Home • Search • Translate
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In order to remain listed at Wikipedia:Requests for comment, at least two people need to show that they tried to resolve a dispute with this user and have failed. This must involve the same dispute with a single user, not different disputes or multiple users. The persons complaining must provide evidence of their efforts, and each of them must certify it by signing this page with ~~~~. If this does not happen within 48 hours of the creation of this dispute page (which was: {15:12, 10 December 2005 (UTC)}), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is: 02:53, 7 July 2024 (UTC).

Users should only edit one summary or view, other than to endorse.

Statement of the dispute

This is a summary written by users who dispute this user's conduct. Users signing other sections ("Response" or "Outside views") should not edit the "Statement of the dispute" section.

Description

{Add summary here, but you must use the section below to certify or endorse it. Users who edit or endorse this summary should not edit the other summaries, other than to endorse them.}


  • This user under the above accounts and ip addresses registered to BellSouth Inc., Atlanta has been conducting a massive voting fraud and causing a huge amount of bad feeling and disruption since March. They continually change the population numbers on articles, engage in edit wars, arbitrarily remove people from lists (usually because they do not "fit" a particular ethnicity in the user's opinion), exhibit uncivil behaviour, vote multiple times on articles and categories for deletion mostly relating to Jewish people and Catholics, upload numerous images with no source, and remove criticisms on their talk pages. The user makes positive edits to some articles on Slavic people and lists relating to Slavic countries but many of their other edits seem to be disruptive and confrontational. If the user does not get their own way they will often submit the article for deletion or request a page lock. The user edited under anonymous ip addresses up to September when they created the account User:EscapeArtistsNeverDie on September 11th, account User:Antidote on October 13th, account User:HotelRoom on November 20th, and account User:StabRule on November 24th.

Evidence of disputed behavior

(Provide diffs. Links to entire articles aren't helpful unless the editor created the entire article. Edit histories also aren't helpful as they change as new edits are performed.)

Edit wars

The user is involved in numerous edit wars on articles under their account names and ip addresses beginning 72.144, 65.9, 65.10, 65.11, 68.2, 70.146 all belonging to BellSouth Inc., Atlanta. The histories are shown as the dispute often goes on for many page histories:

Multiple voting

The user has voted multiple times on numerous articles for deletion and for the user's own image on Talk:Serbs, see the following subpage: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Antidote/Voting

  • Voting history

The first nomination the user made was List of Jewish Fellows of the Royal Society for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_Jewish_Fellows_of_the_Royal_Society on October 19th . The user made 6 votes in total on that vote, one made after the discussion was closed. The user used his User:Antidote and User:EscapeArtistsNeverDie accounts to support the inclusion of his own image in Talk:Serbs#Voting for picture of Serbs. The user nominated several Jewish and Catholic lists for deletion on November 15th and 17th, including renominating the above list, during which many users noticed that many anon votes were being made all from the same internet service provider, BellSouth Inc. User:Antidote made many attempts to defend the anonymous votes (see second section of Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Antidote/User comments). On November 24th the user created the User:StabRule account which was clearly created to be used to support the account Antidote's deletion of Jewish and Catholic lists (by evidence of the first contributions on that account [20]), after the user realised that ip votes may be ignored. When the user's second attempt ( Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_Jewish_Fellows_of_the_Royal_Society_(2nd_nomination)) to delete List_of_Jewish_Fellows_of_the_Royal_Society failed (on which the user voted 4 times) the user requested a deletion review (here [21]).

links between contributions

I have created a table to show the user's contributions chronologically between November 11th-December 3rd for all their accounts and ip addresses that clearly show the user is one person (the table also details further comments and actions of the user): Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Antidote/Contribution table

uncivil behaviour, personal attacks, dubious comments

For further lists of the user's offensive, confrontational or controversial comments, personal attacks, defence of anonymous voters and denial of using sock puppets see: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Antidote/User comments

images with no source

The user has continuously uploaded images with no source all marked public domain or norightsreserved. He was warned about this on User_talk:EscapeArtistsNeverDie in September, but continues to upload nosource images on that account ( Image:Brunovsky.jpg, Image:Brunovsky-cesta.jpg). He was warned under his Antidote account by User:Mikkalai in October, [22], the user Antidote replied "You people are completely impossible. First you bitch about copyrights, then when I put them on you bitch some more. " [23].

ArbCom

I tried to persuade the user to admit to using sock puppet accounts, but as these attempts have failed I have no option but to reveal that ArbCom has revealed that the four user accounts above User:Antidote, User:EscapeArtistsNeverDie, User:HotelRoom, and User:StabRule have used the same ip addresses. Arniep 23:38, 10 December 2005 (UTC) reply

Admission of sock puppetry

The user admitted to use a sockpuppet User: HotelRoom. The user claimed [24] on 5 December 2005 that they had deleted Walther Nernst, among others, from the List of Poles. Edit history of List of Poles shows [25] that Walther Nernst was deleted on 25 November 2005 by User: HotelRoom.-- Pecher 17:19, 11 December 2005 (UTC) reply

Continual removal of people the user considers "non ethnic" from lists

The user has continued since March to attempt to remove people who are not of the ethnicity that corresponds to a country name from those lists, for example removing Jews from most country lists with the justification that they have their own lists such as List of East European Jews, List of North European Jews, and removing ethnic Germans from slavic countries.

  • User:HotelRoom stated on 18:42, 25 November 2005 "(they have their own lists where they are perfectly adequately mentioned - no need to repeat them)" [26]
  • User:HotelRoom stated on 22:12, 25 November 2005 "((rv) - obvious non-Czechs should and will be excluded from this list)" [27]
  • User under an ip stated on 14:08, 15 October 2005 "Kazakhs, Tatars, Siberian peoples, Caucasians, and displaced Soviet groups who register as Russian SHOULD NOT BE COUNTED as Russian. Easily said and done. I myself am a Russian and see no need for blatant Russian nationalism on this encyclopedia." [28]
  • User under an ip stated on 20:33, 11 July 2005 "I don't think it seems fair to include them as full Jews, if there are good chances they are not." [29]

The user continually removes people from lists of Jews, but submits people the user suspects of being slavic in origin to lists based on just the users opinion on a name:

  • The user added Robert Jarvik to List of Czechs, insisting the name was Czech, when proven wrong, the user removed the discussion [30].

The user often removes references to Jewishness in articles on people:

One of the user's first edits was to remove a whole section on famous ethnically Jewish people from Jew on 01:10, 7 March 2005 [32] as well as deleting ethnically Jewish people from other lists ( Special:Contributions/65.10.39.165) for which he was warned by User:SlimVirgin on User talk:65.10.39.165. The user's disagreement about referring to people who are ethnically Jewish as Jewish seems to be the main drive in the user's editing of Jewish lists.

Failure to sign comments

The user repeatedly failed to sign their comments [33], [34] on Talk:List of Ukrainians. After being asked to sign comments in the future, the user responded in an aggressive manner: "There are four people who frequently add to this discussion, you're smart, figure it out. Also -----> history <---- tab" HotelRoom 20:34, 29 November 2005

Applicable policies

{list the policies that apply to the disputed conduct}

Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute

(provide diffs and links)

As numerous disputes are involved I am using the subject of the user's use of multiple accounts as an example. Many users suspected this user of sock puppet accounts: by User:Plank on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Jewish Fellows of the Royal Society (2nd nomination) [35], reply from User:Antidote [36]; comments on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Catholic authors by User:JJay [37] and User:T. Anthony [38], [39], response by User:Antidote [40]]. User:Arniep informed User:Antidote on December 9th that he had knowledge that the user also uses the User:StabRule account [41], User:Antidote replied " User:StabRule and I are not the same person - we are two different people from the same area." [42]. User:StabRule, on November 28th admitted association with anonymous ip votes on articles for deletion but claimed "there seems to be the misconception that the anon votes are from me. I repeat I did not vote more than once under any anon name. Though I do know who the anon contributions might be, I can attest they were not me and I had no say in the people's decisions." [43], User:Peyna responded "Is this an informal admission that you went rallying the troops to vote for your cause? We know you actively did so on talk pages here on Wikipedia, so I wouldn't put it past you contacting your friends in the area to vote with you as well." [44]. He deleted and reverting [ [45]] the numbers of romanians on the page Romanians. Even when I posted the reference he still continued with his bad approach.

Users certifying the basis for this dispute

{Users who tried and failed to resolve the dispute} (sign with ~~~~)

  1. Arniep 15:12, 10 December 2005 (UTC) reply
  2. Peyna 17:48, 10 December 2005 (UTC) reply
  3. Bonaparte talk 18:37, 10 December 2005 (UTC) reply
  4. Jbetak 20:17, 10 December 2005 (UTC) reply
  5. NorbertArthur 15 December 2005

Other users who endorse this summary

(sign with ~~~~)

  1. M. Pokrajac 16:12, 10 December 2005 (UTC) reply
  2. Poetlister 16:42, 10 December 2005 (UTC) reply
  3. Bonaparte talk 13:35, 12 December 2005 (UTC) reply
  4. karmafist 00:24, 11 December 2005 (UTC) reply
  5. Londoneye 11:42, 11 December 2005 (UTC) reply
  6. Pecher 15:16, 11 December 2005 (UTC) reply
  7. Vulturell 22:48, 13 December 2005 (UTC) reply
  8. NorbertArthur 15 December 2005 (UTC)
  9. SylwiaS | talk 00:35, 17 December 2005 (UTC) reply

Response

This is a summary written by the user whose conduct is disputed, or by other users who think that the dispute is unjustified and that the above summary is biased or incomplete. Users signing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" and "Outside Views") should not edit the "Response" section.

I suppose this is where I'm suppose to comment. User:Arniep has had this personal dispute with me and some of my acquantances since the last month or so. He is angered by the fact that I and others are attempting to reform lists by ethnicity/religion to form a higher standard of Wikipedia....why, I'm not entirely sure. He also claims that I delete people randomly from lists, often hinting at "racial" reasons for doing so. Well, if we are to make a list of people by nationality/religion/etc why can I not make sure that those people actual reflect their inclusion in the list. I prevent lists from having double even triple entries of the same person, make sure the person in fact belongs in that list through cultural, ethnic, or religious basis, prevent nationalism and biases from taking over on certain lists and population statistics, have reformed many lists/categories for the better, and have made friends with other users who do the same. Anriep also claims I upload images with no source - I'd like for him to point me to how many images on wikipedia actually list their source on the image description - and why this should included in an RFC against me. There is a list of some "inapporpriate" comments I and others have made...as if no one else has ever made such comments on Wikipedia, especially such prude ones. Why he has this deep spite against me I have not yet to understand, but I believe that it may be for me edits trying to improve Jewish lists, which he takes very personally. To conclude, I'm not sure what dispute there is to end - for I don't remember being in any big dispute that merits an RFC. I specifically edit articles and entries in Wikipedia that are close to being empty or often ignored. Having specific knowledge of populations and having done many research on this previously, I have aided in the creation of numerous ethnicity lists with others. The users above are all my acquantances, and we share similar interests clearly. I admit, I have become disgruntled over the monopoly held on Jewish lists/categories/articles (as commented on by Lulu) and hence have tried to edit them for the better since Judaism is part of my interests - just like theirs. I am especially upset that users who I don't even recall having disputes with (like Mikkalai) have something personal against me and my works, but I'll leave that for them to explain. Antidote 18:42, 10 December 2005 (UTC) reply

UPDATE: Mikkalai has retracted his signing. I also do not understand what dispute I have with User:M. Pokrajac aside the fact that I (and others) did not agree with his image on Serbs and were rapidly left out of a vote for a differing image. I don't see an image dispute to be the basis for his signing here. User:Bonaparte on the other hand has recently been abusing my talk page because he does not agree with my exclusion of some farflung Romanian statistics. I already explained to him that people can make a webpage saying that 1 billion Romanians live in America and that, if so, why can't those be included too? He also consistenly calls me a vandal and spews negative comments at me that certainly outdo any I have directed at him. User:Peyna I don't even know! Lastly, in reference to the "controversal comments" section that has me included in it. Many of those are taken out of context and do not reflect the arguments that made them surface or show how other users may have driven me to get a little overangry. Also, User:Arniep has been spaming people's talk pages to get them to sign here. I don't know if that's allowed. Finally, what does he exactly expect to get out of this? There's no dispute to end. Antidote 19:03, 10 December 2005 (UTC) reply

See Special:Contributions/Arniep for proof of his spamming and see his previous WP:POINT afd nominations for proof of his rash behavoir when users do not agree with his articles or views on articles. This entire RFC emerges from his personal offense. Antidote 19:38, 10 December 2005 (UTC) reply

According to Arniep I am not allowed to comment in the Outside views sections - so I will copy and paste any comments to be made here. Antidote 20:52, 10 December 2005 (UTC) reply

(Responses to User:Jmabel)

I don't know if I'm allowed to comment here but we'll see. If I was given more time to transfer the red links from the Jewish fellows page and then show you what basis I would have to show you their religious/ethnic affiliations on the page - then it would not appear as bad faith. But the page was reverted before I had time to create those edits. Also, as I stated before - it was my initial assumption that a list was WANTED. I've been throwing warning tags on the article because it is indubitably one of the most disputed article to surface on Wikipedia. All of its contemporaries were deleted but it managed to survive through no consensus. I put up tags because immediately I noticed several mistakes. Antidote 18:50, 10 December 2005 (UTC) reply

(Responses to User:Newport)

That's because those inclusions were reverted long ago. Finally, I still do disagree with the inclusion of Max Born and as I stated before if we were to include people who just happened to live in a country then we would have to add literally dozens of other names. I mentioned Stanley Kubrick who is both Jewish and lived in Britain as an example. I also mentioned that Born is not mentioned in List of English people but somehow he has superior criteria to be mentioned in list of British Jews - how is that not national (note: none of these decisions are based on race, as all these people are Caucasians) as well? Antidote 20:27, 10 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Uh huh. How come Freud was removed from List of British Jews then - he lived in Britain. I don't see many people having problems with that and it was certainly done on a national criteria. If we MAKE national lists we have to stick by them - it's that simple. Antidote 20:27, 10 December 2005 (UTC) reply
I already stated many times that was my attempt to keep the list from being deleted using the same criteria displayedon List of Catholics. Jewish historians is something made for a category - not list. See list of German historians, list of Catholic historians. If it were edited to only include Jewishness in their writings then the list could be kept!
If you look up the red names, about a third of them to do not have more than a page of articles on google. Not to mention another quarter do not have any sources readily available to verify their Judaism. In addition, about half of the list gets its primary source from jinfo.org which ITSELF does not always list sources. Lastly, you were wrong, Ugo Fano has limited evidence to his Judaism as I explained in the talk page so his exclusion was parly justified. The tag is entirely appropriate as the factual accuracy of that page is disputed. Antidote 20:27, 10 December 2005 (UTC) reply

Response to Images with No source

This is an entry Arniep added that he has very little knowledge of, and is just used by him as more evidence (offtopic to any claims he makes here) that I am somehow a bad editor. Take for example this Image:Olga1962.jpg which I uploaded and then this Image:English-people.JPG or Image:Burnham bust.gif which I didn't. Why is he targetting me and not the infinite amount of other image uploaders that do the same? I'd say about 80% of images on wikipedia do not explicitly list the source but this is a criteria against me on the RFC?? Yet, I, unlike others, actually try my best to make sure the images are acceptable and do my best to find the best copyright. This is too ridiculous. Antidote 21:26, 10 December 2005 (UTC) reply

ArbCom I tried to persuade the user to admit to using sock puppet accounts, but as these attempts have failed I have no option but to reveal that ArbCom has revealed that the four user accounts above User:Antidote, User:EscapeArtistsNeverDie, User:HotelRoom, and User:StabRule have used the same ip addresses.

Actually, that's quite possible. I've been to StabRule's apartment and logged into Wikipedia. I've been to EADN's house too, though I don't recall doing it. It may be instinct by now. Wait, is that against Wikipedian rules? Not last time I checked. Antidote 00:00, 11 December 2005 (UTC) reply

The user admitted to use a sockpuppet User: HotelRoom. The user claimed [46] on 5 December 2005 that they had deleted Walther Nernst, among others, from the List of Poles. Edit history of List of Poles shows [47] that Walther Nernst was deleted on 25 November 2005 by User: HotelRoom.

Um. If you would have read clearly, you would have seen I stated "I have made sure that Germans were deleted from the Poles list" not that I have deleted them. If you don't believe me I'll happily show you the email I sent User:HotelRoom asking for this to be done. Nice try though. Antidote 21:44, 11 December 2005 (UTC) reply

=================

Anyway, this is the last post I'm making in here. You have - in the long run - wasted a lot of your time, and I'd rather be improving articles on Wikipedia than arguing with you about whether or not I made all these "sockpuppets" ahead of time just so I can delete your Jewish lists. If the above users do get "banned" then they'll probably just make new usernames - so whatever. Ciao. Antidote 21:44, 11 December 2005 (UTC) reply

==================

{Add summary here, but you must use the endorsement section below to sign. Users who edit or endorse this summary should not edit the other summaries.}

Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~~~~):

  1. Antidote 00:00, 11 December 2005 (UTC) reply

Outside views

This is a summary written by users not directly involved with the dispute but who would like to add an outside view of the dispute. Users editing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" and "Response") should not edit the "Outside Views" section, except to endorse an outside view.

Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters

There are a bunch of "List of Jewish foos" articles floating around. Some editors have put some of these on AfD and/or tried to clean them up to better WP:V and WP:NOR standards; from what I can tell User:Antidote is one such cleanup editor. The other usernames listed by User:Arniep seem to have similar goals. Arniep has tried to persuade me on my user talk page, and via email, that all these usersnames are aliases for the same person, but I have not seen any persuasive evidence of this claim. It seems only to amount to the fact they often vote in the same direction as each other on AfD's, as far as I have seen.

On the other side of things, there are a few editors, including User:RachelBrown, User:Poetlister, and to an extent User:Arniep (and a couple others) who have a strong agenda to create as many different "List of Jewish foos" articles as possible; but also to list as many names as possible on each one (i.e. with very low standards for including a given name). Moreover, some of these same users have launched all kinds of misguided administrative procedures against every editor who wants encyclopedic standards on Jewish lists. I think Antidote and other editors may have become frustrated by this (for example, I think the "totallydisputed" tag is not quite right in one of the above edit histories, where the "accuracy" tag would be; but that's a minor and innocent error).

A somewhat side note: I was a bit ticked off at User:StabRule for abusing the AfD process as an indirect way to force the cleanup of one of these Jewish lists (it did get improved, but in spite of not because of StabRule's bad manners). I wasn't against the cleanup/refactoring, but I don't like misuse of administrative procedures. However, I have not seen any evidence behind Arniep's claim that StabRule is the same person as Antidote; in fact, it seems extremely unlikely to me just for the character of their writing (different people have characteristic ways of putting sentences and thoughts together).

Note also that ArnieP accuses several IP addresses of being the self-same person as the various usernames. I cannot determine where the usernames edit from. But picking a couple of the IP addresses listed under the votes, I notice:

  • 65.9.143.76: Coventry, RI, USA
  • 72.144.71.234: Miami, FL, USA

There are a two other IPs that are from Miami, interestingly. But then, it's a big city, so that's inconclusive (perhaps suggestive, but not tied to any usernames).

Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~~~~):

  1. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 17:57, 10 December 2005 (UTC) reply
  2. Gateman1997 23:57, 13 December 2005 (UTC) reply

Users who partially endorse this summary (sign with ~~~~)

  1. karmafist(the Stab Rule Part) 17:27, 26 December 2005 (UTC) reply

Outside view by Jmabel

Without weighing in on all of this, Antidote's conduct on List of Jewish Fellows of the Royal Society has clearly been out of line. After that list survived AfD, he proceeded to try to turn it into a redirect to List of members of the Royal Society. What, they're all Jews? It is impossible for me to believe that was done in good faith. Since then he/she's been throwing almost every warning tag I can think of onto the article.

I've been pressing for better citation on the page; from what I gather, there is no question that these are members of the Royal Society, so the only question should be whether they are Jewish and in what sense of that somewhat ambiguous word (see Judaism, Jew). I would welcome specific challenges or qualifications to the characterization of members of the list as Jewish, but this general attack on the page, with almost no specific criticisms, does nothing but provoke fights.

Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~~~~):

  1. Jmabel | Talk 18:41, 10 December 2005 (UTC) reply
  2. Arniep 14:18, 11 December 2005 (UTC) reply
  3. Bonaparte talk 13:37, 12 December 2005 (UTC) reply

{Add summary here, but you must use the endorsement section below to sign. Users who edit or endorse this summary should not edit the other summaries.}

Outside view by Mikkalai

Initially I endorsed this rfc, because I incorrectly decided one recent edit of Antidote was disruptive. While it is true that I was in disagreement with this (or supposedly this) user on some issues, I don't remember it being particularly disruptive (I've seen much worse) and I believe the opinion of my side eventually prevailed.

I also have to notice that his recent revert war in Romanians article is probably a matter of his misunderstanding that currenly the Romanian editors count Moldovans as Romanians, hence the increased numbers. So I guess both sides are guilty here for not talking clearly. mikka (t) 20:18, 10 December 2005 (UTC) reply

Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~~~~):

  1. mikka (t) 20:18, 10 December 2005 (UTC) reply

{Add summary here, but you must use the endorsement section below to sign. Users who edit or endorse this summary should not edit the other summaries.}

Newport

Antidote claims that he is just trying to be encyclopaedic. However, he has made several deletions from lists which are not encyclopaedic, and do not improve Wikipedia, because they are incorrect or misleading. Examples:

He repeatedly removed Max Born from the List of British people of Jewish descent, claiming that he was in no way British. This was despite other editors producing good references that he lived here for 20 years and became a British citizen. His reasons here seem to have been racial. Andidote claimed that Born was also on lists of American, Czech and German Jews; I was unable to verify the first two.
He removed Marcel Riesz from the List of North European Jews on the grounds that someone dying in Sweden did not make him Swedish. In fact, Riesz moved to Sweden aged 22 and lived there for 61 years. The only reason for his removal would be racial.
On the List of Jewish historians, which is of course a list of historians who are or were Jewish, he removed people who were undoubtedly Jewish solely on the grounds that they did not manifest their Jewishness in their writings.

On the List of Jewish Fellows of the Royal Society, he says "I put up tags because immediately I noticed several mistakes". Even if that were true, it does not justify the tag he used. However, he has yet to say what these several mistakes are. He deleted two names; of these, one turned out to be Jewish, and for the other some evidence was brought, so if it is a mistake, it is scarcely an egregious one and does not warrant his attacks on the integrity of the article.

Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~~~~):

  1. Newport 20:08, 10 December 2005 (UTC) reply
  2. Bonaparte talk 21:50, 10 December 2005 (UTC) reply
  3. Londoneye 11:42, 11 December 2005 (UTC) reply
  4. Arniep 23:36, 12 December 2005 (UTC) reply
  5. Pecher 09:10, 13 December 2005 (UTC) reply
  6. JJay 02:16, 17 December 2005 (UTC) reply

HotelRoom

I don't understand. What have I done wrong? I haven't gotten in edit wars with anyone so why am I "under threat"? I already confirmed all my image uploads and page copies. I even listed sources and external links! Antidote and I may have worked together on a Ukrainian article but I don't see what's wrong with that. Why can't I have my own username? I never participated in any deletions or anything! HotelRoom 03:17, 11 December 2005 (UTC) reply

OnceBitten

Fair warning, this is my second post under this screen name, and contains information that can be verified, not opinion. In viewing the Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Antidote/Contribution table I found several IP addresses, which I ran through Network Solutions whois directory and reported the results on the dicussion page for this RfC. For those who wish to check my work, I invite you to do so. Thank you. OnceBitten 21:51, 11 December 2005 (UTC) reply

MacGyverMagic's view

Arniep asked me to change my vote on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Jewish inventors due to alledged sockpuppeting by Antidote. I didn't vote, only made a comment. Regardless of any sockpuppeting going on, the article should be voted based on its merits, not the actions of the nominator. - Mgm| (talk) 08:36, 12 December 2005 (UTC) reply

Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~~~~):

  1. Mgm| (talk) 08:36, 12 December 2005 (UTC) reply

User:Zordrac/Poetlister

Please read the above link to see the relationship to this case, and related issues. I suggest that this whole situation needs to go straight to User:Jimbo Wales, as the questionable conduct of people involved (administrators, including Arbitration Committee members) has become too extensive. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 12:45, 26 December 2005 (UTC) reply

Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~~~~):

  1. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 12:45, 26 December 2005 (UTC) reply
  2. Arniep 18:21, 26 December 2005 (UTC) reply

User:IZAK

What I am about to say may sound odd, but it cannot be avoided. Get rid of "Antidote" and his sockpuppets, and get rid of 99% of the lists and categories of Jews on Wikipedia! I am known as one of the most prolific Judaism-related and Israel-related editors, creating and working on articles and categories within Category:Jews and Judaism and Category:Israel and Zionism. I have been a Wikipedia editor for three years. At the outset, it must be stated that there is no one clearly accepted definition of Who is a Jew? today!!! Initially a few lists of Jews were informative and interesting, such as having the names of Jewish Nobel Prize winners. But over the last year, the lists and categories of Jews have mushroomed and spiralled out of all proportion bordering on the hysterical, nonsensical, and you-name-it. In my opinion 99% of ALL lists and categories of Jews should be deleted. And what we are seeing here is a good reason why: Such lists attract the WRONG kind of attention. Most of the Jews on the lists had nothing to do with Judaism and did not identify with being Jewish in any overt definitive "Jewish" way, and who says that the living ones want to be on such lists in any case?! And even worse, the net result is that Wikipedia is in effect fine-tuning and doing the dirty ground-work for the hateful Jew Watch site, which no doubt it does not intend. So my suggestion is, get rid of 99% of the lists and categories of Jewish names. Only VERY highly refined lists, such as Category:Rabbis and selected Category:Israeli people should remain. I will have more to say on this topic, as time unfolds. IZAK 12:29, 1 January 2006 (UTC) reply

See also: Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Lists by religion-ethnicity and profession#Move to delete 99% of all Lists and Categories of Jews: Sixteen reasons why this should become a fixed Wikipedia policy.

Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~~~~):

  1. IZAK 12:29, 1 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  2. Beautifully put. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 16:00, 2 January 2006 (UTC) reply

Outside view by Pavel Vozenilek

  • The List of Czechs is overcrowded and needs cleanup. It is not universally agreed who should be on the list. I guess the situation is similar with other lists. Trying to make larger changes on such lists invariably meets resistance and may result in wars. This RFC should concentrate only on sockpuppetry and vandalism and should not try to define policy on lists of people or create precedent. Pavel Vozenilek 03:06, 24 January 2006 (UTC) reply

=Outside view of David Monniaux

I blocked User:EscapeArtistsNeverDie because he/she was repeatedly uploading copyright violation pictures under fake licenses, despite repeat warnings. I don't know personally whether this user is a sockpuppet of the others. David.Monniaux 00:11, 31 January 2006 (UTC) reply

Discussion

All signed comments and talk not related to an endorsement should be directed to this page's discussion page. Discussion should not be added below. Discussion should be posted on the talk page. Threaded replies to another user's vote, endorsement, evidence, response, or comment should be posted to the talk page.

Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Antidote&oldid=1080959976"

Top Of Page

Home • Search • Translate

© CSE