Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
This page is for urgent incidents or chronic, intractable behavioral problems. Before posting: Read these tips for dealing with incivility If the issue concerns a specific user, try discussing it with them on their talk page Try dispute resolution Just want an admin? Contact a recently active admin directly. Be brief and include diffs demonstrating the problem Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead go to Requests for oversight. When starting a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page; pinging is not enough. You may use {{subst:ANI-notice}} ~~~~ to do so. Closed discussions are usually not archived for at least 24 hours. Routine matters might be archived more quickly; complex or controversial matters should remain longer. Sections inactive for 72 hours are archived automatically by Lowercase sigmabot III. Editors unable to edit here are sent to the /Non-autoconfirmed posts subpage. (archives, search)
Start a new discussion

How to deal with constant attempts to get others blocked?

How do everyone suggest dealing with attempts to get other people blocked, including massive incivility? See this and onward on my talk page. There seems to be a mess of arguments between User:Squash Racket, User:Nmate, and User:Hobartimus on one side versus User:Tankred, User:MarkBA, and User:Svetovid on the other. Some also seem to be using the warning templates aggressively probably in a harassing fashion. Now, I've blocked Svetovid earlier for continuous arguing and incivility from Hedvig Malina. Otherwise, I've told everyone to use the warning templates and WP:AIV. Any suggestions beyond removing all the comments my talk page and telling everyone to deal with it themselves? Block people for harassing other users? I've had some edit disputes, I guess, with a few so could an outside admin look at this? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 19:44, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Also, I'm curious if anything should be done about the user who started this nonsense saying that he's complaining about me "as suggested" and "Let's see if we can't get him and his kind kicked out of here." Some meatpuppetry going on? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 19:44, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry no-one else has responded. As far as you are aware, are these editors only edit-warring on the Hedvig Malina article or is that part of a group of articles? I'm inclined to protect the article page for a day and give a stern conduct warning on the talkpage. Will there be many other editors caught by a article protection, from your experience? LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:44, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

The edit-warring at Malina seems to have calmed down, so I don't protection would be that necessary. Another article was been Bratislava Castle which again has calmed down. This seems like part of a larger nationalist argument that I cannot piece together. I'm just wondering if it's worth doing anything beyond wiping my talk page clean and ignoring everyone. How many times is it appropriate for admin to tell others than I am not interested in being their cop before *I* can just block them for bothering the hell out of me? Just need an outside opinion as to how to respond. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 00:28, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I have not posted anything on Ricky's talk page in the last couple of days and already apologized for the earlier comments there answering another editor's accusations (and suggested deleting the whole part or using a hide/show template).
Some users post reports there that belong on a noticeboard and if it goes unanswered, the administrator will probably think it's completely valid. If I cut and paste those reports to where these belong, I would edit others' comments which is not allowed.
Still I decided to pass on yesterday's new report there though I could have added a few things. Since Ricky asked me recently to use WP:AIV I stay away from his talk page.
What to do when another editor who received the same message reports others directly to Ricky instead of a noticeboard? Squash Racket (talk) 04:24, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

If the edit war has calmed down, I concur that you should wipe (or archive, just in case) the material and replace it with a notice that you do not wish to involve yourself with the matter (with a suggestion of taking it to WP:AIV). Like everyone here, you are a volunteer and you decide how you are going to help the encyclopedia. If you do get the sharp end of a few comments, and you are unable to ignore them, post a level4 warning and take it to AIV if repeated. I hope editing becomes more fun for you. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:54, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

You already got involved by your unexplained and seemingly biased comments and actions towards me, Ricky. You still haven't explained or apologized for that. Saying that you now don't want to be part of this seems a little strange now.--Svetovid (talk) 21:14, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I warned you about your uncivil comments ("Do have a look at the following articles: Fallacy, List of fallacies and specifically Ignoratio elenchi, Straw man, and Poisoning the well."), you went into a rant about nationalists again, and then I blocked you with an explanation. You had ample time during your block to request an unblock and if another editor thought it appropriate, he could unblock. I am not in the mood to rehash arguments you yourself used as a reason to complain to another user who posted it at WP:AN. You can't have it both ways. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 01:30, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Also, I have further told you that comments like this ("watch out or you may be blocked for complaining without any explanation from Ricky") are not helpful and rehashing arguments at Hedvig again and again simply to get a fact tag slapped on a page that you obviously wanted deleted from the start is also not helpful. If anyone else has a suggestion, I'm open to it. I'd suggest a block because I frankly have yet to see a lot of anything other than POV pushing from him (check his last edits for reverting back in a number of articles using popups). -- Ricky81682 (talk) 01:30, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Those are just statements, not explanations.
I listed the fallacies and nobody challenged that yet so my comment stands and your reaction to it was inappropriate.
"I'd suggest a block because I frankly have yet to see a lot of anything other than POV pushing from him." -> was this comment aimed at me? If so, I really would have to report this because you would have crossed the line of genuine confusion.
And to provide full information and avoid quote mining, here is the comment I made.
Moreover, why cannot I state my opinion on nationalism, especially when I was asked about it? How does that make my comment a rant?--Svetovid (talk) 21:59, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

After being warned not to use "misleading statements" [1] by an administrator, to trying to get people blocked, Tankred first went "admin shopping" to user DDima, with the same misleading statement [2] , he was warned for citing a number of warnings (most of them given by user:MarkBA as harassment[3]) as "evidence". After he was rejected by user:DDima he went for AIV with the very same material now multiple times rejected [4] but now also falsely accused his victim of vandalism, but his complaint was promptly rejected, with one user charactherizing it as [5] "fraudulent report during a content dispute". Should he be allowed to shop the same material around to every forum and admin until he can mislead someone into a block? He was already warned and did it anyway and a quick look at his contributions shows other issues as well. Hobartimus (talk) 20:28, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Although I understand that Hobartimus shares Nmate's POV, I cannot understand why he is protecting an evidently disruptive user. If this edit[6] is not vandalism, how would you call it then? As to the warnings, Nmate has received a nice collection from four different users ([7],[8],[9],[10],[11],[12],[13],[14],[15],[16],[17],[18],[19]). Just look at all his personal attacks, for God's sake (see a list that excludes the most recent ones at [20]). Tankred (talk) 01:47, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Typical forum shopping yet again. Posting the same thing but not posting all the previous reaction to the material depriving it from all context for the 4th 5th time?. Among the reaction is admin warning about [21] making "misleading statements" user comment describing it as "fraudulent report"[22] and the fact that WP policy WP:HAR, found at [23] states "Placing numerous false or questionable 'warnings' on a user's talk page, restoring such comments after a user has removed them,... in their user space is a common form of harassment." Let's see how many warnings came from user:MarkBA who was already suspected [24] of harassment of this user weeks ago? I count no less than 9 warnings coming from MarkBA in Tankred's post above and what is more alarming that even some of the remaining warnings came after MarkBA directly requested another user to "watch out" [25] referring to user:Nmate, and the solicited warning arrived one hour later of that message [26]. A case of mass warnings given/organized by a single user almost word for word matching the section from WP:HAR down to the "restoring such comments" part. This by the book harassment is now presented as "evidence" to strengthen a weak multiple times rejected case. When shopping around like this all the previous responses and rejections are swept under the rug and this is why we need a definitive answer to the question in the title of this thread "How to deal with constant attempts to get others blocked?" Hobartimus (talk) 19:24, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

MarkBA - an editor with 7,500 edits, 1 featured article, 1 good article, numerous DYK articles, and 3 barnstars - retired because of Nmate's and your hostility. I fully understand his decision. It is hard to contribute to a project in which you are called names and your nation is being constantly ridiculed. But MarkBA was only on out of five editors that have warned or blocked Nmate. Thank you for diverting this discussion from Nmate's disruption to a retired editor, who cannot defend himself against your attacks. And this is also my last attempt to ask the community for help. Since no one is interested in dealing with Nmate's repeated personal attacks in edit summaries,[27] hate speech,[28] and disruptive editing,[29] I have no reason to waste more time in this discussion. Tankred (talk) 23:43, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Tankred is an edit warrer. He/she started deleting my edits, multiple times under false summaries[30]. Look at Tankred's edit history:[31] and block log:[32]. He/She's massively edit warring on at least 20 pages. And it would be "uncivil" calling him a disruptive editor or vandal or something even "worse" wich can be derivered from the likeness of his edits and behaviour and style and what you can see easily? Where are your eyes at?

Tankred is the disruptive and agressive POV-pushing user, who tries to hide this, by accusing everyone else as acting like him. No no no no, Tankred starts it and then tries to show himself as (in the role of) the victim as well as the saviour of wikipedia. However he uses the NPOV and other policies not for Wikipedia, but against Hungarian users, and Hungary and Hungarians in general.

Tankred is the agressor, however, the users he/she harasses unfortunately respont almost in the same way :( I am sure, that Wikipedia without Tankred would be a better place. I suspended my editing because of him, alone. This user is the "nationalist, POV pusher etc. vandal", hiding it by accusing everybody else of being that. TANKRED STARTED ALL THE EDIT WARS. This was my last comment on enwiki, do not try to respond or send e-mail, i wont answer. --Rembaoud (talk) 14:44, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, now, this feels familiar. Anyone have any suggestions beyond closing this as "this is not the complaints department" and go to dispute resolution? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 03:21, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Why not consider an article ban? A group of editors who've been part of highly contentious editing on Hedvig Malina in the past would be banned from directly editing that article for a period of time. In Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Digwuren#General restriction Arbcom ruled that: Any editor working on topics related to Eastern Europe, broadly defined, may be made subject to an editing restriction at the discretion of any uninvolved administrator. For previous bans issued under this case see Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Digwuren#Log of blocks and bans. EdJohnston (talk) 03:53, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Please look into those edits a bit more before issuing quick bans. One editor didn't like eight references and kept deleting them. Most of the edits there are simply restoring this stuff. Svetovid was blocked three times for disruptive behavior regarding that article so now punish everyone for this?

Anyway the edit warring there seems to have cooled down since Ricky's intervention and the article appears to be stable now. Squash Racket (talk) 05:01, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

User:Svetovid after reading my comment wants to prove at all cost that the article is not stable, so he reinserted the formulation "Slovak from Slovakia", but please don't buy into his provocation. Squash Racket (talk) 09:36, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to see some examples of and evidence for the alleged POV-pushing. (You can list them on my talk page.)--Svetovid (talk) 09:22, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Per my comment at your talk page, I am not interested in continuing to repeat myself with you. I will leave it to someone else. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 23:31, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

That was a reply to Rembaoud.--Svetovid (talk) 09:47, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

The H-word and Dana Ullman

There's been quite a bit of arguing over at Talk:Homeopathy/Article probation/Incidents recently, regarding User:DanaUllman (AKA Dana Ullman). Frustrations seem to be nearing the tipping point. Some admin comments would be helpful here, as nothing seems to be being done with respect to the comments already there. Relevant sections to this particular dispute include

• Talk:Homeopathy/Article_probation/Incidents#gross_WP:COI_on_pushing_of_another_shooted_down_study,
• Talk:Homeopathy/Article_probation/Incidents#An_analysis_of_Mr._Ullman.27s_claims_as_to_studies, and
• Talk:Homeopathy/Article_probation/Incidents#Shoemaker.27s_Holiday:_When_Content_Disputes_Lead_to_Attacking_the_Messenger.

A note to other involved editors: I'm deciding not to weigh in with any of my opinions here, as there were concerns about too much of that happening from involved editors in the Whig case. I can't stop anyone else from doing so, but it might be appreciated if we can keep this thread from becoming another battleground. --Infophile ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 21:43, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I'm going out on a limb here and guessing that one reason for the silence might be that people don't wish to plumb through the discussion without some summary first of what's going on. So, I'm going to go against my previous advice to explain how I see things. Basically, Dana has a chronic problem of misrepresenting sources in a direction that favors homeopathy. All the evidence is laid out in the above links. When these concerns are brought up with him, he starts quibbling. For instance, in the third section linked above, he pulled the discussion down into quibbling over the use of the word "retraction." It's gotten to the point where a lot of editors immediately distrust anything he says. He has a clear motivation to promote Homeopathy on Wikipedia, and yet he claims that he has no conflict of interest. (The difference between him and your average MD however is that the MD has no obvious financial benefit from promoting mainstream medicine on Wikipedia.) He's shown throughout his history here that he's practically unable to learn. I wasn't even able to teach him how to use diffs - in fact, he couldn't even tell the difference between a diff and a link to a section of a talk page. That's just one example of the difficulty in working with him. When it comes to sourcing, it's almost impossible to get him to interpret anything in any way except that which is positive for Homeopathy. --Infophile ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 18:19, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I will also go out on a limb and suggest that the reason for the "silence" is the lack of justification in bringing this subjective appraisal of another editor's serious academic efforts to this Noticeboard. Dana Ullman has sought to bring true scholarship to the homeopathy articles on Wikipedia - which are blantantly slanted in their language toward an anti-homeopathy bias, with deliberate attempts by a number of editors to exclude positive research findings. Arion 3x3 (talk) 19:31, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Ahem, pushing the same flawed studies over and over on different talk pages trying to get around other editor's objections that they are flawed and unsable for the article(s). That's not a serious academic effort, and in wikipedia that's called POV pushing --Enric Naval (talk) 20:05, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I did my bit here a long time ago. I don't regret that and, upon reflection, do not think that I should have consented to my original decision should have been overturned. Moreschi (talk) (debate) 20:09, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I think it will be unlikely that you'll find an admin willing to take action on an AN/I request on this particular situation, for several reasons: a previous indefinite block was overturned, the mentoring situation is a bit unclear, and the pattern of disruptive behavior does not lend itself easily to quick, digestible presentation. If it has not already been tried, a user-conduct RfC may be the most appropriate setting to get more input. I don't think there's going to be a resolution here until a larger section of people weigh in. MastCell ^Talk 21:52, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Mentoring is finished since 1 March, like LaraLove says herself on Dana's talk page [33]. There is a message of her saying that the mentorship is still not finished, but it's from 25 February [34]

Also, notice this warning from Lara Dana, if there is another complaint about you editing article space without first reaching consensus, you'll be back on article probation. and this other one Dana, the agreement with your unblock was that you not edit the article space until consensus had been reached on the talk page(...) No pushing references of questionable reliability. If there is a disagreement about the reliability of a source, it should be posted to the Reliable Sources Noticeboard.. I think that Dana has broken the promises he made on unblock and should be put on probation or blocked again. --Enric Naval (talk) 22:54, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Infophile appropriately sought to get uninvolved admins to comment, but none have. He initially tried to maintain a certain objectivity (good for him), but when that didn't work, he chose to make outlandish claims that I am "practically unable to learn." He further asserted that I "quibbled" over one editor's use of the word "retraction." Yes, that is right. I asserted that the word "retraction" was never used by the researcher in question, and the editor who put this word into his mouth was inserting OR. Ironically, I asked that he retract his word "retraction," but all we got was stonewalling. And worse, the editors with whom I have had a content dispute came to his aid and simply attacked me for dwelling on this issue. Yes, I prefer to dwell on following wiki policy, in this case, OR is OR...and strangely enough, the many editors who have cited chapter and verse to me about wiki-policy began complaining that I was encouraging them to follow it.

I do not have the time that some editors seem to have to mount a more thorough defense, though clearly, the extra time that select editors have placed into attacking me and my contributions has not generated the support for punishment they wanted. It is no surprise that the editors who have been most critical of me are people with whom I have content disputes. Because I do a darn good job at maintaining civility, despite having many sock puppets going after me and my contribution, the editors who do not like the NPOV evidence I bring are now going after the messenger. One previous admin warned me about the many socks that surround me.[35] I am not saying that the editors in this dialogue are socks, though admins should note that I am generally good at maintaining civility and at giving and demanding good faith whenever possible. Yeah, I'm not perfect, and yeah, I sometimes have written a date incorrectly (we all have) or mis-written the name of a journal, but my present record of providing good RS has led to many improvements in many articles. I am a useful resource to wikipedia, and to me it is sad that some editors who disagree with the information that I bring here seek to punish me. Ironically, previous Wiki-editors have sought to create more neutral language in various homeopathy articles, though other editors have insisted upon providing RS evidence for all edits or additions. I have sought to provide RS by my referencing of research, and the vast majority of the time, I bring this to the Talk pages. We may not always agree, but let's try to get along. For the record, my former mentor, [LaraLove] had actually received "hate mail" about me, though here she expresses pleasure and surprise that she hadn't gotten any recently[36] And then, because she saw that I learned how to do wikipedia, she ended the mentoring with no stipulations [37]. Finally, for people who are new to me, I am a relatively new editor who only became active in late November, 2007. However, as a newbie, I made some mistakes and for which I was blocked. Since becoming unblocked, I have provided many contributions to this fine but frustrating endeavor. DanaUllman^Talk 01:42, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Wow, your misuse of edit summaries is getting worse and worse [38]. You claim to add a 2004 source by talk page, but the talk page is talking about how it's physically imposible that a 2002 TV program is testing a 2004 study. --Enric Naval (talk) 09:59, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

(after throughly reading Dana's message) *ahem* Dana, had you followed WP:RS and WP:NPOV in the first place, or followed Jehochman's advice to take a holiday, or stopped pushing sources once they were found to be full of flaws, you wouldn't have put yourself into all these problems. It doesn't help that you keep avoiding the real issues and nit-picking at unrelated or barely related issues. You also look like you think that wikipedia is for making revolutionary science [39], which means that you never undestood the point of WP:OR on the first place --Enric Naval (talk) 10:09, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

You know, when trying to argue that you aren't incapable of learning, making the very mistake I used as an example is not a good tactic. --Infophile ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 02:52, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

A-ho, it looks like admins are once again paralysed by a CIVIL POV-pusher. Shot info (talk) 03:42, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Not to mention one who's milking WP:BITE for all it's worth. I think after your mentor is finished with you, that's a pretty good sign you don't qualify as a newbie anymore. --Infophile ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 14:52, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I just noticed that Dana was denied unblock by 3 different admins before being mentored by Lara, see User_talk:DanaUllman/Archive_1 --Enric Naval (talk) 23:05, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

What does LaraLove think about this? Dana was unblocked on condition of mentorship, as I understand it, and Infophile seems to be suggesting that the mentorship did no good. I have little interest into wading into this whole mess to do a thorough investigation of my own, but if the mentorship did do no good - and I'm not taking Infophile's word on that, which is why I'd like to hear from Lara - I say the indefinite block gets restored. I'll leave a note at her talk page asking for her thoughts, in any event. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 04:38, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

It's unfortunate that Lara hasn't commented, but based on my own review of the evidence provided, I would favour a restoration of Dana's indef-block or an indefinite topic ban from homeopathy-related articles (which would likely work out to be the same thing, given the single purpose nature of the account). The reasons for it now seem every bit as valid now as they were in November. I'd restore the block or issue the topic ban myself, but I suspect that I'd be perceived as too involved, given a small bout of involvement I had with the homeopathy article on the pro-science side. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 00:28, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Some of the details of Dana's mentoring can be seen here, if anyone cares. Before I really comment, I'd like to point out a few things:

1. Dana making wiki-markup mistakes is irrelevant and pointless to even bring up.
2. Every editor with good intentions deserves a chance to edit Wikipedia. So I really don't care if three admins or 30 refused to overturn his block before I did, or who I pissed off in the process.
3. Dana's had to deal with a lot of bullshit in his time here. Most of which he's brought on his self, but abusive sockpuppets and hate mail (I assume it wasn't all sent just to me) are just a couple of the issues. And he has managed to stay pretty civil through all of it.
4. Speaking of sockpuppets, I seriously, seriously doubt Dana has any.

Now, as far as his recent edits. I haven't seen them. He says he's made constructive, lasting improvements to various articles. If this is the case, a ban would be a detriment to the project. If administrative action is indeed necessary, an RFC/U with more than three diffs would be the best course of action. When I ended my mentorship of Dana, it was with no expressed conditions. At that point, if he didn't have a grasp on acceptable behavior, that was his problem. On his own. Good luck. That's exactly what I said and exactly what I meant. If his edits warrant a block or, less likely in my opinion, a ban, then that should be determined through the proper channels. Not some weak ANI thread. Lara❤Love 04:52, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I think a RFC/U would be ok. The probation report page has tons of diffs dated after the mentorship end, and the diffs before that date can be used to show that the same behaviour continues. --Enric Naval (talk) 14:41, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

In response to Lara's points:

1. The reason I brought this up was to demonstrate both the difficulty in working with Dana and how he never seems to learn anything while here. Simply being unfamiliar is one thing. Not even being able to notice the difference between a what a diff links to and a link to a section is quite different, especially when a lot of the concerns with Dana deal with his reading comprehension when it comes to studies.
2. Here's the thing: It's debatable whether Dana has good intentions here. It seems clear to many that his intentions here are only to make Homeopathy look good - that is, to promote his own profession. What edits has he made to any other area of Wikipedia to improve it? How is not a single-purpose account with a conflict of interest?
3. I'll let User:Filll handle this one. He seems to like ranting about this stuff.
4. I tend to agree here. With someone like Dana, it seems more likely that those who are suspected of being sockpuppets are simply fans of his. --Infophile ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 17:50, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Just a note, this is the extent of my participation in the matter. I don't want to read rants from Filll, or anyone else for that matter. I've made my recommendation, that's all I've got. Lara❤Love 19:07, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Dana is a good and serious editor. Every good faith person sees it. In this forum every time there is a dispute, different editors try to block someone they disagree with. This is not kind and/or civil. Focus on the article, please.--Area69 (talk) 21:04, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I actually do not like ranting about these situations particularly. I find them tiresome and repetitive. And with all due respect, I question some of the objectivity of any admin who would back an appeal for sanctions against someone for the allegedly unCIVIL action of calling someone a "homeopathy promoter". That really is a bit over the top, if you will pardon my boldness. It is difficult to retain much credibility after that, it would seem to me.

Nevertheless, I do see a problem with Dana which I hope can be resolved, although it has proved impossible so far, even after many months of attempts. Dana is clearly a world expert in this WP:FRINGE area. However, he misunderstands the purpose of Wikipedia and its mission. In particular, he has a massive problem with NPOV, and believes that Wikipedia is a forum for him to evangelize for his WP:FRINGE position without any interference from the mainstream or contrary evidence or criticism. And that is the root cause of all the problems. Until this is resolved, one way or another, there will continue to be trouble.--Filll (talk) 15:31, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

sock case

See Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets/DanaUllman. A checkuser should be used to confirm it --Enric Naval (talk) 01:10, 11 April 2008 (UTC) It got closed 5 minutes after opening it, the closing admin says that it lacks evidence for checkuser --Enric Naval (talk) 01:12, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

User:RobJ1981's disputes with various editors

Every since he has had a problem with me here: List of characters in Bully, he has been uncivil and shown a lot of bad faith. A few recent examples: [40] (first time he blanked my comment on the talk page). I reverted it, and told him about Template:Notyours. Later, he once again blanked my comment out: [41]. Then there is this: [42], which I see also as bad faith. It should be noted I hadn't edited that Bully list page (or it's talk) for a while, so his original attack (found here: [43], wasn't necessary at all. There was no need to drag past editors into the discussion, and basically drag their name in the mud because of past disputes. Then he butted into this alert: Wikipedia:Wikiquette_alerts#User:Angrymansr, due to past issues with me. I also posted this at Wikiquette alerts, the issue with him seems to fit both pages in my view. RobJ1981 (talk) 05:07, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Rob posted this exact same thing on Wikiquette Alerts already.

Not to mention he has been reported on wikiquette alerts by me about a week ago, where he was told by an administrator to knock it off. Exact quote. McJeff (talk) 06:32, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

• Recommend you avoid each other. Stifle (talk) 10:58, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

• • I don't think that's fair to be quite honest - why should my wikipedia editing be constrained because he won't quit harassing me after having been told to knock it off? McJeff (talk) 17:24, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

It's a bit hard to avoid him, when he follows me around on Wikipedia and posts on a majority of the same talk pages I do. RobJ1981 (talk) 20:44, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

We've been involved in a grand total of three articles. One of them was your bad faith AfD on Vicious and Delicious. Another was the List of Characters in Bully. The only article you were working on that I later stepped into is Smackdown vs Raw 2008, and that was after Angrymansr brought your behavior on that article to my attention on your warning at Wikiquette alerts.

And might I remind you that you were instructed to stop the bad faith attacks on me, and that accusing me of wikistalking is bad faith, especially since it's not just a false accusation but a blatant attempt at smearing me? McJeff (talk) 23:58, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Don't talk about smearing: when you do that to me on the alerts page, and everywhere else where you mention my name. I wouldn't have such a problem, if you didn't drag me into the Bully talk page again. Just because my name was mentioned, didn't mean you needed to respond in the way you did. I clearly wasn't editing the talk or article, so my name didn't need to be mentioned (except for the fact that I didn't edit there anymore). Then all the removing of my comment (that you finally realized wasn't the correct thing to do), didn't help matters. Don't get me started on the AFD. I had every right to nominate it, and it wasn't in bad faith. You and Dan took it personal, that's not my problem. Don't make up things (and/or twist things around) to make me look bad, so you look good to the editors that read this. RobJ1981 (talk) 06:29, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

What makes you think I took the AFD to Vicious and Delicious personal then? I didn't know the article was up for deletion until McJeff asked me to join the debate. He asked me that since he knows I'm a wrestling fan. Secondly your comments there at the debate, You say there thats it's likely that he told me to join the debate, which isn't true, then you stated that I didn't make any edits to wrestling articles, which is true yes, but that does not mean that I can't voice my opinions on a wrestling subject, or if wrestling article should stay. Dan the Man1983 (talk) 10:03, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

You are acting as if he was the one who mentioned your name first out of the blue on the discussion page. Dan the Man1983 (talk) 09:21, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

You had a right to AfD Vicious and Delicious. That doesn't mean you did it for the right reason. For that matter, I had every right to participate in the Angrymansr user alert, so maybe you should stop bringing that up like it matters. McJeff (talk) 07:38, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

• Have to agree with User:Stifle on this one. If you guys can't make an actual effort to "just get along" than you should both make the effort to avoid each other. It isn't down to either one of you. My suggestion is for you both to stay away from any articles currently in the middle of your dispute and to double check your own civility on talk pages, edit summaries, etc. to help make sure these sort of issues don't occur again. Jasynnash2 (talk) 08:12, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I tried my best to leave the article we both have edited (the Bully list), but he didn't want to leave things alone. Now, it's Jeff, Dan and Angrymansr ganging up on me... just to cause problems and harass me. RobJ1981 (talk) 21:20, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

So of course the appropriate reaction is to [44] wikistalk me]. McJeff (talk) 17:02, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

For the past couple of months, I have tried avoiding RobJ1981; after purposely not participating in various XfDs he started, today however he nominated an article for deletion that I was the last editor to edit prior to its nomination. In my keep argument in the MfD, I did not insult Rob or chastise him. And because this article concerns "in popular culture", which has a Wikiproject for which I am a member, I listed it there, but Rob is starting an edit war with the members of the group over its being listed there. As you can see from my talk page, another member of the group strongly disagrees with what Rob has done. Rob has castigated that editor on his talk page. Until now, I have avoided jumping in on Rob's disputes with Angrymansr, Dan, and McJeff, because I do not like piling on someone and I thought we had in effect avoided each other effectively for a couple of months now; I guess that hope was wrong. And so, for it's worth, these problems indicated above have occured with a large number of editors and over much of Rob's Wikipedia-history. Eyrian was one of only three editors to persistently go after me since my return to Wikipedia in the summer. Dannycali was blocked as a sock puppet after a check user and a different check user turned up multiple socks of Eyrian. That leaves RobJ1981 who like Dannycali and Eyrian has a staunch anti-in popular culture mentality and a concerted aggression against myself. I strongly urge you to consider the evidence I have submitted in the Alkivar case as well as that submitted below. Anyway, now RobJ1981 is removing my rescue tags to articles! Please see [45], [46], and [47]. These articles are not ones that he nominated for deletion and I limit my use of the rescue tag to maybe one or two articles at most a day and only for articles that I also make an effort to improve. I am avoiding reverting his latest edit, but I think his removal of the tag is in bad faith. He has been cautioned about this behavior: [48], [49], [50], and [51]. He even admits that he will follow me around: [52] and [53]. And admins are not taking kindly to his edits about me: [54] and [55]. I suppose I am just a little concerned that I will not be able to participate in any AfDs that he nominates without him posting after me or commenting about me. Here are just some of RobJ1981's recent edits after or about me (notice the one on January 2nd, i.e. his first post since not posting for a few days in about me): [56], [57], [58], [59], [60], [61], [62], [63], [64], [65], [66], [67], [68], [69], [70], [71], [72], [73], [74], [75], [76], [77], [78], [79], [80], [81], [82], and [83]. Please note that I even stayed out of this "in popular culture" AfD he started: [84]. I also avoided this AfD: [85]. And I avoided these ones as well: [86] and [87]. I did, however, participate in this one discussion: [88]. So, of the various AfDs he started or participated in the duration of those weeks, I initially only participated in one, whereas he had posted in nearly every one after me, removed my rescue tag from an article, and even left comments in AfDs hoping admins would disregard my arguments. Finally, it seemed as if we had left each other alone for a couple months then until today. Please also consider this: [89]. Please also see [90]. The category is not exactly flooded and those that I did not myself tag, I also attempted to improve. He STILL even after another admin's comment to him about his commenting on my posts did so anyway: [91]. I gave a few reasons why I thought the article should be saved, but he fixates on one aspect of my remark. Can we not participate in the same AfDs, even ones that he did not nominate, without him leaving notes to or about me rather than about the article? DGG cautioned Rob about doing this: [92]. Yet, Rob kept doing so. If I tried avoiding AfDs Rob started or posted in, why was it so hard for him to do the same for me? Also, please note that RobJ1981 is also edit warring with and getting into conflict with many other users: [93], [94], [95], [96], [97], [98], [99], [100], [101], [102], [103], [104], [105], [106], [107], [108], [109], [110], [111], [112], [113], [114], [115], [116], [117], [118], [119], etc. Notice here: [120], [121], and [122]. He writes: “the consensus is to merge” and insults Smile Lee. 6 for merge, 4 for keep is hardly “consensus.” He writes: “Smile Lee is the only one that refuses to accept the consensus.” Uh, myself and others wanting to keep do not want to merge either. And even with Kyaa the Catlord acknowledging that it was no discussion, Rob just went ahead and redirected anyway. See also this discussion: [123]. Notice the final person to post says the decision is to have a table and earlier in the discussion all those who disagree with Rob. How does Rob react? [124]. Is he just ignoring the same talk page?! Rob has also been warned for false accusations post-Thanksgiving: [125]. If you scroll through RobJ1981's talk page history, you’ll also see that RobJ1981 even disagreed to an offer at mediation in one of the disputes. I especially find JzG’s comments to RobJ1981 compelling: “Having proven beyond reasonable doubt that they are separate accounts, creating a second sockpuppetry case against them looks a lot like harassment. I have deleted it. Do not pursue that line again.” In other words, his aggressiveness toward me, McJeff, Angrymansr, and Dan the man and now ErgoSum is hardly new as he has done so with others even after well-established admins told him otherwise. Please consider the above in conjunction with all the other evidence I presented of Rob's incivility and assumption of bad faith. I do not get why he still will not leave certain editors alone and why he keeps getting into conflict with others as well. It would be nice to be able to edit without Dannycali, Eyrian, and/or RobJ1981 hovering over me when I have sought mentorship and frequently ask admins for advice and help with editing. Thank you for your time and efforts! Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 20:56, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles: it's unreasonable to tell an active member of a Wikiproject to stop participating at AFDs for that project's articles just because another editor is a rude and overly aggressive deletionist. This has already been through a wikiquette alert and an independent observer determined it was RobJ1981 who needed to cool down. Roi has been consistently polite, and as far as I can tell nobody is ganging up against or wikistalking RobJ1981. When several people acting independently all see the same problems with the one editor's behavior it's time for self-examination; there's a chance the consensus is right. Durova^Charge! 01:57, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

User:Arcayne

Resolved

 – Substantive matters being dealt with in another place

Kbthompson (talk) 16:36, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

OK, let's put it another way ... what do you expect this notice board to do? Kbthompson (talk) 15:09, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

My first and most important request is that Arcayne be directed to support his specific allegation ("Ongoing, serious pattern vandalism involving dozens of incidents" and "3RR violation using socks") underpinning his formal effort to ban me, failing that it should be immediately withdrawn and if it proves to be as utterly baseless as I allege there should be a sanction. I would also request that Arcayne be directed to not accuse me of Sock-puppetry and to not follow me around threatening me or changing my talk page edits and include a time-out on reverting my article edits.75.57.165.180 (talk) 15:31, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I'd direct you to the notice board header - particularly What these pages are not - you should find the right forum at Are you in the right place?. This page is NOT part of the dispute resolution process - and so can take none of the remedies you seek. The WP:Wikiquette alerts issue against User:Arcane was already dealt with there, and any further bite of that particular cherry is likely to be resolved as the last one was. The Sockpuppet matter is ongoing - and if you are, as you claim, unrelated to the other AnonIPs, you have absolutely nothing to worry about. The only other resolution I can entertain is semi-protecting the articles that are in contention - this would obviously disadvantage yourself more than User:Arcayne, so not something I shall do unless I feel the situation warrants it (other admins' mileage may vary). Be assured they'll be a lot of eyes on this, so I would respectfully advise all parties to keep it cool. Kbthompson (talk) 15:52, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I have claimed all the IP's. I even used a specific identifier to remove all doubt, I used the symbol before Arcayne entered the discussion. Here is a quote from Arcayne himself noting my identifier:

Every other one of the likely socks of the anon show similarly abusive editing patterns, and all use the '♠' as an identifier. Arcayne

The symbol was affixed because of the rapid nature of the discussion. It was lost on nobody - as Arcayne himself so pointedly notes. There were no incidents whatsoever from those IP's of "Ongoing, serious pattern vandalism involving dozens of incidents" and "3RR violation using socks".

There is really no substance, nothing at all. It never happened. Arcayne has made it up an effort to ban me - The only thing that exists is a static IP address. There is no pretense whatsoever that there is more than one user using those IP's at all.75.57.165.180 (talk) 16:06, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

... and as I said, this is not the forum for resolution of such matters. The process is evidential and an admin will review that matter in that forum. Bringing up the matter in multiple forums is 'forum shopping' and strongly discouraged. Kbthompson (talk) 16:13, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I've never previously initiated an action against Arcayne. What is the correct forum for this kind of abusive bullying, stalking, reverting, etc?75.57.165.180 (talk) 16:51, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

This is the response Arcayne received to the action he initiated against me in the other Forum:

Clerk note: Since the IP does not deny being the same person on a dynamic range, I'm not sure what Checkuser can do to help :). -- lucasbfr talk 08:30, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Which forum addresses abusive use of Wikipedia forums to harass and harm? Which forum considers McCarthy like baseless user charges? Is there no limit to a members ability to completely fabricate formal charges without even a single example of the charge?75.57.165.180 (talk) 16:57, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Why must you consider dragging this issue through the mud? You've already been told to take it to dispute resolution. This thread has been marked as resolved, and I see no further reason that it needs to continue here (or at WQA). You've been forum shopping, and by the looks of your recent edits, perhaps a bit too obsessed with the case in itself. seicer | talk | contribs 17:00, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

An editor has filed a formal charge against me without a single piece of evidence, not one diff. I have NEVER initiated a single action against this individual at any other Forum. There is NO forum shopping. I guess I just believed in the core Wiki philosophy "The basic right of all Wikipedians, public editor or anonymous wiki account holder is the same - a reasonable request for citation must be respected. ".

Arcayne has used the formal levers of Wikipedia power in an effort to ban me - I've asked for nothing more than a single shred of evidence. I apologize if I am out of place, or that my honest, civil and supported defense is now "obsessive". No links, no diffs=Good/Citations, Reliable Source=Bad? 75.57.165.180 (talk) 17:23, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

[Edit conflict] If I were the AnonIP, I would take a day off from wiki, or have a cup of coffee, and just calm down. It has been pointed out (ad nauseam) that you both need to pursue some form of dispute resolution; and there will be a forum there where you can have someone help untangle this mess. This is just becoming disruptive, and I feel, not helpful to you. Kbthompson (talk) 17:37, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Let's see: you complained about Arcayne, absolved; it now appears that his sockpuppet counter claims are resolved. The process is evidential, and has been followed in those places. This is not the correct place to consider these matters and a recommendation has been made that allows you to resolve your disputes within the system. Kbthompson (talk) 17:37, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

You sent me here first:

My personal opinion is that it is a storm in a teacup and the two parties should go there to sort out their differences, rather than forum shopping for a resolution in their own favour. Kbthompson (talk) 08:48, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Now you are suggesting that I go to WP:DR? I looked at your second link and it is a resource for resolving disputes about content. I have explicitly stated that this is not a content dispute - nothing that I have written has even the hint of a content dispute. I shall do as I am directed though and post this dispute in DR.75.57.165.180 (talk) 19:40, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

No, that is a partial quotation. At wikiquette, the admin closing the case against Arcayne suggested dispute resolution. I reiterated that advice, I went on to describe the matter as a 'storm in a teacup'. You have consistently been directed to dispute resolution, this forum is unable to provide any of the remedies you seek (see above).

I have communicated with Arcayne and asked s/he to treat you with respect and civility and make a genuine attempt to settle your differences. Basically wikipedia is about trying to create quality content for an encyclopaedia, and NOT about managing the relationship between you. In the previous thread to this one, User:Stifle provides some good advice to two editors in a similar dispute, and that is if they can't get on, to avoid each other.

I closed this off as resolved because when I concentrated the previously unstructured debate on the outcomes you were seeking from this forum, they were identified as not being appropriate for this forum. It seems to me that the behaviour dispute has already been dealt with at wikiquette, and the sock puppet issue is also resolved. You complain that formal charges have been laid against you - but they've been resolved without any sanction. There is no 'punishment' for Arcayne reporting you to suspected sock puppets, just as there is no 'punishment' for Arcayne being reported to wikiquette. I still feel that to pursue sanctions when the issues appear to have been dealt with is fruitless and disruptive. I would urge both of you to concentrate on the content of articles and to assume good faith on the part of the other. Kbthompson (talk) 10:20, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Hear, hear, the issue is now about communications and relationships and Kbthompson offers sage advice. FWIW Bzuk (talk) 13:37, 10 April 2008 (UTC).

"It seems to me that the behaviour dispute has already been dealt with at wikiquette, and the sock puppet issue is also resolved. You complain that formal charges have been laid against you - but they've been resolved without any sanction. There is no 'punishment' for Arcayne reporting you to suspected sock puppets, just as there is no 'punishment' for Arcayne being reported to wikiquette."

Responding directly to the quoted matter above, the formal charges he brought against me were done without ANY evidence. This is unacceptable. He had no more basis to accuse me of "Ongoing, serious pattern vandalism involving dozens of incidents" and "3RR violation using socks". than I do of you.

What is the Wiki standard of evidence required to bring formal charges? Society always punishes those who make false accusations in official forums(Not a single citation was ever presented.). This is not a one-off, Arcayne has brought charges against numerous editors and multiple administrators[159] and on a near daily basis posts threats of formal charges and sanctions against various individual editors. What is the policy?

(Note: I did not initiate any action at Wikiquette - this is not a quid pro quo matter.)75.57.165.180 (talk) 14:17, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

As said before, your options can be found under WP:DR. You may not have read that policy in full as you appear to have followed advice from its top sections. DR applies to content disputes as well as behavioral disputes. Since you have complaints about the behavior of Arcayne, your options are e.g.: talk page discussion, mediation, RfC/U. I would say it isn't worth it though. Simply keep your interactions with Arcayne to a minimum and on-topic and don't overreact to accusations you know to be incorrect. If you need the advice of an experienced editor, you may want to register a user name and put a {{helpme}} or {{adoptme}} tag on your talk page. Avb 14:45, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I did miss the comments in WP:DR that addressed non-content issues. A final question then, Is there a Wiki standard for supporting formal charges and accusations with a citation or evidence?75.57.165.180 (talk) 15:13, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Depends on the forum (examples: WP:RfC and WP:RfAr require such formal evidence). However, accusations that are not supported by diffs or other links to problematic edits are generally not taken seriously and editors who keep accusing others without merit don't have a good reputation. Other things that come to mind are a WP:guideline called Don't bite the newcomers and an essay called No angry mastodons. Also worth noting is the principle that admin tools and especially WP:BLOCKs are not to be used as punishment. If I find the time I'll post a couple of pointers on your talk page. My advice re Arcayne remains: let it go. Avb 16:12, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

User:Arcayne II

Must a new section be opened if the harassment continues? Or does this get reopened? He is now going around to multiple editors to encourage discord and strife. Here is one example:

I thought I would point out that I have recently ported over the discussion page entries for the unusually large number of IP addresses used by the anon you just posted to. You might want to re-check the page to see if there are topics there already brought to the user's attention in previous incarnations. - Arcayne

As well, I thought I would point out that deleting disruptive (personal attacks, incivility, etc) cannot really be refactored out of article discussion, whereas redundant or random off-topic posts can under limited exceptions. I would suggest that you might want to avoid escalating matters with the anon user (trust me, he's got quite the little temper) and simply report the behavioral concerns to AN/I. They already know who he is. - Arcayne

The debate with the editor is found here:[160]I'll think you'll notice in it a civil and reasoned discussion on my part - to have Arcayne running around inciting fights and spreading malicous untruths does nothing to further reasoned discussion about an Encyclopedia entry.75.57.186.159 (talk) 18:36, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

After having his points soundly refuted by several other editors the anon posting here has been quite clearly trolling Talk:Fitna (film). It is entirely improper to copy and paste an edited segment of a conversation onto your own talk page and then claim here at ANI to link to a "debate with the editor." The actual full discussion can be found at the talk page on which we both posted. If anyone is unwilling to read the entire subsection the relevant parts start towards the bottom of the subsection, but well before the segment the anon posted on his talk page ... and they quite clearly involve several other editors as well. Also you will note that his talk page segment was edited. At the very least can someone tell him that copy pasting a discussion in an edited version to a seperate location is not OK if you are going to link to it at ANI as if it were the actual conversation between two editors. Thanks.PelleSmith (talk) 19:28, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

The posts brought over by the anon user (why he continues to avoid actual inks escapes me, as he knows how to make them) illustrate:

1. me advising an editor that he might want to check a page I had updated with the anon's prior discussion record from his series of IPs; and
2. me advising PelleSmith that refactoring user discussion wasn't the way to go, but rather to explore solutions outside the article discussion (as such tend to disrupt the on-topic discussion with pissing contests). As someone who has seen the vehemence with which this anon user plays the Eternal Victim (the continuation of the above closed AN/I report should be a pretty good indicator that this feller don't know when to let go, or through the RfCU debate, or in the Fitna article discussion), I think I am rather qualified to represent the anon as having a temper. Refactoring the anon's actual posts in Talk:Fitna would have popped a blood vessel in the anon's head. I counseled against refactoring.

I get that the guy doesn't like me. But using the noticeboards to address that disline through bloated claims of personal wrongs is, at best tedious. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 21:10, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

User:Avb's advice to both parties is good, reasoned advice. Just stop it. Take ten, a chill pill, a deep breath or a coffee. Whatever works for you folks. Let's put it another way, it is as much a responsibility of the whichever party feels wronged to attempt to build bridges and find a way forward as it is the party of the second part - and as far as I'm concerned you can put either of you in whichever part of that sentence you fancy. If you continue with the same interests, you must find a way to get along without imposing your argument on the whole community. It needs to go to some appropriate forum of dispute resolution, or you need to sort it out between the two of you. The top of the page indicates that this is NOT a counselling service.

That said - and needing to take ten, two cups of mocha and a whole bottle of chill pills myself ... it seems to me that Arcaynes' input to that discussion is actually pretty minimal and that the anonIP is challenging a developing consensus by other users - and then claiming it is incited by Arcayne (that bod doesn't seem to be involved in this one, now 's/he is acting as puppet-master').

OK, that was going to tip the balance for me, and I was going to argue for semi-protection of the page - but someone has beat me to it - good call. My opinion is still that Arcayne and the anonIP need to settle their differences - but further that the anonIP needs to build bridges with the named users that they've accused of not being able to see through any of Arcayne's sneaky tricks and think for themselves. Kbthompson (talk) 01:17, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Edit-warring on talk page

Resolved

Nothing for admins to do. Orderinchaos 08:08, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I'd appreciate a review of the matter at my talk page relating to a blocked user who has contacted me and expressed an intention to engage in a campaign of edit-warring and harassment against a person who is the subject of an article, using public kiosks and other hit-run means at User talk:Retarius#Freddy. Another user is insisting on deleting the material, including my attempt to defuse the situation. I have asked him to desist but he refuses and insists that he will determine what's allowed to be on the page. I won't characterise his behaviour beyond saying that I think an analysis of his talk page contents and relations with other editors will reveal a pattern. Retarius | Talk 07:01, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I will vouch for the other editor. No admin intervention is needed. Perhaps the intervention of a friend instead.... Hesperian 11:29, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

As will I. I'd also mention to Retarius that we really shouldn't be engaging with people who use threats and vandalism and block evasion to try and get BLP-violating content into articles. Admins and, if necessary, OTRS can deal with those matters appropriately. Orderinchaos 14:19, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

User:Dbachmann on Egyptians

Looking for opinions. User:Dbachmann was edit-warring on the article Egyptians after being solicited by User:Funkynusayri to make changes that had not yet gained sufficient consensus on the talk page. He broke 3RR after I left him a note, reminding him of that and his latest arbitration. Another editor is now blocked, but not Dbachmann. The blocking admin is saying that I might have broken 3RR myself, though looking back at the history again I don't believe I have [161]. Still would like to address Dbachmann's conduct here. I consider his comments on the article's talk page to be attacks rather than constructive criticism. In the past, I would have said that these types of eruptions were out of character, but lately I'm not sure. Discussion with blocking admin is here. — Zerida ☥ 12:36, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't see any attacks. I do note, however, that I copped it from someone on that page for accepting your definition of them as "pan-Arabist". Apparently that was an attack - by you and I. Which should remind us all not to throw the word "attack" around. --Relata refero (disp.) 07:09, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

First, I almost never use the term "pan-Arabist" which is only a subset of Arab nationalism. Most Arab-nationalist wikipedians are self-proclaimed judging by their comments on talk pages. Among the many points that Funkynusayri consistently misses, however, is that I hardly have him in mind specifically when I use that term casually. He might think I do because he has been religiously stalking me for months, but the fact is that this type of disruption and tendentious editing has been an on-again, off-again problem by a few editors who associate with each other (the most problematic being this one, who was a close friend of Funky). Now that I recall though, in one of his many instances of soapboxing to that article's discussion page, Funky does indicate something to that effect, so it's hardly presumptive.

Getting back to the main issue of this discussion, I do consider these comments by Dbachmann blatant personal attacks: "we get it already, the author of the article doesn't like Arabs" (an odious charge that forces me to defend myself when I shouldn't have to. At least if it were true, I would not have put up on my userpage the second barnstar that an Arab admin gave me in large part *because of* that article) and "with Zerida 'defending' his 'Pharaonist' article" (whatever that means; must be a kind of circumstantial ad hominem to which one resorts when one runs out of logic or has nothing substantive to say in the face of reliably sourced information). The comments were clearly insulting and belittling, but I take confidence in that my edit history, the quality of my contributions and the level of scholarship that I have established on the main Egypt-related articles, and pushed for during Ancient Egypt's FA nomination, all speak for themselves.

This incident is just one manifestation of the problems that plague Wikipedia as a community. That someone who has been through multiple RFCs for questionable user conduct and an arbitration is still given free rein as an admin to continue to act in violation of our core policies is quite symptomatic. Admittedly, when I first came across the arbitration case I was conflicted. I had even previously invited him to help mediate an article when I still respected him as an editor. Some of those who set up the arbitration case themselves had been trying to force an Afrocentric POV at every corner. The problem, however, is that many of the points raised against him were valid. Watching the article Race of ancient Egyptians as an example go through many rewrites month after month of discussion, several drafts and RFCs until a modicum of consensus was reached by editors with very disparate points of view and, let's face it, didn't like each other very much, only to have these efforts repeatedly disrupted by Dbachmann because they did not conform to his own opaque Eurocentric view of the topic, and of ancient Egypt in general, was to say the least frustrating and tiresome (not that the article is in any good condition right now, but for different reasons).

The truth is I've found myself sometimes having to spend too much time cleaning up after Dbachmann on Egyptological articles due to his poor editing and poor knowledge of the topic. But that and a guy with a bruised ego are the least of my worries around here. His ability to list a litany of Wikipedia acronyms on style guides doesn't impress me either when his edits don't comply with any of them. His continuous edit-warring on articles that he targets, however, or asking help from his associates to do it for him to get around policies, is what really needs to stop, especially when an admin blocks an editor for 3RR but not him, then makes threatening comments to those who take the blocking admin to task for it. — Zerida ☥ 06:04, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

User:Rjecinas deleting and bullying

He keeps deleting arguments I wrote in Talk Pages of Nikola Tesla and [Josif Pančić]], explaining that he "does not allow me to edit". Now he threatens me (see Talk Page in Nikola Tesla article) that he will have me blocked, and then delete all my contributions. I have never been banned from Wikipedia, nor accused of vandalism. Ever. This is my only account, and I am not always logged in, and the IP's I'm signed with then are from the same IP-pool used by 60% of Internet users from Serbia. If this user "Rjecina" harasses and bullies all newly registered or inactive users from Serbia, I suggest that his edits (i.e. brutal deletions) be checked. I feel tired and frustrated that a person can so brutally delete someone's effort and spared time. I stress that we are talking about contributions in the Talk Page. A false claim had been made in the main article, I edited it and wrote an explanation in the Talk Page, and then this "Rjecina" comes, reverts my edits and deletes the arguments I offered in the Talk Page, so that no one can read them any more. That is preposterous! Marechiel (talk) 20:07, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I was reading this right up until I saw the word "Serbia"... This may be unfortunate, and this editor may have a valid complaint, but as soon as I see a whiff of nationalism in a section I find myself tuning out.

Marechiel, do you have any supporting diffs regarding your allegations. Even those admins made of sterner stuff than myself are going to need to find evidence for what you are saying. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:12, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Marechiel has in his own words used 3 accounts to edit article Nikola Tesla in only 25 hours [162] and his latter statement is saying that he is having other IP address which he use [163].

Marechiel (if this is right name) is in his own words clear example of user which is using multiple anonymus IP to edit articles ! He is saying that he is not puppet of banned user Velebit which has been banned because of multiple accounts but checkuser will show this. I do not understand why Marechiel is calling me to solve "conflict like man" [164]after my comment that I will ask checkuser report if he is not puppet of Velebit ?--Rjecina (talk) 07:50, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Huh? Rjecina, your English reading comprehension seems to let you down here. Marechiel said no such thing. He was simply editing logged-out, and he stood up acknowledging the IPs were his afterwards, so that's by definition not sockpuppetry. Also, Marechiel is quite an old account (editing since April 2006), which makes it fairly unlikely he's himself a sock. On the other side, Marechiel, while there is no written rule you can't edit logged out, if you wish to contribute to longerm contentious articles I would strongly recommend you don't do that; always log in to avoid suspicions and make your editing more transparent. Rjecina, please stop treating Marechiel as a sock, there are at present no grounds for doing so. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:05, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Harassment

I am in a process of starting an article, [165] which is currently in my user space, where i am working on it. This proposed page was nominated for speedy deletion two times first by User:Marathi_mulgaa and then again by User:Reneeholle as soon as it was copied from french wikipedia for translation [166],[167], and both times it was rejected, then the page was nominated for MfD [168], which was closed with Keep, and User:Reneeholle along with Sethie were cautioned for WP:COI and collateral attack on the article by the closing admin.[169]. I though that after this closing i will be able to work in peace and complete the article [170], But Sethie and marathi_mulga are continuously vandalizing my user-space, even after I made them a request, [171] as not to destroy any attempt that i am making in writing the article, informing them, that once i am done with the article, i will file for RfC about wikipedia policies, concerning the article.

But they are continuously reverting whatever i am trying to do in my own user-space. [172],[173][174], [175],[176],[177],[178], [179],[180]. this list is endless.

Then a notice at BPL was also filed [181], where it was again rejected [182]. All this is in addition to calling me with various names, and associating me with various blogs and organization, [183].How can i write the article ? what is the next step i can take in preventing them from disrupting ? --talk-to-me! (talk) 21:06, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I have blocked both Sethie and Marathi mulgaa for 12 hours for edit warring, and have explained the reasons why. I have informally warned Reneeholle, since I note that they have stopped reverting and have attempted discussion. I strongly suggest that any further discussion is politely and comprehensively responded to, for the improvement of the article. I would hope that Sethie and Marathi mulgaa will also be part of that discussion. If not then I suggest reporting any further edit warring to AIV.

I note that Cult free world (talk · contribs) has been a frequent subject on these boards recently, so I invite review of my actions here. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:47, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, there are two sides to every story as they say. User:Cult Free World fails to tell people that the reason his article was nominated for speedy deletion is because it is previously deleted content (four times previously deleted). It had just been speedily deleted from reposting here, and then was moved to talk space where it was again speedily deleted here. He then reposted in user space. When the speedy delete tag was removed, I posted an ANI report per administrator advice here. On that ANI report I was told to file an MFD (see third post in ANI report above). It was hotly contested and a cleaned up version of the page (not containing libelous material) was what was kept. Immediately upon the MFD close, User:Cult Free World reverted to the libelous version here. He received a block for personal attacks a few weeks ago here. Throughout this process, I have attempted to engage Cult Free World in discussion about sources and he has repeatedly engaged in personal attacks.

He also mis-represents the MFD. The closer noted in the "Discussion" section here that there was a "WP:COI collateral attack on the article" meaning that instead of focusing on content, the attack focused on COI of the user, i.e., the closer continued, "the claims appear to be actually made against User:Cult_free_world and comments on his or her user or user talk page and not material in the article under nomination." As noted above, by the time the closer reviewed the article the libelous/unsourced contentious material was gone, i.e., "a quick review of the article did not indicate any such issues. Therefore, these matters have not been considered in this closing. Raise any such issues at WP:BLP/N, WP:ANI, or by contacting WP:OTRS." The whole paragraph must be interpreted in context so as not to mis-construe it.

Finally, User:Cult Free World has filed numerous complaints and most have been ignored, here or he has received comments on his behavior here.

I hope you can understand that to those of us active on the previously deleted content (for which this differs very little), that it seems like a real attempt to circumvent deletion review and manipulate the evidence (for instance, archiving the talk page related to the proposed article today; leaving a clean version for the MFD closer to review and then immediately reverting it). It is my understanding that editors should delete libelous, defamatory, and unsupported/unsubstantiated material in any space, because it puts Wikipedia at risk. And, there is a whole section in the User's current page where he quotes in length from a newspaper article ruled prima facie libelous and defamatory, with no corroborating evidence or secondary source evidence (this seems like a huge violation of Wiki policy, which is why I objected to it). I followed the MFD closer's advice above, where he says to post complaints on the BLP board. Throughout this whole process, I have followed admins' advice to the "t" and there is a lot of history associated with this user and these topics that may not be apparent when evidence is archived and selectively presented. Thank you, Renee (talk) 22:42, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

p.s. Regarding the blogs and evidence that this user is User:Rushmi/User:Shashwat pandey, I can email any interested admin firm evidence, but cannot publically post it because it "outs" the user, a violation of user policy. The user is not abusively using separate accounts, hence, I have not filed on the sockpuppet board.

Someone else has. Darkson (BOOM! An interception!) 09:48, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Fredrick day edit warring over user page

User:Fredrick day is blocked. Known IP of his has edited User talk:129.174.91.115, revert warring with IP of User:Sarsaparilla (and myself). The page being edited is for IP that was used by Sarsaparilla for two days, being IP for George Mason University, used by Sarsaparilla extensively in a session beginning at 15:00, 8 April 2008 and ending at 01:31, 9 April 2008. This IP is unlikely to recur for Sarsaparilla and thus placing a sock puppet concern template on it is inappropriate. Please look at the edit history of the Talk page in question.[184] It tells quite a story. I'd suggest semiprotection of that Talk page, and attention to the sock activity for Sarsaparilla and Fredrick day. See Wikipedia talk:Suspected sock puppets/Fredrick day, for IP information re Fredrick day. --Abd (talk) 21:14, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I've blocked both IP addresses for block evasion. Abd, I must strongly caution you against the edit warring you were involved in here. You reverted 3 times, even though you knew the other editors were evading blocks. Next time, please just report them earlier. Mangojuice^talk 02:24, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Blocking single IPs for these editors is likely to be singularly ineffective, they come in with different IP regularly. Sarsaparilla uses a recognizable IP, for George Mason University, which I understand cannot be range blocked because the block is used by many students. Fredrick day most often uses a particular range starting with 87.112-87.115 or so, which is probably his home variable IP, he just reboots his modem. But he also picks up other IP from, probably, unsecured routers in his neighborhood, and he apparently uses open relays around the world. Yes, I reverted 3 times in 24 hours, which I'd not do with any registered editor nor with ordinary IP editors. I'm a little disappointed that Mangojuice did not take that edit out, nor did he semiprotect the article, so busy is he with criticizing my action. Unfortunate. Yes, I will report earlier. However, in toto, I reverted five times over three days, and Fredrick day reverted eleven times, Sarsaparilla six times. Fredrick day reverted five times in 24 hours. --Abd (talk) 04:40, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, I didn't protect because the block should be sufficient. And I didn't remove the paragraph because it is accurate -- that is an IP address being used by Sarsaparilla. Yes, you behaved better than they did... but they are blocked and you aren't. Mangojuice^talk 12:30, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

God Save the South (talk · contribs) and anti-Semitism

• God Save the South (talk · contribs · count · logs · block log · lu · rfa · rfb · arb · rfc · lta · socks)

This comment, especially the code words, "Jew comedian", is something that Nazis or the Stormfront would use to describe a Jewish comedian, except in a very anti-semitic sense. He was blocked for edit warring on the Ku Klux Klan article, and it is clear from his edits and posting of photographs of Klan rallies as being a member of that Neo-Nazi organization (note the Nazi salutes in some of the pictures in the article). My battle with the admin who unblocked him is legendary, so that's irrelevant. As a "Jew", I do not appreciate nor tolerate anti-semitic comments by a Neo-Nazi. This guy needs to be thrown out of the project. There is no apology that I will accept for anti-Semitism. If you need significant links to online articles that show the extensive Nazi use of "Jew Doctor, Jew Lawyer, Jew this and Jew that" I can provide it to you, but I hope most people reading this will understand the despicable connotation in that type of code word. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 21:31, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I can't see how this username, combined with those edits, will be able to persist in a collaborative environment. Grandmasterka 21:44, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

And note his use of the confederate flag. How offensive. But specifically, I will not stand by anti-Semitism. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 21:51, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Is he a self-professed Neo-Nazi? Using "Jew" as an adjective rather than noun is a common, albeit offensive, error in English. ~ UBeR (talk) 21:53, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't "commonly" hear people use "Jew" as an adjective, and when they do it's rarely an "error" but more often simple anti-Semitism. But that's just me. MastCell ^Talk 22:06, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Assuming good faith is one thing, but a professed neo nazi KKK member using it is a whole different story. "Jew Comedian" is an offensive and not very common usage. Give me a break UBeR. Give me a freaking break. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 23:58, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Hey, OrangeMarlain, I would appreciate if you could keep your cool please. I asked if he was self-professed Neo-Nazi--he has said he is not--and you have not been able to definitively say otherwise. It is a common error in English, so in the absence of any provided evidence to the contrary, it would probably be best to assume good faith, or at the very least refrain from calling him a racist and engaging in unabated incivility. It does not help your argument. ~ UBeR (talk) 00:42, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Ok, you're right let me cool down. Let's be civil to people who use terminology like "Jew Comedian" and "Negro." Sorry. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 04:12, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree that this user needs to be shown the door. His push to change "cross burning" to "cross lighting" in the Ku Klux Klan article was a horribly offensive maneuver. He has consistently shown that he is only here to whitewash the KKK article and/or upload pictures of Klan rallies. His one contribution of the infobox to the KKK article only furthered the evidence backing his whitewashing attempts. Frankly, he is of little use to the project. He has already been the source of much strife between several editors. Do we really need an editor like this? Baegis (talk) 21:56, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

No. KillerChihuahua^?!? 22:24, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

What I see in this editor's contribs, mostly, is an effort to promote the US Ku Klux Klan. I see no effort to build encyclopedic, sourced articles. WP:Disruption was written for accounts like this. (Please note below however, the editor has said he'll apologize to Orangemarlin and abide by consensus in the future). Gwen Gale (talk) 22:39, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry. False apologies mean nothing to me. If this was an inadvertent slip of the fingers, I would have been offended, but apologies would be accepted. But let's add up the problems: An offensive name + nearly a SPA with regards to KKK + Confederate battle flags + uploading of Klan rally photos with Nazi salutes + tendentious edits to KKK which whitewashed the Klan + "Jew Comedian" = anti-semitic behavior. Again, why are we tolerating it? OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 00:22, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I apologise if using 'Jew' as an adjective is offensive, I will change it immediately. I simply noticed in the article Jews that they prefer to be called Jews, and not 'Jewish people'. By the same token, I would have said 'Protestant Comedian', not Protestantish. However, there are many unique cases in English on how we use words, and I will remember this in the future. I only wish OrangeMarlin had alerted me to this on my talkpage and not here. As for editwarring, I was unblocked to allow me to participate in discussion (which I had not done) and am willing to obide by consensus. My edits since my block are testiment to this. I will apologise to OrangeMarlin personally, as I realise he is very sensitive to issues surrounding Judaism. --God Save the South (talk) 22:37, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

And could someone uninvolved please tell OrangeMarlin to mind his civility and stop his continual use of words such as 'racist' and 'neo-nazi' to describe me, of which I am neither. That is as offensive to me as anti-semitism is to him. --God Save the South (talk) 22:48, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Taken altogether, your user page and editing pattern could reasonably lead someone to start using those words to describe your edits. While I do think those labels are so over-used as to have become almost meaningless and certainly distracting, if someone has been hurling them your way you might want to think twice about what you're doing here. As for Jew comedian, I've never heard that syntax in anything but hateful screed. Gwen Gale (talk) 22:54, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Based on his edit patterns, I see no reason for this user to be allowed to continue to edit WP. --InDeBiz1 (talk) 23:01, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I have not been editing for long enough to form a pattern. I have many areas of interest, and indeed of expertise, that I have yet to edit under. Completely unrelated to race or racial topics. Surely if an editor joins, and his first edit is for example to an article on Stalin, are we to call him a Communist? Of course not. I have apoligised to OrangeMarlin and rectified my error, can we leave it at that, and get back to improving the encyclopedia? --God Save the South (talk) 23:06, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I see pattern enough and I think you know what you've been doing. Nonetheless, if it were up to me I'd be willing to see if you can stop making tenditious, disruptive and combative edits but if someone blocks you for disruption they won't get any argument from me. Meanwhile, if you don't understand how pasting CSA battle flags onto your user page and aggressively editing Ku Klux Klan makes most editors highly wary of your edits, please think again. Gwen Gale (talk) 23:24, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Serious troll warning here in my opinion. And if so, why is it being fed? --Apis O-tang (talk) 23:23, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

We all have our various biases, views etc. He may well have other areas of interest about which he can make excellent edits, and his edits on these issues may now become constructive. Ayway, the rest of his 'Jew comedian' comment goes on about the Jewish gentleman dressing up in a white robe and mocking the KKK. If he was really a neo-nazi, he wouldn't appreciate that comedian's humour in the way he does. special, random, Merkinsmum 23:59, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

His edits constitute anti-Semitism. So are there varieties of anti-Semitism that are acceptable? Using Jew Comedian is acceptable because he appreciates that comedian's humor? Here we go again. Because he's nice about it, we accept racism and anti-Semitism. That logic is just not acceptable. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 00:03, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Based upon his prior edits, which I have had to clean up previously, and his combination of his userpage and username, I'm holding him on a tight leash. seicer | talk | contribs 00:12, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

If anyone disagrees with this, speak now or forever hold your peace. Raymond Arritt (talk) 00:14, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

No issue with that here. seicer | talk | contribs 00:23, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

• Strongly disagree with warning, Indefinite Block necessary I think it violates my personal belief set that "Jew Comedian" is acceptable in polite, civil company. However, added with everything else, including a previous block, why give him a chance? Why do we expend this amount of energy on what is essentially a racist editor? OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 00:25, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

If we just rap this guy's knuckles, how much do you want to bet we will not see more trouble out of him? I think he needs a bit more than a warning. Something so he knows that people are serious about CIVIL. Remember, CIVIL is of paramount importance now in the new political correctness.--Filll (talk) 00:33, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

While completely overlooking the fact that he A) personally apologised for offending you and B) You've taken just about every available option to piss all over him. I think you need to take a break, Marlin. HalfShadow (talk) 00:36, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Hey, thanks for sticking up for the little guy on this one. Let's completely ignore the fact that this editor is a single purpose, racist, POV pusher and attack those editors who are offended by this behavior. OM did everyone a favor by bringing this to the attention of the entire community before the editor in question causes more problems on articles. Baegis (talk) 01:04, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Also, an edit such as this one seems a little bit partisan. The only proper source about Shockley is ...Shockley himself?--Ramdrake (talk) 01:09, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

[185] seems pretty accurate to me, of course the only reliable source about what someone believes is the person themselves. Unless historians can read minds now, idk. -- Naerii 01:48, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

What people literally say in public isn't exactly the only valid source for a biography. One can deduce things from standpoints and actions and numerous other sources (relatives, friends, colleges and so on).--Apis O-tang (talk) 02:08, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Wow, HalfShadow, you're way out of line. Corvus cornix_talk 01:44, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm not the one calling people 'neo-nazis' But hey, whatever. HalfShadow (talk) 01:55, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Let me clarify that my only reason for the warning is so that another admin doesn't pipe up and say "he wasn't warned, maybe he's having a bad day (or week, or month), he actually made a constructive edit or two" yada yada. There now can be absolutely no doubt that he knows this behavior has no place in Wikipedia, and the next time he's gone. If another admin disagrees and wants to usher him to the exits they'll get no argument from me. Raymond Arritt (talk) 02:38, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Speaking as a genyoowine bubba born and bred (Deanburg, Tennessee, between Medon and Henderson), I have looked at every one of this feller's edits, and don't see a thing there but whitewashing and apologetics of the purest neo-Confederate flavor. If he sees a distinction between that and the actual neo-Nazis, that's between him and God (or whatever he worships); but I am not inclined to cut him any slack whatsoever. (Cross-"lighting"? Right; sure. And Rehnquist was helping the Mexicans vote in 1964.) --Orange Mike | Talk 02:04, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

If you only knew how your name cracks me up, but that was very funnyOrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 04:08, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Regardless of the alleged sins of GSTS or appropriate disposition of the matter, the gross incivility and borderline hysteria OrangeMarlin directed towards Hersfold on his talk, is absolutely beyond the pale for an administrator. There is no excuse, none at all, for that kind of behavior. Anyone who was not himself an admin would have been instantly blocked for it. 130.56.65.24 (talk) 02:34, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, Hersfold threatening to block Orangemarlin is so much more civil. Corvus cornix_talk 02:42, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

On a side note, i have studied this users edit history, some of it is quite shocking. He/she also calls black people "Negros". I can provide a link if needs be or would it be better to start a seperate report on this? The user clearly has a far right political ideology to say the very least. Realist2 (talk) 03:34, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually, the word "negroes" isn't TECHNICALLY a bad word, like (excuse the slur, but I refuse to use bowdlerisms) "nigger". Though "negroes" isn't really the accepted use of the word, I think it's safe to assume good faith. "Jew comedian"...well...excuse me if I'm being offensive, but adding "ish" to a word? There is nothing wrong (besides grammar of course) with using "Jew comedian", unless it's obvious that it's perjorative. That all being said, I think his editing pattern is enough evidence to assume BAD faith on his case. Thank you. It's these people who made Realist2 leave. Cheers, Kodster (Willis) (Look what I can do) 19:32, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

If you read Moonriddengirl's comments below, you'll see that you are incorrect about using "Jew" as an identifier. I am not a big supporter of political correctness, but in this case the descriptive "Jew Doctor", "Jew Comedian" or anything else is intentionally derisive. Nazi's used that type of lingo during the 1930's, so it has a connotation far worse than "negro" (though I disagree with you there, since the ethnic group, more or less, gets to identify itself, thus Swedes get to call themselves Swedes, and not "funny-talking tall blonde people"). But we could AGF this guy, but let's get real. He is a KKK member who edits the KKK article? Do you not think he's well-versed in Nazism? There we go. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 20:31, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Despite a couple of "civility trumps racism" editors above, I think we're mostly rational people. Not only am I a "Jew Doctor", but I guess most African-American editors are "negroes". People of Wikipedia--exactly where does it say that a racist neo-Nazi like GSTS deserves any further cuddling from us? OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 04:08, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Stop calling me a god damned Nazi!!! My grandfather fought in World War II and his father in World War I, for America!! Now stop calling me that crap! --God Save the South (talk) 04:10, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I could maybe buy the "Jew comedian" as an accident, but coupled with using the word negro repeatedly? Nope. We don't need editors like this. AniMate 04:36, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Who cares if your grandfather or father fought in a war for the United States? This is about your actions, not theirs. If you feel perfectly comfortable using the term "negro" and other slang or derogatory phrases... seicer | talk | contribs 04:45, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Jeremiah Wright served 6 years in the military, more than George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, et. al., and people still see fit to call him un-American. Sorry, the "but my grandaddy did this..."-bit won't work you out of this one. Grsz11 04:50, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I've been mostly avoiding this discussion due to my past involvement in the situation, however I won't stand for further accusations against me. I did not threaten to block anyone. My only administrative action in this case was to unblock GStS in the first place, and apply a temporary topic ban for the duration of his original block. Aside from that, I have not to this point applied any topic bans, protected any pages, blocked any users, or made any statement that implied I would in regards to this case. Any assertion that I have done otherwise is false and rude. Now then, here's what I see as currently going on, and what I propose be done about it. Shout at me if you like (I'd be mildly surprised if I wasn't from one side or another), but I'm hoping we can get this discussion back on track and actually achieve something here.

Now, I do agree that GStS has a rather far right wing view of things, and has made edits and statements which are very controversial and/or offensive in nature. He was blocked for edit warring on the KKK article, for inserting a clearly pro-KKK point of view into the article. Blocks are intended to stop users who are being disruptive, who either do not understand or choose to ignore policy. The unblocking process is intended to give a second chance to users who demonstrate that they are willing to make constructive edits to the project, that they understand the policies they violated and are willing to improve upon their previous actions. GStS requested to be unblocked so that he could discuss the edits he was making, and in doing so identify or change some sort of consensus on the article. This was done; obviously not to GStS's liking, but in his defense, he has kept to that decision and moved on.

Now, there is a discussion on whether or not to include a "in popular culture" section in the article. Things got dragged in here when GStS used the term "Jew comedian" and it was seen as anti-Semetic, by someone who we already know is strongly against GStS's very presence here. He has since edited his comment and made an effort to move the discussion onward. GStS has now been warned against making any further racist comments, but it seems that's not enough for everyone. So, here's my summary of what's going on - on both sides - and my proposed resolution.

Summary of the problems:

• God Save the South (talk · contribs) is a self-declared member of the KKK (I think, and apologies if I'm wrong, but I believe everyone is assuming this from his comments in the "Cross lighting" discussion), and thus has a conflict of interest in editing Ku Klux Klan
• Because of the above (or vice versa) GStS has strong political and social views that have been expressed through his edits which, clearly, are problematic (note that I do not disagree with this assessment)
• Orangemarlin (talk · contribs) and Baegis (talk · contribs) both strongly oppose GStS's presence on the project as an editor, and their comments in respect to this matter have been seen as incivil (While I have been on the receiving end of these comments, I would note that this observation has been made by other editors, including but probably not limited to HalfShadow (talk · contribs), 130.56.65.24 (talk · contribs) (whoever that may be), and UBeR (talk · contribs), just pulling from this discussion)

What I propose we do about it:

• The warning against GStS to cease and desist in racist comments stand, noting that such a block should probably be reported here for review (especially since the warning was issued as a result of this discussion)
• God Save the South is banned from editing Ku Klux Klan and related articles - as he has a conflict of interest there and that is obviously the main forum in which potentially racist comments would come up, it is in the best interests of the project, GStS, and other users to steer him away from that field. This ban may be enforceable by blocks of steadily increasing duration, and such blocks are to be held separate from the warning mentioned above.
• God Save the South is requested, but not required, to request a change of user name to something less potentially controversial.
• In an effort to avoid future tensions, God Save the South, OrangeMarlin, and Baegis are all requested to remain civil in their conduct with other users, particularly with each other. It may also be good to recommend to each of these users that they make an effort to avoid those on the other side of the fence for a time, so as to prevent more of this Wikidrama coming up.

Why I propose this:

• Looking at what GStS has done, and the astounding level of civility with which he has handled all of this, I feel that he has the potential to be a useful editor (call it a gut feeling). While he is certainly interested in the topics he's been involved in, that doesn't seem to be the best place for him to be because of his views. However, on that topic, we do not block users because they themselves hold objectionable views. We block users because they express objectionable views in a disruptive manner. We also try to assume good faith whenever possible, and encourage users to be productive. To that end, it is probably best to move him away from a field in which he will be seen as disruptive and towards one where he can be a constructive editor. In the event he does continue to be disruptive, then yes, block him until the proverbial pig gets off the ground.

Having completed his speech, Hersfold gets off the soapbox, straps a bullseye target to his chest, and waits for the firefight to begin. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 04:58, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Seriously, you're overcomplicating it. Would Encyclopedia Britannica employ someone who burns crosses and is an open member of the KKK? Probably not and thus you have your answer right there about what needs to be done. --B (talk) 05:01, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Is Klan membership a valid reason to block an editor? And to Hersfold, if I stopped editing every article that I had an affiliation with, it would leave me with notsomuch. the_undertow ^talk 05:08, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm aware of that, but how many articles do you have so strong a relation with as to call it a conflict of interest? Probably very few, especially compared to the fact that we have 2 million articles to choose from. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 05:12, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

When they use the word Jew and Negro like he has, yes, that's a pretty valid reason. Grsz11 05:13, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't block on the sole reason of being in the KKK, but on the basis of using racial slurs and etc. He's already on a very short leash. seicer | talk | contribs 05:15, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Maybe he doesn't know about the connotation. "Jew lawyer" is bad "Jewish lawyer" is okay. Perhaps now that he is no longer ignorant on the subject, he will not use those terms anymore. the_undertow ^talk 05:16, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Using the exact phrase is one thing. Characterizing people by ethnicity first is a sign of a seriously defective world view. To me, this looks like the classical apologist spiel. "Look, the jews are making fun of immigrants. Since they are non-WASP as well, it must be ok to do so....". Yes, GSTS is civil in a superficial manner, but, given the combination of username, flag display and edits, I cannot extend good faith to him. I also could not find any non-trivial positive contributions in his edit history. So I'm fine with Raymond's warning, but I would not oppose a direct block, either. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 08:25, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't know if it helps, or wheter I should even pipe up, but until this thread I had no idea that calling someone a "Jew doctor" was bad, whilst calling them a "Jewish doctor" is ok (but then, afaik I don't know any Jewish people). Darkson (BOOM! An interception!) 09:31, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps this is a national/regional difference. In my little corner of the South (I too am from Confederate Flag territory...and find other reasons to be proud of my state), nobody would call anyone "Jew anything" without intending to be offensive, and nobody would hear it that way without recognizing that intent. I mirror Stephan Schulz's position here, that I support the warning but would not oppose a block. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:57, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Like I said, it's a common error in English. ~ UBeR (talk) 17:06, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Prove it. Because it is NOT, you are making a pathetic apology for an intentional offense. Like I said, if he weren't a member of that Neo Nazi organization, the KKK, if not for his constant use of "Negro", and if not for his POV edits to the KKK article, I would assume good faith (once) if he used it. But get real. It is offensive. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 19:01, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure if it's possible to support that, though I'd be interested in your citations, UBeR. This notes, in the first group of definitions listed on the page, that "–adjective 4. offensive. of Jews; Jewish." The wiktionary entry for "Jew" notes this, here. The Wikipedia article notes it, too. This 1997 article from the British publication The Spectator notes "the attributive (adjectival) usage of Jew immediately jumps out as offensive". Bartleby says, "It is widely recognized that the attributive use of the noun Jew, in phrases such as Jew lawyer or Jew ethics, is both vulgar and highly offensive." --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 19:15, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I just have to add that this brings up a point to ponder. Above on this page, the user says that he used the word in this fashion because the article Jew indicates this is the term of preference. The comment was made on April 8th, here. The article in question indicated that this usage was offensive as of April 7th, here. It indicated it March 28th, when this user registered. It indicated it a year ago today. This doesn't eliminate all possibility of good faith usage of the term, as he may not be that deeply observant (also missing the ubiquitous use of the adjectival form--over 100 before I stopped counting in the mid-section called "Population Changes: Growth"), but it certainly strains credibility if he is asserting to have followed the lead of an article that explicitly notes that the usage is offensive. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 19:35, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

You can read about it here, OrangeMarlin. Nothing you've said or presented has been convincing. Your emotional arguments are simply getting annoying because you're becoming irrational and incivl. I told you above to keep your cool, and you've refused. In the meantime, you've failed to show anything because you're busy arguing with and being offensive to editors who are trying to help and trying to understand. So, again, I'm going to ask that you keep your cool and stop arguing from your emotions. You might get somewhere. ~ UBeR (talk) 21:30, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

More conveniently, OrangeMarlin, you can read about it here, in the Oxford UP internet edition of that book. UBeR, I wonder if you have misinterpreted this source. It indicates that it is a mistake to object to the use of the word Jew as a noun. With regards to its attributive use, it says, "'Jew' as an adjective ('Jew lawyer') is an ethnic insult; the word is 'Jewish'." It doesn't seem to indicate that the use of this insult is a common error. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:53, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't think there's much to say here, but UBeR, you're being uncivil by calling me "irrational." I'm very rational. Using "Jew" as an adjective is completely inappropriate everywhere in the English, German, Dutch, whatever, language. I cannot understand your support of anti-Semitic usage, based on your original research. And yes, I'm emotional. Remember, in Nazi Germany, the Holocaust started with words, not with the roundup of Jews being sent to Auschwitz. Words hurt deeply. What if Hitler had accesss to Wikipedia in 1921? Maybe if we crushed his racism there, 6 million Jews would still be alive. So, let's take a stand against now, so that it does not get worse here or elsewhere. That's my point. Words do matter. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 15:50, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

I too support the warning but would not oppose a block at any time. A clueless slip by a sheltered editor might be one thing but this sad combination of username, userpage, article, photos, edits and vocabulary choices has been an unmistakable, hateful and willful disruption. Gwen Gale (talk) 15:39, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

<outdent>As the original blocking administrator, I would endorse a block. Edit-warring and disruption on this scale is damaging the 'pedia. Rudget (review) 15:43, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Anyone but me find it ironic that our 'big mean racist' has been, at bare minimum, multiple times more polite than the topic creator? Or is it okay because the TC is 'on the right side'? HalfShadow (talk) 15:48, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I'd say that (along with the apology, however taken by other editors) is why he's gotten off with only a warning and not an indef block. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:14, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, it's OK to make racist and anti-semitic remarks as long as you're polite. *shrug* Raymond Arritt (talk) 18:29, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Half-Shadow, nice to know that you think it's all right to call some a "Jew Comedian" or a "negro" is OK, just as long as you're civil. Yeah, I am on the right side. Have a problem with that??? OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 18:54, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

When it's your right side, yeah. You seem to think baiting and trolling is just fine if it's someone you don't like. HalfShadow (talk) 21:10, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Seems to me that the definition of civility is taking a beating here, as is the concept itself. Civility does not equate to saying hateful and hate-filled things in a nice, pleasant manner; hence the illogic used by Half-Shadow is simply unfathomable to civilised folks. I'd much rather see alleged "incivility" in the form of "vulgarity" or in this case a clear application of WP:SPADE over an allegedly oh-so-civil bit of racist or anti-Semitic spew any day. That anyone can in good conscience support GSTS in this matter is troubling and most certainly has the appearance of a failure to comprehend the more substantive, rather than the superficial, meaning of civility. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149;^dissera! 19:16, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I dont buy all this "sheltered" rubbish, a member of the KKK, god save the south, confed flag, Jew,Negro.... there's arent incidental mistakes. I dont believe that Jesusland still acts like this. However he has never directed these insults at a user, at least he has that, he could be useful to wikipedia if he stops editing article on faith, race and anyform of sudoscience Eugenics. Realist2 (talk) 17:06, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I have to agree with Raymond, here: "politeness" is utterly irrelevant in a case such as this. Racism and anti-Semitism are at their core impolite, no matter how nicely one spews their filth.

Also, I'm not buying the "I didn't know it was offensive" defense offered -- sorry, but that dog just ain't gonna hunt. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149;^dissera! 18:52, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

This discussion sure has degenerated... --Elliskev 19:07, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

• Just based on the evidence in this thread (i.e. the Jew comedian comment, his name, edits to KKK articles, etc.), his point of view is certainly suggested by his short history. On the other hand, his history is short, he's apologized (such as it is), and a stern warning and the hanging doom of an inevitable indef block if he continues seems to be enough of a response. I'm as sensitive as anyone to anti-Semitism, but saying "Jew" instead of "Jewish" is plausibly an error. I have the same gut reaction to seeing "Jew [anything]," but its suggestive rather than blatant and you couldn't really call it derogatory. Avruch ^T 19:54, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Given the history of the word "Jew" as an adjective, I have to disagree. I also, as I said, don't buy the "I didn't know it was offensive" defense, nor can I find any reason to believe that it was an error (no matter how "plausible). Sorry, but I've run across too many anti-Semites in my life to put any stock in GSTS' defense. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149;^dissera! 20:12, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

This is no innocent mistake. Coupled with the Negro comment its obvious what this guys views are. If this guy has access to the internet , he has access to the outside world, he isnt stuck on some hik billy ranch like you imagine. I was the person who altered his JEW comment to the acceptable Jewish. However it was reverted in minutes by some far right christian nut. Wikipedia needs to crack down on these wierd beliefs before be become conservapedia.Realist2 (talk) 20:25, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh for God's sake... This is becoming formulaic. "Crack down"? "far right christian nut"? This is like some cheesy town hall meeting scene from a B monster movie. Am I the only one here that sees how ridiculous this is becoming?

Look. The guy has a final warning. One of three things are going to happen. 1)He'll make another racist/offensive edit and be gone for good. 2)He'll never edit again. 3)He'll continue to edit and never make an offensive edit ever again.

This talk of cracking down and this bizarre circular firing squad need to stop. --Elliskev 20:34, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes. A newish editor made an outright slur. If he does it again, he'll be gone. Can this be over now? Gwen Gale (talk) 20:40, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, calling User:StAnselm a "far right christian nut" seems not too nice, but on the whole issue, it seems like GStS is more of a caricature than actual <insert description>. The warning seems fine for now, with an indef block at the ready at the first sign of a continuation of his past behavior. Mahalo. --Ali'i 20:41, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm... a "newish" editor made two outright slurs. Are we actually trying to say that a member of the KKK doesn't know that negro is an offensive term? In his brief time here he's managed to design userboxes, make a doppleganger account, and consistently use edit summaries. He's not a new or newish editor, and these weren't honest mistakes. Why keep this guy around? AniMate 20:50, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I've reverted IP vandalism to his page (never mind I cringed doing it, never mind the vandalism itself was a slur to another group), what next, a virtual lawn burning? Gwen Gale (talk) 21:28, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

The user is clearly a racist, who is on Wikipedia to make sure that the Ku Klux Klan's views are fairly represented. He is being sort of careful to do this politely and in compliance with the rules. So I guess the question is, is this one of the cases where an editor's point of view is so repugnant that he can be blocked for it? We do block pro-pedophilia editors, if I am not mistaken, even when they operate within the rules. Is there a precedent for this sort of situation? -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 21:35, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

This comes to mind. AniMate 21:49, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

The words "Negro" and "Jew" are not offensive terms in my part of the country. As an outsider I view the treatment of "God Save the South" as incivil and inappropriate. He discusses that he views a "Jew[ish] comedian" as funny, and now he is condemned? Perhaps he is a member of the KKK, but if he handles himself with civility and doesn't disrupt, does that really matter? Are we that intolerant of individual's beliefs that we will block somebody strictly because they upload images of KKK meetings and have a confederate flag on their userpage?--Uga Man (talk) UGA MAN FOR PRESIDENT 2008 21:52, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

The matter is not simply that he is a member of the KKK (or at least attends their cross burnings), but that he is promoting the KKK POV by making non-neutral edits and by using offensive language. Those are disruptive activities. Editors are allowed to have extremist points of views, but they are not allowed to use this project to promote them. We ban pro-pedophile editors because they seek to promote pro-pedophile points of view, and also because their involvement can damage the reputation of the project. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:00, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

You are talking about Texas, right? Even in Texas, it seems, folks are aware that the word "Negro" is frowned upon in general usage. According to this 1990 article, the state of Texas has recognized that the word "Negro" is unacceptable since 1990, even if they haven't quite gotten around to doing anything about it. This article from 2006 would seem to suggest that even those folks who describe the word as "charming" are aware enough of its social unacceptability to have their spokespeople note that they do "not use the word in everyday conversation." Why not, if it's not offensive? --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 01:17, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Well may i also add, wikipedia isnt just for Americans, its also for Europeans (and a much of other countries) who (being a little more liberal) would find those choice of words even more offencive. Europe doesnt have these issues anymore and they DO find those words offensive, REGARDLESS of what America thinks. Realist2 (talk) 21:58, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

OH RLY? You mean to imply that only Europeans are offended by this? Grandmasterka 22:04, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Uga Man, where are you from? I grew up in the south, attended school in the northeast, and based in the west. The majority of people who live in all of those regions would understand the connotations of using Jew the way he did and the word Negro as racist. The idea of any place in this country being okay with those words used like that is either a fairy tale or a very small, very insulated town. Out in the real world, we understand how offensive they are no matter what side of the pond we may be from. Now, we can wring our hands about being fair all we want, but ultimately this person's views are repugnant and any defense of them is pretty repugnant too. AniMate 22:08, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I was kind of wondering the same thing. Nowhere in the US is "Jew", used as an adjective, or "negro" considered polite and/or inoffensive. Just see Jew (word)#Changes in use. Maybe Ugaman is a troll? Obviously, he does not understand racism and anti-Semitism, because both are considered uncivil behavior of the extreme. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 23:13, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

No no, but an above user said that in his country (im guessing thats america) the terms JEW and NEGRO were NOT offensive. My reply is, even if they are not offensive terms in america (personaly i think americans ARE offended by them) they are still offensive where i live in Europe. As Europe has a big voice on wikipedia too it would be wise to not solely consider this issue from a US viewpoint of what is or isnt offensive.Realist2 (talk) 22:13, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Wow, a whole lot of people who would endorse a block because an editor was making politically incorrect statements. This starting it all, where the editor is actually praising the subject. I see a whole lotta OR as far as what qualifies as a racial slur, based on where you live, who you associate with, and how old you might be. All he had to do was add 'ish' to 'Jew' and it no longer makes him a Neo-nazi? This guy has stayed a lot cooler than I would have. I won't endorse a block at all based on this. Until such time as he uses these statements directly at another editor AND having fully-understand that certain editors find these terms derogatory, this ANI could be seen as a guise to get a Klan member outta here. I don't particularly care for his affiliation, if it's true, but I really don't care if Klan members nor Black Panthers come here to edit. the_undertow ^talk 22:17, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

The point is that he's said more than just JEW he's also said NEGRO. Together it proves that it was no accident. Also why on earth are you comparing the KKK to the black panthers? If it wasn't for the KKK there wouldn't have been a need for the panthers. Realist2 (talk) 22:21, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I think it's ok to think it was no accident, I think he knew what he was doing, tested the limits and found them. Ugly, disruptive, hateful. The only question I can see here is whether to block him indef now or let it go with the warning. I'm ok either way since with the warning, as User:Elliskev said above (more or less), either he'll do it again and be gone, or he won't. Gwen Gale (talk) 22:45, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

That was a fascinating dissertation on the origin of the Black Panthers, however, I was drawing the commonalities between two violent and racially-motivated factions, regardless of derivation. the_undertow ^talk 01:02, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

I say give him a chance to prove himself. If he really is a racist nazi like many suspect, he'll slip up again in no time, real racists are stupid we all know that so if he really is one he'll be found red handed doing it again. If he's smart and believes in equality we will never hear of this issue again. Realist2 (talk) 22:53, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Any reason you can't be so reasonable in responding to my messages on your talk? I consider continual deletions without so much as a summary pretty rude. I don't consider it the sign of a reasonable interlocutor in a discussion regarding another person's editing privileges. Maybe it's just me. --Elliskev 23:38, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I think its best to leave him alone, just moniter his edits, he actually seems worried about this and clearly doesnt want to be blocked. He will probably behave. Realist2 (talk) 23:42, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

So pedophiles are the scum of the Earth, but backwoods Neo-Nazi racists are valued contributers? What a load of fucking nonsense. --Action Jackson IV (talk) 00:53, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

I have to confess, I'm like Seicer--my finger is creeping very close to the block button on this one. Nonetheless, I believe a ban from the KKK article is appropriate, if only because (judging from his edit history) it would have the effect of a community siteban. Blueboy96 01:16, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Necessary section break

So now we have a user (God Save the South), posting about how pretty the word Negro sounds as opposed to black on a user's talkpage that was offended by the use of the word. Give me a break. This is clearly someone here to make a point, and no admin is ballsy enough to tell him to shut up. AniMate 07:42, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

These remarks by GStS seem provocative and offensive. His statements about Europe are quite odd. Is he referring to extreme right-wing groups in Europe and the laws that exist to control them (e.g. holocaust deniers)? On the basis of this misguided edit, I think he shows no sign of reforming at all. He seems to be gloating over the liberty WP has afforded him. BTW, as a UK citizen, the use of "jew" as an adjective would immediately be recognized as perjorative in UK English, contrary to what has been (disingenuously and trollishly) suggested above. It can neither be written nor used in conversation. It's as simple as that. Mathsci (talk) 09:18, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Well said. Does anyone else want to let God Save the South debate about the proper way to pronounce Negro? The undertow? AniMate 10:28, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Mathsci's quite right. I don't think I have ever heard anyone actually use the word "Jew" in any context, expect in plural, and then rarely. It is generally known to be unacceptable. Even saying "I'm a Jew" or "He's a Jew" instead of "X is Jewish" is not considered acceptable. (Which is why I can never understand why our article is at Jew, and would love to have it moved.)

The point remains that this fellow needs to be told that his opinions are generally considered offensive, so if he doesn't want to violate WP:CIVIL at every step, he will have to keep himself on a very short leash. We don't need to be harsher on him because he's a white nationalist or whatever, WP:CIVIL's definition of civility as maintaining a non-combative and collegial atmosphere does this for us. --Relata refero (disp.) 11:06, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

After having some time to sleep on it, I have blocked this user for 72 hours. The ONLY reason I didn't indefblock him is because he has in fact apologized. I have let it be known, however, that the next time it will likely be indef. Blueboy96 11:56, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Privatemusing posting for banned user

At Wikipedia_talk:OptOut#This_proposal_is_much_too_weak Privatemusings (talk · contribs) has reinserted comments made by banned user Mr. Brandt. Mr. Brandt confirmed on WR after having been blocked here that they were indeed his comments. Privatemusings should already know better than to post for a banned user and to revert the removal of a banned users comments. Further, one of the principles in his arbcom was that users should not game the system, proxying of an unbanned user for a banned user would seem to be just that. MBisanz ^talk 21:49, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I'll also add that Mr. Brandt's statement implicitly threatens that hivemind will be expanded unless his views are headed, which seems like a threat to me. MBisanz ^talk 21:54, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

• That is not gaming the system. Posting for a banned user is addressed here. Please assume good faith. NonvocalScream (talk) 21:52, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

That policy says

Wikipedians are not permitted to post or edit material at the direction of a banned user, an activity sometimes called "proxying," unless they are able to confirm that the changes are verifiable and have independent reasons for making them. Edits which involve proxying that has not been confirmed to that effect may be reverted.

Isn't it worse then if Privatemusing is acting on his own to say hivemind will be expanded unless Mr. Brandt's views are heeded? MBisanz ^talk 21:55, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

• I think we should use common sense here. I am not seeing the disruption. NonvocalScream (talk) 21:56, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

• • That only takes into account content edits - no-one should be posting for banned users in discussions. Ryan Postlethwaite 21:58, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
    • Precisely. The rule is quite clear about that (and the language about verifiability confirms Ryan's position.) --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 21:59, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

• • • I interpreted it as "Can be verified that so and so made it (DB)" and "has independent reasons for making them (pm had an independent thought/point". NonvocalScream (talk) 22:00, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Surely there are worse things to worry about that comments from someone who has been on the wrong side of the BLP situation and obviously can speak from experience. None of us have had our biographies up, I assume, so let's use a little commonsense here and, at the very least, turn a blind-eye. George The Dragon (talk) 22:02, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

• • • I do not see "proxying", I see someone reporting what was said elsewhere by another (banned) individual. Proxying is the act of making statements or decisions or actions on behalf of another party (proxy voting) whereas PM is copying what Brandt wrote elsewhere - including the request to have it copied - and placing it for discussion, without making any comment on the content. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:07, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

(eep! - edit conflicts! - and thanks for the note, nonvoc...) - seriously folks, this is pretty straight forward. The post is relevant, unsuprising, uncontroversial, on topic, and I found (and find) it interesting, so was happy to take responsibility for reposting / reporting it... hope this is no big deal, and we can all move along....(would a third person re-write help? - happy to do that too...) cheers, Privatemusings (talk) 22:03, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Proxying for a banned user is forbidden, with the one exception spelled out in the policy, is forbidden. I strongly suggest you not do it again. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 22:05, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't think he was proxing. NonvocalScream (talk) 22:09, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I did not think much of the re-posting the comment from the banned user that I removed. I don't think it is worth taking any action over, I just don't think much of it. _(1 == 2)^Until 22:04, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I did not see anything to really warrant action in this case either. Perhaps you may remove the comment and rephrase it in your own words. That may help. NonvocalScream (talk) 22:06, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

This over the top rules lawyering is making me ill. Majorly (talk) 22:08, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

• Removed again - banned editors aren't allowed in discussions here. Ryan Postlethwaite 22:39, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I've made a note at the page, and have discussed this a little with Ryan on IRC. My reading of the discussion at this page, my talk page, and the talk page in question, is that there is a consensus to allow me to report the post, and I would like to see it restored. I have no desire to upset anyone however, and will step back now I have made my view clear! Everyone's welcome for tea at my place if they'd like it.... Privatemusings (talk) 23:50, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I think that it's clear here that you shouldn't be reposting messages for banned users, which is exactly what you did here. Brandt aint allowed on here, especially in discussions related to WP. Ryan Postlethwaite 23:54, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Echo Majorly here. Viridae^Talk 23:52, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

It is about not feeding the raccoons. They may be acting in a kind manner now, but if you feed them they will eventually cause damage or hurt someone. Users who are banned are banned for a reason, sometimes for very good reasons. They are not welcome here, and they should not be made to feel that they are welcome. Just my 2 cents on the matter. I ask that you do not return the post for that reason, post a link to the diff if you must. _(1 == 2)^Until 23:53, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Taking a quick break out of my night and limited time to post here. BLP has been a long contentious issue and DB has been a long contentious article subject here (Since early 2005 IIRC until last month). Like I have been told by many people before about just about every rule and policy here, they are not suicide pacts. The posting was highly relevant to the subject at hand and offers the perspective of someone who has been involved highly with the issue and eventually was banned for it. The views are relevant. People are smart enough around here to weigh them appropriately. Banned means banned. But damnit, use common sense! spryde | talk 01:13, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Banned means banned, not editing via proxying or anything else. Banned means no editing on wiki at all, including by proxy. 68.10.193.214 (talk) 01:17, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Another thing "banned" means is "the community isn't interested in anything you have to say. Go away." --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 01:25, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

But that is not clearly not so, we are interested in his comments as members of this community, Brandt is highly intelligent and experienced (not a ranting teenager) and by doing this we play into his hands. Given that he is someone whose only interest in wikipedia up till now has been removing his own article but having achieved that has made an interesting and constructive comment (albeit somewhat paranoid) I find it disturbing that his contributions shopuld have been removed. save that for the bad faith users. Thanks, SqueakBox 01:29, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

<snip trolling>

The previous comment was that user's third edit. Their first edit occured about an hour ago. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 03:36, 11 April 2008 (UTC) (Note: This referred to the comment that's been snipped as "trolling", which was by User:Roderick Stiphington)

Yes, I snipped it, sorry, should have updated your comment. Having looked around for a bit, I'd guess User:Roderick Stiphington is a sockpuppet of User:The Defender of the Wiki. --Relata refero (disp.) 07:02, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Sounds like it. Supportive trolling is still trolling. (Much more pleasant, but still.) --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 18:02, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Improper block

Hello administrators. User:Raul654 has blocked User:NCdave for a week. This block is in response to some edits NCdave made to the Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed article. However, as NCdave pointed out on his talk page, and as I repeated on Raul654's talk page, Raul654 did not have the authority to block NCdave, as Raul654 has been involved in content disputes with NCdave at the aforementioned article. Wikipedia's blocking policy states that:

Administrators must not block users with whom they are engaged in a content dispute; instead, they should report the problem to other administrators. Administrators should also be aware of potential conflicts of interest involving pages or subject areas with which they are involved.

Please review this situation and take appropriate action. Thank you. JBFrenchhorn (talk) 00:03, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

To me, the more important question is whether NCdave needed blocking, and the answer to that question is clearly "yes." He's been engaged in tendentious editing across a wide range of articles for a long, long time. Raymond Arritt (talk) 00:20, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

• After a quick review of not the whole thing, a some kind of block for disruption seems appropriate. The only inappropriateness was that an "involved" admin performed it. NCd needs to be mindful of collaboration, and that topics around evolution, and intelligent design draw from the most arguementative selection of wikipedia users. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 00:22, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Raul654 has a history of blocking users with whom he edit wars. There is no reason to believe any other administrator here is willing to inform Raul654 about proper procedures here, because here at Wikipedia users who have a persona that can fallaciously be appealed to, procedure does not matter. ~ UBeR (talk) 01:39, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Are you prepared to back up this canard with an RfC or RfA, or will you just hand wave and not provide proof of your claim? Corvus cornix_talk 01:47, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

What good do you think an RfA will do when people only appeal to authority? Look around, the evidence abounds. ~ UBeR (talk) 02:00, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

If you're not willing to back your words, then you're in serious violation of WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA. Corvus cornix_talk 02:20, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=14964 Here is a forum where the issue is discussed. Not much hard evidence is given, but UBeR's opinion seems to be shared by others. JBFrenchhorn (talk) 02:35, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, now THAT is a reliable source. (note: I removed the linkage.) Corvus cornix_talk 02:38, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Why did you do that? JBFrenchhorn (talk) 02:44, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Links to that particular website are deprecated. Corvus cornix_talk 02:47, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually, it's the BADSITES pseudo-policy that's deprecated; it was soundly defeated, in case you are unaware. *Dan T.* (talk) 15:43, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Seeing as it was my edit that NCdave replaced, I don't think a block was necessary, and I doubt that an uninvolved admin would have given it. No disrespect for Raul, but NCdave is an editor as well, and a one week block seems excessive to me. Mackan79 (talk) 02:58, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I apologize for using that link to WR. I wasn't aware that WR is an anti-Wikipedia site. Also, I apologize for suggesting that Raul654 regularly misuses his admin powers. I have no evidence of that. I know that Raul654 is a valuable editor who has contributed much to this encyclopedia and has been here far longer than I have. This is in fact the first time I have disagreed with Raul654 over a blocking. JBFrenchhorn (talk) 03:44, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, I do have evidence. As User:The Evil Spartan stated here:

If he has a problem with my previous actions, come out and say it. Otherwise, it's clear that they are what they are - empty claims, without merit.. I do have a problem with your previous blocks. I believe you have repeatedly blocked users with whom you are in an edit war or whose edits you found disagreeable, under sometimes misleading edit summaries, and always for far longer than allowed by WP:BLOCK. Since you asked for examples, I will provide almost every non-checkuser, non-maintenance, non-vandalism block you have done in the past several months:

Special:Contributions/88.97.182.121 - (The Great Global Warming Swindle) 1 week for "vandalism and POV pushing" for this. No warning, Raul directly in an edit war with this user.

Special:Contributions/24.99.55.240 - (WTC) 1 week for "vandalism" (in fact, was POV pushing, had no warning, did not deserve block).

User_talk:Obedium - (Global warming) - As stated on the talk page, "Really, the problem is that Raul654 is in an edit war with this user, and blocked him inappropriately. The indefinite block is only an extension of that. ~ UBeR (talk) ". Raul in a direct edit war with thisuser.

Special:Contributions/199.82.243.71 - (The Great Global Warming Swindle) - blocked, apparently, for having the chutzpah to state this. Reverted by Raul. Raul in a direct edit war with this user.

Special:Contributions/69.29.207.159 - (Intelligent Design) blocked for this innocuous mistake.

Special:Contributions/204.9.255.65 (Intelligent Design) "vandalism" - blocked for this and removing a small section, without warning. Article which Raul edits, giving opposite point of view.

Special:Contributions/Mawest217- (Intelligent Design) - blocked for "vandalism" for having the chutzpah to add an {{NPOV}} tag to an article you routinely watch: [186]. Reverted by Raul, in a direct edit war with Raul.

Special:Contributions/204.52.215.13- (Intelligent Design) - blocked for POV pushing for again, adding POV tag: [187]. Speaking against Raul's POV on an article he routinely edits.

Special:Contributions/67.180.115.190 - (Intelligent Design) blocked for "POV pushing" for [188]. Reverted by Raul, in an edit war with Raul.

Special:Contributions/207.250.84.10 - (An Inconvenient Truth) - blocked for inserting the word "controversial", with a source, and after using the talk page, and in a direct edit war with Raul: [189].

Protected article - (Global warming) protected your own version of the page: [190]

Yqtb: (Intelligent Design) locked his talk page for removing a message from you: [191], which is allowable by policy (not to mention blocking him 24h for quite mild vandalism on an article you were involved in).

Special:Contributions/70.144.68.148 - (The Great Global Warming Swindle) - blocked for "POV pushing": [192]. Reverted by Raul, in an edit war with Raul.

User:UBeR - (global warming) -blocking for 3RR, etc. on an article which you clearly have a stake: [193].

Special:Contributions/Brittainia - (global warming) - edit warring.

User:Rtc - (Intelligent Design)- blocked for "trouble-making" (which, as every time, involved a point of view opposite your own)

User:Iantresman (ultimately global warming related) - blocked for "harassing" a user whose POV you agree with on the articles they were editing.

Special:Contributions/65.202.145.2- (The Great Global Warming Swindle) - blocked for a week for POV pushing for this (reverted by yourself of course, which is not POV-pushing, and certainly not justified without a warning, and most certainly not from an admin who is POV pushing in the opposite direction.

Special:Contributions/68.145.124.154 - (The Great Global Warming Swindle) - blocked for edit warring with you.

Special:Contributions/Zeeboid - (The Great Global Warming Swindle) - blocking an editor with whom you were in dispute, and losing a good contributor for it while at it.

Special:Contributions/216.67.29.113 - (ID)[194], etc. Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive229#Admin_blocking_a_user_with_whom_he_was_in_an_edit_conflict ANI thread.

At this point, I tire of going any further back than April (I believe the mountain of blocks above suffices). So, no, to answer your questions, my statements were not "empty claims, without merit." The Evil Spartan (talk) 13:13, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

-- Naerii 04:01, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Almost all of the edits above were clearly problematic, and should have been instantly reverted.

Most also don't count as simple vandalism, though, by anyone's definition. --Relata refero (disp.) 07:06, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Umm...half of the list above are sock puppets of User: Scibaby. Calling User: Zeeboid a "good contributor" must be some kind of joke - he was the meat puppet of a radio talk show host only here for provocation. I've looked over the edit history of "Expelled". Raul has made 10 edits in the last 4 month, and as far as I can tell, only one of them (the latest) reverting NCDave. That is a mighty low-intensity edit war.... Raul has warned him against tendentious editing two weeks ago, however. We cannot interpret "being on the other side in a discussion" as "being in a conflict" - its normal that our good editors are on "the other side" of POV-pushers. Also, a participation on a talk page does not "a conflict" make - we want our admins to communicate before they take out the banhammer, not to hover over the pages and strike without warning. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 07:25, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Is that in response to me? Because if so it makes no sense. Perhaps you've put it in the wrong place? --Relata refero (disp.) 09:50, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

No, it's in reply to Naerii quoting Spartan - I got confused by the indention level. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 09:53, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

First, TheEvilSpartan's summaries of the above blocks are highly misleading, if not outright false. I'm not going to sit here and jusity every block, but just to give a few examples, consider this edit that EvilSpartan classified "an innocent mistake". An anon changed every instance of teleological (the correct word) to theological (the wrong word) - something he shouldn't have done anyway. He somehow managed to spell "theological" correctly in the edit summary, and mispelled it every single time thereafter. That's not an innocent mistake - that's intentional vandalism with a false edit summary. user:216.67.29.113 I blocked because I caught him with checkuser gaming the FA process, disrupting an article while logged out and logging in to file an FAR claiming it was unstable. The only relavant question on the AN was whether or not the account block should have been indefinite. (It was upheld). Obedium, a user I blocked for POV pushing, turned out to be a Scibaby sock. Scibaby was community banned for using massive numbers of sockpuppets to push POV. Iantresman is community banned for POV pushing (and the arbcom has twice upheld it and refused his appeals). Brittainia I blocked because - at Raymond's suggestion, I ran checkuser and found out "she" was a sockpuppet of user:Rameses. I could go on and on, but you get the idea.

As to the current block, NCDave has been warned on three separate occasions that his editing is tenditious.[195][196][197] In fact, there was an entire talk page thread at Talk:Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed dedicated to his problematic editing on that article. He was given more than sufficient warning. At the time I issued his final warning, he claimed I was involved in in a dispute with him (he collected every edit I had ever made to the article - regardless of whether or not they pertained to him - to claim I was involved in a personal dispute with him). Claiming he is involved in a dispute with an admin seems to be his favorite tactic to prevent admins from sanctioning for his behavior. At the time, I informed him that this was not the case. He continued his disruption, culminating in today's block. Raul654 (talk) 07:14, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I'd also like to make one final note that I find JBFrenchhorn's actions here very fishy. He filed this complaint here and never notified me, as is generally expected and/or required. Raul654 (talk) 07:16, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Raul, although I did state my opinions on the issue on your talk page, I did not notify you of this thread. I should have done so, and I apologize. JBFrenchhorn (talk) 07:41, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Raul, why are you suspicious of anyone with an opposite viewpoint? I read over your history of blocks and many of these constitute admin abuse. I mean, come on! A WEEK LONG BLOCK!? The second edit he made was one that several users thought should have been made. Are you going to block them too? If you want someone blocked that you are disputing with then please let someone else handle it and don't abuse your admin powers! Saksjn (talk) 13:17, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I make no judgment to the previous blocks which seem to have been generally reasonable, but I would note that the two warnings other than Raul's here come from "Angry Christian" and FeloniousMonk, which suggests they may not have been entirely neutral (I believe both are on the other side of these content issues). The other seems related to another page. As to the specific edit, it was entirely appropriate, adding the word "reportedly" to a characterization about a movie that hasn't come out yet. I think an unblock would be reasonable. Mackan79 (talk) 13:34, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I have never edited at the intelligent design (ID) related articles until yesterday after DaveNC was blocked. It seems that he was blocked for objecting when several editors tried to insert into a Wikipedia article that ID is an "intrusion" in science classes.[198] I agree that it is an intrusion, but DaveNC was correct that Wikipedia is not a soapbox, and is not a place for POV-pushing. DaveNC may have violated some other Wikipedia policies, but I feel very uncomfortable about a 1-week block for opposing blatant POV-pushing. Incidentally, the vast majority of courts in the U.S. have held that ID is not an intrusion in science classes at private schools.Ferrylodge (talk) 19:07, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

First, your understanding of the law is faulty. The first amendment says Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion. (Courts of subsequently interpreted "Congress" means the "government", both federal and state); hence public schools (and an arm of the government) are bound by the first amendment not to allow religion to be taught as fact in a s science classroom. Courts have not ruled that ID violates the first amendment in science classes in private schools because the constition does not apply in private schools.

Second, you description of the events on that article is equally faulty. "Intrustion" is the word that has been used in the article for a while. Mackan79 and later NCDave were POV pushing by trying to change it. Raul654 (talk) 19:55, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Raul, I agree with you that "Courts have not ruled that ID violates the first amendment in science classes in private schools...." So, why should this Wikipedia article assert that ID is an "intrusion" in science classes, if it's perfectly legal in science classes at private schools? Maybe solipsism would also be an intrusion in science classes, but should Wikipedia really be taking such a position? Again, I agree that ID (and solipsism) should not intrude in science classes, but that's just my personal opinion. The word "intrusion" has been in this article for awhile, but the talk page shows that it has been controversial, and for good reason I think.Ferrylodge (talk) 20:22, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

You confuse the legal with the semantic. Courts have ruled that ID is not science. Hence putting it into science classes makes then "science plus crap" classes. You cannot "include" it and still call it a science class. Private schools are allowed to teach religious crap in the US - that does not make it science, though. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 20:49, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Legally speaking, if any court ever said anything about the propriety of ID in a private school science class, then it was pure obiter dicta not binding on anyone. It's probably true that ID does not belong in a "science" class like physics or biology or chemistry. But by the same token history is not "science" either, and yet it's not really an intrusion when a physics teacher discusses the history of a great scientist's life. Anyway, I think I've pretty much said all I wanted to say here. Thanks for the opportunity.Ferrylodge (talk) 21:00, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Intrude means to put it somewhere it doesn't belong; the court said exactly that in the Kitmizller case. Changing it to 'include' is a pretty clear attempt to water down the (correct) language in the article, and is POV pushing. Raul654 (talk) 21:20, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

That was a nonsensical argument. Cooking is not science either, but you can discuss the science of cooking. ID proponents floated the idea of creation "science", which is not science at all, in order to undermine evolutionary biology, which they see as a threat to their religious beliefs. I'm not aware that anybody sees the history of science as in any way incompatible with the teaching of science. It's perfectly acceptable to discuss ideas such as phlogiston and Descartes' principles of natural philosophy without asserting that they are anything other than outmoded staging posts on the way to modern understanding. When Hooke demonstrated that one of Descartes' principles was provably wrong, proposing instead what became known as conservation of momentum, it was considered quite a big deal by the Royal Society. Hooke's experiments and methods merit study as the pattern for much modern experimental practice - Hooke and Boyle, for example, were the first to present the results of an experiment in tabular form with the expected and observed values compared. This is an extremely interesting field of considerable relevance in the teaching of science and experimental practice. What do you think the teaching of intelligent design adds to the understanding of the development and methodology of science? Guy (Help!) 21:34, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

As mentioned above, I regard the teaching of intelligent design to be an intrusion in a science class. However, disagreement exists.

Many great physicists believe that the fundamental laws of nature are by the design of a creator, and it's not absurd to suppose that someday biologists might find something similar going on in the evolutionary process. I doubt it will happen, but it could happen, and I don't see anything wrong with a biology teacher mentioning such a possibility. When we pick our mates, we are in some sense helping to design offspring, and science is developing ever-more-powerful methods for us to create a designer baby; I cannot say with 100% certainty that no intelligence beyond our own is affecting the evolution of our race. Life is a mysterious thing, and we don't know all the answers. Anyway, JzG, someone once told me that smoke is an essential component within many electronic devices, the proof being that whenever those electronic devices cease to function there is an observed escaping of the smoke....Wikipedia would be entitled to say that a theory like that would definitely be an intrusion in a science class.  :-)Ferrylodge (talk) 23:12, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

To correct, Raul, I didn't edit anything related to the word "intrusion." If your view of my comments is based on the idea that I did, I'd ask you to reread them. Even so, changing "intrusion" to "inclusion" isn't exactly awful, since both would seem to share a roughly equivalent amount of POV. Mackan79 (talk) 20:35, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I haven't been following the intelligent design articles at all, nor this argument, but a week long block for just one edit, that in fact seems to be an obviously good faith edit (which appears to have been instantly reverted by the Admin who claims he is not in an edit-war with NCDave), seems a big overreaction. Yes there were (apparently) earlier problems, but the fact that it's been at least 2 weeks since any of the problematic edits occurred makes it difficult to claim that they are justification for a block, you don't block someone after a 2week delay....Restepc (talk) 20:10, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

replying to myself.....the review by.....I've forgotten the name now......ah yes, Mango_juice, points to NCdaves actions on the talk page, so perhaps my above point is not as relevant as I had thought. Restepc (talk) 20:36, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Umm, I'm here too, and so is JBFrenchhorn. All FOUR of us believe that the word intrusion was POV pushing. The word inclusion, does not push a POV in any way. Saksjn (talk) 20:15, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

• The best way to solve this problem is to apply zero tolerance to advocacy of fringe views in mainstream articles. Virtually the entire problem here has been people promoting content that goes against the dominant mainstream view. The same is going on around parapsychology / paranormal articles, articles on fringe scientists, any form of pseudoscience, 9/11, vaccines, chronic fatigue syndrome, asperger's, water fluoridation, anything to do with creationism, and that's before we get to the religious and ethnic feuds. Wikipedia is the single most important place to get your fringe POV validated, all controversy tends to be massively over-represented and quite often accorded substantially inflated significance within articles, and we seem to be giving more consideration to ever-so-polite people who keep requesting the same invalid changes with the same invalid arguments month after month, than to people who enforce NPOV and try to prevent hijacking of articles by fringe advocates. Are we going to do something about this at some point? Or are we simply going to wait until each mainstream defender loses patience and ban them one by one for incivility, leaving the place free to the soup-spitters? The place to advocate parity of ID is Conservapedia. The place to advocate parity for global warming denial is ExxonMobilpedia (OK, maybe we don't have an article on that yet). WP:NPOV and WP:UNDUE are the policies here, and people who wear out the patience of everyone in sight while trying to weasel their way around those policies are a problem. So we need to deal with it, without endlessly spinning it out. Guy (Help!) 21:45, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
  • No the best way to solve this is to simply abide by the Block policy and don't block someone with whom you are in dispute, even if you are an admin, crat, checkuser, arb, or demigod. Simple as that, no big hullaballoo needed. All the discussion about whether this speicific block (or the dozen others listed) was otherwise good is completely beside the point -- there would be no drama at all if an uninvolved admin made the block, which is exactly why the block policy forbids this. Discussion of the content dispute itself has no place here on ANI at all. Unit56 (talk) 03:05, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Greeting: "Metal up your ass :) "

Resolved

 – Not at all a good idea (don't try this at home), but not universally offensive as originally percieved. Toddst1 (talk) 04:32, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

I've encountered two user pages, User:Jacob Green696 and User:Riverpeopleinvasion that have put scripts on their userpages that blink the greeting "Metal up your ass :)" at the bottom of every visitor's screen that visits their user pages. I've warned both of them about WP:Civil and removed the script from their userpages (User:Riverpeopleinvasion twice). Is there anyone here who thinks that's an acceptable greeting? Toddst1 (talk) 00:20, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Nope. I've removed the code from both pages. --InDeBiz1 (talk) 00:26, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't see why it should be an issue. Far more offensive material is deemed to be not worthy of forced removal. If it wasn't blinking, would it have been a problem? --Onorem♠Dil 00:48, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Would you greet your mother or child that way? Is it a WP:Civil greeting? Or if you just warned someone and they replied with that, would you consider it Wp:Civil ?? Toddst1 (talk) 01:04, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

That's a completely different discussion. --Onorem♠Dil 01:05, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

They didn't do any of that. I might agree that annoying little boxes with blinking text popping up on your screen could be considered offensive. As I understand it, it wasn't a personal attack on someone (or a group of people) so I don't really see the harm?--Apis O-tang (talk) 01:26, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

No it's not a straw man. It's not polite and it's very unpleasant, intimidating language. Anyway, blinking is banned, I got told off just for having a blinking sig once, so did Ryan Poselthwaite. And I don't think we can expect much from users who have "metal up your a*s" on their page, but we shall see..."special, random, Merkinsmum 01:29, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Would it be removed if it was simply a link to our article on the subject? I agree that the blinking part is annoying, but it certainly doesn't seem like a big enough problem to be at AN/I at the moment. --Onorem♠Dil 01:34, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Did you know this is something from a band (see Metal_Up_Your_Ass.) Maybe if they linked to that from their page people would realise it's not a personal insult/rudeness for the sake of it? special, random, Merkinsmum 01:36, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm old enough to remember the album with that name and do. But that's not the context it was used in. There's a song called I Wanna Fuck You and I don't think it would be appropriate to have that as a random phrase on my userpage either. Toddst1 (talk) 01:47, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

It also wasn't used as a greeting for my mother, or a reply to a warning, but that didn't prevent you from using those situations for your complaint... --Onorem♠Dil 01:49, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

This is directly answering the question above. I think the analogy for civilness of a greeting is valid. Sorry your standards are lower. Toddst1 (talk) 01:53, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I also disagree that the civility of "I wanna fuck you" and "Metal up your ass" are directly comparable. --Onorem♠Dil 01:55, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

The point was it's not OK to put a phrase randomly on your userpage just because there's a song or an album with that name. In the context of the album they're fine, but if that's all that was in a section of my user page, neither would be acceptable in my opinion. And adding a smiley afterwards? Toddst1 (talk) 01:58, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

The editor concerned is into metal, he's changed the message to say "I live, breathe and love metal!" or something, so I think that album was what he meant, or something else about Metal music. Whereas I initially though he meant a gun up your a*s! special, random, Merkinsmum 02:04, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

It's worth bearing in mind that these editors are still doing their GCSEs- they're 15 or 16.special, random, Merkinsmum 02:06, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

It is obviously possible to conceive this as being offensive, but it's also clear this wasn't intended to be offensive. Should all content on user pages that might be conceived vulgar/offensive be removed? Then the user page realm would end up very barren. It's not like anyone has been intentionally hurt or harassed. --Apis O-tang (talk) 02:24, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Not intentionally maybe, but it says "Metal up your ass, so it appears to be addressing the person viewing it.special, random, Merkinsmum 08:24, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

The users in question have now been notified of this discussion... --Onorem♠Dil 02:16, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Ok when i put the greeting there i did not intend for it to be offensive or a personal attack to anyone. I just put it there as a joke, it isn't actually meant to offend anyone and i don't see how it could. It doesn't refer to putting a gun up your ass and smiling it is about the type of music, metal. Riverpeopleinvasion (talk) 11:08, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

This is incivil, impolite, and lacking in common decency. The users visiting those pages should not have that forced upon them. — Rlevse • Talk • 11:10, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure that the majority of users would see it as an insult, but more of a joke. Especially with the added smiley at the end makes it obvious that it is a joke and no harm is intended. Riverpeopleinvasion (talk) 14:14, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Heyy we were both just messing around. If it's that big a deal just tell us and we'll do something about it. Besides you have no right to delete all three codes. Only one of them said Metal up your ass:).Jacob Green696 (talk) 15:10, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Tell you guys what,I'll change it to Metal up my ass

When did everyone become so sensitive on here? When we cater to these folks who get offended at every little thing that our 80-year-old grandmother might not like, we divert attention away from the project and into little silly discussions like this. Don't look at their damn talk page if you don't like it - it's not mainspace. Tan | 39 15:53, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

WP:CIVIL has so much sway because this is an open, collaborative project with many, many kinds of editors from all over the world. Collaboration, tolerance and kindness are the glues which keep Wikipedia together, along with WP:V. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:30, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I couldn't agree more. However, when editors become overly sensitive to perceived slights (and this one is passive, not an active slight), Wikipedia becomes an "I'll report you!" playing field. There is no other arena in my life where people are expected to behave perfectly - my job, my family, my friends, etc. When people are passionate about something, they're going to say things that are passionate. Yes, we should minimize this and not let it cause major conflict - but making a big deal (such as bringing it to ANI) about some random Metallica quote on someone's talk page is just WikiDrama. Tan | 39 16:38, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

(ec) Yes, I tend to agree, a quiet discussion on the users' talk pages would have been a more helpful start. WP:ANI's not meant to be an outlet for tattle tales. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:45, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Clarifying comment: User:Toddst1 warned the editors their greetings were being taken as uncivil. They responded by wholly ignoring him, restoring the greetings and ignoring him again, so I think his bringing it up here was a reasonable and responsible thing to do. My comment about "tattle tales" was in passing response to Tan as a general notion along with my wishful thinking about ways to skirt wikidramas and had nothing to do with User:Toddst1. Gwen Gale (talk)00:30, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Gwen. Toddst1 (talk) 00:49, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

What's more, if you hadn't brought this up here, I wouldn't have gotten the chance to turn off one of those blinkers :) (Even if it does get turned back on again later) Gwen Gale (talk) 01:15, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Does anybody hvae any objections to what I have done on my page. I changed the "Metal Up Your Ass" to "I <3 Metal". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jacob Green696 (talk • contribs) 16:43, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Dunno what others will say about the blinking, I'll leave that to them. Meanwhile, I <3 Beryllium. :) Gwen Gale (talk) 16:47, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Well how do i stop the blinking then? Its seriously not a big deal. Riverpeopleinvasion (talk) 16:51, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Only to show you how, I stopped the blinking. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:57, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Ok thanks. Now, is there any objections to me putting "metal up your ass :)" on my userpage? It doesn't blink so is there any other problems? Its a joke not a personal threat. Riverpeopleinvasion (talk) 17:02, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

The worry is, some readers will stumble across your page and take it (very) wrong. Gwen Gale (talk) 17:05, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Ok, well I changed mine to different words....So now noone can complainJacob Green696 (talk) 17:14, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Maybe you'll think up a joke most folks can understand straight off ;) Gwen Gale (talk) 17:15, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Ok I changed mine to I <3 Metal! :)Now nobody can complain.Jacob Green696 (talk) 17:23, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Independent Opinion - experienced sleuths needed

Dear all, this checkuser - Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Boomgaylove - showed up User:Willirennen and User:Knock-Off Nigel to be socks. Willirennen has asked for an unblock here with a fairly detailed explanation of how this might have come about. My question is is this plausible and hence is an unblock warranted? All experienced wiki-sleuth sockhunters welcome. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:40, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I find it hard to believe this user had a friend using nine sundry Wikipedia accounts on his own home computer without knowing about it. Gwen Gale (talk) 00:51, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Note: Willirennen's unblock request was just granted here.¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 01:06, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I also have lots of trouble believing his houseguests (whom he says he cannot "pinpoint") studied his contribution history before opening accounts and editing similar articles from the computers in his home, all without telling him a word about it, as he claims. Gwen Gale (talk) 01:11, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

WP:DUCK ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:13, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I guess it would have been helpful to see this thread first, but I'm giving the editor the benefit of the doubt based upon my judgement. I'm monitoring his edits, and if there is anything out of line, I'll reblock. seicer | talk | contribs 01:16, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I haven't examined all of Willirennen's and Knock-Off Nigel's contributions in detail (to say nothing of the other supposed socks), but the pattern on March 7 of this year looks suspicious to me: From 14:51 to 15:49 K-ON performs a string of edits, mostly tagging articles for speedy deletion and commenting in AfDs where he had been the nominator; then Willi performs a quick string of constructive edits from 15:53 to 16:10, whereupon K-ON suddenly pops up for one edit at 16:15 to respond to two comments at one of his AfDs, and Willi then continues editing from 16:23 to 21:14. Deor (talk) 01:45, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

OK..Deor, good sleuthing, that does look ominous. That makes three additional editors suspicious and one prepared to accept Willirennen's explanation....shall we wait for some more eyes? Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs)

My unblock can always be reviewed; it's not static, and if there is enough consensus or agreement that the editor has been socking it and editing disruptively, then I have no issue with an indef. block. seicer | talk | contribs 02:34, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

An indef block is not required. Asking the user to edit with one account only would be the better choice. If he denies the SPs again, and if he/she persist, then yes. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:01, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that might be ok, though I would say any further denial of these socks would be worrisome. Gwen Gale (talk) 03:08, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Just as a quick note, in addition to User:Willirennen and User:Knock-Off Nigel turning up as socks per the checkuser, the two accounts do have some history of participating on the same side in AfDs with all sorts of IP and single-purpose accounts. Two examples are Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Natasha Collins and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/NASIOC. In the first case, consider this progression of edits from both accounts: [199], [200], and [201]. In the second case, Willirennen was on the same side as all of the following, which have also been blocked for a variety of reasons: User:Moosato Cowabata, User:Garth Bader, User:Lara Dalle, and User:AnteaterZot. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 05:26, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) I have been out and about today and I think a better explanation is needed per Deor's findings. I am having a hard time seeing it as anything other than sockpuppetry. I will ask him. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:01, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

• Per the above, I think a "one account only" warning is OK in this case, for now at least, because we don't need to flip-flop on this. In general, though, the "room mate" excuse is about as plausible as "the dog ate my homework". Guy (Help!) 11:11, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Taos High School

Because of an edit war at Taos High School, I have fully protected the article for two days and requested the time be used to discuss potential improvements on the talk page. I'd appreciate others' reviewing this action. Aleta ^Sing 03:53, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Wait, you protected over this?? While this editor is not strictly a vandal (although he was also removing maintenance templates), I see little point full protecting over the actions of a single, disruptive SPA. Someguy1221 (talk) 03:59, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, I am trying to encourage talk page dialogue which would have been impossible if I had banned him. Aleta ^Sing 04:04, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I have to to go to bed. If others think a different course of action best, I trust you will act accordingly. Aleta ^Sing 04:14, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, I'm still here for the moment. It appears that we have a role account. Taostiger has admitted to being a group of people editing under one name. How do we handle this? As I understand it, role accounts are not allowed, correct? Aleta ^Sing 04:24, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Role accounts are not allowed. Unless only a single user agrees to edit with the account henceforth, it should be blocked (an admin may block this account without asking for such an agreement, though). Gwen Gale (talk) 04:27, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

(ec):::In that case, should Taostiger be blocked now in regards to this comment and countless others where Taos says "we?" Also, the user keeps going on about how he/she/they will remove all of the information added to the article. We've tried to explain that it's not their decision, since information added to this site is now part of WP. AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 04:35, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I believe that a 3RR block is in order at the very least, if not indef for being a role account. Comments? -MBK₀₀₄ 05:00, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Can we atleast get the crap that's there now out? Grsz11 04:42, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I'll make sure to let those who have worked hard on this article, that the consensus is to "get the crap that's there now out", how revealing. --Taostiger (talk) 04:53, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Grsz11 should not have said it was crap. I think he's referring to POV content and the unnecessary information mentioned on the talk page. AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 04:56, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

As a self-professed Role account, and a username violation, this user should be blocked indef. Grsz11 05:00, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

That's not a username violation. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 17:58, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm glad you appreciate and encourage the interest of individuals, couples, groups, etc. to contribute. All this energy towards an article about a HIGH SCHOOL!! --Taostiger (talk) 05:06, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

All are encouraged to contribute...individually. But this is an encyclopedia...content in the first person is entirely inappropriate. We don't let an article about a company that says: "We offer the finest in the most high-tech toothbrushes," stay on here, and this should be no different. Grsz11 05:10, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

A contribution is a contribution whether it's from 1 person alone or 100 people working together. The point being, whether it's an "I" or a "We", I thought WP was an opportunity to share and exchange of information, which is what was attempted but definately not appreciated. Once again, this is about a high school article...... OMG--Taostiger (talk) 05:15, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

But we don't allow accounts that are under the control of multiple people, period that is not just our policy, but on many other wikimedia projects as well. The exchange of information is what wikipedia is for, but this is an encyclopedia, and must have some standards with regards to verifiability, point of view, sources, etc. -MBK₀₀₄ 05:30, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

The account is under my control. The information and data gathered for the article was from the group. We worked together entering the information under my supervision. I completely support standards regarding what you mentioned. But please be aware of the method of delivery these standards are introduced to the contributor. If they are done respectful the respect is naturally reciprocated. Simply deleting without offering assistance was our experience. Positive reinforcement and encouragement should be the norm, it works great at Taos High School. --Taostiger (talk) 05:38, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm not entirely certain (based on your description), but that may still pose a problem. For legal reasons relating to the GFDL (at least I believe that's the root of the policy), each account's contributions must come from one, and only one, person. Being the only person with the password may not be sufficient here. (Others, please correct me if I'm misinformed). Best, --Bfigura ^(talk) 05:46, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

If in fact only one person is doing the actual editing, regardless of how many people read over his shoulder and suggest wording changes, then in my opinion it wouldn't be a role account. As long as the owner of the account takes personal responsibility for everything posted under that name it hardly matters what form of off-WP research is done to create that content (providing no copyvios, of course). Loren.wilton (talk) 08:49, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, if only one person has asserted personal responsibility for all edits ever made (or to be made) using the account, it's not a role account. Gwen Gale (talk) 15:54, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Holy crap, guys. Nice newbie biting. The fact that the project does not allow role accounts doesn't mean you need to go on a role account witchhunt. Collaboration is perfectly okay and a good thing, and is not forbidden by the GFDL. Now someone should have explained to this person (and their collaborators) how to write a Wikipedia article, without the panicked "block them and protect the page!" reaction.

The key point here is that blocking is a last resort. It shouldn't be seen as the default thing to do when you suspect a newbie is breaking a rule. Taostiger has a lot to learn about Wikipedia, but the blocking threats made in this thread were out of line. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 18:01, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

FYI Rspeer, some of us tried to assist the editor (many, many times) with the article. Read the Talk:Taos High School page for starters. AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 18:23, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Also, it wasn't the notion of a role account that brought it here: To begin with there were 3rr and edit warring worries, along with an apparent lack of participation on the talk page and removal of maintenance templates. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:26, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Exactly. AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 18:30, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I can understand the page protection as a way of encouraging discussion on the talk page. It seems to have worked. Regardless, several people in this discussion went on to say "the account is breaking a rule, block it now". rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 19:16, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

So now we don't block for edit warring? Grsz11 21:04, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Rspeer, read User talk:Taostiger#Not Worth It to understand where we're coming from in relation to working with this user. Although the user has only been editing for a month, that doesn't mean he/she/they is some kind of retard that can't comprehend basic WP policies when pointed out (WP:CITE, WP:3RR, WP:OWN, WP:COI, WP:ROLE etc.). Messages on user talk pages trying to get your point across has worked, we get what you're saying. But you're wrong in this case, and so is Greg Comlish (who referred to us as "tight asses", among other things, for some unknown reason). Just please drop it. I'll correct the mistakes in the article once the protection ends. Geez. AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 23:31, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Admins willing to make difficult blocks

Notifying people here, since this page is tangentially related to that discussion and shares a similarly appropriate userbase.

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Admins willing to make difficult blocks. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 04:35, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Canvassing? ;) 195.216.82.210 (talk) 09:28, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm pretty neutral on this. Imagine the notification is from me, if that'll make it easier on 'ya ;) dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 09:31, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I may be wrong but, I don't believe that just notifying people of a discussion constitutes canvassing. Jasynnash2 (talk) 13:08, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

No, you're right. Notifying people who're interested in the subject is fine. It's only notifying just those who'd support your angle that's unacceptable. WilyD 13:13, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Editor persists in readding copyright violation to 2008 Tibetan unrest article

Resolved

 – No admin action required Hersfold ^(t/a/c)

Copyrighted text removed

Text is copied from USA Today article. John Nevard (talk) 04:43, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, don't post it here, that rather defeats the purpose.... anyway, we do allow blocked quotes, so as long as it's formatted properly to make it clear it's quoted text, and properly cited, it should be fine. However, someone could keep an eye out for 3RR stuff. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 05:17, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

It's not quoted. It's a copyright violation. John Nevard (talk) 05:53, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Looking at the user's talk page, it looks like there is some effort to try and get it quoted - which is why I said that. cf. Bertrand Russell, which has several long blockquotes from works that are still under copyright. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 06:10, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

It's a couple of sentences and you know how to use the edit button. Next time try paraphrasing if there's a copyright violation this minor. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 06:45, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

All Hallow's Wraith (talk · contribs)

i'm attempting to head off a potentially nasty revert war. if someone can please tell me how to handle this, it would be great. over the past week, All Hallow's Wraith (talk · contribs) has twice run though my contribs, reverting my edits. in a range of about three hours this, he has made more than sixty uncommented reverts, and changes counter to policy. after asking him to stop, he yet continues. fighting my initial urge to retaliate in-kind, i though it best to seek an alternate route. please help. --emerson7 06:17, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

For the record, I've only reverted some of emerson7's edits on pages that I have previously edited myself - I've not followed him to new terrain. I've not made any changes counter to style guidelines/policy pages - in fact, what I did revert were two things in every case: emerson7's occasional changing of "{{reflist|2}}" to "<references/>" in the reference section (something that does not seem to be supported by any policy, and contradicts a majority of articles that have a reference section), and emerson7's removal of the term "née" from articles, which I didn't see any reason for. We initiated some discussion today, which looks like it has fallen through (in response to my last post on his talk page, he simply repeated a warning on mine). He's made one off-hand comment ("the level and degree to which you require 'consistency' is...forgive me for saying this...consistent with the symptoms of a obsessive compulsive disorder") of the kind I usually wouldn't bother complaining about. And that's really about it. All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 06:30, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

• I'd say that {{reflist}} is preferred, but two columns is silly for fewer than half a dozen refs. I'd also say that the two of you should seek a third opinion or some kind of dispute resolution. Guy (Help!) 08:31, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
  • The nexus of the "ref" dispute is probably more about "reflist" having a smaller resulting text size than "references/" (a lot of the reverting was to the simple "reflist", which doesn't create columns). All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 08:48, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

• So someone is trying to "fix" a css variable they don't like by reverting to an old and deprecated way of formatting reflists. Pointless. If they think that the font size in reflists is wrong, then they should propose changing it, not selectively reformat articles with an uglier markup. Sheesh. Guy (Help!) 15:20, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

brandon lang

Could someone take a look at brandon lang, or Brandon Link which it redirects to, with an eye to seeing what is going on and whether it is an appropriate page for Wikipedia? It isn't real clear to me that this is an encyclopediac page, and I'd be inclined to request deletion, except that I seem to be involved with the page (I deleted an instance of pretty obvious vandalism by a recent contributor, which he claims isn't vandalism.)

He is now accusing me of deleting lots of other "useful" information from the article. I haven't done that, and in fact have only made one edit (a revert) to the article, but I see others editors are having considerable fun deciding just what belongs in the article and what doesn't. The editor I'm involved with is probably a newbie, so confusing me with "the establishment" may be a natural mistake. In any case under the circumstances I'd rather not be the person that nominates this for AfD.

I get the feeling there may be fewer editors here than would appear to exist at first glance, I think a lot of those redlink editors may be socks of each other. Thanks, Loren.wilton (talk) 08:38, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

• My thought is that the article as it stands should be deleted. It is a biography of a living person that doesn't prove notability, contains no references or citations from reliable third party sources, and can't even agree on the subject's name (even the interview calls him Brandon Lang not Link and no citations seems to exist for the name change. As I haven't contributed at all I'll take to to AfD where parties can discuss the article on its merits (or lack thereof). Jasynnash2 (talk) 09:13, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

• Can an admin take a look at this Brandon Lang/Brandon Link/Brandon Lane/Mike Anthony/etc situation. It seems that User:Quadzilla99 redirected the Brandon Link page to Brandon Lang back on 2nd April 2007 at 0713. Then on 30th January 2008 at 0612 User:85.177.209.159 Redirected Brandon Lang to Brandon Link insisting that this was the persons real name and that Lang was made up for the movie. Neither the AskMen.com interview or the ESPN.com interview I can find make mention of a name other than Brandon Lang. I'm afraid that an actually valid article may have been lost in creating a hoax or something. Either way his most commonly known by name seems to be Lang and therefore even if they are all the same person and meet notability requirements the article would seem to belong at Brandon Lang. Thanks. Sorry wasn't logged in Jasynnash2 (talk) 16:44, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Pro-Pain

Hi. I am currently engaged in a bit of an edit war with an IP address at this article. This basically consists of them adding a copy and pasted "official bio" from [202], incorrectly capitalising some words and adding a parent category as a category to the article. I have now reverted these several times (over the course of a few days). I have attempted to explain my actions via the users talk page, and have now issued a 3RR warning as they seem to be ignoring my requests. In addition, looking back through the history of this editor, this edit summary suggests that there may also be a conflict of interest here....

[203]

I am unsure as to how to proceed with this, as they are ignoring my advice and just reverting my edits, despite clear explanations of why I am removing the content. Regards Nouse4aname (talk) 08:54, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Per history, following is found: "(cur) (last) 2007-08-23T17:52:27 71.203.0.174 (Talk | block) (3,598 bytes) (Edited out inaccuracies., corrected spelling of members. Edited in shortened official bio, and additional ex-members. These changes were made by the band themselves.) (undo)", which indicates that the IP is probably owned by the band them self, and thus it's a COI/NPOV violation. _→AzaToth 09:04, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

So how do we resolve this? I have also reported it here now. Nouse4aname (talk) 09:54, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Disruptive editing on Amdo

I'm having difficulties with a tag team of User:Blnugyen and User:Khoikhoi on Amdo. The statement is sourced to two sources, one of which is an article carried by China's Xinhua News Agency, the other is an academic book.

• User:Khoikhoi removes a sourced statement from the article: [204], saying that "Xinhua is not a neutral source"
• I restore the statement, informing User:Khoikhoi that there are in fact two sources, one of which is not Xinhua: [205]
• User:Blnugyen removes it again, [206], this time saying 1) Xinhua is PRc mouthpiece, and 2) something about press freedom in China, the relevance of which to a history and geography article I fail to see.
• I restore the statement, this time inviting User:Blnugyen to discuss on the talk page: [207]; see Talk:Amdo
• User:Blnguyen reverts again, refusing to listen and refusing to discuss. [208]

This is beyond a content issue now, because I've pointed out three times that the basic premise for Khoikhoi-Blnguyen's removal of the statement is wrong, since there are two sources and not one, as Khoikhoi-Blnguyen assumes. Blnguyen continues to revert without discussion. This is not the first time I have run into Blnguyen, and I have no desire for this to escalate. Could someone please press Blnguyen to discuss on the talk page. Or just to read what he is editing before he edits.

Thanks, --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 09:08, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I think that BLN is aware of the recommendation to discuss, he probably doesn't think its warranted in this case. This isn't yet an edit war.

If you believe your second source is reliable, take it to WP:RS/N for discussion. Generally translated sources are acceptable, but we frown on using exclusively translated/nationalistic sources for disputed points. --Relata refero (disp.) 09:46, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

• Yeah, because Blnguyen is a well-known POV warrior and tendentious editor, right? Oh, wait, no he isn't. More of a multiple FA writer, admin and CheckUser actually. So perhaps when one of the project's best and most trusted identifies a problem with a source (in a language that he, but not most of us, can read), the source is the problem and not Blnguyen? Guy (Help!) 11:14, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

  Guy, you must be new... one of our checkusers and oversighters is an unrelenting Irish POV pusher. Sceptre ^(talk) 11:34, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Update: Blnguyen has posted on the talk page after the posting of this report. He has said that no source published in China can ever be reliable. I doubt the veracity of that statement - but where should I take it?

Relata refero, I wish you would put aside prejudices and look at issues in substance before making comments like these. Blnguyen is an experienced and valuable contributor, but that does not mean he is not capable of... shall we say... extremely strong views in certain articles, such as those concerning Tibet.

Guy, you're commenting ad hominim. Inform yourself of the matter before commenting. Actually, Blnguyen is not Chinese, so I don't understand why you assume he can accurately assess the reliability of the source. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 15:03, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

The idea that a Chinese news agency's pronouncements should be taken with less than a full pound of salt is, I venture to suggest, controversial. I know who Blnguyen is, and what kind of person; one of the fairest around. If you want to talk ad-hominem, how about that opening sentence, up above? A "tag-team" indeed? Or is it just that they agree the source is unreliable and you refuse to accept their judgment? In the end the onus is on you to justify inclusion of disputed text and "make the nasty men go away" does not count towards that end. Guy (Help!) 15:17, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

PalaceGuard, you seem to be right in terms of Wikipedia policy, guidelines and practice and common sense. Binguyen hasn't even made it what I'd call a proper content issue dispute. His blanket assertion is remarkable. With the help of my ridiculously linguistically talented wife I read a paper on Algebraic K-theory in Chinese many years ago; I wonder where and how the party line crept in there. ;-) But this really isn't the place for this. I hope your realize words like vandalism and tagteam are out of place . The article talk page is overwhelmingly the proper place, and second, the RSN board.John Z (talk) 01:24, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

UPN Vandal

Resolved

 – Deleted hoax articles, blocked socks

Normally this well known vandal (see [209]) just uses dynamic addresses and is easily reverted, but today he's started creating a bunch of socks, is being unusually persistent, and I'd appreciate some help dealing with it. He started this morning as Special:Contributions/172.135.11.117, creating his usual hoax entries on Kung Fu Panda, then disappeared for a while before editing Dr. Seuss's Horton Listen the Whos, a new page created 9 minutes earlier by brand new user Special:Contributions/RSA66666. The page is a blatant hoax, a mishmash of pieces of other pages tied together with UPN's usual writing style. RSA66666 went on to create a second hoax, Tenacious D in 3-D, and his pages are being defended and added to other pages by a new ip: Special:Contributions/220.233.240.154 (again, same writing style, hoaxing, obvious sock). Finally, yet another user has appeared: Special:Contributions/Friends66666, adding pages in support of 220.x's edits.

AIV has dealt with the original 172.x address. I'd go to WP:SSP again with the rest, but the way he's acting more will just pop out of the woodwork and take longer to clean up; it would help if this was nipped in the bud. Bazzargh (talk) 12:14, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

And another Special:Contributions/RTA66666 Bazzargh (talk) 12:24, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

The articles he created were copy and pastes from existing articles and are thus GFDL copyright violations and I will delete them as such. This is sufficient evidence to block RSA66666, RTA66666 and Friends66666 as abusive socks of the UPN vandal. --NrDg 13:48, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

User: Paul20070 - Requested deletion of userspace

I am the above user and am currently trying to assert my right to disappear. I would like my userspace deleted. However, I'm unable to follow the proper procedure because I salted my password. There's currently a debate going on as regards several sockpuppet accounts which I discovered being edited from my PC here so I'm not sure how this affects my wishes. Due to the circumstances, I have retired from actively editing, but forgot to request deletion of my userspace before I left. I have advised by Pedro that I should come here and make my request, where an admin with checkuser priveleges might be able to confirm my identity. I've also made similar requests to Alison and Jimbo Wales and plan to make a note in the checkuser debate. Thank you. Paul20070 81.152.149.124 (talk) 12:26, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

This is a relatively fresh sockpuppet investigation Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Paul20070 and has turned up extensive sockpuppetry. There may be others involved. If we take User: Paul20070's story on face value, I believe keeping the talk pages history available would be useful in helping discover the possibility of others. Sure admins would have access to the deleted revisions, but non-admins would not.

However, I have reason to doubt the user's story in that more than one of the socks, User: Egdirf and 86.147.218.231 had almost identical wikistalks that degraded into warnings with User:TomGreen as did User: Paul20070, which would strengthen the reasons to keep the history available. Note that the user has moved his talk page with history to User_talk:Paul20070/Archive1. He had asked for this to be speedily deleted and I declined for these grounds. I'm glad it's here for review. Toddst1 (talk) 19:08, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

To be honest, I'm starting to feel like I'm being wikistalked a bit. Leaving that aside, however, I have listed all of the sockpuppets which I believe were created or edited from my computer. The sockpuppet edits were made by two (now former) friends who I'd allowed to use my ssytem. I have now fallen out with these people and managed to obtain the passwords of four of the accounts. I've been into these, requested userpage deletion and salted the passwords so they can't be used again from another terminal.

As for my dealings with User:TomGreen. These occurred in November/December 2007 when he started editing pages which were on my watchlist. Many of these seemed to be him adding facts which could not be substantiated (and I did check them out). I wasn't sure how to deal with it because he appeared to be an otherwise good editor (I guess he must have been fooling around), but tried to advise him not to make edits of this nature. This ended with him accusing me of harrassment, so I decided to back off, and have tried as much as possible to avoid clashing with him since then. Anything else involving TomGreen is not down to me, and when discovered the extent of what had been going on, I decided it was best all round if I retired. I would now just like to vanish from Wikipedia, so I can move on from this unfortunate episode. Thanks. Paul20070 81.152.149.124 (talk) 19:40, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

• Right I've fixed this per WP:IAR. I've deleted both the user talk and user page. They can easily be recreated if any SSP issues come out, and I've left a note to that effect. I do believe this IP is this user, as I can't see why any IP would go to these lengths for deletion of something that doesn't affect the main body of the work. No more drama, job done, sadly we lose an editor but we also avoid any drama. Pedro :  Chat  19:49, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for helping me. It is very much appreciated. I'll keep an eye on the checkuser debate, then head for the hills once that's concluded. Paul20070 81.152.149.124 (talk) 19:58, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Pointless conflict with John

John keeps removing the "Afro-Caucasian People" category from Sydney Tamiia Poitier, arguing that no proper source is given. On the contrary, this info is duly sourced and relevant, as Ms Poitier is a notable biracial (i.e. : she is the notable daughter of a very notable black man, who is notably married to a somewhat notable white woman). This information is in no way defamatory and does not invade Ms Poitier's privacy. The same thing goes for Ruud Gullit, whose relevance as a "multiracial icon" I had duly sourced and Thandie Newton, whose biracial heritage is also sourced. I have found exchanges with John (who has come to the point of being needlessly agressive and threatening) to be extremely difficult to cope with, and can no longer believe in this user's good faith. He keeps ignoring any sources that are given to him and indulges in extremely tiresome debates, motivated by what I suspect to be ideological/personal reasons. I am also quite baffled by his behaviour on such a trivial detail. Since I do not want to waste my time on a nerve-wracking debate and or any kind of conflict with John, I would just like him to be reminded that he should refrain from completely pointless edit warring. Behaviors such as his are the best way to disgust users from contributing to wikipedia, their good faith notwithstanding. Thank you. Wedineinheck (talk) 12:51, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I and another admin have pointed out several times to this user the constraints of WP:BLP and WP:V. It was all at his user talk until he removed it with the summary "removing the trash talk". Alternatively, Wedineinheck, you have the right to WP:FORK and create a project with different rules where people are classified, apartheid-style, according to "race", as it seems you would like to do. I wish you well in either case, but as long as you are still editing here, please do not add or restore racial categories for which there is no evidence, especially to articles on living people. It is courteous to inform an editor whose conduct you complain about here. --John (talk) 14:31, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

It seems that this editor is continuing to do what I strongly advised him not to do. Adding Category:Courtesans and prostitutes to the article on Quentin Elias seems highly questionable, and Ruud Gullit may well be notable as a "multicultural icon", but that is not the same as saying he is properly a member of Category:Afro-Caucasian people, as has been pointed out already. Maybe it is no bad thing to get some more eyes on the problems associated with contentious use of categories; other users besides this one may have misunderstood our policies. Basically, a category cannot be added unless there is good, verifiable evidence to do so. Same as everything else. And, like everything else, we need to be extra careful when dealing with living people. --John (talk) 14:45, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Folks that want some background on this will want to read this version of Wedineinheck's talk... The case has been made in depth that raciality has to be established by sourcing, and further, to include it in an article, there has to be reliably sourced reference material that the raciality is significant to the person's history, career, etc. Merely stating that the person is notable is not sufficient to justify inclusion. (contrast Vin Diesel where this has been done, with Sydney Tamiia Poitier, where it has not) This is essentially a content debate, except that W has been warned multiple times not to revert removal in violation of BLP, and is on a path to get blocked over it if it's not discontinued. It appears to me that W is trying to forestall that by preemptively making the opposite case but I hope that is an incorrect evaluation. ++Lar: t/c 16:21, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

What race this actress is or isn't factually holds little importance compared to Wikipedia's role in labeling her. When we see a less common term being used in an article, we want to make sure that it's been used in independant sources to identify that person as well. Editors doing the math of "Black father plus white mother equals..." doesn't cut it. On a seperate note, I'm not seeing sources suggesting Poitier's specific racial identification as anything to do with her notability.Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 20:02, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I am rather confounded by John (and Lar)'s orwellian display of bad faith, overbearing, condescending, and threatening attitude, and obvious non-neutral disregard for the actual state of wikipedia. John's suggestion that I endorse apartheid is so blatantly defamatory that any comment is superfluous. The "eurasians" category numbers over 400 articles, so I considered a category for black/white biracial persons would be logical : hence the creation of the "afro-caucasian people" sub-category to the "afro-caucasians" preexisting category. The biracial heritage of public figures, especially artists like Thandie Newton or Melanie Brown, or very notable ones like Ruud Gullit, is obviously important to their public images : whether one likes it or not, ethnicity remains an important social/cultural construct in today's society, and only few people in the western world tend to consider that it doesn't exist or isn't important. Now, I do not care about John and Lar's pigheaded, blatantly POV attitude, nor about their personal biases and complex, nor do I wish to waste my time in any kind of conflict with them or anyone else : my only goal is to stress the problem they pose. If wikipedia wants to ignore the ethnicity factor, it should delete the "eurasians" category, as I very much doubt each and every one of the 400+ articles features sources explicitely stressing that their mixed heritage is central to their personas. Delete this category, and I will consider this as a logical policy. Don't, and I will stick to my point of view, though I consider continuing in any kind of edit war to be an utter and complete waste of time. Now, if John wishes to continue his own edit warring and then putting the fault on some else, it is entirely his problem : I do not wish to have any exchange of any kind with him. He should just be reminded that he has to treat wikipedia users as his peers and not act like he owns the wikimedia foundation. Now, if he wants to keep wasting his time in removing properly sourced information (as I spent myne in sourcing all the articles at his initial suggestion, when he still acted politely), and wants to debate the validity of "1+1=2" by asking for independent sources, more power to him : I just couldn't care less and do not wish to waste any more minutes of my time in conflicts with this particular fellow. Wedineinheck (talk) 10:49, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Another instance of a hatchet job by "insiders" on the unsuspecting

If you would like to see what sort of hatchet job can be done by Wikipedia "insiders" on unsuspecting "outsiders" who happen to stumble upon bogus articles concerning their field of expertise, have a look at the recent AfD discussion: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Myrzakulov_equations_%282nd_nomination%29

Carefully read, the history of the event should be pretty clear, although this is only the end result as it appears after numerous deletions and other manipulations by User: Cheeser1, involving contributions to the debate that had been provided by well-meaning and well-qualified "outsiders" who had only their expertise in the subject to offer, but no Wikipedia experience, skills or history. The criticism by the shocked Nominator for Deletion of how the procecss was proceeding: by bullying, unauthorized deletions of valid comments of experts; false accusations of "sock-puppetry" and every other dishonest manipulative technique in the book were systematically deleted, re-ordered, and scrambled by User: Cheeser1, who seemed well-trained and experienced in these skills. All this was witnessed by, and supported by no less than seven Wikipedia "administrators", despite the nominator's repeated (unheeded) pleas for assistance. The "talk" page for the AfD , in final form, consists mainly of the attacks by User: Cheeser1 on the nominator's integrity, and that of other experts in the field who had volunteered their opinions. Besides this, there was a "behind the scenes" campaign to impugn the nominator's good intentions, and integrity, on the "adminstrator's notice board" that is now so buried in the innards of this site that it is probably unrecoverable. All of this, needless, to say, was going on till the very end, without the Nominator's knowledge, but with the apparent approval of various "administrators" involved in this "back yard" discussion of tactics and process.

In the end, the debate was cut off without the Nominator being given the opportunity to make the summary of his argument for deletion, which had been announced since the very beginning of the discussion. Instead - perhaps more appropriately, given the circus that had been created by User: Cheeser1 - and blamed by him, and others, upon the nominator - the last words were those of the author of the AfD article, who called upon God to support her in her cause, since she had been under attack previously by the "Russians" and had already endured two wars!

I was the Nominator for Deletion of the article, and I know of no "Russians" to have taken any part in the debate, but Iearned a great deal about Wikipedia from the experience. More generally, I learned much about the sinister consequences of anonymity combined with aggressive instincts, and ignorance. I immediately deleted my user acccount, and have no intention of making further contributions to Wikipedia that would expose me to the machinations and dishonesty of such experienced "insiders", whose skills and aggressions seem to have been honed mainly by playing out fictional battles in video games.24.202.238.172 (talk) 13:23, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Previous AN/I discussions have been recovered from the innards for any interested (1, 2) --Onorem♠Dil 13:31, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

(EC) Although you are logged out, you have identified yourself as User:R Physicist. It appears that you are disappointed by the results at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Myrzakulov equations (2nd nomination). Much of the chaos there appears to have been caused by your tactics, which had a very disruptive effect. Rather than blaming others, I suggest you look at your own actions, hear the feedback that others have provided, and think about better strategies for the future. No administrative action is required at this time. Jehochman ^Talk 13:32, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I see no "attacks" and only see your disruptive editing styles and practices. What administrative action is required here? seicer | talk | contribs 13:43, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

After making the above comment I noticed that R Physicist has exercised the right to vanish. That right does not include returning as an IP to take pot shots at content adversaries. Perhaps we should block this IP for a while to aid the user in vanishing. Jehochman ^Talk 13:46, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

The IP address is now taking a much needed one-week vacation. seicer | talk | contribs 13:52, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Wait. I'm confused. If someone exercises the right to vanish, does that mean we block them automatically if they return? I don't see that anywhere here or on meta. --Relata refero (disp.) 14:25, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

No, but if they return only to disrupt and accuse other editors of crap, then yes. You can't exercise your right to vanish, then return and abuse the process and try to hide. seicer | talk | contribs 14:32, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

How does identifying himself as the moderator mean he's trying to hide?

Has he made this point elsewhere? If not, how does reporting something at AN/I count as disruption? He's reported it, other people can express their disagreement, we don't have to then block the IP, particularly not saying "much needed vacation." Would you rather he went off to Wikipedia Review? --Relata refero (disp.) 14:37, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Inappropriate block - he's not banned, and I don't see what's disruptive about this section. --Random832 (contribs) 15:15, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Seconded, after an initial statement of 'no admin action required' and without further warning an questionable admin action. It also raises the question if we want to hear feedback ourselves or just give that advice to others.--Tikiwont (talk) 15:23, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

• I watched that AFD and it seemed to me that User: Cheeser1's interference with the communications of User:R Physicist was too uncivil and bitey. User: Cheeser1 subsequently removed a 3RR warning that I placed on the talk page of another inexperienced editor involved in this fracas. User: Cheeser1 seems to think he can amend the comments of others as he pleases. This seems disruptive since, if we are unable to communicate, then much confusion and frustration will result. It seems apparent that User:R Physicist is still boiling with rage about his treatment here and, as he seems to be a senior academic, this seems a poor outcome for this project. Colonel Warden (talk) 14:53, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

• "I think we really need to much more strongly insist on a pleasant work environment and ask people quite firmly not to engage in that kind of sniping and confrontational behavior. We also need to be very careful about the general mindset of "Yeah, he's a jerk but he does good work". The problem is when people act like that, they cause a lot of extra headache for a lot of people and drive away good people who don't feel like dealing with it. Those are the unseen consequences that we need to keep in mind." That quote, by Jimbo himself, adequately explains that just because he is a "senior academic," that does not excuse his poor behavior. I'd rather see a lot of diligent, polite editors who may not be as "intelligent" than one "intelligent" editor driving away many or causing disruption. seicer | talk | contribs 14:59, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

• Both Cheeser1 and R Physicist behaved poorly. The latter should have been extended more courtesy since he is new here - this is the point of WP:BITE. I suppose that there are technically better ways of dealing with someone who is too prolix, e.g. condensing their comments into a show/hide toggle. I'm not sure how to do this technically myself. The technical details of this place require a huge learning curve aand this is especially true of forum-type threads which the software seems to support poorly. Colonel Warden (talk) 15:07, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

  They're not the only ones who behaved poorly - "Ngn" - who appears to have a conflict of interest - really _was_ making implications that the attempt to have it deleted was some kind of russian conspiracy. --Random832 (contribs) 15:23, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

• (ec)Quite so. That's no reason to drive him away, however. I too watched that AfD, and found it extremely confusing, but with inappropriateness on both sides. We aren't supposed to be pushing experts away, we should go the extra mile to keep them. On the one hand we tolerate enormous rudeness in areas where we believe anti-science editors have to kept in line, and on the other hand this... Not good. Incidentally, who has been driven away by User:R Physicist?

I note also my concerns above are still unanswered. --Relata refero (disp.) 15:10, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Seicer's comment appears well-intentioned, but more concern with consequence and the darker side of human motivation seems necessary. From my perspective, User: Cheeser1 behavior just gets winks or is at least ignored by otherwise respectable math/science editors. MIT's current User:Stevenj and MIT's former User:Michael Hardy are good examples of such math/science editors who engage in debates with Cheeser, who never, ever tell Cheeser to stop. To me, Jonson's and Hardy's silence on User:Cheeser1 amounts to him or her being a teacher's pet sanctioned bully of theirs. --Firefly322 (talk) 15:19, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

If they have exercised their right to vanish, then return, they have waived the right to vanish, and the User and Talk pages should be restored. Corvus cornix_talk 17:16, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

The new user did a number of things in a way which he apparently did not realise did not fit our practices. People tried to guide him, and he unfortunately thought his ways were better, and ignored the initial guiding. Then a few people came down a lot to hard to stop the incipient disruption, and did so with such a heavy hand as to cause a great deal more disruption. The experienced people here have the responsibility of knowing when to use discretion. I don't think all of them used it, and this turned the simple matter of discussing the article into the much more complex one of how we treat people. Some of our ways do look a little unforgiving under scrutiny by those not accustomed to us. DGG (talk) 07:58, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

What are 'our' practices. It turns out this guy is a prize-winning physicist, has 200 articles to his name, and leads a respected research institute. The article he wanted deleted was a piece of cruft by a student. Now some nutcase (Seicer) has blocked him with the words "The IP address is now taking a much needed one-week vacation." This may turn out interesting. So what actually are 'our practices'? The points he made in the AfD were actually quite good and coherent. A little pointed, and he made some admins look foolish (as indeed they were). The Rationalist (talk) 15:03, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

I am quite dismayed at how we have handled and continue to handle this one. I might be somewhat neutral about whether this poorly written article should be kept or not, but I think we were not very welcoming to a newbie. And given that WP:BITE is such a mantra around here, why was it not applied in this case? Wow.--Filll (talk) 15:39, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to put in my broad agreement with the sentiments of the last few comments. This was a serious loss to article quality, and one made worse by the fact that a valuable person has been sent away thinking that we're a bunch of nutcases. An all-round failure. I'd say an apology on both R Physicist and the IP's talkpage would be a good idea. --Relata refero (disp.) 15:44, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

I so agree. A little more careful work should have been done on the article (rather than Googling references to the paper), a little more attention to the professor's arguments (which were good) and a little less obsession with the strange process that constitutes 'AfD'. We should truly be ashamed. And Seicer should apologise for the remarks made in the block comment. Unforgiveable. 86.133.181.100 (talk) 15:45, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

New Grawp blocks

Just as a heads-up, I've just blocked two of the recent vandals to J. K. Rowling, today's FA, as sockpuppets of User:Grawp. Seeing as they both edited the same article in the same way within minutes of each other ([210] [211]) in classic Grawp-esque style, it looks pretty obvious. Because of Grawp's recent abuse of {{unblock}}, I also pre-emptively protected both user talk pages. On a somewhat unrelated note, J. K. Rowling is now also semi-protected due to heavy vandalism. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 13:42, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Someone might want to check out the AfD of the J.K. Rowling article that was just created as well. Wildthing61476 (talk) 13:54, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Indef. blocked Jhvbhjvjhvjhv (talk · contribs) for that, and closed the AfD. seicer | talk | contribs 13:56, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Not Grawp, but User:Primetime. Thatcher 15:41, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. seicer | talk | contribs 15:44, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Does the page really need to be protected until the 12th? Per WP:MPFAP, the article should only be protected for extreme circumstances and then only for a limited amount of time. KnightLago (talk) 16:29, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

IAR, I suppose. This article was getting banged up real hard. bibliomaniac15 Hey you! Stop lazing around and help fix this article instead! 16:40, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I understand that, but at this point editing of the article has virtually stopped. Check the history. I think the benefit of having new and unregistered users edit is far more beneficial than having very few edit because of a few troublemakers. Troublemakers that we can deal with in the usual way. There is another section on this below where I made the same point. KnightLago (talk) 16:55, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Explanation of protection given in the section on that below and on my talk page. Should be lifted soon-ish, although I note the article is still being vandalized despite the semi. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 17:03, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Just a note that I blocked Iamnefarious (talk · contribs) as another Grawp sock for this. Hut 8.5 20:47, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Insulting and etiquetting

Hi. There're few IP-addresses that posted several messages with insulting and etiquetting content.
Please see the contributions of 209.215.160.101 and 4.231.207.47, the ones from 26 and 27 February.
In these messages those users (or user, maybe he uses proxy) wrote things like these:
All dates as from 2008.
209.215.160.101.
He also etiquetted me on Italian Wikipedia, as well as other Croatian users.
- 21:52, 26 feb, [212]"tornatevene voi due (Kubura e Araldic) nella vostra nazionalistica Wikipedia croata!" (go back you two to your nationalist Croatian Wikipedia!)
- 22:06, 26 feb, [213] He posted this message:
"L'utente Kubura è un ultranazionalista croato che critica ogni aspetto dell'italianità in Istria e Dalmazia. Nella Wikipedia inglese ha fatto bandire un nostro Wikipediano di nome Giovanni Giove, usando ogni trucco ed irritazione possibile. Questo Kubura agisce insieme ad un gruppo di fanatici nazionalisti slavi (come lui): uno di loro nella wikipedia italiana è un certo utente:Aradic-it. Si notifica precauzione nel trattare questo fanatico ed il suo gruppo. Ci si augura che presto vengano banditi dalla Wikipedia italiana Kubura ed i suoi fanatici nazionalisti balcanici. Alberto"
Translation:
"Kubura is a Croatian ultranationalist that criticizes every aspect of Italianhood of Istria and Dalmatia. On English Wikipedia he made our Wikipedian of the name Giovanni Giove banned, using every possible trick and irritation. This Kubura agitates together with a group of Slav nationalist (like him): one of them on Italian Wikipedia is certain user Aradic-it. ...in dealing with this fanatic and his group. It 'd be greeted if Kubura and his group of Balkan nationalist 'd be banned from it.wiki as soon as possible."
Sorry for grammar errors, and errors in translation (it's easier to translate Italian into Croatian). I've done the additional text formatting (underlining and bolding).
Compare that message with this one, by user:Pannonicus, from , 16:12, 3 March 2008, [214]
"One final question to a possible administrator reading my last post on Dalmatia topics: why only GiovanniGiove has been banned? The harassment done by Zenanarh (and others like Kubura) to whoever disagrees with croatian nationalistic points of view is totally similar -or even worse- to what has done GiovanniGiove. Even user:Dewrad has experienced this harassment."
Very similar word and sentence pattern.
Now, to works of 209.215.160.101 in English. He posted them same evening (as in it.wiki) a little before. Articles affected are Talk:Dalmatian Italians‎, Talk:Italian cultural and historic presence in Dalmatia‎, User talk:Zenanarh‎, User talk:Dewrad‎.
- 19:30, 26 February, [215] (edit comment: "Oddly doctrinaire anti-Italian Balkan contributor...gg") GG? Giovanni Giove??
- 19:31, 26 February, [216], (edit comment: "Oddly doctrinaire anti-Italian Balkan contributor...gg") GG? Giovanni Giove??
- 19:36, 26 February, [217] " agree with you, Dewrad. These fanatic Balkan Croats, Serbs, Albanians,..,...... are INSANE." There he insults several nationalities.
- 20:24, 26 February, [218], "I agree with you, Dewrad, these Croats are insane. Just read above the silly explanations of Zenanarth....they are "exactly" (but "mirror reversed") like the fascist italian explanations about their Italian Zara, Istria and Dalmatia". He repeated, so we see it's not accidental. And even compares them with fascists.
Now compare with user Pannonicus's message ("totally similar" and "exactly"). Do we have a case for checkuser here?
4.231.207.47. Articles affected are Talk:Italian_cultural_and_historic_presence_in_Dalmatia, user talk:Dewrad, user talk:Zenanarh, Talk:Dalmatian Italians:
- 19:40, 27 February, [219] (support to editwarring)
- 19:43, 27 February, [220] let's do WIKILOVE...Mary(sarcastical term for call for edit war?, see comment in next message)
- 19:45, 27 February, [221] "These fanatic Balkan Croats, Serbs, Albanians,..,...... are INSANE." (edit comment: let's do WIKILOVE...Mary)
- 19:48, 27 February, [222] revert (edit comment:"Let's do WIKILOVE....Mary"
- 16:12, 3 March [223], appears user:Pannonicus with attack on Croatian users, and defending of banned user:Giovanni Giove.
Alltogether, calling whole nationalities as "insane" is not nice. Term "nationalist" has very negative meanings in Western sociology. Call for revert wars is not nice. Defending the trolls, or equalizing the banned users with users that argumented their claims on arbitration, is not nice. In fact, that's trolling. Starting some new "clashes" and "discussions", without reading (or with ignoring of) previous argumentation and arbitration, is just another trolling behaviour. Those attempts of starting have appeared on few places (see the messages of Panonnicus and 209.215.160.101. Sincerely, Kubura (talk) 14:24, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

For the history of GiovanniGiove, see here, especially here. --Relata refero (disp.) 14:46, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

The Let's do Wikilove IP is in fact User:Marygiove. Why she (I presume it's she) prefers to edit while not logged in we can only wonder. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 15:21, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, either Giove is a really common name and all people with that name automatically know FloNight and JamesF... or obvious sock is obvious. Sysops! --Relata refero (disp.) 16:13, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Sock or meatpuppet - blocked indef either way. ([224]) Moreschi (talk) (debate) 16:18, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

IP-switching anon making racist edits and comments at Talk:Germans

Resolved

 – IP address blocked for racist commentary. seicer | talk | contribs 15:19, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

here here and here, possibly the same anon IP is inserting and reinserting the same nonsense, along with some choice anti-semitic words. Can somebody deal with him? Thanks!--Ramdrake (talk) 14:35, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

this shouldn't be a redline

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:NewvanHove.png#Summary

BTW this noticeboard page is 405 kb long and takes 5 minutes to download on my slow connection. Not happy. Mccready (talk) 15:23, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand. What do you mean by "a redline"? Also, that link is to a page on commons, this is the English Wikipedia Admin noticeboard. If you have a problem with something on commons, you need to deal with it on commons. --Tango (talk) 16:53, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I have a suspicion the problem is that the title of the page Image:NewvanHove.png is in red, being that it's a Commons image. Wild guess. 207.145.133.34 (talk) 20:59, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Main page article has been semi-protected

Someone semi-protected J.K. Rowling. Generally, shouldn't Main Page articles be unprotected? Karanacs (talk) 15:27, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Depends how hard it's getting hit. And that article is getting spanked. HalfShadow (talk) 15:32, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Check out this thread here from earlier this morning, it'll explain why. Wildthing61476 (talk) 15:40, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I think we should unprotect. Per WP:MPFAP, the article should only be protected for extreme circumstances and then only for a limited amount of time. Current protection runs till the 12th, which is a long time for an article on the main page. Looking at the history of the article, editing of it has virtually stopped. I think the ability to allow new and unregistered users to edit is more beneficial than preventing some troublemakers. Troublemakers who can be dealt with in the usual way. KnightLago (talk) 16:34, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

*sigh* Reposting what I replied to everyone on my talk page: "The article was being heavily vandalized, with no less than 37 vandalism edits today alone. This is a BLP, and with that much vandalism, temporary semi-protection was necessary. The reason the expiry is set to the end of the day is because MP featured articles are move protected - setting a different expiry time would cause the move protection to fail earlier than expected. We've already had two sockpuppets of a known page move vandal edit the article, so the removal of the move protection is not an option. We can remove the edit protection earlier, but it will have to be done manually to avoid losing the edit protection. I'll leave it up for another hour or two just in case, but then I'll remove it if someone else hasn't already." Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 17:01, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Only posting this once, now: semi protection has been lifted as stated above. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 18:16, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I am confused.... as soon as the semi-protection was released, vandalism began... yet policy states that semi-protection is rarely used unless in case of vandalism. Is this not what is occuring right now? --CanadianLinuxUser (talk) 19:03, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

It is, and very severely so. WP:MPFAP is a guideline, and does admit that protection is necessary in severe cases of vandalism. In the hour an a half since it was unprotected, it's had at least 15 vandalism edits. I was just in IRC and nobody online objected to the protection, so this is an WP:IAR action with some consensus behind it. It's been noted before in the protection log for this article that "whenever protection expires, ip vandalism takes off," something which is only going to get worse due to the increased visibility. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 19:51, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Agree with Hersfold's actions here. It is important to keep this page available for all users to edit, it's also important to protect it from excessive vandalism. As long as an admin has an eye on the page and semi-protects can be lifted without sitting for too long, then placing them temporarily to discourage vandalism is a net positive. Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 19:53, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Disagree. This is an overreaction and specifically against WP:NOPRO. There is no extreme vandalism occurring here. Look at any other featured article when it is on the main page and it gets this level of vandalism and is not protected. I have also been watching the last hour and the vandalism has been quickly reverted and the responsible parties dealt with. To suddenly re-protect it now does not make any sense. KnightLago (talk) 20:00, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Almost of the vandalism over the last hour seems to have come from two IPs, so I would suggest that blocking could effectively be used here, and that we do not need to resort to protection. The protection summary seems to suggest that the protection is intended to last for the rest of the day. I think this would do more harm than it prevents. TigerShark (talk) 20:02, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

And both were already blocked when the protection was instituted, see User:71.158.226.183 and User:192.94.73.1. KnightLago (talk) 20:09, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

This is a list of all the users who have vandalized the article today:

• 68.109.156.140 (talk · contribs) - test edit
• 203.110.5.209 (talk · contribs) - removal of templates
• 219.238.212.126 (talk · contribs) - homophobic vandalism (x2)
• 75.172.91.41 (talk · contribs) - defamation
• 202.46.138.86 (talk · contribs) - Tibet stuff with misleading summary
• 152.93.66.131 (talk · contribs) - number tweaking
• 89.145.244.108 (talk · contribs) - defamation
• 212.47.82.34 (talk · contribs) - basic vandalism
• 64.15.158.233 (talk · contribs) - page replacement (x2)
• 150.214.94.102 (talk · contribs) - basic vandalism
• 168.184.244.167 (talk · contribs) - Borat (x4)
• 81.158.103.92 (talk · contribs) - possible Grawp IP
• 65.75.191.152 (talk · contribs) - new IP for 64.15.158.233 above (x4)
• Edward Haggard (talk · contribs) - Grawp sock
• Vib100 (talk · contribs) - Grawp sock
• 88.109.30.227 (talk · contribs) - defamation (x2)
• 203.145.176.163 (talk · contribs) - basic vandalism

• 81.84.247.109 (talk · contribs) - nonsense
• 212.219.19.15 (talk · contribs) - page replacement
• 116.45.65.9 (talk · contribs) - test edit
• Keepgrob` (talk · contribs) - basic vandalism
• 83.46.254.211 (talk · contribs) - spam
• 194.83.12.5 (talk · contribs) - defamation
• 129.70.14.128 (talk · contribs) - test edit
• 75.71.126.236 (talk · contribs) - nonsense
• Readingbooksisfun (talk · contribs) - content removal
• Jhvbhjvjhvjhv (talk · contribs) - AfD nomination (x2) (during protection)
• Kkxfer (talk · contribs) - nonsense (during protection)
• 168.9.72.9 (talk · contribs) - defamation (x3)
• Down Time 2008 (talk · contribs) - nonsense
• Kjrhnt4 (talk · contribs) - page blanking (x3)
• 71.158.226.183 (talk · contribs) - nonsense (x5)
• 192.94.73.1 (talk · contribs) - content removal (x4)

This doesn't look like an over-reaction to me. We're getting virtually every type of vandalism, as well as IP hoppers, socks of blocked users, defamation on a BLP, and a very long history of similar high levels of vandalism besides (prot log). A lot of these were within minutes of each other - in one instance, the article was being vandalized so fast it wasn't getting reverted properly. I firmly feel semi-protection is warranted on this. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 20:49, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

And this is different from any other day how? This happens everyday. The majority of the vandalism you cite above happened before the 1st semip. As TigerShark pointed out there were primarily 2 IPs responsible for the vandalism after the lifting of the 1st semi. Both were blocked before you semi'd it again. So why do it? KnightLago (talk) 20:59, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree, this is nothing unusual and this page protection is, in my opinion, an over-reaction - this level of vandalism is to be expected on the featured article and can easily be handled. There are good reason that protection is used very sparingly on the featured article of a encyclopedia, that anybody can edit. I have contacted the protecting admin to ask whether they have a strong objection to me removing the edit protection. TigerShark (talk) 21:53, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I have not received a response from the protecting user, who is probably not active at the moment. Due to the time constraint (i.e. that it will only be the featured article for a short period of time), I have gone ahead and remove the edit protection. Although I would appreciate being notified if somebody re-adds the protection, please feel free to do so without a response from me. TigerShark (talk) 22:11, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I apologize for stirring up a hornets nest this morning when I requested the Page Protection. I guess what one calls "severe" vandalism is a line that can be very vague. I being a newbie find "lots" of vandalism not the same as an admin I guess. --CanadianLinuxUser (talk) 21:02, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Now there has been some page-move vandalism of the Talk page that needs admin attention. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 22:26, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Ah, it has been taken care of. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 22:27, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I still don't think this should have been unprotected - notice that less than a minute after it was unprotected, the article was once again vandalized. But what's done is done, and if other admins feel like playing whack-a-mole, then they're welcome to do so. Sorry I wasn't around to comment when called on. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 22:51, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

3RR Violation in Kina Grannis

I found this note on my talk page today. Apparently, there has been conflict over some material in the article. This is a serious violation of the 3RR. I thought I would bring it here to see what everyone else thinks should be done. I suggest, since an IP is involved, semi protecting the page and a issuing a warning (poss. level 2) to all involved parties and watching the page. However, I'm new to something like this so maybe I'm wrong. Dusti^{talk to me} 16:10, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I think the IPs involved might have a point on this one. A 5 year old source, that doesn't mention the article subject by their full name (although I do agree it's a logical assumption), is being used as a reference for who someone is currently dating. I think that the statement shouldn't be included unless a current ref can be provided. --Onorem♠Dil 17:10, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree, however, they still need to act within policy, or if they disagree, they need to contact an admin. Dusti^{talk to me} 18:15, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

The people restoring the information need to act within policy. Removing violations of this nature falls outside 3RR. The article is now protected to ensure that the violations are not restored. Daniel (talk) 12:42, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

They also shouldn't have been socks of one another, either... Daniel (talk) 13:17, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Homophobic attacks at Murder

By User:198.36.23.110 See diff]LeadSongDog (talk) 16:18, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Blocked for 72 hours. Please use AIV for reports of this nature in the future. seicer | talk | contribs 16:21, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. WP:ATTACK isn't very direct on that guidance.LeadSongDog (talk) 16:22, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I hate when they do that to gay people. I'll fix the page.Jacob Green696 (talk) 16:25, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Possibly racist editor at Talk:William Shockley

This edit makes me think the editor in question is pushing a racist POV. Closer examination of his contri butions seems to confirm it. Can a neutral admin take a look-see an see if any action s warranted? Thanks!--Ramdrake (talk) 16:39, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

This editor has an obvious interest in Eugenics, but that does not make him/her a racist. I have an interest in Autogyro's, but that does not make me a flyer (sadly...) User:Zero g is using talkpages and appears to be interested in keeping to consensus. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:55, 11 April 2008 (UTC) nb. I am not unbiased - I am anti racist (among others) and I can't see a racist agenda.

Err, somebody asks What Wikipedia policy excludes racist POVs and sources? and you find the question alright? Last time I checked, racism as a POV had no place in Wikipedia.--Ramdrake (talk) 22:32, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Errr... Stormfront and Ku Klux Klan, as examples, have both racist pov's and sources within the article, illustrating the racist agenda of the subject matter. Within the controversial subject of Eugenics, which is frequently based on notions of racial superiority - and class superiority, within the racial aspect - there is going to be examples of proponents pov, and the sources to back it up. There is zero tolerance of such pov and references outside of those articles which it specifically relates to - but there is no policy which specifically excludes it from the encyclopedia. If you believe there is, please point it out to me - in full, including exceptions and caveats.

Lastly, of course I find the question alright... It is always the answer (to any question) that needs reviewing. LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:20, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Offensive IP

Someone please cool down this offensive anonymous 88.196.139.227 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), 88.196.141.180 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). All of his article edits are reverts and he constantly loses his temper by calling others "racists" and using phrases like "ethnic slur", "shame on you!", etc. Beatle Fab Four 16:43, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

• More ethnic block shopping. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:21, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Hey, "cool down" doesn't imply "block him immediately". P.S. If someone is getting very teazy, why not to think about resigning from adminship, for example. Politeness, politeness, and once again politeness. Beatle Fab Four (talk) 21:46, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Beatle Fab Four (talk · contribs)... Yup, and you were simply reporting some questionable edit summaries relating to discussions that, in that context, are fairly well mannered. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:07, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, ok, Jimbo makes the internet not suck, and you... can finish the phrase yourself. Thank you. LOVE AND PEACE Beatle Fab Four (talk) 22:13, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

User:75.57.186.159 misrepresented me on ANI

Normally I don't run to ANI when I have conflicts on entry talk pages, even if they are with someone who is persistently trolling the page. However, this particular user also decided to link to a supposed "debate" we were having, while discussing another editor in a thread here. The "debate" he linked to was a truncated and edited version of the actual conversation from Talk:Fitna (film), which he posted on his own talk page prior to linking to it here on ANI. The relevant section on ANI is here. I would like something to be done about this. I understand that my interpretation of his behavior as "trolling" may not be enforceable through policy, but I find it entirely improper for him to edit down a conversation and post it to his talk page and then represent it as if its the entire debate, thus entirely misrepresenting not just the conversation but the reason for which I accused him of trolling in the first place. Thanks for looking into this.PelleSmith (talk) 19:47, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I would concur with PelleSmith's assessment of the situation. I had advised him that if the anon user (who's acting through a fairly extensive series of anon edits, which triggered a since-concluded RfCU) could not be convinced privately to tone down his incivility to not address it in the article discussion, but to bring those concerns about the anons behavior here.

The anon, a clear single-purpose account, has been patrolling the Fitna and Fitna-related pages through a series of anon IPs, which tend to conceal usertalk discussions regarding civility and whatnot from the older tot he newer usertalk pages. Though I've had several negative interactions with him, the anon's negative interactions are not limited to just me in the article; he fights with everyone. He brings over large sections of previous posts and cross-posts to make a random point, bloating the article discussion. He ignores requests to stay on topic and remain civil.

In short, this isn't really a content dispute, but rather two users identifying another who is using Wikipedia as a battleground, and it is disruptive to the Fitna-related articles. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 20:54, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

3RR violation at Balochistan Liberation Army

User:Karojaro has violated 3RR at Balochistan Liberation Army by reverting to his edits 7 times in 24 hours and is also adding original research. Even I consider his way of talking a bit harsh at my talk page. Can someone look at this matter? --SMS ^Talk 21:39, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

• I have blocked Karojaro for 24 hours for 3RR violations. I didn't see anything overly harassing in the talk comments. User's talk page is also in my watch list to monitor his future activity. —C.Fred (talk) 21:50, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
• I agree with your block of Karojaro, I looked at Smsarmad's talk page and I must agree that his language is harsh and his edits inapporiate and without proof{verifiable} Kurtcool2 (talk) 21:55, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
• I think it appears harsh due to an inability to communicate effectively in English, that's all. That combined with obvious editorial frustration. I'm surprised that multiple sections were created on the talk page though, that's akin to spamming. The block was certainly warranted. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 22:24, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

  I wouldn't call it intential spamming when he used multiple headers. He's still somewhat new (only a couple hundred edits). Useight (talk) 22:59, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

You're right Useight, it's probably not intentional - The multiple headings is most likely a consequence of being a novice user - it just appears aberrantly "spammalicious" on a talk page, especially when done in such a short period of time. That, of course, doesn't impact my feelings regarding the 3RR violation and block. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 01:34, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

But still if he was novice, he must had some tolerance to listen others. I was continuously telling him not to violate the policies of wiki, but he was saying not to teach him. --SMS ^Talk 06:07, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Misleading edit summaries at large (aka nasty edit warring)

User:Tulkolahten - there are all on my contribution list, see there. At least a dozen.

one example, where someone else also noticed this: [225] at Ľudovít Štúr.

There are more misleading summaries too, from Tulkolahten and some from Tankred, but I've reported some of Tankred's already, on april 4th. That time Tankred got a warning about this, but continued since. Both blocked multiple times for edit warring [226], [227] --Rembaoud (talk) 23:14, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Is your complaint about Tulkolahten or Tankred? — Rlevse • Talk • 23:32, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually both. I already reported Tankred a week ago and he got his warning about this, so primary about Tulkolahten, and next to it about Tankred because he continued to use misleading edit summaries. Primary Tulkolahten. --Rembaoud (talk) 23:54, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Question by email

Hanging out at WP:Help desk, WP:Editor assistance/Requests, WP:New contributors' help page, etc. I try to help editors with problems. By email I received this question, which I pass along.

An editor was involved in a content dispute with another editor. It happened that the other editor was an admin, who blocked the first editor for being disruptive.

Question: Is it proper for an admin to block another editor when he himself is involved in a dispute with that editor? I always thought that the admin should seek an uninvolved editor to make the decision and block if appropriate.

The editor was warned by that admin about a week ago. The editor politely requested the admin to identify the inappropriate edits so that he could learn from his mistakes. The admin never told him what edits were wrong.

Some admins are so trusted by the community and have been here so long, they might block someone editing an article they're both involved in and cause only a brief flurry. However, most admins should never block editors with whom they have been editing content on the same article, but ask another disinterested admin to review (some admins post here seeking a review). Gwen Gale (talk) 23:40, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Question: How can an editor improve his behavior if he does not know what edits were improper? Shouldn't an admin help an editor to learn from his mistakes?

The editor in question did not give me permission to release his email so I have to ask these questions in rather general form. I hope you can offer meaningful help without examining the specifics of the case. Sbowers3 (talk) 23:34, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

The admin should clearly tell the editor what was thought to be untowards. Gwen Gale (talk) 23:40, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

If he wants help, he is going to have to release something so people can look at the situation. Or if you want to help him on the basis of what he sent you, look yourself and judge the appropriateness of the block. If you think it was inappropriate, and he won't let us see, he might be willing to email arbcom. DGG (talk) 03:49, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

It's quite difficult to offer any worthwhile comment without something a touch more specific. Generally, though: sure, admins should strive to avoid using their tools to gain power in content disputes, and should try to make their rationale for admin actions reasonably clear. Hard to say whether any of this happened without knowing what happened at all. – Luna Santin (talk) 05:16, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Admins should be extremely careful in exercising admin powers in relation to a content dispute. This does not mean, however, that an admin cannot block an editor just because they have interacted before.

It is not common to block a user without their having being warned first. Warnings will usually indicate the article where the problematic edits were made, and roughly what the problem is.

All editors should be prepared to explain their edits on request. This applies double for warnings issued, and triple for admin actions like blocks.

If a user feels a block is unfair, they should use the {{unblock}} template on their user talk page and an uninvolved admin will review. In some cases the user talk page may be protected (which happens just a shade too often for my preference), in which case they should use the unblock mailing list. See also Wikipedia:Appealing a block.

That's really all that can be said without details. Would it really be improper to identify the user who was blocked? Bovlb (talk) 14:56, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

User:Mukadderat 1RR probation violation

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Resolved

- Edit reverted. This can be archived now. Spartaz ^Humbug! 08:59, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

---

• 1RR probation violation on

Criticism of Prem Rawat (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Mukadderat (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 23:36, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

• 1RR probation notice at top of Talk:Criticism_of_Prem_Rawat - [228]
• User advised in his talk page about the 1RR probation: 22:09, 10 April 2008

Diffs are listed from oldest to newest, dates are in UTC

1. 23:01, 10 April 2008 (edit summary: "")
2. 03:34, 11 April 2008 (edit summary: "my edit restored")
3. 21:48, 11 April 2008 (edit summary: "my edit restores please state your objections in talk page")

User encouraged to self-revert,23:04, 10 April 2008 but has not done so.

—≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:36, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Please see User talk:Mukadderat#One revert per day and the bottom subthread of Talk:Criticism of Prem Rawat#Versions suggested so far:. I have read and understand the notice and I have already expressed readiness to cooperate. At the same time I find the behavior of user:Jussi absolutely inadmissible in terms of hard-pressurizing and intimidating a person who just joined the discussion and does not even know which brick hit him. I suggest to ban josssi from this discuassion for expreseded disrespect to fellow editors. Mukadderat (talk) 23:43, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

This is the timestamp when I was "encouraged" (actually threatened)

Revision as of 23:24, 11 April 2008 (edit) (undo)

This is the timestamp of this complaint:

—≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:36, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

12 MINUTES lag time!!!! : Something is seriously wrong with impatience of user:jossi. He probably needs a wikibreak. Mukadderat (talk) 23:47, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Not so. The talk page has an obvious notice at the top of the page. As said, by me and others, self-revert and save yourself from getting dinged for ignoring the 1RR probation. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:49, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

It may obvious for you since you spend lots of time in this talk page. But it was not so obvious for me because the top of the talk page has a dozen of various tags in flashy colors I had no reason to read thoroughly. Mukadderat (talk) 23:56, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Since I am not familiar with rules of this particular time of probation, I am taking at least 1 hour to read and understand the corresponding policies, since I have reasons to suspect that user:jossi is far from being impartial in this topic and therefore I have to double check that his aggressive threats and demands are based on real policies rather on his opinon. Mukadderat (talk) 23:56, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I also would like to bring an attention of an uninvolved admin to a frivolous language of user:jossi ("dinged"). Mukadderat (talk) 23:56, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I suggest that both editors take a break from this topic and cool down. If, after a reasonable period, Mukadderat hasn't self-reverted then his account should be blocked for violating the special article probation. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:06, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Please show me exact phrase which says that I am to be demanded to self-revert. The tag says that any sanctions can be only after a warning. I have already expressed my familiarity and agreement with the rule. But now you are joining jossi's baseless threats. Nowhere the tag says that I may be punished for past actions made in good faith. Mukadderat (talk) 00:34, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

(Non-admin, not involved) User:Mukadderat was warned by User:Will Beback at 22:09, 11 April 2008 (UTC) and responded at 23:20, 11 April 2008 (UTC). This was apparently 4 minutes before User:Jossi's warning: diff. Cheers,  This flag once was red  00:17, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

What exactly is wrong with "ding"? I don't see anything wrong on jossi's part. --Cheeser1 (talk) 00:25, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

What exactly good with "ding"? What exactly good with "shit"? Why would he want to replace the word "block" with "ding"? Was he trying to be friendly joking? Somehow I don't think so. I think he was demeaning and disrespectful. Mukadderat (talk) 00:37, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

FWIW, Mukadderat's 2nd revert was made before he'd been warned not to, a warning which is specifically required under the orginal terms of the probation. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:34, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Preliminary result of my investigation

• The article Criticism of Prem Rawat is not listed in the Wikipedia:General sanctions page.
• The tag about community sanction on top of Talk:Criticism of Prem Rawat does not link to the corresponding discussion
• I've received the warning in my talk page and expressly agreed to comply with the alleged community restriction, both in my talk page and in the artcle talk page.
• Nowhere I see arule or sanction that I may be demanded to self-revert, since restoration of my edits (deleted without minimal explanation neither in talk page nor in edit summaries) was made in good faith.

Therefore I reconfirmed my opinion that the behaviour of user:jossi is frivolously intimidating and not based on any explicit rules or traditions. And my first emotion was to strongly oppose this unjustified arms-twisting.

Nevertheless, understanding now that the topic is a matter of heated controversy, I will remove my edit. On a side note, I was thoroughly surprized that the sentence in question was met with fierce opposition and revert meatpuppetry. This behavior is a disgrace for wikipedia. May Allah have mercy on these warriors. Mukadderat (talk) 00:24, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

I will be watching edits of user:Jossi closely, and if this manner of his aggressive and disrespectful behavior will be a regular pattern, I will think about initiating community sanctions against him. Mukadderat (talk) 00:27, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Sanctions are already under discussions at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Prem Rawat. That would be the best place to add evidence of problematic editing. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:38, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

???? Why are you "investigating" the complaint about you?? You need to back off and let an administrator or at least an uninvolved party address this incident. --Cheeser1 (talk) 00:36, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Why the hell shouldn't he? He seems to have done a competent job. Investigate his investigation if you're so inclined. --Relata refero (disp.) 00:40, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Agree. The guy's got a right to look into the complaint against him and present the results with the best possible interpretation. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 00:43, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

I am investigating my rights, not jossi's complaint, which I see as utterly frivolous. So what? I cannot defend myself and wait until Jossi finds a buddy via IRS to promptly block me? Mukadderat (talk) 00:47, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Dudes, everyone is aware of the 1RR now, and if they violate it, block them. This drama is highly pointless. --Haemo (talk) 01:34, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Still, user:Cheeser1 made a good point. A little above I wrote that I am ready to remove my edit. But seeing that some of you see me nothing but a troublemaker, I have change my mind:

I demand an independent investigation and conclusion from an uninvolved admin whether the statement of probation of the article in question does provide an unconditional demand for self-revert of a new user who was acting in good faith by reinstating his apparently trivial edits deleted without any explanations." Mukadderat (talk) 00:47, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

In good faith? Three reverts in less than 3 hours, which were reverted by three four different editors (two anons and two editors), does not look much like it. Good faith would have looked quite differently. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:04, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Which three editors? It doesn't take an experienced admin to see that two of the reverts were made by IPs that had never edited WP before, and are almost certainly socks of involved editors purposefully evading the 1RR themselves.[229][230] Let's make sure that this probation is fairly enforced. If IPs keep making undiscussed reverts we may need to semi-protectthe pages in order to keep the probation enforceable. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 02:53, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

WillBeBack's claim that the IP reverts were " almost certainly socks of involved editors purposefully evading the 1RR themselves" is a very serious allegation and needs to be investigated.Momento (talk) 03:59, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Not exactly, Will, there where four reverts: User:Jayen466 revert [231], User:Momento revert [232], User:32.173.109.102 revert [233], User:166.191.85.226 [234]. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 06:00, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

I was referring to the IPs. I assume no one favors allowing unregistered editors to circumvent article probation. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 06:51, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

As a note, he has reverted his edit. seicer | talk | contribs 01:02, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

LBHS Cheerleader(s)

Resolved

 – No admin action required: Sockmaster is already blocked, vandalism from IP is very old and the IP is shared. -Icewedge (talk) 04:29, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

I just detected 71.51.95.164 (not blocked) behaving as another sockpuppet of User:LBHS Cheerleader. Do we need to ban her or continue to revert, block, and ignore?

The sockmaster is allready blocked. As for the IP; it is a shared IP and only a single abusive edit has come from it (over 15 days ago) I don't think a block of it is mandated. -Icewedge (talk) 04:29, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

User:NCdave violating his block

Resolved

 – NCdave was not evading his block; someone else's sock. MastCell ^Talk 16:09, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

See Fight the Clique (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) The sock name is a name violation, anyway. Corvus cornix_talk 02:46, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

User:NCdave wouldn't give a barnstar to himself. Please retract this uncivil comment, and read WP:NPA. Thanks. Fight the Clique (talk) 02:51, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

In response to the welcome template and all its helpful links about Wikipedia, this new user says he's "a very fast reader," I guess to prepare anyone who's watching for his experienced-looking edits. Gwen Gale (talk) 02:55, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Right, and a non-related editor would start their editing career by archiving NCdave's Talk page. Corvus cornix_talk 02:57, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

...conveniently right after an unblock request is denied. Mangojuice^talk 03:00, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

I've blocked the sock indefinitely and I reset the nain account's block to 1 week. If anyone feels that 1 week should be extended because of this, go for it. Metros (talk) 03:01, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Was there a checkuser on this? Evidently it's a sock, but otherwise my assumption wouldn't be that it's NCdave's. Mackan79 (talk) 03:23, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree, this is obviously somebody's sock, but whose sock? I don't think we can just jump to the conclusion that it is NCdave. KnightLago (talk) 03:31, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

This one is asking for checkuser (in the unblock request) so I think there may be a bit of confidence the tool won't find a clear link. Gwen Gale (talk) 03:35, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Yeah I agree with Gwen Gale. When a user uses the "file the checkuser! I dare you!" attitude, there's generally a reason why which is that they know they've hidden their tracks well enough. Metros (talk) 03:37, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Ok, but that's hardly conclusive, since it's also probably what someone would ask who is someone else. I'll ask for a CU if no one else does. Mackan79 (talk) 03:40, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Go ahead and ask. I don't think we should just assume it is NCdave. KnightLago (talk) 03:42, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Why would an uninvolved sock archive another user's Talk page? Corvus cornix_talk 03:46, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Who knows, maybe they are friends. You could ask the opposite question, would NCdave be dumb enough to create an another account when there is so much attention on him and then archive his own page? We can't simply assume this is him. The block should be reset to its previous expiration unless there is some proof the new account is his. KnightLago (talk) 03:50, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Right, my thought as well. I put a request here, if that works. Mackan79 (talk) 03:53, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Setting the expiration back would be fair. Meanwhile this could be a meatpuppet, open proxy login, whatever. Moreover the talk page archiving and barnstar, along with the username and interest in the same article and PoV, never mind the Wikipedia knowledge, all tend to make a coincidence so unlikely. I wouldn't say it's NCdave, but it's reasonable to say it's a sock and likely NCdave's, one way or another. Gwen Gale (talk) 03:55, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

NCdave is probably put off, and I guess people do things that don't make sense, but I'd certainly give him the benefit of the doubt. There are at least a couple of friends of his who have been making supportive comments, so all in all it seems to make much more sense that it's one of them. A block is fine, though. Mackan79 (talk) 04:08, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

I have a lot of problems with NCdave's editing and general behavior, but I have to say that creating a sock called "Fight the Clique" just doesn't sound like his style. I'd strongly suspect this is someone else who shares his POV and has also been blocked for some reason. I'd suggest blocking the Fight the Clique account, which I think has already been done, but I'd be very surprised if this account turned out to be NCdave. MastCell ^Talk 04:31, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

He's a sockpuppet (and checkuser showed a few more ripening socks in that range) but it's very unlikely that it belongs to NCDave. Raul654 (talk) 07:56, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

I reset his block to the previous expiration date. KnightLago (talk) 14:36, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

I think I'm being wikistalked

I think that User:62.64.200.97 (contribs page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/62.64.200.97) is wikistalking me. S/he has been going to articles that I was the last to work on and removing my edits without putting in any reason. Not only has s/he been doing that, s/he has also inserted deletion tags as well as changing my edits back, and I would hardly think that s/he would bother to remove my edits as well as tag the articles if s/he didn't have some kind of grudge against me. I left a message on his/her talk page asking why they were doing this, but I'm kind of freaked out and I'm not totally sure what to do. Suggestions? Asarelah (talk) 03:25, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

I've left the IP a note about this. Whois stuff means nothing to me (need to learn some day, I do) but it seems to be a static IP. If they continue disrupting, a block may be warranted. What can you do? I'd say the best thing is just keep an eye on their edits, remove incorrect prod tags, and ignore them otherwise. (See WP:RBI and WP:DENY for some philosophy.) dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 03:33, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Well I'm new here, but I think I can be of some help. I did a whois and it says the ip is registered to Tiscali UK Limited, so it's from England, and it says "Concerning abuse and spam ... mailto: abuse@uk.tiscali.com".--Jaeger123 (talk) 12:41, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Tiscali UK is an ISP that assigns an address from a large pool every time a subscriber logs on - blocking Tiscali ip's is not effective, as all a vandal has to do is log out and get a reassigned address. I know this as I am a Tiscali UK customer. I would also comment that if their efforts at tracing an individual abusive account is as good as their spam filter... well, best of luck! (You'll need it!) LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:19, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

User:Thamarih - Yet more personal attacks.

Sorry, to come up here yet again. This user has received repeated blocks and warnings about personal attacks. Following his latest warning (a Level 4) he continues. MARussellPESE (talk) 04:23, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Maybe an admin should block him again, this time for a longer time or indefinitly.--Jaeger123 (talk) 12:46, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Exposing exact location

There is a case filed against me for at SUSPSOCK,[235] and it is accompanied by an RCFU [236], they will come to its normal closure, But i am REALLY concerned as one of the user, who is against me User:Reneeholle, has deliberately exposed my location, by giving out my IP address,[237], given nature of edits i do, this exposure of location puts me at great risk for my security.--talk-to-me! (talk) 05:48, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Note: Before any discussion takes place please note that the IPs reported at the CU case seemed to be placed there based on their contribution history. It does not seem they were extracted through means of sleuthing or hacking. Unfortunately this is the danger of editing Wikipedia under IP addresses.¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 06:11, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

slips do not give anyone liberty to go ahead any expose locations, if intentions are pure.--talk-to-me! (talk) 07:22, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

When you edit anonymously, you see a warning just above the edit box: You are not currently logged in. Editing this way will cause your IP address to be recorded publicly in this page's edit history. If you create an account, you can conceal your IP address and be provided with many other benefits. Messages sent to your IP can be viewed on your talk page. You've been warned. All conclusions are based on publicly-available data you personally submitted to Wikipedia. MaxSem^{(Han shot first!)} 07:36, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Well what do you call the several other reports that list IP addresses? IP addresses are even listed at SSP reports. Pretty much that's all I can say. Its fairly easy to see the IP and yourself were related because you edited a similar page in a similar fashion (its been published in a public edit history). However, I'm not so sure that the CU is going to find any productive findings at this point.¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 07:38, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Problem sometimes is with browser cache, it displays your username, even though you are not logged in, only difference you can notice in this mode is you will not have checkbox for minor edits. Apart from this, I would like to bring to notice of users here the hatred demonstrated by these members [238],[239]. This to me appears to be more of hate campaign rather then any discussion about SOCK, reference used here is that of orkut, which is blocked by spam filter, on wikipedia. Even though it is funny, but hatred demonstrated is not healthy at all.--talk-to-me! (talk) 07:52, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

I still do not understand the reason for exposing IP, that too at CU ? will it not be visible to the person checking ? what is the motive for this ? helping the CU process ? --talk-to-me! (talk) 08:34, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

User:Reneeholle appears to have some personal vendetta with Shashwat, who runs a blog, and also runs a community on orkut, about the topic i am currently working [240], these people (Sethie, Renee and Marathi_Mulga) were calling me by this name for quite some time, but i ignored them, considering the effect of practice they do, this happens with all members of Sahaja's in general (here is another one [241]), so i ignored them initially, and focused on completing the article, rather than getting involved with user [242], but their persistent personal attacks [243],[244],[245],make it hard to work on wikipedia, they were also reverting any attempt that I was making in completing the article, which is noted above in harassment section, for which they were blocked also. This is the reason which drove me to wikipedia at the first place, admins like Jossi, who have POV use their admin tools to enhance the POV of one side and suppress any valid information from getting out in public domain, I was sure that i will experience some resistance in what I am going to do on wikipedia, and hence i chose this user-name to make nature of my edits very clear, this does not means that I will be breaching any policy of wikipedia, as i had spend some time in reviewing the policies, and I focused more on policies when i took up this project of starting this article, when i started, i was not fully aware of history of the subject on wikipedia. Neither do i wish to get anyone blocked from editing, as i consider input of every user's is as important as my inputs are, this is what i feel is essence of wikipedia. But the numerous personal attacks, for an article, surprised me!! fortunately same concern was echoed by the admin closing MfD [246]. As such I cannot work on article, till directly involved members, focus more on user rather then contributing to article, and trying to expose locations and filing cases after cases at various notice boards, when there is no article about the subject on wikipedia till now, it is only in my user-space. This approach is not healthy for growth of wikipedia. I had made is very clear that i will not publish the article without making it pass, RfC. [247], but for that to happen i need to finish the subject, which under current circumstance appear difficult, given personal attacks. Latest attempt from Renee, to expose my location has crossed all limit, and i request some help in this regard. --talk-to-me! (talk) 11:48, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

User:MONGO and the WTC

Resolved

(Background at ANI two days ago.) Unfortunately, Tango's warning to MONGO has been rejected and ignored. MONGO obviously thinks he's in the right here. We may as well get ArbCom's rememedy tested sooner than later. I don't want to have defend every suggestion I make on the assumption that I am a POV-pushing conspiracy theorist. Nor should anyone else.--Thomas Basboll (talk) 07:14, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Please take this to arbitration enforcement. Spartaz ^Humbug! 08:51, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

per Spartaz, that is what it is there for, LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:25, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Nikola Tesla

Resolved

User Marechiel has broken 3RR rule in article Nikola Tesla because of which article is protected (until solving puppets problem):

• first time:18:29, 9 April 2008 .User has confirmed that this is his address [248]
• second time:10:01, 10 April 2008
• 3rd time:10:31, 10 April 2008
• 4th time:10:47, 10 April 2008

He has not recieved warning about 3RR rule but this is old user which has started to edit under name Marechiel on 17 April 2006 !!!--Rjecina (talk) 07:44, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

...says the user who broke his own revert parole repeatedly in the same revert-war, because he had unilaterally decided, based on no more than a guess, that the other guy was a banned sock? Rjecina, before you continue forum shopping to get your opponents blocked, please first respond to my comments on the article talk page. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:02, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

It is possible to see that I have stoped all "edit warring" after SPA account Marechiel has started to edit with his name. Yes I know that I am rude with all nationalistic SPA accounts. Answer for Fut.Perf. is here

• 3RR board is that way. Before you make a report think through the fact that everyone who is edit warring can get blocked - especially if they are ignoring attempts to discuss the edits on the talk page. Spartaz ^Humbug! 08:54, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

User:Vintagekits ... again

Hi all. Various people are once again edit-warring over the contents of banned editor, Vintagekits' userpage. I've no interest one way or another in this matter, but I'd like the community to decide one way or another as to whether the page should be blanked or kept. One side thinks it's useful and of historic interest; more useful to the community than a blank page. The other side says that banned editors have no right to a userpage. All the while, the original Vintagekits is happily socking away. The last time I caught him was Wednesday.

Either way, I've fully protected the page at the customary Wrong Version. Can we have some decision here, or this page will end up on ANI on a weekly basis. The last time was just over a week ago. Thoughts? - Alison ^❤ 08:28, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Eh, MFD? MaxSem^{(Han shot first!)} 08:34, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Well it's not really a question of deleting or not the page (nobody thinks the page history should be deleted). -- lucasbfr ^talk 08:42, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Isn't there a policy on wp:en to systematically blank the user pages of banned editors ? That would sound logical (because blocking means deligitimisation) and that is the practice on wp:fr. Ceedjee (talk) 08:53, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

• As his page testifies he has written literally hundreds of good pages, on uncontroversial subjects. If people reading those pages want to check the authors details I can see no possible harm to his sig linking to a page giving those details, albeit with a banned template. Most of VK's last (legal) months at Wikipedia were involved in dispute with those editors now seeking to have his page blanked. This group of editors, which centred on the now banned (and worrying) David Lauder, have constantly sought to influence Wikipedia's pages with their own very right wing British political POV, this has included pages on their own relations. This has caused many problems, not only with VK. VK was not and out and out pure vandal - most of his contributions were of great value, that finally he succumbed to constant war with these editors is regrettable, and history. However, there is no good reason for his page being completely blank, but by all mans protect it from his enemies. we owe him that in return for his many good contributions to the project. This petty behaviour of blanking and warring over his page seems to me to be akin to smashing a dead enemy's tombstone. Not a sport in which I would be proud to indulge. Giano (talk) 09:04, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

• In reply to "we owe him that in return for his many good contributions to the project", so what do we owe him for his disruptive sockpuppetry, a shrine? There have been editors with thousand upon thousand of edits who got indefblocked and thier userpages are no more, what makes this userpage so special to you, or are you just doing vigilante work against The Enemy® as usual? If there is useful content on the page, feel free to hit the edit button, copy and paste it in your own space, and stop trying to make an indefblocked sockpuppeteer sound like some kind of martyr. — Κaiba 09:35, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

No, not a shrine. An undeleted user page, which makes it easy to see what has happened. And please skip the amateur psychoanalyzing or innuendo or whatever it is. -- Hoary (talk) 10:12, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Couple things, 1) You obviously don't know what psychoanalysis is if you think that was applied in my comment, two, it was hardly innuendo as that requires an innocent party, one Giano probably doesn't fit under, and three we don't owe a disruptive user a damn thing, but if your going to play that card, the history wasn't deleted it was blanked. Any content anyone wants to look at is the page history and revert warring over whether it is actually visable is petty. — Κaiba 12:21, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

owe ? wikipedia is an encyclopaedia and this "wikipedian editor" has no particular notoriaty on the web, has he ? why would somebody arrive on that page to see the work he would have done. As it would be a "start point" of his study ??? I expect any reader is more interested in the content... That is not the way wikipedia is assumed to be used... Ceedjee (talk) 09:48, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Very true. He was abusing Wikipedia and should be thankfully all his edits have not been reverted! Blank it. --Counter-revolutionary (talk) 10:03, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

It is not customary (or indeed practicable) to revert all the edits of a prolific editor. Or do I miss your point? -- Hoary (talk) 10:12, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

No, he doesn't have any particular notoriety on the web. Because he's not notorious, a page seems harmless. Somebody might arrive on that page from a comment he made in a talk page. -- Hoary (talk) 10:12, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

True, it's not practical, I'm not saying it should be done; but is it not allowed? Counter-revolutionary (talk) 10:16, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Reverting every edit by VK would be a grotesque proposition. If VK edited a given page once, taking it from stage A to stage B, and if it had thereafter been improved to stage C, then the obvious options would be to take it back to A (simple but counterproductive) and to adjust C in terms of the change from A to B (requiring human thought). Multiply that by a few hundred or thousand. Or are you asking whether blanking is page his not allowed? (Good of you to ask, though you might have asked it before you blanked it.) Putting aside what is and isn't allowed, you may wish to explain the advantages of blanking it. The obvious place for such a discussion is, I suppose, its talk page; but I see that somebody has already deleted that and might not take kindly to its re-creation. -- Hoary (talk) 10:29, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm not willing to engage in conversation with someone so keen on twisting what I say. --Counter-revolutionary (talk) 10:31, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

(de-indent)The point is the only editor not allowed to edit Vk's user page is Vk. Anyone else can and is entitled to put factual content onto it ([249]) so until the policy on banned editors' user pages changes to permanent protection on a blank page then your stuck with it. - Bill Reid | Talk 10:56, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Reply to Alison- keep it blank, there's such a thing as a page history and anyone wanting to read the page as the other editors want it, can easily find it there. It's not like the info has been removed, with the click of the 'history' button it's there.Merkin's mum 11:14, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

I assumed we had a policy that users were allowed user pages and that non-/banned/indef-blocked users were not. If Giano wants the "useful" content from the page (a list of boxing-related articles?) then they could be put on a subpage of Giano's userpage with a redirect from VK's userpage. Otherwise, if someone is really interested, there is always the page history. Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 11:31, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Incivility by MONGO

As an uninvolved admin, I issued a warning to MONGO to remain civil in accordance with a recent ArbCom ruling. His reaction: [250] I consider that uncivil, so have blocked him for a week. Reviews are welcome. --Tango (talk) 13:14, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Gut reaction is that one week is a little long...although I'm not entirely sure what "deadminning" entails. _GB^T/C 13:20, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Whoa, that seems way OTT. Eusebeus (talk) 13:23, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

You should have let an uninvolved admin do it. Blocking someone because it pissed you off that they said "Get lost" is over the top. A week is very excessive. please unblock immediately. --DHeyward (talk) 13:24, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

The fact that is was in response to a warning to remain civil makes it rather more serious than "get lost" would usually be. I considered topic bans, but considered them inappropriate considering the offence was regarding a procedural matter, not a specific article. If MONGO didn't have such a long history of this kind of behaviour, I would have considered a shorter block, but he's been doing this for years and shows no signs of learning appropriate behaviour. Long blocks seem the only option. --Tango (talk) 13:36, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

(EC) You might want to dismount from your tall horse. Adminship does not mean that editors have to bow and scrape when you issue a warning. Editors may evidence a bit of frustration when warned. It is a good idea to give them time to de-escalate the situation. This matter was previously referred to WP:AE. You should keep the discussion there, and abide the resulting consensus. Cheers. Jehochman ^Talk 13:27, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

The ArbCom ruling does not require a concensus in advance. If there is a consensus to unblock, I will, of course, respect it. --Tango (talk) 13:36, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Correct, but once a discussion is started in one place, it makes sense to let it run its course. A lot of unnecessary drama could have been avoided by letting that WP:AE thread resolve. In any case, we see a consensus here for a 5 minute - 48 hour block, not a week. Jehochman ^Talk 14:09, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

I could have requested this review there, yes, but I thought more people would see it here. AE is a place to get the attention of an admin. That much was already done. AN/I is the standard place for asking for other admins to review a block. At the end of the day, does it really matter where we discuss this? --Tango (talk) 14:47, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

One week is just a bit over the top. If you think someone is being uncivil the logical thing to do is to use the discretionary sanctions to put them on civility supervision. Then start blocking. Moreschi2 (talk) 13:30, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Is there really a difference between civility supervision and issuing a warning, which was the first thing I did? --Tango (talk) 13:36, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

It looks to me like he was blocked for "backtalking". That edit summary wasn't particularly incivil, and people are only supposed to be blocked under that ArbCom ruling for "repeated" and "serious" violations. Should not have been blocked. Kelly ^hi! 13:34, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually, it's "repeated *or* serious". While this instance wasn't particular serious, the fact that it was in response to a civility warning makes it quite obvious it was repeated. --Tango (talk) 13:41, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

A week is far too long, but MONGO is fully aware that his intemperate language has been the subject of official disapproval in the past. Since Tango's notice was properly given MONGO had no excuse for the language of his edit summary. I suggest that the block is lifted asap, as time served for incivility, but not revoked. I will unblock providing there is no opposition in the next quarter of an hour. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:37, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

I won't oppose reducing the length of the block, but "time served" is about 5 minutes. I suggest a minimum of 24 hours. --Tango (talk) 13:41, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

As you are opposing I shall not unblock. 24 hours is a standard vandalism tariff - and whatever else people may think is wrong with some of MONGO's contributions he is not a vandal. I would suggest a still shorter block. I really think that an hour is sufficient to demonstrate that the community is serious about civility. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:49, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

I actually laughed out loud when I read that. Then I realised you were serious. --Relata refero (disp.) 13:56, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, an hour seems too little to me, especially if the user is offline anyway. I would go with 24-48 hours. Black Kite 14:01, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

I am serious. 24-31 hours is what a vandal gets after a series of warnings, where there is no recent blocks for same. What we have here is a uncivil edit summary, given while performing an act which is permitted by WP rules. The block is sufficient evidence of the communities disapproval of that policy infraction, and making it "long" will not make it more so. I would also comment that this may yet turn into a wheelwar when one of MONGO's button wielding friends decides to act WP:BOLDly - per the "lack of consensus" here - and unilaterally lifts the block. I am serious when I suggest that this block be of hours rather than days - further infractions may get a longer tariff. LessHeard vanU (talk) 14:20, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

A short block was reasonable under the ArbCom ruling, but (a) a week was too long, and (b) an uninvolved admin should've done it. Black Kite 13:38, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

The ArbCom ruling clearly defines what it means to be involved. I don't qualify. --Tango (talk) 13:42, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

No, I meant "uninvolved" in the traditional sense, not from the AC ruling. Black Kite 13:47, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Considering this users history of civility, and choice not to change, this is reasonable. Seriously folks, this is never ever going to stop unless we simply enforce a clear standard. Perhaps MONGO will decide to be civil, perhaps MONGO will not, time will tell. I for one hope he can work within the social bounds of this project one day. That being said, while I don't think a week is over the top, I also think 2 days would be reasonable. _(1 == 2)^Until 13:55, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Also folks, someone lobbing an insult at you does not make you "involved". Think about it, one could defend themselves from blocks just by insulting any admin that came by and thus making them involved... No, our blocking policy says not to be involved in content disputes, not just receiving a name calling from the person. _(1 == 2)^Until 13:57, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

That at least is correct, yes. Moreschi2 (talk) 14:02, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

That's certainly the way I see it and is why I didn't bother getting someone else to do the block for me. --Tango (talk) 14:12, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

• What kind of crazy talk is this? Blocking MONGO for a week for a grumpy comment on his talk page? Somebody has lost sight of the goal here. No, the ArbCom decision was not to block people for a week due to edit summaries on their talk page. Not even close. We seem to have taken leave of our collective senses, and be valuing false politeness above commitment to the project and its core aims. There is a massive and long-standing problem with POV-pushing, and blocking the people who reisst it due to comments somewhere else entirely is really not a great way to fix that. This is an entirely disproportionate response to an entirely predictable reaction to a cack-handed attempt to tone things down. No ill-intent assumed, but the tone and wording of the post to MONGO's talk more or less guaranteed his response, and it was gratuitous since MONGO was clearly following the ANI discussion anyway. Guy (Help!) 14:06, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

No, blocking MONGO for a week for being uncivil in response to a civility warning. If there's ever a time when you should be civil it's when someone's just warned you to be. There is a massive and long-standing problem with MONGO being uncivil and it's time something was done about it. --Tango (talk) 14:12, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

This section is a good illustration of how I think Wikipedia has somehow turned into a recess monitor and not an encyclopedia-building project. Tan | 39 14:15, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Tango, if you'd posted the text of that "warning" to me I could have predicted with near 100% certainty what the result would have been. I cannot believe you were so naive as to think that a post that condescending would be received with anything like equanimity. Guy (Help!) 14:15, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Condescending? It was overly formal, perhaps, but I don't think it was condescending. --Tango (talk) 14:25, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

"Gentlemen, you can't fight in here! This is the War Room!" So, how about we de-escalate this situation. If the goal was to prevent disruption, this block has failed miserably. Will somebody please undo it, per consensus, and then we can let the WP:AE thread come to an appropriate conclusion. Jehochman ^Talk 14:17, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Amen to that. As a technique for either de-escalating the situation or helping to ensure policy is followed on those articles, this was, to put it charitably, not a resounding success. Guy (Help!) 14:23, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

The block was intended to prevent MONGO being uncivil. It will certainly succeed while the block is in place, and hopefully it will continue to succeed afterwards. There is no way to tell that at this early point. There is no consensus to unblock. There may be a consensus to reduce the length of the block to 24 hours. If I determine that there is, I will do so at some point in the next 23 hours. --Tango (talk) 14:25, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Can you explain how the block prevents MONGO from using edit summaries to kick back against patronising messages left on his talk page? That was what you blocked him for, and I don't see any evidence that the remedy will address the supposed problem. Honestly, I don't. Was MONGO uncivil in the talk page or project space debates where you asserted he was causing a problem? As far as I can see, he was not, after that posting, not least because it seems the debate was archived before the block. Guy (Help!) 14:58, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

(ec)Look at it this way, Guy. He removed a politely-worded request for discussion from someone whom he was in a dispute with, with an edit summary of precisely the type that we know can cause an end to polite wording, and thus discussion. When this was pointed out to him, with some formality/po-facedness, perhaps, but nonetheless with propriety, he expressed his contempt for and fearlessness of the changed circs. that ArbCom has put him and all other participants in those pages in with a "get lost". Simply put, this is enforcement of arbitration of the most basic kind. --Relata refero (disp.) 15:09, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Ok, so it reduces his ability to be uncivil. Of course, he can still be uncivil on his talk page (although, if he is, I'll protect it). --Tango (talk) 15:04, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

I support Tango on this one. There is a massive and long-standing problem with this sort of incivility on the project. I am disappointed as I had seen improvements since his unsuccessful RfA. Maybe this will now underline the seriousness of the policy to MONGO, who has led a charmed life thanks to the well-meaning support of his many fans up until now. Civility isn't optional, and if you have a history of incivility then delete a warning with an uncivil comment, well, you should not expect still to be editing. A week is on the long side; 48 or 72 hours seems fairer.--John (talk) 14:21, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Unless Tango agrees, we cannot undo the block; what we are discussing is what tariff is appropriate to minimise disruption. The block needs to be long enough to register the communities disapproval, yet not so long as to bring out the "anti-MONGO = pro-TROLL" faction. In my experience, any action relating to MONGO is a exercise of another round of WP infighting. To minimise disruption we need consensus on a tariff that will not enrage either side of the debate. LessHeard vanU (talk) 14:33, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

The admin community can overrule an individual admin if there is a clear consensus to do so. It's only wheel warring if that consensus doesn't exist (which, in this case, it doesn't). If there is a tarrif that balances both those goals, that's certainly what we should aim for. I'm not sure if such a tarrif does exist. There does seem to be a consensus developing that a 24 hour block would be more appropriate, so unless something changes I will probably reduce the block. As long as I do that before the initial 24 hours is up, it doesn't make any difference exactly when I do it, so I'll allow more discussion before acting. --Tango (talk) 14:50, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

I believe that to be an appropriate tariff, in this instance, for a first block.LessHeard vanU (talk) 14:54, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

In all fairness, this is over the top. I cannot see what justifies the description "trolling". A week's block is clearly excessive: reduce it to 31 hours, says I, and slap a civility supervision on top. Nobody likes The Truthers, sure. But we will never make progress on these articles if the various contributors on either side treat each other with disdain. Nor is Mr Basboll quite that bad. Moreschi2 (talk) 14:24, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm curious why Tango gets to decide when "it's time" to do "something" about MONGO. I'm not an admin, but that sounds dangerously like a retaliatory use of administrative tools. I was under the impression that blocks were not intended to be punitive, but here we have an example of a block implemented eight hours after the subject last edited, hence no imminent threat to the pedia, and no threat whatsoever to pagespace. I'm wondering what part of the Arbcom ruling gives one administrator the ability to retaliate against the removal of a warning on a user talk page because of the "uncivil" edit summary of that user. BusterD (talk) 14:32, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

I get to decide because I'm and admin and the ArbCom ruling says admins can use their discretion in enforcing the ruling. This block is intended to prevent further incivility. I don't know if it will work, but I'm hopeful. The fact that it's 8 hours after he last edited is irrelevant, since the block is for longer than 8 hours. --Tango (talk) 14:47, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Not to be sarcastic, but "I'm and admin" sounds like the kind of quote trolls will spit back, and I'm certain admin's discretion is not your strongest argument. I'll commend you for posting this thread immediately thereafter, because your block was bound to provoke a reaction. I contend this block has the appearance of being based not on behaviors user has exhibited recently, but instead a reduced tolerance for behaviors exhibited in the distant past, for which user was duly notified at the time. BusterD (talk) 15:06, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Folks, does it really help the project to stop MONGO from editing for an entire week? I think the block is excessive. Recognizing that we all are capable of getting angry at other editors and saying things we later regret, is it truly the right approach to use the block button to try to let people know you believe they are out of line with something they said? You know, it actually takes more courage to try to talk to someone about their behavior than to swat them with a block. Soft words turneth away wrath, and blocks just make people angrier. Thanks for listening, Antandrus (talk) 14:34, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

This is not right. I think we're all aware that MONGO has been talked to till the most polite individuals on this project are blue in the face. About whether it helps the project: I don't know if a week does. What would help the project is a more careful attention to the definition of the word "troll". If MONGO learns nothing else over the course of this block, however long it eventually is, than the etymology, correct use, and consequences of abuse of that word, I think that the project will definitely benefit. --Relata refero (disp.) 14:58, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Totally ridiculous length of time, block was totally unnecessary, if people are so precious that they can't cope with being told to "get lost" and react in such an OTT way, then perhaps they should not be admins at all. Giano (talk) 14:41, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

People have talked to MONGO about his behaviour before. It doesn't work. --Tango (talk) 14:47, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

• You are not God, you merely wield a mop and bucket. Adminship is no big deal. You do not have to be spoken to in hushed and reverential tones. Giano (talk) 14:53, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

No, but it is important that MONGO does not address his fellow contributors on 9/11 articles in disdainful tones. If he then reacts uncivilly to a request for civility, then brief block is valid. Moreschi2 (talk) 14:59, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Exactly, if one is allowed to be uncivil they can create a hostile environment in a content dispute and thus gain an unfair advantage by driving off those who don't want to be subject to such comments. This damages NPOV in favor of the point of view of the uncivil. _(1 == 2)^Until 15:02, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

However, like everyone else, I do have to be spoken to civilly. While "get lost" would be usually be uncivil enough for a block, the fact that it was immeadiately after a civility warning reduces my tolerance. --Tango (talk) 14:56, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

"Your tolerance" is your problem - it should not influence your behaviour. You should unblock immediatly. Giano (talk) 15:01, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

If I don't allow my tolerance to influence my behaviour, that would mean I would block people for the slightest offence. Your demand that I unblock him does not follow from that - in fact, what follows is that I should indef block him. --Tango (talk) 15:11, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Whoa there, this is dangerous territory you're entering. You're now saying you blocked him not because of disruption of debates on content relating to 9/11, but because he was rude to you. That is a truly terrible idea. Guy (Help!) 15:02, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

I never claimed anything else. I always said it was a block for incivility, I never mentioned disruption. --Tango (talk) 15:06, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

He said no such thing, he pointed out that when someone violates a policy immediately after they just got warned about then that is a factor to consider when blocking. Please, if you must misrepresent the position of your opponent in a disagreement then perhaps you need to rethink your position. _(1 == 2)^Until 15:05, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Why not just tolerate incivil behavior? The moment someone launches a personal attack, we can choose to ignore it. We can just interpret it as an emotional outburst. Some people will get emotional faster than others, and some people will let emotions affect their behavior. By choosing to ignore it we have already completely neutralized it. But by trying to change a person's behavior we create a new problem. It would take counseling, perhaps some drugs to really change the behavior of someone. A week's ban won't do it, it will just make the editor more angry. The only rational reason for banning people is if not banning them would cause real harm to wikipedia. Count Iblis (talk) 15:06, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Because uncivil behaviour can drive people from the project - that causes real harm to Wikipedia. If everyone were able to just ignore uncivil behaviour, it would be fine, but that's not the case. --Tango (talk) 15:08, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Seems the comment was only directed at - and only likely to have been seen by - you, but I don't think you're in danger of being "driven from the project" over it. Indeed, your edit count has swelled considerably as a result :) deep breath and hit random page next time. You'll be wrapped up in an article about a 7th century Chinese mathematician in no time. Deiz talk 15:19, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

That is a very good point, but please see my remarks to Guy above (timestamp:15:09) for an indication why they might not really apply in this case. --Relata refero (disp.) 15:27, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

If he were only even uncivil to me, that would be true. However, he has been uncivil to many people. My block was not to prevent incivility towards me, but to prevent incivility in general. --Tango (talk) 15:51, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Like I just said, "if one is allowed to be uncivil they can create a hostile environment in a content dispute and thus gain an unfair advantage by driving off those who don't want to be subject to such comments. This damages NPOV in favor of the point of view of the uncivil." That is just one of the reasons we don't tolerate uncivil behavior, another reason is it is mean, unpleasant, and makes for a bad Wikipedia experience. _(1 == 2)^Until 15:07, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Tango, 1 == 2, People who behave in an uncivil way are a small minority. If most others do not behave in this way, then I don't see how this will lead someone to leave wikipedia. I do understand that action needs to be taken against someone who repeatedly harasses a particular person. Count Iblis (talk) 15:34, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

I have unblocked as that's where the conversation was leading. It seems the block was questionable and manifestly excessive, but the consensus was actually to unblock per time served rather than to cancel the original block (some said 24-31 hours, but I think the message has been well and truly got). This was a reading of the consensus here so is naturally open to review. Orderinchaos 15:10, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Forgive me, but that was not where the conversation was heading by any means.

How has the message been got? On what basis do you say that? --Relata refero (disp.) 15:13, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

I see a consensus to reduce to 24 hours or 2 days. I see no consensus about "time served", and stating that there is agreement that the comment leading to the block was "provoked" is just untrue, there is no such agreement. _(1 == 2)^Until 15:12, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

I see no such consensus. Please reinstate my block immeadiately - you are wheel warring. --Tango (talk) 15:13, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

There was no consensus at all for one week - pretty much everyone agreed that was excessive. Giving voice to a community decision is not wheel warring, although I do accept that there was a considerably wide view from the community and the reduction of the block to the present certainly reduces drama - the alternative would have been to reblock him for the rest of the 24-31 hours (which creates more block log entries for seemingly little gain), which others are free to do if they feel it necessary. Orderinchaos 15:18, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

That's not how it works. Once an admin has made a decision, there has to be a consensus to undo it, not a consensus to keep it. --Tango (talk) 15:26, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

To rephrase what Tango said, you seemed to have made a mistake judging consensus, to avoid the effect of wheel warring you should reverse your action now that this has been pointed out. _(1 == 2)^Until 15:15, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Yeah... what he said. --Tango (talk) 15:17, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't see any such consensus there. It would be best to re-instate the block to at least 24 hours to allow this conversation to continue. Black Kite 15:17, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

OK - 29 hours, which takes it to the 31 that seemed to be closest to what most people regarded as correct. Orderinchaos 15:19, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. It would have been nice if you respected me enough to allow me to determine the consensus and reduce the block, especially since I'd already said I intended to do so. I will not contest your new block. --Tango (talk) 15:21, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

That seems reasonable. _(1 == 2)^Until 15:20, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Unblocking was the correct decision. Than goodness for common sense. Giano (talk) 15:21, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, the point was that no sort of consensus had been reached at all. Without that, any admin action is on shaky ground. Black Kite 15:24, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

He's been reblocked for 29 hours, to give a total block time of 31 hours. PhilKnight (talk) 15:26, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

-

It would also be helpful if Tango could state that he will modify his approach to similar blocks. This episode has not reflected well on Wikipedia's admin corps. Only block for a personal slight if the editor's behavior is unquestionably egregious, and even then it's better to get an outside admin to judge. And in this case it would also have been better to follow the AE process. Raymond Arritt (talk) 15:29, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually, incivility is blockable for either egregious or repeated violations, not just egregious. _(1 == 2)^Until 15:31, 12 April 2008 (UTC

I stand by my actions entirely, for the reasons stated above. --Tango (talk)

Following the suggestion of some people here, I have placed MONGO under indefinite Civility Restriction. Hopefully that will be sufficient to control him. --Tango (talk) 15:34, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

With all due respect, given your previous involvement in this, I think that decision should be left to neutral third parties. Orderinchaos 15:38, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

What involvement? Warning the user to follow policy? Blocking the user for violating policy again? Does that really make him involved? Is there some content dispute these two users are involved in that I am not aware of? Has the admin policy expanded what constitutes being an "involved admin" beyond content disputes? Well I think I am uninvolved, and I agree with Tango's idea(or does my participation in this debate involve me?). _(1 == 2)^Until 15:45, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Good to see the MONGO Defense League is still in good fighting condition. Nothing says balanced admin actions like letting MONGO go skipping down the lane every time he insults the rest of the editors, while giving any and all other editors a few days in the public stocks. This continues to be one of the biggest regularly demonstrated injustices in the project, and every time an admin argues that 'it's MONGO, so it's different' as has been done her, I lose respect for that admin. In this case, I especially find Orderinchaos especially worthy of calling out on this, because he not only flexed the 'But it's MONGO' defense, he also wheel-warred, deciding that his vote was Consensus by Admin Fiat, which is a misuse of power growing steadily among admins. ThuranX (talk) 15:38, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

I tell you what, although I agree that he should have been punished one way or another for what he did (although I think a whole week is on the harsh side), I am not looking forward to his reaction when he is unblocked. If he is that uncivil before being blocked, well...let's hope he just takes the chin-up approach... Lradrama 15:43, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

As discussed above, am not an involved admin. My only action has been in enforcing the ArbCom ruling. The ruling explicitly states that such enforcement does not constitute an involvement. --Tango (talk) 15:44, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. _(1 == 2)^Until 15:47, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

The ironic thing is that I am probably better known as a mild opponent of MONGO's, and this is the first time I've seen cause to agree with him on something. It certainly wasn't, as you describe, "letting him skip down the lane" - I was acting in accordance with other admins above who had expressed the view that for these purposes the length of the block didn't matter, and my own view that drama feeds on itself. Clearly it did matter to some, however, so I reset it to a level which I believed most participants would find reasonable. For the record I have opposed and/or undone blocks on other editors in the past when there's been a whiff of something Not Right about the whole thing, regardless of my personal opinion of the editors concerned. I should note I did read the debate carefully, and I paid attention to a wide variety of views (you'll see several which basically recommended the action I initially took), and simply misjudged - there's certainly no fiat here, as I put my own decision up for review and when some indicated they felt I had overstepped, I adopted the strictest reading of what was there. Orderinchaos 15:51, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

You made an error in judgement and corrected it. I'm happy to leave it at that. I withdraw my accusation of wheel warring - I overreacted. --Tango (talk) 15:57, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Indeed I believe your action to be sincere, and your response to the objection to be perfectly suitable. Nothing wrong with your admin actions today Order, nor do I think Tango was wrong because it was decided a lesser block time was more appropriate. Good work folks. _(1 == 2)^Until 16:00, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Double Standard is alive and well... depending on which side of the Clique you're on, any block or ban you may get is either roundly condemned and reversed, or approved by an amen chorus. *Dan T.* (talk) 15:54, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

It is true that certain users are more likely to be defended than others when all else is the same. This is something we need to fix. _(1 == 2)^Until 15:55, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Surely if this is based on user contribs that is fair enough and doesn't need fixing or even changing at all. Thanks, SqueakBox 15:57, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

It's based more on who your friends and enemies are, as well as your stands on various controversial issues (both intra-Wikipedia and real-world). *Dan T.* (talk) 16:04, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

He was incivil to your comment on his talk page. Editors can delete comments on their talk page. Deleting comments on talk pages had absolutely NOTHING to do with the arbcom ruling. Justifying your anger under the color of arbcom is a serisou abuse of admin privileges. --DHeyward (talk) 16:02, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

All true, but I didn't block him for removing the warning, I blocked him for being uncivil. --Tango (talk) 16:05, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, please folks please be sure you are aware of the events that actually occurred before presenting arguments, and do so accurately. There has been more than a little misrepresentation of other's positions going on here. _(1 == 2)^Until 16:07, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Was the ArbCom ruling intended to cover user talk pages? This seems kind of a broad interpretation. Kelly ^hi! 16:07, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Is there an exception for user talk pages? _(1 == 2)^Until 16:08, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Nickelback and Landon1980

User:Landon1980 is continually changing the genres on Nickelback so that they are separated by line breaks. He cites WP:MOS and is edit warring. He refuses to discuss the matter and is edit warring just to get his way. I explained to him on my talk page why the genres should stay as they were (separated by commas) and asked him to respond, but instead he just reverted my edit, citing WP:MOS again. He needs to understand that the genres should not be changed, and I'm hoping he will be more inclined to listen to an admin or some editor other than me. Thanks in advance to anyone who can help. Timmeh! 14:29, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, either commas or line breaks can be used. Grsz11 14:35, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

(ec)Today I made an edit, and left a talk page note related to this very issue. It really doesn't matter what delimiters are used as the discussion about it ended with no consensus. Just like you shouldn't change words from English to American spelling, you shouldn't be changing delimiters. It is pointless. Much less, no one should be edit warring over this. Seraphim♥ ^Whipp 14:37, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

While it's pointless to be continuously making this edit, Landon hasn't broken 3RR. He's made the edit once in the past 24, none in the 24 before that, then twice before that. Grsz11 14:46, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

The problem is that Landon continues to believe that genres should be separated by line breaks for bands and commas for solo artists. He refuses the discuss the issue and keeps reverting my edits changing the delimiters back to commas after explaining to him why the genres should stay as they originally were. He only reverts when I change the genres back and I'm really getting sick of it. He also has recently made false accusations against me on User:Hoponpop69's talk page saying I only revert his and Hoponpop's edits because I believe that they are the same person. Although I am not convinced they are the same person, they sure do act the same way: refuse to discuss issues and edit war before consensus is reached stating their own reasons. Timmeh! 14:53, 12 April 2008 (UTC)