining other Zen Master entries, I noticed that a couple of other ones might have notability problems. If it interests you, would you please examine Jakusho Kwong, and Soeng Hyang for notability. Personally, I hope that Soeng Hyang stays on Wikipedia because she is an openly lesbian Zen Master ... but I don't know if she is the first. Thanks again, Killerbeez 18:33, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply. I will read up on it before I make any decisions. Yes, I would say that the KUSZ is a notable organization and I am happy to hear your comments on Jakusho Kwong. Thanks, Killerbeez 18:56, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Another Question

I noticed that someone just joined Wikipedia to vote against Dae Gak's deletion. Is that kosher? Killerbeez 18:26, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Is it really typical behavior? I feel like I have stepped through the Wikipedia looking glass sometimes. Killerbeez 23:14, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

NPOV Dispute on Alvira Arellano article

Hi, I am asking you, Rockero and Chicaneo to take a look at the aforementioned section on the talk page and offer your opinions. I think there is nothing violating NPOV in my additions. Basically, it is a recitation of the facts as stipulated to by Ms. Arellano in the legal brief filed on behalf of her son. If I'm wrong, fine, but if not, I think the tag needs to come off the article. --LordPathogen 22:07, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Hey, nevermind. Evrik has just done as he wants (again) and unilaterally reverted the article back to May 9th. And no one who has the power lifts a finger to stop him. --LordPathogen 13:35, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

By the way, I'd welcome your (Will's) take on what, if any, administrative action is appropriate in the dispute between LordPathogen and Evrik at that page. It's spilled over onto my talk page. MastCell ^Talk 23:02, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

• The change wasn't unilateral. This is not a dispute, but vandal fighting. LordPathogen is a troll who is pushing POV and misusing the process.

Since LordPathogen started editing the article Elvira Arellano he/she has been blocked twice for violating 3RR. Additionally, one of those blocks also involved using two sockpuppets, one of which was blocked. During one of those blocks, LP sent me and one other user harassing emails and was unapologetic about it.

In the last week, LP has accused me of Suspicious editing behavior and harassment on WP:ANI – both times the complaints were turned aside. Also in the last week, LP has accused me of 3RR and another user of the same thing.

This user has spent a fair amount of time causing grief and making edits that violate WP:Point. LP is lamely trying to game the system and MastCell's warning is not only unjustified but is just giving credence to an account that is a thin mask fore POV pushing and near vandalism. I have resisted posting any notices to WP:ANI because I thought this user could be controlled. I also didn't want to escalate this further. --evrik ^(talk) 00:55, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Question

I think i did as you asked would you please check Usnn 00:09, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Is there an easier way to talk to you? like say AIM or YIM? Usnn 17:00, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Gallery suggestion

Hi Will. I just found your suggestion and have begun to implement it. Take a look at see if it is better now. User:Fyslee/Flora and fauna of Greenland If you like it, I'll continue. -- Fyslee/talk 11:03, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

I have replied on the talk page. -- Fyslee/talk 14:38, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm finished with implementation of the new format. Any suggestions before "going public"? -- Fyslee/talk 15:34, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Random Question

Have you ever really thought about what kind of mental disorder people like cantstandya have that makes them use sockpuppets and edit the way they do? Do you think it's an ocd thing or some kind of schizophrenia? I am honestly just curious about what makes people like that do what they do. Do you have any thoughts on the matter? Turtlescrubber 14:19, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Help

Hello, I noticed that you recently left a message at the talk page of user DaveyJones1968 and have come to ask for help. The user is proving to be extremely disruptive on talk pages and continues to make flagrant personal attacks, both against the subject of articles and against other Wikipedia editors. Among the what are becoming quasi-innumerable and inappropriate comments, there's this, this, this, this, and I could go on for a while (or you can check the user's brief but "flamboyant" edit history). I get the impression that the user is interested more in starting fights on talk pages and adding unsourced, controversial information to biographies rather than being a serious editor. Of course, this may be a biased assessment, hence why I'm requesting your help. Hopefully you can decide what the appropriate course of action for this user should be better than I. Thank you.UberCryxic 17:59, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Hello Will, normal users are almost never (actually never) supposed to ask admins for a ban, but you (or someone else) really need or needs to ban Davey, just for a short time anyway. Among the user's more colorful commentary today, see this and this. The user is continuing to be confrontational and shows no immediate signs of rest. Sending a message with a ban would be wise at this point. Because you are personally involved with the user, it's not a good idea to ban Davey yourself (just as a matter of etiquette), but I'm sure could could request assistance from another admin. Thank you.UberCryxic 19:11, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Help from you, as an administrator

Since you've had an interest in the article Child sexual abuse, I am hoping that as an admnistrator you can intervene and direct Kinda to stop knowlingly making false accusations of sockpuppetry, which I expereince as personl attacks. He knows te accusations are false. See: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#[[kinda]] knowling making false accusations of sockpuppetry Personal attacks for the filing I made. Anything you can do to stop him would be appreciated. DPeterson^talk 01:36, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

re: Talk:Chumash (tribe)

First, ya thanks, I shoulda just taken the dabnote out. Second, on the question on the talkpage about why the bit about Polynesian contact, I actually went yesterday to the page specifically because I wanted to look at the reference, and was surprised to see it removed. I haven't looked into it, but the information should definitely be in the article, especially in light of this and soön. Tomer^talk 14:15, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Ask User Kinda to stop

I see that you have been involved with User Kinda and his making personal attacks. I consider what he said at [5] about me to be a personal attack and a not so subtle accusation that I am a sockpuppet. I did file a formal incident report. Can you do somthing about his behavior? It is way over the top!!! thanks. SamDavidson 18:01, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

For fixing my user page and the Interdictor article. Ikilled007 22:58, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Jeremy Sapienza nominated for deletion

As a serious contributor to this article, you may want to participate in saving it by citing sources. --Kevin Murray 13:15, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

John Wayne sock

Thanks. I'll come here for the "daily" block. I'm new enough to admin processes to wonder: is this the only tool you guys have to handle someone who changes their ID every day? Must get tedious over several thousands of articles! Thanks again. Monkeyzpop 00:23, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

He's got a new one, 19 June 2007: User:RealHeroes (not to be confused with his previous one, RealHero. Monkeyzpop 07:51, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

After a break, he has returned, doing the same stuff to the John Wayne and James Stewart articles, now using the name BillRodgers.

Children of God template

Hi, Will Beback. I saw your comment at Talk:Children of God, and I would appreciate it if you would weigh in at Template talk:Children of God#Links removed from template regarding edits by User:Sfacets. Thanks! Joie de Vivre ^T 12:59, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Oversight

I have deleted and oversighted a post by evrik which contained links to the email he posted previously and other personal information. Fred Bauder 17:01, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

child sexual abuse

Could you check out this entry? User 00s and a's has been busy for hours inserting the "sex with grownups is good for kids" POV--hard to keep up and annoying to have to do so. Revert wars are likely to break out soon. Thanks. -Jmh123 17:56, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

RE: Briefs

I didn't restore the material, Maple Porter did. However, I am about to answer your question in some detail on the talk page. --Don't lose that number 20:37, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Vintagekits

Hi Will. As you were kind enough to contribute to the brief discussion we had recently on AN/I about this matter, I wonder if you would consider closing this? I think it has run its course, and Vintagekits seems unlikely to add to what he has already said, which is that he will only discuss the matter off-wiki, allegedly for reasons of privacy. Thanks if you are able to help, --John 21:12, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

If you are going to be the closing admin on my page can you please email – I am not prepared to reveal personal information to satisfy the likes of John, WATP, Squekbox and other what can be percieved by some as "anti-Irish editors" if you want to be the closing admin please email me via my user page and I can explain everything very simply.--Vintagekits 17:43, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

I have raised it here. --John 18:22, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Watermelon snow

And by the way, I am indebted to your user page for the mention of watermelon snow. I had never heard of the phenomenon and it is a fascinating article. Thank you. --John 21:14, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Boston Massacre Engraving

I am going to remove the current image, which I posted, and replace it with the original one. The reason is that I am still awaiting permission from the source website, and I do not want to run into conflict as I hope to use other images from it. I got one reply about their general policies and now am awaiting express permission for this particular image. I will put it back up once I have evidence of the permission --CommonSense101 21:44, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

NPA on LaRouche talk pages

I agree with what you said, and I was the one who put the "off-topic" warning on that page. However, as I said on the US v. LaRouche talk page, I think that Cberlet is far and away the most chronic civility offender, and I can find no evidence that you have ever chastised him for his incivility. I think that you should make an effort to be even-handed. --Marvin Diode 22:16, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Christian Bartolf

This article is a WP:AUTO and was speedily deleted only yesterday. The user is provoking a revert-war for weeks at Lübeck. He deleted deletion-requests on a page about his own inormation center.--Kresspahl 07:51, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

This is pure exaggeration. "Kresspahl" will by all means define "notable persons" of Luebeck and exclude my name. And now "Kresspahl" attacks the article on my person with the support of others. It is dirty policy. Bartolf 19 June 2007

Troll alert

Thanks for the heads-up. I'll keep my eye out and revert his vandalism whenever I come across it. Sullenspice 14:19, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Why?

Because the discussion is over. And since it's over, I'm free to remove my comments at will. --Ksy92003 (talk) 21:53, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Gandhi Information Center

I think you should think about your view on "notability standards". Excuse me for removing tags: I have not been too familiar with Wikipedia's procedures, rules and regulations, because I am a newby. You find on the discussion page official web sources of Berlin. They can be added easily. Perhaps you should be more helpful as "chief admin", even if you do not recommend "those efforts", or else pass it over, "Will Beback". Chrbartolf 20 June 2007

Sorry, "Will Beback". Now hopefully the many additions and changes of the website will suffice. Chrbartolf 20 June 2007

After reading your fine comments (DGG and LaughingVulcan) I think the best continuation is to follow your proposal, LaughingVulcan when you just wrote: "I'd rather take a day or two now to reduce the chances of it being deleted again, then take the risk and see it disintegrated instantly by a passing Admin." This is why I remain without action during this day, before you will have finished your editing of the text for which I am very grateful to you, of course. After all, I just want to express that I do not complain about other editors at all. On the contrary, I am lucky about your cooperation and willing to follow your advice. To avoid any further misunderstandings, I communicate openly on the talk pages. It would have been easier for me to observe and just resign. But I identify with Wikipedia readers – that's it. The better the article, the higher the standard of the article, the more the article fulfills the criteria, the better for all. So, please inform me about the result. If there is anything I can do for you, please inform me as well. Chrbartolf 1 July 2007

Not even a day of peace

Please check into new user Drogheda who is trying to insert pro-Pedophile POV into child sexual abuse. Thanks.

A new task force that could use your expertise

Hi Will Beback, I'm sure you're very busy, but I admire your editing a lot and would appreicate it if you'd take a look at the below. Regardless, keep up the great work! Benzocane 20:05, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

You are being recruited by the Environmental Record Task Force, a collaborative project committed to accurately and consistently representing the environmental impact of policymakers, corporations, and institutions throughout the encyclopedia. Join us!

blocked

it says I was blocked the other day. lol, I was out of town the whole time you had me blocked :P I mean, even if I was in town and couldn't get on to edit articles, is blocking me from editing articles really supposed to make me feel bad? TV2007 11:04, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

What to do

What should one do when they catch wind that someone is trying to orchestrate action against another user? --South Philly 23:29, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

• Yup. I was contacted with some sort of cryptic email asking me if I had admin powers and refering me back to an article on Wikipedia. I was asked if I wanted to engage in some sort of administrative action against a user.

I don't want to get involved as my involvement would not be directly useful. South Philly 14:11, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Talk:Goguryeo-China wars

Hi, Woohookitty referred me to you regarding POV issues at the talk page for Goguryeo-China Wars.

Several editors believe that the article should be moved because the title could imply that Goguryeo wasn't a Chinese kingdom. If you didn't know, Goguryeo is currently the subject of disputes between South Korea and China about whether Goguryeo was a Korean kingdom or not. China has been recently claiming Goguryeo as Chinese history, something that Korea is very angry about.

Anyways, back to the subject. I find that the move request is simply a COI between several users and Wikipedia. I see nothing wrong with the title and "China" is used to describe Chinese dynasties. The reason why I think the editors have biased viewpoints is because of several reasons.

• They claim the move is for the benefit of Wikipedia but they do not make new articles like Goguryeo-Baekje Wars. The article currently only has information on Goguryeo vs. China wars.
• Before the move request, the editors previously disrupted the article by posting tags and templates all over the article, making it look very ugly. Their edits to the article were very disruptive and not helpful.
• These same editors (including Jiejunkong, Assault11, Wiki pokemon) have shown their biased viewpoints at the talk page of Template:History of Manchuria, claiming that the word Manchuria should not be used because it "offends the Chinese people". I find this another COI and something that is not fair if an article is written in the Chinese POV. Their POV pushing has caused great difficulty in reaching a consensus.

Regarding the poll, I don't think it is fair that the article should be moved simply because of a consensus. The editors have not given a fair reason as to why it should be moved and almost half the votes for the move are the editors who have biased viewpoints regarding the issue. Also, it is clearly stated that Wikipedia is not a democracy and that a consensus is not the only reason why an article should be moved. The move only seems fair because of the large number of votes for it.

What is greatly disheartening is how there are almost no third opinions or other editors commenting and helping out. I announced of the poll on relevent wikiprojects and portals but no one has responded. I am still hoping that there will be responders.

Thank you to you and Woohookitty for helping out. Good friend100 01:10, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm not here to dispute your decision on the COI, but here to provide my opinion on this matter in hopes to possibly expanding your insight on this subject. You have said that merely sharing ethnic and national identity with a topic is not a conflict of interest. I agree that sharing ethnic or national identity itself doesn't lead to a conflict of interest, but I believe nationalism does. And this Goguryeo subject is one where nationalism is especially intense. This I believe is a very good analysis on this conflict of nationalisms, I strongly recommend it if you can gain access to it. Many editors involved in the current dispute at Goguryeo-China wars are disputing it because they support the POV that Goguryeo should also be considered "Chinese". I believe such a claim to be a fringe theory at least in the non-Chinese sources, but if you are interested in the matter, you can always decide for yourself. I have compiled a collection of sources available here in case you're interested. Again, I'm not here to dispute your decision, but just to make the point that nationalism can also serve as a motive for some individuals to push for a fringe point of view, and I hope you consider such a possibility in future cases. Thank you for your attention. Cydevil38 21:57, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Edwardwittenstein

Is back, using yet another IP but deleting the same content User:142.150.205.36. I'd say a lengthy ban is in order here.JQ 12:41, 23 June 2007 (UTC).

I note that Jayjg is redoing at least some of the Edwardwittenstein deletions. Not a sock I think, and a very active editor, but these deletions aren't justified.JQ 07:54, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

I've raised a question about this at Talk:Stephen Peter Rosen. I don't see anything in WP:EL that should exclude Sourcewatch, and it's often handy as a pointer to material that might be included in articles.JQ 09:54, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

EW is back again, this time with User:142.150.205.18. Is there a super-power admin way of bulk-reverting vandalism? BTW, no response yet on the talk pages I mentioned above. JQ 23:03, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Big Coin

Hi there. I saw in the Royal Canadian Mint Numismatic Coins talk page that you were asking about the big coin. This is a coin with a face value of one million dollars and can be found in the article Gold Maple Leaf under the heading of Special Issues. Maple Leaf 14:27, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Rogue Admin

Please see my User talk:68.110.8.21 and User talk:Akhilleus#WP:POINT, WP:HOAX, WP:PN, WP:BIAS. Wikipedia seriously needs your help Will. Thanks. 68.110.8.21 03:21, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Dice

Thanks, but I doubt that's the end of it...I'll just have to keep an eye on it. Usually when I do something like that it ends up in a tug of war, but maybe this time it'll be different. I actually wanted to take more out but I thought it was a decent middle ground for now...anyway, thanks. RxS 16:20, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

interesting read

Hey Will, I don't know if you've seen this, but I found it fascinating and it sheds a lot of light on what you're dealing with, and how they're organized. Wikipedia Campaign. Interesting read, most of the accounts they mention are already banned. --MichaelLinnear 00:46, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Illegal immigration to the United States

How goes it on this article??? I had to take a break because I got Wikibonked. Dealing with one particular "psycho" editor really took its toll on me. Then a member of my family took ill and I had to stay away longer than I expected. Just had a look at the Illegal immigration to the US article and it doesn’t look like things have improved much. I'd like to refer this article to Wikipedia:WikiProject Countering systemic bias so they can have a look. What are your thoughts? Would defer the referral and would tackle it myself, but I'm dealing a problem editor on another article and I am trying to diplomatically clean up the mess he created, provide structure so the article doesn't get hijacked again, and to sanitize the air – he left a really nasty toxic stench. --Chicaneo 21:57, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Renee, and personal attack/defamation

Hi will beback,

I have noticed recently that Renee is approaching various admins with request to block me without citing any valid reason, however i have also noticed that she even tried to interfear with mediation process, by asking the mediator to ban me !!

I had repeatedly tried to convince her that this page is under mediation and no major changes should be done while this process is underway, but insted of waiting to let the mediation process get over, she/he (?) changed the complete page and disturbed the process.

Moreover, she is even connicting me with a friend of mine who is well versed with wiki policy but is not very much involved.

It seems her one point agenda is to get me banned, this is against wiki policy to supress any POV, also i have serious doubt about her being new to wiki, as i have many times observed similar behaviour in past, by various user names also.

For your reference kindly see these comments by her/him.

1. User talk:Riana She contacted another admin who banned me just by reading her POV, without even asking for my POV.

2.User talk:Vassyana#Request for help and/or blocking of Shashwat Pandey here she directly approached the mediator and asked him to block me!!

3. Talk:Sahaj Marg/Archive 6#The Introduction Section i tried to convince her for not making any major changes in the page as it is under mediation.

4. She is putting false and factually incorrect information in the page to establish a POV such as this Talk:Sahaj Marg#Revised Stub 2 case is still pending and claim is it is in favor of one group !!

5. Note this [6] Sahaj Marg is not an organization put for POV push she/he mentioned that it was registered as organization.

6. Kindly note religious claims which she is representing as fact's like in case of connection with God etc, they are just claims and cannot be stated as fact in any neutral article.

7. There are many more cases like this [7] when i was out of town, i asked one of my friend to get involved in this article, which was not at all hidden, he even exposed his name etc to renee even after that just to get me banned she is making such absured claims.

8. Kindly make sure any other admin is not influenced by her false propaganda against me, like the case was with Riana.

9. Does this qualifies as personal attack ? if yes what is the next step. I have even tried to convince her/him about validity of difference of openion on wiki User talk:Reneeholle#Personal Attack but i feel this will not have any effect on her, as her one point agenda seems to be to get me banned so that false and incorrect information such as pointed above can be placed without any discussion.

10. How can you help in getting her quite till mediation process is not complete ?

Also note [8] when she tried to put a block on me, without signing her name, and then subsequently she tried to protray as if that message was from someone else Talk:Sahaj Marg/Archive 6#Introduction section here she had stated Please note that you are receiving a vandalism warning for your immediate reversions to your original page what would you call such a behaviour ? if this qualifies with personal attack policy of WIKI, what are the steps that i can initiate ?

Thanks in advance--Shashwat pandey 19:44, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

WP:NPA

I feel renee User talk:Reneeholle has seriously violated WP:NPA by trying to connect me with a blog on internet, this in my view is a clear case of attempt to expose a person's identity, and was done with same intention, as there is/was no referene to any blog on my user page ever.

Even if i am not the owner of that blog, people may take this as truth and my personal safety is direct under threat!! This act, of connecting me with a blog, which is so much against one group, may put me in serious threat for personal safety. I feel renee is suitable to be banned for a longer duration of time, according to stated policy at WP:NPA

Threats or actions which expose other Wikipedia editors to political, religious or other persecution by government, their employer or any others. Violations of this sort may result in a block for an extended period of time, which may be applied immediately by any administrator upon discovery

Expect your kind co-operation--Shashwat pandey 20:01, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure this makes sense – if you aren't connected to the blog, then you have nothing to worry about... Sfacets 23:37, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Jared Taylor

There seems to be some unexplained reverting going on at the Jared Taylor article. I'd appreciate it if you could take a look. Thanks, Eeaee 12:34, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Gandhi Information Center / Christian Bartolf

I would like to ask (according to Seraphimblade's advise of today) if the two rewritten articles could be restored. You find them at the moment here: [[User:DGG/sandbox/Chrbartolf] or outside Wikipedia: User:DGG/sandbox/Chrbartolf. Thank you for your kind attention and soon responses. Chrbartolf 30 June 2007

After reading your fine comments (DGG and LaughingVulcan) I think the best continuation is to follow your proposal, LaughingVulcan when you just wrote: "I'd rather take a day or two now to reduce the chances of it being deleted again, then take the risk and see it disintegrated instantly by a passing Admin." This is why I remain without action during this day, before you will have finished your editing of the text for which I am very grateful to you, of course. After all, I just want to express that I do not complain about other editors at all. On the contrary, I am lucky about your cooperation and willing to follow your advice. To avoid any further misunderstandings, I communicate openly on the talk pages. It would have been easier for me to observe and just resign. But I identify with Wikipedia readers – that's it. The better the article, the higher the standard of the article, the more the article fulfills the criteria, the better for all. So, please inform me about the result. If there is anything I can do for you, please inform me as well. Chrbartolf 1 July 2007

Dear Will Beback, I am patient – certainly. But you see yourself what is happening on my talkpage. No need to comment it. Thank you for your good counselling. Chrbartolf 1 July 2007

Even-handedness

It seemed clear enough to me that Cberlet was issuing a general attack on all who oppose him in the content dispute. He seems to me to be a very disruptive editor and I am puzzled as to why you continue to shield him, when serious questions have been raised about his policy violations (I'm talking here about what Thatcher131 said on the WP:ANI about conflict of interest.) --Marvin Diode 20:49, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

I have no way of knowing whether there are "LaRouche followers" editing at Wikipedia; unless someone professes to be one, I think that it would be irresponsible to speculate. I think that it would be fair to say that DLTN and Maple Porter have a pro-LaRouche POV, but holding a POV does not bring up COI issues. King and Berlet, on the other hand, edit using their real names and make no bones about the fact that they are advocacy journalists IRL. Therefore, it is not speculative to raise COI issues in their cases, and I think that Thatcher131 is an impartial observer on this one. --Marvin Diode 21:10, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Will, Cberlet was clearly accusing other editors of being "LaRouche followers," and then making personal attacks on them. The fact that he may have been incorrect in calling them "LaRouche followers" doesn't make it less of a personal attack. As far as King and Berlet being "experts," that may be a matter of opinion; Fourdee is making a valid point, that "advocacy journalists" are not suitable sources under BLP. The harsh language and tone of their productions makes them look pretty dubious to me -- have you looked at the Dennis King website? It has "tabloid tattler" written all over it. --Marvin Diode 21:40, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

I believe that Cberlet is attacking editors who oppose him when he says that "LaRouche supporters live in a bubble of self-deception...we should not be expected to drink the Kool Aid and provide credulous support for the hyperbolic claims of LaRouche and his followers." Now, would you be so kind as to return the favor, and point out the personal attacks in these comments which you deleted? --Marvin Diode 00:33, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

I presume that this is the basis for the NPA warning you left on my talk page. I refered to Dking's discussion comments and edit summaries as "truculent." This is not an attack on the editor, it is a commentary on the behavior, which I hope you agree is highly tendentious and disruptive. I continued to be baffled by the fact that you tolerate this sort of thing from Dking and Cberlet, while admonishing and warning everyone else. I would like to call your attention to this comment by Dking, and give you the opportunity to address it; he unambiguously labels NathanDW a "LaRouche follower," and proceeds to make a variety of inflammatory (and unsourced) allegations about "LaRouchians" that are uncivil, a violation of BLP, and last but not least, completely gratuitous and off-topic. --Marvin Diode 05:50, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Will, you complain of MaplePorter that "As for the statement of MaplePorter, he attacks two editors by name as incapable of editing from a neutral point of view, calls them highly disruptive, and says they ought to stop editing. If I said those things on an article talk page about you how would you feel about it?" Cberlet set up a special heading at Talk:Lyndon LaRouche called Propose Banning of NathanDW. That certainly seems more drastic than MaplePorter's comments. Did you warn Cberlet about that post? --Marvin Diode 03:59, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

I do consider personal attacks and other forms of incivility a problem, and I have said so on the talk pages. I have added the off-topic warning template to several of these talk pages. However, I am more concerned at the moment that you as an admin appear to be acting in a partisan manner, issuing block warnings to one side of the dispute, while appearing to wink at more extreme versions of the same sort of behavior coming from the other side. --Marvin Diode 13:09, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Cumberland Portal Bar

It was originally only at the top, not the bottom. Another user added it to both top and bottom and since the Cumberland Portal is a very new portal and the Cumberland article is as big as it is, putting the browser bar all the way at the bottom would cause no one to see the Cumberland Portal and with it at the top, it lets the user see it immediately. I don't think the everyday user makes it to the bottom of the Cumberland page.

So, a comprimise was made and the portal bar was added to both the top and bottom. - NeutralHomer ^T:C 21:02, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Removal of fact request

I removed the tag since I have given an extensive report on the factual basis for this statement on the talk page. You may not have seen that. __meco 22:03, 30 June 2007 (UTC)