Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

This page is for urgent incidents or chronic, intractable behavioral problems.

• Before posting:
  • Read these tips for dealing with incivility
  • If the issue concerns a specific user, try discussing it with them on their talk page
  • Try dispute resolution
  • Just want an admin? Contact a recently active admin directly.
• Be brief and include diffs demonstrating the problem
• Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead go to Requests for oversight.

When starting a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page; pinging is not enough.
You may use {{subst:ANI-notice}} ~~~~ to do so.

---

Closed discussions are usually not archived for at least 24 hours. Routine matters might be archived more quickly; complex or controversial matters should remain longer. Sections inactive for 72 hours are archived automatically by Lowercase sigmabot III. Editors unable to edit here are sent to the /Non-autoconfirmed posts subpage. (archives, search)

Start a new discussion

---

Massive tennis page moves

User:Tennis expert moved a bunch of bio articles about various tennis players from titles with diacritics to titles without. He cites some sort of consensus which I assume refers to this localized discussion Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Tennis#Naming_of_tennis_biographies. Diacritics or no diacritics is a Wikipedia-wide issue and individual projects should not carve exceptions for itself. Thus I bring it to the wider audience for comments. Renata (talk) 06:20, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

This isn't really the place for that. This page is here to report incidents that require the intervention of an administrator using tools that are only available to administrators. Comment withdrawn. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 06:33, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

See this, this, and the items linked therein. Tennis expert (talk) 06:41, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

The moves should be reversed - this seems to be one side of a very lengthy argument (several months) attempting to get its way by blunt force, and the move is neither required nor suggested by policy or style guides. Orderinchaos 08:34, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Need help here - a massive number of articles have been moved per this supposed "consensus" - 68 in a very short period of time. Tennis expert (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) appears to have been working in concert with Redux (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) on this one - the latter moved 20 on 20th May, some of those have already been moved back. Orderinchaos 08:54, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm not working in "concert" with anyone, i.e., there is no conspiracy. Redux began the discussion. Several editors, including myself, agreed with his proposal. He closed the discussion and said the renaming and edits should be implemented. And various people have followed through. It's as simple as that. Tennis expert (talk) 09:01, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

I apologise for my previous belief that you were aware of previous discussions on this matter. It still shouldn't have been done, but I was incorrect to jump to a conclusion on that. Orderinchaos 09:46, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

I think most have been moved back now. All biographies are usually part of more than one WikiProject so a single project should not really even discuss about doing something this controversial to a large number of articles. Prolog (talk) 10:40, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

When doing things that might appear suspicious or vandalism to other users, always take care to link on the edit summary to the discussion where the changes obtained consensus. It avoids lots of problems --Enric Naval (talk) 15:49, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. As Tennis Expert also did: here On the other hand some editor "Pokrajac" just reverted by either no edit summary or "Per all Serbian names". And that editor keeps disrupting the article against consensus for that particular article. So who is to be banned? I loose more and more faith in this whole project. Where is a clear rule, a thrustworthy editor (in the non-wiki sense of the word) when you need one? --HJensen, talk 08:55, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

If you think we should change to Djokovic, than we must change all other Serbian, Croatian, Bosnik, and Polish names. Open new voting for all non-English names if you want to make something. Whitout that this is only double standard. --Pockey (talk) 13:29, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

You should have made these arguments earlier. You cannot go against a consensus by your unilateral disrupive edits.--HJensen, talk 14:47, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Incorrect. This debate has been raging for eight months in different locations, and to claim one very limited consensus on one WikiProject (which represented a determined minority in nearly all of the other discussions) and ignoring all previous activity on the subject (which I might note ended up on the arbitration pages on at least two occasions but was never certified) is the end of the matter is not a way to facilitate cooperation. Consensus, as far as I can see, was not designed as a tool to beat people's heads in when they have the opposite POV to one's own - it was actually meant to avoid the entire silliness to begin with. Unfortunately, its spirit, as often happens, has been thrown out the window here, as has civility and a few other things. Orderinchaos 15:58, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

So I can just change names to English spelling over and over just writing "Because I say it is correct" in the edit summary? I am genuinly trying to find out how this disorganized anarchy works. Sometimes when I think I understand it, new people come up with new interpretations telling me that I got it wrong. So my question is not sarcastic. Can I do it? And do you appreciate Pokrajac´s edits to the Djokovic article? --HJensen, talk 19:46, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

For those poor souls who are still watching, six of them are at WP:RM. Orderinchaos 15:15, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

What about those poor folks who watch over WP:RM? (I need some acetylsalicylic acid....) JPG-GR (talk) 05:36, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

(de-indent) Can we come up with a better, more centralized location to discuss this rather than on the actual WP:RM page itself? WP:RM has never been the place for discussion but merely a bulletin board for proposals. Quite frankly, in it's current state, it's a circus. JPG-GR (talk) 03:17, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

RMHED questionable comments in questionable discussion

Disclaimer: I do not make it a habit to complain here, as some do. It seems we have a large body of tattlers whose entire Wikipedia career revolves around getting involved in assorted fights on these noticeboards and filing assorted administrative actions, RfCs and RfArs etc. I also have expressed my opinions about what I see is an irrational application of principles like WP:CIVIL to increasingly mild and subtle slights, and the increasing misuse of WP:CIVIL as a weapon (see this for a discussion of my own feelings about WP:CIVIL).

However, there is a limit, and I humbly suggest that this sort of comment might be approaching that limit. It is part and parcel of what looks to be a fairly rancorous discussion that is probably unproductive for fostering harmony and comity. Perhaps when a line like this is crossed, it would be appropriate for people to be cautioned, if not more. I would also suggest that any admins who have taken part in this sort of discussion without attempting to dampen its hostile tone and even encouraged some of its more negative aspects are clearly not acting in accordance with what we would expect of administrators on Wikipedia.--Filll (talk | wpc) 13:43, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Have you discussed that edit with the user on his talk page before coming here? Not that I disagree with you- then again it was a day and a half ago now. Sticky Parkin 16:27, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

No I have not. I only just learned about it from seeing an announcement of the conversation on Orangemarlin's talk page: [1]. Interesting response, but not unexpected. We will see how important WP:CIVIL is, I guess, won't we? --Filll (talk | wpc) 17:00, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

? I'm not sure what you mean, but I assure you WP:CIVIL is one of my favourite policies. Why didn't you just warn or advise User:RMHED that his edit was not appropriate? Or I will, I can do that even though I'm only a lowly editor.:) Why go straight to AN/I rather than first speak to the user yourself? Other than that, I'm sure no-one here will disagree with you that the comment was inappropriate, but by the dispute resolution processes you could simply have warned or spoke to him yourself, AN/I is not something to use straight away before speaking to the user personally.Sticky Parkin 17:46, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I am no expert in dealing with WP:CIVIL. I have never reported anyone for a WP:CIVIL violation before. In fact, I am fairly unimpressed with noticeboards in general, and usually am only here to defend myself from some attack or other, or chime in to defend a friend. And in those instances, I personally have not seen some sort of delicate coordinated dance with escalating talk page warnings, but maybe they were not following correct procedure. The only case I have ever observed this is for 3RR.--Filll (talk | wpc) 17:53, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I am unfamiliar with standard procedures but I surmise I am supposed to notify the main party on their talk pages, which I did here. Should I notify others in that conversation who are engaged in questionable discussions or ignoring or encouraging questionable discussions?--Filll (talk | wpc) 17:44, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm not an expert:) I'm just saying you should have spoken to him first, as you've named part of this thread after one particular person. Maybe it should just be called "questionable discussion" if it's about the discussion? Just that your first comments made it seemed like it was RMHED's edit you objected to in particular. I'm sure after all this time on wiki you are familiar with the dispute resolution process.:) You could post about the AN/I thread in the discussion, that way everyone following it will know about it, but you should have spoken to the individual editor first, as it seems (rightfully) to be this particular comment of his that upsets you, as well as the discussion as a whole. Sticky Parkin 17:53, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Oh a thought- witiquette alerts board- Wikipedia:Wikiquette_alerts, I'd forgotten about that, might be just the thing you're after. Sticky Parkin 17:55, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

As usual, this just makes things so complicated it is not even worth it. Typical. But of course, calling someone a "homeopathy promoter" or a "self promoter" or saying someone has a "silly argument" are sanctionable under WP:CIVIL. But implying someone is a f@ckwit is not. Ah, so reasonable and rational...--Filll (talk | wpc) 18:22, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Clearly out-of-line. I've gone ahead and removed. Mahalo. --Ali'i 19:44, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

No more out of line than Orangemarlin's nasty insinuations, I've reinstated my comment. RMHED (talk) 20:38, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps, but my mommy told me two wrongs don't make a right. I've removed it again. I would request you not reinsert it. You can stand by your statement a thousand times over, but unless you are contributing to the discussion, there is absolutely no need for it to be there, and only adds to inflaming the situation. I won't remove it again, but please consider just leaving it be. Mahalo. --Ali'i 21:05, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

What you and your mommy discuss is of no interest to me, if you believe my comment is unhelpful then ignore it, but please do not remove it. RMHED (talk) 21:46, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

And added another example here. I am glad to see that our political correctness police are so anxious to address these violations of WP:CIVIL.--Filll (talk | wpc) 20:53, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

• Best to just ignore it. Someone else has added it back, and it is by no means worth edit-warring over. If an admin wants to leave a civility warning, then thats fine, but I don't think any further discussion is warranted about this here. Avruch ^T 21:19, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Well if I was an admin, I would have cautioned several people here to just tone it down a tad, on all sides of the issue. Stupidly, I thought that is what would transpire here. Goes to show what I know. Ah well...--Filll (talk | wpc) 00:35, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I added it back (fuckwit). I am very tired of the facist like "enforcement" of the WP:CIVIL policy. I'm all about following policy and I even have admin aspirations in the future, but this is too much. Beam 21:32, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Fuckwit is not civil, unless one is clearly referring to oneself, in which case it's funny. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 22:07, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps you can read the statement in question, no one was called fuckwit. But yes, Beam is a fuckwit. :D Beam 01:02, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Well I have been keeping track of some of the nice examples of alleged WP:CIVIL violations that I have run across over the last while here. And interestingly, none of them are as bad as calling someone a "f@ckwit", let alone doing it more than once and edit warring over it. This has been, and continues to be, an exceedingly nice example of massive hypocrisy which I am glad to be able to point to. I guess it all depends on who is doing the name-calling then, doesn't it? Frankly, the political correctness police and champions of wikilove all look pretty bad as far as I am concerned. And I am glad to have this nice example proving that Wikipedia is full of it on this issue. Very very nice.--Filll (talk | wpc) 22:20, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Filll, read WP:POINT please. AN/I is not a mechanism for poking people so you can collect diffs for your pet theory. --Relata refero (disp.) 10:59, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I fail to see how this is a violation of POINT, Relata. It seems to be a concern about a personal attack in what is already a drama-ridden Rfa. I support Ali'i's attempts to resolve this. Perhaps you should read WP:AGF, or at least apply it a little better. When people are tossing around terms like "fuckwit" I don't see that being concerned can be construed as POINT. KillerChihuahua^?!? 15:37, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't believe that it is a failure to assume good faith: Fill himself says that rather than discussing it he brought it here because "We will see how important WP:CIVIL is, I guess, won't we?" right up at the beginning of this thread. Whatever. --Relata refero (disp.) 16:56, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I must be reading some other ANI. I don't see Filll saying that at all. Would you please paste the diff where Filll states this? KillerChihuahua^?!? 17:25, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

His second comment in this section, stamped 17:00, 2 June 2008 (UTC). --Relata refero (disp.) 19:18, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Where he states he has not discussed it with the editor on their talk page, and he (two sentences later) states "we'll will see how important WP:CIVIL is" but he most certainly does not give the one as a reason for the other. I suggest you reconsider your allegation and retract it as a bad-faith accusation. KillerChihuahua^?!? 19:35, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I would if the two sentences in any way reduced, rather than increased, the sense that one was the reason for the other. You're really pushing the English language here. I would also note that his subsequent behavior seems to provide ample more substantiation. Frankly, if this all you think worth doing in this thread.... --Relata refero (disp.) 22:36, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I would beg to differ. I was not trying to make some sort of WP:POINT here. Now those who disagreed with the use of the term "white pride" might have not made their arguments in the most elegant way possible, and possibly should have been cautioned for inflaming this situation, which is already fraught with more than enough tension. However, those who repeatedly responded with the "f*ckwit" expression, and edit-warred to keep it, and spread it, and those who encouraged this and did not caution them also raise my eyebrows a little. Both sides need to calm down on this issue, and we do not need to have this sort of inflammatory dialogue on Wikipedia, no matter what might have inspired it. I thought that probably both sides would be mildly cautioned within minutes of me posting my comment a day or so ago. I guess I was wrong, which is interesting, isn't it? However, I did not plan to be wrong so I could have another datapoint for a list. That is just silly (with apologies to anyone who is offended by my use of the word "silly").

My two cents, for whatever it is worth: The problem with some of these "code words" is that they offend someone. I do not agree that people have any right to not be offended, but Wikipedia has become a very visible venue on the internet, and therefore Wikipedia cannot afford to cross certain lines (just like the BBC or CNN or the Wall Street Journal or Yahoo! cannot afford to cross similar lines). That is probably the best reason I can think of for tightening up on the WP:CIVIL policy. We shouldn't be going out of our way to offend people when we don't have to.

Now to some people, "white pride" might just seem like a brand of bread, and something that should not offend anyone, but a quick google search shows that, rightly or wrongly, this phrase has acquired all kinds of incredibly negative connotations and is likely to be offensive to many. Just like the "c word" is not particularly offensive in Australia (and its counterpart in French is incredibly innocuous), but it is among the most offensive English words in some places, so it should be treated with sensitivity and care by Wikipedia. And the "n word" when used by young African Americans among themselves might be only somewhat offensive, but when others use it in other contexts, the US FCC can hand out multimillion dollar fines for its use during broadcasts. Therefore, Wikipedia should be exercise caution about how and where it uses the "n word".

Someone using "white pride" or the "c word" or the "n word" might not mean to use any of these words in a negative way, but some will inevitably take offense. Just like the use of the term "f*ckwit" will probably offend a substantial fraction of people. And to not realize this shows a lack of maturity and a lack of judgement.

So we all need to just resolve to do better about not making these situations worse, and making them less contentious if possible. And that is the reason I came here to this noticeboard; to try to squelch this ugly undercurrent of drama if I could. And to get some outside eyes on the issue for their input. I thought that was the purpose of these noticeboards, and I thought I would try it in this instance.

Is that wrong? Well ok, then why not write it up and put it an RfC against me. Let's examine it in detail, shall we? Let's get community input on the issue.--Filll (talk | wpc) 16:11, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

About the racism ...

Forget about Filll's point for a while, as it was certainly not the right point to make about that discussion. What is really disturbing is that OM is being taught the word "fuckwit" for expressing concerns about racist propaganda. That's what fucks my wits about this situation. That someone as esteemed as LaraLove can then comment that the article on white pride has recently been rewritten to fail NPOV, when in fact the recent rewrite of the lead finally bases the article on an academic source instead of buying into subtle racist propaganda...

As the person who has probably put most recent work into the white pride article, I reject that accusation, and am shocked that it was not made in the proper place: the article talk page. I note that LaraLove has not once edited this article. If she has other sources to provide, I welcome her contribution. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 20:09, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I've had my disagreements with Filll about the proper application of NPOV on intelligent design, but that disagreement fades in comparison to how much I agree with him on a though stance against racism. It would be nice if the Wikipedians, who insist that white pride and white supremacy are distinct, would clearly explain whether:

1. they are themselves truly racist;
2. they are innocently buying into racist propaganda; or
3. they were in some sense writing for the enemy, trying to express the racist view on the wiki without themselves subscribing to it.

In any case, I want to make clear that the concerns about racism is not limited to the so called anti-ID group, but probably shared by anyone, who has experienced racist violence in person. Thank you, Merzul (talk) 13:54, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

What about:

4. They are trying to "take back" (or in their own locality have successfully done so, or in their own locality it has never been used by racists) the term "white pride" from the racists.

Are we not even considering this a possibility? --Random832 (contribs) 15:12, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Do you have a reliable source which verifies this possible interpretation? KillerChihuahua^?!? 15:25, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't believe there are any reliable sources about the motivations of particular wikipedians in their use of language. There certainly aren't any more reliable sources for the other interpretations than for this one. --Random832 (contribs) 17:07, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Not by wikipedians - by anyone - and yes, there are reliable sources for it being a racist term. KillerChihuahua^?!? 17:23, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Here's one: The White Separatist Movement in the United States: "White Power, White Pride!". Note the comments from reviewers classifying themselves as "within" these movements as to the validity of this book as a reference. Amerique^dialectics 17:52, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, are you suggesting the comments and reviews by RandomPeople^tm are reliable sources? KillerChihuahua^?!? 17:54, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

No, but they're not arguing semantics over whether "white pride" is racist! To further clarify, the book itself is a relatively recent sociological study published by a reputable academic press. I pointed out the comments of the on-line reviewers to draw attention to the fact that use of the term "white pride" is not inconsonant, inconsistent, or in any way incompatible with "white separatism," or by implication, "white supremacy," although the text itself does also point out that people "within" these movements do perceive valid distinctions. Amerique^dialectics 18:01, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure if I or KC understand what you're saying with this source, but note that one of the first editorial reviews says "A unique, timely, rigorously researched, and provocative examination of the white supremacist movement in the United States... " -- Walda Katz-Fishman, Howard University, while From the Publisher, "A comprehensive, timely, and critical examination of the landscape of organized white supremacism in the United States today...."—Kathleen M. Blee, University of Pittsburgh, so the academic view seems to be that it is a synonym for white supremacism. . . dave souza, talk 18:52, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, the observation may have been inappropriate on my part. Assuming the on-line reviewers of that book also "mean what they say" about themselves, the validity of that book seems to be widely acknowledged. Its use of terms is not in dispute. Amerique^dialectics 19:12, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, that's really clear. Of course outsiders can find this US phenomenon hard to follow, though it seems to have caught on with the UK neo-Nazis. A bit that annoys me is that they seem to call their logo, which looks uncomfortably like WWII Axis aircraft insignia, a Celtic cross :-/ . . . dave souza, talk 19:31, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Further note, I'm not trying to suggest that people who have been tossing this term around as some kind of positive descriptor are necessarily racist... If they say they are not, I am willing to take them "at their word," so to speak, as to what they mean about their beliefs. But if there is one thing that would put me or any number of people I know and respect in the real world on the "wrong side" of anyone, in any situation, this is it. Amerique^dialectics 18:58, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Most definitely concur with Merzul. I was reading over the relevant RFA talk page, but didn't see how I could make an intervention given the gross incivility on both sides there. That "pride/supremacy" may be distinct concepts semantically does not mean that they are significantly "different" or inconsonant. Indeed, the notion of racial supremacy could not realistically function or even exist without an underlying notion of racial pride. And no, I am not considering that they are trying to "take back" the term from racists... both terms are racist, and WP is not a soapbox. Amerique^dialectics 15:41, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

As words, racial pride is not equivalent to racial supremacy, it could simply mean self-affirmation. That may not be how it's being used by racists, though. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 15:48, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

In any context use of the term gets interperted as racist by people who don't base their self-affirmation on skin color. Amerique^dialectics 16:03, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

More significantly, an expert witness has testified that the phrase in question has come into use by white supremacists. I'm glad to see that Orangemarlin has clarified his statement to make it clear that he doesn't think people who naively use the term are racist, but share his concern that such use can encourage and give tacit support to racism. . . dave souza, talk 16:55, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Has anyone involved in this article used references from the Southern Poverty Law Center website here? They appear to have a neat-o (and depressing) map where you can see how many racist organizations are in your state. They define them, but use "White Nationalist" "Neo Confederate" "Racist Skinhead" amongst the types of groups. Though "White Pride" is not the name of a type of hate group, a search for the term "White Pride" brings up 70 articles that reference the name in racist ideology. --Moni3 (talk) 19:13, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I've fitfully been trying to improve this article, including its sourcing. I've found it quite astonishing that so many people in this now almost interminable debate, which I otherwise have no desire to enter, have referred to it (mostly to point out that WP has two distinct articles, white pride and white supremacy), but made little or no attempt to improve it by doing some research of their own. The article is still a long way from being much good, however. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 19:55, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Wow. "neat-o and depressing" is precisely accurate. Thanks for putting the link here Moni3. KillerChihuahua^?!? 19:38, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

On a related note, I'd hesitate to use SPLC as a sole source. I share their general politics, but they have been criticized at times even within the left for exaggerating the threat of racist and far-right groups, on behalf of their fundraising. Alex Cockburn has been particularly critical of them on this account and while he may not be exactly a kumbaya type in his relations with others on the left, he is certainly no defender of white supremacists. I'd use them as a good pointer to where to do further research, but I'd be particularly suspicious of any list of organizations they put together: it's likely to include some guy in an attic with a computer and a letterhead as if he were an organization. - Jmabel | Talk 20:17, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Question: Is White Pride offensive to anyone and does any significant group claim that it has racist overtones ?

• Apparently the US PTO declines to register the trademark "White Pride Country Wide" as it is deemed to violate Section 2(a):

"Section 2(a) Refusal

"Registration is refused because the proposed mark consists of or comprises immoral or scandalous matter. Trademark Act Section 2(a) U.S.C. 1052(a); TMEP 1203.01. According to the attached evidence from a Lexis/Nexis database and a search of the Internet using the search engine www.google.com, the "WHITE PRIDE" element of the proposed mark is considered offensive and therefore scandalous."

/s/ by Barbara Rutland, USPTO Examining Attorney

When the applicant sought assistance from the ACLU, apparently the ACLU legal assistant agreed:

ACLU agrees "White Pride" is "offensive":

"Thus, when the PTO examined Moritz's mark, their rejection of his mark was reasonable given that such a slogan has just but one meaning, i.e., superiority of what he term[s] (sic) 'the [w]hite race' over all other races and their brand of Christianity over the other religions."

/s/ by Renee Hamilton, legal assistant for ACLU-MN

• The well known neonazi Group Storm Front has a website with the title "Stormfront White Pride World Wide" [2] and lists the related links as White Nationalist/ White Pride links

• Google reports that related searches for "white pride" are kkk, aryan nation, naawp, and skinheads [3]

• The Yahoo! White Pride and Racialism list [4] includes links to Stormfront and the Klu Klux Klan and David Duke and the National Socialist Movement (Nazi) [5] the Afrikaner Resistance Movement of South Africa [6] and similar websites

• The Anti-Defamation League (ADL) has a lot of material on this. For example, Don Black: White Pride World Wide

• The website Naziwatch: Outing Nazi Scum has material on this such as The Problem With White Pride

• The Southern Poverty Law Center also has material on this such as White Pride Worldwide: The white power music industry is helping to drive the internationalization of neo-Nazism, Intelligence Report, Fall 2001

There is a lot more that is easy to get if there is any question about this.--Filll (talk | wpc) 20:25, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

You know, on reading this set I'd suggest that before editing sensitive politics articles, please familiarise yourself with what we prefer as sources in those areas. We have enough people going around stacking all sorts of articles with SPLC and primary sources when there are excellent academic sources available, we could do without one more. --Relata refero (disp.) 22:39, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

You know, I was not aware that this list was suggested for use as reliable sources in a Wikipedia article. If you find such a suggestion, please provide a link to it. Otherwise, I humbly suggest that some might regard your post as a flagrant violation of WP:POINT. I posted this list in answer to the question I posed, "Is White Pride offensive to anyone and does any significant group claim that it has racist overtones ?". I believe that this list suggests that there might be at least one significant group that claims the term has racist overtones. Do you believe that this list does not suggest that there is at least one significant group that claims the term has racist overtones?

If you want to raise that issue, then feel free to do it with sources. I would be most interested to see you demonstrate with evidence that there is no significant group offended by this term and no significant group that believes this term has racist overtones. Please feel free to compile such evidence at your earliest convenience.--Filll (talk | wpc) 13:54, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I never claimed the list didn't answer the question you asked, merely pointing out that the question you asked was the sort we don't usually like to see in an academic project, and a significant digression from or reframing of the subject of the discussion. Those of us with experience in controversial articles are familiar with such behavior....:) --Relata refero (disp.) 18:48, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

You don't like to see that sort of question? Well it was relevant to the issue at hand, which frankly had to do with behavior behind the scenes, not with actual content. And for someone who seems to worry so much about what goes on behind the scenes instead of actual content, that is quite a statement. Why are you trying to pick a fight here?--Filll (talk | wpc) 22:04, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

By the way, if you want to see a bunch of reliable sources on the same issue, just look at the white pride article itself. But you seem not to care to do anything except just fight for the sake of fighting. Some might wonder if you appear to be a chronic complainer and miscreant and malcontent. It does not matter to me particularly, but this is unproductive, like arguing about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin...--Filll (talk | wpc) 22:13, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Umm, the last time this was here I kept on suggesting people work on the article and got shouted down, so I'm not doing it this time.... you should always check the precedents, you know. And the point is the reliable sources aren't the ones you brought up... "some might say" that that was revealing. (I love "some might say". I didn't say it, guv'nor! But some might! Especially if I repeatedly suggest it!)

About me being a chronic complainer, I'm still laughing. --Relata refero (disp.)

This has sunk into irrelevance. I fail to see what on earth this has to do with the price of tea in china. Wow.--Filll (talk | wpc) 14:42, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Please tell me that OrangeMarlin is not STILL defending his right to call fellow editors "Anti-Semetic, racist pigs", please? SirFozzie (talk) 20:22, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

SirFozzie, please don't bring that up here, it is inappropriate. So far as I know, he said that once, and has not "defended his right" at all. Why escalate and increase the drama? Rather than trying to add to the divisiveness, please try to be constructive. KillerChihuahua^?!? 20:26, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Do you have a link for that? Where is he defending such a thing?--Filll (talk | wpc) 20:25, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Anybody who denies that historically the term "White Pride" has been associated with White Supremacy is mistakenly niave. But I do believe that the two terms are not necessarily synonymous. Historically a white male who shaved his head was also a racist, but the tie between a shaven head and being a skin-head is not as pronounced today as it was 20 years ago. Likewise, there is tons of words that have been reclaimed by different groups. Today, there are people who, when properly couched, do not see "white pride" as any more racist than "black pride", "Korean Pride", "Gay Pride" etc. While the term "white pride" is often a strong indicator of a white supremist, the use has to be viewed in full context of the person using it. I do not hide from my heritage and am not embarrassed by it---but that doesn't mean that I am a supremist (if I was I would have a problem with my black sister-in-law and even my son!) Instead. I encourage those who are interested to embrace their own heritages as well. I think it's a shame that a caucassian who fails to express remorse over his/her race, is labelled a racist by some. Some use the term "White Pride" because they wish join other Pride movements in their self identify exploration (ala Black/Korean/Asian/gay) not because they see themselves as being superior. When given the proper context, I will use the term "white pride" both in an effort to reclaim it from the bastards to who it is usually applied AND in an effort to join my brothers and sisters in their various cultural/racial/ethnic/religious pride movements. I know that is not how the term is typically used, and thus only use it when/where I can explain what I am doing. But I also know that I am not the only one who wants to reclaim the phrase.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 04:01, 5 June 2008 (UTC) Lest somebody point to the use of the word "Black" to describe my sister in law, I should point out that she is not an African American.

• My two cents - I'm white and absolutely proud of it. I'm proud of all my people have accomplished. Everything from the wheel to the atomic bomb. I am not racist though. Remember, Hitler took the swastika, a non-offensive religious symbol and used it for his own purposes. The same goes for the term White Pride. Let's not get too caught up in liberal guilt. --Doctor Bojangles (talk) 06:37, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Therein lies the challenge though. It's the different between intention and perception. On the rare occassions that I might use the term "white pride," I do not do so to instill "white supremacy" or elitism. I do not do so because I believe one race is better than the other. I do so because one should not feel guilty or ashamed of being who/what they are---and if others can (and are encouraged) to take pride in whom/what they are---and I can't simply because of my race then there is a problem. My intention is to be proud of my heritage, without demeaning others, and in fact I believe by using the term white pride, I should be able to connect with others. That is the intention. The perception is entirely different. I am very conscious that in the US White Pride is traditionally associated with White Supremacy. It is a buzz word that many racist use---and when you hear/see it, the perception is "racist." It does have a racist undertone. As a caucassian I can't deny that, and it would be careless of me not to recognize that reality. I can't assume that others understand the efforts of those who want to reclaim the term in a non-judgmental/positive way---I have to assume that they see it as a negative... and then try to educate them that for some, it isn't always synonymous with racism. I believe that in order for true diversity to occur, caucassians have to be invited to the same table as minorities--- if you exclude caucassians from the discussion or treat them as second rate citizens, then you aren't working towards true racial equality, but rather a different racial paradigm. If I can get others to be open to that posibility, then I feel like I'vesucceeded.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 15:45, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Well you are not getting the point. It does not matter what you mean by it. What matters is that some use the term in a racist fashion, and so it is going to offend a significant group of people. When I used the term "Oriental" in the past to refer to people from East Asia, I did not mean to offend anyone and I did not intend to demean anyone by using that term. Nevertheless, at some point in the recent past, the term "Oriental" became politically incorrect when used to refer to people from East Asia. And so I do not use the term "Oriental" for these purposes any longer. And you will find that every major media organization probably also does not use the term "Oriental" in this way. Because there is no sense in going out of our way to offend some group of people of substantial size. And the same is true of "White Pride". It might be quite accurate to state that you do not think it should be offensive, or that in your eyes it is not offensive. That is irrelevant. The fact is, clearly, some substantial group find it offensive. That is all we need to know. Period.

By the way, it is quite arguable that "white people" did not discover the wheel or first create the atomic bomb, depending on your definition of "white people". And particularly in the case of the Atomic bomb, which happened so recently, to suggest that this was an invention of "white people" just is amazing. Absolutely incredible, frankly.--Filll (talk | wpc) 19:48, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Incivility is incivility

Unfortunately, this thread has somehow gotten hijacked by conjectures about the editor who opened it. This is why it is important to respect WP:CIVIL in all interactions so that unclean hands arguments cannot derail a legitimate and serious civility issue. In the hopes that my own hands are sufficiently tidy (I've just washed them), allow me to restate the central points here:

• RMHED called Orangemarlin a fuckwit.[7]
• The context of the insult was that Orangemarlin had made a comment that identified white pride as a subtle racist code word in North America, to an editor who resided in another continent and might not have known the history behind that term.
• The profane insult followed immediately after a reference to two senior Wikipeidans, who are respected and openly Jewish.
• When notified about this thread, and politely cautioned about the problem,[8] RHMED compounded the insult.[9] not once but twice.

This has led to an edit war over the word fuckwit (which I repeat here only to quote), and in my opinion is an egregious example of precisely the kind of problem the WP:CIVIL policy was enacted to prevent: profanity in the context of bigotry, placed in a setting likely to be seen by people whose families had been murdered. The unresolved problem has expanded, and if an immediate block is not necessary to prevent its further expansion then I urge a warning--framed in the strongest terms--that this behavior thoroughly unacceptable and will be handled with the tools upon its next occurrence, by any party. Durova^Charge! 19:49, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Concur with Durova, an administrative response is appropriate and overdue. Amerique^dialectics 19:57, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Complete support on administrative reaction. This situation is way overdue and should be handled well. Durova, you put it just right. ^Mitch32^contribs 20:02, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

While I don't disagree with a block being issued and explicitly endorse it (edit-warring insults back in is not done, period!), I'd like to make sure that we know the cause here. And that's OM calling another editor a "anti-Semetic, racist pig" multiple times. While no block was issued at the time (we do not punish well after the item), I think it's fair to note that if it happens again, a block should be the only recourse. SirFozzie (talk) 20:32, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Orangemarlin had also requested review of his actions, then continued to post about the matter after making the request. That's why I call his actions ambiguous. One thing is unambigous: stubborn profane insults make the problem worse rather than better. Let us all demonstrate the decorum we ask others to observe. Durova^Charge! 21:25, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, I would have done so some time ago, except I'm OMG a member of the ID CABAL like Filll, so I'm not neutral, at least until the darn Rfarb is declined or done. In short, I prefer to avoid the appearance of impropriety. That said, I'll be more than happy to support any actions taken against the edit-warring inserter(s) of the offending word. Or failing that, if no one else steps forward, I will be happy to carry out any actions deemed necessary, if those here do not feel it would be out of place for me to do so. KillerChihuahua^?!? 20:10, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your discretion. I ask that a thorougly uninvolved admin make the call here, to avoid any appearance of impropriety. This is a difficult conflict and the most important thing is to resolve it quickly with minimal drama. I wish I had seen it before it expanded this far. Durova^Charge! 20:17, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I have done so, and invite review and comment on my actions. KillerChihuahua^?!? 20:17, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, while you were writing that, Durova, I had already done so. I beleive we have waiting long enough for a completely and unquestionably uninvolved admin to act, and IMO I am uninvolved enough for the current situation. KillerChihuahua^?!? 20:19, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Let's hope this puts a quiet end to the whole sad affair, and gives its participants time for solemn reflection. Durova^Charge! 20:24, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

The context of my remark was this statement by Orangemarlin "I asked slrubenstein and Jayjg, both of whom are fellow members of the tribe as to whether or not I was out of bounds on considering DHMO a racist, anti-semitic enabling pig" a clear personal attack on DHMO. My comment by comparison was not a personal attack I did not call Orangemarlin a f*ckwit, I merely suggest he see that wiktionary page. RMHED (talk) 20:25, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

As I said above, Now those who disagreed with the use of the term "white pride" might have not made their arguments in the most elegant way possible, and possibly should have been cautioned for inflaming this situation. Let's try to calm the situation down rather than make it worse, don't you think?--Filll (talk | wpc) 20:28, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Let's not muddy the waters: to the best of my knowledge DHMO is in a part of the world that is sleeping right now. So provisionally, my continued strong support for his RFA speaks for itself. I parse that as Orangemarlin acting in haste and anger, and asking two respected editors to review his reaction, yet (perhaps also in haste and anger) broadcasting that before receiving a response. These are explosive topics. Both DHMO's and Orangemarlin's actions are ambiguous. RHMED's action is unambiguous. It's time to resolve this quickly and quietly. Durova^Charge! 20:36, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Quite an experience for me, given that this is about 30.5 hours after I posted a note about something I thought would be settled in 30 minutes with a few cautions by an uninvolved admin. And I guess more than 70 hours after the initial problematic discussion erupted, without any of those watching it doing much to stop it, and maybe even encouraging it.--Filll (talk | wpc) 20:32, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I have removed two comments which drag up a comment already beaten to death. Cease and desist, people. We're all aware of OM's comment. KillerChihuahua^?!? 20:36, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

• Please do not remove my explanation of why I reacted the way I did, it is entirely relevant. RMHED (talk) 20:47, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

To Sir Fozzie and RHMED: I will not edit war over this. However, you are re-inflaming the situation rather than trying to do something productive. If you wish for context, surely you can link to the diff rather than ensure his ill-considered post is repeated and repeated again in boldface here. I cannot see any innocent motive for either of you; you seem to want to cause divisiveness and warring. Sir Fozzie is going so far as to mind-read OM's feelings about that post, in his edit summary. This is not helpful, people. KillerChihuahua^?!? 20:54, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Don't have to be telepathic to read this series of comments for what it is. [10] Also, if he wasn't proud to do it, why did he make the comments originally on Majorly's page, and defend them so vehemently? SirFozzie (talk) 20:57, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

RHMED, there is no context which could justify your reaction. Please withdraw it unambiguously. At that point, the context itself might be examined on its separate merits. Durova^Charge! 21:04, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

• Just noticed this edit by Orangemarlin, it's hard to spot among that monster of an RfA,[11], that settles it for me. Following OM's retraction of his earlier statement I wish to retract, (and apologise for offence caused), the inference of Fuckwittery I made against OM. Peace shall reign. RMHED (talk) 21:42, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Personally, I'm glad we don't see people smacked about the head on wiki- at least physically.:) Sticky Parkin 22:38, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. Durova^Charge! 23:04, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I thank Fill for bringing this up. I think Killerchihuahua is right, too - SirFozzie and perhaps RHMED seem to want to reinflame this matter. We need to distinguish two issues here: first, general issues about incivility; second, the particular's of Orangemarlin and RHMED's acts. As to the general matter: to call an anti-Semite and anti-Semite is not a personal attack; it is the anti-Semite who spreads hate, not the person who criticizes him for spreading hate. Orangemarlin was upset, but he was not bein incivil in the typical sense of incivility. incivility is when when, in the course of a conflict over an edit or contents of an article, one person is rude to another. The rudeness is motivated by the conflict over the edit. An anti-Semite or racist does not speak hatefully to a Jew or member of another race because of an edit conflict; they speak hatefully because they hate the person. I think we need to treat racist (including anti-Semitic) speech differently from typical forms of incivility. Similarly, to call a racist a racist is not a form of incivility. Someone calls a person a racist not because they disagree over an edit, but because they believe that person to be a racist (when someone calls me an asshole, by contrast, it is not because they really think I am just a big walking anus, it is because they are angry that I reverted them several times or something like that). It is wrong to accuse someone of being a racist when they are not, but that accusation is still different from incivility. Now for the particulars: Orangemarlin had reason to think H20 is a racist. At first, he was unsure of himself and asked me what I thought, without actually declaring that he thought H20 was a racist. orangemarlin did some research into the use of "White pride" and decided on that basis that H20 is a racist, and, as Fill said, wrote some ill-advised and nasty remarks. But he was motivated not by some edit conflict, he was motivated by what he thought was an insensitive or racist statement on H20's part. RHMED's response however was clearly uncivil and inappropriate. RHMED should have just told OrangeMarlin that he thought OM was mistaken and here's why. instead of resolving a conflict, RHMED wanted to escalate it. In any event, within a day or two Orangmarlin repented of his hasty conclusion and struck out his angry words. Now it seems like SirFozzie and RHMED still want to escalate the conflict. I have to wonder ... why would they want to do this? Frankly, the only conclusion I can draw is that they want to intimidate anyone who would ever think to accuse a racist of being a racist. This attempt to intimidate does not make Wikipedia a better place to work; it does not make it more civil. This attempt does not serve Wikipedia's interests. It serves the interests only of racists. Slrubenstein | Talk 12:35, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

• And making false accusations of racism serves only to give comfort to real racists. The label of racist should never, ever, be applied lightly, and the onus should always be on the accuser to prove their charge. I certainly don't want to esculate anything, where did you get that impression from? As far as I'm concerned it's old news, now do let it be, there's a good chap. RMHED (talk) 19:15, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

There is a big difference between a knowingly false accusation and a mistaken accusation; the latter gives no comfort at all to racists. OrangeMarlin did not think he was using the label lightly. Be that as it may, when he realized he could not prove the charge, he clearly regretted having made it and expressed as much in public. I am glad I was mistaken in thinking you wanted to escalate, my apologies. I am glad we can put it to rest! Slrubenstein | Talk 19:26, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Both Orangemarlin and RMHED have stepped back from their earlier statements. There has been no new incident that I'm aware of? Partly as a result of this incident, where swifter intervention might have prevented matters from degenerating as far as they did, I've opened a bureaucrats' noticeboard thread to request closer attention to high profile RFAs. I thank both parties here from pulling back from the brink and ask that we all move forward in a constructive spirit. Durova^Charge! 20:39, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

user:Jagz: Topic ban for review

I've proposed to ban Jagz (talk · contribs) from pages related, loosely, to race and intelligence for a period of 6 months, and would like to submit this topic ban for review. At some point in the past, Jagz made good encyclopedic contributions to Boy Scouts of America membership controversies, which is now a featured article. However, for at least the past 5-6 months he's been essentially a single-purpose account on issues related to race and intelligence, where he's clashed with numerous editors through tendentiousness and incivility. To be clear, he's not the only offender, but he's one of the most persistent.

Jagz was blocked for edit-warring on the article in March, and for personal attacks and incivility in May (see diffs and block log). Since the expiration of the block for personal attacks, he's "retired" from Wikipedia, but continues the same disruptive behavior on Talk:Race and intelligence which led to his second block.

Since Jagz has contributed constructively elsewhere but has been a disruptive presence at race and intelligence, I'm suggesting a finite topic ban of 6 months instead of another block. As he is "retired", it may be academic, but he continues to actively continue the same behavior which led to his most recent block, so I think that a further remedy is necessary. Comments welcome. MastCell ^Talk 22:17, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I think I deserve a medal for all the bullshit, including personal attacks and incivility, that I've had to endure to get anything done on the R&I article. The R&I article was essentially locked until February 1 and I have not made any edits to it in several weeks after having helped to improve it. Making any progress on it was time intensive. The Dysgenics article was essentially reduced to rubble by the same editors who block the R&I article. The blockers chase off editors who do not agree with them. My 3RR block was due to a lack of understanding of the policy, that is that it applies to the whole article and not just specific material. Instead of a topic ban, I request a barnstar. --Jagz (talk) 22:52, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Your attention was drawn to the specifics of 3RR well before your block, though perhaps you erased the notice from your talk page without actually reading the policy. MastCell ^Talk 22:48, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I heeded 3RR warnings posted on my Talk page but did not actually read the policy webpage until after the block. --Jagz (talk) 22:54, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

From what I have seen -- and admittedly I am new to these articles, though I have been intending to do work on them for some time, this being an account I set up for the purpose (per WP:SOCK#LEGIT) -- the situation seems to be this. The issue of race and intelligence is highly controversial. It is also, unfortunately, politicised. As such, it tends to attract people with extreme viewpoints. Some of these are troll accounts who deposit racist screeds on the talk page, vandalise the article, etc. These tend to be blocked quickly, and lose interest just as fast.

However, there is another side: people with hardcore beliefs on the other end of the spectrum, who are the self-appointed guardians of the article. They adhere to one particular school of thought in a controversy which is still unsettled (even within the scholarly literature), and are rather too eager to assume that anyone who disagrees with their POV, and tries to talk about it on the talkpage, is a troll, a vandal, a racist, a white supremacist, a pseudoscientist, etc. (incidentally, from my own experience MastCell is not one of this group).

The problem is that this group is one of established editors. Many of them, too, seem to be essentially single purpose accounts, dedicated to editing topics relating to race and ethnicity and advocating a particular POV. Because they are established, their word -- rightly or wrongly -- tends to carry more weight. This results in the other side being shouted down, blocked and disposed of, so that they can reign free once again.

They are easily as uncivil as Jagz has been. For example, part of what got Jagz into trouble originally was asking for credentials to be verified, on the part of someone who uses their notional qualification to throw a bit of weight around on the talk page. [12] This doesn't seem that outrageous, in light of Essjay. Then, he also said this. Jagz, in other words, was complaining that one of these established editors is in the habit of throwing around ad hominem arguments -- accusing everyone who disagrees with him of having a racist agenda, no matter what the evidence -- and asking if that was the reason for tendentious editing patterns. How is that different to editors who, in respond to Jagz' talk page comments, post things like do not feed the trolls? It's exactly the same.

Thus the fact that Jagz was blocked in the first place is probably symptomatic of the deeper problem.

FWIW, I certainly do not think that a 6 month ban from the topic is called for at all. He is not being disruptive on the talk page of that article, any more than anyone else is, in what is a highly disputed article. --Plusdown (talk) 23:03, 3 June

I agree with MastCell, who I believe has followed User:Jagz's editing patterns fairly closely. Since his "retirement" Jagz has forum shopped all over the wikipedia, supporting a disruptive sockpuppet [13] [14], making personal attacks on Ramdrake, [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] Alun (Wobble) [23] [24] [25] [26] [27] and above all Slrubenstein (whom he tried unsuccessfully to report here recently) [28] [29] [30] [31] [32] [33] [34] [35]. These personal attacks have been at a rather base level: he has asked Ramdrake if he is part of WP:LBGT with worse allegations elsewhere, has called Slrubenstein an a--h-l- on repeated occasions, and has placed in doubt Wobble's motives as an expert in biology. None of these attacks address specific content, but seem to be "hate posts". He disqualified my comments at one point on the NPOV noticeboard apparently for "being French" (untrue alas) [36]. This strange behaviour shows that User:Jagz seems now to have no intention of helping the project. The creation of the now deleted Dysgenics (people) was a further example of disruption by creating a needless fork, just one of several. Mathsci (talk) 00:50, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

If someone repeatedly attacks me in writing, I am eventually going to attack back, especially after intervention by an administrator and a complaint on AN/I fails to stop it. I was mistaken, Mathsci lives in France. Mathsci, as far as I know, in France they are liberal about LBGT. --Jagz (talk) 03:03, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Several of Mathsci's allegations are exaggerations. Mathsci as far as I can tell is the only one who has made hate posts. He has gone out of his way to try to be disruptive towards me. --Jagz (talk) 06:05, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

You were blocked for 24 hours on May 21 for incivility towards some of these users. [37] Mathsci (talk) 07:09, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

See, this proves my point. --Jagz (talk) 07:22, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Why do you think you were blocked? [38] [39] Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 07:42, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

• With respect Plusdown your presentation of Jagz's behaviour is partial it does not take account of Jagz's prolonged and continuous pointy disruption of the project. What MastCell points out are not an isolated incidents, Jagz has a history of this trolling going back to November 2007. This is a report page detailing some of the problems with Jagz. Jagz has ignored policy on forum shopping, 3RR, talk-page usage, civility, and most of all due weight (which is part of NPOV). He has ignored these policies after years of editing. He has ignored these policies after warnings, after having policy described and pointed out. Not only that, he has had two blocks and has not augmented, altered or addressed his behavioural problems on wikipedia. A 6 month topic ban is just and appropriate.
  I'd just like to say this to you Plusdown, while alternative accounts are legitimate there is a problem with creating a sock-account to avoid scrutiny. Many might also have reservations about users with such accounts only for articles with open calls for sock-puppets. Race and intelligence is one such article (with a meat-puppet call made by the website Stromfront). It is also an article with a history of serious sock-puppet abuse by User:Hayden5650, User:Lukas19.
  I quote WP:SOCK saying

  If someone uses alternative accounts, it is recommended that he or she provide links between the accounts in most cases to make it easy to determine that one individual shares them, or at least disclose this information in confidence.

  I would not asking you to "out yourself" here or to any one of the editors involved or partially involved but considering the serious concerns about account abuse by sock/meat-puppets of banned users I would suggest that you might consider verifying that the User:Plusdown account is indeed a legit sock with an uninvolved admin. This is merely a recommendation not a request and certainly not a demand--Cailil ^talk 23:48, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Cailil, what's clear to me is you POV alignment with the blockers of the R&I article. Given your conflict of interest and previous involvement, I request that you bow out of these proceedings. --Jagz (talk) 00:10, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Jagz this COI accusation should be withdrawn it is incivil, it is inaccurate and improper usage of this talk-page. You drew attention to yourself with your behaviour - I have never edited Dysgenics or Race and intelligence - I have no content issue with you. This statement also further evidences your continual assumption of bad faith. As stated in the report Jagz: Nemo contra factum suum venire potest - "No man can contradict his own deed"--Cailil ^talk 00:29, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Cailil, I didn't appreciate you essentially scuttling my good faith effort here:[40]. --Jagz (talk) 01:05, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Jagz that's where you came on to my radar. There was an RfC you didn't like the consensus (all one has to do is read the talk page to see that). Then you asked the other parent at FTN - that's forum shopping and that's disruptive--Cailil ^talk 01:50, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I asked the other parent a different question so it is not forum shopping. --Jagz (talk) 02:26, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

• Plusdown, I would respectfully suggest that you withdraw your remark about those who disagree with Jagz being single purpose accounts. This an inaccurate portrayal of at least 3 editors who have worked on a number of different articles and topics for a long time. I would also point out that it is almost a WP:KETTLE remark in light of the fact that the only other editor who supported Jagz was User:Zero_g who has edited only on the topic of Race and mainly in concert with Jagz and it is slightly strange for an account whose sole purpose is editing one topic/subject area to say this - "people in glass houses" and all that--Cailil ^talk 23:59, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Looking at your 'report page' on Jagz, I don't see that much outrageous that he has said or done...it would be easy to compile similar pages on other parties to this dispute, who call their opponents racists, pseudoscientists and trolls; diffs like that are easy to find simply by scanning the history of the talk page. My point is that the discussion there does unfortunately get quite heated. The only really crude violations of civility policies tend to be from drive-by trolls. The rest of the discussion there is, while heated at times, necessary. Consistently blocking those with a certain perspective is also a tactic by which a rather skewed 'consensus' can be established, since dissenters are silenced...I am not alleging censorship or even any conscious effort on anyone's part, but rather I think that this has happened quite a bit, that good-faith editors (not random Nazis, crackpots and other loons) with shorter contributions histories have been driven away by a small clique of very entrenched, very opinionated editors with an axe to grind on the topic of the article.

Which brings me to the next point. Yes, I am sure that the other editors have made respectable contributions: I know for a fact that that is true of Slrubinstein, who is not an SPA. But no, I don't see that it is an issue that I point out that other editors seem to focus only on editing race-related articles...since I have made no secret of that myself, I would expect the same honesty and objectivity in others, and I believe it is important to put things into perspective.

I put discussion regarding my own account on User talk:Cailil, since that really isn't at issue here (I merely believe in full disclosure, which is why I prefaced my opinion with that disclaimer). --Plusdown (talk) 00:23, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

• Re the original proposal by Mastcell: how about you post some diffs from the past couple of days, of edits by Jagz that have been so egregiously rude/trollish/disruptive. A 6 month ban without any actual evidence of continual, recent activity is a little uncalled for, surely? --Plusdown (talk) 00:23, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

If someone wants to review my Wikipedia contributions, they can start here: [41]. --Jagz (talk) 00:36, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Plusdown, please feel free to review my contribution history. While it will show that I have a keen interest in the R&I subject matter, you will also find that I have edited a variety of other articles. Also, if you review Jagz' latest contributions, you will find that all they are are pointy remarks that are mostly breaches of WP:CIVIL, WP:NPA or both. Furthermore, in this edit, he warns other editors about thinking of themselves as vested contributors, while he says this within minutes afterwards: think I deserve a medal for all the bullshit I've had to endure to get anything done on the article. Get anything done is an odd choice of words, as if he saw himself as the one steering the efforts to improve the article, i.e. he seems to think he's the boss. That's a definition of "vested contributor" if I ever saw one. Lastly, I fail to see the wisdom of awarding him a barnstar here for a behavior that got him banned from the article for 6 months. For the record, both you and Jagz misconstrued my words here, where if he had quoted me fully it would have appeared evident I was talking about Rushton and Lynn, and not about other editors. Just another example of Jagz' artful misrepresentation.--Ramdrake (talk) 00:29, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Ramdrake, I was just cautioning you against using straw men in your arguments to make the discussions on the Talk page more efficient. Regarding your allegation that I miscontrued your words, the diff clearly shows a link to your whole paragraph. If you are using Wikipedia articles as your personal political battleground, then I think you should be the one banned. --Jagz (talk) 06:58, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

• Plusdown, I would respectfully suggest that you withdraw your remark about those who disagree with Jagz being single purpose accounts. This an inaccurate portrayal of at least 3 editors who have worked on a number of different articles and topics for a long time. I would also point out that it is almost a WP:KETTLE remark in light of the fact that the only other editor who supported Jagz was User:Zero_g who has edited only on the topic of Race and mainly in concert with Jagz and it is slightly strange for an account whose sole purpose is editing one topic/subject area to say this - "people in glass houses" and all that--Cailil ^talk 23:59, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I have notified User:Dreadstar, User:Ramdrake and User:Slrubenstein of this thread--User:Cailil00:34, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I also would like you to point to a recent diff on the talkpage of the article where I have "been throwing my credentials around". Yes, they are on my user page, but so are the credentials of other users (not a lot but some). There are obvious reasons (breach of personal information being one) why I didn't answer Jagz' question.--Ramdrake (talk) 00:36, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

The point remains that race/ethnicity does seem to be one of your main areas here: nothing wrong with that; it's just important to note. I have no doubt you have done good work here, I never said anything to the contrary.

I must say, however, that I find your analysis of Jagz' behaviour rather strained. You provide a diff where he refers people to policy/essay/guidelines. Great. How very trollish. The fact that he believes that certain people, perhaps you include, are 'vested contributors'. If you read the article to which he links, you would find this: 'the tricky problem arises that some long-term contributors may begin to feel a sense of entitlement and superiority over less prolific editors'. That is something I too feel happens on the talk pages of these articles: I don't even impart it to any malice on your part, since I am sure there is none. I simply think that after months, perhaps years, of dealing with all manner of trolls and crackpots who drive by articles and deposit their nonsense, it becomes all too easy to assume that anyone who disagrees with you or threatens to destabilise the status quo must automatically be a troll as well. Indeed, I think that that is part of the reason why this discussion is happening in the first place. It is also, as I say, quite a tenuous link from the WP:NVC page to saying that because Jagz said 'steering the article', he must also see himself as the boss. Maybe he does think that, but it strikes me as being a very contrived interpretation.

I didn't award him a 'barnstar', I jokingly put a picture of a medal on his page with a humorous message. I did not do it 'for behaviour which got him blocked', but rather for trying his best (WP:AGF) to get something done on what is a horrendous article.

It seems you were misrepresented in that diff, Ramdrake, and I am sorry that I didn't follow that through properly, and apologise for the error. But the fault there was mine, not Jagz', for assuming that the people 'covertly deprecating Black people' were other editors, when it is clear that you (and probably Jagz) meant Rushton et. al.. Nonetheless, while your anti-racist sentiments are no doubt noble, they are nonetheless a very strong bias, I think you would have to admit.

And as for credentials, I understand why you don't want to prove them: I am in much the same predicament, of not wanting to compromise my IRL identity, and frankly not appreciating the intrusion. But the whole issue of claiming a degree on Wikipedia has been somewhat touchy since the Essjay fiasco -- that much is also true. You didn't have to answer Jagz' question, but surely, since you claim expertise, he is allowed to ask? --Plusdown (talk) 01:01, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

With respect Plusdown Jagz's talk page usage (including his response to me here) is incompatible with WP:5 - it has been for almost 6 months. We have seen him edit constructively elsewhere but his edits, as pointed out by myself and others, in regard to this topic are tendentious - see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dysgenics (people) just one example of race and intelligence topic trolling--Cailil ^talk 00:40, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

What the root of the problem is on the R&I article is the tendentious article content blocking. --Jagz (talk) 00:51, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

That would be WP:NPOV#Undue weight Jagz - that's why Dysgenics (people) got deleted and your refusal to hear that after 6 months is why your behaviour is tendentious - again your edits will speak for themselves--Cailil ^talk 00:59, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

(ec) User:Plusdown does not seem to have made a correct analysis of User:Jagz's recent edits to Race and intelligence, its talk page and elsewhere on WP. He has arrived on WP fairly recently, has started on his own initiative without consensus a replacement page for R&I in his user space (soliciting Jagz's help). He seems unaware of other editors' editing history across WP, hardly surprising in view of his own history. Mathsci (talk) 01:03, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

And what, pray tell, is wrong with starting a replacement draft in userspace, Mathsci? I didn't know I needed consensus for that: is this really so? Starting a userspace draft of an article without consensus? God, I really must be a troll. --Plusdown (talk) 01:09, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps I should add that the way in which this action of mine is held up as some kind of wrongdoing is indicative of precisely the sort of blocking of alternate points of view which makes this article absolutely laughable. --Plusdown (talk) 01:12, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

(ec) A look through the archives of the talk page will indicate why your initiative might be wasted effort. This is not the first time this has been attempted. I do not claim the current page approaches a reasonable encyclopedia page, but editing is generally by consensus, not through maverick unapproved side projects. That's all. Why did you head straight for R&I, which I hardly dare touch? Mathsci (talk) 01:20, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Unapproved by whom? Incidentally, I sent Ramdrake an explicit invitation to work on that userspace draft as well, and posted a general message on the article talk page. Whether my effort is 'maverick' or not remains to be seen. While perhaps more sympathetic to the genetic viewpoint, I actually don't have tremendously strong feelings either way when it comes to this debate, but I do feel very strongly that the science should be represented accurately. And this is not happening at the moment, despite all the talk page blather about 'scientific consensus'; I worked on science articles here, I know the drill about using that notion to keep the loons away, but this issue isn't the same: while there are many loons, there is also serious work being done on both sides, and it cannot be dismissed as 'pseudoscience' on the citation of a handful of campus radicals who themselves have been criticised heavily -- by entirely neutral sources -- for letting their politics interfere with their science. As for why I headed for this article, it is because precisely this sloppy, lopsided, unscientific aspect to the article has been bugging me. --Plusdown (talk) 01:29, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

When you write that you "worked" on scientific articles, are you saying that have had previous alternative accounts prior to May 21st, 2008? Mathsci (talk) 01:35, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Replied on your talk; this isn't relevant here, I don't think. --Plusdown (talk) 02:12, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I consider those who oppose POV edits from racists as doing good work here on WP. On the other hand, the best defense against racist propaganda is to write good articles on controversial topics such as race and intelligence, dysgenics, and eugenics. But all of these articles are far from good, and part of the problem appears to be that dialogue among differing (yet responsible) views is discouraged. I'm impressed by the zeal of the anti-racist editors, but not by their willingness to enter into dialogue, nor by their knowledge of the subject matter. Jagz, in my opinion, is an editor who can make a valuable contribution to the dialogue on these articles. --Anthon.Eff (talk) 01:20, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

?[42][43][44][45][46][47] The words "valuable" "contribution" and "dialogue" do not spring to my mind I'm afraid. I do understand your point Anthon but Jagz has been warned, he has been blocked - he has not addressed the behavioural issues. Oh and for those who missed it [48]--Cailil ^talk 01:33, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

• Okay, so I struck through text that had been duplicted through an editing error and then I later deleted it. Good catch on my part. --Jagz (talk) 07:13, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

The battle is emanating from hardline egalitarians and anti-racists. I just want a NPOV article. --Jagz (talk) 02:40, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Hardline egalitarians and anti-racists are involved in a battle? Really? Where do I sign up? ETA On second thoughts, judging by the diffs provided above by Cailil, I don't want to be involved in any discussion involving Jagz. So I think I must support a topic ban. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 03:04, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a place for racism nor anti-racism. It is for writing NPOV articles. --Jagz (talk) 03:15, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I believe I helped make significant improvements to the "Race and intelligence" article, starting when it was unlocked on February 1. I tried and failed with regards to the Dysgenics article, which is currently substandard. Let there be more focus on article content and less on Talk page politics. --Jagz (talk) 03:42, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

After reviewing Mathsci's list of diffs above, a topic ban is a no-brainer. --Akhilleus (talk) 04:02, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

No attempt was made to provide diffs before his very recent "retirement". Mathsci (talk) 06:57, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Akilleus, I think you would be doing me a favor. I think being exposed to so many nutbar editors is starting to have an adverse effect on my mental state. --Jagz (talk) 05:49, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I have little to add to Calil's and Ramdrake's accurate accounts, but I do want to respond to the suggestion that I hastily call someone a troll. Perhaps Plusdown thinks this because plusdown is relatively new to the article. Let me put my comment in context, actually, in two contexts. On May 14 Jagz said he was done editing the article for one year [49] but continues to make unconstructive and uninformed comments - I consider this pattern of saying I am leaving and then continuing to make disruptive edits trollish behavior. But there is a larger context that goes back many, many months, perhaps close to a year, in which Jagz's comments have all - all - been uninformed, disruptive, and inane. Right here (this AN/I) we have an example of a typically inane remark: 3:03 June 4 "Mathsci lives in France. Mathsci, as far as I know, in France they are liberal about LBGT." This is characteristic of Jagz, who makes gross overgeneralizations in order to provide non-sequitors to explain why he has insulted another editor. The fact is, I did not start calling Jagz a troll in haste. I started calling him a troll only after I was certain that he is a troll, and I took many months of observing and interacting with him before I reached that conclusion. I reached that conclusion for these reasons: first, he clearly has no knowledge of the topic; when anyone has asked him questions about psychometrics or theories of intelligence or physical anthropology or population genetics or molecular genetics he has no response (NOTE: I am not saying an editor needs to have a higher degree on a topic to edit an article. My point is not about credentials. My point is that we should edit articles on topics about which we are knowledgable. Jagz is not knowledgable, and does not even understand basic biology). Second, when a well-informed editor explains the science to him, he ignores or insults them. Third, when someone proposes a constructive suggestion, he makes inane comments and disruptive edits in order to derail the discussion (for example, creating a new section "this article sucks" or adding comments about how this article will never go anywheere ... these are comments he starts adding any time people with opposing views start working together). What motivates this? Racism. All of Jagz's efforts to affect the content of the page - really, what editors should be doing (rather than putting inane non-sequitors on the talk page) have had one objective: to insert into the article the claim that it is mainstream science that blacks are genetically inferior in their mental capacities than whites. This is racism. And it is bad science, as I and many others have explained that there is no geneetic evidence for this. And whenever we have asked Jagz to provide evidence to support his claim, he returns to quoting two or three academics, none of whom are geneticists or who have done research in genetics. A very long time ago I started calling Jagz a troll, and I did this when it became clear to me that he would do anything to ensure that the article be dominated by a racist, fringe-science POV, and would do anything to disrupt any attempt to improve the article.

Let me also make it very clear that my position is not ideological. I and not and hanve never pushed for an article that takes one point of view, and have never insisted that opposing views be excluded. Legalleft and I disagre and i have never called him a troll, and have not reverted all of his edits. I do not agree with everything Plusdown has written, but have not called him a troll. in fact, there have ben many editors a this article with whom I have disagreed, and i have not called them trolls because they were not or are not trolls; they are editors who follow policy and are well-informed and respectful of others, no matter how much we disagree. In fact, around December 2006 or January 2007 to February 2007 there was a major impasse at this article. Informally mediating, I protected the article and insisted that people involved in the dispute work together. At that time one editor in particular, W.R.N, insisted that the proposition that differences in IQ score have a genetic basis be included in the article, and you will find many cases where i insisted to others that W.R.N.s views be accommodated by the article and that other editors work with him towards a compromise 9one example was on 12:55, 6 February 2007). I have always defended the inclusion of diverse points of view and encouraged editors with different views to compromise. I have shown respect to many editors with whom i personally disagree. Why is Jagz different? only because he is a troll.

Finally, Plusdown says Jagz got into trouble for demanding my credentials, and Plusdown defends this lin light of the Essjay case. Now, Jagz did not get into "trouble" and I did not complain but I will now, since Plusdown has made an issue of it. There is no comparison between this situation and the Essjay case because Essjay made a big deal about his credentials and misrepresented them I however have never made my credentials an issue in editing or an edit conflict. I never made any claims about my credentials. I did however claim that I knew what I was talking bout when it was evident to me that Jagz just bullshits his way around the topic. I never asked Jagz for credentials, but there are several cases where he would make a claim and I would repeatedly (three, four five times) ask him what he meant, or what his evidence was, and each time he would respond with an inane non-sequitor. Finally, one day, his response to my questions (NOT my question, "what are your credentials" but "what is your evidence for what you wrote?") he asked me for my credentials. I think this is inappropriate behavior but I humored him. The result? He continued to insult me, to call me an asshole, and to make his disruptive edits. Slrubenstein | Talk 09:25, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Slrubenstein is an uncivil editor who believes he can use personal attacks as he wishes and push his own POV because he has been around a long time and is an administrator. Slrubenstein's unabated personal attacks poisoned the well for me because he seemed to incite others. The whole conflict revolves around the "Race and intelligence" article's presentation of the genetic hypothesis. Slrubenstein and Alun seem to believe it is like Santa Claus while I believe it is unproven but deserves mention just as the environmental hypohtheses do. As such, I see myself as more NPOV than they are and I refuse to bend my scientific beliefs based on their vision of political correctness. If you want political correctness, I would urge Wikipedia to start doing topic bans of articles and to permanently delete the "Race and intelligence" article. Don't dispose of your NPOV editors. As I have stated on the "Race and intelligence" article's Talk page:

Wikipedia's strength of egalitarian contribution, which is effective on most articles, may also be its greatest weakness on others.[50] This article is proving to be too divisive for the creation of an informative article with stable content. The non-egalitarian implications of this article stand in contrast to the principles Wikipedia is built on. Maybe Wikipedia is not the proper forum for this article.

--Jagz (talk) 12:40, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

This is a comment that was left on my Talk page in January. The "Race and intelligence" article has been modified quite a bit since the comment was written.

"You are fighting a group of some the most effective blockers on wikipedia. The subject it really very emotive and goes to the heart of many peoples core belief systems. You are performing valiant work in the face of extreme personal attacks and I commend you. Try to ignore such attacks on your intelligence and competence and so on. The article as it stands is a shamble of POV and weasel words and fails to describe the debate in any coherant fashion, and this is by design... 22 January 2008 (UTC)"

--Jagz (talk) 12:43, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Probation and/or Civility Parole

Wikipedia is not a battleground for ideological struggle, and using it as one is prohibited. Failing to maintain the expected decorum is a problem when contributing to any article. I propose the following to deal with it, among the other issues:

1. Jagz be put on probation for 6 months - should he, editing under any username disrupt any page, he may be blocked for a brief period of time, up to a week in the event of repeat offenses. He may be banned from a page or set of pages that he has disrupted.
2. Jagz be put on civility parole for 6 months - should he make any edits which are judged by an administrator to be uncivil, personal attacks, or assumptions of bad faith, he may be blocked in the same manner as above.
3. Jagz be topic banned from pages related, loosely, to race and intelligence for a period of 3 months.
4. After 5 blocks, the maximum block shall increase to one month.

Thoughts? Ncmvocalist (talk) 05:03, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

• At this stage, I'm thinking the civility parole and topic ban (half the duration of the civility parole) are essential. I'm rethinking if probation will be necessary. Ncmvocalist (talk) 13:21, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Ncmvocalist, I'm not using it for an ideological struggle. Others are and it has been going on for several years. If you want to cherry pick a couple dozen of my posts when I was frustrated or aggravated out of the hundreds or thousands I have left you are going to find something you don't like. --Jagz (talk) 05:28, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Slrubenstein, Jagz's talk page contributions have rarely been constructive. By the way, how come the topic ban was reduced from six months to three months? I think six months is more than fair, indeed it is somewhat lenient. Alun (talk) 11:13, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

6 months is a long time and I'm not convinced it is conduct that is limited to that particular article (set) - would rather enforce a broader measure. He'd then upon the 3 months expiring, be able to return to the article (set) but would have to keep his conduct at an acceptable level in order to avoid being blocked/banned again. Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:35, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

You're not convinced? You should be more sure of yourself, no? --Jagz (talk) 16:57, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Well as long as your conduct becomes more acceptable in the articles that you do work on, then we won't need to even think about sanctions. Ncmvocalist (talk) 01:25, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

For the record, agree with both of the above. I believe a 6-month topic ban is more appropriate. I believe the civility parole to also be appropriate.--Ramdrake (talk) 12:25, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Agree with Ncmvocalist's suggestion (including the 3 month topic ban) but with one caveat: No. 4 the month long blocks should start after 3 future blocks not 5. If Jagz has not got the message that his beahviour has to come into line with wikipedia's policies and requirements by now 5 future blocks probably wont help. I'll also point out that Jagz has already been blocked twice prior to this suggestion--Cailil ^talk 16:40, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

• It seems he's made an undertaking in the thread below to not make anymore edits on the relevant articles. If he can agree to be civil in all his interactions on other articles he works on, this may not be needed. Ncmvocalist (talk) 01:25, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

No, he has not. A month or so ago he pledged not to edit the article - yet he continues to make disruptive, inane,k and time-wasting edits to the talk page. And this has been his modus operandi all along. Over the past years 90% of his edits have been to the talk page (understandable since he does not understand psychology, sociology, or genetics and has nothing of substance to add to the article ... most of his edits to the article are on the order of deleting extra spaces). The issue is his behavior on the talk page, and he continues to edit the talk page. Let's address that! Slrubenstein | Talk 07:13, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

• • • Can you provide evidence (diffs) of the undertaking? And then when he no longer stood by it, didn't anyone call him out on it? What was his response if they did? (diffs again). If you do, then certainly it's an issue and we can look into it. Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:31, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm not 100% sure if this is what SLR is referring to but: on April 1st 2008 at 12:33 (UTC) Jagz said that:

I'm not going to participate in remediation but you can go ahead without me. You can do what you wish with the article[51]

But he never left 3 hours later, 10 hours later 34 hours later, 2 days later, same, 3 days later 4 days later, 5 days later, 6 days later, 1 week later, 8 days later 9 days later--Cailil ^talk 22:56, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

different suggestion

Discussing more generally the problem that causes situations like this: I'm among the people who would like on work on topics like this but have stayed away because of the attitudes referred to above. (I am using this as example, not necessarily referring to this particular article or any particular editors) I do not want to work where even small changes lead to very long arguments. I do not want to be faced with trying to give a fair presentation and have it inevitable called as prejudiced by one side or the other. I suggest the way to get good editing on topics like this is to ask all editors who have been working on a particular topic like this to work on other things instead, without any negative implications at all on their editing, behavior, character, or status. Give them all a barnstar for heroic efforts in face of difficulty, and ask them to move on. Then let a new assortment of people have a try. It may end similarly, but at least the previous personal resentments will be not burden the new group. DGG (talk) 12:44, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree. I've suggested this before, but I don't know how it would work in practice. In reality, of course, editors should be able to look past personal issues and avoid grudges and biases. Sometimes, though, you just need to clear out the existing editors and try a new set. If someone can come up with a good name for this process, this might be possible to try. Carcharoth (talk) 12:53, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I am skeptical about whether the "Race and intelligence" article can make sufficient progress with the continued involvement of users Slrubenstein, Ramdrake, and Alun/Wobble, who seem to share essentially the same POV, have colluded, and anyone who disagrees with their POV is a racist troll. Since Slrubenstein has been involved with the article since 2002, maybe it is time for at least him to move on to other articles. --Jagz (talk) 13:54, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

How about a policy where an editor is given a "leave of absence" from an article. It does not necessarily imply wrongdoing but just allows new editors to come in and have a try at an article. The leave of absence could be for six months or a year for example. It will prevent editors from hanging out at an article continuously for years, especially for those articles that are having problems. --Jagz (talk) 18:01, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

While I have a good deal of respect for DGG, in this case I think his view is extreme. If you look at the history of the article, there was only one period when all progress on the article stalled - that was when W.R.N./RIKURZHEN and Jere Krischel were mired in an unresolvable conflict. I will leave myself out, but I have seen Ramdrake and Alun/Wobble working towards compromises and agreement with every other editor except Jagz who, as I have said, brings no actual knowledge of the topic to the table, does not back up his assertions with evidence, and begins adding inanities and disruptive edits when others do begin working together. Jagz presense has often derailed progress. But i have never seen Alun (for example) get into an unresolvable conflict with Legalleft or say Nick Connally. The editors I just names often hold highly contrasting views yet genreally seem to be able to work together. Slrubenstein | Talk 13:02, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Slrubenstein has been involved in the "Race and intelligence" article since 2002 and the article is still mired in divisiveness. Slrubenstein believes that I singlehandedly derailed his repeated efforts to content fork (POV fork?) the article but surely I am being made a scapegoat as I do not have the power or influence to overcome consensus. I think Legalleft and I made good progress on the article after it was unlocked on February 1, during a period that it was not being actively blocked, but I have not edited the article for several weeks and as I have already stated, will not edit it for at least the rest of the year. The Talk page of the article has been used for discussions filled with straw men, sophistry, ad hominem attacks, and borderline defamation. The Talk page discussions go on and on and on. The length of an article's Talk page is not an indicator of its progress. --Jagz (talk) 15:23, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm not aware of any instances where clearing out a whole set of editors has led to improvement, though to be fair I'm not aware of any instance where it's been attempted. Does anyone know of any? On the other hand, I am intimately familiar with an extremely divisive dispute involving multiple editors and an poisonous, acrimonious environment where the removal of a single excessively tendentious editor (see Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Strider12) led to complete calm. That has informed my thinking somewhat. MastCell ^Talk 16:39, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, maybe if you did your homework on the history of the article, you would come to a different conclusion. --Jagz (talk) 17:02, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Possibly. Please consider the alternate possibility that I have investigated the situation, but reached a conclusion with which you disagree. MastCell ^Talk 18:05, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

While I understand where you're coming from DGG I don't think this would be right or fair. Race and intelligence is subject to off-wiki meat-puppetry and has a serious history of sustained malicious sock-puppetry all in order to povpush. We should not sanction editors for enforcing policy correctly. Jagz was offered mediation with everyone else on the page - he refused it and thus squashed the mediation attempt for everyone else.

Bare in mind for one moment the fact that there are other editors on Race and intelligence who hold differing views to Ramdrake, Alun et al - Legalleft and others have not behaved like Jagz has. Yet their issues could not be mediated and resolved because of Jagz. Sysops who can see deleted content should look at Wikipedia:Requests_for_mediation/Race_and_intelligence_2 for evidence of what I am talking about here.

When Jagz didn't get his own way at Dysgenics he created a pov fork. Ultimately the Jagz issue is not a content problem it is a behavioural problem and while Jagz is not quite Strider12 he has disrupted the project to make a point--Cailil ^talk 17:37, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

You seem to have an axe to grind Cailil. Are you not just trying to get rid of an editor based on your POV? I haven't edited the "Race and intelligence" article in several weeks and have already stated that I do not intend to do so for the rest of the year. There are a number of reasons I withdrew from mediation before it started, including barrages of rudeness and paranoia (i.e., distrust). As, I stated at the time, I hoped that mediation could have continued without me. There was no intent on my part to quash mediation, I just decided not to take part. Cailil, you have consistently claimed to know my motives for doing things when it is clear you are way off base; you are not omniscient.--Jagz (talk) 18:03, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Mediation cannot go ahead without all parties who are in discussion on the article - becuase you remain active on the talk page you remain active in discussion of the article. I am not talking about your motives Jagz - I'm talking about your edits - not why you did something but what you did--Cailil ^talk 23:10, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Here is my suggestion for the "Race and intelligence" article. I have already stated that I will make no more edits to the "Race and intelligence" for the rest of the year. I think Slrubenstein, Ramdrake, and Alun/Wobble should make the same committment. Slrubenstein has been involved in the article since 2002 and Ramdrake for a few years I believe. Alun/Wobble, like me, is a more recent participant, maybe six months or so but is colluding with Slrubenstein and Ramdrake in a POV manner that tends to obstruct progress. Also, Alun/Wobble has been rude to a number of people on the Talk page. --Jagz (talk) 17:31, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I additionally agree not to make any edits to the Dysgenics article for the rest of the year. I will also not edit any race-related articles for the rest of the year, although I had no plans to do so anyway. --Jagz (talk) 17:39, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

As long as you're including talk pages in that pledge, we're presumably done here. MastCell ^Talk 18:05, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Okay, agreed. --Jagz (talk) 18:26, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

If you can agree to be civil in your interactions with others on any other article talk pages that you go on, I agree with MastCell - this is done. Ncmvocalist (talk) 01:23, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Hold on a minute, where does Jagz get off suggesting that my, or Slr or Ramdrake's bahaviour is equivalent to his? This thread was started due to his disruptive style on talk pages because he shows little or no interest in discussing the article and indeed, as Slr points out appears to have little knowledge of the subject at hand. All other editors, even when they disagree, are committed to contributing to the article and have displayed a real interest, understanding and knowledge of the subject matter. Yes, sometimes on difficult articles like this we make mistakes and "comment on users" rather than the article, sometimes there is bickering and nitpicking, but other editors have generally been conscientious in sticking to behavioural guidelines. Sometimes there are misunderstandings, sometimes editors take offence when none was intended, these can be resolved when all assume good faith. But Jagz has gone out of his way to bait other users in a way that no one else has, indeed it is a measure of the general good faith of editors there that so few have actually taken the bait. Jagz has no reason to suggest that myself or Slr or Ramdrake should not edit the article for a year, that not only implies that our behaviour is equivalent to his, but also is clearly an attempt to exclude editors from the article who want to provide a different pov. Furthermore it is not clear whether Jagz is clearly stating that he will refrain from participating in talk page discussions, which is what this is about, he just says he won't edit this or related articles, indeed it is not clear whether he is choosing to do this is without conditions, is he saying that he will leave the article volutarily only if myself, Ramdrake and Slr volunteer to leave, or is he choosing to leave unilaterally? I think we need a clearer answer. Alun (talk) 05:45, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I was misunderstanding. I viewed Jagz' pledge as independent, not contingent on a bunch of other editors also leaving the article. No, I can't support a solution that treats these editors homogenously, because my sense is that Jagz has been particularly disruptive here. I don't see any reason to restrict Slrubinstein, Ramdrake, Alun, or anyone else at this point. I apologize for giving the impression that I supported this. I was under the (apparently mistaken) impression that Jagz had simply agreed not to edit these pages for his part. MastCell ^Talk 21:55, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Jagz's "pledge" is part of this so-called different solution in which I (who had to go over my entire professional resume with Jagz to satisfy his questions about my credentials) and Ramdrake and Alun, who are two of the most knowledgable editors working on the article, also have to cease editing? Sorry, no soap. It is absurd to ask three knowledgable editors to cease from editing an article for a year in order to prevent one ignorant, racist troll from editing. Slrubenstein | Talk 07:17, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

I disagree with some of your contentions, also please see WP:NPA. --Jagz (talk) 17:12, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

I think that rather than banning one editor (Jagz), that this should be extended to multiple editors. I have no opinion on the article content, as my own attention was brought to Talk:Race and intelligence in a simple administrative role. Based on the wordiness of the participants, and even though there was already an archivebot in action and over 65 archives already, the active talkpage had ballooned to over 450K (!). Per WP:SIZE, some people's browsers start having trouble with anything over 32K. I've been attempting to tweak the archivebot to keep things more balanced with a faster cycle, but one of the participants, Ramdrake, disagrees and has even reverted me on one of my cutoff changes,[52] to keep the bot from archiving things in a timely manner. Because of this, the page is now back up to 150K, and continuing to grow.

Based on a quick perusal of Wikidashboard,[53] and eyeballing the talkpage history, the main participants currently seem to be Jagz, Ramdrake, Slbrubenstein, Plusdown, Wobble, and Legalleft. I recommend putting some sort of a speed-brake on things, which could either be a "go work on something else for a month" ban on the most prolific posters, or maybe limiting people to three posts per day on the talkpage, or perhaps a maximum of 500 words per day per thread. Some of the responses there are clear violations of WP:TLDR, at 9-10K a pop.[54][55] This ANI thread is another example of the soapboxing nature of many of the participants, as I doubt most admins would take the time to read everything here. And with long posts, both here at ANI and at the talkpage, it makes it extremely difficult for outside parties to offer a comment. Which is why I'm leaning more towards "Ban 'em all", to help restore article stability. Or at least muzzle them a bit, to make the conversations easier to follow. --Elonka 20:01, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

"Go work on something else for a month" ban? How about 3, 6, or 12 months? --Jagz (talk) 21:28, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Elonka, I went to the trouble of counting the number of contributions of each of the editors you named to this AN/I. I have 3 edits (4 with this one), Alun/Wobble has 2 edits, Slrubenstein has 5 edits, Plusdown has 8 edits and Jagz has... 30 edits!!! On the basis of this information, how would you assess who's really soapboxing here?--Ramdrake (talk) 22:47, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Elonka, I agree with the "speed-brake" but not the "ban 'em all" strategy. Jagz has refused mediation thus nobody else can have it. The rest of the editors need mediation. However the excessive talk discussion needs to be addressed, how about a 1 talk-page comment (of reasonably short size) per day for everyone (whether they have edited there before or not) at Talk:Race and intelligence--Cailil ^talk 23:01, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm guilty of making talk page contributions that are two long. Ramdrake warned me about this a couple of days ago and I am now making a conscious effort to keep my contributions shorter. I didn't even consider TLTR. Alun (talk) 05:18, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Oh, Mommy Jagz this and Jagz that. You are a dispicable lot. --Jagz (talk) 05:50, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Elonka, I dont think all should be banned. There are others who share Jagz's views on R&I and I have seen them attempt consensus. Jagz, on the other hand, cannot build consensus if consensus does not conform to his views. Brusegadi (talk) 06:22, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm already not participating so you are using a straw man in your argument. --Jagz (talk) 06:36, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Okay, so the consensus appears to be:

• Jagz is voluntarily avoiding the Race and Intelligence article and its talkpage, for the rest of 2008
• The other editors are going to take another try at mediation
• All editors on the talkpage are encouraged to keep their posts short (roughly 500 words total per day)
• The R&I talkpage (and related user talkpages) are going to be under increased supervision in terms of civility
• Uninvolved admins may post warnings or blocks as-needed, to ensure that the above guidelines are met.

That sound reasonable? If so, we can post it on the article talkpage, re-apply for mediation, close this ANI thread, and all move on.  :) --Elonka 08:26, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I must say, I'm not convinced that some arbitrary limit on talk page posts will be helpful. I know I am also guilty of being long-winded sometimes, but while we could certainly all try to be as concise as possible, the issue is a complex one, and sometimes needs detailed discussion (provided that discussion doesn't segue into debate over the validity of different POVs set forth in the article). The rest sounds fine, though while not opposed to mediation per se, I also don't know if it is strictly necessary: we were just about managing OK until this little flare-up. But I'll go with what the other involved editors say. --Plusdown (talk) 08:36, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I believe Alun/Wobble is the only editor who has consistently abused TLDR. I think it would be sufficient for him to keep his posts limited. Alun/Wobble should also refrain from displays of arrogance and rudeness to other editors. I believe Slrubenstein should also avoid the R&I article for a set amount of time as his only initiative is trying to split up the article and calling those with opposing viewpoints racist trolls; he also seems to incite other editors and has been involved in the article since 2002. Additionally, Ramdrake should be monitored for making unreasonable and annoying reversions and using Wikipedia articles as a personal political battleground. --Jagz (talk) 12:44, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I forgot to mention that Slrubenstein also participates by reverting the article to help Ramdrake and Alun/Wobble avoid violating 3RR. --Jagz (talk) 13:15, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Alternate suggestion

I'd like to propose a slight rewording of Elonka's proposition, as follows:

• Jagz is voluntarily avoiding the Race and Intelligence article as well as all other race-IQ related pages (such as articles on The Bell Curve, IQ and the Wealth of Nations, dysgenics, J. Philippe Rushton, Richard Lynn, etc.), and their talkpage, for the rest of 2008. If he fails to do so, an equivalent topic ban shall be imposed on him for the remainder of 2008.
• The other editors are going to take another try at mediation
• All editors on the talkpage are encouraged to keep their posts short (by using their judgment) and to discuss points of contention one by one to avoid making overlong posts. Above all avoid laundry lists.
• The R&I talkpage (and related user talkpages) are going to be under increased supervision in terms of civility
• Uninvolved admins may post warnings or blocks as-needed, to ensure that the above guidelines are met. (This should be BAU as the article is technically already under probation).

I believe that having a way to enforce Jagz to stay away from these articles (and not just the R&I article) for several months should he change his mind is not a bad thing. I've seen topic bans being reset if the editor touches an article during the ban. All I'm asking is that there be a mechanism to enforce this avoidance should Jagz fail to respect his word. I am not asking for a ban reset, either. Also, I don't think an arbitrary limit on the number of words is useful, as WP:TLDR is an essay, not policy nor guideline, and therefore cannot technically be violated. However, pointers on how to avoid making long posts may be useful. I saw an immediate effort at correction the moment I mentioned TLDR to Alun and Plusdown.--Ramdrake (talk) 12:24, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I am the banned user Flameviper.

I was banned in '07 following a long string of nastiness and broken edits. I came back under a couple other accounts (user:Two Sixteen and this one). As Two-Sixteen, I was blocked after Jpgordon did a checkuser and confirmed my identity; I created this account to see if I could truly contribute productively or whether I was really just a bad person. I leave my fate in your hands, Wikipedia. Can I stay here and edit? Or should I be banned? Ziggy Sawdust 00:35, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

For further reference, this link is a previous digression on my ban.

Seems fine to me. John Reaves 00:39, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

(I should note that Nick and I are not the biggest fans of Flameviper and have dealt with him considerably). John Reaves 03:09, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Likewise. Nick (talk) 00:45, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I also support an unban, though on some sort of probation where people keep an eye on you and admins will more readily block for infractions. If you screw up this time, though, you probably won't get another chance, so use it wisely. --Rory096 00:46, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

The point is that you are already banned, so the question "should I be banned?" doesn't apply here, but rather if said ban should be enforced. A more pressing matter is the fact that we seemed to have skipped a step here. Where is the community discussion that decided Flameviper could come back and edit? It's clear at least some admins already knew you are Flameviper well before this revelation.--Atlan (talk) 00:50, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

He's referring to his current account, I suppose- and this is the unban discussion. --Rory096 00:55, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I understand this is an unban discussion. The point is, why did this discussion not take place much earlier, when admins were already aware of his identity? I like to know why admins helped Flameviper violate his ban.--Atlan (talk) 01:00, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I absolutely do not support this user returning, especially because of the immaturity that is still showing. Edits like this, this, this, and all his recent edits with "~desu" in the summary are totally immature. Metros (talk) 00:56, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Er, the ~desu was a modification of Twinkle - no more intrusive than "TW". Ziggy Sawdust 01:12, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

It links to a completely unrelated article. "TW" does not. I can imagine this confuses inexperienced users. It's entirely unhelpful.--Atlan (talk) 01:15, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

See, that's exactly what I mean. You think it's perfectly cool and kosher to link to that. And the fact that "desu" is a 4chan meme is just a strange coincidence? Metros (talk) 01:19, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

So what if it's a chan meme? Does this have any relevance to the discussion at hand? Ziggy Sawdust 01:24, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

It's pertinent to your behavior, which is no doubt the most important aspect of an unban discussion.--Atlan (talk) 01:26, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

• Categorical oppose. This editor is asking us to validate the violation of WP:BAN and WP:SOCK. I categorically refuse to send a mixed message. Despite productive contributions from one individual, too many banned users who are incapable of contributing positively under any account or persona violate the same policies, and their collective disruption to the site is considerable, and their abuse would only increase if we validate that abuse of policy by sometimes granting it legitimacy. I wish Ziggy had instead demonstrated the ability to contribute positively in a wiki environment on any of the other hundreds of Wikimedia projects where he or she is not sitebanned. Should this person wish to do so, I volunteer to be his or her mentor on any other project where I am active and, after a sufficient interval, I will open an unban discussion on this noticeboard myself. Yet for now, under these circumstances, absolutely not. Please retire this account and contact me; I would like to help you. Durova^Charge! 00:56, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Accounts

Flameviper (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · AbuseLog · what links to user page · count · COIBot · Spamcheck · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Edit filter search · Google · StopForumSpam)
Vestige of the Flamey Snake (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · AbuseLog · what links to user page · count · COIBot · Spamcheck · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Edit filter search · Google · StopForumSpam)
Two-Sixteen (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · AbuseLog · what links to user page · count · COIBot · Spamcheck · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Edit filter search · Google · StopForumSpam)
The Blazing Sword (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · AbuseLog · what links to user page · count · COIBot · Spamcheck · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Edit filter search · Google · StopForumSpam)
Lumberjake (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · AbuseLog · what links to user page · count · COIBot · Spamcheck · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Edit filter search · Google · StopForumSpam)
Γlameviper12 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · AbuseLog · what links to user page · count · COIBot · Spamcheck · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Edit filter search · Google · StopForumSpam)
Flameviper in Exile (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · AbuseLog · what links to user page · count · COIBot · Spamcheck · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Edit filter search · Google · StopForumSpam)
Son of a Peach (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · AbuseLog · what links to user page · count · COIBot · Spamcheck · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Edit filter search · Google · StopForumSpam)
Flameviper1ʔ (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · AbuseLog · what links to user page · count · COIBot · Spamcheck · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Edit filter search · Google · StopForumSpam)
HUNGY MAN (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · AbuseLog · what links to user page · count · COIBot · Spamcheck · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Edit filter search · Google · StopForumSpam)
Flameviper II (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · AbuseLog · what links to user page · count · COIBot · Spamcheck · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Edit filter search · Google · StopForumSpam)
for review--Hu12 (talk) 01:36, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

It looks like the bulk of his sockpuppetry ended in September 2007, over 8 months ago. He tried to evade the ban in late January as Lumberjake but that only lasted 3 days. Three other accounts confined their edits to their user and user-talk pages and administrative pages, which is only a minor sin. We should treat him as if his ban started on February 2, the last time he tried to edit an article. That was only 4 months ago. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 02:30, 4 June 2008 (UTC)Oops, forgot to check his current account, which started February 6. And the clock start... NOW. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 03:05, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

• My love of Suiseiseki notwithstanding, I'm going to oppose an unban right now. In addition to the problems with user contributions noted above, Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Ziggy Sawdust raises a whole new set of red flags for me. --jonny-mt 01:42, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

• Others

• Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Flameviper
• Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Flameviper12
• Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Son of a Peach
• Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Son of a Peach II
• Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Flameviper X-1
  --Hu12 (talk) 01:58, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

• • Just a quick procedural note as well, but isn't this discussion more appropriate for WP:AN? Or does it matter? --jonny-mt 01:45, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Apoplexic Dude and Ilfird the Third are not me. Ziggy Sawdust 01:44, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Just a note I've blocked the account as a sockpuppet. There's no reason to let a banned user continue editing like this. If unban is called for by consensus, go ahead and unblock whichever account is decided upon, but, for now, he's blocked as per his ban. Metros (talk) 01:52, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I support both a block on the latest account and not removing the ban. Daniel (talk) 02:06, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree. naerii - talk 02:12, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Some general comments:

Without reading or commenting on Flameviper's situation, I generally believe in second chances. The purpose of a ban is to discourage future behavior and provide a disincentive for others who would do the same thing.

Before unbanning any editor, he would need to 1) address each and every issue that led to the ban to the satisfaction of those who banned him, be it arbcom or the community, 2) promise to abide by the same rules as everyone else, 3) wait a suitable cooling-off period with zero edits, not even anonymous ones. The cooling-off period is to prove to himself that he isn't a Wikiholic, or if he is, to give himself a start at recovery. I recommend at least 30 days but up to a year if it's a 3rd- or 4th-chance.

Any non-office-related ban (e.g. threats of legal action) for more than a year, i.e. "indefinite," should be summarily lifted if the person asks politely and promises to live by the rules. This only applies if the person has honored the ban for at least a year. Office actions are outside of our control.

Since this editor has a history of sockpuppetry extending past his last block, I recommend he: 1) go 60 days without any involvement with Wikipedia except maybe reading it, 2) use the mailing lists or IRC to request his user_talk page and mail privilages be unblocked, 3) create an article requested on WP:AFC on his user_talk page to show he is serious about editing, and 4) request that this article be reviewed and moved to the main space and that he be reinstated on parole. The terms of the parole would be related to the reasons for his initial and subsequent bans. Finally, I recommend he try to be the next Valiant Return Triple Crown winner.

davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 02:18, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

The Valiant Return triple crown is available only to editors who make a legitimate return to editing, which this person has not (so far). In fairness, we need a better structure for people to return to good standing. That's an area where I've been putting some focus lately and I'd be glad to put my head together with more people on both sides of the fence. If you can edit legitimately right now and are interested in sharing ideas please post to my user talk. I may open a subpage to discuss a better framework. If you happen to be sitebanned and want to participate, please use the e-mail function to contact me: I ask that you respect the spirit of the ban while welcoming input and feedback. Durova^Charge! 02:27, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

• Remove the ban, too many productive editors are banned these days, and the treatment of some of them is appalling really (see Metros's talk page for a shining example of good commmunication skills from an admin). As long as he promises not to sockpuppet, there's no need to keep banning. Bans are just a completely negative way to go about things and makes the atmosphere worse than it already is. Al Tally ^talk 02:21, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

• Keep banned. Unlike in real life, on Wikipedia it is possible to start fresh, with no baggage from previous dramas. Anyone who is truly reformed would be ashamed of their previous indiscretions, and would embrace the opportunity to disassociate themselves from their previous identity. Conversely, anyone who would come here to boast of their previous banishment, and the fact that they have successfully evaded the consequences, is not reformed. Hesperian 02:40, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Some subscribe to the philosophy that the first step in reforming is to publicly admit your sins. That's not the same as bragging, but it is the opposite of hiding under a new name. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 02:49, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

• Unban, but with hefty probation - oddly for exactly the reasons that Hesperian is using for his !vote on continuing the ban. Yes, on Wikipedia it is possible to start afresh, and that is exactly what ZS seems to be trying to do. Rather than dissociating himself from previous indiscretions, which would be to attempt to hide them from others as well, he has chosen to make it clear to us exactly what his past has been and request the opportunity for a second chance. I don't see it as boasting, but as an attempt to come clean. Consider the other thing that could have happened. ZS could have kept quiet, and eventually might have been found out. That would have led to a permanent ban on ZS. Or he could have boasted about it on some blogsite somewhere. By admitting to his past on AN/I - not boasting about it in a chat room, but formally stating it to those who have the power to ban him - I see a genuine attempt to ask for some form of forgiveness. I'd suggestan unbanning with some six months or more of "parole" in which problem editing is more likely to result in severe consequences (rather than the usual slap-on-the-wrist of a 24 hour block). Grutness...wha? 02:52, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

For clarity, this thread that exposes rather than dissociates ZS comes 11 minutes after his previous identity was disclosed on his (now closed) current request for adminship. I'd like to AGF, but the timing of his desire to come clean doesn't sit well. --Onorem♠Dil 02:57, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

For a bit more clarity, he's stated that the reason he started that RfA (which he must have known was doomed to fail) was as a means of revealing his identity. --Rory096 03:02, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

There would be far better ways to reveal his identity with the hopes of gaining the trust of the community, but, for clarity, where exactly is it stated that the reason he started the RFA was to expose himself? --Onorem♠Dil 03:07, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Er, IRC, I thought I wrote that. My bad. --Rory096 03:18, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Onorem. With all the RFAs he's had in the past, I really think he just highly desires being an administrator. He has mentioned in the past, though, that he really wanted to pass an RFA and then, basically, say "Ha, I just got adminship and now I'll reveal that I've been Flameviper all along!" I'll see if I can find a quote/link later. Metros (talk) 03:11, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I find it hard to believe that he seriously thought he could have won with barely a few months experience, 1000 edits, terrible question answers, etc. --Rory096 03:18, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

See WP:AN#user:SwirlBoy39 unban proposal, a concurrent thread on WP:AN, for how an unban request should work. A previously agreed-to mentor takes the lead, no dishonest RfA that surprises the admin who was aware that they were trying to come back, no lulz-inspired goofing around. I suppose if you can find someone willing to mentor, I'd support an unban with a similar very tight leash. Otherwise, no. I do, however, support the general idea of unbanning rather than quietly sneaking back without telling anyone, per Grutness. --barneca (talk) 03:06, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

• I'm torn. I'd like to think that people can come back from being banned, and my first response was that Ziggy had made a good effort to demonstrate that he could do it right this time around. However, then johnny-mt posted the link to the recent RfA, where it was apparently necessary for Ryan Postlethwaite to "unmask" Ziggy. This puts things into a very different light from my first impression - that the creation of this thread was entirely voluntary. Some of Ziggy's over-zealous actions in AfD, which I was inclined to write off as good-faith newbie inexperience; I'm now not so sure about. I think Durova makes a very good point too. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 03:29, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

In many cases, some extremely prominent users have given banned users the advice to "come back, don't go back to the same misbehavior, don't edit the same areas, and we'll never have to know it's you" - no-one ever disagreed with people giving that advice either. In light of this, I cannot agree with the people who are opposing solely on the grounds of WP:BAN and WP:SOCK. Don't forget, we recently let the original Willy on Wheels come back. --Random832 (contribs) 03:48, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I was about to give that same advice. Could you link that WoW discussion? I missed that one. --Geniac (talk) 14:31, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose the block - FlameViper has his share of compulsive edititis, and his effervescent sense of humor can certainly grate on the nerves, but even at his most annoying, he's just on a level with your average outspoken radical inclusionist on AfD. I'm not a fan of the "Admin Cabal" style of argument, but in the case of FlameViper, it seems that from the start certain folk were so annoyed by his presence as to take positively baffling leaps and jumps to paint his admittedly-less-than-stellar edits in a malicious light. Annoying? Sure! Malicious? Get real. His worst edits deserved a patient, level-headed explanation of what exactly was wrong - not this hyper-militant power trip that he got. I'm well aware that Wikipedia is not a baby-sitting service, but this isn't baby-sitting - it's being a functional, communicative community. The bitching and moaning over his infamous edit to ElaraGirl's talk page was the utter nadir of this juvenile Wiki-policing - ElaraGirl herself, the "wronged" party, understood the tone in which it was intended, but this couldn't, wouldn't, and didn't satiate the thirst for blood on the Votes for Banning of the time. The failure of most of Wikipedia's most trusted faces to even acknowledge his goofiness, treating him (in some gross sort of manifestation of the total travesty that is Zero Tolerance) like some sort of serious threat, is, ironically, itself rather immature. This is a community that bent (and still bends) over backwards to extend last chances to completely useless trolls human beings such as the great Mantanmoreland and the positively unforgettable Gordon Watts (not to mention the excessive outpouring of oral-testicular manipulation that the departure of Everybody's Favorite Tenured Professor inspired). Does anyone have even the slightest inkling how positively humiliating the demands for baby-sitting and nannying must feel to Flame? It's no small wonder that he'd sooner start from scratch with a new sock-puppet than subject himself to what, no matter how it actually is in practice, is always expressed in the most petty, tin-pot dictatorship terms. Yes, he does head-scratchingly dumb things sometimes (I certainly cringe at the edits to jp gordon down-up-down-up's talk page), but when he feels - and more rightfully so than not, really - persecuted to such a ridiculously petty degree, what do you expect him to do? Handle it rationally? There are grown adults who can't remain completely stable under stressing circumstances like those. He's a kid. Kids are more transparent about their panic. Kids do stupid, stupid things when they panic. Kids also, however, have pride. No matter how much he reminds us of ourselves in that eternally awkward, embarrassing stage of our lives, he deserves the fair break and respect that we ourselves wanted when we were "back there". Maturity does not spontaneously occur in a void. The "vocal minority" of the community approaches him in about as flat-out wrong a manner as can possibly be accomplished. --Badger Drink (talk) 04:37, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

• As usual, Flameviper is dishonest about pretty much every aspect of why he's been banned. He's wasting our time, again. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 05:24, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Oppose for similar reasons to Durova and well, Jpg. Heard it before from this user then find out he's yanking our collective chains. If I recall correctly, the last time he pulled this exact same stunt, even convinced an established admin to mentor him, he used another sockpuppet in the very unban discussion...Please... enough time wasted. Sarah 06:15, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose Lots of kids can behave "grown up" on Wikipedia, some can't. Gwen Gale (talk) 06:20, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

  And this justifies the nasty manner in which he is constantly and consistently dealt with? I'm not the biggest fan of linking WP:CIVIL by any means, but in this case, I think we could really do without the upset ruffled-feather shenanigans. Give him a chance to learn from the graceful example of the Wikipedia community, if nothing else. --Badger Drink (talk) 07:10, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose per various arguments above. —Wknight94 (talk) 10:34, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
• Opposeplenty of users above have noted that the problems which led to the ban in the first place haven't been resolved. I would like to add that under this new account he has made inappropriate GA promotions which were reverted and has used inappropriate edit summaries. Durova is correct that we shouldn't be condoning violations of WP:BAN and WP:SOCK either. Hut 8.5 11:39, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

• oppose per durova and diffs provided by Metros. On 22 May, even, this editor was using edit summaries such as [56] which includes the words "I suck c**ks" (his version didn't have asterisks.) This would merit at least a warning/advice not to do so in intself, and that he is a blocked user too does not bode well. Here he was on AN/I asking to be unblocked when only the week before he made edit summaries such as that, which he must've thought people might've considered when viewing his contribs due to his starting this discussion. Sticky Parkin 13:36, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

  Thank you, kind sir, those two asteriks saved me a world of psychological upheaval. Were it not for them, I do not know how I would cope with seeing the letter "c" next to the letter "ocks" on a computer screen. --Badger Drink (talk) 13:28, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose I've been watching this user for some time, wondering when the block would be coming. Aside from the diffs already supplied, I'll supply a personal observation, which is that the user seems to be attention-seeking, pushing things further and further until, failing to get the attention they crave, they actually come here and blurt out "look at me". This doesn't seem like someone who has the intention of contributing to the project. And I do apologise for commenting on the user rather than the contributions, but I think it's a pattern of behaviour that is likely to continue. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 13:54, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose While I disagree with Durova's position (I feel forgiveness is always an option, no matter what WP:BAN and WP:SOCK might say, as long as the user demonstrates a genuine desire to contribute constructively), the diffs provided by Metros, all of which occurred in the last five days, are a deal-breaker. Flameviper is asking to come back, with the understanding he'll be on a very short leash -- but he's already biting the leash. While those diffs might only result in a civility warning for a new user, for a previously-banned user they are the kiss of death. --Jaysweet (talk) 13:59, 4 June 2008 (UTC) Full disclosure: I am not an admin, but I feel I can help out here anyway.
• Oppose For the reasons given above. Also, a banned used should request unbanning via e-mail, not on-wiki. _{1 != 2} 14:13, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose unblock. Flameviper has been the subject of numerous admin discussions (including 1, 2, 3; there are many others in the AN and ANI archives). He resorted to sockpuppetry in order to seek an unblock. He's been given many chances, and he openly admits here that he enjoys seeking attention. If he were truly interested in contributing to the encyclopedia, he would just do it without all this disruptive behaviour. --Kyoko 15:16, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Bah I can't even spend a week away without being dragged back by something like this! Curse the global login cookie. Anyway, I support unblocking. Why? I supported the same for Cream (formerly known as w00t, see archives), and things have turned out well there. The key thing to do is, now that Ziggy has "come clean" about his identity, is to nurture him around to being a productive contributor. This means defining the limits. Saying "he's already blown his chance" doesn't fly with me. He was never given a chance - he was constantly hiding and hoping not to be "outed" by any of those he had confided in. Banning a user repeatedly is useless. They come back angry and cause issues. It doesn't work. No point bearing a grudge, even if "policy" "says" we should. Urging reconsideration and care, Martinp23 17:31, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

He did not "come clean", he tried to become an admin and was unmasked. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 17:35, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

That's what I love about this place. There's so much assumption of good faith. Yes, I'm being sarcastic. He's not the bloody Phantom of The Opera being "unmasked" (or something - I'm not a great dramatist (honest)). He's a real person, like you or me. Now think about that. He's real - he's like you, sat here behind a computer. Now tell me that you can honestly make a judgment like that based on the prejudice of actions of a year ago, simply because of the WP:BAN tag? If you can, then I despair. The point is - if a user is coming back again and again despite a ban, then they want to be here (more than I do, frankly). Why should we stop them when we can put in a bit of effort to turn them around into useful contributors, and save ourselves the pain the the future? Martinp23 17:45, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I really do try to assume good faith and if you honestly think I've failed to do so, please point out how / where. All I said was that ZiggySawdust filed an RfA and RyanPostlethwaite pointed out his former identity. If he had not filed the RfA, and had announced of his own volition who he was, I'd be urging that he be unbanned - just as you are. But that did not happen. All I've said, really, is that a confession loses some of its moral value when one's hand is caught in the cookie jar. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 18:39, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

• Unban and move on with your lives. By creating this account, he took a huge risk, and I for one admire Flameviper for admitting that and risking making his situation worse. He wants to edit here, so as long as he's not causing any trouble and being monitored to check he's doing fine, everything will be fine. Good luck. Qst (talk) 17:52, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Causing trouble like creating nonsense redirects you mean?? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 18:12, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

RfD it if it's so evil. Martinp23 18:17, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Oh, it's not "evil", but neither is it productive or helpful. Nor is this. I don't feel like trolling through the contributions to find more examples, but they are there. What I honestly don't see is the evidence of reform. I don't think anyone is suggesting it's not possible, but it doesn't seem to have happened yet. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 18:32, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Or "testing" like this: [-Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive418#Need_an_admin_to_reverse_pagemove]=? Metros (talk) 18:16, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Tried talking to him about your concerns before jumping to block? I'd honestly like to see more admins do that for serious cases - if you can talk the user out of being a dick (if he/she is being one), then the problem is resolved much for satisfactorily for all than using the buttons. Martinp23 18:17, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Oh please. It was a silly move which wasn't the best for his reputation, but its not the end of the world. Qst (talk) 18:31, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

• Support unban. This is ridiculous. Ziggy is annoying, but in no way harmful. He is not Greg Kohs or Don Murphy and does not deserve to be banned. howcheng {chat} 18:06, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
• Completely support unban - this user is certainly not the worst member of our project, we've probably unbanned far worse users before. This latest account of Flameviper is far better than previous accounts, and has done some fantastic work here. I see no reason to reblock him (yeah, I'm aware it's already been done) for actions that happened relatively long ago. I'll certainly offer to mentor him, I think that could help and I'd welcome thoughts on some editing restrictions. Ryan Postlethwaite 18:13, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
• I never saw anything too problematic from the Ziggy Sawdust account, and he seemed like a productive editor. I'd support giving him a chance and unbanning him. I'm very disappointed that he's been blocked so quickly too, rather than being allowed to talk here. Acalamari 18:16, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Not now. He's shown too much annoyance, both on and off wiki. We've been here before, where he promises to do good, then ultimately fails. My decision stands. Oppose an unblock. -Pilotguy contact tower 18:27, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Out of interest- have many people received mails from this person in response to this thread? Not that I minded it- it's always nice to get mail :) and it wasn't particularly abusive, however I was careful (I hope) and used the 'email this user' function to respond, rather than revealing my email addy. (No disrespect meant to Ziggy and I'm not trying to say he's a wrong'un or anything like that - I just try to be cautious online.) Sticky Parkin 22:27, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Since you ask, Flameviper emailed me, too. Just so you know, I believe that the "email this user" function does reveal your email to the recipient, so that they can reply. Someone please correct me if this isn't the case. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 23:38, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

It is the case. Speaking as someone who uses the email function often, sending an email to someone reveals your email addy to them so's they can reply. -Jéské ^{(v^_^v E pluribus unum)} 00:44, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

No email here - I don't even think I have that option turned on. At least I hope to God I don't. --Badger Drink (talk) 13:34, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

• No real strong opinion on Flameviper himself, but the fact that he socked again to get around his ban doesn't sit too well with me and makes me none to quick to think we should unban. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 23:22, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
• Wait. I'm willing to consider the unban, but on a short leash after a month or so long wait. bibliomaniac15 00:29, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
• Support unban. This discussion is disappointingly filled with the idea that the user is an unreformed scoundrel, needs to repent, needs to abstain from improving the encyclopedia as some kind of gesture of goodwill. It appears that this user has been editing in a mostly constructive fashion and wants to continue doing so, but feels that his participation should have the approval of the community. I find all that to be very encouraging. Everyking (talk) 07:42, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

If unbanned

If this user is unbanned, what kind of restrictions/policing/guidelines do those who say "he needs to be put on a short leash" believe need to be put into place? I don't believe that he should be just "turned loose" without any structure to guide his actions and an understanding of what would happen with disruptions. So for those of you who support an unbanning, what do you feel needs to be done after the unbanning to prevent any of the issues that led to the banning and the issues that occurred under this account. Metros (talk) 19:59, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

If we really must unban; immediate short blocks in response to any unnecessary use of foul language or other obscenities which aren't in a context that could be construed as necessary or relevant for building an encyclopedia. Including edit summaries. Sticky Parkin 22:37, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Foul language is not grounds for blockings. --Badger Drink (talk) 13:36, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Sticky Parkin is correct, it can be evidence of incivility. Kbthompson (talk) 13:45, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Then block for incivility, not for a few f-bombs. "Evidence of incivility" - if you find yourself needing to play Sherlock Holmes or start a spreadsheet to determine whether or not a user is being incivil, it's a good sign you're looking far too fucking hard. Best - --Badger Drink (talk) 00:28, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

If a user demonstrates an inability to distinguish between when profanity is acceptable and when it is incivil, I think it is entirely appropriate to prohibit them from using profanity altogether, as a purely preventative measure. This is not about censorship; this is about helping people be civil. --Jaysweet (talk) 14:09, 5 June 2008 (UTC) Full disclosure: I am not an admin, but I feel I can help out here anyway.

Whoa. Strongly disagree with a general profanity ban, although I agree with everyone's points about it being innapropriate in certain places. When a rule like this is cooked up, people have to realize how hard it is to enforce. If he uses profanity in a mild way, it would be ridiculous to then block/ban because of this rule. If he uses it in an incivil way, deal with that, no need for such a wide-ranging rule. Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 14:18, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Every dog has their day (in court), which is why I say evidence. It's usually enough for someone to be on a behavioural probation for them to concentrate on avoiding such situations. Kbthompson (talk) 15:29, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

We never ever ever should block someone for incivility. (policy states, last I checked) Martinp23 18:16, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

No it does not, and in fact policy states the opposite, right in the 3rd paragraph:

The community realizes that editors are human, capable of mistakes, and so a few, minor, isolated incidents are not in themselves a concern. A pattern of gross incivility, however, is highly disruptive, and may result in warnings or blocks. Of course, one single act of incivility can also cross the line if severe enough; for instance, an egregious personal attack, a threat against another person, or extreme profanity directed against another contributor are all excessive enough to result in a block without any need to consider the pattern. (WP:CIV, 3rd paragraph)

I really have no idea where you get that from, to be honest... Incivility is probably the most disruptive problem the project faces. Vandalism is easy, you just RBI. Otherwise productive editors who are incivil, on the other hand, are a serious quandary. You hate to block them, but then how many countless productive editors have left the project because they got sick of taking shit from incivil arrogant (but otherwise productive) editors?? --Jaysweet (talk) 18:25, 5 June 2008 (UTC) Full disclosure: I am not an admin, but I feel I can help out here anyway.

Jay, plenty have left indeed. Me included for most purposes. I don't know where I get that from - I seem to remember some discussion concluding that it was a bad idea to do "block per WP:CIV", if there is no personal attack or sustained disruption. Looking at the quote above this does indeed still seem to be the case, hence my opposition to a block for a single bit of incivility. Ah - I remember now. "Cool down" blocks are a bad thing, and this is effectively what a "short block for incivility" is, if not a punishment, and blocks are not for punishment. Yes, a sustained pattern of issues after his "probation" proper starts would call for a block, but being imperfect does not warrant a sanction like that. Do you see what I mean? Martinp23 18:50, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

To say that we cannot block editors for persistent refusal to comply with an established policy is equivalent to saying that the policy is without force and void. At some point, sufficiently egregious violation of any policy – including WP:CIV] – will draw a block. It's also worth noting that the ArbCom has imposed civility paroles on editors before, recognizing that persistent incivility is harmful and disruptive to a constructive and collaborative working environment. (See for example [57], [58], [59].) TenOfAllTrades(talk) 18:44, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

I worded my comment badly due to not having been active. Persistant inciv. can result in a disruption block, but isolted incidents shouldn't do so. More incivility is likely to result from such a block (for most people (I don't say that lightly)), so a block only on the basis of saying a swear word or whatever is stupid. Martinp23 18:50, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

I should clarify that when I proposed prohibiting Flameviper from using profanity, I did not mean that a single "damn" should result in a block, far from it. I just meant to make it clear that, unlike other users who are trusted to use their own judgment as to when profanity is acceptable, this user should be asked to refrain from it altogether, and understand that if he uses profanity it will be automatically considered incivil. This is actually intended to help the user -- since he obviously can't tell when it's okay to swear or not, if he just assumes it's never okay, then by definition he'll never "accidentally" use profanity inappropriately. --Jaysweet (talk) 19:02, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

There's a difference between profanity and incivility, I think, so we ought not make a "profanity=incivil" judgment, rather look at any issues on a case by case basis. But yes, I think he can expect that he will inevitably be held to a higher standard than others (much as I personally dislike the fact, I can see why it is the case, given a degree of mis-trust and, perhaps, anger). Martinp23 19:31, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Ryan has offered to mentor the user - I think this would be great. Limits do need defining - I'd suggest basically, in a nutshell: "avoid personal attacks, remain civil, and don't mess about too much ["too much" because a bit of fun is good]. Try to work on building the encylopedia". Thanks, Martinp23 18:16, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

I do not have an opinion on the issue yet but i am still studying it. JeanLatore (talk) 02:12, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

You and Ziggy Sawdust/Flameviper are a lot alike in your flippancy and love of the help desks, so I'm interested in your conclusion of what reasonable limits might be. I don't support unbanning for reasons stated earlier, but how would you feel, if you were the user, about a ban on participating at the help desks? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 13:21, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

• If Ryan wants to mentor, I've no particular objection. But my first introduction to this person was as a drama-seeking child with little self-control; this entire theater piece is an example of that. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 15:13, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

  I think we way too often give attention-seekers what they want. This keeps them coming back for more. Can we find a way to ship this kid off to some other website or chat room or something where such behavior is a better fit for the environment? Friday (talk) 15:18, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

  For the record, Flameviper has another sock, User:KONATA KONATA KONATA as confirmed in this diff.

• I'm not personally convinced that Flameviper has reformed, but if Ryan is still willing to mentor him, fine. I do hope that he can become a productive contributor and win the community over. I have seen it happen before, rarely. If Flameviper is unbanned, I strongly encourage him to refrain from any profanity and even heated remarks, and furthermore, I hope he avoids any situations where he might be tempted to say something regrettable. --Kyoko 16:07, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

OBAMA incident

OK, my eyes are not playing tricks on me and im not on drugs either. The obama page was just covered with a HUGE slogan covering his name. The slogan read ( and i squirm as I write this) NIGGER!!!!!!!!. I checked the edit history and no one had edited the article, it was there for about a minute and then disappeared. --— Realist² (Come Speak To Me) 02:01, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

It was in a template. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 02:06, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

{{Barack Obama}} which is now protected. It happens sometimes... not much we can do except protect all templates. --Rividian (talk) 02:07, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Cheers, i was concerned about my health lol. — Realist² (Come Speak To Me) 02:08, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

It's not actually protected, oops. But the vandalism was removed. --Rividian (talk) 02:11, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

It's sprotected. --Rory096 02:16, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

It appears on Michelle Obama's page as well. Steve Richter (talk) 02:09, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Yep, same template. --Rory096 02:16, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

(ecx4) It was in a template (this one to be specific). It's now removed, and the vandal was blocked. If it happens again, any admins should feel free to block on sight. --Rory096 02:11, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Why is this template not full protected? The visibility on Barack Obama's article alone is around 800,000-2.6 million pageviews a month. Sometimes it gets over 100,000 hits in a single day. Why isn't this full protected for safety's sake.⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 04:42, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree, it really ought to be, same with George Bush's template. It's not exactly a high-risk template, but it did need to be sprotected. --Mizu onna sango15/水女珊瑚15 04:50, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

It depends on how you define a "high-risk template". I would assume that all high-profile BLP templates need to be at least semi-protected if not fully-protected all the time. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 05:15, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Um, can Template:Barack Obama be only semi-protected and not full-protected? Or are us autoconfirmed users not trustworthy? :) New articles and such can be created and may need to be added to the template, etc. Gary King (talk) 06:25, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I'd love to Gary :) but BLP issues are much more of a concern. I've just updated the guideline here. Please feel free to comment at the talk page there. Answers to your concerns are already mentioned in the guideline. I mean there's still, of course, a way for you to edit it. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 06:30, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Not only that, GK, but a user only has to have an account for four days to be autoconfirmed. It is still highly-vulnerable to both vandalism and BLP concerns. --Mizu onna sango15/水女珊瑚15 23:38, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

:'( The number of templates that a regular user can't edit increases again by one... Gary King (talk) 06:34, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I know and that's sad. If you or someone can guarantee to me that it would be monitored on a regular basis and that we won't have no more troubles like we had today than I'll be ready to reduce the protection level to semi ;) -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 06:52, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

There are currently 2661 templates that are fully protected. Maybe I can add a few to my watchlist so they can be unprotected again... :p Gary King (talk) 07:02, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

You got a really magic watchlist :) Yes and you may end up with having most of the high-profile BLP-related templates being fully protected so there would be no such targeted vandalism and potential BLP violations. I have no idea about how many that would be. Apart from Barack Obama's one (+1) and out of the 2660 templates, how many do you believe they really have to be fully protected? -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 07:19, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Just to be safe, I went and semi-protected all of the open templates used in that article. That should be fine for most situations, but they can be fully-protected later if necessary. – ClockworkSoul 06:48, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

And that's why I'm sad that we can't have a cascading semi-protection. (Yes, I know it causes privilege escalation.)

If any of these protected templates needs to be edited, you can use {{editprotected}} on the talk page, like normal. It won't take too long. Stifle (talk) 11:45, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Excuse me?

Just to clarify for those not paying attention, template {{Barack Obama}} was fully protected by FayssalF on the grounds that it is a "high risk template", transcluded onto all of 30 pages. This totally contravenes the protection policy; how has this not be undone yet? ➪HiDrNick! 12:52, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi Nick.

• First, the question would have been "how come no one contacted FayssalF and discussed this with him" instead of saying "how has this not been undone yet". There's quite a big difference. In fact, i left a clear notice on the template talk page. Probably, it is there were you should discuss your concerns.
• Is there any specific rule on the WP:PROT which states that such a template must be semi-protected instead?
• Is there a specific descussion regarding my protection apart from the above?
• Do we agree that such high-profile bio templates involve BLP issues?
• Do you know that the full protection is not indefinite and it will end on 2008-06-18 T02:18:17; enough to keep vandals away during this post-primary elections period?
• Do you have any suggestion about:
  • avoiding the above mentioned problem (vandalism) to happen?
  • better protecting our BLP articles?

-- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 13:22, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

In the past, good-faith misapplications of page protection have been undone by other administrators, particularly when discussed here. I had to read the section and check the protection log before I realized that the template had been full rather than semi protected, and wanted to draw other editor's attention to that fact. That the protection expires at some point in the future does not mitigate the current damage. The protection policy is extremely clear: full protection is used to stop edit warring, which was not going on here. However, The written policy is largely irrelevant; my primary concern is that if administrators continue to protect pages for feeble reasons, eventually the protection policy will come to reflect that as the norm. Only the most frequently-used templates should be full-protected to prevent vandalism: should {{fact}} be vandalized, it appears on hundreds of thousands of pages. {{Barack Obama}} appears on less than 30. This is a very slippery slope indeed.

No one is proposing that BLPs be full-protected to prevent vandalism. Yet. Of course the content of articles and templates that appear on biographies of living persons invoke WP:BLP issues, and they will always be subject to vandalism. Semi-protection, when properly applied, is a fine deterrent for this sort of vandalism.

Again, I reiterate that if you are fully protecting a page because you don't want vandals to edit it, you're not helping Wikipeida. That is not what page protection is for. Unnecessary page protection is harmful to the project, and should be used rarely and with extreme caution. This template should be unprotected forthwith. ➪HiDrNick! 17:56, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

We at least agree that it doesn't "totally contravenes the protection policy" which was part of your argument above :) However, I totally disagree with you Nick that it was a 'feeble' reason. You don't seem to be aware of the BLP side of the story. You also seem that you are not aware that the template has been edited several times after its protection. You probably missed my edit summary while fully-protecting and my note on the template's talk page which you discarded and chose to come here straight away. {{Barack Obama}} appears on less than 30 articles but you miss the fact that [Barack Obama], for obvious reasons, is one of the most consulted, visited and edited article in the 'pedia (a high-profile BLP article). Any change in related templates can have serious consequences as proven by the raison d'être of thread.

Protections of templates should be judged on a per-case basis. Your concern seems to raise another point; that you think there's a community trend of fully-protecting templates. I am not really aware of that and I can assure to you that my action here has nothing to do with that.

My point is view is straightforward... I prefer dealing with {{EditProtected}} than having Ni**er appearing for x seconds or minutes on a high-trafic BLP article. In brief, the template can still be edited but there will be no BLP troubles or vandalism. You are of course entitled to your belief that [my action is] not helping Wikipeida.

And please Nick, as a friendly note, next time have the courtesy of discussing issues with the concerned admin before posting here especially when there is no vioation of any policy whatsoever. At least, we admins should encourage a more friendly atmosphere over here. Are we really helping the project by how has this not be undone yet? Let's make a smile out of that while still discussing if you don't mind. :) -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 18:47, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

P.S. In fact, to not to forget mentioning the essential part of this sub-thread. Please feel free to undo it and get it back to semi-protection. You, or other editors, may also keep an eye on it. I had said and proposed this yesterday but here it is in case it has gone with the wind. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 18:57, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

The thing about high-visibility templates is that they are highly visible. The Barack Obama template is viewed several million times a month over the 30 or so pages it is transcluded to. That is an incredibly high visibility warranting full-protection. There have been days where the Barack Obama article alone gets 200,000 hits. Lets call that half a million hits in one day over all of the articles with that template (conservative estimate). If a racial slur is put up for even a half hour during the most heavily trafficked times of day, that is potentially tens of thousands of people who see that vandalism. That is a Big Deal. Hence, it merits full protection. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 03:15, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

"Please feel free to undo it and get it back to semi-protection" — HiDrNick is not an administrator. I also agree with the full protection, per FayssalF and Swatjester. Daniel (talk) 03:18, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Astrotheology

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

Arbitration requested. Durova^Charge! 04:29, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

---

On the Astrotheology page, two users have been warned several times (through edit summaries and extensive debates on talk page) and continue to cause disruptive edits: PelleSmith (talk · contribs) and Hrafn (talk · contribs). Please, also note the tone general used against me with their hyperbolic language. It has caused much distraction and stress in trying to expand a stub. They continue to edit back to dubious (tagged) versions for which a request to clearly cite the source has been unmet. I've shown in plain explain how their argument is a fallacy on the talk page. The continue to ignore all other reliable sources that do not agree with their position and state only one as the one and only WP:RS source. The page was also put on AfD a few days ago, but it has had the basic claim resolved, and it is continues to carry past the AfD's WP:POINT. Hrafn in particular wants to make the claim that "astrotheology [only] is natural theology" even though no source can be cited to clearly support that position, and it would be highly POV since it completely disagrees with other sources. It appear these two uses are using consistant red herrings, with dubious edits and ignorant talk page comments, in an attempt to distract constructive edits to expand a stub before the AfD process is up, so that the article will get deleted (as they voted). — Dzonatas 13:35, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

pov version = "astrology is natural theology..." (which has not yet been cited to support the claim, despite many requests)

• revision back to tagged dubious+uncited version, pov
• revision back to tagged dubious+uncited version, pov
• revision back to pov version after attempt to disambiguate
• revision back to pov after attempt at npov
• revision back to pov version
• revision to pov version, narrowing of citations, and removal a published book cites solely based on their opinion of it being not WP:RS
• reverted (by Hrafn) viewpoint from quotation
• reverted ref from book, replaced viewpoint on definition with his own -- clearly WP:OR
• reverted removal of notability tag even though it is clear that notability can be established
• reverted section title back to his previous edit
• reverted recently added quotation, replaced with his own selective quotes
• Also note, how he first reverted the link and called it 'a junk link' but hid it within another change

Further I clearly point out their fallacy on the talk page and they completely ignore it. — Dzonatas 14:08, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

This is a content dispute which Dzonatas is escalating into disruption. Please do review the talk page. I stand by my language as reasonable, particularly having struck text that Dzonatas tagged as ad hominem though it was hardly an attack in the first place. Dzonatas fist attempted to use sources in ways that violated WP:RS and/or WP:V. Good natured suggestions to review policy and to implement it accurately failed to do much good. Presently Dzonatas wishes to completely disregard what is plainly stated in reliable sources regarding the subject matter, instead disruptively asking for a specific quotation he knows does not exist (such a quotation is plainly not needed). All of this is clear on the talk page, and again other than his disruption I would really say this is all a content dispute which of course relates to the implementation of guidelines like RS and V. With the exception of warning editors for possible breaches of WP:CIVIL and WP:DIS, and perhaps suggesting a review of WP:RS and WP:V I don't think this needs much admin attention presently.PelleSmith (talk) 14:30, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

There seems to be a content dispute with a pending AfD and not much else going on here. No clear violations of 3RR, but it's possible I missed something. I suggest everyone cool it and try, again, to reach a consensus amongst yourselves. If the article survives AfD, I would suggest using one of the alternative dispute resolution methods. Hopefully this won't escalate further, but if it does come back here. --Selket ^Talk 15:23, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

• Derham is the only source that defines 'Astro-Theology' and 'Physico-Theology' in his time. Derham makes no mention of 'Natural Theology' (which is a book published by Paley almost 90 years after Derham's books in 1713-1715). Derham, as a source, is being ignored by other editors in order to support more recently written text that use the terms more generally. Newton's achievements is cited as to make that distinction clear. The events related to Newton and Derham cannot be ignored in order to achieve NPOV. Since the book Adaptation states that natural theology is sometimes consider physicotheology, it seems more reasonable to assume that natural theology is an abstraction of physicotheology. Derham makes his books distinct except for the 'demonstration of the Being and attributes of God' (which others sources have interpreted simple as 'theology'). Consider that 'Natural Theology' is also theology, I see no reason why to use the dominant view of 'theology' as npov. It states it right in the title and definition "astro-theology" and "physico-theology" (click links for visual of page). — Dzonatas 15:29, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

As you've been told - content dispute. Cheers.PelleSmith (talk) 15:34, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

• It is more than a content dispute, it is disruption. What makes that evident is the fact that Paley's Natural Theology tries to prove God (as its cause and explicitly quoted in natural theology); however, Derham's theology does not try to prove God until he published another work called 'Christo-Theology'. It is obvious that Derham used the hyphen to emphasis the subject with theology in each of his books. It would be a an ill-compromise to wikipedia to state that "astro-theology is natural theology" such that it would only be viewed as a cause to prove God. — Dzonatas 16:03, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

With respect, the dispute is entirely about content, as your post indicates. I would strongly advise you to seek dispute resolution first, as there is not a user conduct issue here. You believe them to be disruptive, because you disagree (strongly) with their position; I'm sure they feel the same way. Thus, the dispute that needs resolving. No admin action is required here. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 17:17, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

• Hrafn is now outright blanking/deleting everything I add. Even though Hrafn cited the sources himself on the talk page, he nows claims they are falsified. Um????? If there were constructive edits to it, I could pass it off for just a content dispute, but consider his comments against me "Dzonatas' nebulous idea of an atheist astronomy-based argument against the supernatural," "ungarbled" "grammatical error", "misinterprets source," "fast and loose," "did you fail to comprehend," "conflated," "I don't give a pair of fetid dingo's kidneys about," "you are garbling what the source said," "being horribly muddled," "nonsensical," "Virtually every sentence you wrote in that section is garbled jargon-ridden verbiage," "tagging was obviously careless" is a baseless violation of WP:AGF" 03:33, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

History of User:Dzonatas

The editor who started this thread is forum shopping. See this invalid 3RR complaint he opened concurrently. Dzonatas has a highly disruptive history and his principal contributions to Wikipedia are Template:Citecheck for flagging misuse of citations and the disruptive editing guideline--not for having helped to create either but for having inspired them. After a two year hiatus he recently returned and is back to his old tricks. Comparisons:

• Misuse of citations
  • Today:[60] [61]
  • October 2005: fabricating a nonexistent primary source[62]
• Disruptive editing
  • This week: generates 75kb of talk page debate and general wheel-spinning at Talk:Astrotheology
  • Feburary 2006: as immortalized at WP:LAME, generates 58kb of talk page debate over how to copyedit a two line statement. After he got blocked and all other editors had reached agreement, he returned and claimed that they had reached a false consensus because, having been blocked for edit warring and disruption, he couldn’t participate. Template_talk:WikiProject_Computer_science.
• Alters posts inappropriately:
  • This week: leaves an incomprehensible message at another editor’s talk page. After the other editor replies that he cannot parse the statement, Dzonatas calls the other editor uncivil for having not understood it, while simultaneously editing his own previous statement to make it comprehensible.[63]
  • Fall 2005: during mediation, alters another editor’s posts.[64][65]
• Advocates nonsense articles:
  • This week: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Astrotheology
  • December 2005: construes the financial term ‘’forward-looking statement’’ as if it had relevance to linguistics and historiography, which it doesn’t.[66]
• Frivolous 3RR reports:
  • Today: (see above)
  • December 2005 – January 2006: three frivolous complaints:[67][68][69] when in fact the only 3RR violations were his own.[70]

Some of you have heard my horror stories about the fellow who parked himself on the Joan of Arc article for a solid year for no other purpose than because he insisted he was descended from her brother. This is that guy.[71] He used to edit under the username Jhballard; see the userpage. I hoped I would never encounter him again. This is a troll so successful that most of the people who dealt with him quit Wikipedia in frustration, and he is now baiting two editors in good standing and lodging frivolous threads in multiple fora in the attempt to get them blocked. Requesting impartial review and intervention. Durova^Charge! 17:15, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

• (reply) OMG, Durova, are you still stalking me and poisoning the wells!!!

• Please notice: the other account reveals personal information in its account name that I do not want publicably revealed anymore. I never denied to anybody the other account is mine (and there is clearly no overlap in use between the two). It is against wikipedia policy to attempt to disclose personal information about people.

Those were voluntary self-disclosures and, not having vanished, the editor cannot invoke the right to vanish. He spent a long time insisting that his aunt's unpublished family tree was a reliable source, thus compelling the other editors to examine that claim. An editor cannot have it both ways. Durova^Charge! 17:46, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

It is suggested in the policy to completely start a new account. It would only be voluntary disclosure if I in any way edited one account with the other or made a link between the two. I have never advertised a link. Durova has disclosed the connection. If there was any question, a private message could be asked of me. This board isn't private -- what do you expect me to do? Deny it? Also, Durova left this message on my talk, "If you want to invoke the m:Right to vanish, you have to actually vanish. I would have no objection if you do." Durova doesn't understand that username changes were not allowed, despite the Durova's tone used in the message. — Dzonatas 18:20, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Dzonatas is attempting to muddy the waters. If anyone has a question about this I'll be glad to reply, but I think it's clear that he's attempting to throw around a variety of unsupported claims to distract attention from his own longstanding disruption. He was perpetrating exactly the same genealogical claims on both accounts. Durova^Charge! 18:39, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Durova has stalked me before, and found other articles I was editing. She contacted a few other editors on the talk pages. I could spend some time to dig up evidence if really needed about this. I think it is clear when she associated with User:Ruud_Koot (which became an admin later, and continues to poisoning the well also with his [watchlist]. Other admins noticed the collaborated-gang poisoning of other users. There were private IRC chats on how to handle it. — Dzonatas 18:20, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

This is another frivolous accusation. I contacted Dzonatas at his user talk page today to offer advice about m:Right to vanish; that is all. I do not edit the other articles where he is active (aside from Joan of Arc, which I raised to FA after his departure). Dzonatas is claiming that, since I am not in any current dispute with him, it somehow constitutes stalking to respond to this thread he started. It is well known that I boycott IRC. Durova^Charge! 18:30, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

• I'm not the only one she has done this to. A search on the internet for "ruud" and "durova" reveals an interesting thread (search for "Durova" in thread, links confirm). Obviously, ruud later found out what Durova was doing. 18:28, 5 June 2008 (UTC) — Dzonatas 18:56, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

• Some evidence remembered:

1. "canvassing"
2. the rfc result
3. Durova resigns over blocking violation

— Dzonatas 18:56, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Dzontas, stop throwing mud to see if you can get any of it to stick, and start actually defending yourself, or we will have no choice but to presume Durova's statements about you are 100% true. Your claimed "evidence" proves all of "nothing" Wow. a person named Ruud - who may or may not be the same as the Wikipedian - made general comments about Wikipedia on a page that also linked to an article that mentioned Durova. Very thin gruel, and if it actually did say what you claim it does, then it would be strong evidence against your claim of collaboration between Durova and Ruud. Which, I might add, has no evidence either. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 19:01, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

These links Dzonatas is supplying range from irrelevant to meaningless. In March 2006 I attempted to start Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Dzonatas, but it could not be certified because he had already successfully driven away all other productive editors from the Joan of Arc article. During that time I asked one administrator for procedural advice. I don't recall this Ruud Koot person Dzonatas is talking about; if I ever interacted with that individual at all it must have been very long ago. Any admin who takes an interest is welcome to review the RFC draft; I spent a long time preparing extensive evidence for it. If his behavior continues I may request undeletion so that it can be updated and resubmitted. He's initiating conflicts with more people now. Durova^Charge! 19:05, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

It has been recommended to me that Dzonatas, if he/she is agreeable, might be a good candidate for mentoring. If this is agreeable to all, and seems like it might help in this situation, I would be willing to help in that way. Pastordavid (talk) 19:11, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

That suggestion was made by a person who did not know his previous history. While in principle I support mentoring and dispute resolution, as you can see from the diffs above he subverted a mediation by altering my posts during my earliest days as a Wikipedian. His participation was also disruptive at this content RFC. I have not seen any dispute resolution attempt regarding him that was successful: he starts a variety of digressive tangents, attempts to damage other editors' reputations, and generally grinds people down until they depart. Durova^Charge! 19:25, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Hrafn asked in a harsh way to clarify my grammer on his talk page. I edited *my comment* per request. If you look on Hrafn's page talk, others agree that he could be more civil. — Dzonatas 20:13, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Back to Astrotheology

Not that this is any different than your first set of assertions. Take this diff: [72] Your description: "reverted ref from book, replaced viewpoint on definition with his own -- clearly WP:OR"

Actual, sane, description: Removed references to ancient 1913 dictionary and a book published by a fringe publishing company copyright page and replaced it with information from a modern, mainstream source, which he gave a full reference to. How on earth is that supposed to be Original research? Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 19:09, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Your mixing to things together, the book, which has nothing to do with the WP:OR bit, and the new lead that states "astrotheology is natural theology." There are cited sources that show the teleology of natural theology does not agree with astrotheology. Both natural theology and astrotheology are theologies. It was perfected sane to state in a npov way that "astrotheology is theology..." and later describe the partisan views created by teleology. It's OR because Modern Predicament only talks about astrotheology for its teleology view, and the other editors say it is apart of natural theology based on that book. The other books go beyond the 'narrow'[SIC] teleological of natural theology, and they make the non-teleological view. — Dzonatas 19:22, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

According to the talk page, that is an utter lie. Talk:Astrotheology#Natural_Theology Hrafn quotes the section of the book directly naming it as a subset of Natural theology. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 19:39, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

It is quoted out of context. He seems to want to infer that "subordinate" means that it was already apart of natural theology. You very well will get that impression unless you read the surrounding pages to understand the development tone. Look here. It clearly says "In this narrow sense -- sometimes known also by the more grandiose term 'physicotheology'-- was limited in scope: is tended to despise the more abstract traditional arguments for the existence of God and prided itself on close contact with new facts revealed by science." Little further down: "we find men influenced by the new empirical sciences and seeking to derive from them some support for religion. Because of the concern with the details of God's purpose in the world, natural theology tended to break up a series of minor theologies." (emphasis added). It didn't state natural theology 'created' the other theologies. It states: "Those subordinate theologies -- which are said to have been zealously cultivated by the English--were given impressive names." It then lists the theologies with a name that supports it in the teleological view. However, Derham didn't name astro-theology it like that. Compare: the study of "God's purpose in the stars" to "A demonstration of being and attributes of God, from a survey of the heavens." Clearly, one is purely observational while the other is teleological. Further, astrotheology is based on astronomy. Natural theology is based on biology. I haven't seen anything to say that "astronomy is biology" in analogy to "astrotheology is natural theology." — Dzonatas 20:39, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

That doesn't counteract Hrafn's quote in any way shape or form. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 07:49, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

It appears that this edit was inserted by Dzonatas in order to generate the appearance of a content dispute, when the focus is actually on his policy violations. Durova^Charge! 20:57, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

It also cuts off the second half of my comment from the first half. I added this [73] as a postscript to [74] It is now separated from the comment it responds to. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 07:54, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Ongoing disruption

In addition to the policy violations documented above, Dzonatas has now insinuated that the existence of this noticeboard thread (which he started while he was forum shopping for blocks) means that an AFD has been canvassed.[75] That claim is completely false; no one has canvassed. It appears that he is making claims because the consensus discussion is going against him. Respectfully request that an admin step in with the tools. Durova^Charge! 19:45, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

A block is against HEC. Being against blocking doesn't mean we don't report ill-activity. — Dzonatas 20:10, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

In the above post Dzonatas links to a disambiguation page, apparently in the attempt to distract attention from the fact that I am calling for a block on Dzonatas for disruption. Durova^Charge! 20:16, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

WP:HEC *sigh*— Dzonatas 20:59, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

The harmonious editing club itself is a nearly inactive project that never took any formal stand against userblocks. Dzonatas has opened forum shopping frivolous complaints against other editors at noticeboards, never suggesting that he objected to userblocks until one was requested against him. His link is another red herring. Durova^Charge! 21:05, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Your red herring accusation is clearly false My comment at HEC was made way back. — Dzonatas 21:25, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

A single comment that Dzonatas himself once made shortly after receiving several userblocks, and 14 months after the thread opened for unrelated reasons, is no barrier against intervening with the tools here.[76] If anything, it demonstrates that his disruption is both habitual and stubborn. Durova^Charge! 21:39, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

After all this time, ... um, you saying I caused WP:DE to be written? I see why you co-authored a quicker to indefinitely block people, but I had nothing to do with your resignation because you violated blocking policy. Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm. For HEC to sponsor WP:DE for the blocking reasons seems highly doubtful. — Dzonatas 22:03, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Other debates

Obviously, I stepped into a can of worms when I started to edit anything close to astrology, astronomy, theology, religion, etc. All of my other edits made on other topics never have met so much dispute. Even consider the small edits I make to high traffic articles on political candidates, those have gone completely fine. To me, it appears the can of worms is on any astronomy and religion related discussions. Thinking of RfA debates on other users, it appears quite common. Yes, I can dig up the connection between how the debate on computer science (where ruud was editing) got crossed with joan of arc (where durova was editing) when I was editing both. But as I search throws the past links, wow... There must be a more civil way then to have to dig up old evidence to defend oneself. I shouldn't even have to do it, but with Durova's out-of-the-blue comment here, it takes it totally out of context from the article on astrotheology and natural theology. I suggest to replace the section above that Durova made with the commonly installed quote "Jimmy Wales engages in edit warring," so that we can get the discussion back to astrotheology. If Durova want to make the her case over history, there is more appropriate places. — Dzonatas 20:01, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Anyone with the patience to do so can look through the ongoing disruption and figure out if the history she presented has relevance here--as it seems to. Please note that you made yourself visible by shopping all of these forums. Cheers.PelleSmith (talk) 20:11, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Again Dzontas's claims are misleading. With regard to computer science, in addition to his userblocks and the frivolous 3RR complaints he lodged, two formal mediations attempted to resolve issues with his participation there: Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/14_12_2005_Down_to_Earth_Computer_Science, Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-01-28 Computer Science dispute. It appears that any subject where he edits with regularity gets bogged down as a result of his involvement. This person was one of the principal reasons I coauthored WP:DE, in order to give the site an effective way to deal with this kind of problem. With the exception of a long wikibreak where he didn't edit at all, his participation at this website has been consistently disruptive since spring 2005. Durova^Charge! 20:13, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Now that is truly amusing given the amount of times Dzonatas has claimed others are violaing "WP:DIS", which redirects to WP:DE. Does that mean Dzonatas has a WP:COI in drawing attention to this policy ;).PelleSmith (talk) 20:32, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

See my post to the guideline talk page from 16 September 2006.[77] I don't call the fellow out more than is absolutely necessary to address ongoing disruption, but it's true I made a commitment to certain areas of volunteer work because I didn't want anyone else to endure the same frustrations he generated, back when I had been a new editor and no administrator paid attention. Durova^Charge! 20:48, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:No climbing the Reichstag dressed as Spider-Man. — Dzonatas 21:43, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

The community raised WP:DE to a guideline, and Dzonatas himself cites it liberally when he thinks it supports him. Let's see it put to its proper use. Durova^Charge! 21:49, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

The proper use of wikipedia is to build an encyclopedia. I stopped edits at Joan of Arc because mentors suggested to me to let you do all the work. So now, here is astrotheology which it seems there were only 3 people who started to create the page, and I was trying to do the work to get information in the page -- there is no intent to misinform. Wouldn't you agree that deleting content you worked hard to find and put into and article then suddenly see it deleted and ripped apart feels like people are losing sight about what wikipedia is about. Hey, I know my dyslexic type doesn't let me making perfectly spelled words with beyond perfect grammar. That is why I put it in and then come back latter to improve it. Your sense to need to block people stirs the pot against people with any form of dyslexia. To come back and attempt improvement just to find others have shredded it doesn't help. It's like expecting perfection upon each edit. You can't expect that. With those articles you wrote (like the one you contributed to HEC after you noticed I was in it), I would think you would understand, hmm. Even though me and ruud buttheads before, we continued to work to consensus and then go are own ways. Here, you have not demonstrated you, Durova, can fully go on your own way once someone crosses your path. You must feel like the one way to solve it is to completely block someone from your existence here. Back to ruud, I believe is right when he said, likewise, that this kind of pain will probably never have enough public light to heal it. — Dzonatas 22:28, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Cue admins ...

Isn't it about time someone at least ended this whole mess. Blocks or no blocks, warnings or no warnings, someone needs to put this discussion out of its misery. Durova seems to have some valid concerns here about this editors history, and I certainly think he's being disruptive presently, but nothing constructive has been said here for a while. Cheers.PelleSmith (talk) 22:09, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

It does look like there is enough here to make a decision one way or the other. If no blocks are forthcoming, an RfC is a possibility (for its own sake, or as a prelude to arbitration). Since further discussion of the sort occurring above is unlikely to be constructive, I've archived all sections but this one. Avruch^T * ^ER 22:34, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

To the administrator who makes a decision about whether to block: if you choose not to, please restore Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Dzonatas so that it can be updated and resubmitted. Thank you. Durova^Charge! 22:41, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

I think Dzonatas could use mentoring, and I believe this has been suggested by at least one commentator above. Someone please review his recent behavior and do something proactive. Thanks.PelleSmith (talk) 02:57, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Currently he is disrupting an AfD so unrelated to his previous edits that one can only imagine he followed Pastordavid there.PelleSmith (talk) 03:06, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I thought about the mentoring that Pastordavid offered. Then I noticed this canvassing. It was a successful votestacking call. Morally, I decided not to ask PastorDavid for mentoring, as I felt he should have noted the invite as canvassing and should have not voted. Further, the article on AfD met the guidelines for central discussion. — Dzonatas 03:32, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I have initiated Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#Dzonatas. His response to feedback has been aggressive (see his user talk page history from today) and so has his response to prospective mentorship. Durova^Charge! 04:27, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

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

Testimony

• Previously archived section, modified 21:29, 5 June 2008. — Dzonatas 07:38, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
• Edited 21:32, 5 June 2008. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Astrotheology — Dzonatas 07:49, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
• Edited 21:31, 5 June 2008. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/St. Luke Lutheran Church — Dzonatas 07:49, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
• [78], [79] — Dzonatas 13:44, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

An odd post

See the date. Same thing elsewhere. Gwen Gale (talk) 17:25, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Good thing we got a free photo of him whilst he was alive. — CharlotteWebb 17:31, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

On a more serious note I would notify his office that a specific threat has been made, but I'm afraid I'll sound like a complete dingbat if the diffs are oversighted. — CharlotteWebb 17:35, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

The IP is from Washington DC if anyone wants to deal with it.-Wafulz (talk) 17:36, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I'll make a phone call. This needs to be dealth with, just in case. – ClockworkSoul 18:45, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I filed a report with the Detroit Police Dept. (they were very nice). Can't be too careful about this kind of thing. – ClockworkSoul 19:03, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Just to follow up, the supervisor of the sergeant with whom I reported the incident called me back to thank me (and us), and to let me know that this is being pursued. Obviously, it's probably just a really silly prank, but I'm willing to bet that the prankster will probably be encouraged to consider the consequences of his actions in the future. – ClockworkSoul 22:07, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time to do that. Gwen Gale (talk) 20:17, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Better hope he doesn't get killed -- standard procedure by the Detroit Police homicide department is to start the investigation by arresting the victim, the reporter, and any potential witnesses. --Carnildo (talk) 20:49, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

The homicide department arrests the victim? I imagine that can get messy. – ClockworkSoul 00:41, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

The IP has been blocked, also. --Selket ^Talk 19:16, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Note to 'crats: please don't oversight those diffs. – ClockworkSoul 22:10, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't think they warrant oversight, and I thought nothing of it til I looked at the date O.O <3 Tinkleheimer TALK!! 22:13, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Wow, I was scheduled for a meeting tomorrow, the 4th. I guess I missed it. I wonder how it went? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 22:21, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Bureaucrats don't hide revisions: Overseers do that. Acalamari 22:15, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Doh. Of course. Very silly of me. It's unlikely to be oversighted of course, but I just wanted to be sure that they remain for the authorities to see. I had to talk the very nice sergeant through the process of navigating through the wiki so that she could see the diffs, and I would hate for them to be unable to find them if they needed them again. – ClockworkSoul 22:18, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Anybody who has ever tried to help somebody find a diff or any other url over the phone will agree with me on this: e-mail works better. Recommend using a throwaway account, a pseudonym, and an IP address not traceable to you. — CharlotteWebb 14:08, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Looking at it, the article needs some attention with respect to BLP in respect to other people named in it, and possibly to undue weight. We do not normally describe events like this in such great detail. DGG (talk) 01:53, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Can I get some eyes here?

Resolved

No admin action required - debate is continuing on the talk page Kevin (talk) 01:10, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

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

I am encountering some resistance to the removal of some synthesized information in Silence in the Library (a Doctor Who episode). There is also a bit of testiness flaring up in the article discussion. As this isn't a content issue but rather one of policy and behavior, I think this is the place to ask for some experienced eyes. Please note that I brought up the synthesis issues in both NOR¹ and the Doctor Who wikiproject², without response. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 21:24, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Could you cite a couple of diffs, as examples? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 22:19, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Er, the synthesis or the unpleasantness? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 22:32, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

The bit where you feel that admin action is required. Kevin (talk) 22:39, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Oh, sure. The synthesis is located mainly within the article section ""Continuity", located here", wherein all the statements are synthesized bits from editors noting prior occurrences of events happening within the episode. None of it is cited. The unpleasantness ([Talk:Silence_in_the_Library#Removed_paragraphs_in_continuity 1]), while mild is somewhat corrosive and dismissive. The synthesized (and crufty, trivial) info:

• "As shown on the BBC Doctor Who website, there are a number of books in the library either written by former Doctor Who writers or featured in previous episodes. Among those seen are the operating manual for the TARDIS, Origins of the Universe (Destiny of the Daleks), The French Revolution (An Unearthly Child), the Journal of Impossible Things ("Human Nature"/"The Family of Blood"), The Hitchhiker's Guide To The Galaxy (written by Douglas Adams, former Doctor Who writer and script editor), Everest in Easy Stages (The Creature from the Pit) and Black Orchid (a book first seen in the Fifth Doctor serial of the same name)."
• "The Doctor mentions that "emergency program one" will send Donna home should she be left in alone the TARDIS for five hours. In "Parting of the Ways", this program was activated by the Ninth Doctor to send Rose Tyler home."
• "The "squareness gun" used by River Song produces a visual effect similar to the "sonic blaster" used by Captain Jack Harkness in the first series episode "The Doctor Dances" (also written by Moffat). In that episode, Rose Tyler coined the term "squareness gun", which the Doctor re-uses here."
• "The psychic paper has previously summoned the Doctor to a location in "New Earth", where the Face of Boe called the Doctor to his supposed deathbed."
• "The Doctor also mentions that he loves "a little shop", a sentiment previously expressed in the episodes "New Earth" and "Smith and Jones"."

If that information is verifiable, is it really "synthesis", or is it merely "summary"? For example, if I were to list the Superman episodes in which Kryptonite is a plot element. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 23:28, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Bugs, I consider it synthesis, and rather trivial, crufty such, at that. They aren't summarizing so much as using prior knowledge to reinforce the legitimacy of a tv show. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 15:10, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

I've given my views on the talk page, but at any rate this isn't an issue requiring admin intervention. If you want further input, make a request for comment. Trebor (talk) 00:52, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Right on, I saw it, but respectfully disagree with your interpretation of synthesis in this matter, and feel the allowing of continuity sections in these articles sets a bad precedent which will almost assuredly come back to bite us on the ass. I'll file the RfC forthwith. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 15:10, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Can I make two complaints about Arcayne's behaviour: firstly, for someone claiming unpleasentness is taking place on the talk-page (and it really, really isn't, anyway), he was discourteous by informing nobody of this ANI post's existence. I only found it by chance. Secondly, he (or she, don't know!) should not file an RfC for this very trivial matter, where there is a VERY clear consensus for the information to remain. Arcayne seems to be the only person holding the viewpoint that the information is naughty. 15:13, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

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

Slow edit war on Arthur Waskow; editor using Twinkle in content dispute

I wish to bring to the community's attention a slow moving edit war between User:Thoughtman and User:Malik Shabazz on the article Arthur Waskow. Since 7 May 2008 these two experienced editors have been reverting each other's edits on this article over and over and over. Additionally concerning is User:Malik Shabazz using Twinkle 6 times in this content dispute, something which is absolutely prohibited. This manner of edit war and tool abuse is harmful to the project and thus I bring it to the attention of the administrators and community. Bstone (talk) 04:12, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Dropped warnings on both of their talkpages. Not taking any action yet, but I will if they keep at it. Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP! :)} 04:30, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

• It's clear as day that I have been attempting to keep the cat. free of people that shouldn't be on it per it's description.

User:Malik Shabazz for whatever reason has done nothing but vandalize my work. --Thoughtman (talk) 22:50, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

The problem is that Rabbi Waskow and two other people at issue — Joan Baez and Medea Benjamin — satisfy the criteria for inclusion in the category, but User:Thoughtman keeps removing them. When I asked User:Thoughtman for an explanation, she/he wrote:

"Not everyone who is against the Iraq War is a pacifist, an advocate of nonviolence, a conscientious objector, or against warfare in all circumstances: i.e. a anti-war activist."

That has nothing at all to do with whether these individuals meet the criteria for the category, which they do.

Since my attempts to deal directly with User:Thoughtman have been futile ("Please read this time" "Please stop vandalizing article."), I will try alternate means of dispute resolution. Thank you for intervening. — [[::User:Malik Shabazz|Malik Shabazz]] ([[::User talk:Malik Shabazz|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Malik Shabazz|contribs]]) 02:28, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Thoughtman, what is happening between you and Malik Shabaaz is a content dispute, not vandalism. It does not help when you accuse other editors of vandalism as you have Malik Shabaaz. MS is a long standing editor with thousands of good contributions. You are as well. Let's work hard to be professionals and not let this devolve into a flame war. Bstone (talk) 12:58, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Twinkle abuse?

Resolved

 – blocked for 24 hours Gwen Gale (talk) 14:28, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

BYF079 (talk · contribs) has been using Twinkle to roll back edits to articles that he disagrees with,[80] also wrongly labelling some as vandalism.[81][82]

Despite being warned about this,[83] he continues to do so.[84] Could another admin have a look to see if action is necessary? Cheers, пﮟოьεԻ 57 12:26, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

This diff shows some pretty disturbing WP:OWN issues in addition to the Twinkle abuse. Also, I gave him a notice about signing his posts, since I noticed he was failing to do so on your Talk page.

I don't know that there is a language barrier in place or what, but the user has been here at least since January and still is failing to grasp some basic policies. It's dangerous to have a user like that with a rollback button. I think deactivating Twinkle and protecting his monobook.js, with restoration of Twinkle privileges being contingent on getting a mentor, would not be out of line. --Jaysweet (talk) 12:37, 5 June 2008 (UTC) Full disclosure: I am not an admin, but I feel I can help out here anyway.

Oh hell, just block him if he continues to edit war or make wrongful accusations of vandalism or any other bad edits. No need to muck around with his user-space. Besides if you protect his monobook he could just switch to a different skin. — CharlotteWebb 13:58, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps if "the community" deactivates Twinkle while discussing their edits this would be a clear indication - similar to at level 4 warning - that there are serious concerns about their method of contributing? The user switching Twinkle to another skin without responding could then be taken as a further violation which would then result in a block. LessHeard vanU (talk) 19:28, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

You can be blocked for misusing Twinkle? Don't think I've seen that before. Avruch^T * ^ER 19:38, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Hrm, shouldn't the first step have been deactivating Twinkle? Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 19:40, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

The user was blocked for rolling back good faith edits and calling it vandalism, as well as for WP:OWN and WP:CIV issues, not just for abusing Twinkle.

That said, I think the block was way premature, and that's why I advocated decativating Twinkle as a first step to get the users attention. I would also point out that the user was not active at the time of the block, which makes the value of a 24 hour block highly questionable.

I wasn't going to challenge an action that two admins had consensus on (CharlotteWeb and Gwen Gale), but I never felt good about this resolution. --Jaysweet (talk) 19:44, 5 June 2008 (UTC) Full disclosure: I am not an admin, but I feel I can help out here anyway.

Good Comment Jay. FYI, I don't think you need that disclaimer on every post. There are many of us non-admins here, its perfectly allowable. Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 19:47, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I know :) Maybe I'll stop using it as often, perhaps only when I initially respond to a thread. Another good faith editor got kinda frustrated after I had been working for about 24 hrs on getting through to a disruptive user and decided that it needed admin attention after all. His point was, "If it didn't need admin attention, I wouldn't have brought it to the admin noticeboard," and thought that was a valid complaint so I've been trying to practice full disclosure. But you're right, I probably don't need it on every single post :) Thanks --Jaysweet (talk) 19:52, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

You might be surprised by the percentage of "incidents" on this page which do not require an admin's attention (there are others which do not require anyone's attention but that's another issue). — CharlotteWebb 20:18, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Actually I wouldn't be surprised, and that's why I hang out here ;) I estimate at least 50% of the reports don't need admin attention. But I started doing the disclaimer anyway, because I had a good faith editor thinking I was an admin for >24 hours, and that didn't feel honest to me. --Jaysweet (talk) 20:33, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

"Twinkle" isn't the problem. Reverting in one click isn't the problem. The problem is edit-warring, failure to explain reverts, and accusing others of vandalism. This is an attitude problem and not anything inherent or specific to "Twinkle" or any other reverting tool. — CharlotteWebb 19:51, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

• I wasn't saying necessarily that the block was unwarranted, I wasn't sure of the severity of the other problems and it occurred to me that if the Twinkle misuse was the major one a block was sort of a novel approach. Its totally possible that the other disruptive behavior (edit warring) noted in the block was enough to merit it. Avruch^T * ^ER 20:06, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

How would you have done if all other factors were equal but no extra features such as "Twinkle" had been used? You can't take away the "(undo)" button, or the ability to select and manually repost the text of an old version, so at some point you would still have to consider (not-so-)novel approaches. — CharlotteWebb 20:18, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, I think number57 is right that the user isn't really editing collaboratively, although it appears there is a language barrier issue impacting the problem. Still, I only saw two edits identified as twinkle using the edit summary. I think a barrage of folks letting him know that his editing style is inappropriate (either on his talkpage, or directing him here) might've made a difference prior to a block. He's clearly not very well versed in Wikipedia, but that can be changed with some education. At the least, now that he is blocked, it'd be appropriate for Gwen to advise him more specifically on what he did wrong and how he should edit once he is unblocked. Avruch^T * ^ER 20:29, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

As for Twinkle abuse, Wikipedia:Twinkle has a big red warning at the top of the page about the likelihood of being blocked for that. However, I blocked the user for three things, including severe edit warring along with the use of Twinkle's rollback feature on good faith edits even after being warned. This unsigned edit, though, is what swayed me. Here we have ownership, edit warring and Twinkle mis-use worries all together, with an editor who was showing no hint of slowing down. This said, I've been watching his talk page and was ready to unblock as soon as I could get a promise he would stop edit warring and would not use Twinkle's rollback for anything but vandalism. Gwen Gale (talk) 20:26, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

While I still have doubts about the efficacy of a short (24hr) block on a user that was not active, if you are watching the User Talk page then I retract my earlier "unhappiness" about the resolution of this issue. Hopefully they'll reform. Cheers! --Jaysweet (talk) 20:33, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

The editor had made 70 edits today in a 6 hour period. Gwen Gale (talk) 21:02, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but most of those edits were productive (or at least, most of them weren't rolled back.. I don't know enough about Tunisian footballers to know for sure if they were productive!) and more importantly, he had not edited for ~3.5 hours at the time of the block.

<shrug> I don't think the block was really out of process or anything (otherwise I would have made a stink about it at the time), but I am not convinced it was the best way of dealing with the user. But, that's just a matter of opinion, and seeing as how you have the mop and I don't ;) I'll defer to yours (while retaining my own). Cheers! :) --Jaysweet (talk) 21:07, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Truth be told you got my attention with your first post to this thread when you wrote It's dangerous to have a user like that with a rollback button. After reading the comments here I counted three rollbacks of good faith edits, saw the edit warring and saw no hint the user was heeding any of the pleas or warnings on his talk page. Gwen Gale (talk) 21:37, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Blatant copyvio at L. Ron Hubbard bibliography‎

Issue of blatant copyvio at L. Ron Hubbard bibliography‎. I cleaned up a bit of this but the editor that added the copyvio material virtually via copy/pasting sections from the source in question does not seem to understand how this was incorrect. Here is a good example of what I am referring to. (Please also see the user's subsequent response - [85]) - I would appreciate an admin looking into this please and advising Hypatea (talk · contribs). Thank you, Cirt (talk) 15:19, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

I tagged it, but I might just go ahead and nuke it since the old versions were clear copyright violations, and given that we have a L. Ron Hubbard article anyways. seicer | talk | contribs 16:15, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

That might be for the best. I've been comparing-and-contrasting, and the last version before Cirt started deleting was full of copyvios - a few words were changed here and there, but it's definitely been copied wholesale. Tony Fox (arf!) 16:25, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Deleted and redirected to L. Ron Hubbard, as there are incoming links. I assume most are coming from the link on {{LRH}}, which I have removed, so the redirect can be deleted once the incoming links dwindle. - auburnpilot talk 16:37, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for looking into this and addressing it. A note to Hypatea (talk · contribs) might also be appropriate, to explain things - might be best coming from someone other than myself. Cirt (talk) 16:37, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm famous :-P

Jerusalem Post Online: Digital World: Wiki gone wild by David Shamah <eleland/talkedits> 17:38, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

What an intriguing and utterly unbiased account of the controversy. ^_^ UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 17:44, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

I saw that. How does it feel to have your words hopelessly twisted by the media? shoy 18:15, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

I was actually somewhat surprised by the piece; it was more even-handed than I expected given the content of my exchanges with Mr. Shamah. In the e-mails he basically called me a crazy antisemitic Israel-hater and kept dragging in the strangest, totally unrelated controversies (CAMERA is sneaky and biased? Well, a Reuters stringer photoshopped extra smoke on a picture of Beirut being bombed! And Pentium 4 processors are made in Haifa! What do you say to that, you scoundrel!?) At least in the article he avoided libeling me outright... <eleland/talkedits> 18:47, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Not far from it, though. He certainly painted you as a lying sack of anti-Israeli bias and a crazy nerd in the basement in that. I'd avoid talking to him again. Bloggers aren't like real journalists. His point about 'disputed' as opposed to 'occupied' makes some sense, but in light of that, I'm more in favor of removing 'disputed' and substituting 'occupied' universally. I'd suggest finding the right WP:pages to seek a consensus for change to 'disputed'. ThuranX (talk) 01:22, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

The one paragraph on the first page summed up the entire newspiece for me: "Camera had sinned", "Wiki purgatory", "Eleland", "<random attack on Canada>", "anti-Israel bias". It says a lot about this person as an journalist, like that he isn't one. — Moe ε 05:13, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

What is it with opinion pieces and the Jerusalem post? And this paper is used as a reliable source?? 78.86.18.55 (talk) 12:44, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

User:Arcayne & User:TreasuryTag

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

Resolved

 – Peace, love and understanding appear to have been achieved, or as close as we're going to get. --barneca (talk) 15:02, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

• Arcayne (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• TreasuryTag (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This user has been being disruptive for a short while:

• In a content dispute, they persistently claimed that they were right and everyone else was wrong and their views were beneath contempt (usual, I know! Coming to the salient bit...)
• They then posted this thread on this page; they didn't notify the other users on the article talkpage (all of whom were in agreement, opposed to the lone view held by Arcayne) that there was such a thread. This was discourteous.
• He then filed an RfC (overkill or what?!), following advice from the admins. He claimed that he was subjected to "unpleasantness" and "passive-aggressive behaviour" - not from me, as it happens... from another user who was behaving perfectly.
• He was very insulting to me on my talkpage; I pointed out my reply on his talkpage and was reverted with a rude edit-summary.
• I politely suggested that blacklisting me from the talkpage was disruptive; and was described as "aggressive" (!!). I gave a final warning for all the offences above, and was reverted with the summary "lol please file the report", so here it is.
• Note: I also received the talkpage comment (along with a lot of restored comments): Allow me to educate you a little more on wiki-quette (before I file a report on you). You have asked me to not write you on your page. I hnored your request, and asked the same of you. Perhaps you might see my politeness as a sign of weakness; be assured that it is not. If you disagree with my edits, that is one thing, as is your assertion that I am wrong in my assessment of another person's behavior. Being uncivil is quite another, and I will ask you - again - to not post to my usertalk page again. You have exhausted my well fo good faith for you since you exhibited the inability to distinguish restraint; to whit using usertalk page comments in again attempt to score a win in a policy issue. You have nothing remotely of interest that I want to hear any longer, and your actions in defending your behavior borders on trollishness. Intelligence is a good thing; knowing how to tempter it with wisdom and maturity is quite another. When you understand that, you may approach me again. Until then, kindly stay away. This will serve as my last warning to that effect. Post to my page again - after I have specifically asked you not to, and there will be unpleasant consequences. I've bolded the important bits.
• So - what's to be done? ╟─TreasuryTag (talk ╬ contribs)─╢ 17:39, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

It sounds like you guys are already not posting on each other's talk pages, right? It looks like this will solve the problem. It's not clear to me that he's actually been disruptive to articles, just from your post. Friday (talk) 17:53, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

He has violated WP:CIV, WP:POINT and WP:TROLL, I think this merits an admins' looking into. Maybe two ;-) ╟─TreasuryTag (talk ╬ contribs)─╢ 17:56, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

(ec) What to do? Um, maybe respect his polite request?

Seriously, the synthesis issue raised in a previous AN/I hinted at some unpleasant behavior in the article. The comment about a user demonstrating passive-aggressive behavior was made in TT's usertalk space only, as the article discussion truism: "Focus on the edits and not the editor" is particularly applicable in instances such as these. As my discussions to remove the synthesis continued, I was met with some pretty unpleasant commentary, presumably from editors who felt I was attacking the whole of the Doctor Who series of articles (many of them contain equally- if not more-crufty bits), and responded quite aggressively to the proposal. I would point out that TT was in fact one of these editors who I was concerned about, and it would appear I was justified in my concerns. I would also point out that, ironically, I was not made aware of this AN/I filing - such was one of the concerns that TT felt contributed to this filing (as I had not alerted the article discussion that I had requested AN/I assistance yesterday).

As per the comments received from the prior AN/I by Trebor, I filed an RfC report to get some neutral input on the synthesis issue. TT contends that this is a trollish action, etc. I know that I can be somewhat snarky at times, but I feel that I was very well-behaved in that particular instance. TT then took the opportunity to turn the RfC (incorrectly summarizing that RfC on content was instead and RfC on user conduct). Perhaps my request is malformed, as the specific issue revolves around an interpretation of a policy issue. If it is incorrect, I welcome someone to help me fix it.

As per the alleged violations of CIV, POINT and TROLL, I don't think I've violated any of these. As per this post in my usertalk page, he considers the very filing of the RfC to be "disruptive" (the thrust of his POINT allegation), and trollish.

I am available to answer any questions that folk might have for me. Friday, I would have been happy to either resolve the matter on his talk page (or to simply ignore the fellow), but he asked me to not post on his page. Apparently, my subsequent request for the same was ignored. I'd prefer to avoid this fellow, as he is pretty bombastic when challenged. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 18:05, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Arcayne, I object particularly to your comment that "many Doctor Who articles contain worse cruft". Actually, many, many Who articles are good or featured. This is another indication that you may be oversensitive to what constitutes synthesis. Also, your comment on the article talkpage that "my (correct) interpretation of policy..." is counterproductive; equivalent to "I'm right, you're all wrong. Obviously - how could anyone think otherwise?". ╟─TreasuryTag (talk ╬ contribs)─╢ 18:15, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

With respect, when you say "many, many" are FA, are you categorizing the two episodic articles that are FA? How many episodes have there been of Doctor Who (hint: more than 750).

And while you are entitled to your opinion that I interpret synthesis narrowly, that interpretation does not equal disruption, trollishness, POINTy behavior and incivility. You are welcome to point out how filing an AN/I asking for help in interpreting a policy and subsequently filing an RfC (at the suggestion of a responding admin) constitutes the behavior you have accused me of displaying. Why are you so resistant to a request to have neutral folk comment?

I haven't edit-warred the article, and have been patiently engaging in discussion. I am sorry that you take offense at my assessment of my understanding of synthesis to be correct. While I do in fact think you are too loosely misunderstanding synthesis, I haven't attacked you in the article discussions or filed trumped up complaints of bad behavior that never in fact occurred. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 18:31, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Comment: From what I can see, this doesn't warrant an AN/I at this time. There is no evidence to suggest deliberate disruptive behaviour; the primary issue now seems to be a personal disagreement between Arcayne and Treasury Tag. I would suggest that both parties hold off and wait for people to comment through the RfC. --Ckatz^chat_spy 18:43, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

[Edit conflict] Calming down and talking out your problems would benefit both parties. WP:ANI doesn't exist to manage the relationship between the two of you - equally, if you each have a problem with the other, then reflecting on each of your own behaviours and what you might have in common is a step towards resolving your differences. It's also best to avoid snippiness like I'd prefer to avoid this fellow, as he is pretty bombastic when challenged - if you're trying to establish a spirit of co-operation.

An RfC is a request to the wider wiki-community to give a subject a fresh set of eyes and encourage a wider group of opinions. The request should be formed as to address the specific issues needed to be looked at in the article. Pointing at the prior discussion, may be useful background, but the notion is that questions and comments really should be succinct. There's nothing wrong with filing one, it doesn't reflect in any way on the prior participants. The question should be neutral as to prior discussion and pointing to a lengthy prior argument is probably the wrong way of expecting a fresh pair of eyes to want to get involved.

In the meantime, your personal choice of hot (or cold) refreshment might go some way to calming things down. A short break from each other, followed by someone offering a truce would not go amiss. Be generous. Kbthompson (talk) 18:47, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

Agree with Ckatz. I have had dealings with Arcayne in the past, and I think he is a serious editor with good intentions. The most I could fault him for is that he becomes a bit impatient and uncompromising when dealing with other editors who are impatient and uncompromising ;D

I think Arcayne was premature in filing the initial ANI report, and it was definitely a mistake not to notify the involved parties -- and Treasury Tag is understandably upset about that. However, I do not think Arcayne's mistake is at all sanctionable. Furthermore, I absolutely disagree with TT about Arcayne's most recent attempt at dispute resolution: I believe filing an RfC was absolutely the right thing to do here, and I hope it resolves the problem.

Wait for the RfC to play out, try to be civil to each other in the meantime, and hopefully all the involved parties can come to an understanding. --Jaysweet (talk) 18:49, 5 June 2008 (UTC) Full disclosure: I am not an admin, but I feel I can help out here anyway.

Neither am I an admin, but I think the easiest way to sort this out is for both of you to just apologise for whatever misgivings may have occured, and then move on, and not make any more contact with eachother. Chafford (talk) 19:08, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

Seems like an appropriate template, as this appears to be a content dispute wrapped in a personality conflict (or a personality conflict wrapped in a content dispute, the whole "wrapper" thing is confusing...). Best to stay away from eachother, and poof problem solved. If you like, you can ask an administrator to require you to stay away from eachother. That way, violations can incur warnings and ultimately blocks. Seems unnecessary, though. Avruch^T * ^ER 19:42, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Just thought I would reiterate that I did nothing to bring forth all the sound and fury from TT but stick to what policy is. I was not impolite, not rude, not inappropriate. If there is indeed a personality issue within the article discussion, I am neither initiating nor promulgating it (except for perhaps suggesting that the personal attacks and comments belong somewhere other than on an article discussion page), and stick to the discussion of synthesis in the article. I followed protocol in this matter pretty much to the letter; why am I being herded with TT for an issue that seems wholly his? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 20:00, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

You were rude, impolite and inappropriate. Sticking "please" onto the end of a sentence doesn't automatically categorise it as polite. Claiming that you are 100% right and there is no room for debate is not only rude, it is an insult to others' thought-processes. Generally, if one user thinks one thing and four think another, while they four may not be correct, they might have a valid argument, as in this case.

(ec)Furthermore, I consider it unreasonable to claim that I produced "sound and fury", and that you did nothing wrong. I consider falsely accusing another editor of passive-aggressive behaviour an immoral act; when I pointed this out, you said "It is just your belief that they are acting reasonably; actually, they are acting aggressively" (not a direct quote). This is insulting; it again implies that my thoughts are just beliefs (wrong ones at that), whereas your beliefs are facts (and correct ones, of course). This is not a constructive way to build an encyclopedia, which is what we are here for.

Referring to me as aggressive accomplished nothing, and really served no purpose other than to inflame the situation. If you wanted to delete my comment, you could have used a gentler edit-summary such as Noted, Understood or even Sorry, not interested. As long as you're not making an accusation against me, I've not really got any grounds for complaint! ╟─TreasuryTag (talk ╬ contribs)─╢ 20:57, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry if it appears that way - my point is that this can be resolved without assigning blame, which will be inevitably disputed, and given that my advice to steer clear of eachother is guilt-neutral. Whatever the issue between you is, without taking a position on who is right, it can be resolved by simply avoiding each other. The question on whether it ought to be enforced was somewhat rhetorical - the answer is, unless you guys refuse to allow this issue to be settled the easy way, its simply unnecessary. Avruch^T * ^ER 20:15, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

I feel that Arcayne is doing his utmost to have good humor and sense. But that's just me. Bstone (talk) 20:59, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

On the contrary, I'm feeling more and more insulted the further I read down his comments. Claiming that he is being "herded with TT for an issue that seems wholly his" is unreasonable in the extreme. While I may have been naughty, he cannot disassociate himself from this as my comments above show. He has also done nothing to address the fact that he falsely accused myself and another user of being aggressive; he claims to have acted in excessively good faith throughout, remaining polite and open to other points of view. This is a joke; I've quoted him above claiming that "his (correct) interpretation"... I propose simply closing this issue and vowing never to cross paths with him again since he's clearly not going to see that his approach irritates the Hell out of me and has any element of wrongness about it (I may see a greater one than others, but everyone must admit that his attitude and some of his comments linked above have been iffy). ╟─TreasuryTag (talk ╬ contribs)─╢ 21:09, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Furthermore, a few minutes ago he called me and another unspecified user on the RfC "creeps". I don't know how he can now suggest that he's been polite through the whole issue, even if he could before. ╟─TreasuryTag (talk ╬ contribs)─╢ 21:12, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

No, he didn't call you a creep. He used the word as part of a sentence, but specifically did not reference you. Bstone (talk) 22:42, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

I have dropped him a line regarding this, hopefully he will respond with some kind of aknowledgement. Chafford (talk) 21:32, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Doing his utmost to have good humor and sense? As one of the targets of his attitude, I will have to disagree. He often appeals to his longevity as an editor in a manner that reeks of elitism, he has shown himself to be uncompromising in his beliefs and he has been incredibly antagonistic in his execution:

"Arguing angrily will only complicate matters (for you)."

"Intelligence is a good thing; knowing how to tempter it with wisdom and maturity is quite another. When you understand that, you may approach me again."

"I have almost 10k edits under my name, and you have less than 1k; I think the volume of editing speaks, well, volumes."

"...look at Saturn's rather passive-aggressive behavior"

"I sometimes miss the old days, when I could just tear into creeps like that, and send them weeping into closets."

"I hope that attitude works out for you."

These are not the comments of one practicing "good humor" and "sense". He has been trollish and disruptive.Theplanetsaturn (talk) 21:38, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Arcayne's been up here many times for this sort of behavior. He shows arrogance and stubbornness in a way that screams, both overtly and implicitly 'I'm better than you and I'm right and you never are.' I've dealt with this before, and I've seen NUMEROUS others deal with it. Each time, he's warned, but he can't stop being an ass in his dealings with others. I'm not lily white, lest people shout pot/kettle, but I'm never so imperious as the above quotes. ThuranX (talk) 21:50, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

I dunno ThuranX, I think calling any other editor an "ass" puts you at the very least at the same level of imperiousness. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 21:55, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Does this have anything to do with the conversation here and now?Theplanetsaturn (talk) 21:56, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

You have a better word for repeatedly abusing other editors? Would you prefer Jerk? Bully? what hes' doing is insulting people left and right while being arrogant about it. That's being an ass. I didn't call him a long string of four letter words. I bluntly speak about his actions. I've talked to him about this before, so have dozens of others. After a point, why not be firm and open about how he acts?

As for PlanetSaturn, yes, it does. It goes toward showing that there is a community awareness of a pattern of behavior here, one that needs serious addressing. ThuranX (talk) 22:01, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm referring to whether or not it is relevant if someone else (you, as example) have equally engaged in disruptive behavior in separate discussions. Even if you have, I don't see how it is relevant when weighing this particular subject. In short, I was addressing Keeper more than I was you.Theplanetsaturn (talk) 22:09, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Ah, misunderstood who you were addressing. And agreed, others' behaviors aren't relevant, only those of the two mentioned. ThuranX (talk) 22:37, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Comment .... and they were both given advice on how to go away and deal with it. I'm actively trying to help Arcayne modify his behaviour. Kbthompson (talk) 00:47, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Reading this, particularly Keeper's comment(s), I am literally stunned that s/he can sustain a belief for a second that Arcayne has behaved immaculately throughout all this. I consider calling me a creep (yes, he did, we've shown that above and on Arcayne's talkpage), "Arguing angrily will only complicate matters (for you)" is grossly offensive and supercilious; "Actually, my perception of Saturn's behavior is spot-on, and it is your belief that it is wrong" is nothing but arrogant... so my thoughts are just beliefs, and Arcayne is able to spot, with his superior intelligence, that they are wrong - whereas Arcayne's thoughs are spot-on, obviously... sorry, this is offensive.

What people need to understand here is that being civil isn't defined soley by using civil phrasing. Saying "please" and "sorry" is nice enough, but if the tone or the message is incivil, no number "thank-you"s will get anywhere. I could say Oh, sorry, Mr Pollock - I do apologise, I thought that painting was covered in birds' mess for a moment! Pardon me! While that seems perfectly polite - an apology, a pleasant form of address - its point, "I think your painting looks like bird-crap", is disgustingly rude. Equally, the message of the admittedly civil- and regal-sounding "you may approach me again", said by Arcayne on my talk-page, is not in-line with Wiki policy. It is arrogant; it makes him out to sound like a God. And if you read what came before the approach-me-again-bit, quoted above, it gets even more supercilious.

On that basis, can anyone honestly say (creep incident aside!) that Arcayne's behaviour has been immaculate? ╟─TreasuryTag (talk ╬ contribs)─╢ 07:02, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

What do you want to achieve? You have been told to keep away from each other, just move on. Chafford (talk) 09:55, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I want to achieve an understanding of how anybody can entertain a thought for even a second that Arcayne has behaved proprely. I'm genuinely intrigued. ╟─TreasuryTag (talk ╬ contribs)─╢ 11:23, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Now you are being distruptive, please just move on. Chafford (talk) 13:31, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

A genuine interest in the application of our civility policy is disruptive? ╟─TreasuryTag (talk ╬ contribs)─╢ 14:15, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Wow, I take an evening off to cool down, and the whole village is talking about me. I'd like to thank the Academy and my hair stylist WhipporWill...

Wait, this isn't the happy sort of 'talking about me', is it? Oh well.

I would like to thank everyone for their comments. I readily admit that I am not always the most polite person in heated discussions, and I am dismissive when faced with what I feel are either bad arguments or bad behavior (but then, a lot of people are that way). That the people who choose to report me are often too willing to tag me with everything except for being on the grassy knoll in Dallas, 1963 is of little comfort. That at least one of the people who choose to contribute, unbidden, demonstrate on almost a daily basis even worse examples of those failings being attributed to me is of less comfort - those people I can simply dismiss (and yes, I had intended the word creep to encompass the complainant, though in my own talk page, and nowhere near an article space - and for which I apologize).

However, I have to accept that my language and sometimes my tone is cause for frustration. When I feel I am correct and someone else is wrong, of course I am going to be pretty confident of my standing (as would anyone here). However, I didn't need to make it a spade issue, and rub someone's face in my being correct (I would point out that when I am proven wrong, I always accept responsibility). That might be what TT is really talking about here. I was somewhat condescending to him in article discussion; his impolite comments which prompted them are not a real excuse. My comment on his user-talk page about another user demonstrating passive-aggressive behavior was misplaced and, as TT and the subject of that comment are clearly friends, it volcanoed into TT's behavior which I responded to. Had I kept my opinion of that user's behavior to myself, it might never have flowered as such. I should have clearly recognized the willingness of someone unhappy with me to search my edits for anything to use as ammo in an argument. So, as far as pushing the magic button for TT is concerned, I accept responsibility for that. That doesn't forgive his behavior, but it addresses my culpability for inciting it with mine.

All of us here are guilty of much the same. I will endeavor to not try to incite this behavior, and avoid engaging people who are all too willing to see offense and take it hyper-personally. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 14:29, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm satisfied with the above response, and propose that this thread is closed. ╟─TreasuryTag (talk ╬ contribs)─╢ 14:57, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

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

Community ban for ClaimJumperPete

Resolved

 – rouge "resolved" tag; perhaps rude of me, but I really don't see the point of a vote that will have no practical effect. but my feelings won't be hurt if this tag is ignored. --barneca (talk) 15:18, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

ClaimJumperPete has created around 59 socks and counting so far. It's obvious this person has no good intentions on Wikipedia. I'd therefore like to propose we community ban them. There's no reason we need an editor like this on here. Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me) 21:34, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

I seriously doubt any admin would be willing to unblock him, though I am continually surprised in this regard. He could be considered effectively banned unless there is an admin somewhere who actively wants to unblock him. I don't know that it will change much, in practical terms, though. MastCell ^Talk 21:43, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

(ec)Ummm... The account is indef blocked, and unless you are aware that there is an admin who is suggesting that they might be considering that the account should be unblocked then it is effectively banned. Until that sysop makes themselves known I would consider the question moot. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:46, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Formalising the ban with community discussion means that even should an admin wish to unblock they can't until such time as further discussion has overturned the ban. Viridae^Talk 04:17, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Any admin crazy enough to unblock this troll should be desysopped quick-smart. --Folantin (talk) 13:13, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I thought he had been community banned already. If not, seems like he should be. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 15:09, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Support, clearly disruptive. What is about Wikipedia that attracts these mindless trolls? Rudget (Help?) 15:10, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

He's de facto banned. Let's conserve electrons and not have a discussion that won't change anything. --barneca (talk) 15:18, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Hdayejr sock, who wants to whack a mole?

Resolved

 – Blocked by Moreschi (thank you kindly)

This diff is characteristic of Hdayejr socks. I will warn and such, but I'd rather have this nipped in the bud than wait for it to escalate to AIV, thanks! :) --Jaysweet (talk) 21:36, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

If I find a sock puppet of someone can I call them "unemployed loser" also?[86] Or is this a privilege on Wikipedia for the few? Seriously, why antagonize people? It's not necessary. --Blechnic (talk) 21:53, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

PS no answer is required.

You know, it's easy to turn the other cheek after the first fifty or so socks and personal attacks. After that, people tend to get a mite trigger happy and sick of this multiply-banned user coming in every day and repeating the process. Dayewalker (talk) 21:57, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

(EC)Well, I can't say I don't understand his frustration with rampant socks who waste our time. I am a bit confused that you're working so hard to defend such socks. Why are you defending the sock puppeteer? ThuranX (talk) 21:58, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

So you've just offered up an excuse for acting just like him? I suggest he didn't give any appearance of deserving the energy expenditure on your part. --Blechnic (talk) 21:59, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

(triple edit conflict)

Fair 'nuff, I'll strike the comment. --Jaysweet (talk) 22:00, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. Well done, imo. --Blechnic (talk) 22:01, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

I suggest that due to WP:DENY, we all just end the conversation. This user isn't worth the effort. We can all agree that sockpuppeting, vandalism, and personal attacks are bad. We're all on the same team here, so let's just let it go. Dayewalker (talk) 22:02, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Block of user TJCstaff?

Forgive me if this is the wrong place to make this suggestion, it seemed to fit best here. User:TJCstaff (talk), and associated IP addresses (User_talk:90.194.161.30 and User_talk:90.194.161.126) exist for sole purpose of adding non-NPOV/unsourced content to The Jewellery Channel Wezzo (talk) (ubx) 23:23, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

It's way PoV but the contribution history is very limited. Please keep trying the talk pages for now. Gwen Gale (talk) 23:45, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Will do, though no luck as yet. Wezzo (talk) (ubx) 00:00, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

What do I do?

I've been fighting off spammers from the Fringe (TV series) entry for a while now, but the same guy (User:Mg.mikael corrected link to userspace umrguy42 23:59, 5 June 2008 (UTC)) just keeps coming back. I've tried a few of the warning methods (learning as I go), but he just deletes them, and to be honest I don't understand how they were supposed to work anyway. Is it the case that the last man standing (read: editing) wins, or is there some other method for preventing persistent spammers? BOTF (talk) 23:30, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

I've removed the spam again, along with the copyright violations and left him a warning. -- [[::User:Collectonian|Collectonian]] ([[::User talk:Collectonian|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Collectonian|contribs]]) 23:38, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Well, not an admin here, but here's some tips - IF he's actually spamming/vandalizing (i.e., adding in nonsense/profanities/randomly changing numbers to nonsense), he can be reported to WP:AIV. If it's a matter of disagreement on content, you need to head over to dispute resolution to work it out. Best, umrguy42 23:41, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

PS - I've notified the user of this thread. umrguy42 23:46, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Additional note. BOTF, you removal of people's talk page comments is also completely inappropriate. I'm having to rebuild the talk page because of this. He is allowed to post a request to consider the link on the talk page. -- [[::User:Collectonian|Collectonian]] ([[::User talk:Collectonian|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Collectonian|contribs]]) 23:46, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Some of his other edits haven't exactly been good. I asked him about it on his talk page. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 00:33, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

By way of explanation, the spammer, having been frustrated on the article, took to spamming the talk page (that is, using the talk page to link to his site). Naturally, (not seeing a difference) I deleted those spam links as well. While his talk page entries evolved and he stopped including the link every time--opting instead to argue the mote point for the sake of "naming" his site--the pattern had been established and I assumed his arguments were sufficiently transparent. I also got a bit lazy. As for discussing it, I didn't see the need as it was a cut and dry case. That said, I'm not making excuses and I will refrain from similar bad practices in the future. Apologies. However, the unsigned personal attach suggesting I'm "too concerned" remains on the talk page. Not sure what the policy is about that. Nevertheless, I do appreciate the attention given to the issue and I am satisfied. Feel free to call this entry resolved. BOTF (talk) 15:43, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Conspiracy theory and BLP issues - eyes requested

• Muhammad al-Durrah (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The Israeli-Palestinian wikiwars have flared up again on the article on Muhammad al-Durrah (and tangentially Charles Enderlin). A number of Internet activists and bloggers have been promoting a conspiracy theory asserting that the latter (a French TV journalist) had faked the death of the former (a Palestinian boy) in a shooting incident in 2000. This has been the subject of a recent French libel trial, one of several libel actions over this matter. The outcome of the trial two weeks ago has led to a number of apparent SPAs (Julia1987 (talk · contribs), Southkept (talk · contribs), Tundrabuggy (talk · contribs)) and some existing editors (Canadian Monkey (talk · contribs), Gilabrand (talk · contribs), Leifern (talk · contribs)) trying to revise the article to make it state that the conspiracy theory is an established fact, or to give the conspiracy theory equal billing with the mainstream viewpoint. However, the overwhelming majority of reliable sources on the case do not mention the conspiracy theory at all, although there is a legitimate and widely documented dispute concerning who fired the fatal shots.

Because of the ongoing libel case - which is not over yet, as it's being appealed - I've been keeping an eye on this article for some time. There are obvious WP:BLP concerns over how to report a conspiracy theory that accuses living high-profile people of professional fraud. There are also major WP:NPOV issues about attempts to present a tiny-minority POV as being just as important (or more so) as the POV expressed by the vast majority of sources. It's pretty much the same kind of issue as we've experienced with 9/11 conspiracy theorists, which led to the outcome of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/September 11 conspiracy theories.

I've raised the issue at WP:BLPN and WP:FTN and I've tried extensively to explain on the article talk page what's required by NPOV, BLP and V. However, to put it bluntly the SPAs and conspiracy theory advocates are not listening and are attempting to edit-war their view into the article. There is some very blatant soapboxing going on (see e.g. [87]). This is despite the fact that the article is under arbitration sanctions per WP:ARBPIA#Remedies - I've notified the editors involved of the sanctions but it doesn't seem to have made any difference to their conduct.

Moreschi (talk · contribs) has commented on the matter on the FTN (see [88]) and has requested more eyes to review the article. It would be helpful if some uninvolved admin(s) could take a look and advise on what can be done to resolve this matter before it ends up in arbitration enforcement. (Perhaps it should go there anyway?) -- ChrisO (talk) 23:44, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I’d welcome some new, uninvolved editors’ eyes on this. Just to set the record straight, though, it would help if those joining the discussion note that the statement currently in dispute (“reportedly been killed”) has been the consensus version in this article for over two years, and that contrary to User:ChrisO’s one sided presentation above, it is actually ChrisO and friends (User:Tarc; User:Nickhh; User:CJCUrrie) who are trying to change this long standing consensus, and replace it with a new statement introduced just 5 days ago with this edit, after they had agreed to the previous wording for a long time. The overwhelming majority of reliable sources on the case published since the recent French court’s ruling have either labeled the incident a “likely hoax”, or at a minimum, treat the theory that he was killed as being very suspect. ChrisO did indeed notify some participants of the ArbCom sanction – but curiously all those notified happened to be holding a viewpoint different than his, while his fellow editors named above received no such notice, and unsurprisingly, alongside Chris (who has already been reported for violating 3RR on the article), continue to happily edit war over this statement, some of them (User:CJCurrie, User:Moreschi) blindly reverting without bothering to participate at all on the Talk page. Canadian Monkey (talk) 04:28, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

As has been mentioned by ChrisO before, the notification was made only to users not registered/notified at the time of the ArbCom case - and thus to the SPAs. (The SPAs all happen to be on one "side".) This point has been made by ChrisO so many times that at this stage making the above statement is practically sanctionable. --Relata refero (disp.) 05:42, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, ChrisO has given that "explanation" several times, but the problem is that it is false. I am one of those who received the notification - but I was registered at the time of the ArbCom. Not only that, but I had already been notified of the case, months before, as was clearly evident to ChrisO becuase it's still on my Talk page. It is also evident that he knew this because when he went to log his notifications, he somehow forgot that he had notified me, and logged only the notification of Tundrabuggy and Julia. Please cut out the nonsense that criticizing a questionable act by ChrisO is itself sanctionable - This is Wikipedia, not Stalinist Russia or Cuba, and we are allowed to question authority without fear of retribution. Canadian Monkey (talk) 13:28, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

oops! here we go again with the accusation that I am a SPA! Will nobody check out my contributions to see if there is any truth to this before making these accusations over and over again? My reputation at wiki has been damaged by ChrisO's assertion [89] which is being repeated by others who repeat it without personal verification. Tundrabuggy (talk) 13:19, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Will nobody check out my contributions to see if there is any truth to this...? Okey doke. Let's see: 93 total edits, 45 of them to Muhammad al-Durrah and its talk page, plus 5 to BBC claiming that they're biased against Israel. Knocking off the 17 edits to your own user space, then yeah, it's pretty much a textbook case of single-purpose account and not an "assertion". I'm certainly not seeing what reputation you have that's being "damaged" here. --Calton | Talk 14:11, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

M-72 and the continuing disruption

User M-72 has been warned on 4 separate occasions from 3 separate editors about personal attacks in a relatively short time. Here are the diffs of the warnings: 1, 2, 3, and 4. #3 was considered a "last warning". Many editors have attempted to educate the editor in question of the policy, but I think, considering the amount and time frame, it's time to take further action here. When confronting the editor with the behavior, we usually got response like this, this, and this.

On top of the personal attacks, the editor has been warned several times about vandalism in general such as this. It is clear to me that without actions from an admin, this type of behavior will continue. Is anyone able to offer help on this issue? Thoughts? Roguegeek (talk) 23:54, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Also, if I've placed this report in the wrong notice board, please forgive me and help point me in the right direction to report this properly. Thanks for the help. Roguegeek (talk) 23:57, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

SUL offensive username problem

This charming username (blocked indef immediately, of course) was created automatically (i.e. the account exists elsewhere rather than having been created here) – so how do I find out where its "home wiki" is to make sure that the name is blocked globally? Bencherlite^Talk 23:55, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

While this is probably a case that can be uncontroversially dealt with cross-wiki, SUL is likely to bring about a number of cases in the future where usernames get imported into a wiki which violate some policy there, while being legal on their "home wiki". We used to disallow non-English Unicode characters in usernames, didn't we? *Dan T.* (talk) 23:58, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

You can find a username's home wiki using this tool. I've renamed that particular account as it was a pretty unpleasant attack name. WjBscribe 00:00, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

There were several more created. here and here other too. Anyone have any idea how to stop it? Toddst1 (talk) 00:32, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Get a steward to run a cross-wiki checkuser to find the wiki its coming from. And we might want to blank this thread per BEANS; he may or may not realize what he's really doing. Thatcher 01:08, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Meta log for reference. As I don't move in exalted Meta circles, how would I go about making such a request? Bencherlite^Talk 01:13, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

IRC is probably fastest. There are usually a fair number of people online at any given time to spot this sort of this, this situation was being handled about 30 minutes before you posted the report. Thatcher 01:21, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

If you don't use IRC, this is the page to request on. Al Tally ^talk 01:23, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

(ec) I assumed when I saw the meta log that The Powers That Be would be doing something already! However, as offensive global usernames were still being created here more than 30 minutes after I posted the report, it clearly wasn't fixed when I posted. Anyway... shall we mark this as "Resolved" now? Bencherlite^Talk 01:29, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

For future reference, since it might make things easier: in cases like this, we don't need a cross-project CheckUser to determine the home wiki of the problematic username. Stewards have a "Global account management tool", called "Special:CentralAuth", which automatically identifies the home wiki of any global account. All they need to do is type the username and hit "search". The same tool can be used to either delete the global account or lock it. Redux (talk) 05:12, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

• The stew still needs to run a checkuser to block the IP. Thatcher 11:27, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

User:TerriersFan

Resolved

 – misunderstanding Gwen Gale (talk) 01:25, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

TerriersFan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) at Nipissing University (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) has failed to assume good faith, with using the edit summary "re-established pre-vandalised version". I wish him to be blocked for this please. GreenJoe 01:02, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Can't you tell the user that your edit was not vandalism? You also need to assume that the user just wanted to do what was best for Wikipedia and reverted what they thought appeared to be vandalism; assuming good faith, the user appeared to have reverted your edit which was removing an entire section of the article. This would be better resolved with a private discussion rather than bringing it here. Gary King (talk) 01:11, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

TerriersFan explained this to GreenJoe. Note GJ has also brought this to DRV. I think this is resolved. It's not blockable at any level. Suggest someone else mark resolved as GJ and I have a 'history' _{TravellingCari}^{the Busy Bee} 01:23, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, it's resolved. I apologized for the misunderstanding. GreenJoe 01:40, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

User:6M2

User:6M2's user page is being used by the user and friends as a social networking site of sorts. Clearly something should be done as this is against policy, but I'm not entirely sure what. Does warning or blocking all involved work for everyone? --M1ss1ontomars2k4 (talk) 01:20, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, reported at WP:MFD. --M1ss1ontomars2k4 (talk) 01:30, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Have you told the user that this is not accepted? Perhaps they are not aware of this policy. Cheers! Gary King (talk) 01:23, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Indeed I have not. Will do. --M1ss1ontomars2k4 (talk) 01:30, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Another Hdayejr sock

Resolved

User:70.9.243.200 is another sock of User:Hdayejr, nothing but vandalism and personal attacks including this beauty [90] right here on the WP:ANI page. Thanks in advance again. Dayewalker (talk) 01:32, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks to R. Baley for the block, however, hes back at User:68.29.201.137. Thanks! Dayewalker (talk) 01:49, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Never mind. R. Baley shot him down again. Thanks! Dayewalker (talk) 01:50, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Third opinion needed

Resolved

Can I request someone uninvolved have a look at the history of Xp54321 (talk · contribs) and take whatever action they deem necessary, as regards this discussion - which itself stems from the removal of Huggle from Xp as documented on this talk archive (I think you need to read the whole archive - it all relates to the run-up to this incident). While normally, I'd block both accounts, in this case I'm really reluctant to, since Xp54321 seems to be a genuinely good faith user, who's been repeatedly given some spectacularly bad advice, and I don't want to do anything to drive users like this, who've come to help but don't yet quite understand how things work, off the project. Can someone else review the whole saga? — iridescent 02:00, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

• Comment:Oughta be shown to new users making similar mistakes.Good story.:)Xp54321 (Vandals Beware!!!,Contribs) 02:02, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Hmmmm. Nice........ OK, I definitely don't think you should block XP, as he is 100% NO QUESTION trying to do the right thing. As to what you should do, I have no idea really. I think probably the best solution would be to have someone adopt XP (preferably an admin, although I would be willing to do it if he wanted), and maybe watch his contribs a little and nudge him if he does something questionable/foolish/wrong. I think the biggest problem here was that he got told a lot of, well, flat-out wrong things right after he joined the project. With time and some good advice, he will be fine. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 02:14, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Wow...just...wow. I thought nobody thought about me here except R2,R5,and kodster and iri.:)Xp54321 (Vandals Beware!!!,Contribs) 02:15, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Someone adopting Xp would be a good idea, I agree. I ran into Xp during one of his earliest strange actions at WP:FTC, but have always considered his actions done in good faith. He is an eager user that doesn't quite understand Wikipedia policy, so just consistently pointing the right way to do things to him would be a great idea. Gary King (talk) 02:18, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

(ec) I'm going to take no action of any sort one way or the other, and I imagine Metros won't either — while I 100% agree that XP shouldn't be blocked for this I think any action either way from me would be inappropriate. (Although I would like to aim a particularly juicy WP:TROUT in the direction of Realist2, who seems more to blame than anyone for this mess.) — iridescent 02:19, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't see any bad faith here. Gwen Gale (talk) 02:21, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Ah, excellent idea, haha... Realist, tsk tsk. :p Gary King (talk) 02:23, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict)all over conflicts i cant get a post in!!!But BIG SMILE!!!And laugh R2!:)Xp54321 (Vandals Beware!!!,Contribs) 02:25, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

(My god, 4x ec(??!!!)) Hey, I know you did a lot of, well, rather dumb things, but that does not mean you are a bad contributer. Just don't try evading huggle sanctions. Try doing some vandal fighting using just Special:Recentchanges and WP:UTM. Once you get more experience,your huggle ban will probably be lifted. I really don't want to see you leave, XP. You have the ability to make this place better, and with experience, you will. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 02:26, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Another ec.Thanks j, adopt me!!R2 youre trouted!!!:)Xp54321 (Vandals Beware!!!,Contribs) 02:29, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Note Useight cares about me too.:)Xp54321 (Vandals Beware!!!,Contribs) 02:31, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

LOL :) J.delanoy^gabs_adds 02:39, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Now what.WE wait till jimbo wales comes along or something?:)Xp54321 (Vandals Beware!!!,Contribs) 02:41, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

OUCH, it was a JUICY TROUT, I dont eat fish though so celery would have been nicer. ;-) — Realist² (Come Speak To Me) 02:43, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Oh yeah you're a veggie.LOL!!!!Xp54321 (Vandals Beware!!!,Contribs) 02:45, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I have to say, it is absolutely ridiculous that after being told his Huggle rights were taken away...he proceeded to A. use it on his primary account because of a technical issue. Even though he knew he wasn't allowed to do it, he continued to use it. And B. after he was told again that he wasn't allowed to use it, he sets it up with his alternate account Mr.Xp (talk · contribs). I don't find that to be misguided or just unaware of how Wikipedia works; I find that to be dishonest. Metros (talk) 02:46, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

<long deep sigh> Everyone is allowed an opinion...I guess.:)Xp54321 (Vandals Beware!!!,Contribs) 02:50, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

NoteI have been adopted by J.:)(4th of july sort of celebrations!!!)Xp54321 (Vandals Beware!!!,Contribs) 02:53, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Why did you think it was appropriate to set up Huggle on your secondary account even though you were explicitly told twice not to use it and were blocked on one occasion for using it when previously told not to? Metros (talk) 02:54, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I think one way to help is by letting him know how potentially disruptive some of these actions are; for instance, after Xp used Huggle to revert some edits that were not vandalism (I believe this is what happened?) then instead of simply pointing him to a policy page, perhaps explain it out more in layman terms? If one method doesn't work, and the user still acts in good faith, then perhaps try another route. Gary King (talk) 02:55, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you.also ec,again!!!!lolXp54321 (Vandals Beware!!!,Contribs) 02:59, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

XP, it's in your best interest to tone down the frivolity and participate in this discussion normally. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 03:04, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Can you answer the question I posed? Metros (talk) 03:00, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

As an aside, the signatures alone is this thread are giving me a headache. Daniel (talk) 03:01, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Glad someone said that. Gwen Gale (talk) 03:07, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Listen, XP has been admonished multiple times now about his Huggle use, had the monobook protected, yet was still able to use it (despite knowing he was banned in this regard) and now he has his alternate account use the program? It's downright deceitful, yet not circumspect at the same time. Surely he would have known this action would be visible to those watching. A block is not in order, but there needs to be some real tutelage and massive improvements before I'd allow him to utilize huggle again. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 03:03, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Forget huggle!!!I hate it!It's cursed!!!:)Xp54321 (Vandals Beware!!!,Contribs) 03:05, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

You should probably stop blaming the tool for your misdeeds. Metros (talk) 03:07, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

<sigh> Fine.Humor helps destroy tension. Metros answer to your q.:It was to circumvent the ban and fight vandals.Block me already.<very long sad sigh>:(Xp54321 (Vandals Beware!!!,Contribs) 03:09, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Offline in a min.Sleep tomorrw schoolday but fri.See you.:)Xp54321 (Vandals Beware!!!,Contribs) 03:11, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Humor will not do anything to help your case here, though. Again, admire the tenacity and the enthusiasm, but it's starting to come off as immaturity. We need to get to a conclusion here, and I don't think anyone feels you need to be blocked. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 03:11, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

(ec) I agree, using huggle on an alterantive account (User:Mr.Xp) when the main acount (User:Xp54321) has had huggle disabled is unacceptable. I personally think that we shouldn't grant rollback and let Xp use huggle until he has learned more about vandalism from othes such as his adopters. Although Xp is trying to go down the right path, he occasionally takes a wrong step, leading to things like this. What I'm trying to say is that Xp is trying to do his best, but he needs a lot more to learn from. We probably shouldn't give this user huggle to any of his accounts until a few months of learning from his adopters and that others agree he has learned what vandalism is and how to use these vandal tools. -- RyRy5 (talk) 03:15, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Xp54321, please read WP:SOCK. What you did with your secondary account is definitely inappropriate sockpuppetry. You used the alternate account to get around a "ban" on your primary account. Both accounts can be blocked for this offense. Metros (talk) 03:16, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict, reply to RyRy5) I'd call them "anti-vandal tools", but yeah, he was officially adopted by J.delanoy, so that's a step in the right direction. Useight (talk) 03:17, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that's what I meant. User:J.delanoy is a fine vandal fighter and he/she can teach Xp about WP:VANDALISM, WP:ROLLBACK, and whatever he needs to learn to vandal-fight properly. -- RyRy5 (talk) 03:20, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Still using Twinkle?

From, like, 6mins ago. Daniel (talk) 03:12, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Was Twinkle ever an issue for this user? Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 03:16, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Surely if you can't be trusted with Huggle, you can't be trusted with Twinkle? Daniel (talk) 03:19, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes. Xp54321 has a problem with vandalism in general. No specific type of anti-vandalism tool can change that until he has learned what vandalism is.--RyRy5 (talk) 03:22, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

As an aside, it's generally easier to make mistakes using Huggle than Twinkle. Useight (talk) 03:25, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

While I think the user has a misapprehension of what constitutes vandalism, I also think that the major factor here is disregard due to the speed at which Huggle operates. I've seen XP revert and undo vandalism just fine, it's the mistakes that kill the attempt. Twinkle is slower and less prone to false positives, although can still be misused. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 03:26, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

(ec)The thing about TW is that now people can enable it in the "my preferences" section, so it's impossible (to my knowledge) to remove it. RC-0722 ^361.0/1 03:27, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I wonder how this user would do with no add-ons at all, using only the basic interface for at least a month or two. Gwen Gale (talk) 03:28, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

The user he reported has been banned and Xp's warnings appear to all be for legitimate vandalism. To Gwen, that's an interesting idea. Perhaps delaney can float that idea by him. Also, it appears that Realist put Xp on the path of article-building, which I think is a great idea because once you've built an article up, especially to, say, Good Article status, then you have a much better understanding of how much work goes into article building and then you appreciate everything on Wikipedia more, really. Gary King (talk) 03:28, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Like User:Wisdom89 said, Xp does use the anti-vandalism tools correctly most of the time, but he does miuse it on occasions which starts all the problems.--RyRy5 (talk) 03:34, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

←Although he's been warned against using Huggle (and banned from AWB), AFAIK he's never had any warning about Twinkle, so I personally don't see a problem here. Twinkle and Huggle aren't the same thing - it's like comparing a spear to a machinegun - as Twinkle runs more slowly, gives prompts, and (most importantly, in this case) auto-opens the talkpage of the user being reverted, and a glimpse at the talkpage is usually enough to give a "woah, this is an experienced editor I'm reverting" moment, whereas Huggle can run faster than most bots in the hands of a reasonably experienced user. As I said above, I'd suggest that having lit this firework, Metros and I both drop out of any decision on this particular occasion; I trust J.delanoy to come down like a ton of bricks if Xp does anything else out of place. — iridescent 03:36, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

... otherwise this same thing will happen to J., heh :p Also, since you opened this, I suggest you just mark it as resolved and/or add the archive tags since not much more needs to be added. Gary King (talk) 03:37, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

"Ton of bricks" doesn't even begin to describe it. As you can see from my décor on his adoption page, I know exactly how to set the tone for these things. :P J.delanoy^gabs_adds 05:19, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Fun image, but no way is it GFDL. Gwen Gale (talk) 13:39, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Those sites could have taken it from the Commons; the first result is Wikipedia. Gary King (talk) 14:45, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

What I meant was it's a derivative image of a copyrighted character, which requires a license from the original copyright holder, who was very unlikely to have granted a GFDL release for this artwork. Gwen Gale (talk) 14:47, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Just as a philosophical question, why doesn't Huggle require users to get prior approval the way VP and AWB do? Seems like just common sense that you'd want to make sure a user had a little experience before using such a powerful tool...? (And this is not a knock on XP, this is actually a knock on Wikipedia for creating a situation that sets up users like XP to make mistakes.) --Jaysweet (talk) 15:09, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

The changelog says that in the most recent version you need to have rollback to use it. Wikipedia:Huggle/Changes--Tombomp (talk) 15:48, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Huggle and Twinkle are menaces in the wrong hands. I think I just upset one eager Huggle user by taking his toy off him for a week because he was reverting all IP edits that didn't include a citation. Neıl 龱 15:51, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

So was XP using an older version, or did somebody give him rollback permission?? --Jaysweet (talk) 15:55, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Block review please

Resolved

 – blocked indef by User:barneca for conduct while blocked

Jjonjonjon (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) I blocked the user for 12 hours for repeated vandalism, at times bordering on personal attacks. Note this isn't specifically related to the AfD disruption that resulted in the Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Jjonjonjon, but rather charming edits such as: this, this, this, this charmer, this especially for BLP and uploads such as this.

I don't know that this editor is here for any productive use but it seemed a clear vandalism following final warnings with no inclination that it would stop. Just a bit nervous as this is my first non blatant spam username block. _{TravellingCari}^{the Busy Bee} 03:18, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

In my humble opinion, 12 hours is a little short. I would have blocked indefinitely. PhilKnight (talk) 03:37, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I would have blocked 31 hours and come back with an indef if it happened again. Gwen Gale (talk) 03:40, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks both of you, I was debating longer but a) didn't want to overdo it b) didn't want to scare off someone who might have a .01% chance of being a productive editor and c) couldn't find anything that specifically addressed whether blocking should be done while an SSP is filed, although he's aware of it and hasn't commented there. _{TravellingCari}^{the Busy Bee} 03:49, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I prefer that new sysops block too short per AGF than too long - it is no hardship to block again (and longer) if the first sanction did not have the hoped for effect. Starting out with week long and indef blocks may cause a lot more reaction, and may lead the admin and the community wondering if they are suitable for the responsibility. After a while admins (hopefully) get a feel for the appropriate tariff. Kudos also for bringing it up for review, anyhows. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:00, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Anyone want to have a look at his talk-page contribs since being blocked starting here? He's coming off block in an hour or two and someone might want to keep an eye. I don't think we're going to see a big swing in positive contributions. I may or may not be online to keep an eye myself. _{TravellingCari}^{the Busy Bee} 14:21, 6 June 2008 (UTC) :I'll be around for a while & keep an eye on this. --Rodhullandemu 14:31, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

User's talk page also protected indef. Gwen Gale (talk) 14:35, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks all, I landed in a never-ending meeting. _{TravellingCari}^{the Busy Bee} 15:58, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Block evasion

A dynamic IP blocked for edit warring a few hours ago is now editing again. One sock has already been blocked by Trusilver but I think he's offline now. The ip is 216.80.147.214 (talk · contribs). He then used the registered name Firstinline2009 (talk · contribs) and was blocked [91]. Trusilver unblocked him conditionally on the basis that he only use the discussion page and not edit the article [92], however he has violated that agreement. He is now editing as Rodneycwilson (talk · contribs)[93] making the same edits. --Ave Caesar (talk) 03:52, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Both accounts blocked for 31 hours. Gwen Gale (talk) 04:04, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

New User:Very easy editing archived pages re: socks: Semberac, Majstor Mile

Is it appropriate for an editor to edit archived request for checkuser pages and change the name of a sockmaster to what is purportedly the present user name of the sockmaster? See [94] , [95] , my warnings [96] and [97] and Very Easy's reply [98]. So is it or is it not vandalism for User:Very easy to alter the contents of these archived pages on the grounds that the sock user now uses a different name? Edison (talk) 04:25, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

This also seems odd in light of the renaming [99] of user Majstor Mile to user Made in Kikinda. Edison (talk) 04:37, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Then should we change it to Made in Kikinda? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Very easy (talk • contribs) 05:23, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

You know, some days, I REALLY heart SineBot. Gladys J Cortez 08:33, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Stalking

It appears that user:Yahel Guhan is stalking me.

The user recently arrived from a month long wikibreak, as can be seen in Special:Contributions/Yahel_Guhan. One of the user's first edits was to revert me on New antisemitism and Mecca, without making any response on the talk page. I don't think they qualify as a violation of WP:STALK as the user has edited those article many times before.

However, Yahel Guhan has followed me to the article Banu Qurayza, where he blindly reverted me: [100]. The blind revert deleting about 15% of the article, removing sourced content from 11 different scholars.

Furthermore Yahel Guhan has made no attempt to discuss on the articles' talk page, which others users are busy engaged in. Using page statistics, I determined that Yahel Guhan has only 1 edit to the article in the past, which was 207 days ago (in early November 2007 [101]).

That Yahel Guhan would revert me at Banu Qurayza while reverting me at multiple other locations is an indication that the user is following me, reverting me, without making any attempts to discuss on the talk page. (Keeping in mind that Yahel Guhan did this very shortly after returning to wikipedia).

I'd like to remind other users that I was blocked for this misbehavior (for 72 hours) a few months ago, when I followed a user and reverted him on an article I had never edited (see the latest block on my block log).

I think that wikipedia rules apply not just to me, but to everyone, Yahel Guhan included.Bless sins (talk) 04:26, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

• Since they edited all the articles concerned I'd suggest their watchlist came into play. Finally have you attempted to discuss this with them before raising this? Have you notified them of this thread? Spartaz ^Humbug! 04:43, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Aha - I see you have done neither. How disappointing. No Admin action required until you have discussed this with the user. Spartaz ^Humbug! 04:46, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
    • This user has stalked me twice in the past: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive361#WP:STALK, Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive382#Stalk. I've discussed the issue of stalking ample times with this user. Yet the behavior persists. Finally, I note that when I was blocked for 72 hours, no one ever discussed any issue with me, nor notified me of anything. Go ahead and check my talk page. Why is one rule applied for me, but another for Yahel Guhan?Bless sins (talk) 04:49, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Do you not know when to give up? You have made stalking reports three times now, and all three you were informed that it is not stalking, that you need to stop making the reports, and yet you continue. You're a relentless hypocrite who can never take a hint when consensus doesn't support your agenda. I never blindly reverted you; Banu Quaryza is on my watchlist, and you are in a dispute, making highly contentious very POV edits, as usual. And if you actually read the talk page of that article, you would realize that you never had consensus to make the edits you did. Rather you resort to (as usual) pretending to be stupid to delay disputes with very poor arguments that are obviously fallacies or outright incorrect, misinterpretations of basic English, and resorting to other tricks such as repeating yourself, claims of irrelevance to things which are clearly relevant, and wikilawyering. And for what purpose? Not to resolve the disputes, but rather to prolong them so you can continue to promote your POV. You did (and continue to do) the same tricks on the Islam and antisemitism article, and every other article I have been in a dispute with you on. I reverted your highly contentious highly POV edits on all three articles, while you seem to have taken advantage of my absence to continue promoting your POV pushing agenda, where you reverted me: [102][103][104][105][106] just to give a few examples (there are more), knowing that only you and I were in the dispute, or that when I was editing, both sides of the dispute were balanced, and when I was on wikibreak, you could take advantage of my temporary absence to get your version to seem like a consensus version, no matter how temporary. Then, when I return, you call it “stalking,” and you make this report.

But since you wish to bring up stalking, lets look at several articles you started editing after I did: for example: Mecca. I make this addition: [107], and you revert it: [108]. It is obvious that this is stalking, as your last edit to the page was never. Check the page history. Thus all of your editing that page is, by your definition, stalking. To continue: Another page you never edited, but followed me to is Islamist demonstration outside Danish Embassy in London in 2006. Your stalking is evident here. Then there is Racial segregation, where your stalking is also visible, as you make contentious edits on articles I edit that are completely irrelevant to the topic you edit: Islam-related articles: [109][110][111][112][113] It should be noted that this is his first time making the contentious edit:[114]- about a month after I edited the page [115].

Here is another article: Infidel. I don't know if it was me or Jayjg you were stalking when you showed up here and reverted [116]

Two other things to take note of. In the past three months, Bless sins has gotten away with two reported 3RR violations: [117] [118] YahelGuhan (talk) 05:30, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Most of the above allegations are baseless. Yes I did edit all those articles. No my edits weren't related Yahel Guhan's edits on those articles. I've been editing the Mecca article for quite some time. The dispute started when Yahel Guhan reverted me on Portal:Discrimination/Selected picture (a portal the editor had never edited before, see history here).

My edit here was on the article talk page, where Yahel Guhan had never made an edit before.

"It should be noted that this is his first time making the contentious edit:- about a month after I edited the page " That should make it obvious that I'm stalking you. I was lead to the article through a completely different source, certainly not your ancient edits.

Regarding the [edit on Infidel. I added new content, and y edit had nothing to do at all with you (who had first edited the article about two months ago).

Finally back to Banu Qurayza. I see your attitude has not changed, and you have not even apologized for making blanket reverts on the article. You are not even ashamed of the fact that you removed 15% of the material without a word on the talk page, acting like a drive by reverter, removing content only because I added it.Bless sins (talk) 05:45, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Baseless! Hardly. Just look at your edits. You have edited those articles, and all of your edits conflict with mine, so they do relate. You have never edited the Mecca article until my addition to the article that you objected to. If you did, you'd be able to provide a diff to prove otherwise, which you did not do. Now you resort to outright lies. Speaking of the Portal, you probably canvassed off wiki for votes, as 5 muslim editors who share your views suddenly showed up to vote, all of whom never edited the page until you made the edit, before I initiated the RFC. Not to mention this.

My edit here was on the article talk page, where Yahel Guhan had never made an edit before. More lies. I make one minor edit, and you show up.

That should make it obvious that I'm stalking you. No. It is obvious that you are playing games, biding your time. I often make my first edits months after I first find/read the article, and I am sure other editors do as well.

your edit had to do with insurting the connection to the term "goy", which I (and Jayjg) objected to.

I already explained my reasons. Str's arguements were correct, while yours were just weak, repeats of what was already said, and attempts by you to prolong the issue. Drive by reverter. You think you are funny? I looked at the content, and it didn't belong for the reasons Str already stated. I'm not repeating other peoples arguements for you. YahelGuhan (talk) 06:13, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

The fact that you both travel in the same small circle of articles isn't evidence of stalking, but rather of a shared interest from two contradictory appearing angles. Paranoia does not warrant admin intervention, in my humble and honest opinion. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 06:23, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

• Blessins and Yahel, you both need to stop. This is an ongoing problem with the two of you getting into edit wars and being generally nasty with each other. You both work on similar sets of articles - no one is stalking anyone here. Calm down and work out your disputes on the talk page instead of edit warring or complaining here please. Shell ^babelfish 06:24, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Only that I get blocked for 72 hours for the same behavior.Bless sins (talk) 06:48, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
    • I'm sorry no, that was a different situation and regardless, has no bearing on this incident. Perhaps given the number of warnings and blocks you have for edit warring or being disruptive over trying to force changes to an article, this would be a good time to take a step back and consider that the community is trying to tell you that its not acceptable to behave this way while editing Wikipedia. Please find a way to work out the differences you have with other editors without causing a scene and edit warring every single time and you'll find that the time you spend here will be much more plesant. Shell ^babelfish 06:54, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I'd be interested to see numbers indicating the proportion of recent edits by these editors that are undiscussed reverts, the proportion of recent edits that are substantive statements on the talkpage, and so on. That appears to be the real problem here. --Relata refero (disp.) 07:17, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Problems with the page of Adolf Hitler

Resolved

There is a problem with the page of Adolf Hitler. In it it states that Adolf Hitler was found dead at the end of the war, which is incorrect. His body was never found and no autopsy was never performed on him. Eva Braun was never found either. I was going to edit it to correct it but there is no way for me to do that considering the edit has been removed on the page. It bothers me very much when false reports like that are made out to be true. The body that they found was the body of Adolf Hitlers body guard, and his morgue picture is here http://www.celebritymorgue.com/adolf-hitler/. It states that Adolf Hitler and Eva Brauns bodies were burned but this has not been verified by any references of mine. Please edit the page and state the truth about Adolf Hitler. The truth would be, no conclusive or verified information has determined whether or not Hitler died at the end of the war. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wafflessucks (talk • contribs) 05:50, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Admins aren't judges of content, so there's really not much we can do to help you here. I'd suggest that you try to talk this out on Talk:Adolf Hitler or try another form of dispute resolution. Shell ^babelfish 06:27, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

User Myheartinchile

Resolved

 – User reminded to discuss tag adds on the relevent talkpage. Chafford (talk) 15:42, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

User Myheartinchile (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) keeps adding NPOV tag without leaving anything on the talk page saying on what they think isn't NPOV, Improve ref tag when the article has 90+ refs (I've lost count) and is adding trivial content in Chris Crocker (Internet celebrity) and added this to a user who also reverted them [119]. Bidgee (talk) 07:24, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

There isn't really a great deal that anyone can do regarding this, other than remind him to discuss his decisions on the relevant talkpage, and as for the link, it wasn't a personal attack, so there is no problem there. Chafford (talk) 09:43, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I've given him a warning to discuss matters on the talk page rather than just keep adding tags. Trebor (talk) 10:15, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Before my eyes rolled back last night I glanced at Chris Crocker talk, and he seemed to be writing detailed explanations there. Did not look close though. Cheers, Dlohcierekim 12:34, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I have no strong opinion on the validity of the NPOV tag and the nature of Myheartinchile's actions, but by way of providing information I thought this AfD was worth mentioning. --Jaysweet (talk) 13:19, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

He's written comments which have been replied to, so hopefully he'll engage in discussion. Trebor (talk) 13:28, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia, the webhost any one can edit

Resolved.

Youngerthanozzy (talk · contribs), Fireball159 (talk · contribs), and Name12 (talk · contribs) appear to be using Wikipedia as their personal Webhost. I've asked them not to. I removed some personal information from User:Name12 as it seemed imprudent for it to be there. Cheers, Dlohcierekim 07:49, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

One vandalism-only account, one longstanding account with no edits save a few deleted nonsense pages, and one account with the entirety of its contributions spread across the related userpages. I've indef blocked them for now. If they wish to request an unblock and make positive contributions to the encyclopedia, they would be more than welcome. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 09:32, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I just laughed out loud when I saw this sections header, and my mom asked me what was so funny. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 16:02, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Personal attacks and incivility by suspected sock

Hi all, User:Luigi 28 recently engaged in personal attacks against User:AlasdairGreen27 and myself on User:WBOSITG's talkpage [120], calling us both "fools" and generally engaging in conversation in an uncivil manner. The flamer frequently uses CAPITAL letters and communicates in Italian. He is suspected of being yet another sock of banned User:PIO, could someone do something about this guy? --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 14:06, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I recently collided with him on the Andrea Antico article (the man dared to be born in Croatia; that seems to irk those with a strong sense of Venetian history, but I admit I don't understand all the background issues here, i.e. what were the ethnicities in 15th-century Istria, and why it would bother people so much). I left a note on his talk page. Is he a sock? I can't tell: you can find one of his IPs in the history of Antico, and I defer to the checkusers on this one. Antandrus (talk) 14:41, 6 June 2008 (UTC)