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

Block of Bouncehoper by Violetriga

Violetriga (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) just blocked Bouncehoper (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) for three minutes because of "edit warring". These two are engaged in a long-standing dispute over the usage of "sophomore" in various articles, and as evident from their contributions, they have both engaged in mass revert warring over this issue (and Violetriga abused her admin rollback tool). Administrators shouldn't block editors with whom they are in dispute. And this block was for three minutes, which makes it look punitive, rather than preventative. Melsaran (talk) 20:37, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

We discussed and agreed a WikiProject guideline at WP:MUSTARD. Bouncehoper systematically went through my contributions and undid all my edits despite that agreement. The block was a very short one to finally get him to discuss it rather than continuing the edit war and came after numerous messages asking him to stop on his talk page. It worked and we are now trying to discuss it. violet/riga (t) 20:42, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Actually, it only worked to scare the crap outta me. Was that the idea?

And as Violetriga has glossed over, I was making an effort to discuss, when she/he came onto my talk page and started getting crazy. I was only reverting their stuff because they were deeming it an "Americanism" and not bothering to link it, which would have been more beneficial than just deleting it and calling it something it's not.

Bouncehoper 20:54, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

If he was blindly reverting he should certainly have been blocked briefly if that was the only way to get him to engage in discussion. It might have been a good idea to avoid even the appearance of personal involvement, by bringing the systematic reverts to the attention of other administrators who could discuss and take whatever action was considered necessary in the circumstances. --Tony Sidaway 20:56, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Agreed that

it would probably have been better to have an uninvolved admin to step in, but as it was happening at a fast pace I thought it appropriate to do it myself. violet/riga (t) 21:02, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

They were both blindly reverting across something like 30 articles today, and the same yesterday and last week. (90 or more reverts, but never 4 in one day, of course.) Blocking someone you are edit warring with is forbidden, even just to get their attention. Use of rollback in an edit war over content is forbidden. Edit warring over something as petty as the use of the word "sophomore" to indicate someone's second album shows poor judgement for an administrator. This is really inappropriate behavior for an admin. Thatcher131 20:59, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

I think you'll find that it hasn't gotten anywhere near 3RR by either party. A block would be inappropriate if it were lengthy - this wasn't. Using rollback was acceptable, I feel, because my edit would only have served the same function and what he was doing was against our behaviour guideline (wikistalking). violet/riga (t) 21:02, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

If as Thatcher131 says you were both reverting one another across multiple articles, well it's probably just a stroke of luck for you that nobody stepped in and blocked you both. That's very disruptive behavior, if Thatcher131 has it right, and saying "it hasn't gotten anywhere near 3RR by either party" is missing the point. If the reverts happened often enough for someone to say "yesterday and last week" then that's too much warring. --Tony Sidaway 03:32, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

I would avoid making generalizations here. 4 reverts in 24 hours is still a razor wire. Additionally, revert warring is also not allowed, true enough. But defining revert warring can only be done case by case. There are plenty of scenarios when Tony's example above ("yesterday and last week") does not constitute revert warring at all. It takes article-writing to be able to judge this reasonably (perhaps a suggestion?). --Irpen 03:58, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Wikistalking means "following a contributor around the wiki, editing the same articles as the target, with the intent of causing annoyance or distress to another contributor". Checking someone's contribs for the purpose of mass revert warring because you know that they do edits you disagree with is inappropriate behaviour, but not Wikistalking. As you both were engaged in that same dispute, you shouldn't have blocked him. You should have left the decision to another administrator (and I doubt that a block was justified, by the way). And yes, you didn't go anywhere near 3RR, but mass-reverting each other over tons of articles is disruptive as well. 3RR is not an entitlement, edit warring can still be disruptive when you don't violate it. Melsaran (talk) 21:10, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

What Bouncehoper did was to follow me around the wiki, edit the same articles as me, with the intent of causing annoyance. He wikistalked. The block was not a punishment but an attempt to stop the edit war that he was creating - if I had blocked for longer then it would be a very different story. violet/riga (t) 21:16, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

It was most likely not with the intent of causing annoyance, but because he was engaged in an editing dispute with you. I do in no way endorse his actions, nor do I endorse yours, but a block isn't the way to handle it. Melsaran (talk) 21:18, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

I can live with the rollback (I freely confess I've used rollback in "content disputes" when others have reverted already and the user's points have been debunked on the talk page: that is, when it's trolling): I can live with the block, too - but edit warring over something so petty? I mean, for that, both users probably should be blocked for 24 hours or so, if only for outstanding silliness - am I serious? Maybe :) Come on, people, this is not save-the-wiki stuff - no one needs to edit war, it can wait a day or so. Moreschi ^Talk 21:38, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I hadn't been on for a few days, and decided to check my watchlist today. Suddenly, I get all this stuff from Violetriga. What the crap?

I'm sorry about the reverting action; if it's going to cause such a headache, I just won't bother. But I originally reverted a few days ago, because Violet had not bothered to link anything as discussed.

I think we've finally come to the point that Violet's been hoping for, in that, I honestly don't give a sh*t anymore about the stupid word. This all started with trying to prove a point about the use of it, and Violet's taken much further than I had ever imagined. Screw the word; I've got more important things in my life to worry about than what someone is doing to things I've edited on Wiki.
If you feel the need to block us, whatever. I'll pop off for a day, come back, and probably have forgotten. Just as long as Violet doesn't harass me anymore, I'm fine. I'm sick of this crap, and I want. it. done.
(and lol, y'all, I'm a chick.)
Bouncehoper 21:51, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Rare, noble woman! Thou hast gained a sense of proportion, and art all the better for it. Perhaps we can all disengage - forgive and forget? Moreschi ^Talk 21:57, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry that you feel bad about all of this, though I can't understand the claims of harrassment. I believe it all stems from a misunderstanding of what we agreed as, to me, it clearly states that we should avoid the word where possible. As explained my edits were going along with that and I haven't touched the ones that are already linked. If you think we need a better wording then we should discuss it at WP:MUSTARD. violet/riga (t) 22:01, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

I see in the current MOS(?) it says "...should be avoided where possible and linked to its definition at wiktionary:sophomore when used." I see that compromise as kind of "leave it where it is, and avoid using it further." At least, so far as editors are aware of this guideline. It seems to me the least change necessary would be to link instances where's it's currently in use (and unlinked), not remove them. In fact, I'm honestly not sure why it would go the other way. I'm quite confused here. --InkSplotch 22:17, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

MOS says a lot of silly things; this is one of them. Where? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 14:20, 29 August 2007 (UTC)It's from WP:MUSTARD. For other hasty readers, this is strictly the use for albums. It's jargon, and it may be worth removing it as jargon, but revert-warring in a class of articles where many readers will understand it? Why? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 14:28, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

The use of the word has been much discussed with many people saying that we shouldn't use it. The current wording is a compromise and says that we should avoid it where possible. The articles I edited benefited from the change and, since "sophomore" wasn't linked in any of them it was appropriate to change it per this compromise. violet/riga (t) 22:47, 28 August 2007 (UTC

But it wasn't many people. It was just a few, and mostly everyone saw we were going at it, and just wanted it done. 'Sophomore' wouldn't have been linked in any of them because none of the original uses of the word were linked. Of course there would be no link if that decision had just been made. It was going to take awhile to link them anyways. You can't just say that there's no link, when beforehand there was no need of it.

Bouncehoper 16:41, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

I believe that Violetriga was correct to remove these instances of the word "sophomore." In fact, I believe that it's illogical to grandfather the linked instances, and that they (excepting any direct quotes) should be removed too. It makes far more sense to simply use the word "second" than to use a word requiring a dictionary link for many readers to understand.
I also believe, however, that Violetriga's use of the administrative rollback function and three-minute block of Bouncehoper were extremely inappropriate. —David Levy 23:33, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, I've no opinion on the content dispute itself (and plan to militantly remain that way). My confusion just stemmed from previous experience seeing style conflicts float over to AN/I. Compromise can be hard to come by, and when some elements are left "in-between" like that it's usually seemed to me to be less contentious to grandfather them in versus deleting things. Just an impression, for which I have no real facts. I'll just say it's obvious both sides are passionate about the project, which is great, but nothing is so urgent about this dispute that everyone can't step back and flesh out the compromise y'all worked so hard for in the first place. --InkSplotch 02:34, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree that Violetriga's block (de minimis or otherwise) while engaged in a dispute with the blocked user was not appropriate. Please don't do anything like this again. Newyorkbrad 03:00, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

I find myself in my typical position of agreeing with Newyorkbrad. I don't care what the justification, blocking a user with whom you are engaged in a content dispute is inappropriate. - Philippe | Talk 03:17, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure you can even call it a content dispute. It would be natural for anyone to have the some position on the matter as Violetriga, and still come to the conclusion of blocking the user. How many times has a blocking admin agreed with "the other side" when they blocked someone, but just didn't say anything about it? Does it make it any better then?

Lets say this, a user thinks that all articles should have the first word in the article in red print, and starts to do this to tons of articles, and doesn't stop when asked to. Could you not say that it is a content dispute with those that don't think the first word should be in red print? The nature of this dispute is being ignored in this thread. -- Ned Scott 03:23, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

I see a user being disruptive and being blocked for three minutes. Maybe if the situation wasn't obvious, I could understand Violetriga stepping back and letting someone else handle it, but this is painfully straight forward, dispute or no dispute. -- Ned Scott 03:15, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

A narrow comment: 3 minute blocks are never unacceptable and contradict WP:BLOCK blatantly, WP:BLOCK#Recording in the block log. If a user is a habitual stalker and an edit-warrior he may have to be blocked all right but what happened serves exactly no purpose and causes aggravation. --Irpen 03:38, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, point taken, but for the sake of good faith, I'll assume it's more of a cool-down block than one just to write in the block log. I still stand by my other point (above), but ignoring all that, yeah, the block on its own wasn't the best idea to deescalate the situation. -- Ned Scott 03:51, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

And for what it's worth, I agree with Ned Scott that the nature of the dispute is relevant, but I'd still classify this one as an editing dispute in which the block should have been done by another admin or not at all. Still, probably enough said here, with the hope this won't recur. Newyorkbrad 04:07, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Nobody else mentioned it, but X marks the spot in policy: Wikipedia:Blocking policy#When blocking may not be used. Reverts, blocking for minutes, all that's not to the point, because you just don't do it as its against the rules. Easy to understand, hard to do. No excuses. Kind of hard to be fair if you're judge, jury, executioner and prosecuter all in one. You're all very civil, by the way, for not using the word s********c once, against anybody. Shows lots of restraint. TryCoolCareful 04:23, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

...what word?????? Bouncehoper 21:59, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Please Stop

I peeked at this again to see if things had calmed down before it rolled off the page. Peeking at vilotriga and Bouncehoper's contributions I see that not only has no further discussion occurred, it's started right back up again. Since their last posts here, Bouncehoper's up to around 4 or 5 "second->[[wiktionary:sophomore|sophomore]]" changes, and violetriga is up to twice that in "sophomore->second" changes, including reverts of Bouncehoper in a few cases. So, no one seems to be stalking anyone now, but you're still going off at cross purposes over something terribly insignificant. Can we please reach a compromise here before full scale edit waring starts or (mis)use of admin powers takes place again? Please? --InkSplotch 20:01, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

This was posted to my talk page, possibly by somebody who thought I was an admin (should I be? didn't think I was ripe yet)

External Links on M.U.L.E. page violates Software Copyrights

This is complain for Wikipage on M.U.L.E. [[1]]

BLACKBEARD27K is linking to his personal Website. M.U.L.E. Software Download When that was deleted by the Admins, he is now (indirectly) linking to it via another personal Website.

(1) BLACKBEARD27K is offering, on the above Website, for download a pirated / modified / hacked version of the game M.U.L.E. without the permission of the original authors or publishers ATARI. This is a serious violation of copyright material.

(2) It is in violation of WP:EL as it is SPAM and he is trying to propagate his own web-site Forum here.

(3) Wikipedia is NOT a collection of links.

(4) Also, using common sense, no one should download any executable software from a very unreliable source (as above). Such software may contain trojans and keyloggers which steal your personal information (including Credit Card Nos & passwords)

This individual persists in reverting the deletions. I have deleted the offending link.

Hungrywolf 11:26, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

--Orange Mike 12:50, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Strange. The direct link was added in December 2005. It was removed a week ago. The link happens to appear within an article discussing the game, and Hungrywolf has already decided that it must be BLACKBEARD27K's site? Also...I think both might be over 3RR by now. --Onorem♠Dil 13:13, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Looks like the same two editors have been warring at the Field Commander page also. --Onorem♠Dil 13:16, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't think we should be overly concerned. Enforcing copyright law is not our job, it is the job of the copyright holder. There's nothing illegal about linking to a page that links to a page where you can download something illicit. I'm not saying we should go overboard and link to full versions on TouTube for all movies and BitTorrent links to full downloads for all software, but I don't see this issue being so important that it needs to be brought to WP:ANI. --Cyde Weys 13:19, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

By policy, we generally don't knowingly link to websites that violate copyrights. A site to illegally download a game would seem to be rather off limits, although I agree that it could probably be resolved without coming here. --B 22:13, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Our external links policy mentions about what to do about links with copyright offending materials, such as mp3's and video clips. But, it is a good idea to just avoid linking to pages which their only purpose is to download illicit goods. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 06:25, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Before anyone jumps into this, I have to say there's a history here. These two have been sniping at each other for weeks (they're bringing an outside feud onto Wiki). It has to do with an outside forum. The Evil Spartan 06:35, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

I do previously know of the other editor from the field commander forum from his posts there, but never had any feud with him. He is falsely accusing me of being someone else.Blackbeard2k7 02:01, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure I've seen M.U.L.E. as abandonware. Are you sure Atari is the original publisher?⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 04:00, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Actually i had blocked and unblocked them both yesterday after asking hungrywolf to not add links to forums especially that he acknowledges that Field Commander is a "dear subject to him". In parallel, i asked Blackbeard to not post the link to the allegedly malicious software at M.U.L.E.

Today, an established user who has been among us since 2003 User:Darkwind commented at MULE talkpage that the burden of proof lies on Hungrywolf (to prove the software is malicious). Well, i would agree w/ Darkwind though i'd be more cautious and would personally avoid such guidance. But anyway, what is clear is that Hungrywolf followed Darkbeard from FC to MULE. They were edit warring about other stuff at FC (a link to a forum dear to Hungrywolf). This user first claimed that the MULE external link is a fan site and now he says it is malicious. Fair enough. I clearly see that it is just trolling. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 21:44, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

The user Hungrywolf has been following me around and reverting my edits, without any regard for anyone elses opinions. I'm sorry for edit warring with him, but it has gotten out of hand now, and he is Cyberstalking me, claiming to other users on Wiki that he has my address and phone # and knows where I work, etc, etc. and offering to exchange this information with them. I would like to point out a few things here: 1. I did not add the direct link to the atari mule web site. 2. the direct web site contains abandonware and freeware, and does not violate any copyrights whatsoever, nor is the software malicious in any way. It is a zip file containing an emulator with kaillera client built in, and the rom and disk image for mule, with some batch files that automatically configure the emulator to play online. One doesn't need to own the wbe site to be able to discover these facts. 3. I linked an article by a reputable source (which I posted my proof of) which describes the ability to play the game online, which coincidentally is only available at that web site and so yes, the article does have a link to the web site. Ultimately it was agreed that even the link to the article should not be added explicitly, but rather as a comment and a reference. I respect everyones opinions and so I added it as a comment with a reference. However, as you acn see, Hungrywolf has recently removed my valid reference and replaced it with an invalid one. The actual source of the abandonware files is gamespy, but the article on gamespy does not indicate how the game can be played online. In addition, the user Hungrywolf has been warned about editing peoples talk pages before and removing peoples comments from discussion pages, but if you look at my talk page, you will see he recently reverted my own edits to my own talk page, with personal attacks in the edit summaries. Additionally (yes theres more), the user Hungrywolf has in fact violated 3RR on Field Commander, without being reprimanded. I don't believe the block should have been lifted on him. He probably now believes he can get away with whatever he wants. Does any of this change your opinions?Blackbeard2k7 22:14, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

User Posting Spam

Resolved

 – Spammer indef blocked, spam rolled back.

User:Mayleaf appears to be an account set up with the sole purpose of posting spam links. A list of his contributions can be viewed here [2] he has been warned on his Talkpage about this by another editor but he's still posting them. Kelpin 15:09, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Definitely a spam-only account. Indefinitely blocked, all spamming removed. Neil ム 15:26, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

I hate spammers. That said, this individual was warned, and instead of reposting the spam he went to Talk, said he was helping out his friends at the site, noted the link, and was then blocked before we could find out if he was going to press it. Not saying it's wrong, just a "hmmmm." Guy (Help!) 17:28, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

He reposted the link at the talk pages of some 120 articles, making no other contributions, before it was reported. As an aside, those talk pages that had a response to his link were unilaterally against including them on the articles (not that it has a particular bearing ... spam is spam is spam). Neil ム 08:37, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Also the user was warned about his Talkpage posts on 22 August (his 2nd warning) but he continued to post spam without any explanation for his rationale afterwards. Kelpin 08:59, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Its been subsequently added Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam#http:.2F.2Fspam.tourdates.co.uk. --Hu12 09:25, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Fourdee making racist postings

Resolved

 – Blocked indefinitely by Jimbo Wales

Just a note that Fourdee is making blatantly racist posts on several articles and/or talk pages [3][4][5][6][7], and I believe this is getting out of hand. Can an admin please look into it? The links I put together I did in about 5 minutes of looking through hs contribution history, and they're not all equally grievous, but I think this is worth looking into. Thanks!--Ramdrake 19:11, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Just making a comment as an outside observer, the first one looks to be the worst (no excuse for the wording, tone, and message) while the rest are really strong opinion. Both of you seem to be locked into a edit war/wikistalking campaign. Spryde 19:39, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Fine, I can accept your opinion. I just wanted to make sure a third, uninvolved party was aware of these postings. I was careful not to suggest any action, due to my involvement.--Ramdrake 19:43, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

No problem. I am not trying to judge anyone but put a perspective on it. Spryde 19:46, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

I think Fourdee should be blocked for at least 24 hours and warned that any more rascist spew like the first comment would result in an indefinite block. His comments go beyond what the media says and gives his opinions about the superirority of white women over black women. This is never acceptable except in white piower circles, SqueakBox 19:48, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

I'd note that making an ass of oneself on talk pages should not be prohibited; it provides an excellent guide to one's opinions and credibility. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 19:52, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

This comment should be added as well. There is also another statement on archive 16 of Talk:Holocaust: « This article is overblown with propaganda full of questionable numbers for not-very-wrong killings of bad persons festering within the borders of germany and neighboring areas. -- fourdee ᛇᚹᛟ 18:42, 25 August 2007 (UTC) » Again, just a random sample of his utterances. --Mathsci 19:53, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Wow. That was one of the most code-filled obnoxious anti-semitic diatribes that I've read in a long time, and being Jewish, I've seen and heard it all. But if he wants to be a racist and disgusting, I don't care. I'm a firm supporter of free-speech and all--I would not support a block or a community ban. But I hope when fourdee has a heart-attack, the Jewish cardiologist ignores his racism and saves his life.OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 20:00, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Not necessarily coded anti-semitic; he may be angry at socialists, gays, anarchists, Jehovah's Witnesses, communists, Esperantists, Romany, labor activists, or other "bad persons" that were killed. --Orange Mike 20:52, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Editors having an opinion is of course allowed, and I am commenting on the content of the articles or responding to openly expressed opinions offered by other people. There's nothing saying a person who is racist or a nazi-sympathizer cannot edit and with appropriate civility share his views on articles, any more than a person who is a marxist, or a terrorist, or a pedophile, or any sort of belief, cannot with due civility share his views on the biases contained in articles and the problems with sources or paradigms used. People on wikipedia, including many admins, express very extreme and potentially offensive political views all the time - in the course of editing and discussing edits.

The first edit cited is a response to the opinion expressed by the previous poster that the media is being "manipulated" to give more coverage of missing white women. What I am saying is that the article and its editors are pushing a really offensive, vicious POV - the point is to discuss the article and genuinely not to air my views. This is by no means outside the tone I have often had directed at me and I view these incessant complaints as nothing more than a campaign to silence editors who have opposing points of view on the content of articles.

Wikipedia does not have approved points of view for editors to work under and I don't see how my behavior is anything but the mirror image of that of many other editors. Censorship would severely hinder Wikipedia and also weaken some important legal defenses it has in terms of not controlling the content. -- fourdee ᛇᚹᛟ 19:56, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

I think you're a disgusting human being. But I defend your right to say whatever you want. You should not be censored for being a racist. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 20:02, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

I would agree. But should comments like "nobody cares about missing negresses or are not surprised when it happens - people care more about violence against white women" [8] be dealt with? That is pushing opinion to its limits and can be considered shouting fire in a theater. Spryde 20:03, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

For example SqueakBox says on my user talk page "You may believe your own deluded rubbish but others find it offensive and this kind of behaviour is simply not tolerable". I think that is far more of a personal attack or incivility than the things I have said, but is the sort of persistent attack I have faced on wikipedia. We see the same from orangemarlin above and many others. I have very rarely complained about this and do try to be understanding that some people have extremely different views and may be so frustrated or dumbfounded that they inadvertantly toss out a personal attack. I do the best I can to keep the polemics out, especially as directed at individuals or other editors, and stick to the problems with articles and beliefs or bias they may reflect. -- fourdee ᛇᚹᛟ 20:06, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

How could what I wrote possibly be considered offensive? And how would anyione with a modicum of reasoning not find Fourdee's hate-filled statements other than being a personal attack against black women. I have changed my mind and think he shopuld be blocked indefinitely, perhaps at the community sanctions noticeboard if no admin here will do it, SqueakBox 20:22, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Here are a couple more that are blatantely anti-Semitic: [9], [10]. We have banned people before for such things. I think it is important to make clear two things: first, Fourdee has put a lot of racist talk on the talk pages, and he has made it clear that he wants to incert his racist views into articles themselves: [([11] but I believe that such talk actually obscures the issue. the issue is the way Fourdee is manipulating Wikipedia to make an end-run around our policies. Talk pages are for discussions to improve the articles, and I am sure Fourdee sincerly believes that adding his racist views to articles will improve them ... but as long as other editors are vigelant, his racist views will not be added to articles. The result is never the end of the discussion on the talk paqge. Despite the fact that his ideas seldom enter articles, he continues to add considerable amounts of material onto talk pages. Why? in effect he is turning talk pages into his own blog - he has hijacked out talk pages to publicize his racist views. The awful thing is, if he added them to an article they woule be deleted because they would violate various policies. But you all know there is a strong ethic here never to remove people's comments from talk pages. In this way, he ensures that the content he wants stays in Wikipedia. i suspect he prefers that his talk never actually enter articles because on talk pages he feels protected. But Wikipedia should not protect racist content, and not let its talk pages be hijacked to promote content that we would never let stay in an article. He has been blocked before. If it is premature to ban him, put him on parole and wait and see. Slrubenstein | Talk 20:07, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Now I undestand why he is completely irrelevant to the WP:NPOV policy, the racist bias in those comments (most notably the first one) is unacceptable and it breaches WP:CIVIL by a long shot, yet this is the man that vandalized El C's user page because he has images of revolutionaries that he feels are "terrorists", well Wikipedia isn't the place to push any kind of white supremacist or black power pov, doing so only affects the image of community as a whole and must be punished, I recommend opening a Request for Arbitration and let the administrators decide what's the best diciplinary measure, this is beyond a noticeboard violation. - Caribbean~H.Q. 20:08, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

well, it's offensive, racist, bigoted and ignorant. He's a holocaust denier and a pro-nazi sympathizer. Block him or don't we all know what kind of person he is, and how to view any suspicious edits he ever makes again, and with a thread like this, he won't be an admin ever. I'd support a block for the ridiculous violations of CIVIL. ThuranX 20:11, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

I am in agreement. He whines about how we treat him, then attacks El C's page. I'm still going to defend Fourdee's right to make an ass out of himself, because I find censorship abhorrent. If he tries to edit an article to make it more racist, there are 100's of editors who'll fix it. And I don't give a crap about civility. That's just a bogus attempt to censor people on this project. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 20:12, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Also falls into WP:GAME?--F3rn4nd0 ^{(Roger - Out)} 20:15, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Looks like Jimbo [[12]] took care of this/is taking care of this. Spryde 20:21, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Yep. Good call by Jimbo. Should have been done much earlier in my opinion.--Jersey Devil 20:25, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Dammnit I was on my way to block him myself. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 20:28, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

As was I. Jimbo also beat me to it. It was an obvious call IMHO.--Jersey Devil 20:33, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

I also completely support Jimbo's decision in this one; those comments made for a very hostile environment and do violate the spirit of our policies on civil discussions. Wikipedia does not equal free speech - where did that idea ever come from? Shell ^babelfish 20:35, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

You know what this means, don't you? As of now we are all on sock-puppet patrol. Slrubenstein | Talk 20:29, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Since when were we ever NOT on sock patrol? - Crockspot 20:36, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Oh thank god! I had an edit conflict and is has since been resolved, but I'm still going to post it.

Also, he reported me for NPA for calling him a racist and a Nazi, which on Wikipedia is supposed to be avoided at all cost. And calling someone a Nazi is concidered to be the most evil personal attack and bad faith, and I was blocked for it for 48 hours. Yet, this person is a self-proclaimed Nazi and racist! This crap of policy is totally screwed up. - Jeeny ^Talk 20:37, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Now, now, please watch your language, Jeeny! Remember:WP:CIVIL ;) --Ramdrake 20:40, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Pfft! - Jeeny ^Talk 20:46, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

On a less positive note, I wrote a WP email yesterday to User:Theresa knott expressing my dismay at Fourdee's racist comments. She fobbed me off in a not very helpful way. I would be grateful if WP could draw up some guidelines on the issue of general racist offence. Thanks. --Mathsci 20:43, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

You should probably start a thread on the NPA talk page outlining some proposals, ie we are wikipedia, SqueakBox 21:36, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

It was a bad decision to block fourdee. MoritzB 21:05, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Any particular reason you feel that, considering the overwhelming consensus here and the rather blatant examples presented? Tony Fox (arf!) 21:30, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Because fourdee was an established user responsible for a huge volume of edits. Many of them were not related to race. His positive contributions outweigh the few racist comments he made on talk pages.

I fear that a dangerous precedent was established if users can become banned because 0.01% are edits are racist talk page comments intended to provoke/troll. Perhaps he had a bad day and decided to make harsh, racist comments to provoke discussion.

24 hours may be justified but a perma-ban was unwarranted.

MoritzB 21:53, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

If 0.01% of a prodigious number of edits are intended to provoke and troll over a long period of time, your conduct is disruptive, and you should be prepared to either check your tongue or face the consequences. --Haemo 22:18, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

MoritzB is either naive or has a self-interest in defending a racist; Fourdee was not having a bad day, he was acting as he always acts. Jimbo has always been vigilant about not letting people use Wikipedia to spread racist views. If you have a problem with that, take it up with him. That said, I share Orangemarlin's discomort at blocking someone just becuase he holds views I despise. Therefore, I do not agree with Matchsci that what we need is a guideline on racism. Here is what I think we ought to be working on: a content policy for talk pages. I am not proposing anyting new. What I am proposing is that we take elements of an existing policty, namely this and this, copy them from the [Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not] policy and edit them to apply specifically to talk pages, which is where these particular elements of the policy most often apply. In addition, we should include in the proposed policy guidelines for enforcement e.g. if three different people have had separate occasions on the same talk page to use the "off topic" template or the "not a forum" warning, they can request that an admin review the incidents and if s/he deems it fitting warn the editor that a fourth such incident will result in a 24 hour block. What do you think? Does anyone want to start working on this? Slrubenstein | Talk 22:45, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

I'd second that and would be ready to lend a hand.--Ramdrake 22:47, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

I think that Slr's suggestions are exactly the sort of thing that is needed. I was a little imprecise in what I said and in fact was rather hoping that Slr would intervene, in view of his known experience. Thanks, Mathsci 23:06, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

There is already Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines which should already have this sort of thing covered. It says in bold right at the top that talk pages should not be used as a platform for editor's own personal opinions. Friday (talk) 22:47, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

I am suggesting elevating some of these to an enforcable policy. Slrubenstein | Talk 23:00, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

What's unenforceable about it now? Editors already prune irrelevant content from talk pages when they feel it's a good idea to do so. If an editor repeatedly rants on talk pages despite being told to cut it out, they can be blocked for disruption. This is already standard practice. Friday (talk) 23:04, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

You are the one who refered to the guideline. As you know, no guideline is enforcable. That is the difference between guidelines and policies.

It may be that we end up doing that, but we should be very careful in doing so. Right now, the list of personal beliefs for which Wikipedia editing access will be denied is very small... pretty much just pedophilia, though being pro-genocide would probably do it as well.

There are a lot of racists out there. Many of them aren't white supremacists; most racial and ethnic groups have their own closed-minded supremacist factions. There are also many who find a lot of the political beliefs out there extremely offensive (Fourdee in fact got in trouble earlier for going after editors with pro-Communist userpages in one form or another).

There is a slippery slope here. If we set down a policy in writing, it's hard to keep it from expanding out to cover more things that we want over time, and the more things it covers the more fighting it will engender.

It's easier just to on a case by case basis determine that extreme individuals are disruptive, in my opinion. Georgewilliamherbert 23:08, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

I think you misunderstand what I wrote: I stated specifically that the policy I am proposing would not ban any particular kind of speech. It would however prohibit using talk pages a particular way. I think there is a big difference here. Slrubenstein | Talk 23:30, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Slr in some way.. we need some warning tags for keeping civility in talk pages, the Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines needs to be enforced so we don't have to be massing noticeboards with this type of "incidents" when one Admin can do the job after a set of warnings if the situation escalates. I don't know if those warnings already exist... the RfC is way too bureaucratic.. the warning tag will alert any Admin and this will end any type of dispute (same as vandals, create a CIVIL patrol). And.. I am not aware of some policies because I am usually editing articles and not being a policeman. By the way POVs in talkpages should be erased immediately... no room for replies.. just erase them that's how we got fourdee to stop editing in the FARC article--F3rn4nd0 ^{(Roger - Out)} 19:13, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Someone is showing poor maths. 0.01% is 1 in 10,000 and Fourdee has made about a third that number of edits. It wasnt merely the fact that his statement was rascist it was the content, IMO wrongly claiming that people care more about the murder of white women than black women it was a really disgusting rascist attack, and I dont think there is anyway in the world where that is true anymore. Besides it wasnt the only rascist attack he made just the worst of them, he was being deliberately provocative and failed to apologise or show any remorse when challenged about his behaviour, instead claiming that disagreeing with his views was worse than his views themselves. I think a discussion elsewhere about policy changes arising from this incident would be welcome but here is not the place for that, SqueakBox 23:12, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. Left-wingers often claim that because Americans are racist they do care more about the murder of white women than black women. Studies appear the confirm it. MoritzB 23:21, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

I am neither left, nor right, nor black, nor white. I am a wikipedian and should be treated w/ dignity as you may request for yourselves. Please have the courtesy to stop wikilawyering and whining about the block of fourdee. It is not about his golden plume; it is about his mouth. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 05:44, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Left wingers can claim what they want (I'm a right winger myself) but without some good sources it means nothing. The Spanish police busted some nasty for murdering an African black prostitute from the Casa del Campo in Madrid and she wasnt Spanish either (it was on Discovery and I know that part of Madrid well) while the UK police in 2007 dont give less priority to black victims as anyone with a modicum of knowledge about the UK would realise. I have limited knowledge of the US but I think pursuing the path you seem set on isnt helpful, please reconsider, SqueakBox 00:37, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Look, we can discuss the block all we want (for what it's worth, I support it), but it's a bit academic. He was blocked by Jimmy Wales - no admin is going to unblock him without Jimbo's say-so. As to the idea of a talk-page policy, I think it's instruction creep. The talk page guidelines are pretty clear, and in cases of egregious talk page abuse (like this one), blocks have been and will continue to be handed out. I would also suggest using the {{notaforum}} template on particularly troublesome talk pages and removing posts that blatantly violate the talk page guidelines. MastCell ^Talk 23:25, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

OK, was he banned because he's a racist or because some of you felt that he violated some obscure interpretation of WP:SOAP. This is pretty sad. I better clean up my user page, because I bitch about anti-evolution creationists, the LA Kings management, and how boring soccer is. Oh yeah, and I throw the f-bomb around quite liberally in my edit summaries. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 00:55, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Your examples are compleely different. You dont like anti-evolutionists and I dont like cannabis law enforcement but these are issues of personal choice whereas the fact that I am wehite and my wife is black arent a matter of personal choice, they are inherent to our being. That is an enormous differenc3e, so slag me off for being pro cannabis legalisation but dont dare do so because I am white, SqueakBox 01:01, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

MoritzB has a right to complain but he should complain to Jimbo, not us. Slrubenstein | Talk 23:30, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Given he beat 2 respected admins to the block I would question that Jimbo should be held personally accountable for what was, at the end of the day, an excellent decision and entirely in line with his record as an admin and editor, SqueakBox 01:36, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

I endorse the creation of such a policy, I will not be able to work on it directly since I'm working with the assessment of a few hundred pages but I will gladly offer a review and some suggestions when a preliminary version of it is ready. Now about Forbee's block by now it should be considered a ban, there are few admins that will oppose Jimbo's block so the chances of it being lifted are almost non-existent. - Caribbean~H.Q. 23:59, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

It's already policy.--Chaser - T 00:02, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

A racist attack isn't the exact same thing as libel, for one they aren't directed at a person company or organizartion but to a complete ethnic group, what I meant to be clear is that I support the promotions of some of these guidelines to policy as suggested. - Caribbean~H.Q. 00:16, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

I've noticed lately much racist activity. Is there any particular reason? Are they taking advantage of the open nature of Wikipedia to propagate their unhuman and odd garbage? I've acted bold a month ago and indef one of this type of users User:Mariam83. Later on User:Phral appeared and he was indef by another admin that time after a long history of trolling and harassing others. And here we are now w/ User:Fourdee. It seems like racists are trying to hijack Wikipedia. Noway!! -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 05:30, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree, there was also User:KarenAER, these people seem to have a habit of coming back as sockpuppets frequently as well, see how many sockpuppets Phral has, indeeded Phral is a sockpuppet of Hayden I think. Possibly there is some sort of coordinated campaign, last year User:Sugaar came across a post on the fascist website stromfront discussing the White people article.[13] Maybe something similar has happened again? Alun 06:04, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Issue stemming from this

Speaking of not letting editors use talk pages as soapbox, can somebody go take a look here: [14] and give his or her uninvolved opinion? I've already removed it once (on the face of this discussion), but as I am involved personnally, I would rather let someone else judge this behavior (which I admit is the proper reflex I should have had the first time).--Ramdrake 00:29, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

As someone who'd never heard of either Afrocentricism or Dinesh D'Souza before reading this, I'd say that whatever you might think of the article, arguing that it be mentioned is at least a valid point; the author appears to be a significant political commentator on the neocon right & a Fellow at the Hoover Institution, not a lone-voice-in-the-wilderness crackpot. As long as the article makes it clear that D'Souza's views don't represent mainstream opinion, I don't see that it doesn't warrant a paragraph — iridescent (talk to me!) 11:59, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Aside from anything else, I'd say it blatantly violated the copyright of a page clearly marked Copyright © 1999 Free Republic, LLC. (This is a strange oversight by its poster, whose writings in various talk pages show a keen interest in what is and isn't allowed in Wikipedia.) -- Hoary 12:24, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I agree it should be deleted for the copyvio - thought Ramdrake was questioning whether or not the material should be mentioned in the main article — iridescent (talk to me!) 12:42, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Actually, Free Republic is a discussion forum and does not own any copyrights to Dinesh D'Souza's work. Free Republic is careful to follow the copyright law and only allows to post copyrighted material which falls under the exemption fair use.

MoritzB 18:27, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Even if it's fair use for Free Republic, it doesn't necessarily follow that it's also fair use for Wikipedia. 70.227.232.162 14:52, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Abuse of Authority

IrishGuy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Irishguy) is clearly abusing his authority, as well as poorly interpreting the rule forbidding the posting of "spam" in External Links.

There are thousands of articles on Wikipedia whose external links include fansites. I'm not going to cite examples, because then sad, power-hungry individuals like IrishGuy would indiscriminately blast them all. It's unfortunate that he has decided to single out an article about a B-movie most people have never heard of to abuse his authority. ManiacCopFans.com was begun by a friend and I to raise awareness of the movie. We have the blessing and support of Bill Lustig (director), Larry Cohen (writer), Robert Z'Dar, and Bruce Campbell. Yet, he seems to believe that this link violates a vague and subjective rule which is almost never enforced. The term "spam" denotes unsolicited marketing, not a link to a fansite. We make exactly zero dollars from the website, and it's only intended as a place for people to gather and discuss the films. How can IrishGuy ignore links to "official" movie sites (which are clearly commercial) and instead focus on ours?

Here is the article in question: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maniac_Cop

Please help me to understand why an administrator like IrishGuy can repeatedly abuse his authority without intervention from others. I will respect your explanation and/or ruling, but I do not respect IrishGuy. Thank you very much.

kd4nuh 23:13, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Our external links policy discourages "Links mainly intended to promote a website." Linking your own website, even if it is not making you money at present, is considered spamming. What other articles may or may not have in their external links at the moment is irrelevant. You can use an article's talk page to discuss inclusion of a link. Grandmasterka 23:18, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The pertinent words in the above guideline being "You should avoid linking to a website that you own, maintain or represent". ELIMINATORJR 23:22, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

This tirade has already been left in various places: [15] [16] [17]. This user has also brought forth numerous meatpuppets to continue inserting his link into various articles. He also left the following message IrishGuy, kindly fuck off. Thanks - Matt Cordell on various talk pages. He further left another abusive message here. IrishGuy ^talk 23:24, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

(ec)::I must say, that while I hardly would call this an "abuse of authority" (it would be if Irishguy blocked the said user, the kind of thing I've seen before), I have to agree with kd4nuh. The EL guideline is only a guideline, and for good reasons. The said website is a good website, and there are no other external links (I have seen users give links to their websites before, and it was quite helpful to the WP page). In fact, it's probably a good thing if users who are knowledgeable about a subject have links to their website, as long as it's not promotional, as it helps the overall knowledge of the 'pedia. However, kd4nuh, I would say you haven't much of a leg to stand on, considering that you decided to revert Irishguy's change as "revert vandalism" and telling Irishguy to f*** off. That's totally inappropriate, and its' not going to make anyone want to bat for you. The Evil Spartan 23:29, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

I just gave Kd4nuh a good long block for continuing his temper tantrum. Grandmasterka 23:36, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't see it in the block log. Is the system lagging today? IrishGuy ^talk 23:38, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

(ec again)Doesn't look blocked to me. Though a 24 hour block is probably in line ("go to bed, take a day off, let the steam on your head cool down, I'm sure you're a good guy"). But please don't block for too long. The Evil Spartan 23:39, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

I unblocked and reblocked. (It was one of those phantom blocks that happens occasionally.) It's there now. Grandmasterka 23:43, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

And this was his lovely reaction to his block: It's fine. I'll just register another account or fifty. Kindly go fuck yourself. IrishGuy ^talk 23:52, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Aaaaand we get this. Grandmasterka 23:53, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

We don't need stuff like this. If there's a good reason not to change the block length to indef, I can't think of it. Raymond Arritt 03:41, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

indef. There are some few good reasons to change the block length to indef...Total of 259 edits of which 170 were made to their own userpage, +/- 30% edit summary usage, and of course spamming and disruption threats. Let's move on. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 06:05, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

I changed my mind. I feel indef is too harsh. We'll see. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 07:10, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

The editor in question is apparently a role account, and a hostile one as well. If you look at the link they're trying to add, the screed agaisnt IG and wikipedia in general is probably within the guidelines for determining an attack site. I'd indef him and his IP. ThuranX 19:30, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Kd4nuh has returned as Americanhero1985 to evade his block. New account blocked. See his user page and edits for evidence. Identical reverts as Kd4nuh, identical userpage to Kd4nuh. IrishGuy ^talk 02:49, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Indef for good now. I had assumed good faith more than necessary. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 09:37, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Fair use abuse in galleries

Today, I removed a gallery of fair use images from Acorn Electron citing as usual WP:NFCC as basis [18]. The removal of such galleries has been a routine, ongoing, constant effort to reduce such abuse of fair use images. A short while later, User:Retro junkie reverted the removal [19]. Seeing this, I reverted the reinsertion of the images against policy [20] and left a note to User:Retro junkie on the matter [21] offering to answer any questions on the issue and noting that simple reversion was not an option. He chose to ignore my offer and reverted again [22], leaving me a note [23] essentially stating that my interpretation of policy was inaccurate and accusing me of "nothing short of vandalism", to quote him directly. I've reverted his re-insertion of the images yet again [24] and left him a note [25] indicating I was reporting this violation of policy here.

This gallery is nothing more than screenshots of the respective programs written for the computer in question. Many of the titles in the screenshots have separate articles on them. Fair use images are entirely appropriate for those articles, but not here on this article in gallery format.

I request that, should this user revert yet again that the re-insertion be undone and a warning left for the user to cease with forcing fair use galleries onto articles per our policies on the use of fair use images. Thank you for your time and attention, --Durin 01:13, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

I request the (non admin) user Durin is given a warning to curb his obsessive behaviour regarding images. I do not see why he should be allowed to vandalise an article and then report anyone who dares to question him. If there are genuine concerns that the gallery is not needed or is excessive, it should be discussed on the article's discussion page. In the meantime it should be left there so the images are not orphaned (and anyone who happens to read the article for the first time is not denied an important descriptive section!). There seems to me to be no policy that rules against such use of images. In fact the policies quoted to me by Durin seem to back up the gallery 100%. I would appreciate a discussion on the article itself rather than a blanket 'many such galleries are deleted' statement. Surely the rules are a guide to help make decisions. Decisions should be made by rational human beings.Retro junkie 11:09, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Keep it civil, please. Per WP:NFCC - "Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding" - so the question is "Does this gallery add to reader's understanding of the article"? and the answer is "No". Practically all those games have their own articles, so a simple linked list would suffice. ELIMINATORJR 11:13, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

I'd just like to note here that Durin is doing a fantastic job. Seraphim ^Whipp 11:25, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Seconded. Retro junkie, please don't label good faith edits as vandalism, no matter how you feel about them. Neil ム 11:27, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Also if the answer to the above question is "yes" for some of the images please put the image near the relevant text that describe the capabilities or limitations identified by the image rater than just stuffing them into a gallery section at the end of the article. For example using a screenshot to help explain how some developers would work around memory limitations by spending some of the dedicated video memory on other things and how this would result in graphical artifacts outside of the active display area where the non-graphical data would be rendered sounds acceptable. You also have to write a non-free use rationale on the image page of each used image explaining how the image significantly increases the understanding of the article. --Sherool (talk) 11:39, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for some constructive discussion. I agree that may be a way forward however the quick reference and comparison would be lost by scattering images throughout the article. Oh and I know about fair use rationale - I hadn't realised they were missing (it wasn't me that uploaded those images). I have no problem adding them if they are going to stay. Could any helpful discussion on the specific Acorn Electron article please now be made on the discussion page?Retro junkie 15:30, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

• I'd like to comment on a particular aspect of this; that Retro junkie has requested discussion of removal of images before removal. I've run across this a number of times. The problem inherent in this is that we have approximately 380 thousand articles that have at least one fair use image on them and a large subset of these have images used against policy. If we were to have a debate about every removal we ever do, we might as well give up now. Conducting this work would become impossible. This is not to say I'm not willing to listen to people who protest the removal. In fact, quite the contrary. I work hard to educate people on this issue. Doing anything less would be counter to our purpose. But to have a debate every time we conduct a removal is an entirely different thing. Such a situation would make it impossible to maintain our fair use image situation in accordance with policy. --Durin 12:49, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
  • I'd like to think some (hopefully almost all) of what you are deleting is without question breaching policy and not adding anything to the articles in question. Obviously discussion of all such articles would be unnecessary and virtually impossible however if there is some dispute, would it not be better to reinstate the gallery in question while it is being discussed or until it can be improved or better incorporated into the article as a whole?Retro junkie 15:30, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
    • The gallery removal I did in this case was without question in line with policy. Yet, it was debated by you anyways. You still dispute it in fact Talk:Acorn_Electron#Screenshot gallery. --Durin 16:02, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
      • Do you really believe it was 'without question' a breach of policy? Are you not prepared to even take a little of somebody else's opinion on board? I guess we will just have to agree to disagree. It's just a shame that certain people's opinions seem to count more than others. Retro junkie 22:34, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
        • I've informed you of where to go to debate this. I heartily encourage you to do so. EVERYbody's opinion matters, and I've been a major supporter of first time, first edit editors getting as much respect as Jimbo. But in this case, it is a blatant abuse of fair use overuse. This has been explained to you multiple times by more people than myself, and you still disagree. --Durin 22:57, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Request for Action

Civility is disappearing [26] 68.244.50.184 02:43, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

The incident happened a week ago. Blocks are preventative, not punitive. Shell ^babelfish 02:51, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

And he apologized for it the next day. Why are you posting it here now? Mike R 21:15, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Orange Institution

User:Domer48 [a] has made a controversial claim about the current state of the Orange Institution using, among others, a 30 year old (sic) reference by political activist Michael Farrell (The other reference- 12 years old- predates a lot a lot of history in the region). I have no love of this particular organisation but C’mon guys, this is bringing Wikipedia into disrepute [27]Aatomic1 11:28, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't appear that you've made any effort to discuss this on either the article talk page or the talk page of Domer48. I would think that would be a good step to take before coming to WP:ANI. --Onorem♠Dil 11:33, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

You obviously have not dealt with him before [a] Aatomic1 11:42, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, Content dispute. It is cited properly, and despite Domer48's.. colorful history (note, I'm the one who put him in that list, so if anything, I know he isn't a perfect editor, but then again, who is...).. if Aatomic1 can't find a more recent cite to disprove the claim referenced in the cite, there's no reason why it should be removed. It fits the definition. SirFozzie 23:11, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and before I forget.. page full-protected, as it looks like this has multiple participants on both sides. Work it out on the talk page or using WP:DR. Stop bringing your edit wars to AN/ANI. SirFozzie 23:27, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Excellent call. It looks like both these factions have been revert-warring on this article for quite some time. I noted that Aatomic1 was just blindly reverting that article yesterday - Alison ☺ 00:10, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Abusive language by Evlekis

Here I report you the repeated actions of abusive language of user:Evlekis on Wikipedia. These can be found on his userpage.
See the examples:

• "Pizda" - c*nt (in Slavic languages). Not used in polite language.
• "Kurac" - c*ck (penis) (in South Slavic languages, I think also in E Slavic languages). Not used in polite language.
• "Ebanje" - f*ucking (in most Slavic languages it's said "jebanje", but I think that in Macedonian and in Bulgarian they use hyperekavian form, "ebanje". Also, in other Slavic languages, "ebanje" reminds on "full word form", and mentioning that "shortened" form is the thing that's not used in polite language.
• "Paardenlul" - Literally: "horses's c*ck" (in Dutch). In the meaning of "a*shole". Also, see where Google search takes you with that keyword [28].
• "Caralho" - f*cker. "karati" in Serbian = "fucking", so sounds like "f*ckalho".
• "vluggertje" - in Dutch "quickie".
• "knullar" - in Swedish "f*cking".
• "gomno". - Sounds like "govno", in Slavic languages meaning = "shit".
• Also, he used many swearing in text:
• "Idi U Kurac" - "go to c*ck" (in South Slavic languages). Heavy curse.
• "Pushi Kurac" - "Suck c*ck". (in South Slavic languages). Reads as "puši kurac" in S Slavic languages, if you want to check the meaning.
• "vaffanculo" - in Italian. Not used in polite language.
• User:Evlekis has also uploaded pictures with text that contain abusive language. E.g. [29].
  
• Leccacazzi. In Italian: "leccare"= to lick, "Cazzi" in Italian means "c*cks, penises"; form not used in polite language.
• Leccami la mia figa'. In Italian: "leccare"= to lick. "Figa" in some Italian dialects means "c*nt".
  
• faszszopó" - "c*cksucker" (in Hungarian).
• szopd le a faszomat" - "s*ck my d*ck" (in Hungarian).
• User Evlekis also uploaded this picture, containing text with words "cunt". [30].

Here're some changes, so you can see that he, user:Evlekis, uploaded that text on his userpage [[31], [32], [33], [34], [35], [36], [37], [38], etc.. Mostly in the section A_Fictional_Story_unrelated_to_actual_events...well...a_few....
To check, see http://www.youswear.com (or talk to admins that know those languages).
We don't have to tolerate such users.
Wikipedia has explicit policy of dealing with such persons and such behaviour. This was not just one incident, as you see this is a bunch of repeated actions/edits.
Such users should be banned from editing Wikipedia. Sincerely, Kubura 12:25, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Personally, I can't see a problem here; Wikipedia is uncensored, and all the offending items appear to be in his userspace, obviously meant as a joke, and not directed at anyone in particular (which would be unacceptable as a personal attack) — iridescent (talk to me!) 13:00, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm with Iridescent. Put a few swear words into something that shouldn't for a joke. Will ^(talk) 13:10, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Seems to be one of those Names changed stories. You can't really publish your views and stuff like that with real names into wikipedia; I Have met that kind of stuff before. Choosing of the words might be a bit rough, but I don't see any reason for administrative action. Suva 13:15, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Looks like you haven't read the content disclaimer yet. MER-C 13:18, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

No real problem with using rude words on his user page - they are not directed at anyone in particular. Something else bothered me though, so I've left a polite request to remove one pipelink. Neil ム 13:26, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm... Might be the basis of a new article - Non English Swear Words, Curses, and Impolite Expressions Found In The Encyclopedia Anyone Can Edit? LessHeard vanU 15:31, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

There already is a relevant article. It's called Film at 11. Digwuren 15:44, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

On another note...

What happened to Wikipedia is not social networking? Doesn't having that many pictures and a long story seem a bit excessive to anyone? Sasquatch t|c 19:00, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Good question. WP:User_page#Inappropriate_content would appear to apply too. Quite how "The Kingdom of Fucking borders The State of Fucking; the borlerline counties of Fucking (West Cunt)..." helps the project, I'm not sure. Neil has raised it on the user's talk page, so perhaps he (the user) will be along soon to enlighten us. WP:NOTCENSORED exists to allow us to discuss various acts and beliefs that some find offensive, either in description or depiction, not so that we can list swear words in mock articles on our userpages. Mr Stephen 19:23, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

LI don't really mind the swearing, it's not directed at anyone, and if it keeps him happy, fine, whatever. All I've asked him to do is remove the piped links where he describes the European Union as "the Brussels Gay Community" and "the Brussels Retard Community", as that is offensive. Neil ム 21:07, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't really care about the swearing, for Neil's reason that it isn't directed at anybody. I am, however, unsure of the value of this fiction on a WIkipedia user page. I construe it as a violation of WP:NOT and WP:USER. —Crazytales (t.) 21:46, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Unilateral move

Gryffindor deleted a page to make way for an unilateral move (Passirio -> Passer river). It was reverted, and so he protected the page ([39]).--Supparluca 17:01, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

He didn't protect the page he moved, he just made another revert move. He did, however, use his admin bit to make his first move over a page with an existing history. But then, that history consisted only of a dummy edit by yourself, Supparluca, and it might easily be suspected that you had actually made that dummy edit in order to "scorch the earth" and prevent potential later page moves (a dirty technique; I've repeatedly gone on record warning people I'd block them if I found them using it intentionally.) In any case, Gryffindor's move warring is disappointing. He is heavily involved as a party in a long-standing dispute over geographical names in South Tyrol, and I warned him once before that he shouldn't use his admin tools in it. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:18, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Anyway, the page is blocked now.--Supparluca 19:28, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Ooops, I hadn't seen this. It turns out Gryffindor himself was using the dirty trick of redirect-scorching ([40], [41]), rather than officially "protecting" using his admin tools. I'm not sure which is worse, but it's certainly very very uncool either way. I'm giving him a stern warning, and will revert to the status quo ante (whichever that was, I don't remember). Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:27, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. He did the same thing on Isarco river, I don't know if you want to delete that page to unblock it.--Supparluca 22:56, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Ah, I see. But in that case the Eisack version was in fact the status quo ante, and confirmed by an earlier RM, before Rex Germanus started the unilateral moves and triggered the move war earlier this month, so I guess in this case I'd prefer leaving it where it is now. Fut.Perf. ☼ 23:23, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Soapboxing on user page

User:Jim62sch has a banner on his user page that may be considered to be in violation of what userspace is not and no soapboxing guidelines. This version can be seen here [42]. Earlier today, admin User:lucasbfr reverted it, quoting guidelines. It was reverted, so I restored lucas' version. It was then reverted by another editor, who claimed the removal to be "vandalism" [43], and then by another, whose edit summary was even more incivil [44] and who even left a warning note on my talkpage. Comments welcome; if enforcing Wikipedia guidelines can be interpreted as vandalism, what chance do we stand? ELIMINATORJR 19:07, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

This is ridiculous. Enforcing policy shouldn't be controversial, especially in the case of obvious violations of policy. Vassyana 19:15, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

The vandalism template put on the user page of an admin (or any other experienced user) who was clearly not vandalizing the site was inappropriate; I blanked that. — Carl (CBM · talk) 19:17, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

The vandalism template was inappropriate and inflammatory. That said, the banner is question appears to be within the limits we allow to users in good standing. The userspace rules is to prevent a page that is a long rant or such, not to prevent productive users having a few opinionated remarks on their user page. JoshuaZ 19:20, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

I tend to agree in this case although there has to be a line somewhere between permitted commentary and polemics. Thatcher131 19:26, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

I happen to think Wikipedia is not the place for such campaigning. Expressing one's views or biases plainly is one thing, openly soapboxing is another entirely. Vassyana 19:28, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. The question should surely be "could this be described as inflammatory" and I am sure that for some people, this one could be. (Note that the current version has been edited to remove the polemic statement). ELIMINATORJR 19:32, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

I've certainly seen worse, but this is an inappropriate use of user space. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. Let him have a free homepage elsewhere. Friday (talk) 19:34, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Again this isn't a large homepage devoted to a topic, it is a section of a userpage which has a variety of other items on it. The drive to remove it seems to be causing far more disruption than the banner did. JoshuaZ 19:42, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

More censorship. Great. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 19:37, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with it; it seems well within the level of expression permitted in userspace. Similar issues have come up elsewhere recently (for example, a now-banned troll took it upon himself to edit User:El_C's userpage using the same rationale). Nearly anything "could be described as inflammatory" to someone, somewhere; if that's our standard, then there will be an awful lot of userpage blanking. I don't like the precedent we're setting here. Using a userpage to push a fringe or inherently offensive (e.g. racist) agenda is one thing. Using it to express a mainstream political belief should probably fall under the "wide latitude" that WP:USER generally allows people in their userspace. More importantly, I think the harm done by unilaterally policing established user's userspace for this sort of not-especially-offensive commentary far outweighs any benefit to the encyclopedia. MastCell ^Talk 19:41, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't see any problem with the banner. It isn't soapboxing to firmly (yet briefly) assert an opinion, and user pages are a fine place for that. Really, what's it hurting? – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 19:43, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Now you're being nice to Jim (see below)? But I agree. It seems we have a few individuals more interested in censoring than in contributing to the project. This is hurting no one, and we have articles that have NPOV problems, factual errors, and who knows what else. Seems like this is a great use of bandwidth. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 19:47, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Strange as it may seem, I'm judging the case based on its merits, not based on the people involved. And on the merits, the banner is a non-issue, in my opinion. I'd say the same if it was Videus Omnia with a "Support President Bush or you're a fop with a speech impediment" banner. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 01:41, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

It appears Dave Souza deleted the statement about "mission accomplished" becoming "Nothing accomplished" as it was here. Frankly I didn't see a problem with it one way or the other. But as it presently exists, e.g., here, I see even less of a problem. It's his opinion and his user talk page. It's not an ad hominem against a user, not even an ad hom against anyone, but rather is a personal statement directed at a situation presently occurring in the world, and in disagreement with the 2003 assessment made by GW Bush. Obviously others disagree with what the statement implies. It's his opinion, his talk page and I think he's entitled to make the statement of fact and also to display his opinion of that very unfortunate situation on his talk page. At least, that's my opinion... Kenosis 19:49, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Is it the war related banner? I don't have any problem with it either.. (plus he erased it) what if we don't like the crab you have on your user pages.. should we erase it? He is not insulting anyone.. is very informative.. Been there done that.. seen that!--F3rn4nd0 ^{(Roger - Out)} 19:54, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

As an interim compromise to end an edit war I commented out the "Mission Nothing accomplished" heading to the banner, but in my opinion it's well within being a reasonable statement of personal opinion, is at most arguably "polemic" and should stay. The removal of the banner without prior discussion was incivil and a good way of inflaming an unnecessary argument. Going through user pages and deleting statements of user opinion on the grounds that they might upset some unduly sensitive people who look away when the news comes on is a sheer waste of time and goodwill. My opinion is that the banner should be restored forthwith. .. dave souza, talk 20:02, 30 August 2007 (UTC) minor correction 20:08, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Please, someone explain why we spend so much time censoring each other. If it was out and out racism, a commercial statement, or something equally heinous, delete it away. Get rid of it. Hell, I'll stand right there helping out. But a political statement? I've read WP:SOAP, despite the you-can't-fucking-read and uncivil commentary left on my talk page, I don't think this even slightly qualifies as soapboxing. Probably offended some Republicans maybe. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 20:44, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

We seem to need to have these conversations every once in a while to reinforce this sort of thing. I do not believe users should be allowed to be overly provocative or deliberately offensive in their user space, but the standard should be what a reasonable person would be offended by, not what an easily offended person might be offended by. Thatcher131 20:51, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. The issue is intent: any statement intended mainly to be polemical is inappropriate for user pages. The only acceptable uses of user pages are those that further the encyclopedic goals of the project. — Carl (CBM · talk) 23:02, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for inviting me to the party. Of course, the person who decided to remove it for specious reasons, could have at least asked me about it prior to arbitraily removing it (shall I go to his page and see if anything "offends" me, and if it does, remove it? -- nah, too childish). If it was truly a vio (which it wasn't), I would have removed it (hell, I wouldn't have put it there in the first place). It's certainly becoming clear to me why a lot of good editors have left Wikipedia, or else significantly reduced the time they spend on the project. Such behaviour as removing what is really a brief commentary from a user page is extraordinarily puertile if not infantile, especially given that there wasn't even an attempt to discuss the issue. I do not suffer fools gladly, and I am begining to sense many fools on Wikipedia. (OK, tag this for incivility, I really don't care, I come from a long line of folks who find telling it as it is preferable to blowing smoke up someones ass, or acting contrite when no contrition is merited)

Quadell, Dave, Kenosis, OM, MastCell and Josh, I thank you for your comments and your support, and I certainly second Dave's opinion on restoring said banner forthwith. •Jim62sch• 20:49, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Can you explain why you feel a polemical statement should be included on your user page? — Carl (CBM · talk) 23:02, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Oh come on. It's an expression of opinion about a current event, in fact an opinion that is shared by a large fraction of the public worldwide and even in the U.S. It's not like he said "death to the [Zionist|Mohammedan|American|Luxembourgish] scum" or something like that. Conservatives can have quotes from Ayn Rand, User:El_C can have a pic of his hero, and so on. As for benefit to the encyclopedia I find these noninflammatory disclosures of viewpoint help to give some personality to anonymous editors; they're useful as expressions of where an editor is coming from. Raymond Arritt 23:02, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

I didn't find the statement on Jim's page offensive (and I'm probably one of the users who would theoretically be offended by it, according to those who would like to remove it). The fight over removal/retention is more disruptive than the statement, IMHO. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 23:12, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

I still don't think the issue is offensiveness. Unarguable polemical statements like "Convicted murderers should face justice!" if written in a large font at the top of the page are inappropriate as well. — Carl (CBM · talk) 23:16, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Are sermons by Sun Myung Moon appropriate? ...... dave souza, talk 00:13, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

this does not strike me as likely to give offense to anyone reasonable--the existence of different views on the matter is well understood. It's minor. Removing it without discussion seems WP:POINT and, frankly, deliberately aggressive. DGG (talk) 01:05, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

It's a polemical statement, but I'm personally not offended by it, but I question the good faith of anyone who says we need more human beings dead, despite wherever their from. Maybe I was reading that the wrong way, I'm not sure. At first glance it appeared the read that more Americans should die, to compensate for the large number of Iraqi's dead, but on a second glance it might mean that too many people have died. Either way, it's a polemical statement, nothing worth the edit war. — Moe ε 01:34, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Since there appears to be some confusion, let me explain: the banner is a statement on the futility and sadness of war, especially one of choice, and speaks to the fact that 4 years and almost 4 months after the war was officially declared over, there are still brave men and women and innocent civilians being killed. These are sacrifices that need to be remembered, not swept under a rug. Yes, I disagree with the war (hence VO's point that he could be one of the people who could theoretically be offended) but I do support the soldiers, sailors, airmen, etc., who are just doing their duty and serving their country (hence the reason (I guess) that VO isn't offended). Everytime I hear of another death I am both angered and saddened.

Now, on my talk page I mentioned the irony of the use of the word polemical given its etymology. For those of you who don't know, polemical derives from the Greek πόλεμος (polemos), war. •Jim62sch• 09:40, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Ah, thank you for giving that explanation. Despite it's tragic irony, it's a polemical statement. Nonetheless, edit warring over this silly thing is unproductive (refering to those removing it). — Moe ε 10:03, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Hell, a lot of user boxes are polemical (not that I really want to raise that damned issue from the dead). Had I written a long rant on my page, I could see folks getting upset. That I was able, in a few words, to (for the most part) get my point across should be no biggie, and removing it without discussion was far more uncivil than anything I've ever written (yes, I do have my moments). This whole process has been silly and could have been avoided via discussion. •Jim62sch• 10:19, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

He could just as easily have put a little userbox that says "this user opposes the war in Iraq" and then had a separate banner listing the very same facts of the war dead. Someone has too much time on their hands, or is a Bush die-hard, to be fretting over this. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 10:35, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

User:Quadell, User:Jim62sch, User:KillerChihuahua, etc.

Greetings. I've run into some drama, and I'm looking for outside opinions and possibly assistance from other administrators. I've been an admin since 2004, and I'm frequently involved in the contentious area of image deletion debates. (I try to keep a cool head, but I'm not perfect.) I ran into what appeared to me to be incivility from User:Jim62sch, some of which was directed towards me. I left a note on his userpage,[45] asking him to be civil and refrain from personal attacks. I was under the false impression that Jim62sch was a new user -- he's actually been around for years -- and I left him the {{uw-npa2}} template. This was a mistake (don't template the regulars and all that), and he wasn't happy with the note, saying it "borders on admin abuse". User:Bishonen and User:KillerChihuahua (both administrators) asked me about this on my talk page, asking what I had seen as incivility on Jim62sch's part and looking for further clarification. I've answered them to the best of my ability, but there still seems to be quite a bit of bad blood stirred up. The unfolding saga is primarily at user talk:Quadell#NPA template. I'd like to invite comments on my behavior, as well as that of other administrators, to see what could have been done better, and what should be done from here. Thanks, – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 19:32, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

The only thing I really identify as tipping toward a personal attack may be this comment he made here. The only error in judgment I see on your part was placing the Npa template (but I do understand it can be accidental). Probably wasn't the best way to help the situation. I don't see much evidence of admin abuse or oversensitivity either but it would have been more constructive to leave a polite response to the "harsh" criticism rather than slapping an Npa. I believe you haven't done anything drastically incorrect though.¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 19:52, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Comment: Perhaps you should also consider that although several people asked, Quadell declined to explain what he was talking about until today. No one knew what he was objecting to. When asked, he said "no one is going to dig up evidence" among other dismissive comments. I consider that at least as problematical as the template, and almost certainly more so. If I tell someone they've made a personal attack and they, and multiple others, ask "where? diff?" I promptly supply a diff and explanation. I don't understand not doing so. KillerChihuahua^?!? 20:14, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

I think that Quadell's is a legitimate concern. Some people want diffs to support any statement, and others think that a collection of diffs qualifies as "wikistalking" or "collecting evidence", and the malign those who collect such diffs. It is kind of a lose-lose situation. --Iamunknown 20:25, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Except that Jim asked for a diff. Quadell wouldn't give him one. KillerChihuahua^?!? 20:42, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Indeed. Did I say Quadell was right or wrong in this instance? No. I mentioned that his is a legitimate concern, identified a (imo) common contradiction, and noted that it creates a "lose-lose situation". You don't have to convince me, because I am commenting neither in favour or against anything... --Iamunknown 20:47, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Ah, point taken, my error. KillerChihuahua^?!? 21:00, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure what further action is required at this point on Quadell's part. Diffs, links, and explanations have all been provided. As I said on Quadell's talk page, it's turned into shrubbery-demanding at this point to keep pushing the issue. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 21:07, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

"Diffs, links, and explanations have all been provided." -- not by Quadell. Are we reading the same page? •Jim62sch• 21:14, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm. Jim makes this edit, invoking Godwin's Law besides other niceties, and has the cheek of asking in the same breath where he was uncivil? And Quadell responds with this perfect sample of civility and self-restraint. I couldn't have blamed him if he had just dropped the conversation altogether at that point. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:55, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

No, he asked where he'd made a personal attack meriting a template with a block warning. There is a difference. KillerChihuahua^?!? 21:00, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Actually, not Godwin's Law if we really want to get technical, and quite a propos and effective given that a mention of Pinochet's or Stalin's or Mao's or Pol Pots secret courts would not have meant diddly. Additionally, had you carefully read the whole post, rather than quotemining for one phrase, you'd have noticed that I was being sarcastic throughout, given my frustration as Quadell's inexplicable refusal to supply a diff when asked to do so by 4 editors (3 of them admins). Have we now banned sarcasm as well? •Jim62sch• 21:01, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Am I the only one who finds that participation in "image deletion debates" has been increasingly interpreted as a free pass for intemperance, peremptory tone, and highly defiant replies to critical remarks? --Ghirla^-трёп- 20:17, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Am I the only one who finds that those trying to impose increasingly onerous restrictions on the use of "fair use" images can be rather insensitive when having a go at particularly contentious articles, and play games of putting book cover images up for deletion when they're already being legitimately used to illustrate articles solely about the books in question? .. dave souza, talk 21:09, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't want to press the issue, but I want to make it clear that Quadell's record is not spotless. I don't have any problems with the acitivities of most "image patrollers", but Quadell's deletions often strike me as injudicious. One recent example is the speedy deletion of the chart from Spartocids, which was uploaded by one of the few authorities in the field with the notion that it was self-made. The uploader was too inexperienced to add a tag, although it was clear from the note that the chart was self-made. Quadell deleted it without a second thought, although it contains material which is hard to come by. It is fortunate that the uploader returned to Wikipedia to readd the image.[46] --Ghirla^-трёп- 07:04, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I have your talk page on my watchlist (as you may know), Quadell, so I noticed the conversation, read through it, and came here to comment. I agree that quite a lively (and somewhat dramatic) discussion is ongoing on your talk page! I have been relatively absent from IfD debates recently, so I examined the diffs, of which I was previously unaware.

They are not the worst seen, nor are they all-out personal attacks, but they are uncivil. By uncivil, I mean that they [Jim's comments] seem to me to be, "...personally targeted behaviour that causes an atmosphere of greater conflict and stress" (WP:CIV). I understand that "personally targeted" is debatable with regards to some of the diffs, but the comments certainly are creating an atmosphere of greater conflict and quite possibly stress (on your part, I assume ;-)), and they do seem to be a pattern.

As I said, reading the discussion on your talk page, it seems quite a bit of drama has been created. Sometimes that happens. Hopefully, however, something good can come out of it. One good thing - you understand that leaving a template warning was probably not the best thing to do in the case. One good thing I hope for - Jim realizing a pattern of what some identify as uncivil commentary, and abating it. Let's make achieve something constructive out of this situation. :) --Iamunknown 20:25, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

And that is a statement I can agree with wholeheartedly. KillerChihuahua^?!? 20:43, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

First, this [47] comment was 5 days before Quadell posted a notice on my page, and Quadell was quite active in that time. Aside from it not being uncivil (a bit sternly worded perhaps, but hardly uncivil), I don't buy it as being the cause given the time lapse. •Jim62sch• 20:54, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Actually, it looks like he took a Wikibreak completely on 25-26 Aug and wasn't particularly active on the 24th or 27th. If I received a post like that on my talk page, I would probably wait to cool down before replying also. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 20:58, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

(EC, topposting Jim) I'm making no judgement, but I note that Jim made that post at 21:33, 23 August. Quadell replied to it 21:43, 23 August 2007. Then he placed an NPA template on Jim's talk page at 13:02, 28 August. It does seem to appear that Quadell was referring to something else, since he'd already replied to the post Jim made on his page. KillerChihuahua^?!? 21:12, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

And that would be your choice. However, I imagine you would have talked about it, rather than place an unmerited template on my page.

Also, there seems to be a bit of a disagreement as to what constitutes incivility. Had I said, "What the fuck are you doing you pretensious little dickhead", you'd have a point. But I didn't, and I don't feel that you do. Look, Wiki might be a nice place to escape to, but it ain't Nirvana, ain't Utopia, ain't Shangri-La or even Care Bear Land. If yoiu're seeking some meek, mild mannered, "nice" society, I wish you well on your search, but I doubt it will be fruitful.

Oh, by the way Videmus omnia is a truly creepy phrase with some nasty undertones. Perfect for a Strat Recon Group, but not quite appropriate to Nirvana. •Jim62sch• 21:11, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Good grief Jim, that's uncivil at best and certainly aggrevating the situation. You might want to consider copyediting that and/or striking it. (What *does* Videmus omnia mean?) KillerChihuahua^?!? 21:14, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

"We see all"? I am missing the creepiness. I don't see how insulting Videmus omnia's uname is anything but harmful. KillerChihuahua^?!? 21:16, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

"We See Everything" -- think of the Police song, "Every Breath You Take". •Jim62sch• 21:19, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Oh for crying out loud, that's just reaching. I still think you're being rude and should strike that. KillerChihuahua^?!? 21:22, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

I think at this point everyone walking away might be the best idea. Neil ム 21:23, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

What would you like me to strike? My explanation that VO would have discussed it? My explanation of incivility? What Wiki is not? My wishes for VO to find a peaceful society? My patience with this project is wearing very thin: it is only by exchanging our thoughts, beliefs, ideas, etc., openly and honestly that we can progress: shutting up and pretending nothing happened is not conducive to same. •Jim62sch• 21:24, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

The bit about his uname being "creepy" and Neil is right, this is going nowhere fast. KillerChihuahua^?!? 21:25, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Second that, was just thinking of Big Brother (Orwell rather than the fortunately near defunct Channel 4 show), but any suggestion of insult should be graciously withdrawn. .. dave souza, talk 21:28, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Neil. No need to drag this through the mud further. Why is there still discussion about providing diff links, the civility levels of talk page comments, and creepiness when this matter is basically closed. Whats done is done, time to move on.¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 21:38, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Ghirla above. Some users invoke "we are doing an image patrol and enforce and 'unpopular' policy" as an excuse to justify the blatantly poor conduct. This is not an image policy issue. This is the issue of the conduct of the image patrollers.

It looks like an experienced administrator Quadell learned too little from the recent Abu badali drama. His being right or wrong on the image issues aside, insensitivity and stubbornness of some of our self-appointed image patrollers is responsible for much of the grief and bad blood their actions spill. This also makes these image patrollers by far less effective in getting the users cooperate with the legitimate concerns about free content policy and the need to find the right balance between WP's informativeness and its freedom.

Here Quadell treats experienced users in good standing (who may admittedly be mistaken about the image policies) with threatening patronizing templates as if he does not know that WP:DTTR is an essay that is approved by the widest consensus (time to promote it to a guideline IMO), then he arrogantly and repeatedly brushes off some very justifiable and reasonable questions where the offended party and several other admins ask him for diffs of an alleged PA that warranted a block threat and then, after failing to convince those who saw him wrong, coming here trying to get the opinions he wants to hear after hearing the exact opposite from several other users.

Highly inappropriate, arrogant and divisive admin conduct. --Irpen 22:50, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

This is certainly not civil. A mere NPA template in response shows levelheadedness and restraint. Yeah, I know, WP:DTTR, but if the shoe fits . . . -- But|seriously|folks  23:43, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

But it is not merely a simple case of DTTR. Read Irpen's post. There is a history here. Then look at how several people tried hard to get Quadell to explain what his grievance was, with him brushing off all questions and concerns. And it goes on. I appreciate what PPG said, and it certainly looked like this thread might turn into a train wreck, but that's the only reason I agreed with Neil - nothing has been settled. KillerChihuahua^?!? 23:48, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

It seems that (by his responses on his talk page) Quadell has learned that his course of action was not the best. In what other way would you prefer this issue be resolved? --Iamunknown 23:58, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

"Not the best" is a big understatement. That's for one. Two: were is Quadell indicating that he learned anything at all? I would as much happy to see that as anyone would. --Irpen 01:39, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

There was a time lag of five days between "this" a "mere" NPA template in response. It shows no "levelheadedness and restraint". It is a provocation that was bound to escalate the issue that has already de-escalated. Quadell was asked what particular entry he was referring to? A fide-days-ago one? Are more recent one? And in what way that kind of "restraint"-response was going to help? --Irpen 23:52, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

As has been asked numerous times, what further administrator action is required here? Videmus Omnia ^Talk 02:12, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

It does not seem that Quadell started this thread with the request of the administrative intervention. He started it to ask for a feedback and advise.

Where is the request for an administrative action in the initial post? As for the advise, my suggestion is that Quadell could use some mainspace content writing that really helps administrators to get closer to the real Wikipedia concerns. I did not spend much time on analyzing, but from the first glance, I find just one content related edit Quadell made in the whole month: addition of 3 short sentences to the Josh Woodward article. While racking up an impressive 4k+ number of edits, just one content one seems somewhat too few and this idea may point towards the solution that may help. --Irpen 03:23, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Heh. I suggest you look at Quadell's edit count. And that doesn't count the articles that Polbot has created. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 03:29, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Very impressive indeed. And an excellent bot as well especially since there is a not so rare opinion that while "anyone can write and article, only few can program."

Note, though, that I did not talk about general editcontitis. Rvv is a count. Removal of an image is a count. Writing a page of brilliant prose is also a count. I meant not counts but maintaining content writing a balanced part of the wikipedia activity in order to "remain in touch". --Irpen 03:38, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

A point well taken. Perhaps article authors should also spend more time on image patrolling, spam removal, or vandalism reversion to "remain in touch" with other necessary functions of the encyclopedia. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 03:44, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

To some degree yes. And most already do. However, lack of content involvement by some, so to speak "professional admins" (there are some even without real admin buttons), if addressed, would alleviate much of the WP problems of inter-user relations. At one time I even proposed having mandatory admin-sabbatical periods where admins are barred from using buttons. But that would be a separate subject, perhaps for the new essay that Geogre may write some day. --Irpen 04:01, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Totally agreed. Can we please close this issue and archive this thread now? Videmus Omnia ^Talk 04:16, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Videmus Omnia, Quadell started this thread to ask for feedback. He's gotten feedback from Persian Poet Gal, Irpen, Iamunknown, and a not too specific (although certainly helpful) comment from Ghirla. Most of this thread is you protesting this thread and responses to that. You're derailing the thread. You state several times you don't see what Admin action is required, then say its been asked numerous times - well yes, by you. The answer is: there never was any action required other than posting feedback asked for. Its not a request for admin action, its a request for feedback. You keep saying its time to close. I don't know if Quadell will get any more feedback on this or not; but three is a small number of people from whom to get feedback when you ask. Leave it alone. If you don't like it, don't read it any more. KillerChihuahua^?!? 07:22, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Meh. Just everybody stop posting. Me included ;-) --Iamunknown 04:39, 31 August 2007 (UTC) Reading KC's post above, I realize I may not have been clear. Once everybody stops posting, then the discussion is over. I'd prefer it not be archived with a purple background or a "resolved" tag on top, but that's just me  ;-) --Iamunknown 07:47, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

problematic user; constant violation of NPOV

MoritzB (talk · contribs) has a long history of blatant POV-pushing and racist motivations. Please refer to his user talk page to get a good picture of how problematic he truly is, as is noted by so many other editors.[48] The latest offense comes from from the article on Dysgenics where he totally blanks out criticism pertaining to the alleged racist views of a particular researcher.[49]. The person edits almost entirely on race-based articles and virtually every edit is in support of a view that supports racism, where he definitely tries to push and give undue weight. Here he initiates an edit where, leading to a page block because he insisted on imposing the racist views of a Michael Levin into an article about "Afrocentrism" when the views were in no way relevant a it was not a critique of afrocentrism, not to mention that it is a fringe theory and discredited view.[50] He even defends this racist view and openly states his agreement with it, while literally fibbing and presenting the views as "mainstream", which is ridiculous.[51] On the article Race and Intelligence, the user again initiates an edit war which lead to a page block where he again, gives a fringe view from a noted racialist scientist undue weight[52], and to avoid 3rr, he was suspected as further reinforcing his view by using sock/meat puppets, which was even noted by the admin.[53]. Here, he is actually defending a blocked editor who was recently blocked for making egregious racist comments, and even justifies these comments.[54] I filed a case a while back in concern to wikistalking and pestering with tis type of racialist behavior, and personal attacks with racist overtones.[55], but I retracted it in hopes that he'd improve. As another example of what I consider undeniable pov-pushing on wikipedia, on the same page he pushes a fringe view from 1939 from another racialist scientist who is widely discredited [56], and another fringe theory which has been widely discredit by mainstream research and is on par with Alien visitation.[57]. As a part of wikistalk case a while back, he followed me to this article, merely to revert anything that I did and impose some new picture in the article with the person it was about being represented as a European-looking individual, when before hand he was represented on the page as African.[58]. He had no stake in this other than to promote his racial views imo since all of his edits were racially motivated. Here, he literally harasses User:Ramdrake merely because Ramdrake filed a case on him for sock/meat puppet.(his case), the cases he filed against Ramdrake in response (even though it was confirmed, it was out of spite and the admins made nothing of it really)[59][60] [61].

That is wiki bullying and trying to impose desired results, sneakily using every tool at his disposal to scrutinize an editor who was merely protecting against his constant and relentless pov violations. Most of what he tries to submit is very culturally sensitive stuff and offensive to many people, and I hardly ever see that type of info displayed in such a manner in any mainstream encyclopedias, so it is clear that what he's doing is in direct violation of wiki policy. I'm not sure what I'd like done, but by all means, one way or another, this needs to stop permanently, and this goes to all users who commit similar crimes.Taharqa 19:48, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

While the views aren't as blatantly racist as those of another recently indef-blocked editor (mostly because they are inserted using and espousing outdated but published views), there has been a very visible record of tendentious editing and POV/edit-warring which has proven disruptive on a number of articles (I can name: Race and intelligence, St. Maurice, White people, European people, Afrocentrism, Race, and I'm sure I'm forgetting a few still). This kind of behavior should deserve admin scrutiny, if it hasn't already attracted it.--Ramdrake 20:14, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Note that MoritzB has decided to switch his focus. Bye-bye edit wars on race-related articles but hello edit wars on homosexuality and pedophilia related articles. Technically, no 3RR or gross incivility and I don't think blocking him would do much good. Still, he's creating unnecessary tension and probably wasting a lot of time for the group of patient editors who are trying to explain WP:FRINGE to him. On the long term though, we can't have him start edit wars all over the place. It was on Michael Jackson a few weeks ago, on the race-related articles three days ago and now this. His defense after a recent block for edit warring was "I have been very careful not to violate the 3RR". Pascal.Tesson 03:23, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

MoritzB is also canvassing regarding that issue [62] [63] [64]. I believe a block would be appropriate. Pascal.Tesson 03:32, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

As would I. Moritz has not made editing on race-related articles any easier - quite the opposite. But branching out into tendentious editing on pedophilia-related articles pretty much proves he's trolling us. Edit warring, incivility, canvassing - definitely needs a block. Picaroon (t) 03:43, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I think that a community block should be considered in this case. This user's POV pushing has quickly become a major disruption to numerous articles. --Strothra 04:07, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Comment. These criticisms are totally without merit. This attempt to ostracize an editor with unpopular political views is against everything a free encyclopedia should stand for. The recent article about dysgenics is a good example. I corrected a factual error and made a post to the talk page about it. [65] However, Taharqa and her friend reverted my edit without any good reason and now the article is again in a logical contradiction with the reference. [66] In other cases Taharqa simply misrepresents my opinions.MoritzB 04:33, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Comment: "Totally without merit"? I think not. It is totally disruptive. This type of editing and talk page discussions is a pain by attempting to illustate a point by constant cherry picking and pushing certain POVs, WP:SYN, and a very obvious bigotry slant. This is not stormfront. Since his "buddy" editors, that were in his camp have been blocked, he's moved on to other controversial articles doing the same thing. This is very disruptive to Wikipedia, as Wikipedia is not a soap box as this editor seems to do often. It is very frustrating and time consuming dealing with this behavior. - Jeeny ^Talk 04:38, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Since it's pretty clear that your contributions are motivated by these unpopular political views, we do have a problem. Wikipedia is not a battleground, nor is it a soapbox: you just can't go around firing up every talk page you can find. Pascal.Tesson 04:40, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Not really. I am a conservative but it is obvious that even many Communists would endorse the edits I made. Friedrich Engels shared my views of homosexuality, Andrzej Wiercinski and other Polish and Soviet physical anthropologists agreed with my views of race which is perfectly mainstream. Even many left-wingers would say that it is reasonable that Michael Jackson's mugshot is included to the article.

Besides, the suggestion that I am from Stormfront is a terrible personal insult as I have indicated my philo-Semitism on numerous occasions.

MoritzB 04:57, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

But the article isn't about your personal viewpoints on homosexuality. And, while you may want to feel included by putting your viewpoints in the article, this is a general encyclopedia, not necessarily a place to network for like-minded folks. There are plenty of places all over the net where you, with your viewpoints, could be made to feel like a welcome part of a group. Please seek one of these communities out and enjoy yourself. KP Botany 05:03, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Please look at my edit. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Homosexuality&diff=154665614&oldid=154664842

I made it in good faith and quoted a 2004 peer-reviewed scientific study. No original research or personal opinions.

MoritzB 05:06, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I did look at your edit. I'm also familiar with the study and subsequent research, and the researchers involved, and the journal, and other journals which published related research, including a 2006 article about this very article. I could, myself, appropriately use that article and subsequent research in various articles on Wikipedia. However, unlike you, I don't have a political agenda for Wikipedia articles, and, again, unlike you, I'm not particularly interested in the article on Homosexuality, certainly not interested enough in it and that one jounral publication and my own political agenda to connect dots in ways they don't connect, then use endless time trying to continue forcing it on folks. You've admitted your political agenda trumps acurate and neutral information. I believe you. KP Botany 05:18, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

No, I don't have a political agenda here. However, some left-wing editors have inferred that I am a conservative and try to block me because they disagree with my opinions.

However, as I have pointed out before even many Communists could agree with my edits.

When I am constructing a new section I do so in steps adding information about scientific studies as soon as I find them. It is not helpful when others are deleting information instead of adding it. And if you note an editor immediately expressed support to my edits in the other article in question [67] and now reverted the article back to my version. [68] MoritzB 05:47, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, your comments lack credibility interlaced with all of your notations about your political viewpoints. If you want to deny you have a political agenda, you simply have to leave your political agenda out of conversations. As long as you fail to do this, people will see you for what you give them to see: your political agenda. KP Botany 03:03, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Engels' views of homosexuality are completely irrelevant. This thread is not about whether or not you are correct in believing that there's a causality between homosexuality and pedophilia. It's about whether you have read and understood WP:NOT, WP:NPOV, WP:FRINGE which have been cited to you time and again. Pretty much all of your edits on Wikipedia have lead to edit wars and your reaction is always that this is due to left-wingers' censorship. Perhaps it's time to consider the possibility that you're doing something wrong. I'm trying hard to assume you are indeed acting in good faith when you create an article like Negro problem or when you defend Fourdee or when you decide to switch to a new controversial topic once you've exhausted everyone's patience on one talk page or when you decide that [69] this is a really important thing to mention about Elbaite. But Picaroon's explanation that you're just having fun creating problems is more and more convincing. Either way, I don't think your presence on the project makes much sense. Pascal.Tesson 06:17, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Ah. I've just stumbled across this, having been working over on WP:RPP. The pedophilia article has now been fully protected due to edit-warring per request. Also, MoritzB and others have been final-warned for WP:3RR on the homosexuality and pedophilia articles - Alison ☺ 06:04, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

What exactly was the problem with the article about Negro Problem which was inter alia about the famous book of W. E. B. DuBois named the Negro problem and Gunnar Myrdal's book. Just a Google search is enough to establish the notability of the phrase. There is also an article about the Jewish Question which was a Nazi concept. The article should be restored. MoritzB 06:39, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

The problem was this version which begins with The phrase 'Negro problem' has been used to refer to the problems caused by the presence of blacks in the New World, especially in the United States (which in essence establishes the fact that the presence of blacks is a problem) then follows up with a lenghty quote about the disastrous consequences of miscegenation. It also happens to be a fork of African American history and Race in the United States. Pascal.Tesson 06:56, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Then please make the appropriate changes. Do not delete an article which clearly satisfies WP:NOTE Also, I put there a longer quote about the desirability of miscegenation. It was a historical concept and historical views are also relevant. I also included the Marxist perspective. See: http://www.marxists.org/archive/james-clr/works/1948/revolutionary-answer.htm

MoritzB 07:02, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

No, I'm not going to "fix" a content fork. Pascal.Tesson 07:35, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Betacommand (talk · contribs), presumably BetacommandBot

Is now tagging user subpages for deletion en mass, for no particular reason--69.118.235.97 21:56, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

That is very bizarre, I'll try to contact him on his talk page. This is really weird.¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 21:58, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Yeah Im nuking userspace cruft. β^_command 21:59, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Three of those user sub pages are backup copies of archival templates for the reference desk--69.118.235.97 22:00, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

And most admins are loathe to speedy things like sandbox pages in userspace, anyways. --Haemo 22:01, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

The edit rate looks too slow to be a bot. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 22:02, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

I just reverted the tagging because I honestly wasn't sure. But are all those mostly clutter? Some are sandboxes.¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 22:05, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Betacommand, these pages appear harmless. I suggest that tagging this type of pages, even if the tags were earned (which is very debatable at best), really is not a high priority. Newyorkbrad 22:08, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Im what Im doing is tagging nonsense pages, and PRODing per policy. these pages havent been edited in months, these are pages created by users who have since left the project. Most of these pages havent been edited in over a year. β^_command 22:10, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

At least 3 are currently being used as templates for the reference desk, and belong to a user who has edited as recently as within the last few weeks.--69.118.235.97 22:12, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Policy aside, what is the benefit to Wikipedia to deleting these pages? -Chunky Rice 22:36, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

If they're prods, anyone who objects can certainly remove it, but I too fail to see any urgency in this. Unless it's an attack page or something of the sort, dormant userspace pages don't really do any harm. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 23:28, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree - it looks to me as though this will be far more work than worthwhile, and could cause more harm than good. KillerChihuahua^?!? 01:02, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Especially since this is not even saving Wikipedia disk space, since we keep all deleted article revisions, and new revisions are being created because of the prod tags! Cleaning up harmless pages in userspace is pretty close to the end of the useful tasks possible to do on Wikipedia; Betacommand, I'd encourage you to go and find something that's a little bit more urgent a problem, and/or less likely to annoy someone. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 07:32, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Continued WP:STALK, WP:UNCIVIL, and WP:EW by Chrisjnelson

Chrisjnelson (talk · contribs) continues to behave in a manner that is counter productive. In addition to an RFC on his behavior and an ArbCase involving me and him as the principal parties - he continues to operate unchecked. The latest of this is on Michael Vick, but you will see remnants of this at Talk:Jermaine Wiggins, and at User talk:Ksy92003. He continues to drive editors away, make uncivil statements in his edit summaries and his talk pages and has refused to participate in the ArbCom case. This needs to be handled as he has followed me to several articles and reverts my edits (and with poor reason as well). Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat  22:10, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Umm... no.►Chris Nelson 22:20, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Shouldn't there be like... some evidence here? Unless... there isn't any. Yeah, I said "shit" in a recent edit summary of Michael Vick. So I apologize for that. I was just a little offended Juan accused me of edit warring when I made a completely benevolent edit that had nothing to do with him. As for following him to several articles, I admit I arrived at them from his contributions page but my edits were not in relation to his (at least not intentionally, I did not view his diffs) and I made no reverts at that time. So that's a lie. Just like when he accused me of edit warring today. All lies. Other than that, he's right on the money.►Chris Nelson 22:38, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

(Edit conflict)

Actually, yes. Your edit summaries and other comments you've made have been hurtful to me, in particular. I made an incredibly minor edit ([70]) which did more good than harm, clearly, and I was reverted by Chris; his edit summary: "Sorry, I disagree with all these edits" which to me seemed like an obnoxious statement by somebody who seems to not want his words changed. In a comment on my talk page (visible on this version of my talk page), Chris said "I'm undoing [your edit] because I've thought about that intro, [and] I've used it on a ton of player pages." Later, in a comment (visible on this version of Chris' talk page), Chris said "Well I am a better writer than you. That's pretty obvious" which I took very offensively. These are only a few examples of Chris' (in my opinion) selfish and disruptive behavior. Ksy92003(talk) 22:42, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry you've misinterpreted some of my words.►Chris Nelson 22:46, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

If you think I've misinterpreted them, then how did you mean to say those comments? Because I was really offended by the way you said those comments, and that hurts a lot. Ksy92003(talk) 22:58, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

jmfangio - either rovide some evidence or drop it. Both of you take your feud elsewhere unless you have something that actually isn't wasting other editor's time. Spartaz ^Humbug! 22:49, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

How much evidence would you like? I would love to drop it but CJN continues to instigate. Speaking specifically to the stalking portion - this edit was the last of three edits i made (in a row) to Jermaine Wiggins, the edits were to change the infobox to a newly instituted one. CJN had never edited that article previously. Yet this edit was nothing more than an edit to the content i had just inserted. There is more; and as you can see - there are clearly others having issue with this persons behavior. Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat  23:02, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Already explained the Wiggins thing. Anything else?►Chris Nelson 23:07, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

• Further evidence - this edit was my first edit to vick today which he very quickly reverted here. Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat  23:10, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

That's not evidence of anything...►Chris Nelson 23:11, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't think Chrisjnelson was stalking anyone. From WP:STALK: "This does not include checking up on an editor to fix errors or violations of Wikipedia policy, nor does it mean reading a user's contribution log; those logs are public for good reason." If you can find evidence that Chrisjnelson was following your edits specifically to harass you, then you would have a case. ugen64 23:15, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

• That's the problem ugen - that's not what he's doing. He's showing up on articles he has never edited before and making edits that have been identified as contentious - this is just an extension of a much bigger problem. I have continued to find new articles and leave him alone and yet he continues to show up on pages I edit. I have not violated wiki policy with these edits, i have not inserted a single image (in these edits) and if you look at the content - they are at best - nothing more than "differences of opinion". Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat  23:17, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Yeah that's the thing. I fully admit I got there from his contributions page, and at the request of User:B I've agreed not to view it anymore, but I was never editing them to undo anything he did or combat his edits. I wasn't trying to harass anyone; they were totally benevolent edits. There were no reverts made from the times I was there on his talk page. If I recall correctly, the first revert between the two of us at Jermaine Wiggins was done by him.►Chris Nelson 23:17, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

• Evidence of an agitating statement here Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat  23:20, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Would an admin please tell me what was wrong with that? Jmfangio hasn't provided any good evidence. Let's just close this ridiculous thing.►Chris Nelson 23:20, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Didn't we just have a WP:CSN brokered aggrement that these two would leave each other alone? And based on that the arbcom hearing that was going to review both of their conduct was dropped? am I missing something? what changed? --Rocksanddirt 23:26, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

I've tried to leave him alone, he keeps accusing me of things (lies) like edit-warring and crap.►Chris Nelson 23:27, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

So you've tried to leave me alone but you continue to use my edit history to find new articles to edit? Chris - stop! You do this to everyone, you've done this to Michigan10 (talk · contribs), to Ksy92003 (talk · contribs), Xanderer (talk · contribs), Yankees10 (talk · contribs) - just stop. Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat  23:41, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

It's not just Jmfangio who feels this way, Chris. I feel the same way as him because of your edit warring with me and insulting words towards me. Ksy92003(talk) 23:42, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Juan - what are you talking about, I "continue to use your edit history"? That's not true at all. I haven't been to your contributions page since the original Wiggins/Terrell incident and B asked me not to go there. You have no evidence of me doing this further. and REMOVED PERSONS NAME - your problems, not mine.►Chris Nelson 23:44, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Why are you disclosing someone's name? Admins - i really don't have anything else to say here. He continues to instigate users, continues to abuse us, you can see a bunch of this at User:Jmfangio/arbcom evidence. Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat  23:46, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Exactly - no evidence. We done here?►Chris Nelson 23:50, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

So if this [71] is not applicable, why don't you go back to the arbcomm and get both of your conduct sorted out. Obviously, the aggreement didn't work, as the disruption continues. --Rocksanddirt 23:52, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

(Edit conflict)

Chris, I've provided plenty of evidence. And what do you mean "your problems, not mine?" My "problems" were caused by you, so they are yours as well. Ksy92003(talk) 23:53, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

You've only provided evidence of tiny things YOU take way too seriously and get all bent out of shape about. THAT is not my problem. If I dished out some serious personal attacks, then it'd be my problem. But if I think I'm a better writer than you and you're going to freak out and say things like "HOW DARE YOU" (which is adorable, by the way) that's YOUR problem. Hope thing clarifies it.►Chris Nelson 00:57, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Will you just fucking shut up and disengage? What are you here for? You're supposed to be here to help create an encyclopedia, not war. You're not helping. Maxim_(talk) 01:13, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

So I provide evidence, and you just decide that it's not good enough? You continue to say that this isn't your problem. How can you deny that comments that you make aren't your problem? I don't get how you can deny that. I think you just don't want to be held responsible for your reactions. Ksy92003(talk) 01:13, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Because they're childish and trivial. They are legitimate personal attacks. If I REALLY made some personal attacks, it'd be a serious thing. But I didn't. I made trivial little comments that you took offense to because of some personality trait of yours. Not my problem. If you want to try to get my blocked for thinking I'm a better writer than you, have at it. But it's like when Juan complained about my calling him "dude". It was such a silly and childish complaint, no one took it seriously.►Chris Nelson 01:15, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

No personal attack is legitimate. A personal attack is a personal attack. It's like comparing a wildfire to lighting a match. Both are fires, right? Well, personal attacks are still personal attacks, no matter at what level, and they are never legitimate. Ksy92003(talk) 01:19, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Well my point is this - I don't give a shit.►Chris Nelson 01:20, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

You see? It's comments such as that which add fuel to the fire. Please stop with the foul language. Ksy92003(talk) 01:22, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

While I will not block, as I am involved in the ArbCom case and the issue in general, I'm going to encourage that someone please help these two to take some cooldown time. This has really gotten to the point of ridiculous. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 01:40, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I've blocked Chris, I'm unsure about Ksy and Juan, they've been reasonably civil. Maxim_(talk) 01:44, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

After looking farther I agree with your judgment, I think Chris has indeed been the primary cause of the issue in this case. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 03:44, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Chris is lucky someone else acted before me: I would have imposed a one week block for gross violations of WP:POINT, and that was before I noted the name disclosure he made here. Durova^Charge! 03:52, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

User:Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles being disruptive

First off: this user comments in many pop culture articles AFD debates (many of which I strongly feel he hasn't even seen the article of). His comments such as "keep per.." are a constant in AFDs, even though people have told him several times to stop doing that. Plus his other random AFD keep comments such as "it has good images, so keep it" aren't very useful. People have told him about policies: yet he doesn't think he should have to read them (or simply doesn't want to follow them). Another reason for keep he's given is something along the lines of "my students find it useful, so keep the article". Secondly: he has had various issues with video game images. He claims it's alright to just take a picture of a video game box, and then stick it wherever even if it's not correct (or free use and so on). People have told him numerous times about this: yet he continues to upload images that are incorrect. Also he's claimed to take a break from AFDs: yet he still continues to actively comment in just about any "fictional" or "pop culture" article that is nominated. Making false promises, doesn't help things out. I suggest someone needs to mentor him, or he needs to be watched closely. Other than those issues, he doesn't seem to be a trouble maker or vandal (from what I see at least). RobJ1981 22:26, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

I find this post incredibly unfair and perhaps retaliatory, because I have participated in some AfDs that RobJ1981 created ([72], [73], [74], [75], [76], [77]) and that many other users have indicated their intentions to "keep" as well. Moreover, you'll notice that other editors also post "keep per X" kinds of posts as well. Finally, as regards that particular criticism, please also remember that Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions is "not a policy or guideline and editors are not bound by its advice." In some of these discussions, few editors outside of User:Otto4711 and a couple others actively push for deletions. I have greatly reduced my participation in AfDs (check my edits for today, for example, and you'll see maybe 50 or so "welcome" and other article improvement edits for every AfD I've participated in. Someone (RobJ1981) who keeps nominating articles for deletion that a good number of fellow editors think should be kept might also benefit from re-reading policies. I replied to EVERY post RobJ1981 made on my talk page, but he continues to post there apparently ignoring my replies and efforts to discuss with him. Rob made this post at 21:53, 30 August 2007. I replied at 22:06, 30 August 2007]. As my edit history shows, after reading and replying to Rob's post, I have NOT participated in any additional AfDs. Yet, all of a sudden, I go to my talk page to see this post!? Why would you bring me here when a) I responded to your initial post and b) did not and have not posted in any AfDs since the last one I did which was at least a couple of hours before he even made the 21:53 post? You posted a comment. I replied and I have not posted in any AfDs since and even those I did earlier was while working with my mentor to learn how to contribute successfully in those discussions. Your behavior in this regard seems like a personal attack based on ideological grounds. Rob even suggested I get a mentor in his most recent post, which obviously ignores the fact that I do have a mentor in administrator Chaser, whom I have discussed many edits with on my talk page as any quick glance of my talk page would show. In fact Chaser is CURRENTLY mentoring me regarding AfDs! I do not "continue" to upload images that are considered inappropriate. Please look at my images and when I uploaded them in regards to any comments. I have replied to any posts about images on my pages and am happy to discuss and learn about what is acceptable. Rob, you are assuming bad faith out of your disagreements with me over popular culture articles, and are not accurately reflecting my efforts to work with my mentor (Chaser) to see how to better participate in AfDs or to try different ways of acceptable image use. Take for example the Reel Fishing images. After being cautioned about the close up image, being removed, I instead tried a further away not as good quality picture that did not just focus on the covers. I similarly instead of the close up of the Lethal Enforcers game cases, tried one of the game cartridge and light guns. Please check my image log history. After Image:Lethal Enforcers for SNES and PS.jpg and Image:All three Reel Fishing games.jpg were deleted, the ONLY two images I uploaded afterwards were the lower quality ones that did not highlight game box art: Image:Reel fishing games with special controller.jpg and Image:Lethal Enforcers and justifiers for SNES.jpg. In other words, I received input on images, and I worked to adjust the images to better follow policy. I would be happy to discuss whether or not these photos are instead better and these are the ONLY two photos I uploaded after the three were deleted a few hours back. For what it is worth, I have just asked an admin if the two new images are more along the lines of what would be acceptable and am awaiting his response. Please accurately reflect what is happening. Should I criticize you for constantly nominating "in popular culture" articles that a sizable percentage of the community obviously want kept? I am happy to cut back my time at AfDs even more than I have and to wait and see what an experienced editor thinks of the two new photos I uploaded today, but calling good faith edits undertaken in a civil manner "disruptive" is insulting and uncalled for, especially when I have sought mentorship and am trying (and learning) a variety of different ways to edit constructively on this site. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 23:02, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

When this user first came to WP, I thought many of his AfD comments showed insufficient thought, supporting the inclusion of both worthy and patently unworthy articles, and, being myself one arguing frequently for inclusion, I thought such a pattern totally unhelpful, and I told him so, on and off wiki. Over time I think his comments have gradually become somewhat more thoughtful. The discussions on popular culture have been exceptionally divisive and bitter, and once more I find GRC supporting the same articles I do. I myself give very extended analyses at times, as do some of the people taking the other position. But the debates have however become somewhat repetitive, with the people urging deletion using essentially the same arguments for all articles, often identically the exact same words on dozens of articles, without necessarily showing the understanding of the difference between acceptable articles and unimportant subjects. When this user first came to WP, I thought many of his AfD comments showed insufficient thought, supporting the inclusion of both worth and patently unworthy articles, and, being myself generally an inclusionist, I thought such a pattern totally unhelpful, and the sort of thing that does not aid rational inclusion of what is appropriate, and I said so. Over time I think they have gradually become somewhat more thoughtful. The discussions on popular culture have been exceptionally divisive, and I find GRC often supporting the same articles I do. I myself give very extended analyses at times, almost as long as some of the people taking the other position. The arguments have however become somewhat repetitive, with the people urging deletion using often the same words for dozens of articles, and it is understandable that those on the other side might do the same. I try to resist the temptation, and the necessary custom-fitted replies have been taking over an hour a day. I do not expect everyone to have the same degree of intensity abut this as I. But I do wish he'd give fuller explanations that would help convince people more effectively. I've told him so several times. I too do not think "my students find it useful" a good argument. I've seen lots of bad arguments from both sides in thse and most other AfDs. If we brought everyone who said Idontlikeit, or metoo to AN/I, we'd turn into Deletion Review part Two. .... Possibly this will be discounted because we often support the same articles, but then the previous comment should be discounted for always opposing on many articles. As for images, I have not been following those discussions. DGG (talk) 00:46, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Dear DGG, I appreciate your fair and constructive feedback. I am holding off uploading any new images until I hear from User:Golbez and I hadn't even posted in any AfDs for at least two hours before Rob made this post to my talk page, which I replied to and after which I have not posted anything in any AfDs in the first place. I will discuss AfDs further with Chaser and since you seem to be quite experienced with them as well, I will take your good faith advice to heart should I ever participate in any more in the future. I also wish that Rob's comments on my few postings in AfDs lately would have better reflected the diverse way in which I handle myself as I did here when I even provided some links that I thought could be helpful or here when I linked to essays that I thought made appropriate arguments applicable to that discussion. Again, though, I am awaiting image feedback from Golbez and AfD strategy feedback from Chaser. Maybe a useful idea would be for someone to suggest a random AfD for me to participate in and to practice making a solo argument and then received feedback from my mentor on what to improve on? Finally, I strongly agree with what DGG has said about the divisiveness of the in popular culture AfDs. I've noticed the same users nominating these and the same ones almost immediately posting similarly worded "delete" rationals in practically all of them. Perhaps the community should set up a special page for a discussion on these kinds of things as we obviously don't have consensus in the AfDs and I think a lot of us are either nominating articles just because they're "in popular culture" and wanting to keep them as well. I fear that both sides are pushing POINT a lot as well and so maybe a separate policy discussion needs to take place? Just some ideas and thanks again for the feedback, DGG. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 02:59, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

(I'm Roi's mentor/adopter.) I'm not sure what kind of administrative action Rob expects regarding AFD comments. We don't usually take action against editors for poor arguments at AFD even if the arguments are against deletion policy (which applies to articles, not editors). As Rob said, "Many of [Roi's] 'keep per whoever' AFD comments aren't even going to go noticed by the person that closes the debate." We similarly weigh arguments and give policy higher value at DRV. As to the images, I agree those are a problem, one that I brought up with Roi yesterday. Now I'm off to resolve that issue.--Chaser - T 02:42, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the feedback; I will, as always, abide by your advice. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 02:59, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

It's true that Le Grand Roi used to be disruptive - it's also true that he's obtained mentorship, sought advice, and made significant progress. If there's a complaint to be made about his behavior now, please base it upon diffs of his recent actions. Durova^Charge! 04:01, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Dear Durova, I appreciate your feedback and guidance over the past couple of months. I am, of course, about outraged to see this discussion here for the various reasons I included in my posts above and have been having a pleasant email discussion with Chaser regarding AfDs, which as you'll see from my edit history are an incredibly small fraction of my contributions as of late. You'll also notice from my talk page that Chaser and I are actively seeking feedback on how to tag images. I find this thread to have been posted in incredibly bad faith when it concerns matters that my mentor and I are in the process of reviewing and when they are a relatively minor aspect of my contributions as of late. Again, I thank you for your response and am as always appreciative of any constructive comments you have. Also, I have participated in the RfA of an individual that you nominated. I have only participated in a few of these thus far and would appreciate any feedback if my posting there is "good" or "appropriate", i.e. if that is the way to go in those discussions. Thanks! Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 04:11, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Well my advice to you has always been to tread lightly at AFD. Likewise, I ask other editors to cite recent diffs if they see problems: Le Grand Roi has been attempting to do what I ask of any formerly banned editor - make a productive return. We've always known he's an inclusionist. If he's learned to keep that within the realms of policy-compliant inclusionism then there isn't a problem. Durova^Charge! 14:29, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Dear Durova, I have consulted with two admins regarding how to phrase my AfD posts in the future and after receiving their feedback last night and this morning, I have participated in this discussion. You'll note that I use references and a much more elaborate argument. I hope that this approach is better and I look forward to continuing to improve. --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 14:33, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

User revealing other users' real identity - this is bad

Is this the correct place to notify Wikipedia administration of wrongful behavior? User "Ubuntu user" has posted the real identity of an editor. This is wrong and deserves punishment.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:194.123.230.36&diff=prev&oldid=154450487

Rather than just say "hello", this person said "Hello, Mabel and Friso". This happened yesterday.

For anyone who knows, Friso is a Dutch prince and Mabel is his wife. Mrs.EasterBunny 22:45, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

I did a WHOIS lookup on the IP and it resolves to "Koninklijk Paleis Huis ten Bosch" (Huis ten Bosch), indeed the royal palace. User:Ubuntu user posted on Princess Mabel's talk page a message that included... "Althought I'm a Dutch republican, I think it is great the Dutch Royal family participates on wikipedia." So I think it was done without malicious intent. In addition I believe there was a news article in the Dutch press about that specific edit (the princess editing her own page to remove negative POV, or something like that, I'm just guessing from stuff posted on talk pages). I have no idea what to do with this issue though... ugen64 23:12, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

(a.e.c.) According to the well-sourced "editing negative information" section of our article Princess Mabel of Orange-Nassau, the Dutch Government Information Service confirmed prior to Ubuntu's "revealing" a putative identity that the sole edit from the IP at issue was indeed made by the those whom Ubuntu addressed. Whilst it may nevertheless be untoward or otherwise ill-advised or acollegial to refer by name to an editor whom one identifies other than by the editor's revealing his identity on-wiki, there appears to be no outing here (of course, in view of WHOIS, to which we link from IP contribs pages, there is really nothing to "out"—I suppose one's suggesting the specific identity of someone editing under an IP the owner and geographic location of which we know might be in poor form), and, it seems, nothing should require any further action. Joe 00:03, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

As evidenced by the utter lack of condemnation of Wikiscanner, the "outing"/privacy rules don't apply to IP users, only people who get accounts. --Random832 23:42, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Condemnation of Wikiscanner for doing what? He hasn't done anything that couldn't be done manually with a lot of digging. Corvus cornix 23:57, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

They were outed by the press, not by Ubuntu user. See my edits at Wikipedia_talk:Wikipedia_Signpost/2007-08-27/In_the_news. Corvus cornix 23:54, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

I guess I'm not seeing any nonpublic information being outed here. The press has already reported on the story, the royal family themselves have already acknowledged it, and the RDNS provides about as clear of an indicator as you could want. This wouldn't even require a lot of digging to find, a bit of googling and an RDNS would do just fine. It'd be more like someone referring to me as Todd—I have that information on my userpage, they're not "outing" me by that. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 00:52, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Template testing

Resolved

Nosseta, Knosseta, and another sock, Krighter1, have all been blocked. And my question was answered. -- Flyguy649 ^talk _contribs 02:23, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

This is something I haven't encountered before. I just reverted a test edit (diff) to template:Test template which has been unused since March, 2006. The user (Nosseta (talk · contribs); this was their first edit) argues that it is a test template and can be used for this purpose (dif). Is this ok? Is there a template sandbox I can refer them to? Incidently they've now started to test edit Template:Nossetas test template. -- Flyguy649 ^talk _contribs 01:50, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

This is now obviously a vandalism-only situation, but my general questions still apply. Flyguy649 ^talk _contribs 01:57, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, if there isn't actually a template sandbox, I feel there should be. It is a fair idea. -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 02:05, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

As Wikipedia:Sandbox says, templates {{X1}} through {{X9}} are sandboxes. — Carl (CBM · talk) 02:20, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank you! -- Flyguy649 ^talk _contribs 02:24, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Persistent wikistalking and insults from User:Fahrenheit451 (pt.2)

This was brought up here a few days ago and User:Fahrenheit451 was warned here to cease his aggressive and insulting behavior, but it's still continuing. See here. First he accuses me yet again of being in the cofs (Church of Scientology) then states (apropos of absolutely nothing) "We have no evidence of WPD's affiliations or gender." (he now refers to me as "WPD" after being ordered to stop calling me "Trixi".)

Further, he followed up a warning I gave to a tendentious editor with this comment linking to a frankly paranoid and bizarre screed about OSA Agents working undercover at Wikipedia, and the edit summary "defense against the badgering". This sort of paranoid vendetta from someone I don't even know and who doesn't know me at all is really beginning to freak me out. wikipediatrix 03:38, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Update: In revenge, he's now placed a complaint below that my complaint here is false, even though he himself is linking to the very diff that shows him calling my religious affiliation, my motives for editing Wikipedia, and even more bizarrely, my gender into question for no apparent reason, as well as having the nerve to call another editor "uncivil" for defending me against his insults. This is increasingly frightening and disturbing. I want this person to stop making insults and insinuations at me and about me, directly and indirectly.wikipediatrix 03:59, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

JzG deleted the rant wikipediatrix refers to as a bad use of userspace. ThuranX 14:16, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

User:Wikipediatrix false reports on AN/I

Wikipediatrix harassed and badgered a user with a very uncivil comment. My comments were to the user who I have edited with and did not address her. Her post above is nothing short of a violation of WP:NPA.--Fahrenheit451 03:44, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Here is the thread from the false accusations WPD made in the first paragraph of the posting here:[78]--Fahrenheit451 03:49, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I comment that WPD's "update" is more of the same attempt to create problems for me with false accusations.--Fahrenheit451 04:13, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I propose that WPD and I have a mediation. Hopefully, this will settle the ongoing animosity.--Fahrenheit451 04:16, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

However, in the citation above, you wrote: « We have no evidence of WPD's affiliations or gender. » Wikipediatrix has very clearly stated that she is a woman and not a Scientologist. Please remember WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL. Your unsubstantiated insinuations are of no interest on WP. --Mathsci 07:44, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

What part of

"What part of "do not use abbreviations of the editors username", and "do not use them in a familiar manner" are you having difficulty understanding? ... LessHeard vanU 09:12, 28 August 2007 (UTC)"

are you still having difficulty with? The editors name is wikipediatrix. You have been requested by both wikipediatrix and myself to not use abbreviations. LessHeard vanU 09:59, 31 August 2007 (UTC)(struck per below. LessHeard vanU 14:24, 31 August 2007 (UTC))

I am not a party to this discussion, but I'm curious what policy you're citing? There's nothing in NPA about it, and I've been called BB a number of times without incident. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 10:09, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

WP:CIVIL and WP:HARASS. Fahrenhiet451 has been requested not to use abbreviations of wikipediatrix's username by the editor following instances when she considered he used them in an inappropriately familiar manner which she found to be unsettling. When I warned Fahrenheit451 regarding the harassment I specifically requested he keep his language formal, including using the concerned editors full username. LessHeard vanU 10:51, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I see. Ironically, your misspelling of his own username runs the risk of turning up the heat. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 11:07, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Oh, my typo's are generally to be found in the most inappropriate places... ;~) Sorted, cheers. LessHeard vanU 11:26, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't really object to being called "WPD", although that may confuse other editors in the course of discussions - I do object to being called "Trixi", I do object to him calling it "badgering" when I ask another editor not to edit-war and to start using talk pages and edit summaries, I do object to his insinuations about my gender, I do object to being accused of being a Scientologist, I do object to being accused of being in the OSA. I'm not interested in going thru any drawn-out mediation rigamarole, I just want Fahrenheit451 to stop saying these things. Am I way off base for expecting that? wikipediatrix 13:47, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

(I have struck my earlier comment per yours above. I would, however, suggest that in requesting Farenheit451 - and I've just noticed I've been transposing the "ie" - adopt a formal tone in your discussions that he doesn't use abbreviations; both for clarity and to stop precedent.LessHeard vanU 14:24, 31 August 2007 (UTC))

"Way off base"? no. Likely to get it? dubious. he ought to back off, but if he didn't the first time, and he's not the second time, as this section he opened proves, it's unlikely he's going to change soon. that said, I'd like to hear from him again in this section, regarding the discussion that's ongoing. ThuranX 14:18, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I have requested a mediation on an scientology-related article that has had a loong history of hostile edit-warring. WPD is one of the editors of that article. My aim is to get all the editors there in a mediated discussion to work out whatever differences we need to. WPD is welcome to participate and, I think, would benefit by the discussion. I project that a successful mediation on this particular article will improve editor relations for all article of that genre. Now to respond to some of the points above: I really got that WPD dislikes "trixi" and no longer use it. Curiously, another editor has called her "trix" and I saw no protest. I am often refered to as F451 and could care less. In the above thread, LessHeard vanU has called me Farenheit451 and Fahrenhiet451, both of which are mispellings. I am not offended. On this wiki, I have known one editor who represented themself as a male, and another who represented themself as a female. We made telephone contact later and I found that they were the opposite gender of their wiki personas. So, unless I know someone here in real life, I don't believe or disbelieve what they may claim about themselves. That has nothing to do with WP:AGF as malice is not presumed. That is simply healthy skepticism. Assuming my use of he/she is an act of belligerence is not appropriate. Employing a formal tone is a constructive suggestion, but I encourage wikipediatrix (I typed it out) to mediate at this point to clear up basic misunderstandings, even if she views it as "rigamarole". --Fahrenheit451 15:34, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

THF and DavidShankBone

Can some admin whom these two have not yet alienated please tell them to just stay the heck away from each other? I've tried refereeing to no avail, and after the last exchange on my talk page came about this || close to blocking both of them for WP:POINT and, well, acting a fraction of their ages. Now it looks like it's Raul's turn to host the merriment. I'd really rather things didn't get out of hand, as both of them are smart guys and can be good contributors. But whatever I've been doing hasn't worked, so could someone else step in? Raymond Arritt 03:45, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Untying this gordian knot is second on my list of things to do after scheduling some more main page FAs. Raul654 03:46, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I've twice reached out to David and reached agreement that we would disengage, even after he sent me off-wiki threats using the Wikipedia e-mailer, and David has twice broken that agreement. I am happy to have a disengagement agreement a third time if David agrees to stop forum-shopping false COI accusations against me, which has historically been treated as problematic behavior. I ask for guidance how I am supposed to respond when David makes a false accusation against me, since asking David not to do so or rebutting the accusation or asking for guidance on the COIN page is being perceived as wrongful behavior. Per WP:COOL, I'm going to bed. THF 03:52, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

false COI accusations against me - COI is a matter of perception. And several editors besides David have suggested that you have a COI. Regardless any strict definition of COI, I wonder what the Wikipedia community or the Real World would think of adding non-controversial information related to the organization to which you are affiliated.[79] --Iamunknown 04:05, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

• Seriously? At this point it is THF going around ranting, opening COINs about himself simply over a question on a Talk page to Raul654. The threat THF keeps referring to in his effort to continually paint himself as a victim was no threat at all as I continually have explained to him, and I have continually invited him to bring it to ArbCom. But to not say he was threatened would hurt his quest to obtain victim pity. If you look in the last week, THF has been in arguments and had to cite WP:COOL and WP:HARASS and a number of other wiki-linked policies and guidelines to about 5 to 10 editors. Are all these people out for him as well? User:Turtlescrubber? User:GaryLambda? User:Guettarda? Those are just the ones today. You can't always see these arguments THF continually engages in because he takes them off his talk page. Seriously - Check out that diff to see what THF considers a violation of WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL. How can anyone take his claims serious when those are are personal attacks according to him? That's just one diff. Yet THF continually claims I am the disruptive editor? --David Shankbone 04:22, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

COI query by Iamunknown

Apologies, one last edit for tonight, since Iamunknown raises a different issue than whether I am harassing David by responding to accusations he has made against me.

In response to the specific diff Iamunknown raises, I requested comment on my World Health Organization edit at COIN, and people got mad that I even asked, and not a single person there said I violated COI. I am simultaneously criticized for being too diligent and for not being diligent enough. And noone questions a Harvard professor who inserts a cite to another Harvard professor in an article.

There is a COI guideline that states what violates COI and what doesn't, and I have followed it. I am not the first editor on Wikipedia affiliated with a thinktank who has sought to edit in his subject area, and precedent has stated that controversial experts are permitted to edit. Having a strong POV is not a COI. Is it really the case that Wikipedia has one set of standards for fellows from left-wing thinktanks and another set of standards for fellows from right-wing thinktanks? I hope not. And User:Cberlet edits a much higher percentage of articles directly in his subject field, while I have been accused of violating COI because I edited a subject that was loosely related to a client of a former employer.

Separately, I ask that Raul654 be recused from investigating this matter, as he has already prejudged the issue, and his position expressly contradicts WP:COI, arbcom precedent, and consensus at the COIN discussion where I opened an RFC on myself.

As I am trying to disengage from David Shankbone, I will not respond to the false accusations he makes against me, but hope that readers will take them with a grain of salt. THF 04:36, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

• What's great about the arbcom precedent that THF keeps referring to says "provided they cite reliable sources for their contributions and respect Wikipedia:Neutral point of view and Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not, especially Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought, Wikipedia is not a propaganda machine and Wikipedia is not a battleground." Yet THF, in the midst of talking about Box Office Mojo's documentary rankings, used by all the mainstream media, decides it is wrong they don't include Eddie Murphy Raw and Jackass Number Two, writes his own articles, gets his employer to publish it, and then argues to have it included on 25 film articles (the ones on his list). How does that jive with ArbCom precedent? THF is real good about citing policy, guideline and precedent, just not following it. Wikipedia is not a battleground, but we can all remember THF's instigation of "Wikipedia vs. MichaelMoore.com". I like that THF doesn't want Raul654 to be involved because...well...he has an opinion that THF disagrees with. This paragraph, and the one above, are about all I need to say. Look at THFs contributions, and look at mine. What did I spend the day doing? Writing a mighty fine article called Reality film and cleaning up vandalism and copyediting. I added some photos of two subway stations and Burt Neuborne. Look at THF's edits: battle, battle, WP:NPA, WP:CIVIL, WP:COOL, policy cite, COI accusations, argument with editor 1, argument with editor 2.... The diffs, the histories and the actions of THF speak for themselves. --David Shankbone 04:52, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
  • • This mischaracterizes THF's action: Wikipedia is not a battleground, but we can all remember THF's instigation of "Wikipedia vs. MichaelMoore.com". When a Web site makes statements about a Wikipedia editor as a Wikipedia editor and when those can reasonably be construed by some as an attack or harassemnt, it isn't "instigating" to bring the matter up before Wikipedia administrators. The assumption in David Shankbone's comment above is that not only do others disagree with him on whether the Moore Web site was on the attack, but that it wasn't even a reasonable disagreement, and even that the subject of the attack was unreasonable in thinking he was being attacked. When a Web site says you must be contributing to Wikipedia on your work time and wouldn't that be of concern to your bosses (a point about the attack which should have been addressed much more in the discussions on Wikipedia), then at the very least there can be reasonable disagreement. Therefore David Shankbone should stop treating those who disagree with him as people simply battling and fighting and "instigating" and instead tone down his language in a way that indicates he's working toward consensus. Noroton 15:35, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
    • About that last sentence: it's something I've been guilty of in the past as well (the difference being, I'm trying to stop). Noroton 16:18, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Actually, could you provide diffs for "Wikipedia vs. MichaelMoore.com"? As I recall, it was other editors, including remnants of the SlimVirgin minority who fought the war on his supposed behalf, unless asking a question on a noticeboard counts as marshaling his troops. You two should just avoid each other. And stop rehashing a talk page suggestion that THF made two weeks ago. He closed the RfC himself when it was clear consensus was against including his article. Jesus. Cool Hand Luke 05:16, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

• Sure, Luke. Here, under the heading "Attack site" THF asks "What's the standard procedure for de-linking attack site [80]?" The link showed every michaelmoore.com had on the site. Just a simple question? That's a bit coy. He didn't ask "Is this an attack site" he asked what the procedure was to de-link it. You may remember User:Noroton began removing the site from Wikipedia, for which he was blocked - and you unblocked him. Then he started to remove the link again. You have supported THF, and his efforts to agenda push, at almost every turn, which included your support for having with having his unnotable attack piece on Moore disguised as a new way to rank documentaries inserted into Sicko (so it's not surprise you don't want that issue "rehashed"). --David Shankbone 12:34, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

• • • • The most reasonable assumption about THF's state of mind once he'd seen what Moore had on his site was for THF to think he was under attack. You seem to have completely discounted the idea that he would have had that very human response. This fits a pattern in the way you've responded to others in this disagreement: You give the impression that their disagreement neither stems from sympathy to someone they honestly think is under attack, nor an honest belief in what Wikipedia policy is. Minutely examining the tone of someone's language as he just reports he's under public attack, describing his words as "a bit coy" (when you could just as easily have assumed he was trying to be restrained) isn't the way to bring a "battle" to conclusion but to keep feeding it. It assumes, that THF, even in the face of an attack that had just been made, only acted under calculation to disrupt Wikipedia for bad faith reasons. You don't treat a disagreement over a person the way you treat a disagreement over nonpersonal content in an article. This was a human dispute, not a content dispute, and therefore requires more sobriety than you, I and loads of others here had given it. Luke actually was one of the more sober contributors. I've reflected on my own actions and seen where I could have reacted better. Reflection's useful. I recommend it. Noroton 16:18, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
    • I'm fine there. I was not the only one to support including it—in the footnote and not in the body of the text. I have no problem with anything I said there. I just think it's unproductive that you keep chastising him for a civil content dispute resolved weeks ago that never even reached the mainspace. Cool Hand Luke 13:27, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

• Clearly that issue is not resolved, and if anything, it goes to the very heart of the problem with THF. Considering that he is not an expert on film, or on documentaries, or on how to rank them, and considering that he was attacking Box Office MoJo's rankings by attacking Moore, this was a WP:WEIGHT violation that you supported. --David Shankbone 13:53, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

• As I recall, I was the first person to point out that it was a WEIGHT problem, and I specifically crafted my footnote suggestion to take that into account. I'm glad you now agree that it's a problem with WEIGHT and not OR. Cool Hand Luke 14:39, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

• You don't make yourself look any better by spinning my answers. It was a problem with both. It was OR to declare Eddie Murphy Raw a documentary, or to say that IMAX films should be included in highest-grossing documentaries when they did not audit their box office until 2005. That's OR. That's what THF did, and he's not a film expert, he's a legal expert. --David Shankbone 14:54, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

• I don't think that I did anything wrong. Attacking editors for talk proposals is a little Orwellian, dontcha think? Cool Hand Luke 21:34, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

• I think you've misused "Orwellian" - but this issue caused a too much disruption (leading to ANI, COIN, et. al.), and the article had no standing, not even in a footnote. Your support of it (since you support its premise) added to it. This should have been an easily disposed of suggestion, instead, it took up the Sicko board (and others) for days. --David Shankbone 21:55, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

• Yes, it took days...three weeks ago. I thought it was a good faith and not totally unreasonable suggestion. If article-oriented good faith talk page discussions are crimes, why not just go whole hog and sanction users for thinking unwiki thoughts. Cool Hand Luke 22:25, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

• • As I recall, you voted that "Ted Frank" was a notable pundit in the field of politics. Why would you object to citing his work as critical commentary on political topics? --Tbeatty 06:02, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

For the record, in response to Tbeatty, I am not at all complaining about the results of or seeking to reopen the good-faith content dispute to which Tbeatty refers. The content dispute took place entirely on talk pages, with no mainspace edits. After some difficulty deciding where to centralize the discussion, it was centered on Talk:Sicko. There were 54 comments in that discussion, and I made 9 of them. Another editor made 17 comments, another 7, two others 6 each, with the other 9 split up among several editors. Consensus was reached against my proposed edit after an RFC that I closed on 10 August, three weeks ago. (The "25 pages" allegation comes in response to a talk-page argument that if the cite about 25 films was put on one page, why not put it on 25 pages, and I agreed with that assessment.) The talk-page content dispute resulted in a COIN complaint, and the consensus of that was that I did not violate COI by making a talk-page request, which is exactly what WP:COI says to do. In the aftermath, there was extensive discussion at WT:COI, and a proposed change to the COI guideline to restrict talk-page discussion, explicitly aimed at me, was overwhelmingly rejected. THF 06:41, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, THF has no interest in either the success or failure of any of Michael Moore's commercial enterprises. As for politics, MichaelMoore is left of every conscious human being so I don't see how being "right" of Moore creates a conflict. THF's organization does not benefit from any sales or lack of sales for Michael Moore goods or services. Even the drug case that michaelmoore.com cited on his web site is not a conflict as Michael Moore is not a party to the suit. THF, in a testament to his character, has fully disclosed his affiliations. By the standards that are trying to be set here, anyone who donated to any cause including union dues or who voted in elections has a conflict of interest and it's ludicrous. --Tbeatty 05:52, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Umm, "Michael Moore is left of every conscious human being"?!?! That statement clearly establishes your POV. FCYTravis 07:51, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

No, that statement is humorous attempt at showing where Michael Moore stands. In the U.S., he is left of Ted Kennedy. In the rest of the world he is solidly left of center. That's simply a fact. --Tbeatty 16:13, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Your post-facto attempt to dismiss that clearly-aimed comment as "humor" is unpersuasive. FCYTravis 17:33, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I didn't dismiss it. It was humour. And MM is a leftist. That's my POV. I'm surprised you think this is somehow controversial. --Tbeatty 18:52, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

To assume that pharmaceutical companies have no interest in denigrating Sicko is pretty naive. Therefore, working for an institute paid by such corporations to spin public opinion on their behalf seems to me to constitute a WP:COI.--Raphael1 10:34, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

TBeatty, that may be humorous, but it's sure as hell not accurate. Moore is to the left of centre in US politics, but the centre of US politics is well to the right of centre to start with. Guy (Help!) 12:43, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

MM is leftist by European standards as well. He would be leftist Labour in UK. Socialist in France. Come on. He is left of the vast majority of people in the world. --Tbeatty 16:13, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

You need to get out more. He's pretty middle-of-the-road by any standards but U.S. I've dealt with real lefties; he ain't it, and it's sad that American discourse has deteriorated to the extent that he is perceived that way by some folks in this country.--Orange Mike 21:07, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I've lived all over the world and I am not speaking from an American point-of-view. The fact that MM concerns himself with American issues doesn't make MM centrist just because the U.S. is less left than other countries. He is leftist by international standards. Let's put it this way, Chavez of Venezuela is a well known non-American leftist. No one would argue he is not leftist. MM is at at least as left as Chavez. --Tbeatty 22:09, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

How long will you take that 1-dimensional discussion?--Raphael1 22:35, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Possible remedy with THF and David Shankbone

What say from this point on, should THF or David mention the other in any forum, an uninvolved admin blocks the provocateur for sometime between 12-48 hours (or an escalating level), sorta like how ArbCom editting restrictions work?—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 05:09, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I accept. I have no complaints with David other than his repeatedly attacking me and mischaracterizing my history, and I could be more productive in a day than rewriting Weaknees and resolving a BLP/EW dispute if I didn't have to defend myself. Wikipedia is not a battleground, and I'm here to edit an encyclopedia. THF 05:15, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I know how much David can be stubborn at times but your COI issue is really relevant. As mentioned above by Iamunknown "COI is a matter of perception." Just tell me how many voters who have participated at T.F. AfD voted rationally and objectively, including the nominator? All i see that everything you and David are into has got something to do w/ COI. The community is a bit anxious and bothered. Do you have any suggestion on how to sort this out? -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 10:15, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

It would be very easy for the community to sort this out: enforce its principles even-handedly and make it clear that Wikipedia welcomes "controversial experts" and discourages harassment of them. Wikipedia has dealt with precisely this question before. There is no difference between my case and Cberlet's or William M. Connolley's. The difference is, when User:BabyDweezil repeatedly called Cberlet a "paid propagandist," he was blocked indefinitely for violation of WP:CIVIL and WP:BATTLE, and Berlet continues to this day to edit his own articles and articles of the people and organizations and movements he is paid to write about, all the while having a strong POV, but, like me, making Wikipedia-compliant mainspace edits. When someone does the same thing to me, admins join in, and of course people are encouraged to make uncivil and false attacks against me if they feel it will help push their POV. If the rules were enforced, there wouldn't be a problem, because people would know not to harass me. I have asked for comment at COI/N, explaining why the COI accusations are false, and was told both that (1) I am not violating COI, and (2) I should stop asking COI/N about it. What more can I do? THF 12:34, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Heh, a good first step in 'accepting' a restriction against mentioning David would have been to not use it as an opportunity to complain about him again. --CBD 10:51, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

• THF has an agenda, he pushes it, he WP:GAMEs the guidelines and policies, and he continually asks for this Board's blessing. Here's a suggestion: Why don't you guys all discuss it, and THF and will I stay out of the conversation? If you have a question for one of us, or need to see diffs, ask on our Talk pages, which is where we'll answer. During the discussion, we won't engage each other, and we will refrain from editing Michael Moore pages, because 90% of the issues stem from his edits and Agenda on those pages (IMO). Now doesn't that sound reasonable? I'm happy to answer questions presented on my Talk page, supply difs, what have you. But once we get into it on this board, we take it over. --David Shankbone 11:46, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

• I recommend arbitration. The behavior of both editors needs to be examined in a thorough, deliberate and sober manner. - Crockspot 12:09, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
  • I agree that this probably will reach arbcom in the end, but think it's worth one last try to settle things in a less agonizing way. Raymond Arritt 12:21, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Raphael1 should be included in any arbitration, too, since he also insists upon repeated accusations of WP:COI violations based on facts that do not violate WP:COI, though he has been told by neutral parties that his accusations are silly, and consensus was against him at WP:COI/N#Sicko. THF 12:34, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

• I was just reading Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Attachment Therapy and thought this comment may have some relevance here: "Editors at Wikipedia are expected to work towards neutral point of view in their editing activities. It is not possible to simultaneously pursue NPOV and an activist agenda. Editors who have exceptionally strong professional, political, or financial commitments to a particular point of view are asked to refrain from editing in affected subject areas. This is particularly true when the affected subject areas are controversial." It's not a stretch to suggest that THF has an "exceptionally strong professional commitment" to a certain POV in respect of Moore. THF vigorously asserts that he does not have a conflict of interest, but ArbCom seems to define COI in terms which arguably would apply. This is not going to be sorted out without wider input, and the only question is whether THF would accept the opinion of anyone other than ArbCom. Such opinion having ventured numerous times here and been rejected by THF, I wonder if perhaps it may be futile to try anything other than arbitration. This is not to prejudge the issue, only to call into question THF's willingess to accept any outcome other than to endorse his continued editing of these articles. However, it is undoubtedly time for David Shankbone to step back and leave it to others, as it is plain that THF will not co-operate with any attempts he might make to resolve the issue. Guy (Help!) 12:38, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

• How can I be accused of "not co-operat[ing]" with any attempts I might make to resolve the issue? I've preemptively asked for guidance at COI/N repeatedly. Each time I was told--including by people who said that they found my views "disgusting"--that I was not violating COI. I haven't had to accept the opinion of anyone other than ArbCom, because not once has there been a consensus that I was violating COI. The more relevant Arbcom unanimously said A strong point of view expressed elsewhere on a subject does not necessarily mean POV-pushing editing on Wikipedia; that can only be determined by the edits to Wikipedia. THF 12:45, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

• [EC] I didn't say that, what I said was that you are unlikely to accept any attempts by David to resolve the issue, so his continued involvement is not going to help anyone. There is a difference between holding a POV and making money by expounding it. I know you don't think there's any problem publishing criticism of Moore and also editing the articles, but what you think doesn't matter overmuch in the end, it's what others think. I also don't believe that you will accept any answer other than the one you want, unless it's in some binding and formalised form, as witness the fact that you argue with anyone who suggests that a conflict might exist. My interpretation of the ArbCom ruling is that there is at least grounds for disquiet over your editing articles relating to Moore, but what I think doesn't matter overmuch either, it's what the community as a whole thinks (in as much as it thinks anything). If ten admins were to tell you that you have a conflict, or at least enough of an appearance of one that you should restrict yourself to Talk, would that be enough for you? My hunch is that it would not. So I think this is a job for ArbCom, none of whom are involved thus far as far as I can see, so none can be accused of being involved. I have removed the duplicate of your post from my Talk, as that kind of thing seems to have served thus far only to spread the dispute to an ever-increasing number of venues. Guy (Help!) 13:08, 31 August 2007 (UTC)`

I think THF has a point here. There are too many issues being conflated in this discussion. I have the same problem as THF form the opposite side of the political spectrum. Some Wiki editors claim that since my views are progressive, that what I write and get published outside of Wikipedia is automatically a COI problem. I disagree. I think Arbcom already has a position on this issue, as mentioned by THF above. It is what is reflected in the actual Wiki edits that matters. Otherwise any published author will end up being banned as having a COI. That would be just sillyy and self-defeating for Wiki.--Cberlet 13:03, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

If you are paid to write opinion pieces about a subject, and then edit the subject in WP, then it looks bad. Always will. Guy (Help!) 13:09, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Particularly if you edit tendentiously, insist upon the inclusion of your most esoteric viewpoints in articles where they are not notable, and use Wikipedia as a soapbox. Then it obviously crosses the line from "experts editing in their field of expertise" to Unwarranted promotion of fringe theories and COI. --Marvin Diode 14:07, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree entirely. Do you have a diff where I have edited tendentiously? The worst thing I have done was to make 9 comments in a 54-comment talk-page thread about the inclusion of an a piece I wrote, and most of those comments were rebutting personal attacks. I withdrew from the discussion when JzG asked me to withdraw from the discussion, and I closed the RFC myself and accepted the consensus three weeks ago, and haven't sought to reopen the content dispute again since. Ironically, the editor who three weeks later is most angry that I made a talk-page suggestion about the possible inclusion of an op-ed inserted it himself into a different article. THF 14:39, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I was responding to the comment by Cberlet. My post was not directed at you, sorry for any misunderstanding. --Marvin Diode 20:37, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

• Well, that's a convenient way to spin what happened. If anyone is interested in a short, concise explanation of where all of these problems began, I explained it on User_talk:Cberlet#THF. --David Shankbone 14:49, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

• Any chance we could perhaps tone down the rhetoric? The problem here is actually pretty straightforward: the article subject, some editors and some admins, think THF has a conflict. There is some basis for that in recent ArbCom decisions. THF, with some supporters, says not. There is some support for that in ArbCom rulings too. Obviously it's never going to be THF's call whether he has a conflict or not, so we need to decide on a forum which is appropriate, will deliver the necessary decision, and whose verdict all parties will be prepared to accept. There are not many options. I'd say ArbCom is the only one, really, since mediation might repair the interaction between THF and David but it won't fix the underlying question of whether THF has a conflict. Guy (Help!) 18:17, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Implications of punishing users for disclosure

I am starting to notice a trend: editors in a content dispute turn to COI/N to try to squelch the other side. We should not be falling into the trap of punishing editors who have disclosed their affiliations, especially when the accuser himself has not disclosed anything. (For all we know, one of the anonymous COI accusers could be Michael Moore himself!) We should be dealing with edits, not editors here, and I've still not seen one single abusive edit by THF. Until someone produces real evidence of POV-pushing by THF, this is nothing more than an overblown content dispute. ATren 14:47, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

• We aren't arguing content. The issue here is what, if anything, should be done about mine and THF's feud. --David Shankbone 14:51, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

That's easy...stop feuding.--MONGO 15:05, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Dang, you beat me to it. Tom Harrison ^Talk 15:06, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

• I Agree with ATren. Disclosed affiliations are easier to monitor. If we prevent disclosed parties like THF from editing on their topics of expertise, we will only deter disclosure, not COI editing. THF exemplifies our ideal COI policy, but some editors seem bent on driving all potential conflicts of interest into anonymity. Cool Hand Luke 14:57, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

NB also that I have been so solicitous of the COI guideline that I have not touched the Ted Frank article, even though it is rife with at least eight factual errors or misleading statements, though COI and BLP permit the correction of such errors. I abstained from the AFD, though I have an opinion about guideline application to that AFD that has not been stated by any of the other 60 !votes. I even asked readers of my blog not to participate in the AFD. When someone asked me to stop reverting vandalism and to stop responding to fact tags in the article about my employer by filling in cites, I stopped making those noncontroversial edits, though WP:COI explicitly permits such edits. I have adhered to WP:BRD and not edit-warred. I'm here to help write an encyclopedia.

I have objected only to attenuated claims of a COI, simply because those attenuated claims of COI contradict Wikipedia guidelines on what constitutes a COI. If JzG or others think the COI guideline is too narrow and should be applied to the subject area of former clients of a former employer, then modify the guideline, and I will follow the new consensus guideline, but don't ask to apply a non-existent guideline to me that isn't applied to left-wing thinktank members or other opinionated academics and attorneys who participate on Wikipedia. THF 15:09, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

That's a straw man argument, unless you can actually find a "left wing think tank member" this has applied to. While I'm opposed to any hard measures being taken in this case (especially considering your continued participation in what is a rather unique debate to date), let's not go smearing nonexistent people to make a point. Apparently this refers to Chip Berlet/User:Cberlet. Hrm. Chris Cunningham 15:20, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

If THF is a public figure whose primary agenda is to "correct the record", be it against Michael Moore or Rush Limbaugh regardless, he should be booted. He already has his forum. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 15:15, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

We would like knowledgeable people to contribute. The way to make sure they do that neutrally is to critique the content, not the contributor. Tom Harrison ^Talk 15:41, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

How well is that approach working in this case so far? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 19:26, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

How well is that approach working in this case so far?

1. The concept of the heckler's veto is relevant here. User:Cberlet seems to be doing fine editing articles about subjects in which he is paid to write about his opinions and in which he has a strong point of view, in part because when people repeatedly accuse him of COI without addressing content, they are blocked. The question is whether the same principles can also be applied to permit right-wing editors to focus on editing an encyclopedia instead of defending themselves against people violating WP:BATTLE, WP:AGF, and WP:NPA. This was never treated as a close question before (the BabyDweezil CSN ban !vote was 11-1), and I still don't understand why it is being treated as a close question now. If the straightforward policies were being applied evenly, we wouldn't be here.

2. WP:COI is also straightforward, and I haven't violated it. Are controversial experts welcomed at Wikipedia, or not? I've only "violated" a version of the COI guideline that doesn't exist, has been consistently rejected at WP:COI when people try to expand the scope of that guideline, and isn't applied against Cberlet, or WMC, or any of the multitude of other non-right-wing editors who attract people unfairly accusing them of violating COI when there isn't POV-pushing. I'm here as a hobby. I've been a productive editor, and I've been careful to participate in a number of Wikipedia administrative tasks, and cleaning up articles and mediating disputes like Andijan massacre and Richard Rossi where I have no interest so that there is no question of me being a SPA. (Compare Cberlet's or WMC's edit histories to mine: Cberlet (talk · contribs · count); William M. Connolley (talk · contribs · count); THF (talk · contribs · count)). Am I wrong to expect that a right-wing thinktank fellow who writes about trial lawyers should be treated the same way and with the same courtesy as a left-wing thinktank fellow who writes about the Christian right (and makes 103 edits to Christian right)? If I am, I'm happy to leave: what attracted me to Wikipedia was NPOV, and if that core principle is just spin and there isn't any intent of enforcing rules neutrally, I don't want to be here.

3. Not only is Wikipedia not a battlefield, but I don't want it to be one: if I am going to spend time writing legal briefs, I want it to be on a more important subject than whether I should spend time on a hobby--I just turned down an opportunity to write a Supreme Court amicus brief on the dormant commerce clause because of other deadlines, and I'd have trouble spending time looking in the mirror if I was instead spending weeks at an Arbcom when no one can identify a single mainspace diff that violated Wikipedia policies or guidelines. I'm not a neo-Nazi or a Velikovskian: I have political views well within mainstream American political thought. And if that fact means that whether I should be treated with civility is a debatable proposition that I need to spend time defending, then that speaks far worse about Wikipedia than about me, and I'll get more real-life writing done instead. Have a happy Labor Day weekend. THF 20:27, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Oddly enough, I don't find it reassuring that people who raise the issue of COI concerning Cberlet are blocked. I think that there are more examples than just BabyDweezil, and I think there are those among them who were in fact addressing content issues in a very responsible way, including User:Don't lose that number and User:NathanDW. I was also dismayed that the RFC that I filed concerning Cberlet's behavior was deleted by User:El C. So I would suggest that THF concentrate on providing a justification for his controversial edits, rather than adopting the argument that "Cberlet is getting away with this, why can't I?" --Marvin Diode 20:54, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

THF's comparison between Ted Frank, Chip Berlet, and William M. Connelley is not entirely correct. Berlet and Connelley are not paid to give their opinions. One is a journalist and the other is a scientist. They are paid for researching topics and reporting their findings. I don't believe that either of them works for a think tank.

·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:05, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

"Berlet and Connelley are not paid to give their opinions" LOL so Chip works for free then? ^{(Hypnosadist)} 01:31, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm paid for researching topics and reporting my findings (and for editing others' research) and have complete academic independence. Berlet works for a thinktank, Political Research Associates. WMC's non-peer-reviewed punditry is cited throughout Wikipedia, and he writes for Environmental Media Services, which in turn is affiliated with the partisan Fenton Communicationssee also. I'm not saying WMC is doing anything wrong by editing articles on matters he and his EMS colleagues have directly written about: he's not, so long as his edits comply with Wikipedia policies and guidelines. But he's no less "tainted" than I am. THF 21:09, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

THF, the reliable answer to your question is going to come in the form of admin action or inaction, not words on talk pages. If Wikipedia offers progressives a more generous standard than conservatives, that's not a problem for conservatives. The more clueful progressives realize that. Tom Harrison ^Talk 21:08, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Regarding MD's concern about users being blocked who raise COI concerns, those users were blocked for being sock puppets of a banned user. Sometimes when it appears that there are many editors saying the same thing it turns out to just one editor using many accounts. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:14, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

• THF seems to be framing the argument over whether he has a right to edit articles, and articles related to his field, in particular. I do not dispute that he does. But he isn't a film expert, he's a legal expert. A film article is not the place to insert your OR about which documentaries should be included in a box office ranking. A film article is not the place for criticizing the way the World Health Organization compiles its data and the weight it gives certain categories, so why does he want this criticism in a film article not about the WHO? Instigating a war with MichaelMoore.com because he points out you edit his articles, when you are a public critic of his (who seems to have no concerns about voicing who you are and what you think in the mainstream media), is disruptive - Wikipedia is not a battlefield, as you point out. The American Enterprise Institute is not the only source, or even the best source, you can use for many of your edits. These are the issues you defend yourself against, which comes down to disruption (WP:DISRUPTION) and an agenda WP:NPOV. You are constantly embroiled in arguments with multiple editors over these issues, not that you are who you are. --David Shankbone 21:32, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

• And you created an article, with no sources, to a 9 minute home-made propaganda commercial, Uninsured in America, and you put it on the Sicko, Healthcare in the United States and Canadian and American health care systems compared. This is an agenda. This is why people have problems with your edits. It's not content, it's WP:NPOV, WP:WEIGHT, WP:OR (in the case of your documentary listing, which you still feel is justified), and WP:DISRUPTION. --David Shankbone 21:42, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to make a comment, if I may (though some of my remarks are reproduced because I don't have the skill or the time to find new words to express the same thoughts). To begin, I agree entirely with David when he observes it is the totality of THF's edits -- his agenda, disruptive editing, and warring with other users -- that gives cause for serious concern. That agenda, even when he appears to be editing farther afield, often comes back to the same thing: Michael Moore and his new movie Sicko. Allow me to elaborate (with diffs).

THF has repeatedly intimated that there is some left-wing conspiracy afoot, a systematic problem in Wikipedia "where left-wing polemics are consistently treated differently than right-wing polemics." [81] [82] He derides Reuters News Agency as 'left-wing'. [83] His political differences spill over into edit summaries. [84] Sixteen times he mentions the 'left-wing' on Sicko's talk page. Sixteen. At one point User:Bi politely asked him to stop because such "comments will only serve to fuel some people's flaming that Wikipedia is a hotbed for left-wing hysteria." [85]

THF has also compared Sicko to The Great Global Warming Swindle on four separate occasions. They should be treated the same, he argues. [86][87][88][89] Three editors remarked on this, and each one (Ryan Delaney, Viriditas and myself) rejected the comparison. As was pointed out to him, Moore has been upfront about his starting point, unlike Martin Durkin, the director of TGGWS. Moore states clearly that it was his intention to express the other side of the story. He maintains there are many excellent qualities in socialist systems (fact) and these should form the backbone of a new non-profit American system (opinion). That's partly what his film is about. Highlighting the good things and making people aware of the alternatives. On the other hand, The Great Global Warming Swindle is opinion masquerading as science. Durkin's film championed research that was sneered at by peer review journals, and in many cases outright rejected. The production team were found to have altered scientific charts and graphs, etc etc.

THF's bulletin list of "omitted Sicko criticisms" rapidly descends into farce on the same point. At the beginning of the film, Moore makes reference to the number of uninsured people but then proceeds to say the film isn't really about them; rather, it is about those who have cover but whom get into all sorts of difficulty when they require medical assistance. According to the notes and sources on Moore's website, the uninsured figure comes from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (cdc.gov). Clinton used these stats. Bush uses them. Amazingly, THF hopes to turn this into yet another criticism of Sicko because there happens to be a non-governmental report that says the number of uninsured is lower. Stop and think about that for a moment, in light of the artificial comparison above. Moore fleetingly cites a widely accepted report that has almost certainly undergone some form of peer review, but because THF found a report that says the figure is lower, he wants to make this a direct criticism not of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, but of Sicko! (Newly released figures from the US Census Bureau corroborate those of the CDC.) And the same is true of the United Nations World Health Organisation. Moore cites one of their reports briefly after criticising Hillary Clinton. This is a credible organisation that produces independent reporting. Take a stab at which Wikipedia page THF has recently been editing with a view to making the same criticism stick on Sicko? [90]

THF created a new page for Uninsured in America, a nine-minute infomercial (for want of a better description) that barely registers on any radar. (This infomercial also challenges the accepted wisdom of the number of uninsured people in America.) It doesn't even merit an entry on IMDb. It has obvious notability issues, yet not only did THF go ahead and create a page for it on August 5 at 18:05 [91], but five-minutes later at 18:10, he embedded a link to it on Sicko. [92] This is not a good example of an editor providing fluid access to existing Wikipedia content.

In addition to the criticism piece he had published in The American, THF said in August that "rather than research and write a section on factual inaccuracies on Sicko for Wikipedia, I'm going to research, write, and try to sell such a piece for wider publication." [93] I wish he would. Because the kind of criticisms he is stretching to make here don't belong in an encyclopedia. smb 23:39, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Enough already

Anyone think this is going to die down any time soon? Me neither.

I've asked ArbCom to rule. Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#THF_/_Michael_Moore. Guy (Help!) 22:18, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Strange conduct by user Jasonstrayer

User:Jasonstrayer created Prisoner Dilemna Enhanced. User:BURNyA for obvious reasons tagged it db-nonsense, and so I deleted it. His reactions are in User talk:Anthony Appleyard#Deletion Of The Prisoner Dilemma Enhanced : Abuse Of Power, Report To Higher Power etseq. In http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Undelete/Prisoner_Dilemna_Enhanced note the two slightly different user names: both seem to be very new accounts: sockpuppeting? Anthony Appleyard 04:48, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes and no. These accounts are obviously held by the same person, but I doubt the second one was created in an attempt to dupe anyone or abuse multiple accounts. It could be that Strayer lost the password to one of the accounts and had to create a new one. As for the deleted article and repeated pleading, why not just provide the deleted text and tell him to work on it off-wiki? ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 08:14, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

As for his request... I would recommend granting it. Restore the page and move it into his user space... then delete it in a few weeks. That should give him plenty of time to get his text saved somewhere else and do whatever it is he wants to do with it. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 12:30, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

• I emailed a copy of it to him. Anthony Appleyard 13:58, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

RMS Titanic

Resolved

 – maybe? Thatcher131 12:23, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

The entire page of RMS Titanic. I believe to PROBABLY be(Im not sure with this history of an article thing, I've only been around as a big funtioning member of Wiki. for 4 months) User:Wildhartlivie. Check it out please. Im not accusing him, yet.Philippe Auguste 05:26, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I for the life of me can't figure out why nothing is showing up on the page. I've tried restoring the text, but I can't get it to show up. I think it's something in the embedded warning at the beginning. Some help, would be appreciated. AniMate 05:32, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Fixed it.  east.718 at 05:38, August 31, 2007 

Um... it still isn't showing up. AniMate 05:40, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Viewing old revisions of the page, it's all blank. I'll look through the templates that transclude onto the page and see if one of those was messed up. WODUP 05:45, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't know how (the diff shows no diff.), but it looks okay now. WODUP 05:55, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Well done. AniMate 05:56, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I get the blank page too, it'll show me diffs indicating changes but a blank page all the same. Anynobody 06:05, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

What the hell? Anyone workout what the problem is? Viridae^Talk 06:11, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

its the hidden text. i think its gotta go. it useful, but its hurting the article. nat^tang 06:20, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Never mind...there's not hidden text and its still gone. nat^tang 06:22, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

It's fixed... :-D nat^tang 06:23, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I couldn't view it, but now I can. Either it's fixed or the problem comes and goes. --Bongwarrior 06:24, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Gone again... --Bongwarrior 06:27, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I can't see it either, so I've removed the resolved banner. AniMate 06:29, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

It appears to be intermittent. I saw the page normally not ten minutes ago. (I was looking at its logs and wondering why the article looked blank when its most current revision (10:52 PM PST today) showed a change). Could it be a bug with the article? -Jéské ^{(v^_^v Kacheek!)} 06:33, 31 August 2007 (UTC)Conflicted four times

The source now shows nothing where the content should be. My version was also fine after a purge, but now it's broken.  east.718 at 06:34, August 31, 2007 

I can frigging see it in its entirety! The frag?! -Jéské ^{(v^_^v Kacheek!)} 06:39, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Intermittent viewing. I don't have to change anything, just keep hitting the preview button. . .sometimes it shows up, sometimes it doesn't (exact same text each time). R. Baley 06:46, 31 August 2007 (UTC) addendum: same thing happens with version (05:46, 29 August 2007 Morhange) signed again R. Baley 06:56, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Main article page is working for me, but some of the recent versions show up as blank and then show up as the full article next time I look at them which is quite bizarre. Of all the pages to have a curse on it. Any tech-wise folks know what's up?--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 06:50, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm not using the history tab. I'm looking at the actual article page, and it's still here for me! This has to be a bug. -Jéské ^{(v^_^v Kacheek!)} 06:53, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm seeing it as well. The question is will anyone be able to see the article if someone tries to edit it again. AniMate 06:56, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Dropped a line at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)#Occasional blank page at RMS Titanic. It's not a HTML bug because nothing is being rendered. {{otheruses4}} might be commenting out the entire pages but other pages with this template still work, so it's probably a server bug or something. x42bn6 Talk Mess 07:13, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

• It seems to work with decimal coordinates. Of course, it points to a blank spot in the ocean, so there are no relevant maps or aerial photos making the excercise rather pointless. Thatcher131 12:23, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, Philip(inthe short term I guess) SCREWED UP. I went to far ahead of my and made it sound like I was accussing him. Boy am I an idiot. Oh shame. To User:Wildhartlivie I am very sorry. And take back what I said earlier. I am VERY, very, very, very, sorry. If theres anything I can do to make it up to you, let me know. Sorry.Philippe Auguste 16:52, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Hungrywolf

I am not sure where to go at this point to resolve the issues I am having with Hungrywolf (talk · contribs). The user has been making false accusations against me, reverting my edits, and ignoring all discussion and third opinions. This is going on for over a week already. He has gone so far as to revert edits I've made on my own talk page, now making personal attacks "Let everyone see what u are". I need some serious administrative intervention here.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Blackbeard2k7&diff=154749794&oldid=154746104 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Blackbeard2k7 (talk • contribs)

Blocked for 72h because of edit warring at your talkpage especially that he was blocked before and that he has got many other warnings from admins. You are also blocked for 48h because you just came from a 24 block edit warring yesterday. You were both edit warring at M.U.L.E. today as well. Do not edit war whatever is the case. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 06:45, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

The issue is not resolved. You lifted your 72h block against Hungrywolf, and he immediately continued to revert my edits, make false accusations against me, and is now Cyberstalking me, petitioning on other users talk pages claiming to have and offer personal information about me. I would not consider this resolved until the user is re-blocked for his obvious disruptive and uncivil behavior.Blackbeard2k7 16:33, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I left him a clear message at M.U.L.E talk page. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 21:26, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Deleted interwiki

Unregistered user, User:91.150.77.43 has deleted the interwiki on five articles, although that interwiki linked to existing articles on hr.wiki. Vandalizing edits were this [94], [95], [96], [97] and [98], all on the same day, 28 Aug 2007., in a short period of time, of eight minutes. That gives the idea that he edited Wikipedia for the sole reason of vandalising. Here's a list of his edits Special:Contributions/91.150.77.43. Kamarad Walter 07:16, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Seems like a run-of-the-mill POV warrior to me. I've reverted him for now, but didn't leave him a warning.  east.718 at 07:28, August 31, 2007 

Ranga

Resolved

An extra eye on this article would be nice. I had to go back around 30 revisions just to bring this page back to the disambig page that it was. Semi-protection, if for a little while, might also serve to improve the situation. -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 08:44, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Yeesh. How did all that slip through? Agreed on the semiprotection, so, done. Neil ム 09:44, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I was just as surprised. It had been mutilated into a whole mess of an article with images and a section noting the "creators" of the page. Thanks for the SP. -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 09:46, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Ugh! Same with the article red hair, which is a constant target of vandalism. I'm mystified as to why, though - Alison ☺ 12:43, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, you'd think Blonde would attract more vandalism. hbdragon88 20:27, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

User:Biruitorul slander against those who don't agree with him

Is it normal for a user to call "not sane" people who don't agree with his political opinions, and call other's opinions "demented" diff? He also accuses me of "trying to impose this demented ideology" on wikipedia just because i don't agree with his POV in several related content disputes. I've already warned him about personal attacks some days ago(diff), but my warnings had no effect. Anonimu 11:57, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree that that comment is unacceptable, but I'm looking though his recent contributions but I don't really see any more examples of this behavior. You seem to imply that this is an ongoing problem but I don't see any issues in the last 4-5 days worth of editing. Can you provide more diffs? Also, if this is regarding your long dispute with this user perhapses WP:DR would be a more fruitful way to deal with the real problem? ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 12:26, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

As an aside, I am tempted to author an essay entitled "On Wikipedia Communism is an article, not Evil!" although I realise it will be ignored by the intended audience... LessHeard vanU 12:33, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

He is generally more subtle, but he called my arguments (not only the ones related to the relevant article) "idiocy" just 6 days ago diff. Until now, his gravest personal attack was the one described in this ANI thread. However, he apologised for it on my talk page and i thought that ended it. But now he's starting again.Anonimu 12:46, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I still think this should be brought to dispute resolution. As for another (unrelated) issue... your talk-page "disclaimer" is ridicules and incivil. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 13:10, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

About my talk page: Until now, nobody could bring forward a policy that is broken by it. And don't worry, few guys, if any, respect the disclaimer.Anonimu 13:22, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

NO, that talk page is definitely a problem. the entire purpose of talk pages is to give other editors a way to communicate with you directly. You've chosen to not make that available. However, you should be aware that as far as AN/I and admins and so on are concerned, any removal/reversion of Talk page messages left for you, regardless of 'disclaimers', represents clear and distinct de facto 'awareness' of the message. It is assumed that you are aware of the content, and that general attitude here will never change. the attitude your talk displays and any subsequent claims of 'didn't you read my disclaimer, i don't read messages just revert', will be met with scorn and disbelief. If you want to be taken more seriously here on wikipedia, making your self accessible would be a great first step. ANd yeah, Dispute Resolution's down the hall. it's the one with the soundproof structure. ThuranX 13:48, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Before having this disclaimer, I was once blocked, and the blocking admin claimed in his motivation I was warned, even if no message had been posted of my talk page, i had no knowledge of the page where I was "warned", and, moreover, i was in a wikibreak during the "warning". Since that admin didn't give a damn about my unawarness of that "warning", I supposed nobody cares about where the warnign is put. So I decided to keep my page clean as a protest. If another editor wants to discuss an article, he should use the talk page of the article. Personal messages should be private, and that's why i made emailing available in my preferences.Anonimu 14:04, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, your usr talk is where all warnings and such will be going, no matter what you say. If you choose to delete them, admins will consider that reciept of warning, and proceed accordingly. Repeated blanking of warnings, then disavowal of awareness is considered especially bad form. I don't recommend you continue on this course. And your above explanation isn't too far from a WP:POINT violation. ThuranX 14:21, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

It's making a rather sour point, but it's not a WP:POINT (i.e., it's not particularly disruptive). Removing messages left on your talk page is fine; it indicates you have read them, and they always remain visible in the history (which is why we should all use edit summaries). I haven't seen any occasion of Anonimu disavowing a warning after he received one. Neil ム 14:29, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm not saying he has, but I'm just making clear to him the purpose of Talk pages, and it does read as sort of hostile and point-y to me. YMMV, i suppose. ThuranX 14:33, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I find that his signature, [[User:Anonimu|A]][[Special:Mypage|nonimu]], is more annoying than his talk page. Getting sent to my user page is not what I expected. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 16:54, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Actually your page is much more interesting. But if someone would explicitly ask me to change my sig, I'd do it. (Which is not the case for my talk page) Anonimu 17:00, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Then please change your signature. Thanks. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 17:06, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

In our long-standing campaign against one another, I see Anonimu has caught me making another faux pas and eagerly denounced me, in classic Communist style. Well, allow me to mount a defence of my words. First, it should be noted that they were not directly aimed at Anonimu, but rather at Communists in general. A classic definition of insanity is trying again and again to do something which has manifestly failed. Well, all reasonable people (that is, outside the fringes) do concur that Communism has failed. For evidence see the fact that nowhere is it seriously being attempted except in North Korea, run by a man many believe to be mad. And I do reserve the right to call Communsim a "demented" ideology, for it not only did untold damage to my homeland, Romania, where hundreds of thousands suffered needlessy and terribly because of it, but to numerous countries the world over. As The Black Book of Communism very adeptly shows, it killed well near 100 million souls. If that isn't demented, then what is?

I did call Anonimu's claim that capitalism has been a greater killer than Communism "idiocy", and I did so because, again excluding fringe politics, capitalism has been broadly embraced by the entire world and is, by and large, within certain parameters, a highly successful and fruitful economic system. (By the way, he referred to my own posts as "blabbering".) I thought it perfectly acceptable to deride such an idea -- not the users who espouse it, but the idea itself. However, if that is indeed a WP:NPA violation, which as far as I can see it is not, then I am sorry and will attempt to be even more careful in distinguishing the two.

Now, is Anonimu himself insane, demented or an idiot? Let me be very clear: the answer is no. I ought to have been more judicious in making my blanket statement, and I fully apologise for allowing my anti-Communism to potentially veer into a WP:NPA violation. I ought to have made the distinction clearer, but my intention was not to attack Anonimu but rather Communism itself. I make no apologies for being an anti-Communist hardliner, but will phrase my statements more carefully so that they cannot be misconstrued as personal attacks.

I hope this explanation proves satisfactory and constructive, but if not, I would be glad to hear from the community what further points I ought to explain. Biruitorul 22:20, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Let me just add that I take serious umbrage at Anonimu's insinuation contained in the phrase "i thought that ended it. But now he's starting again." The monstrous implication here is that Anonimu is a hard-working editor merrily editing away who was suddenly attacked by a troll (ie, me) whom he thought was contained but now is striking again. Nothing could be further from the truth. I am a productive editor at Wikipedia who has written numerous articles and made countless edits to improve the quality of the encyclopedia in many different areas. While Anonimu has made a couple of additions, his contributions in large part consist of pointless disputes that sap energy from productive users into petty disputes for which he has the time. For instance, the talk page where I "slandered" him is for Soviet occupation of Romania, where a dispute began on March 26 and led to at least two page protections and one failed Request for Arbitration. Granted, he was not the only party on his side of the dispute, but he has been the most persistent, and his indefatigable contention has been that Romania was not under Soviet "occupation" from 1944 to 1958, despite his failure to adduce a single reliable source stating this, in contrast to the numerous sources brought forth in support of the contention, chiefly by me. In the latest iteration of the conflict, he slapped the POV-title tag back on, engineered a revert-war and requested page protection while the tag was still on; this is called gaming the system. Such are the activities Anonomu cherishes on Wikipedia. I make this point only to set the record straight and show that the man I am dealing with here is actually a big hindrance to my own work, and while WP:NPA must never be violated, and I believe I steered clear of any violation, I also ask those reading this message to understand why perhaps my tone was a little irritated in my messages. I have no interest in attacking Anonimu, but rather in countering the Communist POV he consistently attempts to inject into articles, and the condescending claim that "now he's starting again" could not be further from the truth - it's simply a matter of my patience with this problematic user wearing a bit thin once in a while. Biruitorul 22:56, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

My two cents. The first diff shows Biruitorul calling communism "this demented ideology", which, even if you do not agree with the assessment (and I do agree with it) is an okay thing to say. The second diff is up for interpretation - I believe that it is uncivil at worst. I remeber a user telling me to "fuck off", and the admin watching this told me that there was going to be no block since I was "leading him on". Now, I'm not about to contest the latter, but, if this is any measure, the full discussion here shows that Anonimu was leading him on (or, at least, that they were leading each other on). Dahn 22:49, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I wanted to see just how widespread a pattern this is supposed to be (I've been reading their past conversations intermittently, but I did not pay attention to the epithets, so I though double-checking was in order). Am I the only one to note that the third diff provided by Anonimu is actually in reference to the same issue as the second? Because what we have is: the supposedly harsher personal attack voiced six days ago and posted twice by Anonimu (why?), and a reference to communism being such and such. 1 + 1 + 0 =/= 3. Actually, it should be: 1 + 0.5 + 0 =/= 3. Dahn 23:28, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Actually, as i made it clear, the two difs from the same page have different purpose: first to show that i have warned him about NPA, just 6 days before his attack, while the second one was to show his attack on that page. But I wouldn't expect you to judge this objectively. Actually, i don't expect you to judge at all, otherwise i wouldn't have brought this to the Administrators noticeboard. And just another tendentious interpretation of yours: it is clear to everyone that Biruitorul refered to my opinions as a "demented ideology".Anonimu 23:35, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't think you have made this clear up to this point, and I do believe you provided the diff in response to a question about other supposed PAs (when one was already provided). I'm not here to judge, but I frankly don't see your arguments as valid. Dahn 23:48, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

So another personal attack (per WP:NPA "Using someone's affiliations as a means of dismissing or discrediting their views -- regardless of whether said affiliations are mainstream or extreme. "). And just more slander: i'm presented as the Big Bad Communist who seeks to destroy everything (because, after all, this is what communist do in his opinion) trying to obstruct the work of a peace loving man. Now I'm also engineering revert wars, probably with help from my friends in the NKVD, and using my experience in the KGB i succeeded in completing my evil plan. Of course, as an indoctrinated propagandist, the only thing i want to do is injecting stalinist propaganda everywhere and, as his friend pointed out, I evidently used STASI strategies to attract him into an ambush. I hope this won't become another campaign against me (Biruitorul already notified another one of his traditional supporters about this). BTW, isn't Biruitorul first message a clear declaration of WP:COI in articles regarding communism?Anonimu 23:22, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Let's not make a mountain out of a molehill. As far as I can see, he told you not to support a demented ideology, which makes the application of "using someone's affiliations as a means of dismissing or discrediting their views" rather speculative. If you connect this to the case he was making about your arguments, then we can safely say that you said the same about his opinions in relation to capitalism. Also, you have said much worse things about him and his opinions in the past. Dahn 23:34, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Where? I may have called him a ultra-nationalist (just before an admin made it clear that i'm not allowed to type this word anywhere in wikipedia), but I never called his opinion demented, i never called him "not sane", and i never described myself killing and then cannibalising him.Anonimu 23:39, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

If this is what's up for debate here, I do believe you have called him a fascist and an Iron Guard supporter. Let's leave old matters to rest (in reference to both what you called him and the "cannibalism" stuff). Dahn 23:43, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Of course, when it comes to the death threat incident, it's more convenient for you to forget the old stuff.Anonimu 23:50, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

No, I'm saying that nobody should be punished twice for the same thing. Resurrecting things that have already been dealt with is not a constructive approach. Dahn 23:53, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

So why did you do it?Anonimu 23:56, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, were you in any way reprimanded for such remarks? I honestly don't know. Dahn 00:03, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Well? Dahn 00:42, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

I got warned in the same thread Biruitorul got a "harsh warning". I actually had to suffer more than him, since one of K.'s friends used some of my remarks in the threads that prevented me from geting unblocked in the case discussed below.Anonimu 01:00, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

I see. Then, there is a parity in respect to "moment 0". I apologize for not being aware. Dahn 01:31, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Allow me to add two cents of my own.

• First of all, about the diffs provided. The first one, the "this demented ideology" remark, could only be a personal attack if Anonimu were somehow a literal personification of Communism itself. The remark, obviously, was directed at the ideology in question, not at Anonimu as a person! Yes, it was strongly worded, but Biruitorul understandably holds strong opinions about Communism, and has the right to express his opinions in a civilized manner (as he did.) The second diff, in which Biru referred to Anonimu's arguments as "idiocy", was rude and he probably shouldn't have said it, but I've seen vastly worse things said around here. It's not nearly a severe enough civility violation to get upset about, IMO, especially considering how heated the discussion had been up until that point. Also, let me point out that I have never seen Biru suddenly lash out at Anonimu and attack him without provocation (as Anonimu seems to be implying in his original post.) They have certainly gotten into some fierce arguments in which nasty things were said on both sides, but BOTH sides are responsible for those arguments--to me it seems that Anonimu actually shoulders much of the responsibility for them.
• Which leads me to my second point. Frankly, I think it's a bit rich that Anonimu would accuse Biruitorul of politically-motivated slander, given that for as long as I have known him Anonimu has made a habit of attempting to discredit Biru by citing his conservative political and religious views, has frequently insinuated (or stated outright) that Biru is a sympathizer of the Iron Guard, and has even (baselessly) called him a Holocaust denier. I too have had to endure insults and defamation at the hands of Anonimu for no other reason than the fact that Biru is one of my friends here and he and I have worked together on several projects.

I don't mean to be saying that Biru is totally blameless in these ongoing disputes: he's as human as the rest of us, sometimes he gets pissed off and loses his temper. However, such occasional minor indiscretion are hardly worth a thread this long on the ANI. Signing off on that note, K. Lásztocska 00:00, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

At last, the trio is reunited. I already replied to dahn about K's first point. Since we're at "look what's happened to me in a similar case", probably i should say that i was blocked a week for a tag that said i may delete comments by ultra nationalist from my talkpage (you can see it here). I called no one's opinions demented, i called nobody insane, and i mostly deleted the edits by indef blocked User:Bonaparte, but i got a week block for something a neutral admin called "certainly not a personal attack". Again the ambush claim. For the second point, Biruitorul was the first to slander me about my views. The first who brought up the issues of "his conservative political and religious views", was, you probably won't believe this... Dahn. As for insulting you, i only have called you his groupie (and i own the trademark for that term in relation to you). And it seems i'm not the only one who thought that. (a friend from a forum sent me a very interesting link. it was somewhere on the hungarian wikipedia, but my forum inbox was cleared since and, since i can't put the link, i won't say who thought the same)Anonimu 00:21, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but can you provide evdence that i called Biruitorul anything based on his pilitical beliefs? Because the issue of who "brought it up first" is in strict reference to one having made claims about that person's political beliefs (i.e. "has frequently insinuated (or stated outright) that Biru is a sympathizer of the Iron Guard"), not of one having mentioned them (in the factual way: him being a conservative and a religious person). Because I do believe that Biruitorul's political beliefs were first expressed by none other than Biruitorul. Dahn 00:42, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Man, i've never called Biruitorul capitalist either. You brought them up first, as being the first to discuss and mildly oppose his views. And i was also factual: he does consider Ion Antonescu a hero, he thinks that his crimes were motivated, and denies the fact that Jews killed in Transinstria were Holocaust victims.Anonimu 01:00, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

I do believe that, beyond his own statements, the first assumptions and criticism related to Biruitorul's political views were made by users not present in this discussion (in a discussion I was not part of). I don't think I have ever attacked him for his political beliefs - and the only misrepresentation that may be discussed is that I once referred to them using the term "Integralism" (which, as I recall, he later used himself). Furthermore, the issue was not one of mentioning his political beliefs (outside of the context "he is wrong because he is conservative" - where I would tend to be more lenient). It is one of not accusing users of having opinions they do not actually have - though when some guy paraded throughout wiki spuriously claiming that I had identified myself as "a Trotskyist" and I brought it up here, the issue was ignored (which tells me that enforcing is weak). Now, personally: I don't think anything serious was committed by any side of this debate in relevant memory, so nothing as what I say here should be interpreted as an accusation.

To your latest comments: I specifically remember him telling you that such things were not the case, and that he considers Antonescu responsible for the murder of innocent people. In case he does not consider Transnistria part of the Holocaust, but acknowledges that it was a place for murder, "denial" is not really substantiated as an accusation: he does not deny either the killings or the Holocaust, but merely builds on a difference (that I for one find pretentious) between the Romanian Army and their associates shooting or starving Jewish civilians to death and the gas chamber system. I believe he is best qualified to explain his own position, but not required to. Dahn 01:31, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely. I deny neither the "standard narrative" of the Holocaust nor the mass killings in Transnistria, but merely question whether the latter were part of the former. If I ever said that they definitely were not, allow me to modify that by saying I am merely uncertain of the fact. With regard to Antonescu, I merely call for avoiding the casting of him in the role of a completely evil man, and for some understanding of the rather difficult situation that led him to do what he did. I do not admire or praise the totality of the man, and consider him to have committed crimes against humanity which are in no way justified, but neither do I adopt the caricature version of him promoted by Communist historiography. However, Anonimu's repeatedly calling me a Holocaust denier/philofascist was totally uncalled for, particularly when I stated emphatically that that was not the case. Biruitorul 01:57, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Update: I thank Dahn and K. Lastochka for their helpful comments. I do believe that, whether or not it was incivil, it was wrong of me to call Anonimu's notions "idiocy", and I apologise for that. However, let me set the record straight on one point made by Anonimu, even though I am loath to bring up that episode again. There was no "death threat incident". I did write words that he construed as a death threat, but as I explained repeatedly and at length at the time, I in fact made no such threat, and in any case expressed my apologies for writing what I did. Should readers of this board wish to read about the incident themselves, I invite them to do so and see that, in context, I was making to threat against anyone. Biruitorul 01:57, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Allow me, as the other half of the event in question, to explain. Again. The incident was part of a deliberately purple mock-epic (FICTIONAL) that we were amusing ourselves by writing. Our intent was to blow off a little steam by writing a satirical parody of the frequent battles that Wikipedians engage in...other plot elements included nuclear rowboats, drunken Arrow Cross pirates, Communist island savages, and a running gag involving a boatload of music-playing Czechs oblivious to the war raging around them. It was a JOKE, we intended no attack or "threat" to anyone and we both immediately apologized to Anonimu after the offending chapter appeared. I might also point out that we caricatured ourselves rather mercilessly as well, and on top of everything, at the point in the story mentioned above, in which the fictional Anonimu character was murdered, the fictional Biruitorul character had gone pretty well out of his mind. (Insanity defence!) In short, what we were writing was stupid and a waste of time, and we got carried away, but we meant no harm whatsoever to anyone. I apologize again for our indiscretion and any offense we caused, and I'm sure Biru does the same. Again. Please, can we finally let these goddamn boats sink to the bottom of the sea where they belong??? K. Lásztocska 02:39, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

If I may add my two cents to this discussion: I personally do not consider communism to be a "demented" ideology. To the contrary, it was (and remains) a very pragmatic means for a tiny minority (the self-styled "vanguard of the proletariat") to impose its will on the majority of the population, with a totalitarian system of control, and with very tangible rewards in terms of power, privilege, etc. That said, the communism system did veer into what can reasonably be called bloodthirsty dementia several times during its sad history — e.g., the Red Terror, the Holodomor, the Killing Fields, etc. Here is a specific instance where the construct is used:

Having regained power, the Hapsburg government embarked on a reign of terror. Thousands were executed, many more imprisoned or impressed into the Imperial Army, their property confiscated. Repression and absolutism became the law of the land. Hungary wouldn't experience such dark days until the advent of the perverted and demented ideology of Communism emanating from Moscow.

Nevertheless, I still prefer the assessment made by President Ronald Reagan in his Evil empire speech of March 8, 1983,

I believe that communim is another sad, bizarre chapter in human history whose last pages even now are being written. I believe this because the source of strength in the quest for human freedom is not material, but spiritual. And because it knows no limitation, it must terrify and ultimately triumph over those who would enslave their fellow man.

and in his speech to the British House of Commons on June 8, 1982,

The march of freedom and democracy will leave Marxism and Leninism on the ash heap of history.

'Nough said. Turgidson 02:53, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

IP Vandalism on this page

We have had a series of problems with an unknown editor which is using various IP's (usually in the 6's, though the last edit was in the 7 range) adding the following to the Talk:Miley Cyrus page (which is already protected)...

"I bet every inch of Miley Cyrus tastes like candy"

Is it possible the user is operating as a sockpuppet master? WAVY 10 12:37, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Revert, block, ignore... rinse and repeat as necessary. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 12:41, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Not that important, but I seem to remember that form of words "...like candy" coming up at a previous noticeboard. Sockpuppetry or returning vandal, I concur with WRE. LessHeard vanU 12:58, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I've got you now. The only reason I brought it up here was that this was continuous vandalism. WAVY 10 13:00, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

EVula has blocked the address. They requested an unblock. Want to guess what the unblock reason was? LessHeard vanU 13:34, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

See comment in quotes for my guess. WAVY 10 13:36, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

You win a stick of candy. LessHeard vanU 14:27, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Another "fan" of Miley Cyrus has appeared. - 69.150.84.197 (talk · contribs · WHOIS).
I'm assuming we don't need to issue any warnings before blocking as an obvious sock. --Onorem♠Dil 20:09, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Nope. Block on sight. That's the only way to lick 'em! LessHeard vanU 23:08, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Someone's going to have to explain this whole Miley Cyrus obsession thing to me one day. Meanwhile, a quick Google search turns up the following:

• Cinder Maiden (talk · contribs)
• Prettykittyinachair (talk · contribs)
• Hannahmontana12 (talk · contribs)

Note the lack of contributions, etc. Might as well blow them up now. --Calton | Talk 00:16, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Let's see...two of the three are presumably Miley imposters. Definitely take those two (Cinder Maiden and Hannahmontana12) on. WAVY 10 01:22, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Dole Sart (talk · contribs) and Sole dart (talk · contribs)

It's a little too early, and I'm not thinking clearly enough to figure out exactly what's going on here...or if any Admin interaction is even necessary.
I noticed a strange undo while recent change patrolling. A couple of names seemed very similar.
Sole dart (talk · contribs) was created in June. Dole Sart (talk · contribs) was created in August.
Both seem to be SPA's related to Northwich Victoria F.C.. It appears most of their edit histories have been reverting each other, or each other's IP's, for the last month.
CVNF (talk · contribs), Ram4eva (talk · contribs), and Eir Witt (talk · contribs) may also be involved according to the sockpuppet tags being placed. --Onorem♠Dil 12:53, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Dole and Sole are socks of Eir Witt, I'd wager. CVNF and ram4Eva look like editors Eir Witt decided to go after. ThuranX 13:40, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I am Dole Sart, a name deliberately like Sole Dart to draw attention to it. The pages I edit were evidently created by Eir Witt's puppets. As blocking him has no effect, I decided to irritate him. Admittedly the Northwich vics page has nothing wrong with it, but I don't see why a sock puppet should have pages for his convenience. The VICS page is incorrect as VICS is not an abbreviation of Northwich Victoria FC.

I am actually a regular editor who returned to Wikipedia earlier this year, having had a break sick of comments left on my page. Having seen how ram4Eva was treated I decided to keep an eye on the Northwich Victoria, Witton Albion, Jon McCarthy etc pages. By his own admission the vandal attacks other pages(see User:Tricky Victoria). Not wanting to suffer vandalism to my 'real' account, I created this account to protect myself. As you can see I do not edit elsewhere with it. He seems to think I am ram4Eva, maybe anybody who stands up to him gets called ram4Eva's sock puppet. Feel free to block this account and Sole Dart, but blocking him has no effect so the pages ought to be protected. My account has now achieved its aim. Dole Sart 15:32, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

• "Irritation" is a form of harassment, and creating a secondary account for the sole purpose of irritating another user qualifies this account as an abusive sockpuppet. By Dole Sart's own admission, his account should be blocked indef. - Crockspot 20:15, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Right. And Dole Sart's edits are mostly accusing Sole Dart of being a sock puppet, including redirecting actual pages to Sock puppet (note, not Wikipedia:sock puppet, the actual article sock puppet). Dole Sart blocked indefinitely. Looking through Sole Dart's edits to find if they're worthwhile, but it's hard, since they really are mostly reverts of Dole Sart's edits. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 21:07, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Wow. That really is all that they did, revert each other. For days and days. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 21:11, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Well that was a waste of time. It's obvious he's an abusive sock puppet but he lives to vandalise another day. If wikipedia isn't able to protect itself against the likes of him, can you blame folk for creating additional accounts for reverting pages edited by abusive puppets. It's simple, create enough identies from different IPs and trash what ever you feel like. 86.142.103.156 23:09, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Admin User:Hu12 accusing me of 'personal attacks against policy'

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

Taken to WP:MFD#User:Italiavivi -- Avi 16:46, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

If an editor is to be accused of "personal attacks," one would think it would be required of them to insult or disparage a person. I would like clarification here -- if I criticize Wikipedia policy, is an administrator within his rights to characterize me as engaging in "personal attacks"? Can I really not use my userpage to criticize policy (or what I perceive to have been the uneven application of policy), as User:Hu12 suggests?

This is not the first time Hu12 has come into conflict with me. Ever since a disagreement over an AfD and the removal of some links, Hu12 has been especially aggressive toward me to he point of biting my head off. He has suggested that I "enjoy conflict," but then follows me around and creates conflicts such as the listed MfD. I honestly question if Hu12 has completely abandoned WP:AGF in his interactions with me, and is trying drive me off the project or something. Italia^vivi 14:54, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

While I don't think that it falls under a "personal attack" per se, I would agree that the text is rather disruptive; to me, at least, it looks like you are using it as a soapbox to attack policy, which, as Hu12 said, is forbidden. Veinor ^{(talk to me)} 15:00, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

If it falls under personal attack per anything, se or otherwise, I invite you to point out how. I must have missed where criticizing policy is userspace is forbidden. Italia^vivi 15:09, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it is forbidden, however the content of your userspace is there at the consent of the community, so the MfD is the valid way to go if someone disagrees strongly with the content. Also there are some other issues raised in the MfD. ((1 == 2) ? (('Stop') : ('Go')) 15:16, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I do not believe that user space works that way. Policy-abiding content is allowed to exist in User space regardless of community favor for or against it. Wikipedia articles and policies are certainly crafted through consensus, but the community cannot arbitrarily remove policy-abiding content on a page-by-page basis at a democratic whim. Italia^vivi 15:26, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I am basing that off of WP:USER which says "If the community lets you know that they would rather you delete some content from your user space, you should consider doing so — such content is only permitted with the consent of the community." ((1 == 2) ? (('Stop') : ('Go')) 16:24, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I think a personal attack does require a person. Taking a contrary point of view on policy is not in itself a personal attack. I may be missing some small thing, but I don't see it. There are however other issues being brought up in the MfD which may have more basis. ((1 == 2) ? (('Stop') : ('Go')) 15:01, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Wait. Attcking policy is against policy? Which policy is that? Corvus cornix 16:19, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Questioning the policy against attacking policy is also against policy. I'm sorry. In all seriousness, why not handle this at the WP:MfD? There doesn't seem to be anything here requiring admin intervention. MastCell ^Talk 16:26, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, this is an issue for MfD, not here. ((1 == 2) ? (('Stop') : ('Go')) 16:32, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

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

Hu12 clarification

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

User:Hu12 has been following me around with a cloud of bad faith ever since an AfD we disagreed on, making it impossible for me to avoid his mini-conflicts. He has falsely accused me of "personal attacks," and I wish for intervention against his new focus on me. I can't get away from conflict if he has decided to follow me around creating new mini-conflicts left and right. Italia^vivi 18:18, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive, created new section. --Hu12 19:07, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

This appears to be an attempt to re-open a closed discussion[99] (above). This is an issue for MfD, not here--Hu12 20:04, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Why is User:Hu12 being allowed to archive discussion in which the disputed behavior is his? How is this fair to me? Italia^vivi 20:47, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Cross-posted from User_talk:Hu12: You have made quite a few assumptions of bad faith against me (accusing me of "secretly enjoying the thrill" of conflict when I was obviously trying to avoid it), made unwarranted warnings against me related to content disputes you and I are both involved in, and are now trying to wikilawyer my userspace into deletion. You have let this become personal -- your first "official" warning of me for disagreeing with you at the Administrator's Noticeboard was evidence enough of that much -- and I would appreciate it if you would put some space between us while I try (once again) to find a new niche free of conflict. I would also advise you to consult in advance with another unrelated administrator before taking any further sysop-related measures against me. I am trying to contribute to the project, and your following me around with nothing but bad faith (creating mini-conflict after mini-conflict) is not helping. Thank you. Italia^vivi 15:21, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

This page is for reporting and discussing incidents that require the intervention of administrators, such as blocked users evading blocks. This is not the Wikipedia complaints department. --Hu12 23:55, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

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

User:Goethean

Could someone please explain to Goethean (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) how these contributions: [100][101][102][103][104] to what is otherwise a civil discussion are in violation of AGF, CIV, NPA, and treading into WP:HARASS? He clearly intends to continue to rub the CU thing in my face whenever he sees an opportunity, even though I removed any reference to that web site from my user page a while back. (See last diff, where he drags it out of my user page edit history, after he was encouraged by Gamaliel to be a little more respectful). I would request the deletion of my user page and then recreate it to avoid these incidents, but then he would likely start posting diffs out of the history of my RfA. I no longer wish to associate with that website on-wiki. I have made very few contributions there in the past months, and have committed most of my online time to Wikipedia. I shouldn't have to tolerate these constant cheap shots. - Crockspot 15:37, 31 August 2007 (UTC) - User notified of this incident report. - Crockspot 15:42, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Once again, RJ CG (talk · contribs)

Could someone please explain once again to RJ CG whether it is appropriate to use edit summaries such as "I feel for fragile state of your brain, but either explain your reverts or seek professional help. WP isn't shrink office." [105] or comments like "sickness of your nightmares and is more of your problem" [106]? Sander Säde 15:45, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

• I left this message regarding the concerns raised here.¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 16:49, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Now blocked for edit warring. Pascal.Tesson 02:18, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

User:Bart Versieck

Despite having been blocked several times in the past for editing other's comments, he continues to do so

Examples: [107], [108], [109], [110], [111], [112], [113], [114], [115], [116]

These are just some of the examples from the past two weeks alone. Here's one from a little earlier where he completely deleted someone's comment.

When confronted about this on his talk page, he responded disrespectfully to the user's request.

I hate to be a tattletale, but his edits are becoming disruptive. For example, on Marie-Louise Meilleur, he continues to revert my attempts to format her lifespan per WP:DATE, claiming that he doesn't need to follow the MoS. I'm not exactly 100% sure whether he's right or not, but it was my impression that WP:DATE should be followed unless there is an exceptional circumstance. I cannot even fix it today, because I'd be in violation of the 3RR. Cheers, CP 16:50, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Maybe someone can try being Bart's mentor? I've tried to do so in a sort of unofficial manner for the last few months (search his talk page archive for my name to see our many discussions), but I don't seem to have really gotten through, since the editing-others'-comments problem has come up again. Ideally, if there's an experienced editor out there who's fluent in Dutch, I think mentoring could make a big difference, as Bart is clearly a productive editor, just one with issues surrounding following the rules/observing good Wikiquette. Pinball22 17:41, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Repeated Vandalism and page blanking

By IP 198.61.20.129]. Please block IP from further vandalism and account creation. See here Thanks Taprobanus 17:09, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

*COUGH* HalfShadow 17:19, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

blocked by another admin for one month.Rlevse 00:58, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Chrisjnelson

I've blocked User:Chrisjnelson for 24 hours for continued incivility. I have tried to ask to stop, but he doesn't really care. An outside admin might like to look at his talkpage, and possibly look at his unblock requests. Maxim_(talk) 17:35, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I've declined his unblock request, though I admit to looking at the wrong AN/I thread at first. The block appears appropriate under the circumstances. Other opinions welcome, of course. MastCell ^Talk 22:52, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism at AfD

I've nommed an article, some guy doesn't like it so he keeps doing this- [117][118][119]. Help! Bravedog 17:40, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Doesn't really look like vandalism. It looks more like a bad faith nomination. Maybe you shouldn't nominate the articles of obviously notable people for deletion. --Onorem♠Dil 17:45, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Not a civil user either [120], afding Jimmy Wales is not in good faith and the afd was closed as a rapid keep. Not the first time this user hasd done this. I explained to them that we cant be wasting editors time on an afd on a narticle that wont have a chance of being deleetd, SqueakBox 17:51, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

AFD was speedy closed.¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 17:53, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

WP:POINT edits disrupting AfD

Burgas00 has twice edited this entry ([121],[122]) to make some sort of WP:POINT, which thus far has mislead at least one editor on the AfD. Considering his block log and history of disruption, I'm not quite sure of how to get him to stop this behaviour, much less of how to make him appreciate why it is wrong. Perhaps someone has an idea? Tewfik^Talk 18:03, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Come now, Tewfik, he's trying to edit the article to make it more accurately and honestly reflect its subject matter. Feel free to note at the AfD debate that the original nominated version didn't say this - put an addendum to my nomination of you like. But don't label everything that makes you mad as WP:POINT (the most worthless and overused epithet on the site after WP:SOAPBOX). Eleland 18:05, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Please read WP:POINT and WP:AGF - he's changing the text of the article under discussion at AfD to create a massive NPOV violation that will mislead editors, and thus get them to agree with his argument. Tewfik^Talk 18:10, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I've left a message on his talk page requesting that he refrain from editing the article any further until the AfD closes. In general, making highly controversial edits to an article under active discussion at AfD is a bad idea - there's no deadline, so if it's kept he can argue about it then. If he persists in editing the article, I think a block (until the AfD closes, at least) is appropriate. MastCell ^Talk 22:51, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Legal threat

Resolved

 – Already blocked. --ST47Talk·Desk 18:30, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Diff link - Not merely a "legal threat" but a notice of pending litigation. Please indefinitely block. --Iamunknown 18:24, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

User:Pixelface

Could someone talk to about User:Pixelface [123]? I may be over reacting, but I think it's pretty out of line. Pete.Hurd 18:40, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

• I'd like to also point out that I've had civility and edit-warring issues with Pixelface on Reality film, where WJBScribe was needed to be called in as a mediator. --David Shankbone 18:45, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

  Well, that makes me feel a bit better actually. Part of my concern was the nagging suspicion that the verbal abuse was at least partly to do with the fact that the topic was related to LGBT studies. Pete.Hurd 18:49, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

  Takes two to edit war. Cool Hand Luke 21:43, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

• I assure you, Pete, that's way the f*** over the line. --Orange Mike 20:22, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
  • The user's comment may be a bit unpleasant to the eyes, but it does seem to be just dry humor against the article up for deletion. I don't see anything really administrator-attention worthy unless he starts directing this language at other editors.. Cowman109^Talk 20:42, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
    • I see no reason to suspend WP:CIV just because the topic of discussion contains a "naughty word". This is a term that I've documented being used in peer reviewed academic papers, and I see no reason why the notability of the topic cannot be discussed in a civil manner. Just because the topic broaches adult topics, that's no excuse to act like a bunch of juviniles, in fact quite the opposite. User:Pixelface's comments made liberal and gratuitous use of obscenity to dismiss a topic he seemed incapable of addressing on substantive grounds. Notwithstanding his [reply] to me on my talk page, I see absolutely nothing in this language which contributes to the project, or the environment in which it is constructed. In fact, his reply to me makes it quite clear that he thinks I have some sort of problem for defending the article. I don't see any debating here, I see insults. Pete.Hurd 20:50, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
• I LOL'd android79 21:25, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

  Hmmm, ok, maybe I'm over-reacting, umpteen !votes for deletion because the topic contains an obscenity, or offends the christian sensibilities of various editors, and I overlooked the fact that this one was supposed to be a joke. I forgot: wikipedia 10% encyclopedia, 90% children's playground. Pete.Hurd 21:29, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

  For very small values of umpteen, anyway. android79 21:33, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

  *laugh*, you are correct ;) Pete.Hurd 21:44, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

  Yeah, I found it funny. I'm not alone, but not everyone shares that sense of humor. Cool Hand Luke 21:43, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I believe everone understands the concern, however it doesn't appear to be malevolent. I too got a chuckle. I would focus on the constructive comments they are the ones that matter. --Hu12 21:45, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

• I'd imaginefuck the closing adminfuck will discountfuck WP:IDONTLIKEITFUCK arguments, too. Fuck. — Scientizzle 21:48, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

And just in case anyone thinks it gets even funnier the third (or whatever) time the joke gets told, please by all means read on for Pixelface's totally sarcastic insulting "apology" [124]. Maybe it's time to work on an encyclopedia kids. Pete.Hurd 21:55, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Pixelface's last comment was certainly an over-the-top eye-rollin' screed, but Kolindigo's response was perfect. Let's all move on now. — Scientizzle 22:08, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

User:Durin

Yet another image patroller harassed off the project. I've mostly given up on this myself as well, as the vitriolic attacks (and the blind eye that is frequently turned to them) are just not worth it. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 20:35, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

More than just an image patroler, a very valuable member of the project, this really depresses me. Pete.Hurd 20:54, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Alas, my admin nominator. Here's hoping he changes his mind, and here's hoping the Foundation will put some teeth into its fair use policies soon. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 21:15, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Could I ask what exactly is this "e-pol" organization which apparently claims some sort of jusrisdiction? I visited their website, but there is nothing there to indicate what, if any, legal status it has. DuncanHill 21:22, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I sure second that question. Is this organisation for real? I mean, the website e-pol.org is http://e-pol.org/ most certainly is not the website of an international organisation with any sort of jurisdiction and it looks like nothing else than an elaborate hoax. Well actually, not even that elaborate. Pascal.Tesson 21:31, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I am taking the question to the Humanities refdesk, we have some wonderful people there who may be able to pin this down. DuncanHill 21:33, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

It's sort of all under control, if I could get a straight answer out of anybody I'm in contact with. It does appear, at present, that e-pol is part of some organisation called UNOP Liaison EU, there's no information on the internet about them, however, so establishing the validity of them and e-pol is difficult. Nick 21:46, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Which apparently is tied to this obscure organization http://www.un-net.org/Info.htm which as far as I'm concerned looks like the webpage of a bullshit hoax of an organization. Pascal.Tesson 21:53, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

See also Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_International_development#UNOmbud. I think someone is just fucking with Durin... Pascal.Tesson 21:57, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Regardless, he was a great contributor. I hope he comes back... -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 22:08, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

It's fucking ridiculous that Durin left in such circumstances. Maxim_(talk) 23:24, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

So why doesn't someone file some e-pols against the nutters that file them? like the poor misunderstood copyright violator who was hassling Durin? --Rocksanddirt 00:28, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

You know, maybe I'm just being hopelessly naive, but this could all be a misunderstanding. User:DannaShinsho is rather new and doesn't seem to speak English that fluently, so the language barrier could be contributing to the confusion. From what I gather, she uploaded some images, that she claims she created, using an incorrect license. This was tagged by Durin asking for a source, and things seem to have spiraled downwards from there. As for the "legal action", it seems to be directed not at wikipedia or Durin, but at those other websites that Durin has claimed hold the copyright to the images.75.116.41.73 01:00, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Sorry to dissapoint but I'm afraid you're hopelessly naive. Admins should really take the time to go and check the 5 deleted images that were at the root of this nonsense to clear up any doubt they may have had about DannaShinsho's claims that she was robbed of her precious copyrights. We're talking here about an image of clothes hanging on a clothes line with a funny caption, an image of a dummy witch crashed against a tree with, you guessed it, a funny caption, an image of a funny sign over a road with yet another snarky caption and an image of funny cats (no caption, so not so funny). I just wish Durin had taken the time to tell someone before this got out of hand. Pascal.Tesson 01:39, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Sigh, but I would just like to express my gratitude for all the fair use patrollers out there. While I may disagree with you sometimes, you play an incredibly valuable role, and you get way too much flak. --Haemo 01:02, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

It wasn't what Durin did that generated this animosity, it was his/her attitude. I also find it hard to believe e-pol has the power and jurisdiction it claims.Rlevse 01:06, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Let's settle that question once and for all. Not only does e-pol have no power and jurisdiction, it also happens to be a phantom organization most likely created as part of some sort of scam. Either DannaShinsho was too naive to realize that or he/she is actually behind that phantom organization. Not that I want to play detective here, but the website of e-pol.org is pretty clear about this: you should only contact them through your local police (or to be precise your local Data Crime Unit) or through some big international organization. In any case, DannaShinsho is not welcome here and now the only question left to settle is: how do we get Durin back? Pascal.Tesson 01:23, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Has the Office been made aware of this situation? I know that they don't usually get involved in garden-variety on-wiki disputes, even when legal threats are involved, but setting up an organization to make such threats and targeting them against people enforcing Foundation policy really is not acceptable and I think counsel should know this is going on. Newyorkbrad 01:17, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Removal of {{TotallyDisputed}} tag & attendant edit-war

For two days now an edit war has been waged over inclusion of a "neutrality & factual accuracy dispute" tag at Battle of Jenin; a group of "pro-Israeli" editors is saying... well, actually I'm not sure how they're justifying the removal. Anyway there's an ongoing dispute, and as WP:NPOV says, "Sometimes people have edit wars over the NPOV dispute tag, or have an extended debate about whether there is a NPOV dispute or not. In general, if you find yourself having an ongoing dispute about whether a dispute exists, there's a good chance one does, and you should therefore leave the NPOV tag up until there is a consensus that it should be removed."

I won't re-capitulate what has been an extensive and exhausting debate since at least early July, but suffice it to say that it's very, very clear that... the neutrality and factual accuracy of the article is disputed. In addition, at least one of the people removing the tag has had no involvement going back as far as March 2006; he simply showed up on 30 August and started removing the tag.

Since my postings on the talk page are having no effect, I would like an administrator to make clear that maintenance tags are not removed without consensus or something near it, and that continually removing tags will result in sanction. Eleland 00:40, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

see WP:RFPP Rlevse 01:08, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Repeated deletions of page

Protection is requested for the article: "Please Delete This Page". Editors have continuously deleted the article without regard for its noteworthy information. For unknown reasons an almost identicle article "Please Do Not Delete This Page" has remained unscathed.68.244.216.29 00:54, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

We don't appear to have, or ever had, either of those pages. --Haemo 01:00, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Which is actually a quite beautiful example of irony. HalfShadow 02:30, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

RfA: comments in the Question for the candidate section

Is it considered ok to comment in the questions for the candidate section on an answer the cadidate has given, without asking any further question? I moved the comment to the talk page and notified the other user, but was reverted. I'm not going to re-revert, but would welcome additional input. —AldeBaer 01:35, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Personally, I agree with your change and disagree with the revert. I would suggest moving it to the "Discussion" section just above the "Support" section, and note it's a reply to QX. However, ditto the request for further input to ascertain consensus before re-reverting. Daniel 01:43, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Honestly, there's no really clear protocol, but that's not usually done. If a user doesn't like an answer, they can put it in their "oppose" reason is "discussion". I'd let the admin candidate cover it, though. --Haemo 01:44, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Ok, thank you both. —AldeBaer 01:53, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Abuse and accusations on technical analysis page (along with Financial Astrology and William Delbert Gann)

Please see the Technical Analysis talk page. The person using jonkozer, happytech, and recently the IP address of 65.11.202.71 is attempting to show that financial astrology is part of technical analysis. Although there are people that use both, prior admins warned him against trying to make this leap of WP:SYN and WP:NOR. However, this is not my main issue now.

I am quite sure I know who this person is. I know he does not believe the TA/astrology thing. However, he consistently puts words in peoples' mouths. He recently took quotes out of context from a book by John Murphy, a well-known author in the field of technical analysis. I checked with Mr. Murphy, and he confirmed what I thought. When I posted this, he said Mr. Murphy did not know who I was, and that he said exactly the opposite. I have the emails to prove this. This user needs to be blocked, and the pages for technical analysis, william delbert gann and financial astrology probably need to be blocked from anonymous edits. Of course, when he was correct, and I checked, I admitted to it.

I asked for a block and wjbscribe felt is was a content dispute. When I further explained the issue, he suggested I post here.

The relevant sections are:

[[125]]

and

[[126]

See specifically where I quote an email with Mr. Murphy, and he states that Murphy does not know who I am and that Murphy told him the opposite. When I accused him of a lie, he said that truth was not required in Wikipedia, just verifiability (essentially implying that my email was not a reliable source, but his fabrication was).

He also makes statements that my posts are policy of the Market Technicians Association, which it is not. I am a board member, but I do nothing and write nothing in that capacity. If I did, I would clearly state it. Please see my page sposer. These statements can be found in the first link above.

Thank-you for you time in this matter. Sposer 01:39, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm engaging with the problem user. They're responding to warnings and talk so far. Georgewilliamherbert 03:07, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

User:Jimfandango and socks

I suspect Jimfandango (talk · contribs) is a sock of Seaver11171944 (talk · contribs) and 70.113.76.108 (talk · contribs), and I'm started a sockpuppet case about it, but that's not why I'm writing. It seems Jimfandango (talk · contribs) only recently emerged after the IP had a run-in with another editor named Jmfangio (talk · contribs). Given the similarity in usernames, I'm wondering if Jimfandango should be blocked for inappropriate username? --ZimZalaBim ^talk 02:54, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Incivil User

202.156.11.3 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) has been blocked before, and is currently blocked for 72 hours. However, these two edits to his talk page (1 and 2) are highly racist and uncivilized. New England ^{Review Me!}/Go Red Sox! 03:09, 1 September 2007 (UTC)