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. You are not autoconfirmed, meaning you cannot currently edit this page. Instead, use /Non-autoconfirmed posts. 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

User:Ed Fitzgerald relocating clean-up templates

First, let me start off by saying that I do not believe this is in any way malicious and/or vandalism, but I do think it's necessary to bring it to others' attention. User:Ed Fitzgerald has been relocating clean-up templates in articles so that they are placed at the bottom of the page with a "pointer," or short message, at the top of the article.[1][2][3] Several of his changes have since been reverted by various users. I have contacted the user on three separate occasions: 1). when he moved a template to the article's talk page [4], 2). when he moved a couple templates to the bottom of the page [5], and 3). recently when I noticed the new development of the "pointer" and after another user attempted to contact him regarding the relocations.[6] Although the user is mostly civil, I find their dismissal of guideline and clearly stated reason mystifying. I'm concerned that his personal opinion ("the tags, especially multiple tags, disfigure the article, and discourage readers from accessing the material") conflicts greatly with accepted Wikipedia guideline/procedure and that he is not willing to take his (admittedly well thought out and articulated) concerns to the proper channels. He seems to have dismissed my final attempt at advice (as can be seen by his further template relocating here. María (críticame) 22:20, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Discussion concerning this can be found on my talk page here, and my further thoughts on this and other (related and unrelated) subjects can be found on my user page. Thank you. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk/cont) 22:53, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Tags, especially dispute and cleanup tags, play an important role -- they alert a reader that what he is reading may be disputed, confusingly written, poorly sourced, or what have you. It is important that readers are aware of these issues before they read the content on the tag; that is why most tags go at the top of a given article. You seem to feel that tagging is a way for users to contest the content of an article without editing it -- this is not the case; "drive-by-taggings", that is, without substantive discussion on the talk page, can and should be summarily removed. --Haemo 23:18, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

There are a number of issues here, but I think the only one in question at the moment is the position of tags, since I'm not eliminating them but relocating them, and providing a pointer to their placement. Anyone interested can follow the pointer and see the tags, as will everyone who reads the article to the end. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk/cont) 00:07, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

The position is important; people need to be aware of issues on the page before they read the article, not after. Nebulously stating "This page has been tagged" does not help anyone, and would be totally opaque to a general reader. --Haemo 01:44, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Precisely. It may appear that tags are addressed to the general reader, but because they represent only the opinion of an editor, and are not in any way definitive, they are better considered as communications between editors, expressing views on how articles can be improved. If the purpose of a tag is to warn the reader, then there should be some sort of process in place to control their use, to make it the subject of consensus, which there is not.

A tag is a flag, saying "Here there is a problem, in my opinion", not a definitive statement, and the audience that cares about possible problems (as opposed to definite ones) is the editors of Wikipedia, and not the readers, two separate but overlapping groups.

By the way, you referred earlier to "drive-by-tagging" as if this was merely an occasional thing. In fact, my experience is that the vast majority of tags are placed without any discussion at all on the talk page, and therefore represent the view of a single editor. They can't even be considered to have been accepted by follow-up editors (as article content can when it passes review and is not changed) because of the taboo against removing them, which is what I'm (in part) currently up against. (In fact, I'm not removing them, only moving them.) Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk/cont) 02:00, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

As you have moved {{unsourced}} tags on articles which have, in fact, no sources whatsover, I must disagree that the tags constitute "the opinion of a single editor". No sources is simple enough to view and confirm. If there are no sources, this is not opinion. Further, I concur with Haemo - the time to inform readers there is a potential problem or issue with an article is before, not after, they have invested their time and effort in reading it. By burying the tags and adding your non-informative notes in teeny font at the top, you are damaging the credibility of Wikipedia. One puppy's opinion. KillerChihuahua^?!? 02:15, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

I disagree with your premise that there is not "some of process in place to control their use, to make it the subject of consensus". The inclusion of maintenance tags, just like any other material added to or taken away from an article, is a matter of consensus among the editors who contribute toward it. As for disfigurement: I'd much prefer a disfigured article than one that incorrectly gives the a reader the incorrect impression that they're looking at well-refined material. There's been mention of "drive-by tagging," but what about the "drive-by readers"? An aesthetically dis-pleasing "Hey, this article is missing reliable sources or is short on citations" can effectively give pause to the folks who are trying to get info. on some nugget they just saw on CSI or are scrambling to write about for English class. I'd much rather "inconvenience" users by making them look at clashing colors and scrolling down a bit more if it also means they know to put a few more grains of salt next to their mouse. --EEMeltonIV 09:39, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Let us come to face with the facts, please: unsourced articles are more the rule than the exception on Wikipedia -- but that doesn't mean that the articles aren't authoritative, factual, informative and interesting. (There are other ways to ascertain an article's value than whether it has sourcing or not.) But let's not get caught up in ancilliary matters -- to answer your on-topic question, I am not "hiding" tags -- would you say that Categories are being hidden, or External Links, or See Also links?, or links to other Wikipedia projects? All of those things are at the bottom of the page, which is where I'm putting the tags. That's a place where they don't discourage readers from using the encyclopedia as a resource, and yet they're available to the people that are interested in them, and to whom they are addressed, the editors of Wikipedia.

I'll reiterate, if the intent of tags is as a warning to readers, than there are only a few tags that should be at the top, none of which are internally directed, and the use of tags should be regulated or controlled so that when a reader sees a tag that says there's a problem with an article, they know that to be a reasonably definitive statement, and not an offhand opinion. Failing that, tags are better viewed as communication between editors, and not as warnings to the reader. 02:32, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Citation tags can be construed as warnings to the reader, as the absence of citations can imply the advice to the reader to take the article with a pinch of salt given the lack of a solid foundation for the article. Citation templates can serve both as a alert for the editor and a warning for the reader, as do most other tags. —Kurykh 02:43, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Exactly right, Kurykh. I find the implication that there is an audience we as editors should be catering to rather absurd; this isn't a play and we aren't stage hands. Everyone who reads Wikipedia is a potential editor, and therefore the templates are relevant to everyone. The reason why they are placed at the top of the page, as is said by the style guidelines, is visibility. María (críticame) 12:09, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

I find the implication that there is an audience we as editors should be catering to rather absurd; What an absolutely extraordinary statement! I'm totally flabbergasted. What do imagine is the point of Wikipedia, to be a fun place to play around in? It exists to create a reference work to be used, and the people who use it are the "audience". Call them what you will -- user base, clientele, whatever, it is for they and them only that the project exists, and considerations about ease of use and functionality should be second only to considerations of factuality of content.

Obviously, this aspect of Wikipedia has been given short shrift for much too long, if an editor can make a statement like that in all sincerity. Everyone's all tied up in policy disputes, which serve (badly) to regulate editor behavior, to the exclusion of consideration of the needs of the user. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk/cont) 13:36, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

You stated that "users of the encyclopedia [are] supposedly our clientele, the people for whom the encyclopedia exists." This is a misstatement: the encyclopedia exists for everyone. If any reader is a potential editor, than templates are useful for them, as well. María (críticame) 13:56, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Oh, incidentally, very nice attempt to tie in my professional background! Bravo, points for research! But, unfortunately, stage hands don't cater to the audience, they do what other people (director, designers, stage manager) tell them to, so that rather messes up your metaphor. Besides, as a rather famous thespian once said "All the world's a stage." Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk/cont) 13:41, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Please be WP:CIVIL, as you have shown you are capable of doing in the past. Not that it means much to delve into the personal, the stage hand comment was a metaphor I pulled not from your life, but my own (speaking as an ex-theatre major). I was not aware of your profession, nor do I think it pertinent to the discussion. Let's remain on topic. María (críticame) 13:56, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

It's a category error to treat the class of Wikipedia editors as being equivalent to the class of Wikipedia users. It's certainly (and obviously) true that all Wikipedia editors began as users, so that Editors is a subset of Users, but in actuality they have totally different relationships to Wikipedia, and should not be treated as equivalent. (I'll also say that many editors become so involved in internal Wikipedia matters they really cease to be, in any meaningful sense, users of the encyclopedia. Their concerns are no longer the concerns of the casual user, and it's this disfunction that I'm suggesting needs to be addressed.) It's my contention, which I think is obvious from even the most cursory examination of internal pages such as this one, or from a close look at Wikipedia policy, that ease of use and other user-function matters are not given their proper due, and need to be made more important.

Also, let me play the Wikipolicy card and cite WP:BB and WP:IAR as justifying my actions. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk/cont) 15:45, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Both of which work until and unless one meets with resistance, which you have - quite strong resistance. Please re-read the pages to which you have linked. IAR and BB have limitations - they are not a blanket permission to do whatever you wish against consensus. KillerChihuahua^?!? 15:49, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

"Strong resistance"? I see here three people arguing against what I'm doing, and two people agreeing with it. I'd hardly categorize that as "strong resistance". Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk/cont) 16:32, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Ed is right on this. The tags are opinion graffiti of no value to an intelligent reader. They deserve as much respect as a sidewalk passerby stopping to tell construction workers how to build a building. If an editor wants to express his opinion on an article, but is too lazy to make the changes, look up some citations, or just explain politely on the talk page, he isnt worth listening to. I propose we require editors to earn the right to hang their opinions on articles--- you can place one criticism tag for every measly 2000 characters of text you contribute. Wikipedia needs more workers and less sidewalk supervisors. alteripse 02:39, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

I hadn't heard the phrase "opinion graffiti" before, but it's spot-on. Thanks. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk/cont) 02:48, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

You are welcome to it. I was tired of feeling like the Lone Ranger on this. Or maybe you can be the Lone Ranger and I'll be Tonto. alteripse 02:53, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

In many cases I strongly support the approach taken by Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) – I've seen a very good expert editor infuriated and driven from the project by the row over a "TONE" tag placed at the top of an article as a quick and easy way of someone expressing the opinion that the writing was too interesting, without having to bother with explaining themselves on the talk page. There are occasions where, for example, an "Unreferenced" tag is important at the start, but I've seen that tag added to articles that clearly do have references – again, the tagger couldn't be bothered with checking the article or explaining themselves. Tags within sections or at the foot of the article achieve the aim without disfiguring the article as a whole, tags at the head should only be used in specific circumstances. Oh, and we've probably all come across tag vandalism..... dave souza, talk 15:43, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Wow, this makes three of us. Anyone else out there? We could start our own cabal. alteripse 19:08, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

dave souza: Tags within sections or at the foot of the article achieve the aim without disfiguring the article as a whole, tags at the head should only be used in specific circumstances. I agree with this, and wouldn't be undertaking my current windmill-tilting if tags were controlled and perhaps redesigned to be less visually disruptive. I'd also like to point out that I have not been in any way relocating or disturbing the vast majority of section tags, since moving them to the end of the section would not be in any way less disruptive than leaving them where they are, and moving them to the end of the article would make no sense. I'd still like to see section tags be redesigned to take up less real estate and be less annoying, and their use in some way regulated, but I don't see much point in disturbing them. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk/cont) 22:06, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm not as conversant with Wikipedia's internal processes as others are, so I'd like to ask: what is the purpose of bringing this particular complaint here? A cursory look at the instructions on the page makes it appear to not be the correct venue for this, but, as I said, I'm not knowledgeable in this rather esoteric area. What is the administrative action that the editor who filed the complaint wishes to bring about? Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk/cont) 16:39, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

OK, the pointer I've been putting at the top of articles after moving tags to the bottom has said this:

This article has been tagged by one or more editors — please see the bottom of the page for more information.

This is perhaps too non-specific and presumes that the reader knows what a "tag" is, so I plan to replace it with this:

Note: For information about the content, tone or sourcing of this article, please see the tags at the bottom of this page.

Would this be more acceptable to those objecting to my actions? Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk/cont) 22:23, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

I am admittedly a newbie, but it strikes me that this sort of tag would only be well understood by Wikipedians who have some experience with editing. As a newbie, I find the large references at the point of infraction to be useful, even if only to teach me about what is considered to be good/bad writing. From this point of view, I would advocate a larger notice Jddphd 01:58, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Point of clarification -- what I'm really trying to say is that Ed's proposal above seems a little too small. Jddphd 02:00, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Jddphd: a little too small That's a very useful suggestion, thank you. I have no objection to increasing the size of the typeface of the pointer, and trying that, so I'll make that change. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk/cont) 02:36, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

All tags aren't the same. A simple "cleanup" tag might benefit from shrinking and/or relocation. NPOV tags, totally-disputed, unsourced tags, and so on definitely need to be front and centre; they provide vital information to all readers. My apologies if this is obvious. Hornplease 19:23, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Now, I have a complaint: I have not made a massive project out of this, my "initiative" has extended only to articles that I come across in my everyday use of Wikipedia, my thought being that such a small semi-random sampling could be seen and evaluated by the users in context, and perhaps (forlorn hope) catch on. On the other hand, it seems that at least one of the people arguing here against my actions is following me around and reverting my changes (see: [7][8][9][10], for instance and the editor's contribution page[11]), thus subverting my attempt to allow people to see this and judge it, in context, for themselves and without prejudice. His action leaves me with no reasonable action besides reverting his reversion, the first step in an edit war that noone wants, least of all me, or meekly acquiescing in his mass reversions and doing nothing. This doesn't seem fair, especially when the issue is under discussion here.

I haven't been around Wikipedia for all that long, just over two years, but I guarantee that the way things are done here is not the way they were done when it was founded, or five years ago or three years ago, and at least one of the ways that evolutionary changes come about is by people trying things out and other people taking a look and giving the change a fair shake. The actions of this editor in undoing my changes take away that possibility and is not, I submit, at all in the spirit of Wikipedia. I think my suggested change has clear value, I think it deserves a chance from editors without an axe to grind to look at it and either leave it or revert it, so I ask that KillerChihuahua be asked to stop following my contribution trail and undoing my efforts. Thank you. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk/cont) 00:37, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

I have updated all the articles I changed so that they have the new pointer I listed above, and also added the pointer to a few articles where I moved the tags before I had come up with the idea of using a pointer to redirect attention to the tags' new location.

I have also found it interesting that in going through those articles, only a very few were reverted by everyday editors, the vast majority were reverted by three editors: KillerChihuahua,Maria and AxG -- so there has been, so far, no true picture of what the "grassroots" of the Wikipedia community thinks about this idea, because these three editors have not given them a chance to see it. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk/cont) 02:31, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps you should start a discussion on WP:MOS on the style manual to get a feel for what the community thinks. --Haemo 02:41, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Last time I checked, there has never been consensus to put the tags at the top or at the bottom. For example, I've been placing unreferenced tags in the references section for some time now. Just recently, there was a message on Template talk:Cleanup by Rich Farmbrough who stated, "many of us support sending all/most of the cleanup-tags to the end of the page. They could also be mad more subtle once there." I support Rich and Ed in this endeavor as only one small baby step towards a better solution to a serious problem. —Viriditas | Talk 02:58, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Haemo: Perhaps you should start a discussion on WP:MOS Sure, that's a possible avenue, but my experience of Wikipedia is that it's generally such an open system that there are a number of valid ways to get things done. Despite (or perhaps because of) my propensity for long-windedness, I'm not a big fan of talking an idea to death as a means of getting something done. That's why I chose the route I've taken, which appears to me to be justifiable under Wikipedia's (admittedly crazy-quilt) policies. Also, and this may be a sore point, I'm much more interested in the response of the everyday, ordinary, run-of-the-mill editor to this then I am in the response of the editors who gets caught up in policy debates deep in the bowels of Wikipedia. I think the everyday editors have a relationship with Wikipedia which is closer to that of the user who is a non-editor, and their responses will be mnore indicative of whether the change is useful to the user, as opposed to upholding current Wikipedia practice (which it obviously is not). Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk/cont) 03:00, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, I am a "everyday, ordinary, run-of-the-mill editor" and I believe it is a big mistake to hide what is perhaps critical information from the reader. If an article is potentially deficient, especially in terms of content as opposed to style, a reader should be forewarned in as bold a manner as feasible. A fine-print tag is something I associate with tobacco warnings, insurance ads and snake-oil salesmen, rather than an open honest system that wikipedia aims to be. Abecedare 04:07, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

I would agree with you if the tags were a reasonable guarantee that the problem they announce is actually true, but, in point of fact, anybody can slap a tag on an article at any time, without having to provide justification or proving their case. (I'd also want the tags to be redesigned to be less obstructive, but that's another matter.) If there was some kind of process or procedure in place to insure that tags were only placed in serious cases, after either extensive discussion or soul-searching on the part of the editor, that would be one thing, but, as I mentioned above, the vast majority of tags that I've found have not been justified or discussed in the article's talk pages, and it's clear that some editors do almost nothing except seek out articles that they disagree with, or which fit some preset conditions, and hitting them with tags. This kind of "drive-by" tagging is what's created the epidemic, and it's diluted the value of the tags to the point where having them up top is not justified. But, in any case, the tags are not "hidden", since the pointer to them is right there at the top of the page.

I will make an analogy I've made before: if we make an analogy between Wikipedia and a print encyclopedia, opening an article with multiple tags at the top is equivalent to opening the reference book and finding that the article you want is covered in post-it notes containing messages from the book's editors: "I think this article needs some work," "The sourcing on this article is deficient", "Let's get a more global view on this" and so on. This does not increase the user's appreciation of the diligence of the editors, it serves to decrease their respect for the reference work.

Now, it's true that Wikipedia is not a print encyclopedia, it's an online encyclopedia (one in the midst of discovering exactly what that means, if people would only let it find out), but the analogy still holds. Tags could be messages to the reader, if they were authoritative (as authoritative as the articles aspire to be) and well-regulated, but in the absence of those attributes, they are merely (at best!) post-it notes between editors, if they are not actually "opinion graffiti". Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk/cont) 04:38, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

But, this is patently untrue; again, you appear only to object to "drive-by" tagging — a practice which is contrary to the purpose of tags. Tags, especially ones that go beyond simple clean-up requests, can be summarily reverted if they are not discussed. This has been repeatedly affirmed on numerous pages -- only uncontroversial tags should remain in place. If you feel a tag is not appropriate, then remove it, don't systematically undermine the purpose of tags by removing them out of sight, and thus, out of mind.

Your analogy to a print encyclopedia is perhaps apt. Print encyclopedias are edited, the published -- one would not expect to see "post-its" in a published work. But, Wikipedia is in the process of being edited. That is its very nature -- what you are looking at is a work in progress; and its readers are the editorial staff. The "published" versions of Wikipedia are the CDs the foundation publishes; and you won't see "post-its" in those. --Haemo 17:03, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

To say Wikipedia is a "work-in-progress" is a little misleading, because we generally use that expression for something that's in the process of moving to some pre-set state of completion, but that's not the case here. Wikipedia will never be "completed" unless it is shut down and abandoned. As long as it exists, it's going to be in the process of being worked on, much like a living entity. And a living entity exists in the here-and-now just as much as it potentially exists in the future, but we don't expect to relate to other people as they might be someday, we interact we them as they are right now.

So as a reference work, we really can't behave as if we're saying to the reader "Please excuse our appearance while we get ourselves in order", the reference work is meant to be used right now, and anything in its makeup which gets in the way of being used right now should be strongly considered for renovation. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk/cont) 02:54, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

A fair assessment, in my opinion. Editors in good faith feel they are improving Wikipedia by adding tags when they vaguely feel that improvement is needed. If they raised their concern on the talk page this would be useful, even if half the time the most appropriate response would be {{sofixit}}. However, tags provide a message to the world that "this article's rubbish", insulting editors who are doing their best and leading to arguments when the tag is deleted. Where an article is completely unreferenced at tag at the top can be a suitable caution to unwary readers, but when it has at least one reference a more detailed and nuanced criticism is needed: a tag under a "References" heading makes the suggestion, and adds the article to a category for anyone using such categories to find something to do.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Dave souza (talk • contribs) 09:42, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you, dave souza, but your example can be best fixed by common sense; the {{references}} tag states that the article has no references, so I would hope that any Joe or Jane editor would see that if the article contains even one references, it is not, in fact, entirely unreferenced. I am obviously one for putting necessary tags for overlong plots, trivia, and similar other section-specific templates in the section it belongs; that's also common sense, I should hope. I would also hope that templates that deal with POV or OR are placed in a corresponding section, unless it's an extreme case and it is obvious that the entire article needs help. My concern is mostly with visibility, and the mistaken belief that articles need to be cleaned-up for the sake of aesthetics. Tags are useful, they serve a purpose, both categorically and accessibly -- why hide them at the bottom of the page? The "pointer" is also fairly inconspicuous and easily overlooked by Wikipedia's "readers." María (críticame) 12:47, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Woops, sorry for failing to sign. It's really a question of balance, and a lack of common sense from some taggers. Dr. Gene Scott desperately needs cleaned up, but the two tags are a bit iffy – "This article has been nominated to be checked for its neutrality." relates to a recent comment "There is not one mention of the man's controversial nature, and bizarre presentation" - there's a source for that in the talk, why didn't the tagger just add a mention? "This article has been tagged since July 2006" as not citing refs or sources, technically true, but the nine external links listed look very much like sources from the days when references which were external links were commonly put under "External links". So, the tagger couldn't be bothered checking to see if these were sources for the article as written, and for a year no one else has bothered either. Tags can tend to be a way of not doing anything. .. dave souza, talk 19:23, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Maria: The "pointer" is also fairly inconspicuous and easily overlooked by Wikipedia's "readers." A number of people have made that objection, here and elsewhere where this is being discussed, and I think it's a valid one. I made the pointer small because I found that the tags at the top get in the way of using the article, but perhaps I made it too small, perhaps there is an aesthetically acceptable middle ground where the pointer is large enough to attract the kind of attention that folks want, but not so large as to disfigure the page and get in the way? Also, perhaps my second revision of the pointers wording could be beefed up in some way. Does anyone have suggestions, I'd be very interested in hearing them. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk/cont) 03:04, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

I came here after finding the tags on Dr. Gene Scott at the bottom of the page. (Please don't ask me why I was looking up Dr. Gene Scott :) ) In any case, I disagree that editors and readers should be seen differently. Since all readers are potential editors, a tag at the top of the page encourages participation. I don't see good articles being tagged. Tagged articles that I see are usually tagged for a reason. Especially as a generation grows up with wikipedia, it is important for wikipedia to be honest about its limitations, to be seen as a first source of collective knowledge, and not the authortative source on anything. Tags at the top remind everyone of the limitations of what wikipedia is, and encourages deeper study of the subject, which also encourages better editing of articles. 16:48, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

I wrote the above statement, sorry for screwing up the wikicode XinJeisan 16:49, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

That is not my experience at all, I'm sorry to say. I haven't done any kind of formal survey, but I use Wikipedia extensively on a daily basis, not primarily for editing, but to look things up, and what I've found is that close to 50% of the articles I reference have tags on them -- and I'm not looking only in a limited range of subjects, I'm generally all over the map. If 50% of Wikipedia's articles are really so deficient that they deserve pointing out their deficiencies to the reader, then Wikipedia is a lot less useful than I've actually found it to be, and it hardly deserves to be used as a reference work. I don't think that's the case, since most of the articles I read are functional and informative. (In fact, the biggest problem I've found is that some of the articles are very poorly written.)

Perhaps some kind of blue-ribbon panel of well-respected Wikipedia editors should take a look at the tagging situation to see if, as I contend, it's out of control and needs re-vamping. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk/cont) 03:15, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

I have done a formal survey -- in fact, I've done five of them. In general, less than 5% of all articles are tagged, and even in the most-tagged group, biographies of living persons, only 15% are tagged. Either you're viewing a very atypical selection of articles, or you're experiencing confirmation bias. --Carnildo 04:07, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Really!? That very much surprises me, because I spread out across a fairly wide range of subjects, and it's not my experience. I'd love to see whatever information on your survey that you have -- methodology, sample, results. Thanks. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk/cont) 15:37, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

The surveys are at User:Carnildo/The 100, User:Carnildo/The 100 Biography, and User:Carnildo/The Living 100 Biography (partial survey, only 65 pages rather than the intended 100). Sampling methodology was to click Special:Random until I found enough articles that met the criteria for the survey, recording interesting information about each article. "The 100" was re-checked three months, six months, and nine months later, to see how the articles changed over time. --Carnildo 02:00, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm with Ed, alteripse, and dave. References go at the bottom; that's why they're called footnotes. For exactly the same reason, tags, which are a sort of anti-reference, also belong on the bottom. All that needs to be at the top (if that) is something to indicate that the tags exist, and then anyone who's interested in seeing them can look at the bottom, just as people do now if they're interested in seeing the references and other footnotes. Zsero 02:29, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

I see no analogy between tags and footnotes. As I said, some tags need to be front and centre, to alert all readers that an article's content is disputed. Hornplease 08:14, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

First of all, I think a similar activity (and one which is almost universally recognized as positive) that you may want to consider is moving tags to the appropriate section for articles where the tag only applies to a small part of the overall article (especially true for POV problems).

That said, I think whether to tag on the top or the bottom depends very much on the nature and severity of the problem. If an article is sourced but is just not particularly well-written or formatted according to WP standards, okay, tag it at the bottom. That's more of an administrative issue than a warning.

On the other hand, for articles that have significant POV problems or have literally no sources, I strongly feel the tag needs to go at the top. By the time a reader gets to the bottom, they may already have changed their opinion, possibly based on wrong information. This is a very bad thing.

To sum up: If there are no major concerns about the accuracy and neutrality of the article, okay, I think Ed Fitzgerald has a point. The tags on top is a bit ugly. But articles that are inaccurate or biased should be made ugly with a tag, so that all readers are 100% clear that what they are reading may not necessarily be on the up and up. --Jaysweet 17:23, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

I strongly support that as a reasonable compromise. Hornplease 00:59, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

I hope so -- any ideas about what direction that compromise should go in? Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk/cont) 02:42, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Jaysweet: But articles that are inaccurate or biased should be made ugly with a tag If the tags were authoritative, that would be a different situation, I agree, but what mechanism could be put in place to assure that? Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk/cont) 02:42, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I strongly support continuation of status quo. There appears to be a contradiction - Ed wanted to prevent articles from being defaced he is still leaving a tag up front. So he went in for small text. But he is not adverse to increasing their size, as per his comments above. This then contradicts the whole purpose. Any tag is ugly! If we dislike the tags, time is better spent addressing the problem and removing the tag - by cleanup, referencing, etc. By shoving the tag you only hide the issue - that there is a problem with the article. AshLin 16:46, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I think there's a clear aesthetic difference between a single line of bolded text, even if it's bigger than the small type I used, and those huge and unsightly tag boxes which seem to grow bigger and uglier, with more and more text in them, every day - especially (as is the case with some frequency) when there is more than one tag on the article. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk/cont) 02:42, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

MONGO: vexatious litigation

Yet another frivolous RfC on MONGO: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/MONGO 3, this time by an obvious sockpuppet. It has been certified by two people and consequestly moved to "Approved pages" on the Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct page. But isn't that formalism run mad? Does the community actually "approve"? I have moved the page from "Approved" to a new section I just created, Vexatious litigation, defined as a special section for frivolous RfCs on MONGO.[12] (Non-frivolous RfCs on MONGO, should one be brought, go in one of the other sections.) Comments? Bishonen | talk 15:54, 6 July 2007 (UTC).

I object. There was nothing frivoluous about this Rfc. These were serious violations of the norms of conduct that should be been clearly exposed and condemned by the community as unacceptable. That the evidence presented was quickly deleted is also disturbing. Esp. on the basis of some technicality that could have been easily remedied? Wikilawyering, and frivolity is what we have here by those who have suppressed a valid examination of a serious and ongong problem with Mongo on this article. I have nothing against him personally, but his behavior has been out of line. If a Rfc is deemed the incorrect approach to get the community to stand up and issue preventative measure to stop him from continuing it, then I take it an Arbitration case would be?Giovanni33 01:27, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

P.S. My re-structuring of the main RfC page has been reverted, well, fancy that.[13] Bishonen | talk 16:14, 6 July 2007 (UTC).

That seems just about right. To would-be Wikilawyers: if you wish someone to be more polite, be more polite to them. Eventually, they'll get the point. Filing an RfC as if it's a lawsuit will probably not have the effect you desire, and it might cause the community to think less of you. In this case, you didn't score any points in any column where you want them. -GTBacchus^(talk) 16:07, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Looks like you were reverted. The Rfc is unsubstantiated. I was never informed by the filing parties on my usertalk or via email. No effort on my usertalk or via email has been made to work things out...just editors who toss out insults and evade admin warnings repeatedly and then when someone like me stands their ground with them and calls a spade a WP:SPADE they get hot and bothered. I do have a compliant board and had they simply come there and griped, they could have even possibly won a few terrific barnstars!--MONGO 16:15, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Which ED sock is it this week, one wonders? Corvus cornix 16:15, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for commenting on a situation you didn't even bother to even glance at. --MichaelLinnear 07:17, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

What makes you think "I didn't even bother to glance at it"? I did, in fact, read the whole thing, and went to the RfC page to review that, and, once again, just see more of the same attacks againt a well-respected member of the Wikipedia community who has had to endure personal attacks and lies not only on Wikipedia, but spread throughout the Internet. Why would you feel the need to support the whining of brand new users who are obviously sock puppets with an axe to grind, over a well-known, well-respected, long-established member of the community? Corvus cornix 22:33, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Actually I largely agree with Mongo's concerns about the article. However the mudslinging by many different parties there is really too far. Nearly all are experienced editors who should know better, again many different people are at fault here. And smearing people as "ED socks" is out of line, a lie, and quite rude. --MichaelLinnear 02:39, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

And you know this new user is not an ED sock how? Corvus cornix 16:02, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

I guess that's an offense of which people are guilty until proven innocent? Wikipedia:Assume bad faith! *Dan T.* 18:55, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

You said my assumption that a new user who just happened to find an RfC was probably an ED sock is a "lie". Prove it. Corvus cornix 22:31, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Its up to you to prove the positive assertion obviously, I thought it was far more likely it was a sock of a banned leftist of some kind. --MichaelLinnear 23:39, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

I, in turn, have moved the page to "MONGO Ω", as it certainly seems more than the third or even thirtieth RFC against him. Will ^(talk) 16:22, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

You know, the fact that this RFC was created by Seabhcan without ever having attempted to resolve the dispute (as required) could arguably be seen as a blockable offense under Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Seabhcan#Seabhcan_is_placed_on_personal_attack_parole. Thatcher131 16:37, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Lets not do that...I just hope he doesn't decide to go to arbcom as I believe it will be a really bad idea for all involved. I think the best thing to do is for all warring parties on the article in question take the weekend off from that place...I intend to...little is being accomplished in the talkpage there anyway...just a lot of mudslinging by all of us.--MONGO 16:40, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Nuked. As was blatantly apparent from the RfC, the people creating this had no intention of trying resolve their differences with MONGO before going to RfC. They presented no evidence that they had tried to resolve their personal differences with him, other than a recantation of their farcical grievances. Uncertified RfC gets deleted. You have to actually resolve the dispute before resorting to mud-flinging. Moreschi ^Talk 16:59, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm afraid I don't fully understand, though these kind of processes are still kinda a mystery to me (I've never participated in an RfC before). I did not start this RfC and had not planned to do anything like that, but once it was started I signed on as being in agreement with the summary (and added a small piece of evidence) because in my opinion MONGO was behaving in a very uncivil fashion and not responding well to comments from users (including me) to tone down his rhetoric (I similarly asked a user on the other side of the debate to do the same thing on their talk page). MONGO should absolutely have been told about this and the fact that he was not is probably reason enough to cancel this thing (I did not realize he had not been informed), but I guess I do not see what the huge problem is beyond that. I don't see how one of the users who signed on to it is an "obvious sockpuppet" but maybe I'm missing something. Perhaps more effort could have been made to engage MONGO, but when I asked him on the article talk page to stop the incivility he told me to "not wikistalk my edits and stop POV pushing" while largely ignoring my complaint about his behavior (he was similarly non-responsive on his talk page regarding a separate issue, so it did not seem possible for me to work out anything with him, though as I said I would not have opened an RfC). Looking at my edit history I think you will see that I am a good faith user and nobody's sock nor an SPA. I agree with MONGO that it's best for all of us to take time off from the article talk page (most of us seem to be doing that) and perhaps an RfC would have just made things worse, but the manner in which this RfC was closed down (for example creating a special RfC section just for MONGO, and another editor moving the RfC title to "MONGO Ω" while posting a note on MONGO's talk page which says "They can't just shut the fucking hell up, can they?" and awarding him a barnstar) does not inspire a great deal of confidence in me as to how this was handled. If the RfC was set up poorly (particularly by not informing MONGO) I think it was shut down poorly too. I find these processes very intimidating and was reluctant to even sign on to this, but I found MONGO's behavior extremely problematic (unlike other users on the article talk page who were beginning to work together a bit) and wanted to try to do something about it because trying to communicate with him was not working. Unlike MONGO, I'm not well known with a bunch of friends here on Wikipedia, and don't particularly enjoy sticking my neck out like this, but I wanted to point out that it is possible to have issues with MONGO and not be a an ED sock or a troll or a habitual RfC filer etc. etc. I'm not sure if some of the folks who've posted here even read the basis for the dispute (including a comment MONGO made accusing a new anon editor of being anti-American simply because s/he apparently had an IP address from Brunei) but it was substantive in my opinion, which is not to say that I'm asking for it to be re-opened because I am not since I understand the problems with how this was filed. Thanks, and sorry for the lengthy post.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 17:43, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

The truth of the matter is MONGO seems protected. He has created articles on many wildlife related places and as such as earned a status where he is not required to be civil to others. After reading over the past RfC's and RFaR's, which there are 4 total. It seems Wikipedia operates more on the buddy system then anything, being able to contribute over weighs hostility. I am apparently a sockpuppet because the intricacies of Wiki markup, you know adding a < and closing with a >, the very basic tenants of html are to be a mystery. I only hope I too can garner a large sum of edits so I can no longer be held accountable for attacking people based on their place of origin. You would think the existence of 4 total prior complaints would lead to someone questioning the overzealous hostility, I believe that is what Arbcom called it. --SixOfDiamonds 17:47, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Nuked as I was trying to endorse Bishzilla's outside ROAR, darnit. Regarding "protection" - I wish. Were he protected, he wouldn't have been de-sysopped for holding the line against POV pushing vandals and edit warriors, and oh yes - not being sweet enough to them as they ran roughshod over every Wikipedia policy in place. KillerChihuahua^?!? 18:12, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Update: My creation of a special "Vexatious litigation" section for bad-faith MONGO RfCs on the Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct page was reverted,[14] by User:.V., but has been reinstated[15] by User:Bunchofgrapes. It's still there now, two hours later ... so I'm allowing myself to hope the section will become a standing and useful feature of the RfC/User Conduct page. Perhaps it could accommodate other frivolous RfCs than those on MONGO, too? Please remember to place your bad-faith RfCs there and nowhere else. Bishonen | talk 18:31, 6 July 2007 (UTC).

Is this a productive line of dialogue? I mean, it's funny, and I understand the spirit in which you're working here, but are we actually addressing a problem in a way that will lead to a solution? Is "calling a spade a spade" actually helpful here? (Is it helpful ever?) -GTBacchus^(talk) 18:35, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

This is pretty sad people are honestly advocating here on Wikipedia, a global project, that it is ok for Mongo to call people "Anti-American" because of the country they are editing from. Its is disgusting that people would allow that to happen, and insult those who bring it forward. These are the types of things that end up giving Wikipedia a bad name, things that end up in news articles. --SixOfDiamonds 18:56, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Sigh SixofDiamonds leave MONGO alone, that useless RFC you did and the comments you making here didn't doesn't help. Take your Point of View somewhere else. Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 19:00, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

So is Bishonen's "Vexatious litigation" section serious or just a joke? I'm asking in all seriousness because I cannot tell, and that is not good. Personally I find the phrase "Non-frivolous RfCs on MONGO, if any, go in one of the sections above" disturbing because the snippy phrase "if any" implies that there could not be a non-frivolous RfC against MONGO, which is obviously not true. I'm sure Bishonen did not mean to say it that way and maybe her creation of that section is largely tongue-in-cheek, but if so it's not particularly funny in my opinion. Bishonen's last comment does nothing to comfort me about how the deletion of the RfC went down, and I do feel some of the points I raised in my comment above are worthy of a reply from those who were involved in closing this out and changing the name to "MONGO Ω". In general I'm wondering if others feel if this is the way we should do business around here (i.e. making light of legitimate and serious complaints about user conduct, even if the original RfC was admittedly improper in certain respects). I'm asking about this in good faith and really would appreciate replies, if this is an improper thing to bring up in this venue let me know and I could discuss it on user talk pages. Thank you.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 19:16, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

The "Update" above came out a little meaner than I intended it. I'm sorry. I guess I'll revert the "Vexatious litigation" section on the RfC page myself, if it's still there. Bishonen | talk 20:04, 6 July 2007 (UTC).

• It was reinstated, but I removed it again. .V. _[Talk|Email] 20:05, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Thank you Bishonen for your reply and mea culpa, no worries, and to V for removing the section on the RfC page. I guess we should just move on from this. Hopefully those of us working on the State terrorism by the United States article can work more civilly with one another in the future, otherwise I fear the same issues mentioned in the now-deleted RfC (and to be fair some of the concerns mentioned there probably apply to other editors besides MONGO, and on both sides of the issue) will come up again.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 21:07, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Is this an acceptable edit?

• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=State_terrorism_by_the_United_States&diff=142403955&oldid=142403728

MONGO's summary: "revert vandalism by anon IP, soon ot end up blocked...shoul we belive than an editor from Brunei Darussalam is not anti-American? I think not.". Note that the edit which was reverted was not vandalism, but a content dispute. 200.58.112.238 21:19, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps not a good edit summary, but that IP has 4 edits and not one to a talkpage and was adding contencious material (I and others disagreed with it) repeatedly. Please use your username.--MONGO 22:30, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Only perhaps!? It's not a question of it maybe not being a good edit summary--its clearly is a gross and unacceptable violation of policy that should have earned you a block. First, you call it vandalism, when the editor was actually restoring (not adding, as you claim) the long standing and most stable version, supported by various editors; he was removing the additions that went against consensus, added by UltraMarine. His edit was supported by many other long term, established editors. Thus, this was clearly a content dispute, yet you wrongly label it as vandalism. Surely you have been around long enough to know that is not appropriate. Add to that the bullying threat that he is "soon to end up blocked."

Secondly, and more serious, is the fact that you felt it necessary to do an IP search to discover this editors country of origin, and then make a personal attack on this editor based on his national origin—the country he happened to be editing from, as if that is relevant. Maybe you something against Brunei or its people (I don't know) but its very repugnant and ugly to display such prejudice openly, much less use it as the basis to attack an editor, i.e., attacking him on the basis of his national origin. That crosses any conceivable grey lines, and is not something to be tolerated anywhere, by anyone, at anytime. If you don't see how wrong what you did is (not just perhaps), then we have a serious problem (it also calls into question your fallacious reasoning process on these types of articles). Unless WP takes a strong stance against this behavior, per its rules, it shares in the complicity of allowing it to continue. If it becomes known that WP tolerates this kind of behavior, then it does immeasurable damage to the projects reputation.Giovanni33 00:49, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, perhaps. I don't add anything ever that could conceivably be seen as contencious to articles about other countries. I have nothing against that country where those edits came from...the question is, does that person have a beef with the U.S. to add such material. Claiming long term editors have more clout on material in article space is akin to saying you own the article, which you don't. I urge you to prove to me that you are here to incorporate neutral information into our articles and not misuse Wikipedia as a soapbox or advocacy platform for your cherry picked references to advance a position.--MONGO 04:21, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for a civil response. You say: "the question is, does that person have a beef with the U.S..." I disagree. That is not the question at all. It doesn't matter if an editor disagrees with US foreign policy or not (what I assume you mean by "beef with the US"). It's not our POV's that matters. Sure, we all have bias, but we should not let that get in the way--even if its reporting on political concepts and perspectives (i.e. the concept of State terrorism and the allegations that the US has been guilty of such practices) that we personally disagree with. But, why is that question presumptive based on the editors national origin? That remains unanswered. What does this editors nationality have to do with anything? You say you never add anything contintious to article about other countries. Well, what you wrote in that edit summary is an attack on the editor for being from another country, and therefore you are implying that merely being from that country makes the editor, in your mind, "anti-American" (whatever that silly term means). That is certainly a contentious (and irrational) written comment about another country and/or its people.

The fact is we have many subjects that are very contencious in nature, and there is nothing wrong with working on and adding such material, provided it means WP requirements of Verifability, Notablity, and Reliablity, among other sound policies. Among these other sound policies is assume good faith that is esp. important on such topics. Thus, I don't have to prove to you first that that my edits or participation are in good faith, that I'm interested in developing this project according to its goals, including this article in question, making it an educational and encyclopedic article that reports on these notable observations from various notable sources, using reliable referenced material--the only extent of my "cherry picking". I welcome all relevant POV's to balance the article provided it follows the same criteria, and is relavent to the subject matter.

It seems you are operating on a the wrong assumption: an editor does not need to first prove to you he is editing in good faith per policies, before you can consider if you want to treat him as a good faith contributor, and then be civil, etc. There is no such burden of proof. When there is an assumption to be made, (prior to proof one way or the other), then that assumption, per policy, is to assume its good. Otherwise, you will be excessively combative, and work to work with others, of other POV's (yes, including far leftists like myself. I've read your blog so I know you are quite right-wing, but that doesnt bother me). If we do not assume good faith (and follow the other rules) we will spiral downward, with the project suffering in the end. WP has good rules. I only ask that we all be expected to follow them not as a luxury but as a requirement. If for whatever reason one finds he can not follow the rules for a particular article (and that includes being civil), then one should simply not edit in that article. Adherence to these rulres, I think, are prerequisite for the privlege of editing.Giovanni33 07:03, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't have a blog! Please, link me to the blog so I can see what I have supposedly been writing there.--MONGO 07:15, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

I had just assumed this [16] was your blog based on the name and similar politics. If its not, then I stand corrected (not that this fact matters). I've answered all your quesitons, but you keep ignoring mine.Giovanni33 17:45, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

My politics are not the same as that person. Your comments aren't worth responding to if your reading ED to get your facts about me.--MONGO 22:13, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't matter what your politics are, just as it doesn't matter what mine are (or the editor you suspect of having a "beef with the US" because he is en editor in Brunei). That is the point. I don't know what ED is, but I do know you keep evading the issue, and ignoring the important questions posed to you. Are you afraid to answer them because the answer is not one you, or others, can in good faith support?Giovanni33 01:55, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

I disagree with Giovanni that MONGO's reply was "civil". MONGO presents as an arbiter of fairness -- "I urge you to prove to me..." -- when it is no contributor's responsibility to prove their good intentions to any other individual contributor. The policy is to "assume good faith." Proof isn't required when a condition has already been stipulated. MONGO violates the stipulation of good faith by asserting a person's good faith, in this instance faith "that you are here to incorporate neutral information", is not to be assumed, but proven to him as the sole arbiter of what is good or neutral. MONGO has failed to prove consistent neutrality -- especially by calling those who offer neutral information that is less than flattering of United States "anti-American."

MONGO improperly asserts a claim of proprietary interest in the content of Wikipedia when he demands that someone prove to him personally their intent with regard to "our articles." MONGO is part of no organization that owns any article on Wikipedia. MONGO edits here as a guest of and donor to the Wikimedia Foundation. The Foundation is not a membership organization and MONGO is not a member of any organization that owns these articles. The articles are the property of Wikimedia Foundation, licensed for free distribution under GFDL. MONGO and Wikipedia would accomplish much more for the world's access to collective knowledge if they would use reason rather than intimidation to resolve conflicts. Intimidation by inappropriate claims of authority and ownership is not civil. H8 Buster 18:11, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Another brand new account that finds its way to ANI and jumps straight in to a dispute about MONGO. Yawn! ElinorD (talk) 07:20, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

The fact that is a new account is irrelevant. Lets focus on the content of what their claims are, the merits or lackthereof, its veracity, instead of who happened to make them. Obviously its a puppet account, but it seems to be a legitimate use of a socket puppet, since some people, apparently, have a fear of speaking their mind, openly, without fear of retaliation, hence the anon account. Lets respect the users choice not to disclose their main account and focus only on the argument they make.Giovanni33 17:53, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

I do not understand why we are allowing this harassment to continue. I propose blocking the SPA's and blanking their contributions to these threads.Proabivouac 07:23, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand why you call pointing out serious and repeated policy violations, and discussions about this conduct, harassment. Its like a women who has been raped, saying, "why did you rape me, stop raping me,' and you asking the women why is she harrassing her rapist? The question is absurd. Mongo has yet to even agree to stop violating WP policy. WP rules must apply to everyone. Do you disagree?Giovanni33 17:50, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a democracy. The opinions of long-term, productive, non-disruptive contributors to the site have more weight than brand-new accounts or single-purpose accounts, period. Brand-new accounts especially are to be ignored if they jump into disputes like this since it is very easy to create an illusion of consensus for or against a person or proposal simply by churning out new accounts. The fact that nobody here is agreeing with you should be a signal to stop digging. - Merzbow 18:23, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

I apologise for interjecting this comment, but a long-term, productive, non-disruptive contributor to the site,like (ahem) myself, might think that the statement quoted is worthy of condemnation, but be unwilling to jump into a dispute marked with such unpleasant attacks. So the above comment is both incorrect and counter-productive. Hornplease 01:04, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

I sympathize to a degree, but unfortunately there is no way to distinguish productive contributors commenting anonymously from abusive trolls spawning sockpuppets (like the EDers who've been harassing MONGO), so comments from fresh accounts can only be treated with the utmost skepticism. - Merzbow 02:46, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorrry Merzbow, your 5163 edits do not qualify you for the right to express that opinion. 86.149.97.92 13:03, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

I, for one, object to the attitude MONGO and his friends are taking here, and I'm far from being a single-purpose account, a new account, or anybody's sockpuppet. *Dan T.* 18:44, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Apparently you've been harboring a grudge the size of Jupiter against MONGO for a while, and have been warned before by an admin about stalking him. You're hardly unbiased in this matter. - Merzbow 20:49, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

When you can't defend what MONGO does, I guess character-assassinating his critics is the next best thing, huh? *Dan T.* 23:38, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Haha, and the username is real charming isn't it. --MichaelLinnear 07:26, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

As usual, because of the powerful clique he has behind him, MONGO proves to be of an Untouchable Caste, with a free pass to be as uncivil as he wants, and anybody who objects to it gets personally attacked with impunity. *Dan T.* 03:07, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

I found the contempt with which this complaint was met with to be very disappointing, not helping to reach a resolution at all. --MichaelLinnear 21:59, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

I am a bit confused by all of this as well, such a hateful quote assuming all people of a country are Anti-American would surely have led to a block if not ban for hate speech to anyone else. I have decided not to work with MONGO at all from this point forward, there are others on the article who actually are attempting to work in a civil manner such as Tom. --74.73.16.230 10:51, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Just drop it already the admins here are on MONGO's side, no one is caring that he made a xenophobic attack on someone. Like Merzbow said, they value his ability to write articles on parks more then anyone else chiming in here. Edit count > civility. If you do not like it, start some articles and you to will gain privileges. --SixOfDiamonds 20:11, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

I am somewhat disturbed that even established users still don't understand the concept of consensus. The 'powerful clique' is called 'consensus'. I am sorry that some of you find yourselves on the other side of consensus and must therefore resort to ad hominem arguments about cliques and cabals. Perhaps if you feel that way you should reconsider how you are contributing to such a consensus based project like Wikipedia? --Tbeatty 06:30, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

This discussion is about one person, not the illuminati, please take your tin foil hat off. SixOfDiamonds

That's out of order, dear chap. Nick 10:50, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

The hilarity of that bothering you more then someone saying everyone from Brunei is Anti-American. --SixOfDiamonds 15:46, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

So a blatant lack of respect for fellow editors and an obvious contempt for anything even remotely similar to manners or can be excused by 'consensus' now? If this is what 'consensus' on Wikipedia has degenerated to, I certainly want nothing to do with it. I suppose it's lucky for Wikipedia that the vast majority of people who do the actual work around here neither look at places like WP:ANI, or care.

I wonder if you actually understand the concept of 'consensus', if you think that it's possible to be on the "other side".

Consensus [17]:

1. General agreement among the members of a given group or community, each of which exercises some discretion in decision making and follow-up action.
2. A specific method of community decision making where consent by all parties is required.

I don't believe that there is 'general agreement' or 'consent by all parties' from all editors of Wikipedia (not even amongst the self-selected ones that edit at WP:ANI) that it is acceptable to treat people who have legitimate complaints with the frankly bizzarre and incredibly xenophobic behaviour of another user with mockery and ad hominem, rather than addressing his complaints. Consensus means that everyone to some extent can agree. It doesn't mean that just because someone's friends turned up to agree with him, everyone must have the same opinion and therefore his opinion is OK. 86.149.97.92 07:24, 10 July 2007 (UTC) (User:KamrynMatika)

The ad-hominem arguments I've seen in this thread have been coming from the so-called "consensus" side, not from the critics. The critics have been commenting on MONGO's behavior, not making personal attacks on him, while his defenders are the ones who have been trying their best to character-assassinate the critics by applying labels based on superficial things about their edit history, rather than addressing the substance of their comments. Does it matter if somebody is a "troll" or a "sockpuppet" or has a "grudge the size of Jupiter against MONGO" or is a convicted ax murderer... if they have a valid point about something, it is still valid no matter who made it. *Dan T.* 10:56, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Does that axe you have to grind have a double blade or what?--MONGO 11:04, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

• Comment SixOfDiamonds and 74.73.16.230 are the same editor. Could someone explain to him that it would be helpful if he at least added his SixOfDiamonds username in print when he makes edits with his IP account. We have tried, but he has dismissively ignored our polite requests.--MONGO 21:43, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Done. --John 00:23, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

My opinion? If you play with fire, you're going to get burned. (this goes to both sides - MONGO, that was a rather strong personal attack, but to the other side: removing valid boilerplates isn't on. Discuss first) Will ^(talk) 13:33, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely. Removal of valid boilerplates is a no-no. It can, however be reverted. Dismissing an entire country's contributions as irrelevant and worthy of reversion without discussion because every single editor from there is bound to be anti-American is deeply, deeply worrying. I've never run across MONGO before, and am not likely to in the future, so I have no axe to grind, or see any personal advantage from seeing his wrist slapped a bit. (Needless to say, I have nothing to do with ED trolls, either.) I just think it's bollocks that an attitude like this should be out there and nobody established has reproved him more than the gentle knock above. I compare this sadly with what happened to dab after a far more explicable comment, which he hastened to explain. Hornplease 03:13, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Bullshit! That IP had 4 (four) edits total, none to the talk page and was adding highly POV crap to the article. I saw zero effort on the part of that IP to do anything but edit war. I certainly never add anything perjorative to articles about any other country. So this ongoing hallucination that I am some kind of xenophobic editor, when all I am trying to do is ensure that articles about my own country aren't taken over by POV pushers who are not editing from the U.S. Before you mislabel me again as being xenophobic, I strongly urge you to search my edits and see if I have ever ONCE added perjorative content to an article related to any other country than my own. The edits I revert I definitely consider to be perjorative and I will continue to revert them. I could add all sorts of well referenced but pejorative POV to articles about North Korea, Iran, Syria...you name it, but I don't and have no intention of doing so.--MONGO 05:04, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Please, be civil, at least to someone who specifies that he has no axe to grind. 'Bullshit' is a bit much, I think.. I think you may have misunderstood what concerns me. I do not worry that you are xenophobic, and adding xenophobic material to other countries' articles. I am concerned that your comment, as reported, indicates a predisposition towards believing all others are xenophobic, and thus towards deleting without discussion legitimate worldwide contributions precisely because they do not represent what you feel is domestic consensus, and thus seriously damaging the project. This is also quite clearly incivil at worst and uncollegial at least. Your statement above, I am afraid, goes some way towards confirming my initial impression, and only exacerbates my disappointment that nobody else established seems to be speaking out against it on this occasion.

Since I have said my piece, this will be my last post on the subject. I apologise if I have offended you. Hornplease 07:00, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

There was nothing collegial about that IP's contributions in the least. I have explained this matter but you fail to understand.--MONGO 07:08, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Since I'm adding to it, clearly it wasn't my last post....in my defence, I had come back here to further qualify a few things, but my hand was forced by the above comment. (a) You have explained why you believe you are not xenophobic, but that is not the point at issue (b) the IP's behaviour is not what concerns me at this time (c) I really do not care to get into a discussion about this with you. If it is indeed the case that nobody else thinks that this sort of crap is worth commenting on, then I suggest this section be marked "resolved through careful ignoring of the matter" and be archived. Thanks for your careful attention. Hornplease 07:14, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

ThePromenader's bullying attitude

User:ThePromenader unilaterally moved the template Template:Paris Metropolitan Area to the new title Template:Paris urban area. This move is contested (Template talk:Paris urban area#title change). ThePromenader then "cleverly" edited the original page Template:Paris Metropolitan Area by changing the word "redirect" from capital to lower-case ([18]), thus making a move back to the original title (Paris Metropolitan Area) impossible. This behaviour is not only disgraceful, it is also rude to other contributors, and it is pure and simple bullying. This is not the first time ThePromenader is trying to bully his way in the Paris related articles. Those who have followed these articles are fully aware of this user's unfriendly and uncompromising attitude. Check with some editors who know ThePromenader such as User:Metropolitan or User:Stevage. This latest incident today is just a disgusting example of bullying, I'm appalled. Hardouin 15:48, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Also note that the Template:Paris Metropolitan Area which ThePromenader has unilateraly moved to a new title is used in 263 articles of Paris suburban municipalities (such as Suresnes, Versailles, Sannois, Grigny, and so forth). All these articles now have a template leading to a redirect, which may create problems with some browsers, but did ThePromenader even think about that?! Hardouin 16:09, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

I see user:Stemonitis has now deleted ThePromenader's edit (which consisted in changing the word "redirect" from capital to lower case) in order to allow a move back to the original title: [19]. This is why if you click on ThePromenader's edit that I linked to above it now says "The database did not find the text of a page that it should have found, etc.". Thanks Stemonitis, now what about ThePromenader's action? This guy has so far avoided any real sanctions, except a few blocks for violating the 3RR ([20]). Hardouin 17:06, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Oh, call the waaaaambulance. The above "contributor" has always profited from a lack of knowledgable contributors in our subject (Paris) to publish ficticious and fanciful information (with the goal of highlighting his own 'knowledge' over others ?!) and, even when his contributions were proven unfounded and erronous, he has always bullied and revert-warred to protect the same. The accusations above are just mirrors of those already made of him - he move-reverted twice even after being shown he was wrong through the highest official sources - so go figure. Fanciful and misleaeding 'translations' (instead of easily-found official ones) are embarrassing for a publication that deems itself 'encyclopaedic', and move-warring is evil. Cheers. THEPROMENADER 12:59, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

I've simply renamed an "envious" foreign statistical appelation translation for a real and official one. Please see Talk:Paris urban area or Urban area for referenced proof and motives. Since two years Wiki has been the only "plausible source" to turn up "credible information" for this term. All is fixed now. If anyone has any truck with anything I've done, please feel free to contact me on my user page. Cheers. THEPROMENADER 21:06, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Can we please take this to arbitration? There are years of animosity and revert warring over a pretty subtle issue behind the present complaint. The only resolution is almost certainly for one of the two (Hardouin or ThePromenader) to effectively leave the project and stop editing these articles. But it would take a fair amount of research and listening to both sides to decide which one that should be, and I don't think anyone except an Arbitor will go to that amount of effort. It would be great if the Paris-related articles could be freed from this state of war. And I really don't think that ThePromenader's bone of contention (to do with this statistical definition of the metropolitan area of Paris) justifies his attitude and continued imperious attitude. Both parties are guilty of incivility and revert-warring, so if we have to decide between them, it will have to be on other grounds. Stevage 06:20, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your input, Stevage, but you're a bit late to the gun - and I'd be curious to know what led you here, but no matter. Like I've always said, just look to the facts - Wiki is about that, not attitude - and all will become clear for you. One can't arbitrate anything if doesn't do that, as he'll have no idea - as you still don't - who is right or wrong. Just a couple things to remember: I began contributing to the Paris articles after reading in them things that - after already seventeen years of living here - I knew never existed. Second, before I got there the article had no references section - and even that was resisted - so go figure. I think the attitude you find "Imperious" would better be called "exasperated" - practically two years of having sourced contributions reverted to speculative and unverifiable (expletive) - always by the same person - does tend to take its toll on one's nerves. Cheers. THEPROMENADER 07:01, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

...and consider for a moment the gall of somone coming here to complain because... he wasn't able to revert to his 'own' unverifiable version. I mean, really - this speaks for itself. THEPROMENADER 07:42, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't know anyone who presumes to tell me as often as you do what Wikipedia is all "about". Many people quote policy, others use Wikipedia keywords - but you seem to just use your own terms. Wikipedia is about "facts"? No, it's based on "verifiability". Maybe that's what you meant, but it's much harder to follow if you don't use the same language as everyone else. Sort of the problem with arguing with you in general: I (and probably other people) simply can't follow your argument in order to work out whether you're right, wrong, or just talking about something different. By the same token, claiming that I (or anyone) should just "look to the facts" is impossible. I've tried, I've even looked up the sources you've given, and nothing has ever been clear. Hardouin is at least capable of explaining his argument and responding to direct questions. To make sense of your claims would take many hours of dedicated study - and who will take the time to do it? Certainly no administrator can take a quick glance at both of your edit histories and determine a wrongdoer, and impose some punishment. Perhaps we could find a neutral expert on Parisian demography - and I mean, a real expert - who could read a statement by each of you, and give his opinion on who is correct, and which approach should be used in articles on Paris? Stevage 08:23, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

If you know of any real expert, as please feel free to get in touch with him about this - I'd much appreciate it. Thanks. THEPROMENADER 13:15, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

"Wikipedia is about "facts"? No, it's based on "verifiability."

... for me both are the same, and that's it in a nutshell. I've never contested anything that was verifiable fact, and have always provided mainstream and close-to-the-source references for my contributions - never obscure studies from other countries and international organisations.

My "method of argument"? No, I think it's rather "answering through the details" of the smokescreen that Hardouin often throws at those "less knowledgable". Be careful though: although his argument is carefully constructed to sound like fact, anyone knowing the real situation would realise that many are founded on nothing - or desire at best. His reverting just to take the piss doesn't help things much either.

I'm all for bringing in a real expert - and always have been - I've had schoolteachers and friends tapping their temples at what they see in those articles, but unfortunately experts willing to contribute seem to be lacking in all things "Paris" here. I even left a note about it on the Wikiproject:France talk page - does that really sound like someone who is trying to "hide" anything, or publish untrue statements? Have i ever reverted anything non already a revert to something erronous that was there before? Do I continually complain to people I know are not knowledgable in the subject? No, I leave notes on the foremost contributors in our subject [21][22]. You see a pattern here? THEPROMENADER 09:32, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

PS: You want to hear fun? Hardouin is back with his Ckoicedelire sock-puppet just to change the Paris intro back into an essay on the "metropolitan area" - this term that has never been a translation for aire urbaine [23]. Have I ever resorted to tactics like this? Really, I don't have time for this today. THEPROMENADER 09:38, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

PPS: He's not even trying to hide anymore - doing the same revert as he did - one year before - as Hardouin. Who's the bully here? This is getting insane. Arbitration, please. THEPROMENADER 10:01, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

More accusations I see. Is there an admin that can check check Ckoicedelire's IP and then mine? I am sick and tired of being continuously accused of sock-puppetry by this crazy and paranoid ThePromenader. Sick and tired! Whenever someone writes about the metropolitan area of Paris in the Paris articles, then he's necessarily my sock-puppet. Isn't that insane? Please someone check the IPs then I would appreciate if ThePromenader could be severaly warned for making continuous accusations against me. Note that ThePromenader even went as far as tagging the talk page of User:Ckoicedelire with a self-created "Hardouin sock-puppet" category: [24]. Is this allowed to happen on Wikipedia? Hardouin 15:54, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Not the accusations, but the coincidences, oh, the coincidences. Some newly-registered user arriving on the same page the same day that a one-on-one revert is going on - on three seperate occasions - to continue the revert war on the same passages and the same phrases (to the point of breaking the WP:3RR rule in your usual manner) - and the same's participating in the discussion as though he's been there for years, to boot. There are many ways to access different IP's; let the admins decide. THEPROMENADER 16:15, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

In other words you're saying that you have no proofs and you're making accusations nonetheless, even tagging these guys' talk pages. Your behavior is revolting. Hardouin 16:32, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Oh good lord, your condescending tone. All the above speaks for itself. Good evening. THEPROMENADER 17:33, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Request assistance by an uninvolved admin.

I have, for weeks now, been under attack by an editor who has a grudge, apparently for my deletion of a page at some point in the past. They have repeatedly made accusations on my talk page that there are racist motives behind my deletions. The first two such [25][26] I deleted as trolling. Then they made a third accusation, and began a WP:AN thread with the accusations. Others in that thread stressed that the user needed to back up their accusations with proof. I have since tried to engage the user on my talk page, but it has become obvious that the user does not care to actually read reasoned explanations why they are off-base, but just wants to continue lobbing the accusations of racism at me without making any attempt to back them up. Overall though, I have no clue which deletion of mine could be the cause of all this. Most likely an A7 speedy, from the user's comments, but who knows.

As I am definitely involved in this, it would not be appropriate for me to deal with the continual WP:NPA violations in these unfounded accusations. But if an uninvolved admin could look over the situation and help deal with it, I would appreciate it. - TexasAndroid 06:02, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

I've blocked the IP address for three months, considering that it's been involved in this since at least early June. There's no indication he's done any of use for Wikipedia in the past, and there's no indication he's going to stop anytime soon. I think a nice, long block for such absurd accusations and egregious personal attacks can't hurt. — Rebelguys2 ^talk 07:45, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, I guess he found a new address earlier today. I blocked that one for a week, because I can't yet tell if there's going to be much collateral damage there. — Rebelguys2 ^talk 07:48, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

He's back again. An account this time. Sigh. I'm now going to just resume deleting him as a troll and no longer dignify him with any more responses. - TexasAndroid 00:00, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Indef blocked. At this point, I'd completely endorse you going ahead and blocking any sign of him yourself, unless he happened to decide to engage you rationally. (Whatever happened to that kind of mentality, anyway?) — Rebelguys2 ^talk 08:55, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Anyone else have any objection to my blocking this guy myself? I've been hesitant to do so because I'm the subject of this guy's ire, thus making me a thouroughly involved person. But being able to block him myself would certainly simplify the situation. A lot easier than having to keep coming here for uninvolved assistance each time he pops back up. - TexasAndroid 13:23, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Looking it over, I think at this point it's pretty clear it's a basic troll. You've been more than patient and civil, and he's acknowledged he has no intention of providing details of the alleged offense or of doing anything other than posting racist personal attacks. The AGF phase is over, and he's simply sockpuppeting his way past a block. Block away. Kuru ^talk 23:40, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Kuru. Block on sight. --Anthony.bradbury^"talk" 23:58, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Don't template the n00bs either

[27] It's from a search engine spammer, but the point stands: Templating is not only insulting to the regulars, it's insulting to all recipients.

How about some RFA opposes: "Too much templating, no conversation." That should get the goldfarmers off the templating kick. - David Gerard 07:06, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

I think that using standard templates helps keep things CIVIL and with the right tone. If you create your own message, then no one else had approved of it for the situation. On the other hand, the standard templates have different types and levels - and had been approved by the community for the erlevant situations. Od Mishehu 07:25, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

That is a good point-encouraging people to roll their own will likely just result in more insulting of the vandals. And I'm not going to shed too many tears for the poor, unfortunate linkspammer. (What linkspammer hasn't claimed that their content is essential, ESSENTIAL I tell you, to Wikipedia?) Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 07:30, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

At the same time, when you are reverting and barely keeping up, you either do that, or you don't leave a message at all. The second is even more confusing ("Why did my edit vanish?"), and if you can't afford to stop and write a message to everyone, then I don't know. It's a bad situation, either way. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 07:32, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Using templates is a good idea, but the person placing the template must be prepared to explain it. Anynobody 07:36, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree; personally I always make sure I watchlist a talk page after templating, to ensure that I can personal answer any followup questions they may have. Ƙɽɨɱρᶓȶ 07:38, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

So we now need approval to leave warning messages if they are not the one of the proper templates? CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 07:49, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

What they mean is that you know a templated message is appropriate for the situation, whereas a personalized message might be too harsh, or not clear, or whatever else. --Haemo 07:54, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I've found just the opposite. Templated messages tend to be ambiguous and vague, to the point of uselessness. And since templated warnings are all identical, it give the person recieving the warnings the feeling that they're dealing with a machine, rather than with a person. --Carnildo 08:14, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Some templated messages are understandable but not all. Plus with using the templates you can end up with "Well they didn't get the full 4 warnings." CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 08:25, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

When you disagree with the wording, please either let WP:UW know or edit it yourself :). We are all here to enhance the project, making the warning templates better also counts. For my opinion, templates are very useful for 2 things: first, it allows us to go fast in simples cases (I once started by typing my warnings by hand), and it allows us not to forget to link to the relevant policies/pages. Templates of course are not suitable 100% of the time, but 95% is probably a good estimate. -- lucasbfr ^talk 11:14, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

• (unindent) Templates can be misused, but someone who misuses templates probably wouldn't have written a clear personalized message anyway. When used appropriately, and in moderation, templates are helpful for keeping things calm and providing links to relevent info (something users sometimes forget in personalized messages). It's up to the discretion of the user applying the template... if the message you wish to get across isn't summed up by any template, or the issue requires discussion/diffs, don't just use a template. Leebo ^T/C 11:30, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

As a courtesy, I suggest those concerned about this matter may want to open up a conversation with the Wikipedia editors and admins involved with this case. Wade through this reading some of the Nsusa's posts on SEO sites and you'll see Nsusa is hardly the innocent he has proclaimed himself to be in his complaint. He just didn't like getting caught. Also check out his posts on http://www.syndk8.net (not published in Google's results); Nsusa is a very sophisticated black hat spammer.

Also see:

• User talk:Nsusa

Properly selected, templates reduce the likelihood of conflict and usually increase the civility of interaction. From my own experience, 90% of "noobs" getting spam templates have really been spamming and already know they're misbehaving before they even get their first template. Most of the other 10% didn't know they were breaking rules but they didn't know it; {{welcomespam}} and {{Uw-spam1}} are very mildly worded. I'm sure there are occasionally some "false positive" spam warnings given out but I certainly don't see many.

Hu12 is probably the most active and effective spam-fighter Wikipedia has. --A. B. ^(talk) 14:29, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

More micromanagement... feel free to do RC/New pages/whatever patrol yourself and leave verbose custom messages for every user. But using templates is a necessary part for keeping up with the neverending flow of new articles for the tiny percentage of Wikipedians willing to deal with them.--W.marsh 14:19, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

He's still complaining about being labeled a spammer, and now he's also explaining how easy is it to spam wikipedia. --OnoremDil 14:36, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Remember as a result of the no-follow attribute, its no longer about SEO, its about harvesting visitors from Wikipedia in order to get "clicks" for money (adsense and yahoo). In which case this user Net Services USA LLC (Pay Per Click Marketing and SEO) was attempting to exploit, in doing so was caught. Any one who has dealt with proffesional spamming of Wikipedia knows the multitude of straw man arguments that are made for linkspam Inclusion. Using a template in clear cut cases like this, avoids argument "baiting", and allows Wikipedia's best interest to be expressed "on point", civily and with the right tone. --Hu12 15:37, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Don't tell me to stop leaving templates, if the admins at WP:AIV won't block until four templates have been left on a User's Talk page. Corvus cornix 19:03, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Speaking personally, I will not block a user who hasn't been warned, but I do not require templates and frequently do not use templates when warning myself. If there are admins who only look for templates then they should be warned (not using a template obviously) that they are being robotic.Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 10:22, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

This I agree with. I reported a repeating IP vandal and harasser there a while back, with rationale for passing over the four-warning system, and got a template (ironic!) in return, explaining the warning system and a personal message saying the IP hadn't been active or warned enough. (The IP subsequently did go quiet for some time, but still.) In this case, I think Hu12 was right on the money; the templates as they are now certainly aren't inflammatory or problematic, and when doing a lot of edits (like monitoring spammers or warning vandals), they're invaluable. Tony Fox (arf!) review? 21:54, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Depending on the length of a personal warning it can be quicker and easier than trying to figure out which of the 500+ warning templates you should be using. I use the spam and the BV templates but that's about it. And no I'm not sticking a BV on IP's who make one penis edit. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 10:12, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

And then, there was light, if you want a nice list of warning templates ;). -- lucasbfr ^talk 10:26, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

I rarely use the BV template, because WP:AIV wonks don't recognize it as one of the official four-level hierarchy. Corvus cornix 16:47, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Promoting Racial Slur at wikipedia

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

Buddhipriya, Abecedare, nids and others are directly promoting Racial Slur at wikipedia. They are major edits are from the 2 editors Buddhipriya, Abecedare for the page Nastika which is a Racial Slur.

"Dayanand Commemoration Volume: A Homage to Maharshi Dayanand Saraswati, from India and the World"

• By Har Bilas Sarda
• Page 154
• Published 1933 Chandmal Chandak

"It conveys simply the derogatory sense of a general character. By using Nastika, the writers want us to understand a negator, one not abiding by the Vedas"BalanceRestored 11:35, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Check more books and references http://books.google.com/books?q=derogatory+nastika+&btnG=Search+Books to understand more about this very word. The term nastik is very similar pejorative as nigger.

They are attacking 2-3 important religions in India.. While there are 66 more religions other than Hinduism in the world who do not follow the vedas.

FYI: This is word that is used at people in India who are cheaply looked at. BalanceRestored 12:22, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

You mean to say that they are promoting racial slurs by editing the article Nastika? Please understand that Wikipedia is not censored. If a term is in common usage, we describe it in an article. Editing an article does not mean endorsement of the subject of the article. Aecis^Brievenbus 12:23, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

In arguing that we should not have an article on this term you compare it to 'Nigger'... on which we have an article. If the term is a racial slur then the article should say that, with references, but we would still have an article. If there is controversy about the use of the term that should be referenced in the article. From your quotation above and the current text of the article it seems like more of a religious denouncement... similar to 'infidel', 'blasphemer', or 'heathen'. --12.42.51.27 12:26, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

This word is a tease for sure. You can ask about the same to people from Indian origin who will tell you the term better. It is a derogatory term that is clearly cited. The article is citing 2-3 religions when all religions other than Hinduism is a non follower of Vedas. Then call all religions Nastik why cite only 2?BalanceRestored 12:40, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

With a little research over the internet you can find that the word hurts the sentiments of people

http://www.echarcha.com/forum/archive/index.php?t-6847.html

http://www.punjabi.net/talk/messages/1/62451.html?1099314940 you can research how the term is being used.. BalanceRestored 12:49, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

What about "Bastard", is the use of this term also ok? It literally mean one who does not have a father. Why not use the same at everyone who does not have a father?BalanceRestored 12:52, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Pointing groups Nastik is also not good. Bastard is their in the English Dictionary, But the same is not used because the term is derogatory.BalanceRestored

this is nothing like "nigger" and more like "atheist". Race has nothing to do with it. For many people, "atheist" is a slur, but that doesn't keep us from having a great atheism article. This doesn't belong on AN/I, and is at the very best a content dispute. dab (𒁳) 16:05, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Agree. 'Nastika' is as far from being a racial slur as possible. It is a descriptive term, which is sometimes used pejoratively; like Dbachmann points out, the comparison to atheist is obvious. I'd suggest this be marked as resolved.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Hornplease (talk • contribs)

You all mean to say even if it would be hurting sentiments of the followers of Just 3 religions we should maintain the names of the Religion in the article. How about I adding references towards the followers of Christianity and other important religion being called as a Nastika being present in that same article, because I am sure they all are called naskita too, and believe me Temples in India are washed after a Nastika enters a temple and leaves it even today, the insults are done to this extent (there was a recent article in a leading newspaper where a minister from a non hindu community entered the temple to check the cracks to be repaired, the temple priests cleaned the entire temple). Will you all not mind about that? It is not just the word, you will need to live in a House that belongs to a Nastika and see things for your self. Again, I do not mind the 2 out of 66 religions being called naskita. But the text that is being presented should be written in a apologetic manner towards those religion.BalanceRestored 05:20, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

The article on Nastika explains, with references, that the term is used in two senses, one of which is a technical term in Hindu philosophy ("unorthodox") and the other is a popular sense ("atheist"). The editor who has made this charge was previously blocked for disruptive behavior, and problems may be starting again. I suggest that editors examine the level of conflict that BalanceRestored is involved with on multiple articles and form their own judgement. Buddhipriya 05:10, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes you should all surely examine my articles, I am into a habit of writing all that is true. I am sure not everyone here like to know the truth because it sometimes will expose dirt that is been hidden for centuries. But my friend "TRUTH IS TRUTH".BalanceRestored 05:31, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Verifiability, not truth. —Kurykh 05:32, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

What do you have to say about this article????

http://in.news.yahoo.com/070613/211/6gy6c.html "Guruvayur authorities say sorry for 'purifying' temple" New Delhi: Almost two weeks and much hullabaloo later, Kerala’s Guruvayur Devasam board officials on Wednesday opined the purification process carried out in temple premises after Union Minister Vylar Ravi’s visit was a mistake.

The Board members said the tantri (priest) of the temple was perhaps misled about the religious identity of Ravi’s grandson whose first-feeding ceremony was held in the temple on May 21.

The officials say that since Ravikrishna's son was not baptised, there were enough reasons to believe that he is a Hindu.

The purification ritual – that sparked off a huge debate about faith and religious identities – was ordered when the chief priest ordered ceremonies such as sprinkling of holy water after the minister’s visit.

The contention was that the minister's wife Mercy was a Christian and the temple does not allow entry to non-Hindus. Though Mercy was not present at the function, he said his son and grandson were seen as her non-Hindu progeny. Non-Hindus are not allowed entry into the Guruvayur Sri Krishna temple in Kerala, as is the case with some Hindu temples in India where age-old religious diktat is followed. Ravi had lashed out at the temple management on May 22 for carrying out the rituals and said his family was contemplating legal action against them over the incident. This was, in fact, the second time that a face-off erupted between the Ravi family and the temple authorities. "My wife is Christian, but I'm Hindu. I am a born Hindu. My children and grandchildren are born Hindus and they are all practicing Hindus," he had declared. A similar ritual was performed when Krishna had visited the temple after his marriage seven years back. "There was a similar controversy when my son got married in Guruvayur. My caste was not allowed temple entry. We protested against it. This incident is shocking. My family is agitated," Ravi had said.

The head priest of the Guruvayur temple, Sathisan Namboodiripad, also made it clear that non-Hindus will not be allowed into the temple.

"Temple traditions are not such that they should be changed with the times. The purpose of this meeting was to make this clear," he said.

BalanceRestored 05:39, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Kindly keep a close check at Buddhipriya and Abecedare as they are promoting articles those are probably hurting sentiments of many in India. I have made them to change many articles by now. BalanceRestored 05:45, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

I have nothing to say about your the article, but I had something to say about your assertion of "truth," a concept that is superseded by a more stringent criterion on Wikipedia. —Kurykh 05:47, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

So, it's only 'probably hurting sentiments'? Well, that runs counter to two wikipedia principles, No speculation, and Wikipedia is NOT censored. Looks like it's time for you to move on. ThuranX 05:53, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

(EC)So... India has bigotry? So what? America does too. The history of a WORD is not the encouragement to the masses to use it hatefully. Books have been written on America's N-word, and just today, the NAACP symbolically buried it. It's controversial. Wikipedia's article on the word covers such controversies; it does not list redneck jokes with 'Nigger' as the punchline. Similarly, the article for Nastika covers it as a word of controversy, and explains the concepts behind it. The article's actually balanced and informative. Changing it to 'ooh this is hate speech' or deleting it and pretending it doesn't exist aren't compatible with Wikipedia's goals. Leave the article alone, and move on. You put too much power into the word, and you make it what you're araid of. Understand it, and it loses its power. Move on. ThuranX 05:51, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Believe me Vedas do not promote these, and Hinduism is not this way. Hinduism is a very honest religion and kindly do not corrupt the same.BalanceRestored 05:47, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

This is not my article, does this often happen in India with the Non Believers or no. Are these not insults. So, when you will add 2-3 religions after insulting nastiks to this extent. What you think will be the mental conditions of the people who will read things against them.BalanceRestored 05:49, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Correction duly noted. However, as I have said, I will not involve myself into the content dispute. Your attempts to solicit my opinion regarding said matters are futile. —Kurykh 05:51, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Then what does is this text for

NPOV requires views to be represented without bias. All editors and all sources have biases. A bias is a prejudice in a general or specific sense, usually in the sense of having a predilection for one particular point of view or ideology. One is said to be biased if one is influenced by one's biases. A bias could, for example, lead one to accept or not accept the truth of a claim, not because of the strength of the claim itself, but because it does or does not correspond to one's own preconceived ideas.

Ethnic or racial

racism, nationalism, regionalism and tribalism;

It is just there for a show... ?????BalanceRestored 06:02, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

The article is neutral. It explains, with references, both the popular and the religious use of the term. The fact that "athiest" can be used as a pejorative means nothing here. --Haemo 06:02, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

But nastika is used as a tease, or gali in India and "athiest" is not. There is a huge difference between the two.

We have articles on subjects which may offend people. That's not limited only to racial slurs. We have articles on fuck, shit, nigger, cunt, pornography, and plenty of other subjects and words which people may find offensive. That doesn't mean that we endorse the article's subjects or the use of offensive slurs, only that they are notable subjects which we catalog. Obviously, such articles are still expected to maintain a neutral treatment of the subject, but Wikipedia is not censored. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 06:09, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

But they are very carefully written down, names of religions are not mentioned in them.BalanceRestored 06:11, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Nigger is a pejorative term used to refer to dark-skinned people, mostly those of African ancestry. For centuries, it has held negative connotations; in modern times it is considered a racial slur in most contexts. see the explanations are very clear. But the word nastika is not written that way.BalanceRestored 06:13, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

again give examples of NPOV Bias, what exactly does that stand for.BalanceRestored 06:15, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Common I challenge you all, write the word ISLAM in that page and show. I will give you clear citations and many incidents about this religion.BalanceRestored 06:17, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

If you cannot write about ISLAM remove the citations of the other two. BalanceRestored 06:18, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

You are mistaken. Atheist is routinely used as a pejorative. That does not make it inappropriate for inclusion; it specifically mentions religion in the article, too. Your claim of non-neutrality is unfounded. --Haemo 06:20, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

http://books.google.com/books?q=ISLAM+OR+muslim+nastika&lr=&sa=N&start=10 there are 100's of citations ..... go ahead and write about this religion. BalanceRestored 06:22, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

What are you even talking about? You're not making any sense. --Haemo 06:23, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

You want to mentions buddhists and jains as nastiks after giving all these explanations you should also mention about ISLAM is that not simple. What is it that you do not understand now?BalanceRestored 06:30, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

The article clearly explains that in the context of Buddhism and Jainism the term means heterodox, in contrast to orthodox; not "atheist". It also clearly explains that it is used in a non-pejorative sense to classify schools of thought into the orthodox/heterodox divide. Since Islam is not part of that classification, you are essentially ignoring the whole point of the distinction to try an get us to use it as a pejorative, and call Muslims atheists. --Haemo

There is the following text and explanation in a cited text to that tell Kabir (A follower of ISLAM) as a Hectic Nastik.

Who Invented Hinduism: Essays on Religion in History

• By David Neal Lorenzen
• Published 2006 Yoda Press
• Page 141
• ISBN 8190227262

So, who ever is ok with the two religions Buddhism and Jainism should add the text that mentions Kabir as a nastik. If you cannot, you should take of the names of all the religion mentioned in the text.BalanceRestored 06:40, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

I am against use any religion referred with a pejorative term. That is the reason I am asking to take off the two religions mentions too... BalanceRestored 06:42, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

It's not a pejorative! That's the whole point! It means heterodox in the context used. It does not mean athiest in the context used. This should be readily apparent to anyone who reads the article. We are not going to call some random Muslim guy an "athiest" because it's in an essay. Not only does that have nothing to do with the article, it doesn't even make a point because you seem to be unable to read context. --Haemo 06:50, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

This is extremely weird as a complaint. The word Nastika is used to refer to Atheists. By no means this is a slur. Please don't mislead. As for reference, please see this from Samsad Bengali Dictionary, where the meaning has been given as

নাস্তিক [ nāstika ] a disbelieving in the existence of God, atheistical; disbelieving in the Vedas or scriptures. ☐ n. an atheist; an infidel. (Note that, this word is originally Sanskrit, and now part of most languages derived from Sanskrit).

So, stop wasting people's time by misleading accusations. Thanks. --Ragib 06:46, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

This is as an example of the fact that it is sometimes difficult to understand what BalanceRestored is trying to say, and it takes quite a lot of effort to determine what the real issues are. Perhaps it is a language problem, but the last time this sort of pattern started it resulted in a ban, which was unilaterally lifted by one Administrator. For an example of the current disruptive behavior by BalanceRestored take a look at the "content dispute" at: [[28]]. Can you follow the argument? I am unable to do so. When the editor's WP:FRINGE claims were reverted in the article on Vedas the editor promptly created the article Pranava Veda advancing those claims. Buddhipriya 06:48, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Kindly disprove the article. I've mentioned the narrations for the same. Both at Talk page and the main article. Now you want to say such a Veda does not exist?BalanceRestored 06:52, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Kindly start a different complaint for the same. The topic for discussion here is something elseBalanceRestored 06:54, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Kindly stay on the topic of this thread, which should be resolved by the dictionary reference. Stop wasting everyone's time by lodging unnecessary complaints. This is *NOT* the Wikipedia Complaints Department. Thank you. --Ragib 06:55, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

He's saying that you have run into the same problems on other pages, just like you are running into them here. I don't if this is just a language problem, or what, but you don't make very much sense, and you seem to have trouble understanding the context of certain article. For instance, this one. --Haemo 06:56, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

I hope that editors who are not familiar with the block history on BalanceRestored will read the conditions under which the block was lifted: [29]. Buddhipriya 07:00, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Ragib are you ISLAM follower? I appologise for dragging your religion here. But, I know follower of ISLAM will not tolerate their religion pejorative reference. Again are you also from India. I've already cited at the start that Nastika is pejorative term and used in India as a Gali or Tease. I objected the utterance of the names of the religions for the same reason. Kindly read from the start of this thread.BalanceRestored 07:03, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Is it ok referring religions with a Gali??? I stop here.. If you all agree keep the articleBalanceRestored 07:05, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Frankly, the religious preference of ANY wikipedia user is NONE of your business. A dictionary definition clearly shows the term to be used in non-pejorative context. You are just causing disruption here, which, according to the terms of your unblock, you were supposed to avoid. --Ragib 07:09, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

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

ED trolling

Please extend the block on 205.251.30.76 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) per finding of fact 16) and enforcement 1) of Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/MONGO - Specifically, vandalising my about page with a very offensive cutpaste of ED's article on me. Will ^(talk) (Originally posted 20:57, 7 July 2007 (UTC)) 11:53, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

That edit was a couple of days ago and there has been no further edits from that IP, which, correct me if I am wrong, is a dynamic IP address. JodyB _talk 12:39, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Correction, it's been blocked. But I still think its a dynamic IP address so extending the block will not accomplish much. JodyB _talk 12:41, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

While that vandalism is certainly childish and offensive, I don't see how ED and enforcement of the ArbCom case are involved; the phrase appears nowhere on ED according to Google. This appears to be just a run-of-the-mill cheesed-off vandal. Ƙɽɨɱρᶓȶ 20:35, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Edit was oversighted on my request due to it containing personal information. Anyone with access to oversight-l can confirm this. Will ^(talk) 21:15, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

No one has to tolerate that kind of harassment...sorry Will.--MONGO 21:19, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Ah, OK. My bad. Ƙɽɨɱρᶓȶ 22:05, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Thankfully, it was only my last name (which, though I did divulge at one point, would rather not plaster on my page), but still, my ED article is sickening to put it politely. Will ^(talk) 00:40, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

It looks like your "friend" Geoffrey Mitchell is the one responsible for that Sceptre, or maybe Sixty Six, but I feel more confident about the former. --MichaelLinnear 20:18, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Hans Godo Frabel and User:Frabel's legal threat

As Hans Godo Frabel is tangentially related to my main focus, the Georgia Institute of Technology, I noticed when Frabel (talk · contribs) made several (positive) changes to the page. As I am familiar with the Wikipedia:Footnotes system, I implemented that and attempted to cleanup the article with a bit of linking and stylistic cleanup. However, User:Frabel displayed ownership of the article, and I welcomed/warned him using {{uw-own1}} on my second revert. He responded with the following legal threat on my talk page:

To Whom It May Concern: If further editing or changes occur on the Hans Godo Fräbel Wikipedia page, Fräbel Gallery & Studio will be forced to take legal action against you for Vandalism and Sabatoge of the Company's name and information. Please take note of this warning.

Thank You,
Fräbel Gallery & Studio

I always report legal threats here, little or small, and while this user appears to be acting in good faith, they need to be hit with an education stick, especially in the areas of No Legal Threats, WP:OWN, WP:NPOV, WP:COI, and the formatting guidelines. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 18:47, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

I placed uw-legal on his talk page. FunPika 19:24, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

I placed {{uw-coi}} also and tagged the article with {{COI}} since it may need cleanup. Suggest you take this to WP:COIN for monitoring. The userid matches the name of the page. This is clear cut COI. Jehochman ^Talk 19:34, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

This needs admin attention because User:Frabel removed the {{COI}} tag, and of course, there is already a legal threat pending by this same user. Jehochman ^Talk 19:48, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

I had no idea WP:COIN existed. You learn something every day... —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 21:15, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

It appears that the user has decided to edit under Crackerjack22 (talk · contribs) today. 5 edits total...2 removing the {COI} tag. --OnoremDil 14:54, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

User:Rex Germanus

On User talk:Rex Germanus, User:Cheiron1312 made a little comment stating something that was obvious. Rex took offense and rudely reverted this comment. So I revert Rex's revert and made my own comment on how he was being dangerously nationalistic. Now Rex has made a personal attack on me calling me a nazi because of what he did. If you look at his talk page, you'll see how he shows his racist view on the German people. If you look at this, you'll see that Rex was placed on 1 year probation. If you look at this, you'll see that Rex has been blocked 6 times since this arbitration case was close and once during the arbitration case. Something honestly needs to be done about this guy. Kingjeff 20:25, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry? A little comment sgtating something that was obvious? Saying I should know better because the Dutch have experience with warcrimes? That's not a little comment, thats a personal attack.Rex 15:40, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

There was no personal attack by anyone but yourself. Kingjeff 15:46, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

It should be pointed out that User:Cheiron1312 has been here since yesterday. Kingjeff 20:27, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Stop edit warring on other people's talk pages. If Rex Germanus reverted a comment he didn't like, that is usually taken as evidence that he read it. It is rude not to respond, but it is also rude to revert other people's talk pages. Thatcher131 20:35, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Rex Germanus (talk · contribs) deletes entries from his talk page as he pleases, and even issues "bans" to others. Thus, many edits are only visible in the history, not in a archive were old talk should be put. Rex also has a habit of replacing comments of others with {{rpa}}, something which he was repeatedly warned not to do User_talk:Rex_Germanus#Personal_attacks. -- Matthead ^discuß!     O       21:11, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't care. It's his talk page, and I know of no admin that will block an editor to force that editor to leave discussions or warnings on his talk page. If you want your comments to stick, use a detailed edit summary. In any case, neither you nor Kingjeff is involved in the content dispute at Nemi Ships, so I am puzzled as to why you are commenting here. Thatcher131 21:30, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm commenting here because of many actions of Rex Germanus I've experienced since 2006. The latest direct confrontion was Rex calling me a vandal [30] for restoring the tags at Heel-Nederland, a still unreferenced article he created. I case you wonder, "Heel-Nederland" is a dutch, related to Groot-Nederland. He promotes dutch names, yet has proven many times his eagerness to erase establish German loanwords from English Wikipedia. His outspoken hate against anything related to Germany can not be tolerated anymore, he is a shame to Wikipedia. -- Matthead ^discuß!     O       21:57, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

You have little to no right to speak. You are the real shame to wikipedia. Its easy to call someone anti German when you yourself are against anything that isn't German (especially poles and Dutchmen) . You might see logic in easily and accepted German titles on the English wikipedia, I do not. You also revert without edit summaries and recently claimed Poland started WW2! How reliable are you?Rex 15:40, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Who gives you the right to say who can speak? Kingjeff 15:46, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

I wasn't the one edit warring here. Rex is. I'm not the one getting block during a probation. I wasn't rude at all. Kingjeff 20:57, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

I am unable of edit warring, because I'm on a revert parole. What I do with my talkpage is none of your business. Rex 15:40, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

You don't own your talk page. Kingjeff 15:46, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

It should be pointed out that Cheiron1312 (talk · contribs) has been here since yesterday. Kingjeff 20:27, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

The fact that Rex Germanus (talk · contribs) is on probation/parole for a year seems not to be enforced at all, I have to say. He expresses his hostility towards a certain nation time and again, it could hardly be more obvious. I recently had filed a complaint here Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive254#User:Rex_Germanus_calls_me_nationalist_and_idiot that was more or less ignored, as I had no time to follow it up. A similar fate had Kingjeff recent request Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive267#User:Rex_Germanus of which he reminded only days ago, but it was archived again, so he seemingly chose not to bring it up here again. Apparently, admins are tired of dealing with Rex who starts conflicts with many users. He has recently filed several checkuser requests against editors he dislikes, like me Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Matthead and Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Willicher and Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Arbitration_enforcement/Archive5#User:194.9.5.12 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Matthead (talk • contribs)

In this particular instance Cheiron1312's first edit [31] was extremely confrontational, and since Kingjeff has neved edited Nemi ships (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), there was really no reason for him to insert himself into this dispute. If you go looking for trouble you're more likely to find it. Thatcher131 21:09, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Thatcher131, I'm getting puzzled. First you accuse Kingjeff of editwarring, and now you call Cheiron1312's "first edit" confrontational while others might "assume good faith". As you noticed, Cheirons revealed the IP adress he is posting from by signing two talk page entries with his name. It seems to me that a new user has read the Wikipedia article about Nemi ships, and started to ask involved editors first under an IP, and then from an account. Also, what do you mean with "If you go looking for trouble you're more likely to find it"? Is that a threat? -- Matthead ^discuß!     O       21:28, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Comment: If you're reading a threat in what was said, I think you might be trying to see things that aren't there, Matthead. I hate to throw this in here, being completely uninvolved, but I just thought I'd point that out. It doesn't really seem like a threat, more of a caution. Dan 21:35, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

This is a content dispute over Nemi Ships that has been going on for a couple of months. I don't know if Cheiron is new or not but he has taken up arguments that are months old. Do you not find Cheiron1312's first edit to Rex's talk page confrontational? Do you think Cheiron1312's second edit [32] referencing Dutch war crimes is civil? Does it even have anything to do with the dispute at Nemi Ships? Putting aside for the moment the spat between Cheiron and Rex, why are you and Kingjeff involved? I suppose you both have Rex's talk page watchlisted. Kingjeff edit warred on Rex's talk page (although it was only one revert) by restoring Cheiron's comment which Rex had removed. What I mean by "If you go looking for trouble you're more likely to find it" is that if you have have had prior disputes with Rex, and you see that someone else is involved in a dispute with that same editor, it's really not helpful to get involved. There is another editor (I don't need to point fingers) who gets reported here frequently, and every time he is, a second editor who he has stalked in the past pops up and says, "Oh and don't forget that he is a stalker." This manner of inserting oneself into an unrelated dispute between two other people rarely helps resolve the situation. Now, back to the content dispute. Having read the discussion and the sources available to me, I have proposed a solution that avoids both Rex's nationalism and Cheiron's orignal research and suppositions. Hopefully it will be acceptable. Rex's probation allows him to be banned for an appropriate period of time from articles he disrupts. Of the two reports referenced above, neither was supported very well, and focused on Rex's behavior on user talk pages rather than documenting the underlying content dispute (if there was one). Certainly if you get into an argument with Rex you can report it to WP:AE for examination, but if you see someone else getting into an argument with him, why not leave it alone? Thatcher131 21:48, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

How is 1 revert an edit war? I really don't see how 1 revert is edit warring. You can either deal with him now or editors that he disrupts will just keep on reporting him here and I will make sure of that. Kingjeff 01:53, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Appointing yourself as Rex Germanus' hall monitor would be a bad idea. Thatcher131 02:17, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Someone sometime will have to deal with this guy. You can either make Wikipedia look bad by allowing him to edit war (I still never warred with him) with other users or you can deal with his constant annoyance. He's exausting patience with other users which means there might be a community ban for him one day. I don't think it can be so simple. Kingjeff 02:32, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

No one has to deal with me. You need to deal with yourself and people like Cheiron1213 and Matthead, who I can assure are much worse than I am. Also, I've never seen you before and are completely unaware of my history. I for one, do not go out looking for trouble and I'd rather leave wikipedia than have a bias rouge admin as you as a monitor. Rex 15:40, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

You need to be dealt with. Kingjeff 15:46, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Great comeback! Right, is this admin still to be regarded as objective btw? I can hardly see how a biased individual, as he already showed many times, here can perform neutral in this case.Rex 16:16, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Kingjeff is not an admin. Thatcher131 16:20, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

He's not? Then why is he here? I barely know him.Rex 16:22, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

How about getting your facts straight before posting anything. It looks like you have a hard time doing that. Kingjeff 16:23, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

No I'm actually quite good at that. That's why the article on the Nemi ships still says the nazis burned them.Rex 16:31, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Protection, un-protection and re-protection of WP:V

Hi there. Due to conflicts over a re-wording of this policy, WP:V was protected on the 6th July by Quadell. The edits were discussed on the talk page Here and three proposals put up to assess opinion here. There was clear and strong consensus for draft 1. Today, Jossi unprotected the page. Jossi had not been involved in the dispute and last edited the policy in June. I asked Jossi on their userpage here if it would be OK to add the consensus wording to the policy. I checked one last time here if people were OK with the wording. However, when I attempted to add this consensus wording, SlimVirgin, a party in the dispute, reverted this change and indefinitely protected the page. Tim Vickers 22:39, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

The page has now been unprotected by User:John Reaves, who was not involved in the dispute. What do people recommend I do here? Tim Vickers 22:49, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

• I'd suggest leaving it now - if edit warring continues, it will be quickly re-protected by an uninvolved admin per a WP:RFPP request, there's no point in getting into a wheel war over something so small. Ryan Postlethwaite 22:53, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Jossi is heavily involved in the dispute. This unprotection is completely inappropriate. There is no consensus for the changes Tim Vickers are been pushing for, and the page needs to remain stable. That is precisely why Quadell protected it in the first place. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 23:02, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Well.... I still say let's see what happens. If there is a consensus, everything will be fine - if just one or two editors continue to edit war, they'll get blocked. If there really isn't a consensus, then it can be reprotected when we come to that bridge. Ryan Postlethwaite 23:04, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

OK, I've gone back to the version that has overwhelming support on the talk page. If I'm reverted I'll just try some more discussion on the talk page, and hope that the people with concerns will get involved. Tim Vickers 23:06, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

If there is a consensus... There *has* been overwhelming consensus on the talk page if any impartial editor is willing to look at the discussions. The real question is whether SlimVirgin is willing to let go of her disappointing out-of-process and uncompromising approach and respect that consensus. — Zerida 23:16, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

This blatant disregard for due process is both alarming and extremely disappointing [33]. — Zerida 23:46, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Um, without commenting on the actual content of the dispute, I think that reverting a blank edit just because it was made to a protected page (especially since at the time it had been only semi'd by mistake) is surely one of those signs that someone needs to get out and take a few deep breaths (Diffs: [34][35]). Confusing Manifestation 00:56, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

According to SlimVirgin: "There are a small group of editors agitating to add material that would fundamentally alter the policy. They've engaged in all kinds of unpleasant tactics, including personal attacks and starting forest fires in an effort to wear people down." diff No diffs for these supposed "personal attacks" were provided. Tim Vickers 03:33, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

This is some seriously trivial edit-warring right here. Behold, the great and contentious edit:

Academic and peer-reviewed publications are highly valued and usually the most reliable sources in areas where they are available, such as history, medicine, and science. Material from reliable non-academic sources may also be used in these areas, particularly if they are respected mainstream publications. The appropriateness of any source always depends on the context. Where there is disagreement between sources, their views should be clearly attributed in the text.

Academic and peer-reviewed publications are highly valued and usually the most reliable sources in areas where they are available, such as history, medicine and science. Material from reliable non-academic sources is also welcome in these areas, particularly if they are respected mainstream publications. The appropriateness of any source always depends on the context. Where there is disagreement between sources, their views should be clearly attributed in the text.

Some people need to chill. No one, beyond the most Wiki-lawyering hack would be able to derive any substantive editorial meaning from these two versions. --Haemo 03:56, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

I've proposed that second version on the talk page as a possible compromise version (link), but apparently it isn't acceptable. Tim Vickers 04:01, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate stable policies as much as the next person, which is probably why I never edit them. Although I agree with the proposed changes to WP:V in spirit, I don't know what the best wording is, and more fundamentally, I'm not willing to expend a lot of effort fighting City Hall here. That said, the unpleasant tactics being employed to beat down TimVickers are disheartening and lame. MastCell ^Talk 05:53, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

I completely disagree. I think sentences like "Material from reliable non-academic sources is also welcome in these areas, particularly if they are respected mainstream publications" are opaque, poorly-written and openly invite this type of abuse [36] of what our policy actually is. Notice that it says "particularly if..." which means they don't even have to be from mainstream publications! Wikipedia does not as a matter of policy "welcome" non-academic sources in any of these areas--that's absurd! And I have witnessed editors promote certain claims based on unreliable sources because of just how badly WP:V and WP:RS have become gradually over the past year. They do because they seem to think the policy supports their positions, and they are just as mistaken. — Zerida 07:56, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Of course we welcome reliable non-academic sources; we always have. Please give me one example of editors "promoting certain claims based on unreliable sources because of just how badly WP:V and WP:RS have become ..." I would like to see just one example of the policy being used (correctly) to justify the inclusion of nonsense from bad sources. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 08:01, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Of course we welcome reliable non-academic sources; we always have. And I have never said otherwise, but this is about academic topics. Until the most recent changes to WP:V, there was no indication at all that Wikipedia did give preference to academic sources in academic subjects, which it did a year ago. A year ago, we had: "For academic subjects, the sources should preferably be peer-reviewed", not to mention WP:RS was actually worth its megabytes.

This is a particularly egregious example of an editor who repeatedly introduced ridiculous claims into many articles through various sockpuppets (and apparently still does) based on the assumption that his sources were reliable within the perimeters of our policy. In fact, it was repeatedly pointed out to him by other editors that his sources were not reliable from a Wikipedia standpoint, but to me, at that stage, I did not feel that the policy made a strong enough case against what ended up being a mass assault on a significant number of articles, all sourced. That doesn't necessarily mean it would have stopped him, or that it will stop others like him in the future, but I maintain that the policy has to be clear enough to eliminate any potential misuse. It is not with that wording at all. — Zerida 09:05, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Okay, but you're not giving me actual examples. I would like to see an example where an editor actually cited WP:V as giving him licence to use what turned out to be poor sources. I would like to see diffs. I'd also like to see a link for "For academic subjects, the sources should preferably be peer-reviewed ..." What page was it on and when? SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 09:09, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

There is this edit by you to WP:V last October that you described in your edit summary as the "consensus version" link. It states "For academic subjects, the sources should preferably be peer-reviewed." Tim Vickers 17:02, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Should we save everyone a lot of effort and acknowledge that only a few editors may edit certain pages, while even good-faith, constructive, civil and productive editors—who discuss and build consensus on talk pages—may be subjected to the "unpleasant tactics" described by MastCell if they attempt input on those pages ? Acknowledging and formalizing the status quo could save a future good-faith editor from being subjected to a similar debacle; Tim probably could have churned out a couple more exemplary FAs in the time spent on this. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:17, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Hear,hear. The only time I ever tried to edit a policy page - to return it to a stable version changed without discussion to something with a different meaning -in order to make it 'more readable', apparently! - I was reverted a few times without discussion and then told several times I was doing it to win a content dispute, even after I discussed at length how it was irrelevant to any dispute I was then in. Peh. Hornplease 23:01, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

I've noticed that this "consensus version" was radically-rewritten 14 days later and, amongst other changes, the statement that "For academic subjects, the sources should preferably be peer-reviewed." was removed by SlimVirgin with the edit summary of - "tightened" on 23 October 2006 diff. There was no prior discussion or consultation on the talk page and her only comment on this major rewrite on the talk page was the statement "I've also tightened the writing a bit more." diff. Tim Vickers 22:25, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Vandal

Hi, I would like to report User:Qurultay who has vandalized several pages, including adding dubious references, and so forth. Note that he is most likely a sockpuppett of banned User:AdilBaguirov as he has send waves of socks recently.Hetoum I 00:35, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

i've looked at User:Hetoum I contributionrs, it's increddibly disappointing to see such behavior from him, why such attacks??? we dont even know each other, yet such attack. this is testament to fact that Hetoum I has been acting in bad fais and engaging in editwar, by changing back my corection in the Denial of Armenian Genocide page. There I have corrected the word 'Jews' to Israeli, to make it consistent with rest of table list, which lists countries, not ethnicities. What 'dubious references'? There are none such references, all fully per encyclopedia rules. What is this 'sockpuppett' attack? Who is this? Why? Please don't act like this User:Hetoum I. I will be mindful of your contributions now. Qurultay 11:51, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm less concerned about the Jew/Israeli issue than Qurultay's removal of any mention of the Armenian Genocide from the Pan-Turkism article. Instead, he has made attempts to replace it with a paragraph intended to make Armenians look antisemitic. -- Aivazovsky 13:47, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Kindly protect or block

I kindly ask for admin to either block this user or protect pages Denial of the Armenian Genocide and Pan-Turkismas this is clearly a sock for AdilB along with Ehud. I am copy-pasting evidence of this user's harassment from the latest arbcom.

Among many reasons why AdilBaguirov has used socks, is also to have other members who were not restricted with the one revert per week restriction to be blocked. Marshall reverting what he saw obviously as sock was reported by one of those socks. [37] and successfully blocked. More recently Meowy was blocked after Grandmaster reported him for 3RR [38]. While according to checkusers Ehud Lesar who reverted Meowy and caused the block is not Adil, there are reasons to believe he is AdilBaguirov.

Ehud Lesar pretends to be Jew acording to his userpage. [39] He also claims to be part of the Israel Wiki Project while his contribution on Jews is basically limited on things related to Azerbaijan. It seem as a cover. Besides, AdilBaguirov has already pretended to be Jewish with his account Weiszman. Both Weiszman and Ehud Lesar to have some similar editing patterns. First, both started contributing the same month. [40], [41]. In Ehud Lesar case, after his first edit which was on 28 March he stopped editing all together while Weiszman was contributing. Ehud Lesar only resumed edition after Weiszman was banned.

Hours after Ehud Lesar started editing the Church of Kish Qurultay register, while at first his edits seemed in good faith soon after he made edits on the Armenian reference on the Pan-Turkism and extended the edit war on the Denial of the Armenian Genocide. [42]

Hetoum I 18:29, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

User:Mariam83 blocked indefinitely

This user has created havoc in all main North Africa-related topics' talk pages since she started editing a few weeks ago. Mariam83 tried very hard to prove that she is right and the rest weather they are real self-hating negro Sudani black man(s), lunatic(s) or anything related to offend black people in particular. While she could have been a benefit for wikipedia -like when she is not slurring she brings some notable sources although blurred by the noise, this user has been more a disrupter than someone keen to work w/ others w/o intentionally trying to offend them. I may feel sad for wikipedia for losing a potential positive contributor (editing since June 2007) but my zero tolerance to racist and very offending slurs makes me feel no sorrow for any potential thought whatsoever especially that she was given more than few or little chances to stop that behaviour and contribute safely and gently. Her talk page history is full of comments of a dozen of editors and a few admins' notes/ re her behaviour as well as two block notices. That same talk page that nobody cared for so long to revert as it was made sure to be kept empty at all times. It was like ohh you bastards and filthy and uncivilized negroes, do not talk to me! And between this and that (chrono order):

• This i consider the most awful one. It was against User:Deeceevoice. That was very sick
• accusing me of being corrupted,
• block evasion or meatpuppeting (according to her). She acknowledged that she really had some off-wiki consultations w/ some friends
• making legal threats against four contributors
• "You are also in dire need of a history lesson" This is what i was told on June 24th as if i she was believing that i had to believe like she does as we both come from North Africa
• a kind of interrupted wiki-break w/ the minimum edits possible and some kind of reasonable and civil conversations mixed w/ references from Britannica and some other notable ones
• ...and then came today when i noticed these new ways and stylish and more sophisticated racist remarks

Since this user has been more active in violating NPA many times i blocked her for that said reason. This means that she could have been blocked for disruption, BATTLE, edit warring, ABF as well. All in all, Mariam83 has been having conflicts w/ around 5 admins and around 6 or 7 editors. That's quite a real battle. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 02:05, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

I endorse this block. Mariam83's behavior has been absolutely inappropriate. FayssalF did the right thing in blocking her to prevent further incivility and harassment. Picaroon (Talk) 02:16, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Quite right, block with/due to extreme prejudice. Tim Vickers 03:58, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Probably a troll. (I hope it was a troll, would be even scarier to imagine someone really thinks that stuff...). In either case, goodbye, don't come back, very strongly endorse block, etc. etc.. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 04:06, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks mate, the behaviour was impossible to deal with - pity as I noted at Bouha talk page, as it was clear "Mariam" had some real knowledge, but either trolling or really bloody loony (the usages of Abid etc struck me however as real profound racism). collounsbury 15:54, 10 July 2007 (UTC).

She was back emailing me as usual w/ her rant and slurs (i.e. accusing me of having some weird sexual relationship w/ you in particular). Added her few email addresses to spam. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 17:03, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

I wholeheartedly endorse this indefinite block. This alone should be anyone's last edit.Proabivouac 07:27, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree, and in fact I'm disgusted this person was allowed to stay here for an additional three weeks. --Golbez 07:36, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

User:Mariam83 has gone too far with personal attacks. I too support indefinite block --Aminz 07:33, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

...She even sourced her racist attacks against DCV indeed. Something new at wikipedia. Now she is back w/ socks. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 07:34, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

It is new indeed :) --Aminz 07:36, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Further information: [[:Harassment_and_more_disruptions_from_socks_of_User:Mariam83]]

Minor "sock"

A user I reported here earlier (Gundor Twintle Fluffy) decided he was going to taunt me on my talk page here by telling me to delete his old page because he made a new one and faking his sig by hand and not with tildes so I "wouldn't know what his new account was". As an aside, it's really interesting what the history tab shows you.

Anyway, my point here is that I redirected his old user and talk pages to his new user and talk pages, but I was thinking there might be a cleaner way to do it than what I did, so I've posted here in case it needs to be done differently. It's not like he had any edits of value such that the accounts should be merged, but it's an option. MSJapan 03:00, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Does Wikipedia hand out Darwin awards? :) Tim Vickers 04:17, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

I wish they did, as he apparently has User:Gundor Twintle Fluffy, User:Dark Grevious, User:Dark Lord Dylan and User:65.126.113.88 that he edits the others' pages with. He also faked an MfD here and a warning, my sig, and a reply here, then changed the timestamp here. This is stupid and ridiculous, but I'm not going to have him trying to play his petty little games and implicate me superficially. I notified Theresa Knott about this, as she acted on this complaint, but I'd prefer it if it did not sit around. This is sockfarming for some sort of warped socialization, and not for improvement of Wikipedia. Said user doesn't even know how to sign his real sig, yet he's got over 500 edits to talk pages between the four accounts. He might even have more, but I don't have the tools to find them outside of tracking cross-contribs MSJapan 16:53, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

User:Rex Germanus' user page

User:Rex Germanus seems to be attacking the German people. Does this not go against official policy? Kingjeff 14:03, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Diffs to demonstrate this? Heimstern Läufer (talk) 14:06, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Check his user page. The link I provided goes right to the thing I'm talking about. Kingjeff 15:34, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

You asserted that this editor is in violation of the "No personal attacks" policy. Please provide evidence that he or she has engaged in personal attacks.

Incidentally, have you notified this editor that you have raised this issue here? Or discussed it with him or her prior to posting to this noticeboard? --ElKevbo 03:40, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Just for the record: Due to comments made in the case Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:Rex_Germanus above, I do not present my evidence against Rex here unless asked to do so by an admin. -- Matthead ^discuß!     O       03:45, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Likewise we will not do anything unless you provide evidence, as requested above by ElKevbo. —Kurykh 04:01, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Okay then - but where should I start with? It seems Rex has earned most of his blocks on Dutch-related articles, and manages to provoke Dutch editors [43], but I'm not into Dutch matters, and can only judge from what I have to witness (sigh!) on German-related articles. Rex openly states his motivation on his user pages and on talk pages, and he undoubtedly opposes anything remotely German within English Wikipedia. His countless unilateral attempts to move articles away from German loanwords like Sprachraum to dubious or clumsy terms like "Glottosphere" [44] have been reverted by the community nearly every time - as was his attempt to establish a Dutch term on English Wikipedia that is "associated with the extreme right."[45]. Rex is gratuitous with labeling others as vandals, which FayssalF found out himself on a related page, see below. It's even worse when Rex sees the chance to accuse others to be nationalists, for which he has developed Rex' nationalism scale, or the straigtforward superlative German nationalist [46][47]. He openly brags about "cleansing this wiki of german nationalists". If nationalist or German nationalist is not enough, he uses Nazi wherever (im)possible. E.g. seeing that the result of the Battle of the Denmark Strait was marked as "German victory", he made the laughable attempt to declare the sinking of the British flagship Hood a "draw" [48] before he changed it to "Draw / Tactical Nazi victory". Regarding attacks on users, he is on parole for a year [49], yet got away with edits like "Getting pissed on DBachman and Matthead" and "User Matthead is, once again, looking for trouble ... because that idiot want to irritate people". Rex also developed a habit of replacing comments of others with {{rpa}}, something which he was repeatedly warned not to do [50]. On the other hand, he removes these tags, and threatens a user [51][52] after he has falsely accused him of sock puppetry [53], like Rex did with me [54] believing I was [55]. Rex even stalked me in an unrelated Arbcom case [56][57] were he called me "biased Polonophobic" for which he received kudos [58] [59] and questions [60] also regarding his rather provocative German King user name [61]. Basically, I advocate a permanent ban of Rex from all articles related to German, Germans, Germany and even Germanic tribes. As the recent case of Cheiron1312 (talk · contribs) shows, Rex' edits on Wiki can make newcomers angry, yet alone established editors who have to witness his same patterns over and over again. -- Matthead ^discuß!     O       06:38, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

I have provided a link to what is in question here. I personally haven't discussed this with him but this topic I brought here has been discussed with him. He either is or he isn't in violation. Kingjeff 03:58, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't see any violation unless you point out exactly how it is a violation. Please be specific. —Kurykh 04:01, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

"I systematically do not trust German(ophone) wikipedians who spend much time on articles dealing with Nazi Germany, fascism or the German military between 1933 and 1945. I also do not trust people who engage themselves in historical renaming. For example those who support naming Gdansk to Danzig, I'm convinced a large number of these people have a Hidden Agenda." This is a blatant attack on the German wikipedians. This page he has created is more blatant attacks on German Wikipedians. This guideline which states User pages may not have stuff that has "Extensive personal opinions on matters unrelated to Wikipedia, wiki philosophy, collaboration, free content, the Creative Commons, etc." is clearly violated. Kingjeff 04:14, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

You haven't let the user know about this thread. Anyway, i just informed him. Whatever is the case, as i just checked one of the user in question contribs, i found this like bullying and warrant a block by itself. I'll leave some time in order to hear about the real reasons. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 04:16, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Alright then, here we are once more. First let me make this clear:

1. User:Kingjeff: I do not know this editor, and before he showed up at my talkpage and reinserted a removed personal attack by User:Cheiron1312.
2. User:Cheiron1312: New editor, with 5 edits, all related to the Nemi ships. Making gross personal attacks.
3. User:Matthead: This user is, regretably, a familiar name. Though he claims to be "mainly interested in motorsports" his contributions and talkpage comments tell a whole nother story. This person thrives on conflict, especialy with Polish wikipedians, and me, concerning WW2 topics.

I do not attack "the German people". Besides writing or rewriting numerous articles, I try to revert nationalism, and focus on German nationalism, simply because its the form I encounter most.

What User:Matthead posted here, User:Kingjeff seems unable to prove his statement of me attacking "the German people", are not only old comments, but terribly and I mean terribly out of context, not even mentioning unrelated.

To create some clearity in this mess, the entire timeline of this conflict will now be given:

Prelude

(Numerous conflicts with User:Matthead, due to his edits)

Start

19:42, 8 July 2007 an anonymous IP posts a comment on my talkpage concerning the destruction
of the Nemi ships. He claims the article is very anti-German, because it says that Germans burned
during WW2. This information is referenced and I remind him of this. I also say he should trim down
on the pro-German attitude ("defending nazis") he displayes for their conduct during WW2.

05:31, 9 July 2007 the anyonymous IP, now as User:Cheiron1312, replies that he does not considers
the source reliable, and then literally says the following:
"But maybe i should trust you. The Dutchs have a lot of experience in commiting warcrimes"

He then continues his rant, claiming the Dutch are responsible for Apartheid ("the boers were of Dutch decend")
he places numbers of Indonesian victims during the Police actions of the Dutch army, and consequently says
the Dutch " tasted only a small dose of her own medicine!" during the German occupation. (Do note, that Dutch
victims of the German occupation were twice as high as the numbers he gave for the Indonesians. Not that it
matters though, as both events were terrible.)

11:31, 9 July 2007 I'm infuriated and warn him this is not the way people discuss or prove points on Wikipedia.
I tell him he may consider himself banned (ie I remove all his future comments) if he does not adapt his ways.

18:05, 9 July 2007 User continues the rant. Somehow he interpretes my comments as an acknowledgement that the sources are unreliable (which they're not) and continues to make accusations to the Dutch and myself. Again defending nazis.

18:22, 9 July 2007 18:22, 9 July 2007 as warned before, I remove the comment and replace it with a notice that I no longer wish to speak to him on my talkpage.

20:27, 9 July 2007 User:Cheiron1312 adds a minor personal attack.

20:28, 9 July 2007 I remove it.

20:40, 9 July 2007 Out of the blue User:Kingjeff appears readds Cheiron1312s personal attack and adds his own below.

20:46, 9 July 2007 I remove them again.

Aftermath

03:33, 10 July 2007 User:Kingjeff and User:Matthead (who is of course more than willing to cooperate in making someone he hates look bad) start to conspire.

This entire report is bogus. I do not attack "the German people" (and no refs have been provided to prove otherwise) I target German nationalism, and as opposed to what Matthead says, I and other wikipedians nearly always succeed, of which this isn't even a real example and Cheiron1213 never implemented his (doubtfull) version.Rex 11:02, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

The original subject of this complaint is a section of Rex Germanus' user page that says:

I systematically do not trust German(ophone) wikipedians who spend much time on articles dealing with Nazi Germany, fascism or the German military between 1933 and 1945. I also do not trust people who engage themselves in historical renaming.

I would prefer that Rex not assign editors perjorative labels, but at least his prejudices are out in the open for all to see. I have seen arbitration cases involving editors who were far more POV-prone than Rex but who swore up, down and sideways that they were unbiased and it was the other guy who had an agenda. I see two main problems with Rex; first, the labeling of editors as a way of dismissing their opinions, and second, a strong POV that manifests itself as incivility on user talk pages and edit summaries (exacerbated by people being uncivil toward Rex).

The problem is how to deal with this. Rex's arbitration case places him on probation and allows any admin to ban him from any page he disrupts. However, the allegations reported so far have not been about article disruption, and he has not violated his revert parole recently. Incivility was not part of the Arbitration case, and in any event the Arbitration Committee has recently deprecated civility parole as a remedy (and we all know that "cool down" blocks are rarely effective). In a couple of recent cases the ArbCom has authorized the use of blocks for incivility of a maximum of 1 hour duration, probably on the theory that someone who gets dinged several times briefly might start to think twice before hitting the Save button. I could support this remedy, as long as the blocks were thrown in a timely fashion. Otherwise, I think an RFC focusing specifically on incivility and perjorative labeling might be the next route. Admins don't have a lot of tools for dealing with people who are rude and who have strong points of view when those things are not accompanied by edit warring or other overtly blockable behavior. Thatcher131 15:13, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

What I posted on my talk page is not a secret, nor is it unbased. The allegation that I target Germans is nonsense, I target the nationalist ones and keep an eye on them. There is nothing wrong with that. I hope I don't have to qoute Jim Wales's statement on neo nazism on Wikipedia? I'm not saying all Germans who edit WW2 articles are nazis, or nationalists, I'm saying I don't trust them. Rex 15:29, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Regarding "allegations reported so far have not been about article disruption" and "The allegation that I target Germans is nonsense", Rex was in action at Ethnic_German and Germans -- Matthead ^discuß!     O       16:23, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't think your user page targets users specifically, but I think you should avoid labeling users in your direct dealings with others. For example, you could have addressed Cheiron1312's complaint without labeling him a "revisionist." Even if it is true, sticking labels on people shifts the focus from the facts at hand to their to their personality, which is rarely helpful in a dispute. Thatcher131 15:39, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

I understand, but that doesn't mean it makes him less of a revisionist or weird editor. I for one can't make out why he objected against nazi amry, but was okay with replacing it with german army.Rex 16:14, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

As anyone can see from my contribs, I've started editing on Wiki in 2004 mainly in sports-related matters, and got dragged into ongoing disputes only in 2006. Regarding User:Rex Germanus/Original articles, it was him who introduced the List of terms used for Germans into Wikipedia, a list that mainly collects and presents offensive terms. Talk:List of terms used for Germans shows that Rex did not make many friends with his article and his edits. The comparable List of ethnic slurs by ethnicity and Offensive terms per nationality are younger, thus Rex really is a pioneer. Regarding his beginnings, on his 3rd day on Wikipedia, his 8th edit overall [62] claimed that the Franks "originally inhabited the Netherlands and Flanders before they started to fight their way south" which illustrates his Dutch POV on the people that "eventually developed into France and Germany respectively"[63]. Indeed, Rex Germanus started to fight his way through Germany on Wikipedia. When will he be stopped? -- Matthead ^discuß!     O       16:04, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Boy you're really trying hard aren't you Matthead? You're forgetting one important thing though aren't you? Sources. That's the main difference between you and me, I use them you neglect them. List of terms used for Germans, was inspired by a very interesting boek, onbekende buren, and was never intended (nor ever was) a bash article. It is currently a perfectly acceptable wikipedia article, something you have yet to produce.Rex 16:14, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

The neutrality of this article or section is disputed and the factual accuracy of this article is disputed and both are listed on User:Rex Germanus/Original articles. Rex has contributed to these articles. His personal opinion on a group of people has affected his ability to contribute constructively. Kingjeff 16:19, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

You are seeing ghosts. I am by no means the sole contributor of these articles, and the information I suplied was fully referenced, and my feeling of responsibility ends there. Like I said you're seeing ghosts. I also made an article on Oliebollen a kind of pastry, care to explain how they're anti-German?Rex 16:29, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

You are the main contributor to Dutch influence on German. This article is factual disputed. Kingjeff 16:33, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

So? It is still referenced. I'm not responsible for possible errors in a book I choose as a reference. Rex 16:36, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Rex. You haven't addressed my point above (i.e. reverting a legit edit and accusing others of vandalism when it wasn't the case at all). Do you have any reasonable explanation for that? -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 16:55, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Oh yes of course (though you seem already to have an opinion). If you'll check the history around that specific edit, you'll find a "revert spree". Matthead was inactive for a while then started to revert my edits (without edit summaries) en masse. Including the readding of a template while taggs would have been much better and a false/unsupported merge proposal. Such edits are extremely bath faith and I consider him a vandal for making them. Rex 17:30, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

The opinion i have is that neither you nor Matthead, nor AjaxSmack are well aware of the process of editing.

• You started an unreferenced article.
• The article was tagged {{unreferenced|date=March 2007}} thanks to User:AlexNewArtBot.
• User:AjaxSmack added the tagged {{mergeto|Greater Netherlands}}. It is expected from editors to be aware of How to merge pages before tagging and leaving no starting discussion at any one of both talk pages.
• Then you came removing both tags w/o any explanation. All your explanation above is irrelevant because at this stage User:Matthead was not involved yet.
• The first Matthead's edit to the article was reverting your edition. Again, Matthead left no explanation whatsoever.
• Matthead's innapropriate action was considered vandalism by you. It was not the case. It is not appropriate but it is not vandalism at all.

Please note that only User:Haddiscoe's edit, the bot edition were in place and appropriate which is very sad for an encyclopedia supposed to be edited by humans. Also, please follow the advice of Thatcher131 above to not assign editors pejorative labels. I have therefore blocked all the parties (pls read Outcome below). -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 20:39, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Rex, the whole problem is your point of view pushing onto other users and articles you contribute to like the one I just mentioned. Kingjeff 17:03, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

I do not push my view on to others. My point of view has a clear disgust of neonazis and German nationalists hurting peoples feelings by revisioning history. That's not negative, thats positive for the factual and moral accuracy of Wikipedia. Rex 17:28, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Outcome

As per the above diffs of disruption and totally inappropriate reverting by User:Rex Germanus -adding to that his ArbCom revert parole i've blocked him for 2 weeks. As for User:Matthead, i am blocking him for 48 hours for tedious reverting w/o attempting to discuss which is not helpful at all. User:Kingjeff has already been blocked by Moreschi for 24h for canvassing. I'm extending that block to 48h because of his reverts at Rex Germanus' talk page. User:AjaxSmack has been informed of the merge case and was asked gently to try to discuss in parallel when tagging {merge}. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 20:39, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Updates

User:Rex Germanus has just stated at his talk page that The reason [of this block] is totally unclear and that blocking him because he used the term vandal at his edit summary was a wrong decision. I explained to him again that he was blocked because of the removal of {unreferenced} tag which was totally out of place. As for the 2 weeks period i explained to him that that period is fair as he is already under parole. I haven't blocked him because he designated someone a vandal as i already excplicitly adviced him to follow Thatcher131 advice re that matter.

User:Matthead has just accepted his block of 48h. - FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 22:07, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Sorry FayssalF, I know it must have been one of the tougher calls, but I don’t think blocking anybody here was the right approach. What did the guys do that couldn’t be resolved by our regular processes? And yes I know, I’m using the standard argument to ease on the blocking, but think about it, wasn’t this the "too" quick a solution? What also worries me a bit, is your pointing out of Matthead’s content with the desired outcome, that's is a bit... let’s say... slightly naïve. --Van helsing 23:00, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't see your point Van helsing. It wasn't a quick solution at all. If you check this you'd see that i had explicitly declared yesterday that i can't take any action until i hear enough. What i heard today wasn't something new. Everybody was treated fairly as per all the discussion above. Removing an {unreferenced} tag when the article clearly lacks any single reference is called disruption and warrants a block. 2 weeks for Rex was fair as he has been under parole. Matthead was just reverting non-stop w/o discussion which is called disruption as well. 48h is fair in those kind of situations. As per kingjeff, i fairly extended his block from 24 to 48h because he already know that reverting others' talk pages is called disruption as well. Your suggestion (i.e. DR) has become something very unlikely to happen. There was even an attempt to community ban Rex. Matthead has explicitly acknowledged that he is not ready to discuss anything with Rex. So? If all these people are not listening to others and indeed go on on reverting than i see no other relevant or appropriate action except letting them having a break to ease tensions and avoid that in the future as what they have been doing is just disruptive.

Indeed, it was me who closed the community ban case against Rex. This shows that everybody has been being disruptive and maybe these blocks would change their minds when they are back. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 23:25, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Under Rex's revert parole he is limited to one revert per week, excepting obvious vandalism, and must discuss all reverts on the talk page. He has two reverts on Heel-Nederland (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) on the same day (July 5) with no discussion, which is a clear violation (and mislabeling them as vandalism, another violation). My first reaction is that 2 weeks is too long, and that something between 48 hours and 1 week would be appropriate. However, his last two blocks for violating his revert parole were a week each and he doesn't seem to have gotten the message. Also, kudos to FayssalF for taking the time to thoroughly examine the behavior of all parties. Thatcher131 23:29, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your synthesis Thatcher131. I indeed never double when blocking someone who has been blocked before for no reason. 2 weeks instead of a week or 48h instead of 24h really mean (no less no more) that all these users have to take issues seriously and stop edit warring, stop labeling each other pejoratively (vandals, nazis, xenophobic, etc...), start good faith discussions, bring reliable sources. Rex indeed claims above in a reply to Matthead that he is keen to bring sources in contrast with what Matthead is doing. The truth as everybody noted is that i blocked him because he was removing {unreferenced} tag from a really unreferenced article whose he had created! See? Which one would you believe? It is time for people to be responsible of what they are saying and doing here in Wikipedia and be more civil w/ people w/ whom he is interacting. After 48h Matthead should try to discuss his issues w/ people instead of stating that he has decided not to! Kingjeff should calm down and not violate policies re canvassing, reverting and disruption. As for the unknown User:Cheiron1312, that i suppose he is a sock or at least a meatpuppet of someone i don't know. Do you still have CU tools Thatcher131? -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 23:54, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Not a checkuser. I am suspicious that right after registering he would make Dutch and Afrikaans attacks on Rex, although that information could be found from Rex's Babel boxes. Even so, it would be far better for Rex to have said, "You may disagree with my source but your theory has no sources at all" than "You are a revisionist so shut up" (more or less). Thatcher131 00:42, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I must admit it didn’t follow what happened yesterday. What I did see is that two guys conspire to get someone blocked. And it appears, the "victim" actually did violate his revert parole 5 days ago, and thus they succeed in their effort. That’s a bit sour if that "victim" had to respond to a lot of flak from similar users in the past. --Van helsing 00:20, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

No worries Van helsing. I don't think it was a conspiracy. It was canvassing in fact and that's why Kingjeff was blocked for before i extended his block. If you follow my short discussion between me and him yesterday at my talk page you'd notice that he left almost the same message there. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 00:32, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Persistent copyright violations by User:121.210.34.183

User:121.210.34.183 is persistently posting copyrighted material to Wikipedia articles. This user is cutting and pasting the synopsis of TV show episodes from external websites. Almost every one of this user's contributions is identified as a copyright violation by Google. This user has been warned twice, and is continuing to violate copyrights. This user should be blocked. Andrew_pmk | Talk 04:41, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Gotcha. Left him a last plain warning. If he continues, I will block him. -- ReyBrujo 04:45, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

He's back again with an obvious copyright violation. Blocked for 31 hours. — Rebelguys2 ^talk 08:59, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Babakexorramdin

I would like to draw attentions of the admins to Babakexorramdin (talk · contribs). He edits an FA article Iranian peoples in a very aggressive style, edit warring, making personal attacks, assuming bad faith and including his original research. Please check the recent history of the article. Here he rvs the article accusing me of vandalism: [64] [65] He keeps on including Azerbaijani people in the list of Iranian people and restoring the claim that “due to their historical ties with various ancient Iranians, their cultural ties with Persians, and their proven genetic ties with Iranian peoples, they are sometimes included as an Iranian people, although the modern Azerbaijani language is a Turkic language, with a large lexicon of [Iranian languages|Iranian]] words”, but fails to provide any source that calls Azerbaijanis an Iranian people and removes the tag that I attached to this claim. Moreover, he adds Uzbeks as Iranian people and removes Iranian-speaking Hazaras from the list of Iranian people. In addition to the extreme POV editing, he assumes bad faith and makes personal attacks on other editors, such as this: You , DUE TO POLITICAL RESAONS OF ANTI_IRANIANISM, are violating and vandalizing our pages. [66] Note that POV editing of this person caused objections of some Iranian users as well. I would like to ask the admins to take measures to stop abuse of editing privileges by this user and help maintain the FA status of the article. Regards, --Grandmaster 05:10, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

I would not call all that personal attacks. I've just reminded him of the guideline WP:CITE and the burden of evidence when it comes to the verifiability policy. If they persist, please let me know. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 00:06, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Calling edits of other editors "vandalism" is a personal attack, in my opinion. In the very least it is a violation of WP:AGF. Thanks for your interference, I'll let you know if this user persists. Regards, --Grandmaster 04:24, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Persistent removal of "Primarysources|date=July 2007" and "Notability|date=July 2007" tags

The articles City Harvest Church and Kong Hee keep getting their respective tags removed. - 222.164.83.43 05:23, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

I have spoken to the other user involved, Habbo sg (talk · contribs), and he sounded perfectly willing to discuss this. I believe this incident resulted simply from a lack of communication between those involved. Someguy1221 08:45, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks to Someguy1221 (talk · contribs), I was highlighted to this "incident". Dear 222.164.83.43 (talk · contribs), I had reverted your edits as I had seen other users hightlighting their reasons for removing the tags in the talkpage for both City Harvest Church and Kong Hee. Perhaps you can provide your reasons for tagging both articles? Habbo sg 08:52, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Was this discussion formally closed?

Resolved

 – ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 13:23, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

User:Zscout370 just unilaterally removed the incident discussion in progress: [67] I am unfamiliar with termination procedures for incidents. Is this appropriate? This incident began with an accusation against me and I need to be sure this matter is formally closed, and that it was not just terminated because the disruptive behavior of my accuser was being discussed. The edit summary removing the discussion said "take it to the talk page" but there are multiple articles where the user is engaged in the same sort of process, which is why discussing it here seems called for. The summary removal of the discussion resulted in this editor's view not being recorded in the thread: [68]

The discussion was terminated when I raised the question of whether BalanceRestored has violated the terms of the block lifting. I hope that editors who are not familiar with the block history on BalanceRestored will read the conditions under which the block was lifted: [69]. You just had a live demonstration of the disruptive behavior that we are facing on multiple articles, and I request some independent opinion on whether the block should be restored. Buddhipriya 07:31, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Background: BalanceRestored (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was blocked indefinitely in May for disruptive editing, edit warring and sockpuppetry. His ban was lifted, under the assumption of good faith, by admin Vassyana under under stringent conditions agreed to by the user, which are listed here. Here are links to earlier ANI reports on/by this user: first, second and third, and here are some other articles where he has made similar tendentious arguments (based usually on preview snippets he finds on Google books): Talk:Vedas, Talk:Vishwabrahmin, Indian caste system.

While I understand that the discussion had to be closed because it was becoming too circular and silly (even for this page!) I must point out that closing it here simply means that it the editor has moved to other pages such as Talk:Nastika and Talk:Pranava Veda where there are, unfortunately, no admins and few regular editors to give him a clue. Abecedare 07:38, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Right, but by removeing an entire thread, it won't get archived, correct? Why not just mark it with {{discussion top}} and {{discussion bottom}}, and ask the editors to move further talk elsewhere? Flyguy649 ^talk _contribs 07:54, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

I have no objection to closing the discussion, I just want to be sure the closure was done in a formally correct manner. I will cease commenting on the assumption that someone who understands the process will close it out. Buddhipriya 07:58, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree. I couldn't undo zscout370's edits due to intermediate revisions. Is there a way to restore it (for archival purposes) without losing edit history ? Here is the lisnk to the deletion [70] Abecedare 08:00, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree that what is needed is to restore the deleted material and tag it as suggested. I do not understand how to do that. Buddhipriya 08:03, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

I have restored and archived the racial slur discussion. Abecedare 08:23, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

You missed the comment I made on that thread (which got entangled with a different one due to removal of original thread. --Ragib 08:25, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

I have readded it back now. Abecedare 08:42, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

And here is the latest example of BalanceRestored (talk · contribs)'s hostility: biting a new editor because the latter has a better understanding of WP:NPOV ! I request an admin to take a good look at BalanceRestored's editing history, especially in light of the conditions and assumption of good faith that his previous indef. block was lifted. Abecedare 08:08, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Doing the proper procedure would have done nothing for this case; the reason why the editor moved to other pages is due to my statement saying take that clusterfuck discussion elsewhere. We can't solve it, it turned into a troll fest and it best to be removed instantly than let it linger for days until a bot comes and deals with it. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 08:39, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

I do not agree that removal of the material was the best approach, as the record of what is said here has potential future value. I am glad that the effort has been made to archive the discussion. I appreciate your postive intent, however. Buddhipriya 08:43, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Stalking by Bharatveer

User:Bharatveer is wikistalking User:Hornplease undoing the latter's edits. While the former is a revert warrior and pov pusher, the latter supports all his edits with arguments, and references. It is clear that the former is vandalising to push his pov. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.91.253.167 (talk)

Do you have any diffs to provide that demonstrate stalking? --Hemlock Martinis 08:53, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes. Removing reference[71], simple unexplained revert[72], again unexplained revert[73], no reverting, still stalking [74], reverting Ragib[75], revert[76],

Repeated rv [77], [78], [79], removal of comment about his editing behavious from talk page [80].— Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.91.253.167 (talk • contribs)

Side comment this IP looks familiar.--Konstable 11:45, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

To be more specific - the guy is in the IP range used by banned user User:Kuntan might need a block.--Konstable 12:03, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Stop trolling, Konstable. A good faith edit is a good faith edit. When did you get the checkuser right? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.111.87.20 (talk)

This looks fairly certain to be a Kuntan sockpuppet, and I've blocked the IP for 31 hours, which should be enough to convince him to move on to another IP. Actually, from the above, it looks like he already has. Even if weren't a sock, it's clearly an experienced user trolling AN/I and equally worthy of a short softblock. I haven't looked at the supposed dispute between Bharatveer and Hornplease, but I'm sure either of them are capable of bringing it to our attention if there's a problem. MastCell ^Talk 16:02, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't,though I am undeniably capable of it. There is no problem at this time, of course. I was notified of a complaint filed on my behalf on my talkpage, so looked in here to reassure all those breathlessly concerned. Hornplease 21:35, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

I should add that the second anon IP that commented here, 193.111.87.20 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), is a TOR proxy server according to TORstatus, so I've indefinitely hard-blocked it. Is that the proper approach here? I know there's been some recent controversy about how to handle TOR servers. MastCell ^Talk 16:07, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

You're not the only one who's totally confused about it[81]/ Hornplease 21:35, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Mukhran Machavariani

Can someone please revert vandalism on the above page, I have already reported the vandal and reverted 3 times, but it is still continuing. Xarr☎ 11:37, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

The IP has been ARV'd. -- Zamkudi ^{Dhokla queen!} 11:45, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism reverted and the article sprotected by Theresa knott. MartinDK 11:48, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Bizarre vandalism involving Clint Boon and associated harrassment of editors

This is the strangest thing I've yet seen on Wikipedia. There appears to be a coordinated, distributed effort to insert random made-up altercations involving British celebrities and musical acts and Clint Boon from the Inspiral Carpets, usually involving alcohol and serious injury. (Here, have yet another handful.) The IPs are random, the accounts are throwaway, and it seems to have been going on for some time.

I've been reverting this whenever I see it, as has User:Kekslover. Unfortunately they've taken to pestering her on her talk page now, so this has gone beyond mere stupid vandalism and into harrassment.

Short of semiprotecting basically anything British students were into over the course of the 1990s I can't see that there's a solution to this. Any ideas? Chris Cunningham 11:53, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

I would help to clean it up. Is there a regular time/day of the week this happens? If there is a spate of an evening or weekend (UK time) you could let me know on my talkpage and point me toward the active ip's for a short block. LessHeard vanU 12:42, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Maybe semi-protect Kekslover's talk page to protect her from harassment? --Kaypoh 12:57, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

A Continual History of Harassment from 69.118.129.76

This user is engaging in harassing and disruptive behavior on the page List of people from Ridgefield, Connecticut and is engaging in baiting behavior towards anyone who reverts his or her edits by flaunting warnings on their user talk page. It seems that unless you are an admin, the user will only ignore warnings and harass others even more. I would love to detail each incident but the trail of contributions this user has made speaks for itself. Here is his or her talk page [82] and here is a view of what the user has done on the List of people from Ridgefield, Connecticut page [83]. And it apparently has been going on for months. —SpyMagician 16:18, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Nearly the entire, long, long talk page for List of people from Ridgefield, Connecticut has been an attempt to reason with User:69.118.129.76, and an attempt to come to consensus. But we seem to have had a slew (more than a handful) of single-user accounts suddenly pop up to this user's defense. Then he claims he's got a consensus on his side. He's taking up a lot of time of a lot of productive Wikipedia editors. His participation in discussions has more to do with scoffing at other editors' opinions rather than trying to convince anybody of his own position. Nothing seems to help. Noroton 18:31, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Just an update but the same user is now doing it again [84]. What exactly needs to be done by this user to get admin attention? The user has skirted 3RR rules, but seems to exist on Wikipedia only to disrupt this one page. A quick glance at the history shows a concerted effort by other users and admins to keep this user in line, but to no avail. The page was even locked until a concensous could be made and was unlocked when that concensous was reached in the assumption of good faith that this user would abide by group concensous. And they clearly haven't. --SpyMagician 23:32, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

User:86.20.39.188

Resolved

 – Page semi-protected.

Last night, JetLover blocked 86.20.39.188 for vandalising my userpage, see here and this. The first edit says "being an asshole to everyone at school". I live in Coventry, UK and go to school. When I traced the IP address, it traced back to Coventry, see this. The user, has only blocked the IP for 31 hours. All of a sudden, the fact that I have a account here has been spread to most people in my year (thats 250 people), so therefore I think my userpage could be up for heavy vandalism later tonight. On the subject on the above IP address, can it be blocked for longer, as I think it could go on the rampage again tomorrow. Someone told me that I could try and create a new account, but given my current status with other users, seeing as I've just been unblocked, I think this is not the best option. Could a admin possibly lock my userpage if vandals strike later tonight? Thought I needed to bring this up. Davnel03 16:42, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Oh and this. Davnel03 16:45, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Given the above, I've semi-protected your userpage (which prevents IP's and brand-new accounts from editing it). It will expire in 1 month, but if you want the semi-protection lifted sooner, just ask an admin or mention it at WP:RFPP. MastCell ^Talk 16:54, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Doczilla and Wryspy

I've been looking through the contributions of these two users due to some suspiciously similar activity and suspect sockpuppetry. See this nomination by Wryspy (talk · contribs) for the category "DiMera family", where the argument was "Delete per many, many precedents for deleting these family categories" which sounded familiar to me, and courtesy of google [85] I found the phrase "many, many precedents" is a phrase often used by Doczilla (talk · contribs) in CFD debates, examples here and here.

I also note Doczilla's most recent contribution is a request to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Rational Skepticism about the article Jamie Hyneman which has often been edited by Wryspy but never by Doczilla. Both users started early in 2006, both with a lot of edits to the article Infinite Crisis. There is also an interesting pair of edits to wryspy's talk page by Doczilla here and here which looks like the user forgetting which account he is editing from.

Additionally I note both user's have been involved in exposing sockpuppets of the user EJBanks (talk · contribs) see Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/EJBanks and Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/EJBanks.

I have only spotted a couple of examples where both accounts have voted together in nominations so I don't believe any XFD outcomes have been affected (Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_February_11#Category:Autistic_people is one, Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_March_3#Category:People_with_autistic_spectrum_disorders is the other) The instructions at WP:RFCU suggest this should be listed here, so I welcome any comments and suggestions of how to deal with this activity. Tim! 17:56, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

User:Knickerless

Has received many warnings for vandalism. Has ignored all of them. Continues to vandalise pages. To be blocked please. Mangwanani 18:12, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Done. In the future, this type of report should be placed on WP:AIV for faster response. Newyorkbrad 18:17, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Accusations

User:Raul654 user has accused me of being someone from the Intelligent Design folks. This is a defamation and a personal attack. See [86]. He also blocked me. User:Filll alleged that I promote Intelligent Design. That's no better. See [87] These are gross violations of WP:AGF and WP:NPA. --rtc 18:26, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

• The comments themselves aren't particularly actionable, as far as I can see. The block strikes me as a bit of a strong reaction but contraversial articles sometimes require a more stronghanded approach to disruptive editors (I'll admit I'm quick to apply a block at Talk:Muhammad). Have you tried talking to Raul654 to find out exactly what he finds objectionable about your behaviour? Your logs are kind of funny, and it's hard to see what's going on sometimes - anyways, Raul654 is one of the best and most reasonable administrators around - without a lot more to go on, people are unlikely to take complaints about him seriously. Cheers, WilyD 19:45, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

• As below, my reading of your logs was complicated by the Wikipedia:Wikipedians issue, and I was unable to get a complete picture. WilyD 19:57, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

• • Well, I was a little bit pissed off one day at the Intelligent Design talk, but that doesn't justify calling me a creationist or intelligent design guy. I find that a highly objectable accusation. I tried to contribute some knowledge I have about philosophy in general and Karl Popper in particular, who was a quite liberal philosopher (see Critical Rationalism), and some of his adherents seem in fact to argue pro Intelligent Design (I added a note about it to the Critical Rationalism article), which I didn't know until recently. But calling me a ID proponent just because I try to contribute with knowledge about Critical Rationalism is a little bit too much. It may well be true that Raul654 is a good contributor, but he is quite hostile towards me. I didn't even know him before I found myself blocked by him. I never talked to him, neither before nor afterwards. Why does he use these personal attacks without knowing me? --rtc 20:08, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

• That's something you would have to ask him. Try talking to him, rather than about him. WilyD 20:16, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

:This is unrelated to the issue, but what's with your edits here? Is this a technical problem?-Wafulz 19:46, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Actually, every single link in your log is messed up.-Wafulz 19:47, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Nevermind, it's a general technical issue.-Wafulz 19:49, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Weirdness

Could someone check out Homeskillettt (talk · contribs) and ICanDoItNineTimes (talk · contribs)? The first appears to be impersonating Edward (talk · contribs), and IMHO there's something seriously weird going on with the latter (ICanDoItNineTimes)... Attacks? Puppetry? I could use a hand figuring things out here :) Fvasconcellos (t·c) 19:27, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Comment: Anyone else get a chuckle out of the fact that ICanDoItNineTimes (talk · contribs) has a picture of a sockpuppet, and says that's them? Dan 20:22, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

I removed the personal attacks on user:ICanDoItNineTimes' user page. (non-admin) Flyguy649 ^talk _contribs 20:25, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Bizarre glitch?

Resolved

 – Or seems to be. – Luna Santin (talk) 01:09, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Can someone look at the edit history of Wikipedia:Wikipedians? It looks like various reverts and maybe other edits of articles are getting dumped into that page for some inexplicable reason. You just have to look at the last 10-15 versions in the history to see what I mean... I edited a different article and Wikipedia:Wikipedians showed up in my contribs list. --W.marsh 19:47, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Same here. The specific page I was attempting to edit was Conestoga High School. --ElKevbo 19:48, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

My sister went to school there :)--Tom 20:03, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

I thought I was the only one getting that. It's showing up on several people's contribs lists. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 19:49, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Every diff comes up as having edited "Wikipedia:Wikipedians, [correct page]"-Wafulz 19:50, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

I full protected the page... seeing if maybe that will at least alert people before they waste an edit. --W.marsh 19:51, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Ah good, I thought I was having a flashback...--Isotope23 19:52, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

There is some problem with the mediawiki software after an update. Please stand by and wait for it to be fixed. --rtc 19:53, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Being discussed at VP Tech as well. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 19:56, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Since Wikipedia:Wikipedians is fully-protected, articles which are normally unprotected can now not be edited by reverting to an earlier edit, I think. --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 20:00, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Not exactly. When this glitch kicks in, the content is for the article you think you are editing, but if you look at the top of the screen is actually says Editing Wikipedia:Wikipedians. The articles themselves aren't becoming protected...you just aren't actually editing those articles. IrishGuy ^talk 20:02, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

The protection was the first thing I noticed; I went to do an edit and saw that I saw editing a page that only administrators could edit. I was confused at first, but then I realized it was a bug. Acalamari 20:06, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Apparently it's been fixed now? --W.marsh 20:08, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

[88] Yup, all better now. KOS | talk 20:38, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Personal Attack

I have a personal attack from the user Neptuniandroid on my talk page. How do I remove it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.240.136.81 (talk • contribs)

That's not really a personal attack, but removed if it bothers you... you two should endeavor to leave each other alone.--Isotope23 19:57, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

"Dumbass" is certainly a personal attack.-Wafulz 19:59, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

True, and User:Neptuniandroid shouldn't have said it, but this IP did leave a rather rude comment on that user's talk page first. Both of them need to chill out and be civil, in my opinion. -FisherQueen (Talk) 20:01, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Eh, I'm probably a bad judge of that; I've got a very thick skin. To me it was grossly incivil and wholly unecessary, but not a personal attack. I removed it per the request. If someone wants to warn Neptune about it, go for it, but as FisherQueen said, there was a history of contact that went back beyond this particular comment.--Isotope23 20:04, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

I can't find the alleged comment, but regardless, IPs are not always the same person, so this could be one person receiving an insult intending for another. Either way Neptunian shouldn't have made that edit.-Wafulz 20:03, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

You can edit it out yourself by clicking "Edit this page" at the top. However, we're going through some weird technical issues right now, so things might not work correctly.-Wafulz 19:59, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

SCOX Issues User:Kebron

This user is an SCOX troll here to follow me around and revert edits. He has been repeatedly told to stay away from me on the site and is not listening. This is the third time this person has been warned. How about a block for him to send the message home. Thanks. Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 20:20, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Jeff, can you post some diffs where he was warned?--Isotope23 20:27, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Would take some time. I could post them this evening. Will take some time to research. Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 21:01, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

What's the point of warning a harassment-only account? If the user actually listens, they would leave Wikipedia, exactly the same result as if they were summarily indefed. More likely, they will do a few unrelated edits or just wait until people have stopped paying attention, as Kebron has. Not that Kebron has not made some valid points here and there, for Merkey is not always correct…but even were Kebron always correct, there is something deeply unwikipedian about following someone around and confronting him at every turn. Wikistalking is an offense in itself in addition to whatever disruption might (or not) accompany it.Proabivouac 01:03, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, Kebron is an anti-Merkey-only account, see contribs. He went and did a few Canada-related edits when the harassment was being discussed on WP:AN, but is back to Merkey.Proabivouac 23:53, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Excuse me.... once again... I have requested what I have did wrong? I am not allowed to revert something that needs reverting? Was I wrong in the reverts that I just did? --Kebron 03:20, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

It's not individual edits that I'm taking issue with, it's the overall pattern of your contribs since you started. There is one and only one common denominator which ties together the areas you've edited, and that's Jeff Merkey. Why is that?Proabivouac 04:49, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

So I... personnaly as an editor am forbidden from touching ANY artcile edited by Mr Merkey for all time? Have I been insulting to him? Have I violated a three revert rule in a edit war with him? I wish to make it clear. Are you requesting that no matter what, I am forbidden from editing ANY article at the same time as Mr Merkey? EVEN IF the edits are correct? --Kebron 10:38, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, in light of your edit history, that's exactly what I'm saying. As if someone in the real world followed you around all day correcting your grammar and telling all your faults to everyone you meet, that they might (or might not) be correct is entirely beside the point. Merkey feels stalked and harassed by you precisely because you are stalking and harassing him, and have been for several years now. "Good faith wikistalking" is not a concept we should be willing to accept. Harassment-only accounts aren't respected members of our community. Go find something else to do, either not involving Merkey or not involving Wikipedia.Proabivouac 11:21, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

See this SCOX thread, where this issue is being discussed, and the fate of Username:Kebron is being taken…quite personally.Proabivouac 11:49, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

The Godmother (book)

Hello, would someone please intervene at this article, if you look at the article edits you can see that I believe both the front and back covers of the book in the article should be allowed others do not. Would you please help to make a decision on this to avoid edit waring. Thank you. PianoKeys 20:22, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

• Multiple editors have reverted you. If you want to avoid edit warring, I'd say now is a good time to start a discussion on the Talkpage for the article and explain why you feel 2 fair use images are warranted and not decorative.--Isotope23 20:25, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

WP:NFCC requires minimal use, and the rationale on the back-cover image is not nearly enough to justify overlooking that. There's an easy way to avoid edit-warring on this one, PianoKeys: listen to the users who have told you, over and over, here, on your talk pages, and on article talk pages, that you continually misuse non-free images in various contexts. We'll stop enforcing policy when you stop violating it. (ESkog)^(Talk) 20:27, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Deletion Debate clearly no consensus needs to be closed

Can an admin close Benoit family tragedy as no-consensus. I know it's only been open for two and 1/2 days, but looking at it, one or two users have said that it's a clear no consensus, and just about everyone has different views. Thanks in advance. Davnel03 20:48, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

• At the very least rename that article. "Benoit family tragedy" is patent editorializing. Try, perhaps "Benoit family murder" or "Murder of the Benoit family". --Haemo 21:50, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Except that one member of the Benoit family committed suicide, so your two proposed titles are not only patent editorialising too, but factually inaccurate editorialising. The AfD should run its course, since there is a fairly clear debate between only two options going on, and an admin declaring 'no consensus' at an early stage would just be seen as an attempt to shortcut the process in order to prevent a consensus forming for the 'Merge' side. --82.45.163.18 22:01, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't see any reason why the debate shouldn't go on for the normal period. Who knows, a consensus may indeed form eventually - odder things have happened. I don't see why there is any pressing need to decide this any quicker. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 22:45, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Agreed with Morven. No big deal, if there's no consensus when someone does come to close it, it gets closed that way; if people can come to consensus before then, well great! Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 22:49, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Silly request... the concensus is on merge/keep, not delete. This should have been a proposed merge and discussion, not AFD.--155.144.251.120 02:14, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Ken Burns

over the past few day user:74.92.49.94 (talk · contribs) has persisted in adding unsourced after repeated admonitions. before it gets out of hand, and to make sure i'm on a sure footing here, could someone please intervene? --emerson7 | Talk 21:16, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Ummm. That is inappropriate of course but what is new about that? The section of Filmography has been unsourced since a long time as it is the case in many thousands of film articles. Just tag the section as unreferenced for now or discuss that at the talk page or you may even leave them a cool note at their talk page. I don't believe automated warnings would help in this case. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 21:49, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

i even made a precursory attempt to validate the claim myself, but couldn't find anything. we'll try more diplomacy before escalating. --emerson7 | Talk 00:57, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I've just left them a note. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 01:23, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fudzilla

Resolved

 – AfD closed.

Five days has passed on this deletion discussion, and it's still open. I bring this up because the AFD has a ridiculous amount of meatpuppetry in it: we have a large amount of editors (many blue-linked, don't be fooled!) who are from the site (which advertised the AFD) and are !voting keep: claiming that Wikipedia "has no right to decide what anyone reads", "should keep the article undeleted to avoid the appearance of fighting a competitor" - and other brilliant arguments. Any help in closing this dicussion would be appreciated. Thanks. The Evil Spartan 21:54, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, you could help out by tagging all of the meatpuppets with {{spa}} tags, where they apply. This will help the closing admin sort of who is making a reasonable argument, and who is not. --Haemo 21:57, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

I've closed it (I've got my helmet on and I'm ready for the hate mail). Good pickup on the forged signatures that some of the participants were using... MastCell ^Talk 22:31, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, I guess I wasn't expecting it to take this form: Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets#User:MastCell. Sigh. MastCell ^Talk 04:27, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Rtkat3 ignoring notes about edit summaries

User:Rtkat3 continues to use no edit summaries for his edits. People have told him this numerous times on his talk page. I told him about edit summaries recently as well and he ignored it once again. I see no final warning for not using edit summaries, so I'm not sure what else to do. He seems to speak english, so there is no language barrier. Admin intervention is needed I think. He should be using edit summaries at least sometimes. RobJ1981 21:56, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Using edit summaries is polite and helpful, but it's not specifically required as far as I know. If you've asked him to and he refuses, best thing is probably just to drop it. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 22:52, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

From what I can tell, he never (or rarely) even posts on talk pages. Why should a person that refuses to use summaries, just be ignored? I don't see him as a vandal: but who actually knows that for sure? With no summaries, people don't even know what he is adding or removing from articles. In my view, it's a bit of bad faith he refuses to even say why he wont use summaries. It seems to be important from the sounds of this: Template:Summary2. A little bit from it: Please do your best to always fill in the summary field. This is considered an important guideline in Wikipedia. Even a short summary is better than no summary. A simple thing like summaries shouldn't be a big issue. It takes a small amount of time. RobJ1981 04:44, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Single-purpose account, possible Licorne puppet

Looks to me like User:Relativity Priority Disputation has the same kinds of interests and opinions as permanently banned User:Licorne. Can anyone who knows more than me about checking such things look into whether they may possibly be the same or not? --Alvestrand 22:04, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

User:A31lover

Resolved

 – Blocked indef by Lucasbfr

User:A31lover uploaded a junkload of improperly licensed images. I warned him to stop licensing images he got off the internet as pd-self, to which he replied with this and this. Someone please block this guy. The Evil Spartan 22:52, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

I deleted most of his stuff today (something like 20 pd-self images), seems he didn't get the message. indef blocked. -- lucasbfr ^talk 23:03, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism/Edit Warring

Please note here: [89]

User continues to vandalize pages and make dubious edits. He changes the word Jew to Isreali when source clearly uses word Jewish. Please protect page or block this vantal, who is likely sock of AdilB, see earlier report by me.Hetoum I 00:43, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Abusive sockpuppetry by The Cunctator

User At Work (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) recently reverted the edits I made to Grover Norquist (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) to bring it into compliance with WP:BLP. In performing this reversion, User At Work restored much unreferenced, inadequately referenced, or original research controversial material concerning a living person, in blatant violation of WP:BLP. He also added the offending material to the talk page of the article. In response, I issued a warning to User At Work, removed the offending material [90][91][92][93], and made a report on Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard. recently responded to this report as though he were User At Work! The Cunctator claimed that "I don't argue that he can find policy justification for repeatedly threatening me with being blocked", even though I issued the template:blp2 warning to User At Work, not the The Cunctator, and I reverted edits on Grover Norquist (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) by User At Work, not the The Cunctator. Employing an abusive sockpuppet to in engage in blatant violations of WP:BLP is not appropriate behavior for a user entrusted with administrative privileges on Wikipedia. John254 01:01, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Abusive sockpuppetry would be using a sock to avoid blocks and 3RR violations, or create the appearence of a non-existent consensus. Is there any evidence he actually did this? WP:SOCK does allow sockpuppetry under some circumstances. Do the two users have a history of taking part in the same discussions (while not posing as the same person) or editing the same articles? Someguy1221 01:59, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

That has never happened. The only reason John254 is able to make this incorrect claim is because I obviously wrote that comment as User At Work but accidentally logged in as The Cunctator. --User At Work 04:48, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sock_puppetry#.22Good_hand.2C_bad_hand.22_accounts expressly prohibits the use of sockpuppets to engage in policy violations, even violations unrelated to any actions with one's main account:

The use of alternate accounts for deliberate policy violations is specifically proscribed:

• All users, but especially admins and potential admin candidates, are proscribed from operating a "bad hand" account for the purpose of policy violations or disruption.

The Cunctator's use of User At Work to engage in severe WP:BLP violations on Grover Norquist (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) is a clear violation of WP:SOCK. For an administrator such as The Cunctator to engage in this sort of abusive sockpuppetry is indefensible. John254 02:27, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

But until the sock is actually confirmed by community consensus or administrative action to have violated policy, he's still not assumed to be in violation of WP:SOCK. Someguy1221 02:37, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, I'm not an administrator, and I don't claim to speak on behalf of the Wikipedia community. However, I would submit that some of the material that The Cunctator restored on Grover_Norquist (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) constitutes a blatant violation of WP:BLP. I would submit that controversial material concerning living people sourced to political attack websites [94], political blogs [95], and original syntheses of sources to draw general disparaging conclusions [96] is inappropriate for posting on Wikipedia. John254 03:02, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Furthermore, until recently, The Cunctator maintained User:User At Work/Pols under investigation as an entirely unsourced list of accusations of crime -- see the revision as of 15:19, 15 August 2006, which was in place for nearly a year. If such entirely unreferenced and blatantly negative information concerning living people doesn't constitute a severe WP:BLP violation, then I don't know what does. John254 03:16, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

...In this case i believe you may need to request a CU instead. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 02:33, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I will submit a checkuser request. However, I also believe that The Cunctator's recent edit provides almost certain proof that he is using User At Work as an abusive sockpuppet. Consider the following

I did not summarily revert John254's mass deletion of content -- I restored some of the content, edited much of it, left some deleted. [97]

(as User At Work ) then

I will simply respond to say that my comment "I did not summarily revert John254's mass deletion of content -- I restored some of the content, edited much of it, left some deleted." is factually correct. [98]

(as The Cunctator ) John254 02:49, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I have posted a checkuser request at Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/The Cunctator. John254 02:55, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Good lord. There's no need for a checkuser. User At Work is an account I use for perfectly legitimate reasons. John254 has been harassing me in ever escalating fashion over a disagreement with a single edit I made restoring some content he deleted. I'm starting to get pretty irritated at his vitriolic and histrionic claims. --The Cunctator 04:21, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

There is nothing abusive about Cunc's use of a sockpuppet in this case. And from skimming that revert, I don't see any BLP problems. So unless until John254 wants to mention some specific BLP issues, I see no problems here. Raul654 04:43, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Some specific WP:BLP problems with this diff include:

(1) Restores "2004 criticism of Ohio Governor Bob Taft" section, which constitutes inadequately referenced controversial information concerning a living person, since it is sourced only to a political blog.

(2) Restores "Personality" section, which constitutes inadequately referenced controversial information concerning a living person, since it is original research, using the synthesis two opinions to advance a general negative claim

(3) Restores "Alleged money laundering" section, which constitutes inadequately referenced controversial information concerning a living person, since it is sourced only to a political attack website (later removed from the article, but added to the talk page; the prohibition on inadequately referenced controversial information concerning living persons applies to talk pages.)

Also, as User At Work, The Cunctator has been maintaining this WP:BLP violation for nearly a year. The use of a sockpuppet account to engage in these WP:BLP violations is inconsistent with Wikipedia:Sock_puppetry#.22Good_hand.2C_bad_hand.22_accounts, which states that

All users, but especially admins and potential admin candidates, are proscribed from operating a "bad hand" account for the purpose of policy violations or disruption.

John254 08:16, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Abuse and Harassment by User:Darrenhusted

This user has been rude, sarcastic abused me on my discussion page [Discussion Page]. He has also gone so far as to accuse me of [sockpuppetry], which is completely false and he only did it to get me. I repeatedly asked him to stop messaging me in such a rude way and he continued to do so claiming I was making him "bang his head against the wall". I tried to reason to no avail and wanted the cool off time but he was still messaging me today. I will no longer edit anything here because of him. An Admin told me to go to Deletion Review and I did, I do not know who the people are that posted after my initial plea and could care less if their comments were removed because the comments part is over, BUT this does not give the Darren the right to harass me repeatedly after and poke fun at my inability to sign my posts correctly ( I am just clicking the sig link up top so I do not know what the trouble is) it worked when I copied and pasted another users sig and put my name in it so I am at a loss. He is a mean spirited, rude and sarcastic person who should be warned for his behavior. His blatent comment to WildThing that he is gonna smack indy fans down shows his true colors. Respectfully submitted, --EdWood 01:43, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

If you're certain that Darrenhusted's claim of sockpuppetry has no merit, then just wait until the checkuser case clears your name, and leave it at that. You've already been in contact with several admins, and the situation is under control. Leebo ^T/C 02:02, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Again I am summoned by the call of my name....seriously though, if you truly aren't a sockpuppeter (and assuming good faith I'll believe you aren't), just wait until the checkuser case closes. Wildthing61476 02:17, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

If I can say a few words, most of this is already at the DRV for Chuck Taylor. The editor above and myself were editing an article which had been recreated (twice now) after a very long AfD, and AfD which for any one checking my contribs will see was one of about 25 which I have undertook in the last month. I have no personal animosity towards the editor nor any of the articles I nominted, they were PROD-ed (along with hundreds of other WP:PW articles) and when PRODs were removed I AfD-ed them. The first Chuck Taylor AfD was extensively filibustered by Theperfectone who ended up making no fewer than 61 edits to the AfD, and a further 100 edits to the actual article while the AfD was on, although he had edited almost exclusively that one article since joining (which I have no problem with, but it meant he has serious ownership issues), the first AfD ended with delete. I thanked the closing admin and continued editing other articles, as I did though the whole AfD process.

Less than 24 hours later the article was recreated, a CSD G4 was applied and removed, then a second AfD started, during which time I began editing the article down again, removing unverified claims (such as "he is considered one of the fastest rising indy stars" or words to that effect which tried to imply notability), removing an image which was not fair use, removing linkspam (mainly youtube and myspace) and removing week by week results (as most wrestling bios tend to bloat up with week by week results, and WP:PW guidelines try to limit them). As I edited I explained what I was doing in the edit summaries, and then added three messages to EdWood's homepage explaining what I was doing.

However while this was going on I was also checking the criteria for a CSD G4, and once I found that this article had violated it I stopped the AfD, reposted the CSD G4 tag, contacted the closing admin from the first AfD to explain what had happened and then messaged SirFozzie, and admin with whom I have spoken an many occasions and also who is a member of the wrestling project, and so understands wrestler bio notability better than most.

I then posted comments on the users who had taken part in the second AfD to let them know what I had done, and told EdWood to speak to the closing admin about recreation, and when contacted that closing admin told him he would not recreate the article and to go to DRV.

At the DRV I noticed that four of the editors all signed "two dashes and not using the tildes, [99], [100], [101], [102], a clear case of sock puppets or a massive coincidence?" and decided to tag the accounts in question with sock tags and then start a sock puppet case when I had the time (which would have been later that day).

As for messaging EdWood, since he posted this [103] I haven't messaged him, other than to tag user pages as socks.

And so far as the "admin who works with the WP:PW and so can bitch slap any indy fans" quote which Ed keeps bringing up, this was a comment made by me to Wildthing61476 (the nominator of the second AfD) about all the editors in both Chuck Taylor AfDs, not directly about EdWood, and was obviously meant to be humorous. By "bitch slap any indy fans" I meant that he wouldn't be taken in by their filibustering or exhortations that Chuck Taylor was notable.

The check user case says the eight listed are not socks, which is fine, because I have no doubt the closing admin on the DRV will give little or no weight to the two new and one recent user who found the DRV minutes after EdWood filed it.

So to sum up, as I do not intend to post at this ANI again, did I edit the Chuck Taylor page aggresively? Yes. Did I message EdWood? Yes. Have I harrassed or made direct personal threats to him? No. Did he want to keep Chuck Taylor even after he lost the AfD (which was actually a CSD G4)? Yes. Is he using socks to filibuster the DRV? I don't know but it looks suspicious to me. Am I sick of hearing the name Chuck Taylor? Yes.

The simple truth is Chuck Taylor's article did not state notability, not the first time, not the second time, and once the DRV finishes most likely not the third time. If Theperfectone, Matthewhack, EdWood or anyone else can prove otherwise, or if consensus is that he is notable then I am fine with the article being around, but so far the editors who want Chuck around seem to want to ignore the rules when it doesn't suit them and use them when it does.

I will not post any futher on this ANI, nor the DRV, so any issues can be brought to my talkpage. Darrenhusted 09:21, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Replaceable non-free images

Greetings, all. I've been taking care of the backlog of Category:Replaceable fair use images, and I deleted Image:Almstilhs052030.jpg, since it was a portrait of a living celebrity and had been tagged with {{rfu}} for over 7 days. User:Badagnani seems to have goaded the uploader, User:Mosquera, and it seems to have worked. See User talk:Quadell#Destructive deletion. Mosquera re-uploaded the image, and I redeleted the image and warned him not to reupload images that has been deleted according to process, but to list them on Deletion Review if he thinks they were deleted inappropriately. I noticed that most of Mosquera's uploads were violations of WP:NFCC #1, and I tagged them as such. He's not happy, and he's accusing me of abusing my administrator privileges. Any comments? I'm going to bed. Maybe some one else could step in. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 04:18, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Update: He has now removed the {{rfu}} tags I placed on the images he uploaded. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 04:20, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

He's wikistalking me, pure and simple. I posted lengthy rationales like this one. I believe these are the most detailed ones ever posted here, as I tried to prevent just this sort of problem.

This is not a case of good faith disputes. He is retaliating at me for saying that he violated policy. The existence of fair use images is no excuse to harass and attack contributors who act in good faith. Policy does not call for autodelete of a "portrait of a living person." Period.

This admin refused to discuss these issues, apparently because I know that the English-language Wikipedia permits such fair use of copyrighted images within certain guidelines, including pictures of people who still function. As is par for the course, he cites his own opinion as consensus, then tries to attack every possible contribution for disagreeing with him.

Part of my lengthy rationale is this text:

1. The contributing editor uploaded this content in a good-faith effort to comply with policy and further the goals of the English-language Wikipedia, recognizing that a non-free image can only be used in an article under strict circumstances. Once these basic requirements are met, the burden of proof is on those who dispute the validity of the content. If the use is a valid fair use and the rationale is a valid rationale, disputing the image is destructive and uncivil.
2. The contributing editor understands that image-tagging rules are necessarily complex, are sometimes subject to varying interpretation (which reasonable people can disagree about), and play an important role in safeguarding the project and avoiding ethical issues and potential legal exposure.
3. The contributing editor uploaded this content as an important, irreplaceable visual representation of a subject that contributes significantly to at least one article. There is no legitimate question that the image is perfectly appropriate.

At minimum, Quadell must respect that image-tagging rules are necessarily complex, are sometimes subject to varying interpretation, and that honest people may differ. I do not wish to be the victim of about some bizarre campaign against individual users. I acted in good faith and ask to be treated as such.

Mosquera 04:28, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

May I disagree with you on your first point. It is often when an image may not be valid that it is subject to dispute. And the requirements of keeping a nonfree image are much more stringent than uploading them in good faith; they must also actually comply with the appropriate policies itself. Calling such discussions regarding validity of images "destructive and incivil" is an assumption of bad faith in itself. —Kurykh 04:45, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Like I said: If the use is a valid fair use and the rationale is a valid rationale, then disputing the image is destructive and uncivil. In an attempt to prevent this exact problem, I drafted the the most detailed rationale possible]]. My posting a "portrait of a living person" is not an a priori justification for abusing administrative privileges to make a WP:POINT. Mosquera 05:00, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I've never seen a rationale prepared with more detail or care. It's not clear the content of the rationale was even read, let alone considered or addressed, and User:Quadell did not even take the time to post to the uploader's talk page. This is very poor editing practice, and I agree with User:Mosquera in that s/he does appear, now, to be being wiki-stalked. Considering the detail in the rationale, I would like to point out that the above editing practices have demonstrably driven away numerous formerly productive, knowledgeable contributors and must not continue. Badagnani 05:03, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

To be fair, he did post a template to my talk page, but I cleared it off. I assumed he would see that I was dead serious with my rationale and try to touch base with me personally before deleting. I know this is a hot button issue, so I lay my cards on the table from the start. Today he bombed me with templates, which I see as retaliation. Mosquera 05:07, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I see no such template from this editor on your talk page history fitting the date range in question. Badagnani 05:09, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

The template is right here, and the time between "templating" and deletion is longer than 48 hours, which is the requisite time for deletion per WP:CSD#I7. --Iamunknown 05:47, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

You could write a 5 word rationale or a 5000 word rationale, but pictures of living people are still generally considered replaceable on Wikipedia (See #3 at [104] and #8 on [[105]]. Having said that, I don't think I can pass judgment on this particular photo since I have not seen it and don't know how it was used. Still, it seems you've reacted too aggressively to the deletion. Isn't this just a simple matter of asking for deletion review? nadav (talk) 05:32, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

That's not the question. I see no evidence the rationale was even read or addressed. Whether you claim review is the best option now is immaterial; the behavior of the deleting editor was clearly improper; s/he prefers to simply go ahead and delete rather than address the rationale's points. As I stated earlier, this sort of thing, in addition to the wiki-stalking (which is very bad) does drive away productive, knowledgeable editors. Badagnani 05:38, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Nadav, I think the image was from http://www.mynetworktv.com/ah__characters_annalynne_mccord/ mainParagraph1/content_files/file7/ANNALYNNE_0010B.jpg (combine the two; sorry, it was too long). I could be wrong about the image. Could Mosquera or Quadell clarify? --Iamunknown 05:51, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

(e/c) I've taken a look at the images about which Quadell posted notices on Mosquera's talkpage. (I agree it would have been more polite to post one custom-written message instead of all the templates, but editors upholding image policy deal with so many backlogs that I don't think he can be faulted too much) Almost all of them seem to fall rather blatantly outside the standard interpretation of the nonreplaceability criterion. None of the tremendously long-winded rationales satisfactorily explain why there are outstandingly exceptional circumstances that would permit the non-free portraits of living persons. Regarding the "wikistalking," I believe arbcom has declared that editors may use logs to check if a user has repeated a similar error elsewhere. Quadell was right to check if this non-standard interpretation of the nonreplaceability criterion was employed on other images. nadav (talk) 06:05, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

If these images are replaceable, then I invite you to go find me a replacement. Those images areproperly used under current Wikipedia policies and guidelines. If "free", "freely licensed" or "libre" images ever become available, they may be uploaded as replacements. Such an event is highly unlikely in the next twenty years, even if it were somehow in theory possible, given the intellectual property issues involved.

1. The English-language Wikipedia is the most widely used, most comprehensive, and possibly the most important reference work available. If it degrades the quality of the articles for a perceived lowest common denominator of potential re-use, then it will make itself less relevant and could eventually fail on this issue.
2. Creation of "free", "freely licensed" or "libre" content does not have a higher priority than the creation of encyclopedic content. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a social movement to create "free", "freely licensed" or "libre" content. A reference work that refuses to use a professionally distributed image meant specifically to identify a subject faces serious credibility issues.
3. Editors cannot be expected to do original work for the English-language Wikipedia, as stated in the five pillars. They cannot be expected to do the original work of creating an entirely new, "free", "freely licensed" or "libre" replacement image. Nor should they be expected to convince rights holders to donate their intellectual property. Further, non-lawyers should not be forced to write ad hoc rationales and legal justifications for fair use on a case by case basis. The law does not require fair use rationales. Mosquera 07:06, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

These are all open-and-shut cases of replaceable non-free images of living people, and no amount of wikilawyering will change that. Plus, the sourcing is poor; I tried to check on a few of them and not in a single case could I verify that they were indeed "promotional" as the uploader claimed. By the way, have a look at the articles in which they are used: mostly stubs. If the uploder had invested ten percent of the time and energy he wasted in defending the images to instead improve the articles, we'd be better off now. Or ten percent of the time and energy to instead write to the people in question and ask them for a free release. -- Anyway, I hereby state my intention to delete these images shortly. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:09, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

The emperor has no clothes Nothing in policy says that fair use images of living people are automatically to be deleted. The images come from places like NBC and Fox, who aren't going to donate content. Be serious. Mosquera 07:17, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

(e/c) Point 3 goes completely against everything I know about Wikipedia ("The Free Encyclopedia") and especially WP:NONFREE and WP:FURG. I am also surprised and disappointed that you have now reverted the re-tagging of the images as replaceable by Abu badali, and I have re-added the tags myself. Please follow the instructions on the tag if you disagree with the claim of replaceability. But remember that policy holds that portraits of living people are replaceable in almost all cases. (See #3 at [106] and #8 on WP:NONFREE#Examples_of_unacceptable_use) nadav (talk) 07:27, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Those tags do not reflect a good faith dispute. They represent wikistalking. By replacing the tags, you are stalking too. You would not know of the tags had one admin not decided to attack me for following policy on fair use. Let it be. Mosquera 07:45, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

So by following up a WP:ANI post I become a wikistalker? It is uncivil to call everyone who disagrees with you names. nadav (talk) 07:57, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Mosquera, these tags do reflect a good faith dispute. Editors, who are concerned about the inappropriate use of non-free content on a free encyclopedia, have identified this and challenged the assertion that these images should be used. They are acting within the established processes and, as such, are acting in good faith. Any assertion that they are not acting in good faith is contrary to the guideline assume good faith and the fourth pillar. --Iamunknown 08:00, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

The original admin already showed bad faith by refusing to discuss the issue, then retaliating by slapping a bunch of dispute tags on any image he could find bearing a human face. This is not the established process. By repeating the tags, you implicitly endorse the stalking campaign. I call that uncivil. Mosquera 08:04, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

What is important is how to go forward from this point on. There is no stalking campaign, there are simply editors tagging images that they believe are replaceable non-free images as required by policy. That is not uncivil. Have you read Wikipedia:Non-free_content? How did you wish editors to contest the fair-use of those images without using tags? Sancho 08:09, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

It is established process to tag non-free images one thinks do not meet the criteria for inclusion. Unfortunately, Quadell aggravated the situation by putting many templates on your user talk page, as opposed to putting one long custom message. No one is perfect; he has the opportunity to adjust his practices in the future.

Looking through someone's contribution logs for allegedly inappropriately tagged images is not wikistalking; that is why we have contribution logs. Otherwise they would be hidden from editors and administrators alike. Quadell has not engaged in wikistalking. No one here has engaged in wikistalking. --Iamunknown 08:12, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Canvassing

The recent canvassing on the part of User:Quadell does not absolve his/her aforementioned actions.

• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Andrew_c&diff=prev&oldid=143894205
• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Chowbok&diff=prev&oldid=143894270
• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Videmus_Omnia&diff=prev&oldid=143894309 Badagnani 05:13, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Badagnani, have you read Wikipedia:Canvassing lately? How do you reconcile what the guideline actually says with your baseless accusations? --Iamunknown 05:38, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

The mention of deletion without addressing the rationale, and wiki-stalking are right there in the history; no accusations are necessary. The canvassing is similarly right there in the edit history. Badagnani 05:40, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Badagnani, leaving relatively-neutral messages to three people is not canvassing. Seriously. Re-read Wikipedia:Canvassing. "An arbitrator clarified the position: "Briefly, I think a reasonable amount of communication about issues is fine. Aggressive propaganda campaigns are not...."" Was this an aggressive propaganda campaign? No. Was it reasonable communication? Yes. Not canvassing. --Iamunknown 05:47, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Any rational person can guess what he is up to. He is looking for people to back him up, since he is unwilling to rationally discuss this issue on his own. He is trying to retaliate because I showed that he acted against policy. I ask that he not carry this wikistalking campaign against me to other users. I further ask that he apologize immediately and try to undo his destructive actions. I realize that policy ordinarily does not apply to administrators, but in this case I insist. Mosquera 07:13, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I consider myself "rational", and I completely reject your thesis. Quadell isn't looking for people to back him up, he brought this to ANI for review by uninvolved administrators and editors. And thus far the review has been unanimously in his favour and against the use of the images you uploaded. He is not retaliating, he is actively seeking out images that seriously violate policy, as has been described to you multiple times. His actions are not destructive, they are constructive attempts at maintaining a free encyclopedia. --Iamunknown 07:36, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I may be wrong, but wasn't User:Chowbok (one of the editors canvassed) involved at one time in a massive campaign of Wikistalking against numerous users, some of which actually left the project as a result? Maybe it's just a coincidence, but I do see a lot of justification of Wikistalking in these pages in recent weeks. Badagnani 07:17, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

To answer your question: No, not that I am aware of, and no, Chowbok was not canvassed (see my previous posts). --Iamunknown 07:36, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Repeated tag reverts by Mosquera

Mosquera has now decided to systematically revert placement of the tags on his images (See contrib history [107]), even though they were re-added in good faith by both me and Abu badali. This refusal to follow the usual processes is tendentious, and, in my opinion, warrants sanction. nadav (talk) 07:37, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Wikistalking

The refusal to cease wikistalking as regards tagging image uploads is also tendentious, and, in my opinion, warrants sanction. We've seen it previously with Chowbok and Abu Badali and the consensus was that that practice is disruptive and wrong, and drives away editors. Badagnani 08:13, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

So now every editor who reads this post, looks at the images, and agrees they are replaceable is "wikistalking"? Please stop throwing out this epithet and address (on the image talk pages or at WP:FUR) the issue of whether the images are replaceable or not. nadav (talk) 08:19, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

No one is wikistalking. Looking through an editor's contribution logs to identify what one thinks might be errors is not wikistalking; it is established practice and, when the editor in question is properly notified and the proper process is gone through, established process. --Iamunknown 08:17, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

A few brief comments

Good morning. In regards to Badagnani's claim that "it isn't clear that I even read the rationale", I'm not sure what would make it clear -- I didn't videotape myself reading it. I read the rationale, disagreed, commented on it in the image talk page, and deleted the image. Since the deletion debate had been open to discussion for 48 hours and the uploader had already commented at length, I saw no need to leave an additional message on the uploader's talk page. (I always leave a message when I tag images, without exception, though.) Regarding the wikistalking accusation, I have tagged hundreds of images with {{rfu}} over the past few days. Sometimes I looked through a particular category with lots of image violations (e.g. "Heavy metal bands"), sometimes I looked through a licensing type (e.g. Publicity photographs) looking for obvious violations, and sometimes I look through the contributions of an uploader who obviously doesn't understand our policy and has uploaded other images that are clearly against policy. That's not stalking. I'd like to point out, too, that there are many other images the Mosquera uploader which are almost certainly against policy to use here (e.g.) -- I didn't nominate those for deletion because I was only looking for RFUs, not trying to tag all a particular editor's images. Regarding the multiple notes on Mosqera's talk page, I use a tool that adds such messages, and when I had tagged all messages (not two minutes after I had tagged the first one), I went to consolidate all the messages into one in order to not leave so many templates on a user's talk page. But he had already deleted them all. Thanks, – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 11:15, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Harassment by John254

In response to a single edit I made restoring some of the content he deleted from an article, John254 has made repeated threats that I would be blocked, both in the edit history of the page as well as on my userpage. He then called for the speedy deletion of a page in my userspace (User:User At Work/Pols under investigation) which I use to keep track of my work (my interest is corrupt politicians and political scandals), raised this to the level of an ANI, and has since accused me of "abusive sockpuppetry" to merit a checkuser investigation; the claim of abusive sockpuppetry is entirely without merit -- User At Work is an account I (The Cunctator) use, and I have always been assiduous about avoiding intersecting the two accounts (except for the ANI conversation when I responded logged in to the wrong account). The entire time I have tried very hard to be respectful of John254's motives, for example responding to the comments he left at Talk:Grover Norquist and editing the page to address what I believed were the concerns he was expressing.

John254 seems to be entirely unable to admit that his judgment of what is acceptable content for Wikipedia may be imperfect -- in particular, his invocation of BLP to justify the removal of well-sourced, accurate but controversial or critical information about a famous person who deliberately seeks controversy is in my judgment incorrect. But I would have happy to work with him to improve the tone, style, and balance of the Grover Norquist page. Unfortunately I can no longer trust that he would operate in good faith.

I respectfully request John254 to retract the claim of abusive sockpuppetry and I hope he will not be so quick to threaten people who question his edits with blocking. --User At Work 04:45, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

The best way to avoid such problems is to add {{User Alternate Acct|User At Work}} to the UAW account. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 05:18, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

How does that help avoiding being harassed and attacked by another user? --User At Work 05:38, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

At least it could have saved us some time instead of going through a CU and accusations of sockpuppetry. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 05:51, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

The person who is spending the time making the accusations of abusive sockpuppetry and asking for the CU is John254. I've been trying to de-escalate the situation each time he launches a new attack.--User At Work 06:27, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I'll be keeping an eye. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 07:10, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Harassment and more disruptions from socks of User:Mariam83

Further information: [[:User:Mariam83_blocked_indefinitely]]

User:Mariam83 has decided to launch a new campaign of harassment and disruption of her favourite articles and enemy editors and admins via her multiple dynamic IP socks hailing from both Houston, TX, USA and China.

• 68.88.234.199 (talk · contribs)
• 68.89.186.87 (talk · contribs)
• 66.141.22.99 (talk · contribs)
• 219.132.138.231 (talk · contribs) -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 07:21, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

• 68.89.170.59 (talk · contribs) one more. Flyguy649 ^talk _contribs 07:42, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
• Accumulating at Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Mariam83. --Ezeu 08:19, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

This is getting out of hand. A range block of that Texas IP is in order. --Ezeu 07:48, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Anything we can do to prevent the individual behind Mariam83 from editing Wikipedia is warranted.Proabivouac 07:54, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

WP:RBI. One day she will get tired. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 08:21, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

How do we do a spam block again?

I think someone is in the testing stages of a bot spam attack. There used to be a spammer constantly adding links to serialkillercalendar.com -- which was just a calendar for sale featuring artwork of killer. Today links to PainandPaintings.com showed up on Ed Gein and some other articles about killers, which has the exact same art work, site design, etc. as the serialkillercalendar.com, including a link at the bottom to go to the other site to pruchase the calendar... so exact same purpose, exact same spam. When I removed it the anon IP address who had added it created an account to repost it and to yell at me with threats to "have you blocked for senselessly deleting links". So I removed it again... and another editor got it on the new add at Charles Manson.

But I just went to Ed Gein and see about five different accounts adding the link -- some anon IPs, some registered accounts, and sometimes in External Links, sometimes in References and sometimes at the top of the page as if it were a disambiguation link! And I think it's a bot because at one point in a manner of not too many minutes the page had accumulated some six or more links to the same site.

I've never gone about getting a site blocked or trying to track various IPs and stuff as sockpuppets like this, but it looks like it needs to get done. Plus I have to get to sleep here soon and can;t follow up on this. Can someone else take over on this please? DreamGuy 07:52, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

The following accounts/IPs all added the link just to Ed Gein in about an hour and a half (which means I've been editing here way longer than I should be tonight anwyay):

User:72.73.109.20

User:Killercalendar

User:68.194.48.146

User:24.193.216.136

User:24.7.91.60

User:Killerguitargod

User:71.111.117.212

User:203.134.15.157

User:72.189.105.125

User:Mo daget

And I think I spotted at least one other IP adding the same link to another article about a killer, but I didn't check it against the main list to know if it was a repeat... and I don't have more than a handful of such articles on my watchlist, so it may be spreading across a bunch of others at this very moment. DreamGuy 08:16, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

No it's not. you can check by doing a search at special:linksearch. If the spamming gets bad it can be added to the spam_blacklist on meta. But I don't think it's necessary at the moment. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 08:39, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

That's handy to know about. There are some other frequently spammed sites I look for periodically, and that'll be useful.

By the way, the person who did this claims on my talk page that it was the result of posting a note on MySpace calling for people to come here and add the link. We could be in for more of this later. DreamGuy 08:43, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Beneath the bridge

This user's first ever edit was to my talk page: [108]. This edit s/he made was in response to me dedicating 2.5 hours of my time to fix re-directs. I replied calmly on his/her talk page, and when asked why s/he was behaving this way, responded with this edit: [109]. Later, after giving a Welcome note and encouraging him to maintain healthy relationships with other users on Wikipedia, replied by leaving vandalism on my talk page, as well as a death threat: [110]. Something needs to be done about this disruptive user, who has also left similar notices on a couple other pages, threatening other users for no particular reason. ––Ksy92003(talk) 08:24, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Blocked indef because of death threats and trolling of course. Happy editing. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 08:30, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, greatly. This was bothering me tremendously because I spent a huge amount of time making (at my count) 136 edits in a span of less than 2 hours, and only one user noticed... unfortunately, s/he failed to notice my hard work and resulted in death threats, which s/he later tried to reconcile for it by apologizing, telling me he think's I'm cool. Not a good way to begin using your editing privileges, as far as I'm concerned. But this bothered me greatly that another user could try to make me feel like my edits weren't appreciated when I spent a great amount of time on them. ––Ksy92003(talk) 08:35, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

He made a weird edit to my talk page, commenting on an article I just barely created. Weird. I support the indef block based on his edits to your user talk page. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 08:41, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

A very infamous tactic of trolls. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 10:30, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Xratedguy leaving deviously-constructed messages

Resolved

 – Blocked indef by Ryulong

Here is the text left on various pages by Xratedguy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). I gave him a uw-vandal2 warning, but don't have time to monitor his activities.

Roland Rance has studied this for years and has discovered that Trotskyite feces tastes better than the alternatives [111]

It's SPAM and vandalism rolled into one. I have reverted his 8 or so identical contributions. Please watch out for this guy.--Otheus 08:32, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

This is yet another sockpuppet of Runtshit, who has so far created over 200 false IDs and defaced nearly 200 articles in his obsessive stalking of me. See . S/he is almost certainly llinked to the Truthprofessor and Zuminous serial vandals. It appears that we are powerless to stop this character, and can only go around clearing up after him/her. RolandR 08:57, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Account to be blocked

As per this checkuser Mouse Pad of Doom (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is a confirmed open proxy SPA and likely JB196 puppet that needs blocking, anyone care to oblige? –– Lid^(Talk) 09:26, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

A very particular debate at WP:SSP involving a presumably husband and wife

Well, this issue has been brought to the ANI a few days before. It can be found here. This is a situation where User:Tovojolo and his alleged wife User:Caprisa are being accused of sockpuppetry. The problem is that it is hard for both claiming parties to claim it is true or not. Personally, my first opinion about this matter is that i don't buy that they are married. I brought this issue here in order to get more feedback about this issue. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 10:24, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Just when I'd removed my own report.[112] This is completely ridiculous. Is there a policy that states that Wikipedia is not clueless, or would this be trumped by WP:AGF? Besides remote proxies, there can be no better example of how CU cannot solve our sockpuppet problems, as here it is admitted that CU will give a match. We need responders who can tell two people from one by contributions alone and are willing to act on this judgment.Proabivouac 10:32, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I've done enough researches about vandals/trolls/socks/disrupters today and i am feeling tired of that. If you could provide some diffs showing that they are controversially editing the same articles than i can use my bat. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 10:37, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

User:Ghirlandajo pushing his political POV in inappropriate places

Latest examplew was when that user continues trolling on AfD page [113] which have no relevance to the current discussion in hand. He has been called to stop it several times but instead of this he continues. This behaviour is not only related to the article in hand, but also several other places. Suva 10:39, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, we don't know about other articles unless you help us providing some diffs. As for the AfD, i really do not see anything alarming. It is a debate and one has to expect some comments that would hurt although within Wikipedia policy. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 10:43, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, comments on the order of "Estonians are evil Nazis who must be hated" in context of an article on Anti-Estonian sentiment are certainly inappropriate, wouldn't you think?

The real story here, however, is not so much as POV-pushing, as WP:TROLLing. Ghirlandajo is making inflammatory remarks not because he wants his POV to be seen, but because he wants the AFD participants to be inflamed, in the hope that this would derail the discussion. Digwuren 11:27, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

This is what he said exactly Yes, the Nazis are primarily responsible for the extermination of 99% Jews in Estonia. Are you refering to that? If yes than where is the problem? Remember that the AfD is a debate and as i said above, in heated debates you would expect things you'd not like to hear. Obviously, in our case, i really do not see any problem with unless other editors or admins can prove me wrong. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 11:33, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

No, I'm referring to the fact that he would make irrelevant accusations in the AFD. And, well, then, there are plain lies. Digwuren 11:43, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I've seen more than a thousand of similar ways of debating AfD's in Wikipedia and i don't remember someone was blocked because of that. Have you tried to approach him re the matter? I don't see any edit at his talkpage refering him to this thread! -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 11:53, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't care about the trolling of Digwuren and Co., either on this page or elsewhere,[114] [115] but I'm concerned to see how low WP:ANI has degenerated. I'm surprized that the community still tolerates a bunch of meatpuppets, apparently based in the same dorm, who have turned one of the most quiet segments of Wikipedia into a never-ending battleground, without bothering to contribute a single meaningful sentence to the project. "Don't feed the trolls" is still as valid a policy as ever, as is "Don't publicize the dispute where there is none". That their regular rants on this page are not summarily removed serves to encourage their disruption and effectively spawns new bouts of trolling, as the number of one-purpose accounts seems to be increasing steadily. Digwuren's activity is especially disruptive: each of his edits is either revert or trolling. If he had appeared a year or two ago, I'm sure he would have been banned within a month or two, but, given the current lack of interest in sanitizing Wikipedia, he is allowed to roam freely. This my first and last reply to this. --Ghirla^-трёп- 12:09, 11 July 2007 (UTC)