Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

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

User:Ed Fitzgerald relocating clean-up templates

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This issue is being discussed at Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2007 July 7, where the "pointer" and templates at the bottom is meeting very strong resistance. I also strongly support keeping the status quo, in which tags will remain either at the top of the article or the relevant sections so that they will be readily visible, therefore fulfilling their purpose. María (críticame) 13:51, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

MONGO: vexatious litigation

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Since it's clear that you have no intentions of apologizing for calling me a liar, I see no point in continuing this discussion. Corvus cornix 15:53, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Is this an acceptable edit?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Consensus [17]:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Do two wrongs make a right? Does uncollegial behavior by one editor justify retaliating by being uncollegial not only to that editor but to his entire country? *Dan T.* 20:23, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Request assistance by an uninvolved admin.

I have, for weeks now, been under attack by an editor who has a grudge, apparently for my deletion of a page at some point in the past. They have repeatedly made accusations on my talk page that there are racist motives behind my deletions. The first two such [18][19] I deleted as trolling. Then they made a third accusation, and began a WP:AN thread with the accusations. Others in that thread stressed that the user needed to back up their accusations with proof. I have since tried to engage the user on my talk page, but it has become obvious that the user does not care to actually read reasoned explanations why they are off-base, but just wants to continue lobbing the accusations of racism at me without making any attempt to back them up. Overall though, I have no clue which deletion of mine could be the cause of all this. Most likely an A7 speedy, from the user's comments, but who knows.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

ED trolling

Resolved

tag added by HappyFarmerofAsparagus 20:58, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I'm not blaming either Geoffrey or Sixty Six for the vandalism to the page (AFAIK, neither lives in Canada), but the ED vandal does have an overt obsession with myself and Matthew. Will ^(talk) 14:13, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This blatant disregard for due process is both alarming and extremely disappointing [20]. — Zerida 23:46, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Um, without commenting on the actual content of the dispute, I think that reverting a blank edit just because it was made to a protected page (especially since at the time it had been only semi'd by mistake) is surely one of those signs that someone needs to get out and take a few deep breaths (Diffs: [21][22]). Confusing Manifestation 00:56, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I completely disagree. I think sentences like "Material from reliable non-academic sources is also welcome in these areas, particularly if they are respected mainstream publications" are opaque, poorly-written and openly invite this type of abuse [23] of what our policy actually is. Notice that it says "particularly if..." which means they don't even have to be from mainstream publications! Wikipedia does not as a matter of policy "welcome" non-academic sources in any of these areas--that's absurd! And I have witnessed editors promote certain claims based on unreliable sources because of just how badly WP:V and WP:RS have become gradually over the past year. They do because they seem to think the policy supports their positions, and they are just as mistaken. — Zerida 07:56, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

User:Mariam83 blocked indefinitely

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Further information: [[:Harassment_and_more_disruptions_from_socks_of_User:Mariam83]]

User:Rex Germanus' user page

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Okay then - but where should I start with? It seems Rex has earned most of his blocks on Dutch-related articles, and manages to provoke Dutch editors [24], but I'm not into Dutch matters, and can only judge from what I have to witness (sigh!) on German-related articles. Rex openly states his motivation on his user pages and on talk pages, and he undoubtedly opposes anything remotely German within English Wikipedia. His countless unilateral attempts to move articles away from German loanwords like Sprachraum to dubious or clumsy terms like "Glottosphere" [25] have been reverted by the community nearly every time - as was his attempt to establish a Dutch term on English Wikipedia that is "associated with the extreme right."[26]. Rex is gratuitous with labeling others as vandals, which FayssalF found out himself on a related page, see below. It's even worse when Rex sees the chance to accuse others to be nationalists, for which he has developed Rex' nationalism scale, or the straigtforward superlative German nationalist [27][28]. He openly brags about "cleansing this wiki of german nationalists". If nationalist or German nationalist is not enough, he uses Nazi wherever (im)possible. E.g. seeing that the result of the Battle of the Denmark Strait was marked as "German victory", he made the laughable attempt to declare the sinking of the British flagship Hood a "draw" [29] before he changed it to "Draw / Tactical Nazi victory". Regarding attacks on users, he is on parole for a year [30], yet got away with edits like "Getting pissed on DBachman and Matthead" and "User Matthead is, once again, looking for trouble ... because that idiot want to irritate people". Rex also developed a habit of replacing comments of others with {{rpa}}, something which he was repeatedly warned not to do [31]. On the other hand, he removes these tags, and threatens a user [32][33] after he has falsely accused him of sock puppetry [34], like Rex did with me [35] believing I was [36]. Rex even stalked me in an unrelated Arbcom case [37][38] were he called me "biased Polonophobic" for which he received kudos [39] [40] and questions [41] also regarding his rather provocative German King user name [42]. Basically, I advocate a permanent ban of Rex from all articles related to German, Germans, Germany and even Germanic tribes. As the recent case of Cheiron1312 (talk · contribs) shows, Rex' edits on Wiki can make newcomers angry, yet alone established editors who have to witness his same patterns over and over again. -- Matthead ^discuß!     O       06:38, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Prelude

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

Start

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

20:28, 9 July 2007 I remove it.

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

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

Aftermath

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

As anyone can see from my contribs, I've started editing on Wiki in 2004 mainly in sports-related matters, and got dragged into ongoing disputes only in 2006. Regarding User:Rex Germanus/Original articles, it was him who introduced the List of terms used for Germans into Wikipedia, a list that mainly collects and presents offensive terms. Talk:List of terms used for Germans shows that Rex did not make many friends with his article and his edits. The comparable List of ethnic slurs by ethnicity and Offensive terms per nationality are younger, thus Rex really is a pioneer. Regarding his beginnings, on his 3rd day on Wikipedia, his 8th edit overall [43] claimed that the Franks "originally inhabited the Netherlands and Flanders before they started to fight their way south" which illustrates his Dutch POV on the people that "eventually developed into France and Germany respectively"[44]. Indeed, Rex Germanus started to fight his way through Germany on Wikipedia. When will he be stopped? -- Matthead ^discuß!     O       16:04, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Outcome

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

Updates

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Babakexorramdin

I would like to draw attentions of the admins to Babakexorramdin (talk · contribs). He edits an FA article Iranian peoples in a very aggressive style, edit warring, making personal attacks, assuming bad faith and including his original research. Please check the recent history of the article. Here he rvs the article accusing me of vandalism: [45] [46] He keeps on including Azerbaijani people in the list of Iranian people and restoring the claim that “due to their historical ties with various ancient Iranians, their cultural ties with Persians, and their proven genetic ties with Iranian peoples, they are sometimes included as an Iranian people, although the modern Azerbaijani language is a Turkic language, with a large lexicon of [Iranian languages|Iranian]] words”, but fails to provide any source that calls Azerbaijanis an Iranian people and removes the tag that I attached to this claim. Moreover, he adds Uzbeks as Iranian people and removes Iranian-speaking Hazaras from the list of Iranian people. In addition to the extreme POV editing, he assumes bad faith and makes personal attacks on other editors, such as this: You , DUE TO POLITICAL RESAONS OF ANTI_IRANIANISM, are violating and vandalizing our pages. [47] Note that POV editing of this person caused objections of some Iranian users as well. I would like to ask the admins to take measures to stop abuse of editing privileges by this user and help maintain the FA status of the article. Regards, --Grandmaster 05:10, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

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

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

Stalking by Bharatveer

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

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

Yes. Removing reference[48], simple unexplained revert[49], again unexplained revert[50], no reverting, still stalking [51], reverting Ragib[52], revert[53],

Repeated rv [54], [55], [56], removal of comment about his editing behavious from talk page [57].— Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.91.253.167 (talk • contribs)

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

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

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

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

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

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

You're not the only one who's totally confused about it[58]/ Hornplease 21:35, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

A Continual History of Harassment from 69.118.129.76

This user is engaging in harassing and disruptive behavior on the page List of people from Ridgefield, Connecticut and is engaging in baiting behavior towards anyone who reverts his or her edits by flaunting warnings on their user talk page. It seems that unless you are an admin, the user will only ignore warnings and harass others even more. I would love to detail each incident but the trail of contributions this user has made speaks for itself. Here is his or her talk page [59] and here is a view of what the user has done on the List of people from Ridgefield, Connecticut page [60]. And it apparently has been going on for months. —SpyMagician 16:18, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

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

Just an update but the same user is now doing it again [61]. What exactly needs to be done by this user to get admin attention? The user has skirted 3RR rules, but seems to exist on Wikipedia only to disrupt this one page. A quick glance at the history shows a concerted effort by other users and admins to keep this user in line, but to no avail. The page was even locked until a concensous could be made and was unlocked when that concensous was reached in the assumption of good faith that this user would abide by group concensous. And they clearly haven't. --SpyMagician 23:32, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Accusations

User:Raul654 user has accused me of being someone from the Intelligent Design folks. This is a defamation and a personal attack. See [62]. He also blocked me. User:Filll alleged that I promote Intelligent Design. That's no better. See [63] These are gross violations of WP:AGF and WP:NPA. --rtc 18:26, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Perhaps RTC means well. However, it is difficult to tell sometimes, particularly on very contentious articles. If he really thinks that we have misinterpreted Popper's views, he should write an article in a sandbox with lots of references, so we can understand what his point is and how well supported his views are.--Filll 15:03, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Weirdness

Resolved

added by HappyFarmerofAsparagus 20:49, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

Bizarre glitch?

Resolved

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hi. You know, this is a very bizzare and rare occurence. So, how about adding this story to Wikipedia:Signpost? It would make a very interesting story. Thanks. ~AH1^(TCU) 16:57, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Personal Attack

Resolved

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

SCOX Issues User:Kebron

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

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

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

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

Eagerly awaiting to see this evidence. He made a similar claim when he got me blocked over my complaints about his POV and COI re Mormons, but never offered proof that I was ever warned specifically re him. Pfagerburg 16:09, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

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

Mr Merkey has edited 20 articles +/- in the last month.... I have edited once or twice here and there.... this is considered following and harrassement? I do not agree. --Kebron 13:08, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

Probiviouac, that post you cite also accuses Merkey of lying about Kebron, no doubt because, to the best of our (as a user of the SCOX board) knowledge, Kebron doesn't actually post there. Even if it was true, being a user of the SCOX board isn't, by itself, a crime against Wikipedia - guilt by association is never good policy, and anyways, Jeff often posts there himself. If SCOX is concerned about Kebron, it's because 1) they're always happy to find some reason to complain about Merkey 2) Nowadays they tend to complain about Wikipedia admin a lot, for their tolerance/kowtowing of Merkey and 3) Some of us are Wikipedia users who've been witchhunted before over this issue and it's something that genuinely concerns us. I've already been (wrongfully) indef blocked mostly for an edit that was in part trying to correct an admin's impression that Kebron was a SCOX troll. When I see people being threatened with adminnery partly because Jeff just asked someone to do it, then this is what springs to my mind. Kebron doesn't have to be a user of the SCOX board for the SCOX forum to be interested in his fate. --Aim Here 14:36, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I am not responsible for what happens on that board. I have stated many times that I do not use that board, no matter what Mr. Merkey says. That board is obsessed with Mr. Merkey and since I happen to edit on occasion an article by Mr. Merkey they comment about me. I expressly request a second opinion on the matter. If my edits are considered harassement, what about the edits on any Morman topic by Mr. Merkey? He has stated on Wikipedia his beliefs on the suject and has made extreamely hatelfull edits. So following your logic why is Mr Merkey not banned from editing anything Mormon? --Kebron 12:45, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

• Your first edits were to a now deleted version of the bio page on Merkey. Most of your subsequent edits relate to Merkey, SCO, and Groklaw as well (excepting the occasion edit elsewhere and your late May interest in Candian topics). I'll stop short of calling it stalking, but even assuming good faith you seem to be preoccupied with editing articles Merkey has edited. Maybe it's time you took a break and went back to the Canadian related edits for a while.--Isotope23 14:20, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

SCO and Groklaw are now under the umbrella of Merkey? Wow. Just WOW.

Isotope23 and Proabivouac, have you considered that Kebron is not following Merkey around, but rather following a disruption in a certain area, namely Cherokee-related articles? After all, if Kebron were a SPA as Merkey claims, and you are inclined to agree, then why isn't Kebron editing every article that Merkey touches, including all of Merkey's unsourced or unverifiable statements in Mormon-related articles, the outrageous libel in the Eric Schmidt bio (material that has since been removed), or the Daniel Brandt saga?

Carefully review the diffs of Kebron's edits. Merkey removed sourced materials, and Kebron put it back with questions about why an entire paragraph should be removed because of a problem in the last sentence. Kebron scrubbed a very POV "(wannabe)" from a title, and suddenly he's committed a federal offense by aiding and abetting Indian identity fraud. Kebron denies being a "SCOX Troll" and so the accusation is repeated more vehemently. Kebron is working through very serious issues of disruption and POV-pushing, usually with a polite response, but at every turn, Merkey lobs accusations of "SCOX Troll," "wikistalking," "sockpuppet of banned user Vigilant," and so on, rather than responding to the questions and valid criticisms.

I don't think Kebron is an SPA against Merkey, but rather against the disruption that Merkey is causing in the Cherokee articles. Following a user is "wikistalking" (which does not show up as a word in any reputable dictionary, BTW), but following a disruptive action and attempting to minimize it is part of being a good wikipedia editor. Pfagerburg 14:42, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

This is another single purpose stalking account User:Pfagerburg. Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 15:53, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

It seems that disagreement equals trolling or stalking in your mind. Check my recent contribution history, particularly post-unblock. Pfagerburg 16:09, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Who said anything about SCO & Groklaw being under the "umbrella of Merkey"? My point about Groklaw, SCO, etc. was simply that Kebron (talk · contribs) apparently started editing here on those topics, all of which have some relation, then seems to have changed gear and started showing an interest in Native American related articles that Merkey was editing. As I said above I stop short of calling it stalking, but Kebron's contributions don't exactly bear out your theory of "following a disruptive action and attempting to minimize it" Pfagerburg (talk · contribs) and I reiterate my comment above that if he wants to be a "good wikipedia editor" as you've put it, perhaps he should find some other set of topics to edit for a while.--Isotope23 16:30, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

You brought up SCO and Groklaw as if they added weight to the SPA allegation. If they are unrelated, then leave them out. What if Kebron is knowledgeable about Linux and Cherokees? (Don't say it can't happen - Merkey claims knowledge of both.) So Kebron is editting the SCO and Groklaw articles, and becomes awake of Mr. Merkey, since Merkey was a topic of discussion in those areas. And then Kebron sees that Merkey is concentrating on two main areas: Cherokees and Mormons. Not knowing much about Mormons, but knowing about the Cherokee, Kebron tries to contain the damage from the POV pushing. And now gets labeled a "SCOX Troll," a stalker, and an SPA.

I began making contributions to the Atmel AVR articles about a month ago; I've been using chip since 1999. If someone begins inserting unsourced material there, pushing a POV like "AVR is a wannabe-RISC," or accusing people from the ATML stock board of coordinating an attack on him, would I be an SPA for trying to contain his damage to the Atmel AVR and related articles?

So who's going to tell Mr. Merkey to "find some other set of topics [other than Mormons and "wannabe" Indians] to edit for a while"? When does Merkey's disruption and his litany of sockpuppet allegations rise to the level that he gets told to knock it off?

Pfagerburg 16:44, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

My point was simply that there is the appearance of a pattern here. Your contention that we suddenly have 2 contributors who are interest and or involved in that disparate range of topics is something I find a bit unlikely given the fact that there is a much simpler possibility here. Looking at the edit history, Kebron was inactive while Jeff was on his Mormon bender and when Kebron returned to editing he did get involved in category deletion discussions that Jeff was involved in. The data seems to invalidate your theory. The bottom line is that I don't see any reason to block anyone at this time, but Kebron would do well to expand his horizons here before his contributions cross the line into actual stalking.--Isotope23 17:00, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

And my point is what is wrong with any of my edits? As was pointed out, I have been and continue to be polite in my requests to cite sources, or reverting. Please, aside the fact that I am editing articles by Mr. Merky, are any of my edits wrong? Against Policy?--Kebron 17:09, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm glad that you agree that there is no cause to block Kebron. Now how about admonishing Merkey for bringing his off-wiki battles to this page and to checkuser? See the link below - someone disagrees with him, and suddenly we need a checkuser. See this entire thread - someone disagrees with him, and is trying to contain his damage in a single subject area, and suddenly we need to get admins involved to talk about who's stalking whom. I chime in with my two cents (being a recent victim of Merkey's complaints resulting in a 2-week block) and suddenly I'm stalking, too. Pfagerburg 17:10, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

It seems Mr. Merkey continues to accuse anyone who disagrees with him of being a SCOX troll, sockpuppet, etc. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ACherokee_Freedmen_Controversy&diff=143843707&oldid=143837850

Are you surprised? That issue will never actually be dealt with, though, because we're too busy hunting SCOX trolls to actually consider Merkey's behavior. -Amarkov moo! 16:52, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

It's blatantly obvious that account is SPA at Cherokee Freedmen. The editor inserted uncited statements attributed to four Cherokee Nation officials and the Chief of the Keetoowahs claiming they made racist statements. None of the cited materials contained the statements. Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 17:07, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

The Godmother (book)

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

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

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

Deletion Debate clearly no consensus needs to be closed

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ken Burns

Resolved

resolved for now HappyFarmerofAsparagus 20:45, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fudzilla

Resolved

 – AfD closed.

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

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

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

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

Rtkat3 ignoring notes about edit summaries

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

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

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

I've emailed him, so if he doesn't reply... I will be under the understanding that he just wants to do what he wants, without listening to others. Edit summaries are indeed important, and people shouldn't just ignore putting them. RobJ1981 22:29, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Single-purpose account, possible Licorne puppet

Resolved

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

Provide diffs to WP:SSP. WP:AN/I is for administration discussion and very urgent matters. WP:SSP is for sock reporting. Let me know if I can help with answers. HappyFarmerofAsparagus 20:35, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

User:A31lover

Resolved

 – Blocked indef by Lucasbfr

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

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

Vandalism/Edit Warring

Please note here: [65]

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

Report at WP:AIV after proper warnings issued? HappyFarmerofAsparagus 20:33, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Abusive sockpuppetry by The Cunctator

User At Work (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) recently reverted the edits I made to Grover Norquist (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) to bring it into compliance with WP:BLP. In performing this reversion, User At Work restored much unreferenced, inadequately referenced, or original research controversial material concerning a living person, in blatant violation of WP:BLP. He also added the offending material to the talk page of the article. In response, I issued a warning to User At Work, removed the offending material [66][67][68][69], and made a report on Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard. recently responded to this report as though he were User At Work! The Cunctator claimed that "I don't argue that he can find policy justification for repeatedly threatening me with being blocked", even though I issued the template:blp2 warning to User At Work, not the The Cunctator, and I reverted edits on Grover Norquist (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) by User At Work, not the The Cunctator. Employing an abusive sockpuppet to in engage in blatant violations of WP:BLP is not appropriate behavior for a user entrusted with administrative privileges on Wikipedia. John254 01:01, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Well, I'm not an administrator, and I don't claim to speak on behalf of the Wikipedia community. However, I would submit that some of the material that The Cunctator restored on Grover_Norquist (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) constitutes a blatant violation of WP:BLP. I would submit that controversial material concerning living people sourced to political attack websites [70], political blogs [71], and original syntheses of sources to draw general disparaging conclusions [72] is inappropriate for posting on Wikipedia. John254 03:02, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

I did not summarily revert John254's mass deletion of content -- I restored some of the content, edited much of it, left some deleted. [73]

(as User At Work ) then

I will simply respond to say that my comment "I did not summarily revert John254's mass deletion of content -- I restored some of the content, edited much of it, left some deleted." is factually correct. [74]

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

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

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

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

Some specific WP:BLP problems with this diff include:

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

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

(3) Restores "Alleged money laundering" section, which constitutes inadequately referenced controversial information concerning a living person, since it is sourced only to a political attack website (later removed from the article, but added to the talk page; the prohibition on inadequately referenced controversial information concerning living persons applies to talk pages.)--John254 08:16, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

And what did John254 do? He redeleted those sections. I was fine with that, as I've stated before. His interpretation of those sections is frankly biased. His judgment of what constitutes an unacceptable attack on a living person is highly skewed. And since my bias leans in the other direction, if he were willing to assume good faith and edit the articles with me, we would end up with a better encyclopedia. But that doesn't seem to be his goal.--User At Work 14:30, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

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

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

John254 08:16, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Actually, all throughout 2006, both accounts were heavily involved in editing articles related to the Jack Abramoff lobbying scandal. There are definitely some edits to the same articles, although I didn't count them, but more generally a pattern of editing articles within the same constellation. The Cunctator also protected and semi-protected Jack Abramoff several times even though he was involved in editing the content, although no one seems to have complained at the time. User At Work's contributions are so politically charged that I doubt he would ever pass RFA if he ran on his own record, see for example the creation of Americans Against Hate (Stephen Marks). Also, his edits to Grover Norquist definitely have some BLP problems, although perhaps not as severe as John254 would allege. And, of course, User At Work wass never acknowledged to be an alternate account, something that is preferred. This situation troubles me, but I would like some more feedback before I do anything else. Thatcher131 13:01, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Noone complained at the time because my edits and actions were responsible. I doubt I would ever pass RFA on my own record; see User:The Cunctator/Bias Talk. I've never claimed to be perfect, but I've always been a serious contributor and have always respected fellow Wikipedians. The Norquist thing is antagonizing -- this whole kerfuffle is arising because John254 is yelling about a single edit he disagreed with. So he reedited Norquist in what I thought was a reasonable compromise. There hasn't been any editwarring. Just his repeated accusations of bad faith. --The Cunctator 14:25, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I think this is probably ripe for arbitration. The allegations of abuse of admin powers, and of long term disregard for the biographies of living persons, should at least be given a sniff test by the arbitration committee. --Tony Sidaway 13:19, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Arbitrate away! I've been waiting for the Great Review of The Cunctator. Maybe you should check if any of these allegations have merit before you call for arbitration, though. But if you want to waste people's time, feel free. --The Cunctator 14:25, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Recommend strong warning/admonishment, immediate disclosure, and acknowledgment that this is a problem never to be repeated by user TC/UAW. The basics of WP:SOCK is not to pretend to be two people. The easiest and classical way to do that is to try hard never to edit the same articles. I don't see "would never pass RFA" is necessarily true, given that User:The Cunctator is one of the oldest users on the whole Wikipedia (debated with Larry Sanger!!!), and controversial subject matter isn't necessarily a disqualifier (heck, I passed RFA, and roughly half of my focus is rather controversial too). However, editing the same articles is bad. I recommend:

1. {{User Alternate Acct}} on User:User At Work and User:The Cunctator
2. Same on any other accounts that edit the same articles
3. Strict adherence to never using admin powers on an article any identity is in a good faith edit dispute about, with good faith interpreted very broadly - if there is any doubt, ask someone else to do it, we have a thousand admins
4. The equivalent of an arbcom admonishment; if similar questionable behaviour is repeated, fast track desysopping by arbcom.
5. Agreement to all these terms by The Cunctator/User At Work, and, ideally, a couple of arbcom members, so the above proviso has teeth. If not, unfortunately, this should be taken to Wikipedia:Arbcom, where, I'm afraid, the above terms are the best TC/UAW can realistically expect. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 14:42, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Interesting recommendations. Heh--"debated". We had an all-out flame war. If someone can demonstrate where my behavior was actually problematic, I would love to see it. So far all I've seen is accusations and calls for punishment based entirely on assumption and legalistic readings of policies meant to handle bad-faith editors. But hey, if you want to involve the ArbCom, let's do it! --The Cunctator 15:02, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Discussion has spread to my talk page. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 17:11, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Abuse and Harassment by User:Darrenhusted

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

At the DRV I noticed that four of the editors all signed "two dashes and not using the tildes, [75], [76], [77], [78], a clear case of sock puppets or a massive coincidence?" and decided to tag the accounts in question with sock tags and then start a sock puppet case when I had the time (which would have been later that day).

As for messaging EdWood, since he posted this [79] I haven't messaged him, other than to tag user pages as socks.

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

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

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

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

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

• Comment Nothing he said remotely covers his rudeness, sarcasm and aggressive nature towards me. He is disrespectful with people of different opinions. And for the record his blatent attempt to smear my name has failed as the sockpuppetry issue has been found to be false and we are ALL unrelated. He should be warned or something. --EdWood 16:52, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

False accusation of sock is very bad. Already, I've gone through a few issues below and people do use it. Diffs and proof, not just one sided accusations and no chance for defense. HappyFarmerofAsparagus 20

32, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

• Comment There was obviously a massive coincidence then that four seperate users would all sign using two dashes and not the tilde, I leave it up to an admin to look through the comments. EdWood continued to add myspace and youtube links back into an article after I had pointed out they were not reliable sources, after I removed a picture which was not fair use he continued to add it back in, even when I explained why it could not be used. He keeps claiming that I kept messaging him after he asked not to, which I did not, he keeps taking a quote from another user's talkpage and quoting it as if I made physical threats to him directly, which I did not. The four signatures look suspicious, and that two brand new users would make their first post trying to game a DRV, also seemed suspicious so I tagged the pages, and those users have not posted since, ready to start a checkuser, but by that point I was too tired and another user finished the process. If anything the AfD, DRV and ANI seem to be EdWood harrassing me, as I have edited on other pages while out of Ed's last 55 edits 49 have been on pages related to these actions and my user talkpage. So I invite an admin to look at the histories and get back to me, as I don't feel that "Abuse and Harrassment" is an accurate description of what has transpired here. Darrenhusted 21:54, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Replaceable non-free images

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

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

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

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

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

Part of my lengthy rationale is this text:

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

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

Mosquera 04:28, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

You could write a 5 word rationale or a 5000 word rationale, but pictures of living people are still generally considered replaceable on Wikipedia (See #3 at [80] and #8 on [[81]]. Having said that, I don't think I can pass judgment on this particular photo since I have not seen it and don't know how it was used. Still, it seems you've reacted too aggressively to the deletion. Isn't this just a simple matter of asking for deletion review? nadav (talk) 05:32, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(e/c) Point 3 goes completely against everything I know about Wikipedia ("The Free Encyclopedia") and especially WP:NONFREE and WP:FURG. I am also surprised and disappointed that you have now reverted the re-tagging of the images as replaceable by Abu badali, and I have re-added the tags myself. Please follow the instructions on the tag if you disagree with the claim of replaceability. But remember that policy holds that portraits of living people are replaceable in almost all cases. (See #3 at [82] and #8 on WP:NONFREE#Examples_of_unacceptable_use) nadav (talk) 07:27, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Canvassing

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Repeated tag reverts by Mosquera

Mosquera has now decided to systematically revert placement of the tags on his images (See contrib history [83]), even though they were re-added in good faith by both me and Abu badali. This refusal to follow the usual processes is tendentious, and, in my opinion, warrants sanction. nadav (talk) 07:37, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Wikistalking

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

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

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

A few brief comments

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

• What User:Nadav1 said above is entirely accurate [84]. We simply do not permit the use of fair use imagery for the purpose of depiction of a living person. Such imagery is replaceable. We do not wait until it is replaced. We delete. We do not consider whether a fair use rationale is detailed or not. We consider if the image is being used for depiction purposes only. If so, it is deleted. There's no grey area on this issue. It's been decided by the Wikimedia Foundation and is echoed in policy and practice.
• I have now removed a dozen of these images from articles (example) by reviewing the image contributions of User:Mosquera [85]. Anyone who considers this sort of action as "stalking" should read and understand Wikipedia:Harassment, especially where it says "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. Using the edit history of users to correct related problems on multiple articles is part of the recommended practices" Those editors who have worked to correct User:Mosquera's errors should be commended, and not accused of stalking unless evidence comes forth of harassing behavior. To date, none has been presented.
• If User:Mosquera is not willing to abide by our policies and Wikimedia Foundation resolutions, and continues to act against same despite multiple warnings, then a block is indeed in order. --Durin 14:11, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

• Just wanted to take the opportunity to endorse what Durin's saying here. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 16:01, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't want to repeat too much of what has already been said, and I don't know how much my opinion will count because I was "canvassed" :), but I agree with most of what is said above. What shocks me is this statement by Mosquera: The images come from places like NBC and Fox, who aren't going to donate content. And that is ironically hitting the nail on the head. The reason why we cannot use this non-free content is because WP:FUC #2. Just because a company takes a picture and wants to protect their copyright and profit from their property doesn't give us a right to steal their hard work, upload it here, and distribute it for free. Even if you wrote a 10 page boiler plate rationale, in good faith, doesn't excuse stealing another's livelihood just because you want some stub articles to look pretty with decorative images. We still have option: either go out and photographing the individuals in question, searching flickr or other websources for free replacements, or even contact the individual in question and asking for a GFDL image donation. And if someone doesn't want to make a donation, that doesn't give us an excuse to steal their livelihood and distribute it for free. This is exactly why nearly all images of living people are unacceptable here on wikipedia. And a boilerplate, good faith rationale, that isn't individually catered to each individual image just isn't going to cut it. Finally, if multiple, uninvolved editors agree with tagging these images, there is no reason for Mosquera to remove the tags. There is a specific process for disputing tags, and continuously removing the tags after multiple admin review is not good faith editing.-Andrew c ^[talk] 16:07, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Mosquera's believes that "El Patrón" (the Spanish Cabal?) is out to suppress him [86]. He doesn't see this as a policy issue, apparently, but as fighting the good fight against the repressive admins. nadav (talk) 16:33, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

• Well, it's not by any means the first nor the last accusation of cabalistic behavior by administrators. I hope he learns from the above comments, and I've directed him here. --Durin 16:49, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Harassment by John254

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I think John254's concern is, to a certain extent, legitimate. See the thread above. I'm not sure how to proceed, though. Thatcher131 13:07, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Then a block is warranted. I haven't paid attention to the update by John254. However, due to the specificity of this issue i believe a RfA could decide it. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 13:13, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I took your suggestion on adding the notice. I'm disappointed that you have decided not to consider John254's behavior in this matter.--User At Work 14:52, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I follow updates and i am still having an eye on him of course. Filing an ArbCom case is not all the time a negative thing. The ArbCom can rule out the case of decide if you or him deserve something. This is a very specific situation and admins cannot do things that only ArbCom can deal w/. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 16:02, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

• Well, John does have a pattern of overreacting, as indicated in the Dmcdevit and Cunctator issues. I have so far been unable to make him understand that no, Wikipedia really is not a bureaucracy. Perhaps someone else will have better luck? >Radiant< 13:15, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
  • (This is The Cunctator issue) Thatcher131 13:27, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

He is now accusing me of using this account as a "bad hand" account, commiting "blatant violation of WP:BLP", "severe WP:BLP violation". If he is correct, then of course it is not harassment. If he is not, then, I submit he is in blatant violation of WP:CIVILITY. --User At Work 14:34, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

• • • With respect, you are an administrator, you need to accept that you will be held to a higher standard than people you argue against. That comes with the mop. Also notice that -- if you want to keep the mop -- that you are in a hole, and it is advised that you stop digging. Thank you for adding {{User Alternate Acct}}. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 15:03, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Erm, one digs with a shovel, not a mop. Your judgment of whether or not I am in a hole may be incorrect. Please avoid using the passive voice when admonishing me. I continue to submit that John254 is in violation of WP:CIVILITY.--The Cunctator 16:04, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, John254 has gone overboard in his pursuit of you. However, I think that his initial concerns are at least partly justified. Now that this is being dealt with by several other admins, let's hope that John254 moves on to something else. He should not continue an independent pursuit. Thatcher131 17:13, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Harassment and more disruptions from socks of User:Mariam83

Further information: [[:User:Mariam83_blocked_indefinitely]]

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

• Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Mariam83 -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 07:21, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

How do we do a spam block again?

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

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

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

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

User:72.73.109.20

User:Killercalendar

User:68.194.48.146

User:24.193.216.136

User:24.7.91.60

User:Killerguitargod

User:71.111.117.212

User:203.134.15.157

User:72.189.105.125

User:Mo daget

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

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

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

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

Beneath the bridge

This user's first ever edit was to my talk page: [87]. This edit s/he made was in response to me dedicating 2.5 hours of my time to fix re-directs. I replied calmly on his/her talk page, and when asked why s/he was behaving this way, responded with this edit: [88]. Later, after giving a Welcome note and encouraging him to maintain healthy relationships with other users on Wikipedia, replied by leaving vandalism on my talk page, as well as a death threat: [89]. Something needs to be done about this disruptive user, who has also left similar notices on a couple other pages, threatening other users for no particular reason. ––Ksy92003(talk) 08:24, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

This particular one wasn't very effective as, on further consideration, I think he might have been trying to elicit an angry response from me. However, I took it as just a weird comment and responded with that in mind. Maybe it made him mad that he couldn't tweak me. >:) ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 19:18, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Xratedguy leaving deviously-constructed messages

Resolved

 – Blocked indef by Ryulong

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

Roland Rance has studied this for years and has discovered that Trotskyite feces tastes better than the alternatives [90]

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

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

Account to be blocked

Resolved

 – Account blocked.

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

It's been done. MastCell ^Talk 16:43, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

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

Resolved

 – Sockpuppetry case closed.

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

Just when I'd removed my own report.[91] This is completely ridiculous. Is there a policy that states that Wikipedia is not clueless, or would this be trumped by WP:AGF? Besides remote proxies, there can be no better example of how CU cannot solve our sockpuppet problems, as here it is admitted that CU will give a match. We need responders who can tell two people from one by contributions alone and are willing to act on this judgment.Proabivouac 10:32, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

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

I don't think it matters, really, whether they're married or the same person for our purposes. The practical difference between sockpuppets and meatpuppets is nil. There's evidence at the SSP report that the accounts have been used to reinforce each other, give the impression of greater support, double-vote, etc. I propose indefinitely blocking Caprisa as a sock/meatpuppet, and applying a block of ~72 hours to Tovojolo. Any objections? MastCell ^Talk 15:48, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 15:57, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Done. MastCell ^Talk 16:16, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

User:Ghirlandajo pushing his political POV in inappropriate places

I find Ghirla's remarks about my person (and about others), very incivil and I do hope the readers of this noticeboard will not stand for continuing accusations that certain users are trolling or spamming this board with petty grievances. Considering how often Ghirla's actions are brought here, and by how many various editors, we are far and long past any coincidences. FI do agree that this board is not a substitute for complex DR such as incidents involving Ghirla; steps of DR should be taken instead of discussions here; for the record, at least one ArbCom in which Ghirla is a party, has presented evidence and had evidence presented about him is still active.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  13:57, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Indeed. Your forum-shopping activities on this very page are still under scrutiny on Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Piotrus/Workshop. --Ghirla^-трёп- 14:09, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Your mutual grievances are an old story. Like I said, I won't be a judge (although I do have my opinion). The best course of action for both of you is to disengage from each other. Please. Continued grievance on this board won't persuade anyone who is familiar the situation to change any opinion he might have formed so far; rather, they just show both of you in the worst light. Your mentioning of Piotrus on an unrelated problem was less than helpful. Piotrus's reply was even less helpful. How about each of you writing a DYK article? Helps relieve the stress. Duja► 14:20, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Requesting opinions on constant deletion of image from pages

The following image Image:Nbodybuilder.jpg has been constantly deleted from pages it has been placed on, mostly by anonymous editors who leave no summary or label the image as "vandalism". The image is a quality image of a bodybuilder who released the rights of the image to me which I uploaded to Commons. The consensus to place the images on thepages it has been placed on has been discussed on all of the talk pages it's on. Therefore I ask this, Would simply erasing the image without a summary despite the consensus on the talk page be considered vandalism? Especially after the person has been asked to discuss their changes on the talk page and refuses to do so? I don't want to violate 3rr by re-adding the image over and over on a page without being sure. Thanks. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 12:23, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

It depends. Repeatedly deleting the image from a page where there is consensus to use it could be vandalism, yes. To avoid 3RR problems, it's better to let another user (like me, for instance) know what's going on, and let someone else re-add the image if it's called for. If you let us know what page it's being removed from, that will help. All the best, – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 12:35, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

That would be great if you could take a look at the situation and determine if removing the image over and over constitutes vandalism. The image is placed on the following pages.

Human abdomen

Bodybuilding

Muscle

Muscular system

Physical exercise

Masculinity

Skeletal muscle

Muscle tone

Somatotype

General fitness training

Muscle hypertrophy

You could add them to your watchlist, I think all of them have talk pages where the image placement has been discussed and either a consensus exists for the image or all except the one who removed it supports it's being there, which sometimes just includes 2-3 others which may or may not constitute a "consensus". Most of the objections to the image are blatantly absurd, for instance in the Masculinity talk page, the image of the bodybuilder was called "Small and girly" in an attempt to get it taken down. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 12:40, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

An Anon IP has removed the image from Masculinity again. Same IP as last time and still no summaries. See the talk page of the article.Wikidudeman ^(talk) 14:21, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I just blocked a couple of editors for WP:3RR over this image at Bodybuilding a few days ago. Anon removal with no summary can be reverted as vandalism (and if the same IPs are making a habit of this I'd say take it to WP:AIV so blocking can be explored), but as I said when I blocked the editors in question, if there is a dispute about using this image in any of those articles it should be discussed on the talk page.--Isotope23 14:24, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

It should be pointed out too that there has been some "discussion" of this at Masculinity by the anon, though not especially useful or civil discussion.--Isotope23 14:29, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

He seems to be a troll from my determination. I tried explaining the situation clearly and calmly but I was told to "Get a life" and that I "Should be banned". Do you think I should revert this persons edits as vandalism? Perhaps you could revert them for me so I don't get close to violating 3rr. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 14:32, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

He's been warned. If it continues, hit my talkpage with diffs and I'll deal with the situation. On a side note, looking at that articles it appears that the image is warranted in most of the articles (especially the one or two that didn't previously have images), but I can see at least one article where it seems redundant.--Isotope23 15:35, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Messed archives

Not sure which Administrator help page go to. I've messed up trying to move my archive talk pages. I tried to match the history with that archived pages. I realised things weren't right and I tried correct things back. I tried to #redirect them, but ended up worse. I've stopped any #redirects now, but can't sort it out. The pages involved are:

• User talk:Cwb61/Archive
• User Cwb61/Archive
• User talk:Cwb61/Archive1
• User Cwb61/Archive1
• Talk:User Cwb61/Archive (don't know what I was thinking with that one)
• User talk:Cwb61 which doesn't now have the original history
• even User:Cwb61/sandbox1 which I didn't realise at first.

Hopefully you can sort things out. I've saved any posts and sandbox records, so if neccessary they can be deleted. The only page I know is fine is my main User:Cwb61 page. Really sorry for all this. Cwb61 (talk) 13:52, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Okay, finally found where the history of your talk page is - it's at User Cwb61/Archive. I'll fix it now, hold on. Neil ╦ 14:51, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Your talk page archive is now at User talk:Cwb61/Archive1. The history has been dredged up and moved back to User talk:Cwb61, where it probably should be. As all talk page edits are signed and dated (or should be), you don't need to worry about the history going with the archive to retain the appropriate GFDL attributions. Neil ╦ 15:00, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks very much for sorting things out. Cwb61 (talk) 15:07, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Apparent Muslim anti-Israel POV pusher at the current events portal

Given the prominence of Portal:Current events, this is a rather urgent matter. There is currently an anti-Israel POV pusher at Portal:Current events/Sidebar, who insists on adding "Israel's nuclear program" to the sidebar with no reason. It currently isn't a current event, nor is it being actively discussed worldwide. See also. The name of the user, Fâtimâh bint Fulâni (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), suggests that the user is Muslim (see bint). She has been warned about it, and this is fast becoming a POV revert-war. Admin intervention required. – Chacor 14:37, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

See this message. The fact that the user emphasises that this were her first edits (and yet seems to have a good grasp of NPOV) is highly suspicious to me, because no user would emphasise "notice these are my very first edits", as if that clears them of any policy violation. – Chacor 15:20, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Further, and in contradiction of WP:AGF but following the doctrine of WP:DON'T AGF WHEN IT'S A BLATANT SOCK the user page seems rather elaborate and well structured for a self proclaimed newbie. Pedro |  Chat  15:33, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I would like to point out that it might be possible the user has been active in other language variants of wikipedia before registering and editing here. There is not enough evidence that would warrant sockpuppet suspicion, I could not find "similar" edits by other editors that are now blocked or something. --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 18:04, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

It is rude to talk behind someone's back.--Fâtimâh bint Fulâni 16:53, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

To TheDJ - Yes, you are very right. My apologies to Fâtimâh bint Fulâni for my lack of faith. As regards to talking behind someone's back it's a pity that Chacor did not notify you that this was being brought to ANI but I believe his/her initial request for intervention still stands. Pedro |  Chat  19:52, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

User:Thedec

Resolved

 – Indefinitely blocked.

Thedec (talk · contribs · count · logs · block log · lu · rfa · rfb · arb · rfc · lta · socks confirmed) recently made the folowing edit to my talk page. As can be seen from the usercheck links, he was previously investigated (at my instigation) for sockpuppeting following earlier vandalism and inappropriate comments on my talkpage. At that time he claimed that the sockpuppeting had a come about as the result of a schoolmate coming into possession of his password, but that he had now changed the password and his main account was secure again. I, and the admin who reviewed the sockpuppet case, took this at face value and his account was not blocked (for the sockpuppeting). It now appears that either the account has been compromised again, or he was lying in the first instance. The account seems to have made few useful contributions, but there is a fair amount of vandalism and inane comments on talkpages. He doesn't seem to be here to improve the encyclopaedia. David Underdown 15:11, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Either he was lying the first time around, or his account is unforgivably insecure and prone to being hacked. My money's on the former, but either way it's time for an indefinite block, which I've applied. MastCell ^Talk 15:40, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, good faith only stretches so far... David Underdown 15:56, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

User:Hindduking

Resolved

added by HappyFarmerofAsparagus 20:40, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Somebody admin needs to fix the mess Hindduking (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) just left. Corvus cornix 16:03, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I think it's all fixed now. Will (aka Wimt) 16:18, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

User:BillyTFried: Threatening Behavior?

This is an interesting question for the Wikipedia community: Does posting a link on a member’s Talk page to a YouTube video of yourself firing a weapon constitute threatening behavior?

Background: In the article about San Francisco Supervisor Chris Daly, I have been debating BillyTFried about whether the article should include information about Daly’s support of a 2006 gun control ballot initiative, Proposition H. I said it shouldn’t because Daly was only one of four sponsors of the initiative, and the initiative wasn’t especially controversial in SF (it won with 58% of the vote). However, because the initiative was controversial in the eyes of many pro-gun groups, it made national headlines with Daly’s name featured in newspaper articles, etc., BillyTFried thought Proposition H should be included in the Chris Daly article.

YouTube video: Yesterday night, BillyTFried posted some words on my Talk page along with a link to a YouTube video of himself firing what looks like a semi-automatic weapon. (In case the video gets taken down, it is 1:43 minutes long and shows BillyTFried firing weapons at a shooting range while thrash music plays. BillyTFried occasionally leers at the camera. The video is titled “Shoot Em' Up!”.)

Last night when I read his post, I thought it was just plain weird and creepy, but I didn’t feel threatened. This morning, however, I mentioned it to my wife, who was horrified. She pointed out that BillyTFried lives in the same town as me (he told me the cross streets where he lives) and that his post on my Talk page with the video link was made in the context of a gun control debate. She thought he was threatening me.

I did not take up this matter with BillyTFried because, frankly, after watching his video, I don't want anything to do with him. I’m just curious what the community thinks of this and whether some action should be taken against BillyTFried. Griot 16:14, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

(statement from non-admin and completely uninvolved party Pfagerburg, who happened to notice this thread as I was checking to see if the vandal came back.)

Check the date the video was uploaded - early January of this year, not yesterday. Lots of people take videos of themselves, family members, or friends firing weapons at the range. BillyTFried was trying to make a point that there are some gun-owners living in SF. He made it poorly, and clumsily, but I don't see it as a threat. To be a threat, the video would have to be linked with the text "you're next" or "stay out of this debate or else." Or your name would have to be involved somehow, like "warning to Griot - don't try to take my guns!" That would be a criminal threat for which the threatener ought to be prosecuted. Possibly WP:NPA or WP:CIVIL, but nothing criminal. Pfagerburg 16:30, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I understand that YouTube is full of videos of people at shooting ranges and people blasting away at bottles and cans in the great outdoors. But this video was presented to me in the context of gun control. BillyTFried understands my dislike of guns but he posted the video link anyway on my Talk page. If I was a vegetarian and he posted a video link to slaughterhouse video, would that be okay? Griot 18:16, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

(An additionally totally univolved editor User:Rocksanddirt) I would find that the context of the video being put on a Griot's user page as threatening or at least an attempt to intimidate the debate. If billyt had put it on his own page, that would be a totally different scenario. --Rocksanddirt 18:31, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I've issued a warning to the editor. At best it was just really poor judgment and as Rocksanddirt said, at worst it has the appearance of an attempt to intimidate.--Isotope23 18:40, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

No, it (vegetarian and the slaughterhouse video) wouldn't be OK. It would be boorish. And uncivil. The same applies to the gun video. And in the days of Columbine and Virginia Tech, it borders on just plain stupid. It's a good way to get the police interested in speaking with you, but in the end, the police and the DA would probably conclude it was not criminal.

I'm not trying to defend BillyTFried's actions, but rather present what I feel is the middle ground, the two extremes being "quit whining" and "OMG! Call the cops!" He probably owes you an apology, but I don't think he threatened you, either in the WP sense or in the criminal sense. My opinion (that and 50 cents will buy you a coke) is that he ought not to be blocked, but it wouldn't hurt for the admins to have a chat with him. Pfagerburg 18:40, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Isotope23, I saw your edit after I saved mine. Rocksanddirt has a valid point as well. Let's hope the warning has the desired effect. Pfagerburg 18:52, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

WHAT A JOKE!!! Christ you couldn't win a debate against me where you tried to censor valid information on the Chris Daly page and TALK page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Chris_Daly#Gun_control, so instead to accuse me of threatening you simply because after you insinuated that everyone was anti-gun in "Liberal SF" I replied that I was in fact MYSELF a San Francisco resident and avid gun owner, and posted a video of myself enjoying my hobby, legally, and safely, as visual proof of it. Your assertion that it was somehow a threat is just more hysterics from a person who has already shown ridiculously bizarre behavior by trying to censor valid information on Wikipedia, despite protest from everyone else involved. It's also very interesting that you DELETED all my comments on your talk page EXCEPT that one. If anyone want to see the whole conversation it is reproduced on MY TALK PAGE --BillyTFried 19:05, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Billy, you don't seem to get it. Posting a video of yourself shooting a weapon on another editors talk page when you know full well they are a gun control advocate was very poor judgment and not in any way WP:CIVIL and it isn't hard to see how someone could take that as an attempt at an intimidation tactic on your part. As I said on your talk page, I expect this will not happen again; future incidents like this will likely result in a block.--Isotope23 19:11, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Then the proper way to point out that not everybody in SF is anti-gun would have been to write "but I live in SF and I am not anti-gun." If Griot had challenged your residence or position, then the cross streets and the video might have been appropriate.

HE DID ASK IF I "REALLY" LIVED IN SF! BUT HE DELETED THAT SECTION WHICH IS STILL VIEWABLE ON MY TALK PAGE! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:BillyTFried#Chris_Daly --BillyTFried 19:26, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I saw that he did question your residence, after I posted the comment above. I struck the comment, and apologized. You probably started to edit and put in your reply before I was able to save my strike-out. Pfagerburg 19:52, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't think your video was at all a threat, but in today's "it doesn't matter what you meant, it's what the other person perceived" environment (you normally hear this in sexual harassment cases), you really need to be more careful what you say and how you say it.

I've been to SF, and I've never felt more un-safe anywhere else in the country. That city's gun-control measures have made sure that only the criminals are armed. But if you don't calmly refute the argument with facts, and instead start yelling about it, you hand them the victory. Pfagerburg 19:17, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Oh I won't take any risks with hysterical paranoid people again, but I do not apologize and I reject the assertion that it was meant as intimidation as it WAS NOT AT ALL, and was simply meant to REFUTE his assertion that everyone in SF was anti-gun, as it was a nice video of my enjoying my hobby, shooting at a local SF Bay Area shooting range, both legally and safely. There was nothing at all uncivil or criminal in what I did in any way. The reaction to is is just pure hysterics. And attempting to and even threatening to have me blocked from Wikipedia over it is simply outrageous! --BillyTFried 19:22, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

<Text Dump removed. please see content at User talk:BillyTFried#Chris Daly>

If you're going to discuss content, then it belongs on the relevant talk page. If you're going to sling mud at each other (Daly vs. Newsom style), then do it on your own blogs or something. Neither are welcome on this board, and the latter not welcome on Wikipedia. And I say this as both a Wikipedia admin and a resident of San Francisco. —Kurykh 19:32, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I've removed the text dump above.--Isotope23 19:35, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Billy, what you did was incivil and the reaction here is not "pure hysterics" as you've put it. If you can't see the obvious overtones of linking a video of youself shooting a gun on another editors' userpage when you are in a dispute with them over gun control then perhaps there is a problem here. I'm in no way a gun control advocate, but it's plain as day how another editor could take that linking as a veiled threat.--Isotope23 19:39, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Disagree. The reaction was "pure hysterics." Use of the video was rude and not very smart, but the "ZOMG, did he threaten me?!?!" attitude gets us, e.g.

• Aqua Teen Hunger Force Mooninite sign fiasco in Boston
• Muslims removed from a plane because they prayed before a flight
• A cartoonist fired from his job over a discussion with a friend of what sort of gun he would like to buy for target practice

You are a duck. There is water on your back. Quack and swim on.

If someone makes an actual threat, report it to the police instead of whinging on Wikipedia. Admins will get involved when the police ask for the logs. Pfagerburg 19:57, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

That's a bit of apples and oranges Pfagerburg. The recipient felt threatened and reported it here, I'm not so sure I would characterize that as hysterics. Now Boston getting totally owned by the Moon... that was hysterics (and amusing ones at that).--Isotope23 20:41, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

WE WERE NOT DEBATING GUN CONTROL AT ALL! We were debating whether on not a failed gun control bill belongs on the Chris Daly page as he was the main name attached to that bill whenever it turned up in the media, but Griot has continually deleted the valid and sourced information I posted. He asked me "Billy. Do you really live in SF? If you did, you would know that Proposition H was no big deal in the City" and I replied with my cross streets and the video proving that I was s SF resident and gun owner. This has been totally blown out of proportion and is just ridiculous! --BillyTFried 19:44, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

And when you were just discussing about including references to a gun control ballot measure, you found it necessary to post a video of you brandishing a gun (or whatever) on his talk page. How appropriate. Cough —Kurykh 19:47, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Exactly. It was completely unnecessary to post that video on his talkpage and this in no way is being blown out of proportion. Assuming good faith, you didn't mean any harm, though the fact that you seem unwilling or unable to understand why this was a bad idea isn't exactly encouraging. Regardless, you've been warned and I expect you will show better judgment in your future contact with other editors.--Isotope23 19:52, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

“ That's cute, Billy. Do you really live in SF? Griot 04:57, 11 July 2007 (UTC) ”

“ You live at Pacific and Laguna. Tough neighborhood. I see why you own a gun. <chuckle> Griot 08:00, 11 July 2007 (UTC) ”

CHUCKLE??? Yeah right, that sure sounds like a really intimdated threatened person doesn't! Jeez! --BillyTFried 19:59, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

You still have not addressed any of our points, instead resorting to answering to some nonexistent question. Please get back on topic. —Kurykh 20:06, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

What "points" do I need to answer??? --BillyTFried 20:07, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Here:

:And when you were just discussing about including references to a gun control ballot measure, you found it necessary to post a video of you brandishing a gun (or whatever) on his talk page. How appropriate. Cough —Kurykh 19:47, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

—Kurykh 20:08, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Here:

He asked me "Billy. Do you really live in SF? If you did, you would know that Proposition H was no big deal in the City" and I replied with my cross streets and the video proving that I was s SF resident and gun owner. This has been totally blown out of proportion and is just ridiculous! --BillyTFried 19:44, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

--BillyTFried 20:11, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

This has not been blown out of proportion. It was a reasonable interpretation of your actions. —Kurykh 20:14, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

He ask me, "Billy. Do you really live in SF? If you did, you would know that Proposition H was no big deal in the City" because it was not an issue for anyone in what he called "Liberal SF", and I responded by saying YES, IN FACT I DO LIVE IN SF, and am a gun owner who saw lots of commotion over the gun ban (whether or not he saw it), and heres my cross streets and a video of me to prove that people like me DO EXIST here in "Liberal SF". next thing you know, I'm being accused of threatening him!!! --BillyTFried 20:20, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes this has been totally blown out of proportion, and not every here agrees with your assertion that it has not. See above comments about Aqua Teen Hunger Force and Muslims removed from planes for praying. It's all plane old fashioned hyterics. --BillyTFried 20:23, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

So as to be clear.... Is anyone here actually taking the position what I posted was meant as a THREAT rather than what I said my intention was, and if so what exactly was the threat that you believe I was making? --BillyTFried 20:30, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

• Look we've been over this. Whether you intended this to be a threat or not (and I believe you didn't), it was still grossly incivil and it is blindingly easy to see how someone could interpret this as an attempt to chill the debate by posting this on their talkpage. Whether you intended it to be such or not is impossible to say, I have no idea what your actual intent was, but I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt here. At this point, you are not being blocked for this and you are simply being warned not to do that again; try and take some time to think how something like that will be perceived by other editors before you hit that submit button. As all that is happening at this point is a warning, I would suggest that the prudent thing for you to do is drop this and move on to editing articles.--Isotope23 20:35, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

• Yeah, whatever. I do not apologize and reject any assertion that I threatened anyone. In fact I didnt't even engage in name calling as Grito has. Maybe I should lodge my own complaint about his continued use of the offesnive slur "Gun Nut". Hmmm. --BillyTFried 20:44, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

• Nobody asked you to apologize (and calling out that you "don't apologize" comes off as a bit juvenile I might add... I don't think anyone was going to mistake anything you've said here for an apology), as I said above, the prudent thing to do here would be to quit while you are ahead.--Isotope23 20:51, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I suggested that he owed Griot an apology. But that was just my opinion, which carries very little weight here. Pfagerburg 20:57, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I must have missed that post of yours... and your opinion carries as much weight as mine or anyone elses' Pfagerburg.--Isotope23 20:59, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

“ He probably owes you an apology, but I don't think he threatened you. Pfagerburg 18:40, 11 July 2007 (UTC) ”

Oops, you beat me to it! --BillyTFried 21:05, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

If anything Griot owes me an apology for his unjusitfied continual deletion of my valid and cited material on the Chris Daly page, as well as insulting me with his constant use of the slur Gun Nut, and my having to address all this noise over nothing. --BillyTFried 21:05, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

British monarchy edit war

Resolved

added by HappyFarmerofAsparagus 20:39, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

There seems to be a long-going edit war on this page; at least one of the editors has been warned several times before for edit warring there. Both are now at 3RR point - for the umpteenth time.--Rambutan (talk) 17:58, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I've blocked G2bambino for 24 hours as he was warned for the same thing two days ago. I've warned Lonewolf BC as he's received no warnings. Ryan Postlethwaite 18:07, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Scrap the above, I've blocked Lonewolf BC as well now as he had been warned but removed the warnings. Ryan Postlethwaite 18:11, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

in addition, some vandal fiddled with a couple related articles. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/86.129.118.185 --Rocksanddirt 18:26, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I've blocked the vandal for 24 hours. Walton^One 19:08, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

User:Long levi

There is at least a possibility that the above user is a sock of community banned User:Tecmobowl, with a similar style (removing Fangraph links) and this person only started editing on the 6th of July, which is right after Tecmobowl was banned. It was brought up to my attention because I was the one who implemented the CN ban. I do not want to make the decision (I'm about to take a few days Wikibreak because of an illness) on a quick read. I think there's a strong circumstantial case. Could someone with a bit of free time investigate this? Is RfCU the best place to go? SirFozzie 18:13, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Diffs should be provided for a complete report. Just a suggestion. HappyFarmerofAsparagus 20:30, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, they both talk about the content being crappy and how nobody can concentrate on the content without bringing in other issues. Long Levi even defends Tecmo a few times without overtly naming him [97] [98]. Tecmo put in a bunch of templates for the Baseball hall of fame...and then Long Levi arrived and updated all those templates. There is also the fangraphs issue noted above. It could all be a big coincidence...but I doubt it. IrishGuy ^talk 22:51, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Personal attack by admin

• As no urgent administrative action appears warranted and this discussion is ongoing at User Talk:JzG, I'm going to archive this. MastCell ^Talk 19:15, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

The user User:JzG has launched a personal attack against me here [99].
Furthermore, the current debate there seems to be turning out of hand as some of his cronies have come to defend him by using certain straw-man tactics, and I alone cannot defend myself if he and zillions of his cronies are intentionally ignoring half of what I'm saying. Impartial, decent admins are invited to monitor this situation in case it unfurls into chaos.
You will note that this is the 3rd personal attack that User:JzG has launched against me. I will find the other two and post them here. Rfwoolf 18:43, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm not going to say that you didn't deserve that, but I agree it was over the top. Nobody would tell me to "edit articles or shut up you whining twat" (at least I think not), and that is rather incivil even if you do deserve it. -Amarkov moo! 18:47, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Dude, your user page was protected for 4 days, 7 months ago. What possible purpose could you have in dragging this up now? Move on. Thatcher131 18:54, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I like to think that admins are held accountable for their actions in some way, don't you? Anyways to answer your question, it's appropriate right now. User:JzG censored my userpage because of what he called a soapbox piece (which was actually constructive criticism about Wikipedia), and then goes and puts a soapbox piece on his userpage. Seven months later I'm taking the opportunity to point it out, that's all. Now that you've successfully detracted from the issues at hand...Rfwoolf 19:00, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Rfwoolf, Guy's personal attack does not justify your name-calling ("cronies"). Please refrain from such comments. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 19:01, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Regardless of the issues, JzG's comments cited in the diff look like unacceptable NPA violations to me, although I appreciate they may have been taken out of context. Walton^One 19:04, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

• Re: Black Falcon. Whom did I call cronies? Was it a personal attack? I don't remember calling anybody a crony. I don't believe in this case it counts as a personal attack. Perhaps another impartial admin can correct me if I'm wrong Rfwoolf 19:10, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Misconduct has no statute of limitations in Wikipedia. This is not to say if there was or wasn't misconduct. If someone wants to consider what happened, do it now and then forget about it, shake hand, and resume writing.JonnyLate 19:05, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

It's perhaps better if Rfwoolf doesn't resume writing, considering this damning evidence Nick 19:08, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Rfwoolf, if lots of different people are honestly ignoring what you are saying, then perhaps what you are saying doesn't warrant people paying any attention to it. Please consider that you could be in the wrong here as much as anybody else. Nick 19:10, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Nick, in order to provide me with the right of reply, I'd need to be able to see the link to your quoted "damining evidence". I cannot access it. Please either give me access to it, or explain what it is. Secondly, I always maintain that I could be in the wrong as much as anybody else as a philosophical rule. However, it would be nice if reason and civility were implemented, even logic perhaps, and using straw-men tactics, as you may pick up they are doing, is not nice. The focus of the debate there was supposed to be about censoring my userpage because of soapboxing, and then going and soapboxing on his own page, and the hypocracy thereof. Now go read the debate and see what they're doing -- talking about anything and everything else, bringing up all sorts of dead skeletons to try and discredit me in the discussion. Hense my use of the word cronyism Rfwoolf 19:17, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I disapprove of this being archived so soon. At least one admin has agreed that JzG violated WP:NPA. What action is going to be done about it? Furthermore I have been deprived of a right of reply over a link by Nick: "Damning evidence". How am I supposed to respond? Also JzG has done a personal attack 2 other times... This unilateral archiving seems blatantly unfair Rfwoolf 19:21, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Pay attention to the reason for archiving please. Venue of discussion has been moved. —Kurykh 19:24, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

If only it was. The venue of the discussion has bene closed by (alleged crony) User:John who says any further discussion will be deemd WP:POINT. There was an incident. A personal attack was laid against me, the third one, and I'd like something done. By closing the discussion in two places, I am deprived of my recourse. Rfwoolf 19:33, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

The discussion is not closed. It is the manner that you are presenting your argument that you need to change. And you said "I rest my case" quite explicitly on the page, and when nothing is done, well... —Kurykh 19:35, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Now now, I think it is quite clear the "I rest my case" is jargon to say "I no longer have to prove a certain case", JzG had made a personal attack, I was not saying that I rest *this* case. More over, I made that comment before I reported the incident! Please don't spin things. Rfwoolf 19:41, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

• (After Edit Conflict) My right of reply: According to User:Nick, the this damning evidence link he posted above shows all the posts on Wikipedia that have been deleted. While obviously I can't see the link or know the specific contents, I summarily find it irrelevant to the actual case. If it was some attempt to show me as being a troll or vandal, I'm afraid you'll need to reconsider, because I'm not. Rfwoolf 19:41, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, it showed you wasting rather a lot of our time. BTW, you have no rights, other than the right to leave and the right to fork, AFAIK. Moreschi ^Talk 19:43, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Let me get this straight, you wait 6 months after your dispute until Guy's userpage shows he isn't feeling very positive about the project. Then you sucessfully troll him and come running here to complain? Do you feel proud of yourself for doing this? Spartaz ^Humbug! 19:59, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Amen - we're not in court here. I archived the discussion because this isn't the complaints dept, because no urgent admin intervention seemed necessary, and because Rwoolf is simultaneously maintaining a thread on this topic on Guy's talk page. The stated purpose of the post here was to attract uninvolved editors and admins. Mission accomplished; now let's centralize the discussion somewhere more appropriate. MastCell ^Talk 20:01, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Note: JzG has removed the section and protected his talk. I request that the discussion be moved back here, because this is far from a resolved issue. ATren 21:45, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

This is what I'm saying Rfwoolf

What do you want us to do, exactly ? Nick 21:52, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps you might clarify the exact rules as to when it's "OK" to call someone a whining twat? Or tell them to fuck off? Or call them a sweaty cunt? Where does it say that certain editors can engage in these kinds of destructive attacks? ATren 21:55, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

No-one here is interested. Guy shouldn't have done it but no one is going to do anything because he was trolled and clearly isn't himself right now. If you had a shred of human decentcy you would also drop it to give him a chance to step away. All you are doing is trying to extend a dispute that Guy has tried to disengage from. How pathetic. Please stop now, no-one is going to play with you. Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:59, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

So if I happened to have a bad day and told you right now "Fuck off, you worthless twat", would I get blocked? I'm betting I would. In fact, I'm betting someone would consider blocking me just for raising this hypothetical. But then I'm not an admin with 10,000 edits so I don't have the right to attack people, right? If there is a double standard, then document it. Civility is one of the five pillars, and I am shocked that this community continues to tolerate long term, vicious incivility from a single user. ATren 22:05, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Please stop. We are being as tolerant of you as we are of JzG. JzG has since walked away, you do the same. Nick 22:10, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

ATren, just like everywhere in the world, anybody can say anything they like, as long as they're willing to live with the consequences. You might get blocked if you called somebody names, but only until you calm down and stop the name-calling. Blocks are preventative, not punitive. If somebody freaks out, yells a lot, and slams the door behind them, there's really no need to rub their face in the fact that they've just made a scene of their anger. Most things you do wrong carry their own punishments, built in.

As for long term, vicious incivility... I've seen several people de-sysoped for something like that. Editors who've contributed a lot get cut more slack, but nobody can push and push forever. -GTBacchus^(talk) 23:09, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

"Tolerant of me" - Are you kidding? Laughable! Go ahead and point us to the diff where I did anything wrong. Frankly, this whole thing stinks - why is everyone so eager to hide this thread? ATren 22:20, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to un-archive this thread, since no one's paying any attention to the archival anyway. As to the dispute, this really isn't the venue (see "not the Wikipedia complaints department" and "not dispute resolution"). If you're eager to continue this line of discussion, then I'd suggest a user-conduct request for comment. That way nothing is being hidden and you'll get plenty of outside input. Personally, I'd suggest letting it go, but if you don't feel like doing so, then follow the other steps outlined in dispute resolution. MastCell ^Talk 22:34, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

• In response to the desperate attempt to archive and close this thread, in addition I've been asked "what I want done", in addition to the fact that I said I would post the other times that JzG has used a personal attack - so guys, I'm simply stating this for the record, then I'm moving on, okay? It's all relevant... Here goes...

I sympathise with the fact that JzG has recently been apparently provoked off of Wikipedia - by trolls and vandals and some such.
On the other hand I well know that he is old enough and ugly enough (that's an expression, by the way) to not have to storm off like a baby. Other admins have (above) now said "please be tolerant of him, please be understanding, he got angry" etc etc - he's still an admin, he's still an adult, he has to keep the integrity of all admins.
So I don't think I want JzG blocked or banned, or somesuch, but are we on the same page: held accountable on some level. He seems completely intolerant of this.
Here is my list of at least 4 personal attacks by JzG. Two of them occured today:

1. "Wolff you are a tossblanket" - Edit Summary
2. "el ohesra" (arshole backwards) - | this Edit Summary
   
3. "Areshole" - [100]
4. "edit some articles or shut the fuck up you whining twat" - this diff
5. "Now go away and take your tiny mind with you" - this diff
   

As some users have pointed out, should this be tolerated by an admin simply because they've done a zillion edits? No, some receourse, some accountability is necessary. Wikipedia must remain civil. Rfwoolf 22:47, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

There is accountability. Wikipedia is completely transparent, and we each have to live with everything we've said and done here. JzG can never escape the fact that he's the guy who called you an "arsehole" and a "whining twat". That's on display for everyone to see. That's a repercussion. It's a stain on his reputation; a highly visible case of incivility. We don't do punishment here. There's no need to take any kind of administrative action to stop JzG making further attacks, so what else is there to do?

If you want to open an RfC, then please do so, but this is not a matter for AN/I. -GTBacchus^(talk) 23:04, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

What, exactly though, do you want us to do. I don't want another stupid list of complaints, I want you to tell us what you want done, because up to now, it's all very childish "he did this and he did that". If you're not going to start making some meaningful suggestions to resolve this issue, I'm going to block every single person who complains for 24 hours in order that they have time to think of ways to resolve this situation. Nick 23:06, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

User:A_Jalil, etc. and WP:POINT

Third time's a charm? I seriously need an admin to intervene here. Among many other things, A Jalil is:

• Deleting dozens of scholarly sources from an article
• Blind reverting a WikiProject and deleting its scope, claiming an irrelevant NPOV concern

He is generally avoiding talk pages and blind reverting several articles, along with User:Wikima and to a lesser extent User:Juiced_lemon. Please someone assist me here. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 19:11, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Uninvolved editor
Admin intervention is needed. HappyFarmerofAsparagus 20:29, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Feddhicks

Feddhicks (talk · contribs) is an obvious sock of banned user Dereks1x. Their editing style, politics, and the timing of the account creation all reveal puppetry. What caps it, though, is explained in a comment I made here. Feddhicks claims I was reverting him at the Barack Obama article, when, in fact, I've hardly touched the article in over two months and have never reverted Feddhicks as far as I know (I was, however, reverting Dereks1x and his other socks at that article and others). The user has an extensive history of puppetry. Since Feddhicks is clearly a sock, and since I would be here requesting a block review if I blocked him myself because of my involvement in discussion with him, I'm here asking for someone else to do the honors. Thanks. · jersyko talk 19:29, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Block review

Nevermind, I pulled the trigger. Please review my block of Feddhicks as an obvious sockpuppet of Dereks1x. I am requesting this review given my involvement in the discussion at the Obama FAR. · jersyko talk 19:50, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Block is inappropriate because administrator is having a content dispute here [[101]]. Unblock request was denied by another person also engaged in the same discussion. This is conflict of interest being done by 2 administrators. HappyFarmerofAsparagus 20:28, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

N.B., this is HappyFarmerofAsparagus' 10th edit to Wikipedia. · jersyko talk 20:30, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I have been here for months, do not blabber needlessly, and nobody else on AN/I has a problem with me. HappyFarmerofAsparagus 20:37, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I never said I had a problem with you, I said that was your 10th edit. Am I wrong? · jersyko talk 21:01, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

HappyFarmer might be "new", but he is right about the fact that both Jersyko and Zscout are involved in a content dispute with the blocked editor. That said, a surface pass over Feddhicks' contributions shows that s/he's a bit problematic to deal with. I provisionally endorse, but someone outside of the debate over the Barak Obama FAR should have made the block. A Train^talk 21:13, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Sexual Harassment

Resolved

[102]

Not to mention what amounts to vandalism, 3RR violations, and gross incivility. --Haizum μολὼν λαβέ 19:33, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

That's pretty unacceptable. I've issued Cr8tiv a 3-hour block to read WP:Civility. Looking further into this. A Train^talk 19:49, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Civility, please. Both may be wrong, don't know. Cr8tiv should have used only the 1st half of his comments of 19:31, not the bottom half. HappyFarmerofAsparagus 20:25, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree, more or less. Please see my earlier comments on the talk pages of both editors. A Train^talk 20:40, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Removal of blue links

Voyage of the Damned (Doctor Who) has had several red-links in the cast-list, which were removed. I protested. I then created the articles, and the links have been removed twice. What's wrong with linking to articles that exist, of actors in an episode?--Rambutan (talk) 19:51, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

"Cackling in edit summaries is proof of vandalism." Eh... —Kurykh 19:53, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, quite. But I can't replace them (3RR).--Rambutan (talk) 19:54, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Ram has a habit of using passive agressive behaviour to mask his own poor behaviour on here. I am no longer involved in the editing on that page at the moment. There is much more here but I am not childish and will no longer be engaging this rather tiresome individual who consistantly shows poor faith in others.AlanD 19:57, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

No, you twice removed the links. Why?--Rambutan (talk) 19:58, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

They've been put back now, anyway, so it don't matter.--Rambutan (talk) 20:08, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Once new article are written, I can't see why links are not ok. HappyFarmerofAsparagus 20:22, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

As another editor on that article, I have tried reasoning with Rambutan as well, and that wore me out. It started with putting ref links to every announced actor where one would have sufficed. With every action I or others take, he demands that policies be cited to justify our edits, even when removing some red links. Then he created some rather poor stubs of of not so notable actors so he could link to them, just to make a point. Considering Rambutan's block log, he has a history of going against consensus. Now I and AlanD have to justify ourselves here. He needs coaching, but I'm not up for it. --Edokter (Talk) 20:40, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I am willing to coach. I haven't formed an opinion of who is bad or good. HappyFarmerofAsparagus 20:59, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

It's good of you to offer to help, HappyFarmer, but maybe you should wait until you've been around for a few months and are more familiar with the way things work around here. A Train^talk 21:02, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I think it's obvious from his or her edits that he or she has some experience. Whether or not he or she should intervene in this particular dispute is another matter on which I have no comment. --ElKevbo 21:22, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I am very old, nearly retirement age. I remember the days when I used a slide ruler. That was before calculators, which was before computers, which was before Blackberrys. I don't play childish games, not to imply that this guy or that guy is childish. Usually, I just watch wikipedia, not edit. HappyFarmerofAsparagus 21:53, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Removal of comments

I thought my comments were fairly reasonable. I left a comment on Jimbo's talk page asking for his help on something. The comment was reverted by User:SqueakBox a few seconds later [103], [104]. Now I know I'm an anon user, but I believe Jimbo should be the one deciding whether I'm a troll or not. I left my justifications for my comment on SqueakBox's talk page, but that also got deleted without an answer [105]. Now if I'm an anon user and I want to contact Jimbo, don't I have the right to do so? Please do something about this, at least let Jimbo see my comment. --81.177.20.215 22:58, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

24.66.94.140

24.66.94.140 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) had a six month block imposed on January 11 which just expired. It looks like most of the edits made today are vandalism (a couple are too foreign to me to know and several are subtle). Can someone take a look (I need to get some RW work done) and act if necessary. -- DS1953 ^talk 23:04, 11 July 2007 (UTC)