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 redirect deletions

MZMcBride (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) is using a bot (based on his log to delete thousands of redirected talk pages. While some may be valid, he also deleted a whole raft of template documentation talk pages (an example would be Template talk:PD-self/doc). Users are instructed to redirect those doc talk pages in Wikipedia:Template documentation#How to create a documentation subpage. Based on his responses to complaints on his talk page, it seems he doesn't understand why these massive robotic deletions are a problem. I'm not sure how we go about cleaning up this big mess. Kelly ^hi! 01:45, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Here we go again with the pointless redirect cleanup. It doesn't need doing- there is no appreciable benefit to Wikipedia from these being deleted. Do we need a redirect from Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Opera/Archive24 to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Opera/Archive 24, not really. Does it do any harm, no. Is it of some use, well maybe if someone mistypes the url... No one would bother doing these unnecessary deletions manually so the only time it happens is if someone takes it upon themselves to run a script to do it. Drama ensues, Wikipedia gets no better. I'm rather tired of asking MZMcBride to stop doing this sort of thing to be honest. WjBscribe 01:55, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

He also deleted talk pages that redirect to centralised discussions, on the spurious grounds that "they were all orphaned". This is incorrect - all talk pages automatically link to their articles, and if those articles exist, a talk page is never an orphan. Removing these links - especially in cases where discussion relating to the page is continuing on the redirect target is not only wrong but also disruptive to the point of vandalism. "Wikipedia gets no better", as you say - in fact, it gets considerably worse. Grutness...wha? 02:10, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

I also notified MZMcBride about a deletion I questioned. S/he quickly restored it but I agree with the above, there was no need for these deletions in the first place since the deletion sorting list was at the same location as its talk page. I suggest a centralized discussion at the Village Pump or somewhere else to get some conensus on what, if anything, needs to be done about so-called orphan talk pages before another such run since it has apparently happened before. Also suggest a better check on whether or not something is truly orphaned since there's something clearly wrong with that check. _{TravellingCari}^{the Busy Bee} 02:19, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I've undeleted a bunch of /doc redirects. There are still a lot more that need undeleting, tho. Why the heck would anyone want to delete useful redirects? --Conti|✉ 02:28, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Simple, they think the redirects are useless or a script they are using thinks the redirects are useless. FunPika 02:31, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Proposed remedy: This issue can be quickly closed if he agrees to not delete or blank more than a few non-vandal/non-broken/non-looping/not-otherwise-explicitly-harmful redirects per day without discussing them on Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion for a period of time. I would suggest a limit of 10 per day for at least a month. For comparison, non-admins have a limit of zero deletions per day for the duration of their non-adminship. During this time he can think about whether his judgment on deleting redirects is causing problems, and if it is, either change his personal criteria or simply avoid deleting redirects. This isn't arbcom, so any such agreement would have to be voluntary on his part. However, repeats of this kind of incident may lead to formal sanctions. Personally, I'd hate to see someone who has this much time to give to the project be completely desysoped because of a mistake in one area. On a related matter: It goes without saying that bots should get approval first. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 02:32, 1 June 2008 (UTC) PS: The robotic deletes that haven't been re-created already should be quickly undone and screened by a human for re-deleting. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 02:42, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Several users have complained about this on this talk page in the last 24 hours. He's clearly in the minority here and if he doesn't cease doing this, stronger measures may be needed. To his credit, he seems to be starting to realize this. I hope so. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:46, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm a bit confused as to the purpose of these deletions. Even assuming that the bot being used was 100% accurate, what's the point? Given this it goes without saying that if there is less than 100% accuracy, the bot shouldn't be running. Christopher Parham (talk) 02:48, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

If the bot was working 100% correctly and it was designed in accordance with WP:SPEEDY and approved in accordance with WP:BOT, nobody would notice. Well, nobody except those who are mad because properly-speedy'd redirects got deleted. In general, no article or other page on Wikipedia should be summarily deleted - by a bot or human administrator - unless it fits the criteria in WP:SPEEDY. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 03:07, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Not sure this is true: it's certainly possible to make edits with automated tools that while plausibly useful, are disruptive due to a combination of number and triviality. See e.g. the rejection of bots that make minor MOS changes and the warning to AWB users not to confirm edits that make only this type of change. This sort of thing just clogs watchlists and the deletion log for no reason. Christopher Parham (talk) 03:20, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Deletions didn't use to clog up the watchlists, as they didn't appear there, but now they do, this sort of objections to mass deletions are becoming more common, as I predicted. It is good in a way, though I do have some sympathy with those who shovel away in the bowels of Wikipedia with deletion scripts having a bright light shone on them. Most of the deletions are fine, but these ones were not. Carcharoth (talk) 03:24, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

I find deletions in watchlists extremely useful. Even if a bot properly deleted 10,000 articles but improperly deleted one I cared about, I might miss it if it didn't show up in my watchlist. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 03:54, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree. What I am saying is that those using deletion scripts might be struggling to adjust to the new situation where they are under greater scrutiny. Not an excuse, more something to be said in mitigation. Carcharoth (talk) 03:58, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

• I think (and I hope MZMcBride will correct me if I am wrong) that his philosophy is to make a judgment call and then undelete if he makes a mistake. This was rather a silly error though, and one that would have been picked up if he had checked with other people. He should do: (1) Ask; (2) Objection; (3) Abandon deletion. Instead, the process is: (1) Delete (after consideration or programming a script); (2) Objection; (3) Undelete. He doesn't often get it wrong, to be fair, but that may be, as I've noticed before, more to do with the pages being deleted being stuff no-one cares about or notices (the recent addition of deletions and other log actions to watchlists may explain why people are noticing these things more). In this case, deletions like that of Template talk:Nowraplinks/doc are clearly wrong. There are two common ways to reach Template talk:Nowraplinks/doc. The first is by clicking the talk page link at the top of Template:Nowraplinks. The second is by clicking the talk page link at the top of Template:Nowraplinks/doc (the same is true for any set of pages sharing a talk page, be they subpages or not. I'm more concerned that there seem to be at least seven threads on his talk page about this. He raises some interesting (if debatable) points here and here. The point is that these things should be debated openly on a project talk page, not batted around user talk pages with limited input, and certainly not as part of a debate triggered by deletions. The debate should have taken place before the deletions. My concerns here are mainly with MZMcBride's bypassing of community discussions in favour of his own judgment (an example I remember is here from April: "I see no reason to stop simply because there's a fuss on AN/I."), as seen in his ideas that it is OK to delete and then undelete if there are objections, rather than discuss first before deleting. There is a time and a place for that approach, and in my opinion he takes it too far. Carcharoth (talk) 03:21, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
• Was MZMcBride's bot ever approved? I do not want to see another User:Marudubshinki, who as as an admin ran unauthorized bots using the sysop tools that generated many complaints, and he refused to stop so an arbcom case desysopped him. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 03:31, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
  • User:Betacommand also comes to mind. I can't find any approval for the bot. Kelly ^hi! 03:33, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
    • It is a script, not a bot, hence no approval needed. As I said, most of the stuff is fine. If he would discuss more beforehand, I would have no problems with most of his work. Carcharoth (talk) 03:44, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
      • Hmm - the edit rate on the "script" is sometimes over 20 deletions per minute, based on a quick review of the log. Seems too fast for each action to be approved, but I could be wrong. Kelly ^hi! 03:51, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Massive redirect deletions - arbitrary break 1

For those who weren't here at the time, the longest of the previous discussions was here. That was mainly East718, but at the time it was noted that MzMcBride was also doing a more limited set of deletions (he was using different criteria, mainly he was deleting redirects with no incoming links, whereas East718's deletions were not fully orphaned). There was also a terminology confusion, which Grutness has pointed out here (perpetuating the confusing usage, while also raising an important point that redlinked talk page tabs lead to inappropriate recreations of separate talk pages where a centralised one may be needed). Anyway, I covered the terminology confusion here. Forgive me for reposting this, but I think these redirects for centralised talk page discussions are another variant! :-)

• (1) "Orphaned" talk pages (CSD#G8) are talk pages where the corresponding page does not exist or was deleted. This is an imprecise use of the phrase "orphaned".
• (2) Broken redirects are redirects pointing at deleted or never-created titles. Sometimes these are called "orphaned" redirects. As for type (1), this is an imprecise use of the phrase "orphaned". User:RedirectCleanupBot deals with these providing they have no edit history beyond creation (see type C).
• (3) True orphaned pages are pages not linked to from anywhere else (ie. "what links here" shows nothing). This usually refers to articles not linked from other articles, but can refer to other namespace pages as well. These links from somewhere else are also called backlinks. Redirects can be orphaned in this sense (looking backwards at what connects to it) as well as in the other sense (looking forward at what it connects to, though this is more commonly called a "broken redirect").
  • (3a) Sometimes orphan status can be delimited by namespace. Thus it is possible for a page to be orphaned with respect to several namespaces, but still be linked from other namespaces. This is relevant here because some namespaces (in this case Wikipedia and User namespaces) are densely populated with links from article lists, such as the various bot-generated watchlists, wikiproject article lists, user lists, and the WP 1.0 assessment lists.

Also, redirects can be created in several ways and have a varied history.

• (A) Redirects can be created from scratch. These generally never have a talk page, and the edit history usually only shows creation, but in theory a talk page could be created for such redirects.
• (B) Redirects are created by the pagemove function. If the page has a talk page and the talk page is also moved, a redirect is created for the talk page as well. The edit history will only show creation of the redirect at the time of the page move.
• (C) Redirects can also be created by blanking a page and inserting the redirect markup. This is known as "redirecting" and is also a step seen in merging. This can also work the other way round, with a redirect being turned into a normal page, usually when undoing a merge, creating a disambiguation page following a page move, or just creating new content where previously only a redirect existed. These redirects are easily distinguished from others because they have an edit history that is more than just the creation of the redirect. When talk pages exist for these type of redirects, they are sometimes left alone, and sometimes redirected or merged to the talk page of the redirect destination.
• (D) Redirects of talk pages are also sometimes created for the purposes of centralising discussion for a set of pages. This could be a set of subpages where people clicking on the talk page tab get sent to the centralised discussion page (eg. the "doc" subpages of template pages, as described at Wikipedia:Template documentation), or they can be centralising discussion for a set of related pages (eg. the talk pages for the [[WP:REFDESK|reference desks). These redirects are normally created from scratch (type A), though if there was existing discussion at different locations before the centralising, then the redirects will be created by inserting the redirect markup (type C).

Hopefully that makes redirect and orphan terminology clearer! Carcharoth (talk) 03:50, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Among some of the talk page redirect deletions that triggered my watchlist directly tonight were a large amount of talk page archive redirects. Talk page archives themselves almost never have a project page attached to them, let alone a redirect. This needs to stop. -- Ned Scott 03:52, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

I think what should be made clear to those running deletion scripts is that deletions appear in watchlists, so they are coming under greater scrutiny than before, so they need to improve their standards. Carcharoth (talk) 03:56, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

I came here to report MZMcBride's latest talk page deletion spree. But I see many of you beat me to it.

MZMcBride has done similar deletions several times during the last years. He has also been deleting /doc talk page redirects both now and before. (Note that such /doc talk page redirects are recommended at Wikipedia:Template documentation#How to create a documentation subpage.) I have discussed his deletions with him several times before and if he has answered it has been to the effect that he thinks that talk pages should never be redirected and that he thinks such redirected talk pages should be deleted on sight.

And yes, it seems MZMcBride was running a bot or a script. That bot could not possibly be an approved one and breaches policy in several ways. Since as far as I remember bots may not do tasks that need admin tools (such as deleting pages), they must be ran from special non-admin accounts marked as bot accounts, they may only do 10 edits per minute, and they should be formally approved before they run. Since I have discussed this with MZMcBride before I think his bot did exactly what he was intending. If it was "just a script" doesn't matter, bots are built from scripts so the difference is only academic, there is no reason that a script should be allowed to break the bot rules like doing more than 10 edits per minute.

I disagree with MZMcBride's deletions. Something needs to be done about this since this is a repeat behaviour and I don't think he will stop voluntarily.

--David Göthberg (talk) 04:00, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Can a script be used to undo these deletions? -- Ned Scott 04:01, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

I know East718 has said he has an undeletion script. Which reminds me of a Betacommand image deletion issue that probably never got tidied up. The deletion of PNG and SVG images, IIRC. East offered to do undeletions, but the second stage (removing the deletion tags) never got sorted out. This is another point - reversability is rarely built in, at least not with the same amount of convenience. Invariably the undeletion is slower or requires discussion, and if the deleting admin doesn't take responsibility, then often discussion dies out, people mutter a bit, nothing gets done, and the admin responsible doesn't get properly warned or sanctioned. Then the behaviour repeats again. Breaking that sort of low-level cycle of behaviour can be very difficult unless someone keeps pointing out the previous stuff, and someone actually guides the discussion towards an actionable conclusion. Carcharoth (talk) 04:10, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Massive redirect deletions - arbitrary break 2

See Wikipedia talk:Bot policy#When is a script a bot.3F for suggestions on how to keep this from happening in the future. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Davidwr (talk • contribs) 04:19, 1 June 2008

Geez... what is all the fuss about? I for one do agree with deleting orphaned talkpage redirects. Redirects should not have talkpages; plain and simple. Though on this occasion, MZ made a mistake by not checking if the attached non-talk page was indeed a redirect itself. If that check is added, the script would work fine. — Edokter • Talk • 15:51, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

What about the deletions of template documentation talkpages? Kelly ^hi! 15:56, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Same error; MZ should have checked if the non-talk page otself was a redirect. — Edokter • Talk • 22:55, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Part of the purpose of that discussion is to establish what the difference is between a script and a bot (and whether there is a difference at all in cases like this). The fact that he can run a bot without approval by calling it a "script" is a tremendous loophole in bot approval. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 19:24, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Edokter: You have misunderstood what this is about. Go and look again. MZMcBride is deleting redirected talk pages of existing templates and their /doc pages. And he has been doing so for months or is it years now? And lots and lots of people have begged him to stop for a long time now, but he refuses to understand and just claims "I do no harm since I am an admin". Two examples of many: Diff1, diff2.

--David Göthberg (talk) 20:41, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

I have been doing some thinking and have come to some conclusions: MZMcBride has been deleting redirected talk pages of existing templates and their /doc pages for months or perhaps years now. I have checked the logs and I see that lots and lots of experienced editors considers this to be disruptive edits and have asked him to stop for a long time now, but he refuses to understand. (I myself have discussed this with him several times during the last year or more.)

Even if an editor doesn't understand why his edits are considered disruptive, if lots of people tell him they are disruptive and ask him to stop he should stop. Failure to stop is vandalism and should be handled as such, no matter if the editor happens to be an admin. Even admins should obey consensus.

I am going to put a final vandalism warning notice on MZMcBride's talk page. If I see him deleting any more talk page redirects of existing pages I would like to block him for repeat vandalism. I hope other admins will agree with me on this? (And do the same if they see him vandalise more talk pages.) Since I am not experienced in blocking people I appreciate any advice on the proper length of such a block. And how long should the follow up blocks be if he continues?

--David Göthberg (talk) 21:44, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely not. Blocking for running an unapproved bot or not respecting consensus is one thing, blocking him for vandalism - meaning he is intending to harm the project - is absolutely unacceptable, and like that pointless warning template you put on his talk page, only going to multiply the drama. Disruption is not the same as vandalism. Mr.Z-man 23:37, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

The first block should be for the typical 24 hours. If there needs to be a second block, how long it should be will be the least of our problems. I also agree with Mr.Z-man that "disruption" would be a better term than "vandalism". rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 23:41, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Z-Man, vandalism is not the same as disruption. Please rephrase the warning message accordingly. Thank you. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 03:26, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm late to the discussion but add me to the list of users frustrated by this pointless deletion spree. It does not comply with any existing criterion of WP:CSD. It adds nothing helpful to the project and has created considerable disruption. Redirects (and, yes, that includes redirects of one talk page to another Talk page) are helpful to those of us who care about and try to research the history of pages that have been moved. Rossami (talk) 01:00, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Many editors have talked with MZMcBride for months (or is it years now?) about his disruptive deletions of redirected talk pages of existing templates and their /doc sub-pages. He knows the rest of us thinks his edits are disruptive, still he continues. To me that makes it intentional disruption which I thought was called "vandalism" in English. But I am not a native English speaker, English is only my third language.

Anyway, no matter what we call it: Talking with MZMcBride has failed miserably, thus we have to use the next tool to stop his disruptive edits, and that is to tell him he will be blocked if he continues. (And of course block him if he does continue.)

--David Göthberg (talk) 11:32, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Massive redirect deletions - Call for immediate robot-restore

Seeing as how MZMcBride has taken the day off, I'm calling for the immediate robo-restore of all red-links that are in this list whose edit summary is "(orphaned talk page redirect)", dating back to at least 14:53, 31 May 2008. Shall I ask for help on Wikipedia:Bot requests or is this a bad idea? davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 03:26, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

This is a good idea, and I support the request. -- Ned Scott 04:39, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I also support the request. This episode seems to have been a good-faith mistake, and so the best solution would be to restore the status quo ante. Physchim62 (talk) 14:13, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Physchim62: In what way is it "a good-faith mistake" when lots of editors have pointed it out to him repeatedly for many months that his deletions of talk page redirects are disruptive? I see that you are defending him on his talk page. I suggest you go look in the logs and the archives and see what has been going on for a long time now.

--David Göthberg (talk) 15:17, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

If you have longer-term concerns with this editors' actions, why don't you try dispute resolution? I did not "defend him" on his talk page, I merely disagreed with your actions: there is a substantial difference! Physchim62 (talk) 17:22, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Bot requested, with a request that the bot owner place a notice here and wait 12-24 hours for any last-minute objections. Given that this mess started when someone made a decision without asking for others' opinions, it's prudent to go slow on the repair job. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 14:49, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Agree. Physchim62 (talk) 17:22, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I think a blanket revert is not the way to go; a lot of those redirects needed to go. However, MZMcBride needs to have the following rules to prevent mistakes in the future: A talk page redirect may not be deleted if...

1. The non-talk page is not a redirect, OR
2. The talk page redirects to a parent talk-page (example WT:ANI points to WT:AN, should catch template docs.)
3. The talk-page has incoming links.

Otherwise, talk page redirects should be deleted. — Edokter • Talk • 23:14, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

The difference between a robo-undelete and a manual or better-coded robo-delete vs. manual undeletes of selected redirects is one of erring on the side of keeping too much vs. erring on the side of deleting too much. There is less harm erring on the side of keeping. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 23:56, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Agreed with this opinion. Orderinchaos 15:12, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I have the data and code necessary to undelete all those "orphaned talk page redirect" deletions. There are 6307 deletions on the list, the bot will currently simply restore all revisions of any redlink. If we want this to happen, post here saying so, or if there are other caveats for the bot to follow, say so. I have no desire to RfA this, if someone wants to they can have the code, otherwise just let me know so I can start it up once there's consensus and it follows the necessary caveats. --uǝʌǝsʎʇɹoɟʇs(st47) 00:44, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I also have 4859 from May 10, 1812 from Apr 12, and 13943 from Apr 7. --uǝʌǝsʎʇɹoɟʇs(st47) 01:10, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I assume those 6307 are just the ones from 5/31-6/1. If not, trim the list to just those. Before you run it, can you give us some breakdown by namespace and by sub-page? In particular, how many articles are in a namespace other than the main-article Talk: space and how many of those in Talk: have either a /, \, or extra : in them to indicate some type of sub-page, OR which have the name "archive" in them anywhere? Unless someone objects within 12 hours/by 13:00 Tuesday, please run the bot against everything not in (main)Talk: and run it against everything in Talk: which looks like a sub-page or archive. Then we can discuss what's left. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 01:09, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

The 6307 are from that day only. 3940 are in Talk:, 1225 in Wikipedia talk:. Of the talk: ones, 105 contain archive, 162 have a /, 77 have a colon. In total, 2602 from that day and 8032 in total are outside of talk or contain a /, :, or the word archive. --uǝʌǝsʎʇɹoɟʇs(st47) 01:20, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Can you put a list on one of your user subpages, sorted by date, namespace, and for Talk:, splitting out the likely sub-pages? Thanks. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 01:35, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

If I can remember how :) --uǝʌǝsʎʇɹoɟʇs(st47) 01:52, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

This would be the first set of restores. --uǝʌǝsʎʇɹoɟʇs(st47) 01:59, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

OK, go ahead and kick off the first list, and prep a list of others deleted on May 31 and lists from earlier dates. I'm not sure there is a consensus to auto-restore these or the earlier runs, having the lists available will make it easy for admins to spot-check, which can give us some idea if these deletes need mass-undoing or not. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 16:12, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

That list has been kicked. You can watch the bot's progress at my ts account. I'll also be making lists for MZ's and other admins' previous deletes of this type for community's review. --uǝʌǝsʎʇɹoɟʇs(st47) 18:41, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

There was quite a few on that list in violation of G8 and other CSD criteria (I've redeleted those), plus ones on obscure templates which I've redeleted through personal knowledge of how the redirect came about. I would suggest putting the lists up for review so members of the community can tick them off as appropriate - in this particular case (we're talking redirects of talk pages here) mass restores would not fix the problem without the human review the initial process probably needed. Orderinchaos 15:11, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

The idea is that it is better to err on the side to keeping unnecessary pages rather than deleting good pages. Future lists have been posted at User:ST47/restores2, User:ST47/restores3, User:ST47/restores4, please spot-check those. I will be posting a log of the restores from the first set once the bot finishes, and I'll wait on the rest for further review. --uǝʌǝsʎʇɹoɟʇs(st47) 18:03, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I'll do so when I have time - thanks for that :) The only things I'm looking for are my own temporary pages and those of other WP:AUS contributors (none of which had talk pages with anything more than a project sign-in) and G8s. Orderinchaos 19:18, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Waiting for general review of the other lists I've posted. First run complete, log posted User:ST47/restores. Critical issues means the bot couldn't even check if it needed deletion. Warnings means the bot thinks it doesn't exist, yet has no deleted revisions - meaning it shouldn't have been on the list to begin with. --uǝʌǝsʎʇɹoɟʇs(st47) 23:24, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Lack of response by deleting admin

MZMcBride‎ (talk · contribs) has simply archived his talk page without addressing the multitude of concerns placed there. I think this is a problem. Kelly ^hi! 01:20, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I've blocked this particular user until the unwillingness to initiate a response ceases. Considering the blatant misuse of these admin tools as well as the unnecessary usage of disk space I feel that we are entitled to an explanation. There have been problems with this user performing unauthorized tasks in the past and refusing to provide an explanation. Let's stop that now. -Pilotguy contact tower 01:33, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, I wish this hadn't been necessary, but at least now he will be forced to address these issues. As an operator of an adminbot myself, I know very well not to automate anything remotely controversial, so I'm wondering what his excuse is. --Cyde Weys 01:37, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Can you ask a bureacrat to temporarily desysop him in lieu of a block? davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 01:38, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I strongly doubt that necessary. --Conti|✉ 01:39, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Crats can't desysop. Only stewards can. bibliomaniac15 01:39, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Forgetting...things...Must...get...sleep... davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 01:46, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I think a temporary block makes a bit more sense than a desysopping. Any admin can do and undo the block; no need for a steward. Anyway, it's standard bot policy that the bot account is blocked at the slightest sign of anything being wrong. Anyone running an adminbot on their own account is aware of the risks. Just to clarify, MZMcBride is blocked because of a malfunctioning bot running under his account. He's not being punitively blocked until he answers questions or anything, though answering the questions is now a necessary prerequisite of proving that the bot isn't broken (or at least that he won't do that again). --Cyde Weys 02:20, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I think a desysop would be in order if a good explanation isn't forthcoming shortly. He seems to have a policy not to post on AN/I, which frankly seems a silly policy for an admin, in my opinion. Kelly ^hi! 01:52, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, as a regular user, I recommend that we get this feller's attention. I see that he was blocked, but I am thinking that doing a boatload of deletes before taking the day off isn't the the wisest course of action - at least, not for an admin. Like it or not, admins are seen a template for non-admins on how to conduct themselves, and MZM's behavior hurt the Project. Admins are given bigger mops and trusted not to make the place messier than before. This has not been Mzmcbride's finest hour. We block people indefinitely for just this sort of thing, don't we? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 01:53, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Block of User:MZMcBride

Pilotguy (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) has indef blocked MZMcBride (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA), See block log. Pilotguy has been questioned about this block by several admins in the admin IRC channel. Discussion did not go productively, as he was not able to justify his block with policy, citing (in other words) WP:IAR. It is at this time that many agree others should review this block. Regards, Lara❤Love 02:07, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

• I'd say MZMcBride should agree to restore the previously deleted redirects and seek consensus before future deletions and that Pilotguy should be counseled to explain his block on-wiki when making them. MBisanz ^talk 02:09, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Pilotguy should have brought the matter here before blocking a fellow admin, this was a trigger-happy. - Caribbean~H.Q. 02:13, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Also, it appears the block was for actions that took place a couple of days ago. Lara❤Love 02:14, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

As far as I can see, the block was triggered by MZMcBride's archiving of his talk page without replying to the concerns raised in the last few days. (He did respond to Ned Scott tho, at least.) --Conti|✉ 02:21, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Block is discussed above: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Lack_of_response_by_deleting_admin -MBK₀₀₄ 02:15, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

It is standard policy to block a malfunctioning bot. When you're running a bot on your main account, those are the risks you take. This is discussed in more detail in the section above. --Cyde Weys 02:24, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I've tried to archive this four times now. But I keep getting an EC. So I give up now. Lara❤Love 02:26, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

File an RFC, RFARB, or similar. A block at this point is punitive as would be a desysopping. --slakr^\ talk / 02:36, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, a block seems more punitive at this point. Support unblocking, it's not like he is going to resume deleting redirects at this point. VegaDark (talk) 02:48, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I'd really be happier if he'd post somewhere that he agrees to undelete the page or not delete pages in the future. Or else we'll be back here soon. MBisanz ^talk 02:53, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Actually this block is preventative, because MZMcBride will continue to use scripts like these if he isn't blocked. --Chetblong (talk) 02:57, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

• Moved section inline with previous discussion on matter. xenocidic ( talk ¿ listen ) 02:39, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
• MZMcBride shouldn't have run a script like that without asking others and without making sure it was more full proof than it showed itself to be, and him not responding to others concerns tells me that this block was in order. I agree with Pilotguy on blocking MZMcBride. --Chetblong (talk) 02:33, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

(ec) ::As do I. At the very least. Making a mistake is one thing. Ignoring those people politely inquiring about it is quite another. We block people to protect the project. He doesn't get special treatment because he is an admin, or at least, he shouldn't, if we are all to believe that admins are - as every admin says - just ordinary folk who occasionally make mistakes. MZM compounded and inflated the bot mistakes by ignoring and failing to explain what hell was going on. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 03:04, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

• Almost nothing that is good for any society will ever be "fool-proof." Unfortunately, errors tend to be more salient in people's minds than successes, so even if a margin of error is significantly low, people will seem to think that a particular process fails as a whole— even if it actually doesn't. If MZMcBride doesn't want to respond, we have two choices: community ban him indefinitely, or unblock him. Seeing as the former is just plain silly, I'm thinking we should side with the latter— particularly since the block was based on actions that happened days ago. --slakr^\ talk / 03:01, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

(ec)No one is faulting him for the failure of the bot, though it certainly should have been road-tested more before release. What I personally take exception to is the fact that he sets it loose before taking the day off, and then studiously ignoring requests for input. As for Slakr's "two choices", there is a third option: I suggest that any future bot is thoroughly road-tested, and MZM sticks around to make sure its running well. As this is something which would get a normal editor blocked or banned, I don;t support giving him extra leeway that we do not give every other regular contributor. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 03:09, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

The issue of redirect-deletions has come up repeatedly. MZMcBride has not indicated sufficient understanding of the concerns raised and continues to run the bot/script which causes the concerns on their main account. The most recent concerns do not appear to have been adequately addressed and there is no indication that the script will not be run again. Thus, the block is preventative. Like all blocks, it can be lifted immediately upon the editor recognizing and agreeing to modify their behaviour. Franamax (talk) 03:08, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

That sounds pretty reasonable to me. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 03:10, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I've been just as frustrated about these talk page redirects as the next guy, but blocking like this is not how we handle these situations. If he was actually continuing the deletions, then maybe, but until then he hasn't done anything. We do not use blocks to force an editor to spew out some pretty little statement just to make ourselves feel better. Neutrality is a core value for the article space, but it works pretty well here. We don't care if they feel sorry or even if they apologies. We only care about what the actually do. -- Ned Scott 04:05, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Although I would support blocking if he resumed running this script without first getting a broader consensus for it, at the moment this seems uncalled for. Christopher Parham (talk) 04:13, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, that's rather the problem, isn't it, Ned? According to David Gothberg, this isn;t the first time this particular issue has come up with MZM. We do not block punitively; we block to protect the Project. How many hours of precious admin time has been wasted on trying to undo the effects of MZM's labor- and time-saving bot which just so happened to Frankenstein on us. We are asking - not for "some pretty little statement" - but some assurances that this isn't a situation that will repeat itself with this particular user. I don't really care if the user is Christ On Toast; if he is disrupting the project with his well-meaning bot, then it would seem appropriate to expect him to agree to at least road-test the bot before release, or to stick around whilst it meanders the thousands of edits (so as to catch/disable/stop it if it suddenly decides to go on a Dick Cheney Duck Hunt). We would ask no less of any non-admin user. The same rules apply. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 04:30, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

And how many hours has MzM's labor- and time-saving bot saved busy, time-poor admins like myself? While it clearly made mistakes elsewhere, I have a rather large watchlist covering pretty much all of Australian geography and administration and within that domain all are deletions I would have made myself in the holidays. I think this whole thing's been handled rather poorly. Orderinchaos 15:53, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

The problem is more the lack of discussion. I get the distinct impression that MZMcBride has strong ideas about what should and should not be deleted. If there was more responsiveness and willingness to discuss things, then there would be less of a problem. An error rate (say) of 1% on 100,000 deletions is still 1000 deletions and drama and discussion that could have been avoided with a little bit more patience and care. These pages are not going anywhere. They are not actively causing harm. Taking the time to correctly identify the right pages to delete and avoiding the wrong pages, really, really does work. There is no need to deal with these things yesterday. An even if some of the deletions you would have done yourself, two people do not a consensus make. Carcharoth (talk) 16:27, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm confused now

Wasn't this the place for centralized discussion of admin actions and situations requiring admin intervention? Doesn't it say above that MZMcBride is blocked? Does it say somewhere about being unblocked now? Any mention of the nudge-nudge wink-wink he promised me privately he won't do it anymore? Oh, how about the admin who refuses to participate at the admin noticeboards, due to "long-ish standing (personal) policy"? Policy apparently adopted after either this edit or maybe this one? Is there a special big purple font for WTF? /rant, but this is not a satisfactory conclusion for the general editorship. Franamax (talk) 07:31, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Transclusion of MZMcBride talkpage

Below is a transclusion of MZMcBride's talk page to let him respond ot the issues without requesting an unblock. {{User talk:MZMcBride}}

• MZMcBride reverted the changes to his talk page facilitating this transclusion. xenocidic ( talk ¿ listen ) 03:06, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Detailed look at what happened

I think it might help if what happened here were laid out in a bit more detail. I have tried to be objective in what follows, but my position is clear: I have grave concerns about: (1) User:MZMcBride's approach of carrying out deletions according to a set of sometimes debatable, sometimes reasonable, criteria, without discussing those criteria with others first, and only restoring or discussing when someone objects; and (2) The way MzMcBride responds to concerns raised, including a "standing policy not to post at ANI" ([1], [2]). Having got that strong criticism out of the way, I would like to repeat that the following is not intended to be a strong criticism of one or other side, though I have and continue to object to these deletions. Rather, this is primarily intended to clear up misunderstandings on either side.

• Deletion run in question - from looking at MZMcBride's logs (the logs are extensive, but the log summaries do help find what you are looking for, and the runs are fairly discrete blocks), this deletion run with the edit summary "orphaned talk page redirect" started on 14:53, 31 May 2008 and ended at 23:46, 31 May 2008. There were a total of 6306 deletions over a period of 8 hours and 53 minutes (533 minutes), ie. a rate of 11.8 deletions per minute, which is approximately one every 5 seconds for nearly nine hours. I presume from this evidence, and previous statements, that MZMcBride runs a deletion script over a set of filtered lists prepared in user space (see MZMcBride's sandboxes) or offline.
• Why the deletion run ended. I am presuming that the deletion run ended at 23:46, 31 May 2008 when MZMcBride saw a talk page message that had been left for him by User:Rlevse at 23:03, 31 May 2008. This action crossed with a one-minute block performed by User:Gimmetrow at 23:51, 31 May 2008: "To stop unwatched bot". Various discussions then ensued, which I will lay out in more detail below.
• Types of redirects and criteria used for deletion. First, though, I would like to take a look at the type of redirects that were being deleted. The point of doing this is that MZMcBride's deletion criteria don't appear to distinguish between different sorts of redirects. MZMcBride has said here: "When I deleted the most recent batch, the criteria was that they were only one revision, a redirect, not edited in over two weeks, and had absolutely zero incoming links." Using the deletion logs, I've been looking at the list of 6306 redirects that were deleted. By namespace they were: Category talk (10), Help talk (21), Image talk (3), Mediawiki talk (5), Portal talk (39), Talk (3939), Template talk (1065), and Wikipedia talk (1224). It is my view that the root of the problem was that this set of deletions included talk namespaces other than article talk namespace (Talk), and that many of the other talk namespaces have what can be called "redirects that centralise discussion". When these started popping up on people's watchlists (it is important to remember that deletions only recently, in the last few months, were added to the watchlists), they began questioning the deletions.
• Ensuing discussion (MZMcBride's talk page). Most people went to User talk:MZMcBride. The resulting threads are now archived at User talk:MZMcBride/Archive 9), though some of the discussions are split over several talk pages. In summary, in 17 different threads (most directly about the "redirects that centralise discussion"), posted over a period of 24 hours, I count 18 different editors expressing their concerns. The threads are:
  • FYI
  • Wikipedia talk:List of missing journals
  • talk page deletion?
  • Redirect deletions
  • Indiscriminate deletion of redirects does do harm
  • Suggestion: undo the recent mass deletions
  • Your talk page deletion spree
  • FYI:ANI (notice of this ANI thread)
  • Talk page archive redirects (thread discusses other issues as well)
  • Election box tempate talk page deletions
  • Redirects deletions, another matter
  • Orphaned talk page redirect?
  • Wikipedia talk:Dead-end pages/U-Z
  • From WP:RFD
  • erroneous deletions
  • Warnings (warning thread)
  • Deletion of Wikipedia talk:Peer reviews by date
• Later discussions, responses and arguments presented (placeholder)
  • Subsidiary discussions at other user talk pages
  • This ANI thread and its various subsections
  • Discussion at the Bot requests page
• Actions taken
  • Some redirects restored unilaterally or after notifying MZMcBride.
  • MZMcBride undeleted some of the redirects on request (though the vast majority remained deleted)
  • A warning was left on MZMcBride's talk page.
  • After returning after a gap of around a day, MZMcBride archived their talk page and did not immediately respond.
  • User:Pilotguy then blocked MZMcBride
  • After some back-and-forth, and reportedly some IRC discussion and private contact (to receive assurances while avoiding drama) MZMcBride was unblocked by User:Rdsmith4.
  • The latest is that User:ST47 is running an undeletion script over a list of redirects to restore.
  • Oh, and User:Physchim62 has filed a request for an arbitration case against Pilotguy over the blocks.

Still not complete, no times, not details, and no diffs, but I'll save what I've done for now, and come back to it later. I think detailed looks like this are important, because people are sometimes too quick to gloss over what happened, and many people don't take the time to look in detail or follow all the discussions. Hopefully the above will give a better idea of what happened. Carcharoth (talk) 07:28, 3 June 2008 (UTC) Updated 20:52, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Pilotguy

Due to the block by Pilotguy (talk · contribs) on MZMcBride, is looks like an RFARB case has been initiated. D.M.N. (talk) 20:44, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

User Blaxthos reported me for 3RR with no reason or notification.

Intially I was upset, but the more I think about it the more upset I am. User Blaxthos reported me in violation of the 3RR on the Gretchen Carlson article with no notifcation. I would not have known at all if not for the admin that notified me. I find it particularly upseting because I had removed vague critical matierial from a BLP which was not only vague but had either no references 1 references which did not even mention Carlson or were blogs twice.2 3 no references again 4 and again 5 The anonymous editor was warned by me after the 5th revert. The report was filed by Blaxthos shortly after. The Anoyn was not reported even though they did the same thing that Blaxthos accused me of doing. Futhermore per WP:BLP contentious material can be removed without the 3RR applying WP:GRAPEVINE. The result of the report was no violation. What is most anoyning is that Blaxthos is a veteran editor, yet has had a problem with me personally in the past, and I believe it is this past history which lead to the report. Blaxthos has never commented on the talk pages of Carlson talk history nor made any edits edit history so I can only conclude that he is monitoring my edits here. I suggest that he be warned regarding this kind of behaviour. Arzel (talk) 04:34, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

No reason? After watching Arzel edit war for several days, I submitted an 3RR Report with evidence of Arzel edit warring, the opposing edits came from multiple sources (hence no 3RR report); I registered this account in 2004; I've not once broken 3RR for any reason, and I don't believe these circumstances mitigated Arzel's responsibility in this case. I respectfully disagreed with the admin's response; I won't waste anyone's time making a content argument here. I fail to see how I've done anything warranting discussion here. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 11:54, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

So you sat ildly back watching two anoynomous users (who I believe would end up being the same user) add uncited information that says that Carlson has been criticized and you did nothing? Hmm, seems to me that your goal of getting me blocked or reported was more important than following WP policies. You won't waste anyone's time making a argument here, but you will waste their time by making an unwarrented report on me? At least you admit that you are watching my actions and edits, maybe I will have to do the same to you. Arzel (talk) 14:29, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

1. WP:ANI is not the forum for content disputes.
2. Not withstanding #1, citations were present, but there may have been some concern as to their reliability; the content itself (referencing the allegations of bias evidenced by FNC generally and the subject of the article specifically) does not, in my opinion, rise to the level of "libelous material" requiring edit warring under the guise of WP:BLP.
3. When faced with the prospect of intentionally violating a policy, it is always best to seek a second opinion. There are plenty of other ways you could have handled the problem: WP:RFPP, WP:AN3, WP:ANI, WP:EA, etc.. This was not a situation where edit warring for days was necessary.
4. I fail to see any "policy" that I have "failed to follow." When you make those sorts of accusations towards me, please specifically justify them with explanations and diffs.
5. I don't believe the 3RR replort was unjustified, as you continued in edit warring for several days.
6. If you feel it necessary to investigate my behavior and report violations, I strongly encourage you to do so. It's of no consequence to me, as I've never been the subject of any sort of sanction, admonishment, or block. I think that the "maybe I will have to do the same to you" attitude is immature and unproductive, but if it makes you feel better then I am all for it...
7. I don't really understand what you're asking for here... I am not the one who violated any rule or policy; if you don't like the fact that your behavior has been reported, then it's probably wise to avoid engaging in the behavior that gets you into trouble. You didn't end up getting warned or blocked, so I really fail to see why you're trying to bring this up on ANI. Best thing to do is to learn and move on...

Hopefully this will be the last of this thread, though I'm welcome to have some of the WP:ANI guys weigh in... /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 22:05, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

1. This is not a content dispute. This was in regards to your unjust report filed against me.
2. Ha, as I pointed out in my diff's, three times there were no references. Twice the references were either a blog or an article that failed to even mention Carlson.
3. What policy did I supposedly intentially violate? I removed uncited critical vague statements from a BLP. It wasn't even an edit war, and I at least notified the anoyn of their behavior, something you didn't even do me the favour of.
4. Well you didn't assume good faith, futhermore I consider what you did as a form of wiki stalking me.
5. That is a bold faced lie.
6. Well, I haven't done that before, but you apparently have.
7. An appology would be nice, but I don't see that happening. Perhaps an explanation why you didn't remove uncited or porly sourced criticism from an article you were obviously watching yourself. Or were you more interested in filing a 3RR report on me.

It would be nice for an ANI guy to weigh in. Arzel (talk) 03:19, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

You came crying to WP:ANI because you want an appology[sic] because YOU got reported for violating WP:3RR?! You want me to explain why I chose to report your violations instead of engaging in an edit war? I'm embarrassed for you, Arzel. There will be no apology forthcoming, nor will I participate in this petty back-and-forth pity party you've thrown here. Stop wasting the time of everyone involved, most especially mine and the people who attempt to answer real incidents. Good day. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 12:13, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I knew it was too much to ask for. Thanks for not answering my quetion though, pretty much your MO, ignore the question and attack the questionner. Typical. Arzel (talk) 14:21, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

What do you hope to accomplish here? No one is going to scold Blaxthos for reporting a 3RR violation, regardless of whether or not it violates your personal standards of etiquette. Let it go. Gamaliel (talk) 15:17, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

A cursory glance at this argument reveals that Azrel's beef isn't that his "standards of etiquette" were offended, but that user Blaxthos: 1. Filed a spurious 3R report against him with the intent to cause distress 2. Monitored Azrel's activities on Wikipedia deliberately with the intention of finding a reason to file such a report. Whether or not you agree with the personal politics of the two, if Azrel's accusations are true then Blaxthos' behavior is indeed quite disturbing and disruptive. I would say that if nothing else Azrel's report here serves to establish an e-trail should this behavior ever occur again. Billdozer33 (talk) 00:34, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you Billdozer33 for understanding my issue. I offer as prima facie evidence that Blaxthos has a longstanding grudge against me. So Gamaliel, if someone puts uncited critical information or poorly cited critical information into a BLP and nooone else removes it it should just stay because of the 3RR? Blaxthos has been trying for months to get me on something, and the moment he had a chance at something he struck. That is BS. Arzel (talk) 14:24, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

And there's plenty of indications that the grudge is mutual. You weren't blocked, so what's the big deal? I'm not saying the report was bogus, but I've had bogus 3RR reports filed against me before by trolls. Shrug and move on. You two don't like each other, no reason to waste everyone else's time on the matter. Gamaliel (talk) 14:34, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I should add that I assume you were acting in good faith by removing the contentious information and not sanitizing the article of a conservative pundit, something you have been accused of before. And I assume Blaxthos was acting in good faith by reporting what he saw as a legitimate 3RR violation and not following you around waiting to pounce, as you accuse him of doing. If you both assumed good faith of each other, you two might get along better. Gamaliel (talk) 14:44, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I had actually started to gain some respect for Blaxthos over the past few months, prior to this incident. As I have earlier, what is most upsetting is that if Blaxthos had not been watching my edits he would never have filed that report. It is quite annoying to have some self-appointed watchdog making sure that you are following the rules "They" think you should follow, especially when they are not upheld by WP policies. You don't see me following Blaxthos around to other articles to make sure he isn't scrubbing criticism from left-leaning articles. The fact that he wrote is little article on policy shopping because of me doesn't help matters much either. Arzel (talk) 13:27, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

But you are here, asking for an administrator to enforce the rules you think he should follow: don't edit the same articles as me, don't report me for 3RR without my okay. The fact is that you have to play by the same rules as everyone else, and if you don't, if Blaxthos doesn't report you, someone else will. Gamaliel (talk) 14:53, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

That is not what I said. I'm not saying he can't or shouldn't edit the same articles as me, or the other way around. I am saying he filed a bogus report against me because of previous history, and I am sick of his personal attacks against me and continuous snide remarks to my comments, continuous correction of my spelling an grammar, and basically treating me with absolutely no good faith from the start. The fact that he had NO activity there, and then suddenly files a bogus 3RR on me is suspicious to say the least. The fact that Blaxthos has had a great deal of interaction with me over my time here only strengthens my suspicion. Any reasonable editor or admin would review what I did and see I wasn't breaking any WP policies, and was certainly within the spirit of what WP is about. The fact that it was ruled no violation almost immediately is validation of this fact. Arzel (talk) 20:02, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

(undent) Why is the report "bogus"? If it's inappropriate, an admin will look at the report and ignore it, perhaps telling Blaxthos. If it's appropriate, you'll be punished. Why cares about who catches you? Would you rather Blaxthos message some admin personally and let them block you without a report? I don't get what you want. Do you want everyone to inform you every time you are going to get reported? Do you only want Blaxthos to inform? Only people you don't like? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 20:17, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

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)

Edit War on User:Jimbo Wales

Resolved

 – Various sockpuppets/meatpuppets blocked indefinitely.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 01:59, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Edit War on God

Thou shalt not edit war.

Ooops, I mean User:Jimbo Wales. There has been an edit war with several users over the placement of two letters on the userpage of him. Here is a list of diffs.

[3][4][5][6][7][8]

It appears to me that no users violated WP:3RR, but ::still.<3 Tinkleheimer TALK!! 07:59, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Erm...and I guess a personal attack from an IP on Talk Page. [9] Should s/he be warned for it or blocked as s/he got a warning on the 29th? <3 Tinkleheimer TALK!! 08:04, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

User:Wannabe Wiki was blocked for 12 hours for violating 3RR in that edit war a few days ago. Hut 8.5 08:08, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

This is ridiculous. It is his user page and that thread on his talk page is trolling no matter how you look at it. This is a waste of time. EconomicsGuy (talk) 08:09, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

It's not trolling Wannabe Wiki (talk) 08:12, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

I have informed all users who participated in the edit "conflict" (in a different light) today, thus far. <3 Tinkleheimer TALK!! 08:40, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Jimmy_Wales&curid=8202363&diff=216367233&oldid=216231994 QuackGuru 09:19, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Whether Jimmy Wales is founder or co-founder of Wikipedia doesn't mean anyone (not pointing fingers) can edit war on a userpage. Bidgee (talk) 09:26, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

The presumed facts of Wales and the founding of wikipedia are covered in the article called Jimmy Wales. Messing with someone's user page is against the rules. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 12:24, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Even if the page is misleading?:) Sticky Parkin 12:29, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

If you think he's being misleading on his user page, then you could raise that issue on his talk page. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 12:31, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

And not by vulgar personal attacks, i.e. not the way User:Wannabe Wiki did it, which undermines whatever credibility he might have. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 13:36, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

The point has been raised on numerous occasions on his talk page. seicer | talk | contribs 14:43, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

(ec)It's nothing I personally would be interested in getting involved with, I'm just saying. Haven't people frequently inquired about it on his talk page? I thought they would have. I agree that Wannabe Wiki is out of line with the reinsertion if he is reverted repeatedly though; but on the other hand that means the userpage claim problems need to be resolved here or somewhere else, because an adequate resolution can not be created by editors on their own. Is this appropriate content for a userpage, or could it be considered advertising, self-promotion or WP:SOAP, given that the information given is disputable. Maybe a compromise in wording could be decided upon? Nothing can be decided on the talk page as it seems those who ask are being frequently reverted. Sticky Parkin 14:47, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Wales removed the discussion from his talk page. So the next step would be to initiate some kind of formal process within wikipedia rules. Wannabe is free to try to do so, if this is so important to him. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 15:38, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

What would you suggest? Usually if someone thinks the content of a userpage is inappropriate, isn't that dealt with here, on AN/I? I know you think Wannabe should do it if he cares so much about it, but it's not really about Wannabe is it, I don't think he's the only one who's done this or commented about the userpage on the talk page. What I mean is, we could decide upon a solution to this now so we don't have to hear it all over again quite so often in future.:) No-one is going to make an RfC about Wales or anything lol but we could discuss the page content and how to deal with it. Sticky Parkin 16:34, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

There's a fair amount of latitude on user pages. The usual complaint about userpage content is when someone is using it to make personal attacks or otherwise inflammatory comments. In fact, it is the user Wannabe who has made the inflammatory comments, so Wales is within his rights to delete anything Wannabe does on his user page. And the actual article on Wales sets the record straight, and presumably Wales has not tried to to edit war against it. So, I don't see where there's an actionable issue here. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 16:42, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

It's also worth pointing out that Wannabe started this a couple of days ago, with increasingly flaming comments each time he was reverted by other editors. He also smashed the 3-revert rule in the process. Wales himself didn't do anything except to remove the vulgar comments from his talk page. Wannabe needs to try to get some sort of consensus that Wales' page should be changed. So far, he doesn't have that. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 16:49, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

I know, but he's not the only one that has an opinion that the userpage isn't ok. That's all I'm saying.:) I honestly don't know how people could think it was ok unless they're like me and think it's a bit out of line but really just aren't that bothered about it.:) On the other hand- no doubt Wannabe will be rightfully blocked if he hasn't cooled it a bit. Sticky Parkin 21:36, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

No, which is why consensus could be built, one way or the other, and then a change could theoretically be imposed. And if Wales himself reverts it, I would leave it be, as it's really not very important. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 21:57, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Does Jimbo run over to your user-page and mess with your stuff saying it's "misleading"? I think not. Hell, my userpage used to say my name was Captain Jack Harkness.--Koji†Dude ^(C) 23:59, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Oh come on that's hardly the same.:) Sticky Parkin 02:54, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Looks like an obvious case of vandalism, and defionitely not a case of 3RR, all those trolling adding the co- claim should be summarily blocked, that is the obvious and only solution. Thanks, SqueakBox 00:15, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. That's all I did; revert vandalism and harassment of Jimbo on his user page. I've done that plenty of times before. The real disruption here is the pushing of a POV that has already been debated countless times. It's not on and it's not "restoring NPOV". It's harassment. EconomicsGuy (talk) 04:21, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

If someone makes a questionable claim on their user page, someone else could put a "fact" tag on it. If I have verifiable evidence that the user calling himself Captain Jack Harkness is not actually Captain Jack Harkness, then I could post the evidence. Otherwise, it's a fact tag at most. And prior to that, the question of whether it's worth bothering with. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 03:19, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

The real issue is with the violation of NPOV all over Wikipedia due to POV pushing in article space. Of course, harassing another user (even me) is a blockable offense, but whatever, I am a pretty easy going guy, so I would recommend that everyone just relax. :-) The best response to this is to fix the neutrality problem in Wikipedia. --Jimbo Wales (talk) 00:47, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Jimbo, my apologies for not letting you know about this thread. It didn't occur to me at all that I should have sent you a note also. :) <3 Tinkleheimer TALK!! 02:13, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't think anyone has mentioned yet that when Wannabe started this account, he admitted that his previous one was blocked [10]. I don't know if in light of his current actions that should count against him because it shows he has a history of acting up, or whether we never consider anything but the contribs of his current identity. Sticky Parkin 02:54, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

That undermines his credibility just a tad. That fact, along with his inflammatory comments, would suggest a grudge. Trouble is, attacking Wales is too visible. He needs to attack something that everyone else does, like the Bill O'Reilly article. Then he'd be almost under the radar. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 04:37, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

My two cents - When I first saw that message, I thought it was fine per Wikipedia:SOCK#Clean_start_under_a_new_name, as his edits weren't too controversial in the beginning. Midorihana みどりはな 06:08, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

It's hard for a leopard to change its stripes. Meanwhile, as you may know, Wales invites making changes to his user page. So, theoretically, he wouldn't have an issue with the "co-" prefix. However, and I may have said this before, edit warring doesn't make sense. Consensus needs to be reached. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 06:24, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I dont understand the problem. If any information found on Wikipedia is inaccurate purposely or otherwise, isnt it the duty of and Wikipedian to fix that inaccuracy. Yes, i do admit that Wanabe Wiki's talk comments were quite inappropriate, but were missing the point here. The information is both wrong and misleading, and therefore deserves to be changed. I personally believe that, even if the information is on a user page, it should be changed. Also, i think that the title of this section of the article is quite supercilious, as it seems to imply that Jimbo is God. Magically Clever (talk) 06:58, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

The sarcastic nature of the section's title further undermines the standing of those who want to change it from "founder" to "co-founder". Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 07:10, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

It is inaccurate because it frivilously implies that I was edit warring when all I did was revert harassment and trolling. If doing that is edit warring then I along with the countless number of others who have reverted this POV pushing over the years must be satanic edit warriors out to distort the truth. Oddly enough those who revert this are still here whilst those determined to continue this ridiculous waste of time never last very long. Food for thought isn't it? EconomicsGuy (talk) 07:44, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it's funny how that works out, isn't it? Since Wales invites people to tinker with his user page (within reason), the issue (such as it is) could have been discussed first. But that's no fun. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 07:55, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

reply to Midorihana- yes it was 100% decent for you to give Wannabe another chance. But do you think it is relevant given his current actions that he was blocked in the past? He seems quite a young spirit to me, I don't know how old he is. Baseball bug- the thing is I think in the past people sought to discuss it on the talk page but weren't allowed to. Sticky Parkin 11:11, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

He seems to be elementary - middle school age by the discussions on his talk page. He has a history of trolling (see the following block logs of his socks - [11], [12]). His recent behavior follows this pattern.

In any case, there's a discussion for the status of 'co-founder' here. Midorihana みどりはな 05:28, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi, I'm Wannabe (The troll), you keep on saying I have made vulgar personal attacks against Jimmy Wales but I don't think I have, the method I used may not have been the most responsible way to create change but it was by far the most effective, I would be happy to get consensus to change Jimmy's user page or change it through a fromal process compatible with Wikipedia rules as suggested by Baseball Bugs, lol it has been suggested that I have a personal grudge against Jimmy that is not true this is not personal at all, I admit that I was once a long time ago a vandal and sock puppet but I have changed, to answer Sticky Parkin (thanks for being nice and unbiased throughout the discusion) I am only 14 years old but as Jimmy Wales himself says "And if a person's really smart and they're doing fantastic work, I don't care if they're a high school kid or a Harvard professor; it's the work that matters." Wannabe Wiki (talk) 08:41, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Note Wannabe Wiki decided to start edit warring on this again, so I blocked him for a week. Neıl 龱 15:00, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

How about a compromise - "sole co-founder" - anyone think that works? --Random832 (contribs) 17:05, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Well we could decide that the "community" gets to decide what goes on everyone's user page but until that point it is not for us to discuss what goers on Jimbo's user page either, it is for him to decide, and he has clearly decided. Thanks, SqueakBox 17:08, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

G Thats a great idea Squeakbox. A vote should be estasblished that is open to the general public (of Wikipedia) to decide on the matter at hand. Should the information on Jimbo's page be changed to create a more accurate page, or should a user have the right to say whatever they want on their page. Personally, I believe that the information should be changed on his page, as the statement leads readers to believe that Jimbo is the sole founder of Wikipedia, and that Larry had no part. This information is viewed frequently by people researching the so called founder of Wikipedia, and therefore is creating many inaccuracies. There is a userbox that says dont forget Larry. I also believe that the week ban placed on Wannabe's account is completely unfair as the edits made were in no way offensive, and it was his intention to make Wikipedia a more accurate place. Magically Clever (talk) 07:04, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Give me a break. Your contributions show that you are nothing more than a single purpose account working together with a now indef blocked sockpuppet to disrupt and troll Wikipedia. Does anyone believe that this guy is here for the encyclopedia and why would a new user care so much about this dispute? It's not like this is an obvious place to start your career as Wikipedian. I'll ignore your harassment on my talk page. The evidence is sufficient as it is. EconomicsGuy (talk) 09:58, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Magically Clever = Wannabe Wiki, confirmed through checkuser.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 01:59, 5 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: [13]. 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" [14] 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 [15]

• The Yahoo! White Pride and Racialism list [16] includes links to Stormfront and the Klu Klux Klan and David Duke and the National Socialist Movement (Nazi) [17] the Afrikaner Resistance Movement of South Africa [18] 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)

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)

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.[19]
• 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,[20] RHMED compounded the insult.[21] 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. [22] 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,[23], 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)

I want a block to be reviewed

If this is not the proper venue for this request, please let me know. Thank you.

User User talk:Psychmajor902 has been blocked by User:DGG. The point is that both of them entered in disputes about the content (Talk:Primal_therapy#Criticisms) and "edit warred" about the cause of the block ([24])

AFAIK this block is against Wikipedia:Block#Disputes

Please, comment. Thank you. Randroide (talk) 14:44, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

What you fail to recognise here is that these are poor links that would go against the external linking guidelines. They're both very clearly OR. Now, he's been warned for this a lot on his talk page and his problematic actions have spread more than one page. There are situations where an admin may block a user after reverting - I'd say this is one of those as he was clearly being disruptive and had been asked many times to change his behaviour. Ryan Postlethwaite 14:50, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

"There are situations where an admin may block a user after reverting"...seems to me that goes against Wikipedia:Block#Disputes. Moreover: User:DGG stated that the sites are "blogs" (are not). OK. I shall see other opinions here. Thank you for your feedback anyway, sir. Randroide (talk) 15:00, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

"There are situations where an admin may block a user after reverting", yes it is called vandalism. A disagreement about content is not an exception. While the block is most likely correct, this really should have been left to an uninvolved admin. I really don't know how administrators must not block users with whom they are engaged in a content dispute can be made more clear than it already is. _{1 != 2} 15:06, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I invite you to please check the history of the article before calling "vandalism" User:Psychmajor´s contributions. Thank your for your feedback. Randroide (talk) 15:28, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

You misread what I said. I was saying that an admin may revert then block in the case of vandalism. This was not a case of vandalism but a content dispute. Admins may not block people they are involved in a content dispute with, especially when the reason for the block is directly related to the content dispute. _{1 != 2} 15:30, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

But looking at the users talk page, he's been having many similar problems with his editing here. I don't think it's fair to label this a content dispute when there have been many concerns about his external linking. In fact, that's all what his talk page is, warnings about linking. Ryan Postlethwaite 15:32, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Uh. You are right. I misunderstood you. Thank you for your attention Randroide (talk) 15:31, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Ryan, what else could a disagreement over the addition of a link be other than a content dispute? I am not saying that the block was not warranted, but it should have been made by somebody uninvolved with the dispute. Not saying anything needs to be done other than a refresher course on the the block policy though, unless a pattern shows itself. _{1 != 2} 15:36, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Geeez, I just realized DGG had not been notified of this discussion. That is the very first thing that needs to be done when you challenge a person's behavior. I have left a note of DGG's talk page. _{1 != 2} 15:38, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, RedGreen. I was not even sure this was the proper place for this discussion, so I missed that obvious step. Randroide (talk) 15:41, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

In addition users Psychmajor902's 81 article space contributions, 29 involve adding or reinserting the link debunkingprimaltherapy.com ([25] [26] [27] [28] [29] [30] [31] [32] [33] [34] [35] [36] [37] [38] [39] [40] [41] [42] [43] [44] [45] [46] [47] [48] [49] [50]) Clearly disruptive.

• Wikipedia:BLOCK#Disruption
  • Persistent spamming

--Hu12 (talk) 15:47, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

So DGG's reverting of a habitual spammer's spamming, and then blocking the spammer when he refuses to stop spamming, amounts to being in a content dispute with the spammer? Nonsense. No, it's not vandalism DGG was removing, but neither is it remotely accurate to wikilawyer it into a content dispute. Neıl 龱 15:52, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I have enormous reservations about the accusation of "spamming" against User:Psychmajor. I am disccussing the issue with Hu12 here Randroide (talk) 15:54, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Take a look at Psychmajor902's contributions. 29 of 81 contribs is adding this link, rejecting community consensus and employing the use brute force for its inclusion. Attempting to interpreting policy looking for technicalities to justify this users inappropriate actions by Wikilawyering the definition of "spam" on my talk page, is innapropriate. This is common sense. Clearly fails Verifiability Policy's sections on "Reliable Sources" and "Self-published material" and there is clear consensus for this links Exclusion, --Hu12 (talk) 16:16, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Hu12 does make a compelling point, it is reasonable for an admin to revert spam then block. I was not aware of the extensive pattern of adding such links. _{1 != 2} 16:08, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I've been following this and see no hint of a content dispute, linkspam is not content. I support this block. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:18, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

There´s no community consensus on the disputed link being "spam" or not. Several editors disagree on that point (me -Randroide-, Psychmajor and Aussiewikilady think that the link is linkable). Please read Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Primal_Therapy to see the relevant discussion. Please do not invoke a "consensus" that does not exist.

OTOH, if Hu12 accuses me of "wikilawyering" as sole answer to my questions at his/her talk page, sorry but I must conclude he/she placed a warning note at User:Psychmajor with no basis on WP policies Randroide (talk) 16:26, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Once you have justified these edits ([51] [52] [53] [54] [55] [56] [57] [58] [59] [60] [61] [62] [63] [64] [65] [66] [67] [68] [69] [70] [71] [72] [73] [74] [75] [76]) beyond a reasonable doubt that this behaviour is not spamming, does any burden of proof shift to others, however the diffs and Psychmajor902's contribution history speak for themselves. This is clear-cut Spamming. please read Wikipedia:Gaming the system and WP:TE--Hu12 (talk) 16:46, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

It does seem you are wikilawyering. It sure looks like spam to me in light of all the other attempts to add it. _{1 != 2} 16:40, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your feedback, RedGreen. Randroide (talk) 16:44, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Support block which user Psychmajor902 is in apparent violation of Wikipedias Disruptive editing and anti-spam guidelines.--Hu12 (talk) 16:52, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the WP:TE link, Hu12. I see still no basis for your "spam" warning at PsychMajor userpage, but this TE link at least is something.

Did you notice that Psychmajor is NOT the only editor reinserting the disputed external link?. Did you notice that editors (as you) deleting that link over and over could also being accused of TE? (repetitive attempts to insert or delete content which is resisted by multiple other editors WP:TE) Randroide (talk) 16:54, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Please stop attempting to Game the system for your own adjenda. "An editor gaming the system is seeking to use policies with bad faith, by finding within their wording apparent justification for disruptive actions and stances that policy is clearly not at all intended to support."--Hu12 (talk) 16:57, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

This is an editor who's spent most of his Wikipedia life edit-warring to insert external links which obviously lack anything resembling consensus. This is a good block - that is, one which prevents damage to the encyclopedia. When the block expires, this user can either seek consensus to include the links through the dispute resolution pathway, or be blocked indefinitely if they continue to edit-war over the links. If the only argument against this block is a borderline technicality, then we're done here. MastCell ^Talk 17:05, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Spam; good block. Durova^Charge! 17:37, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

• Thank you for your feedback, MastCell and Durova. Consensus is very important here. If so many admins (5 so far) see this issue the way you do, likely I am wrong about my reservations about User:PsychMajor block.
• To Hu12: I have no "agenda", but to write an encyclopedia. I invite you review the history of Primal Therapy since 2006 to check this assertion. I beg you to follow WP:FAITH. Thank you Randroide (talk) 17:44, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

• Hu12 and I do not always agree about external links, as anyone can see from the relevant talk pages. But we certainly do agree on the essentials--both the principle of preserving a neutral encyclopedia and on what represents grossly excessive and clearly inappropriate linking. I am not exactly sure whether to call this a spam link or an inappropriate external link in a more general sense--there is not really that much of a clear separation between them. The persistent insertion of either against consensus is wrong. I first looked at these articles in response to an outside request--I have no particular interest in the subject. I tried to achieve some balance between those who were committed to the defense of the therapy and those attacking it, both equally passionate, both equally eager to insert inappropriate material--at a number of related pages. I and other editors--including supporters of his point of view--have warned this editor numerous times, including final warnings from others than myself. I am extremely reluctant to block at all--my block log shows how little I use it. On the other hand, I issue a good many formal and informal warnings, for I find they almost always do the necessary. Blocks are like deletions--a last resort. I've typically blocked only when someone simply does not respond to anything else & seems likely to continue-- and usually only when others have tried persuasion also. I would not have blocked had this been the only item in question--one of the differences between myself & some other admins is that I do not block over a single item no matter how persistent, because there can always be disagreements over that particular one. As my block rationale here says "multiple items, and multiple articles".
• The COI problem is a real one for any admin trying to reduce COI in an article over an extended period. After a while, one can sometimes start to understand the issue, and as one does, one generally forms an opinion. But requiring admins to step down at that point would prevent any continuity in persuasion and enforcement; we are trusted to know when it interferes. I don't think I had reached that point, and I can prove it: there have also been some complaints from the other side of the issue. And there is a less dramatic way of asking for a review of an admin action than coming here--which is simply asking some other admin to comment. People sometimes ask me about other admin's actions, and if I think they're wrong I'll let the admin in question know, so they may quietly fix the problem. If they don't, then is the time for AN/I. I sometime advise my friends off-wiki about this if I notice, even if nobody asks first And other admins have asked me similarly from time to time, both on and off wiki, and I've given their views serious consideration & almost always done as they suggested. Again, even if there have not yet been complaints. I can certainly be as wrong as anyone else, and I'd never pretend otherwise. DGG (talk) 18:39, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

My $0.02. First, a discolsure: I was the editor that initially brought this matter to the reliable sources noticeboard. And another disclosure: I have previously gotten into disputes with PsychMajor902.

As I said, I intially raised this issue on the noticeboard. Although I did not request that the debunking link be removed, I did request that a quotation of the website author's personal opinion which was inserted into the article text itself should be removed. I approached the issue by placing a notice on the reliable sources noticeboard, and informed PsychMajor902 of the discussion. After I placed the notice, the neutral editors from the realiable sources noticeboard agreed that the quotation was not acceptable.

After which PsychMajor ignored the consensus and pressed "undo" very often, every time an editor tried to remove the quotation. Then PsychMajor was reminded of the consensus, and he continued pressing "undo", again ignoring the consensus. Then PsychMajor was solicited for discussion repeatedly, and he ignored discussion and offered nothing relevant to the topic. Then an administrator showed up and found the entire link unacceptable, and PsychMajor started an edit war with the admin and kept pressing undo. Then the admin issued a warning, then issued a final warning, then issued a second final warning--but PsychMajor kept pressing undo, ignoring consensus, and flouting policy.

PsychMajor902 repeatedly and blatantly flouted consensus, policy, and administrator warnings, including two "final" warnings. At that point, the primary issue was no longer one of content--the content of the link was irrelevant. At that point, the primary issue was one of behavior. Regardless of the content, a user cannot impose his will by warring, violating policy, ignoring consensus, and offering no relevant discussion. I would support the block even if I agreed with the content of the disputed link and even if I thought the link was appropriate.

Not only do I feel that the block was justified, but I feel that DGG was very restrained and probably waited a bit too long to issue the block. I felt that one "final warning" was probably enough.Twerges (talk) 18:30, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I see above the assertion that the link is not only used by Psychmajor902. Records:

• debunkingprimaltherapy.com: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com

From the COIBot report, which holds the linkwatcher content from the last 6 months (approx.) I see three editors with no userpage:

• Psychmajor902 (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)
• Zonbalance (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)
• Aussiewikilady (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)

one IP recently:

• 76.90.103.220 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • Spamcheck • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot)

and one IP who adds the link to other wikipedia:

• 67.150.124.231 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • Spamcheck • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot)

(All other edits (by more established editors) are reverts of removals of links inserted by the above accounts or simple cleanup edits (I can't read Finnish, but it does look like a revert as well))

Seen the focus of the three named accounts and the first IP (all mainly editing Primal therapy, Arthur Janov, The Primal Scream and discussions with editors and on talkpages related to these three), I would guess that these are sockpuppets pushing the same information.

The latter IPs has only one edit on each of the two wikis (fr and sv), both of the same nature, adding debunkingprimaltherapy.com to these two wikis.

Maybe checkuser should check these accounts and IPs. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 18:38, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

From Dirk Beetstra's report (just formatting)

• Psychmajor902 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Zonbalance (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Aussiewikilady (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• 76.90.103.220 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• 67.150.124.231 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) Note: this is a cross wiki addition

..for checkuser--Hu12 (talk) 18:49, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Hello Dirk. I don't believe those other accounts are sock puppets. I believe they're separate users because of differences in tone, style, etc.

However I believe (although I'm not certain) that those other users were recruited to edit the page, or were informed of the wikipedia dispute, by the author of the questionable website, who has taken out advertisements etc to find and interview people who are disaffected with primal therapy (see his webpage). In other words, they may be meat puppets. I believe so because those 2 other editors repeatedly invoke the 3 books which the intial editor recommended, and only those 3 books. I also saw that the editor added a notice to his webpage informing people of the wikipedia dispute.

But I don't have any particular problem with it. I don't believe the editors are strictly meatpuppets because I believe they have independent reasons for being disaffected with primal therapy and would have edited the page if they'd found it independently.

So it should not be surprising that those 3 editors make similar edits for similar explanations, as they probably come from the same place and have had contact with each other. Nevertheless, I don't think they're sockpuppets and I have no problem with it.Twerges (talk) 18:54, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi, Twerges. Nice to read you.

For the record:

• I live in Europe (so much for the "probably come from the same place" theory)
• I edited Primal Therapy 47 times (to a total of 8000+ edits)
• I added several times the disputed "Debunking primal therapy" link.

User:DGG wrote: "The persistent insertion of either against consensus is wrong"

Where´s the consensus?. I see three editors supporting that link on the page.

User:Beestra wrote: "All other edits (by more established editors) are reverts of removals of links inserted by the above accounts". Beestra, please check my edits to see how wrong you are.

I ask for a checkuser of all involved parties. Randroide (talk) 19:18, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

• Support block. If someone wants to, suggest unblocking and reblock to eliminate this argument. I consider this all moot as Psychmajor hasn't even asked for an unblock on his page. Let him argue this himself. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 20:13, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Psychmajor is blocked, so he/she can not argue anything. Besides, I was not requesting comment just about his/her block (that would be a different issue), but about his/her block by an admin who engaged in content dispute with him/her Randroide (talk) 20:43, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Hello Randroide. You were not one of the users who was suspected of being a sockpuppet/meatpuppet. When I spoke of the "3 users" who probably come from the same place, I was referring to the users listed above: PsychMajor, Zonbalance, and AussieWikiLady. Anyway I was not referring to the same geographical address but rather the same person/website which led them here (not that there's anything wrong with that).

Nobody doubts your independence, or suspects that you're a sockpuppet.

With regard to consensus. I was referring to a consensus on the reliable sources noticeboard. There obviously was not a consensus including the 3 editors suspected of being sockpuppets, because they all revert no matter what, even after administrator warnings and even when their edits clearly violate several wikipedia policies. As a result, there is no possibility of consensus with them, which is why I brought the issue to the realible sources noticeboard.

If a consensus is reached on that noticeboard then they should abide by it. We clearly cannot wait until we have convinced everyone, no matter hor intrasigent or resistant to discussion they are, before we declare that a consensus has been achieved. If that were the criterion of consensus, then there has never been (and will never be) a consensus on things like evolution/creationism, flath earth, etc. By consensus we do not mean everyone in all circumstances. That is the reason the noticeboards exist, I believe: to gather consensus elsewhere among neutral parties when interested parties are intransigent.Twerges (talk) 21:24, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

There´s neither consensus to remove, the link, Twerges. OTOH you did the right thing posting the contentious link at the noticeboard. Good move. Randroide (talk) 22:32, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I want to point out, that the addition was also wrong with respect to excessive weight. An article must be balanced, and aggressively trying to unbalance it against consensus is abusive editing. As I commented on the page, I don't really see why anyone would want to do it, because it makes a stronger case for a position if only an appropriate number of sources are added. Otherwise it looks like an unbalanced diatribe, no matter how reasonable the position. This is an encyclopedia, to give information about subjects, not a place for advocacy. DGG (talk) 02:28, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

That´s not the point, DGG. The point is you blocking an user you disputed with, and blocking him/her for the reasons of the dispute. To make things worse you "argued" that the user inserted "blogs" (User_talk:Psychmajor902#May_2008), and that´s just not the case. Personally, in your position I should be ashamed of my behaviour and I would apologize Psychmajor. Unblocking him/here is not the point I raised. Is not the validity of the block what I am discussing here, DGG, but how you blocked him/her Randroide (talk) 08:54, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I don;t care much about the subject, as I've made clear. If I thought the material were supported by consensus I would not have removed it. And I point out my block was after multiple other warnings--some of which could well have been blocks instead, as others have said above. As I usually do, I extended AGF as far as it could possibly stretch. Disruptive editing usually touches on a number of things, and which category it falls in exactly can be difficult to say I think almost everyone here agrees the sum of the editors work on these articles was disruptive. My reason was based on multiple problems, not just this single one. As i think I said above, I would not have blocked for this long over the readdition of a single link to a single article--if I would have blocked at all. U'm prepared to remove the block in favor of a ban on editing the related articles. DGG (talk) 18:40, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Randroide, I was referring to all edits mentioned in the COIBot report, there where you are in the link-addition database, all those edits are revert-like edits: 15:05, 2 June 2008, 'undid', 22:39, 4 May 2008, 'undid', 22:39, 4 May 2008, 'undid', 22:39, 4 May 2008, 'undid' (the last two are the same edit, twice the link). I did check your edits, all edits that I see in the COIBot report that were not made by the 5 accounts were 'undo', 'revert' or similar edits, the link is used by these 5 accounts, and you are an account undoing removals of the external links by others. For other records see the edit history of the documents, but they do not involve that website (except where the linkwatchers have missed the edit). I have named these 5 accounts above, and they appear to be meat/sock puppets, and I do not suspect you are number 6 in that, your edit pattern and focus (if any) is completely different, you only happen to edit these pages as well (what is true for a lot of other people as well); the other 5 (Psychmajor902, Zonbalance, Aussiewikilady, 76.90.103.220, 67.150.124.231) hardly edit outside of the three pages mentioned!

As far as consensus, the link is being pushed by the 5 accounts (which may be 'one', actually), and removed by a large number of established editors (over and over again, otherwise there would not be so many inclusions of the link). You are the only person fighting that (and that is fine/great!), but as I see it, there is large resistance against inclusion of the link, I would suggest to leave it out for now (as that is what happens most, and where the consensus suggests to be), and reach consensus on talkpage first, before reinserting the link and accompanying information again. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 09:32, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Excuse me, Beetstra. Did we have a checkuser on this issue I failed to notice? Randroide (talk) 09:37, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Nope, or I have missed it as well. That's why I say that these 5 accounts "may be 'one'" (they behave similarly), not that they are. Maybe one should be filed. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 11:12, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

It should, of course. Frankly, I can not see the purpose of voicing over and over doubts about 5 users being ("maybe") shockpuppets and no one posting a checkuser request. I suppose you know the procedure, I do not. Please, do it. Thank you. Randroide (talk) 13:38, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Randroide, DGG has not been significantly involved with any of the content disputes on the page. DGG was not involved with this one until after I posted a message to WP:RS and after the consensus was ignored.

I'm not sure I even would characterize PsychMajor's spat as a serious content dispute. PsychMajor did not dispute the content on the discussion board, did not dispute the content on WP:RS, and did not respond with any relevant argumentation to DGG's notice in discussion that the link violated WP:EL. Instead, he ignored consensus and started a revert war with an admin and kept it up despite repeated warnings. Is that how we define "content dispute"?

I think DGG's block was appropriate, and I think he has no reason to apologize.Twerges (talk) 18:55, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

You are entitled to have your opinion, Twerges. I disagree with you.

Anyway, IMO this diff by DGG is a gesture that restores in some measure my confidence in her/him as an administrator. With this diff I think that DGG restores a measure of (much needed in relationships involving power) fair play in his/her relation with PsychMajor. IMHO this diff is a very good move, DGG.

After seeing the aforelinked diff by DGG, I, the creator of this section, consider this issue -afaic- closed.

The only exception is the lingering issue (vide supra) of the checkuser on the 5 accounts that were considered suspicious by some editors. I think it would be an excellent additional outcome for this section to check those accounts, just to clean the air. Please check those accounts. We absolutely can not left unchecked the accusation of 5 accounts being shockpuppets.

Thank you very much to all the parties involved Randroide (talk) 22:16, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

FWIW I see my offer to change to a topic ban (not yet accepted, by the way) a possibly more effective way of handling it, with the same basic meaning. I also intended it to represent my general view that we ought to use such remedies more--unfortunately, unlike a block, topic bans are not self-enforcing. DGG (talk) 13:14, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Personally I disagree with the "unfortunately". I think that it is better to trust on the self restraint of the editor than to technically prevent him/her to edit. OTOH, of course I do not have your experience with blocks and blocked users... What´s going to happen with the checkuser?. Randroide (talk) 19:50, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

"Unreliable prodders"

The Enchantress Of Florence (talk · contribs) has recently decided to deprod articles with the edit summary of "deprod, unreliabele proponent" [77][78] [79][80][81][82][83]. A prod may be removed if one "otherwise object[s] to its deletion for any reason", but the deprodder isn't giving a reason for the deletion objection. The reliability of the prodder has nothing to do with the "deletability" of the article. Request at his/her talk page, User talk:The Enchantress Of Florence#Margery Edwards, have been ignored. I basically propose that he/she be told (by someone with a little symbol on top of their userpage) to stop this insulting disruption. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 16:00, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

It is insulting to be told that because I am employed, and not paid to engage in Wikipedian disputes during worktime with the apparently unemployed, that I have "ignored" their comments and am otherwise of bad character. The accusation is a conspicuous violation of WP:AGF, not that such principles matter to those eager to rush to an uninformed judgment. The Enchantress Of Florence (talk) 02:46, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I am tempted to WP:IAR here and restore some of the PROD tags given that they were removed tendentiously. Judith Blake, for example, is clearly non-notable per WP:BIO, but is it worth wasting an AFD on? Black Kite 16:07, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Looks like they're following Qworty. All of the deprods followed a prod2 made by Qworty. Probably started at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Featherproof books. --Onorem♠Dil 16:11, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

And also at here. I've restored the Judith Blake PROD, and will add others as necessary. Black Kite 16:14, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Support. All prods should be restored in this instance. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 16:16, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#question regarding BLP application to discussions may serve to clarify. --Justallofthem (talk) 16:16, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

All restored or AfD'd except Natasha Bauman, may be some notability here. Black Kite 16:17, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

It looks as if Margery Edwards may turn out to be a keep, I'm still waiting on a bit more info, but my initial concerns still stand. Reasons for dePRODing should be given rather than what appears to be "I don't like the nom" or prod2er. There also appears to be some history between the two from BLPN _{TravellingCari}^{the Busy Bee} 16:47, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Personally, I read WP:PROD to mean you don't have to give a reason to remove it, you can do so simply as a personal privilege. The deprodder is not obligated to explain himself. He can deprod articles because the sky is blue or because he's just bored. The proper response is to either do nothing, take the article to AfD, or find some other resolution such as discussing it on the article talk page or proposing a merger, or even doing a WP:BOLD merge if you think it will be uncontested. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 16:48, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Going around and removing PROD tags based on the user is rude at best and disruptive at worst.-Wafulz (talk) 17:03, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I could go either way on it. Here are the two applicable lines from WP:PROD: 1) Remove the {{dated prod}} tag from the article, noting this in the edit summary. Editors should explain why they disagree with the proposed deletion in the edit summary or in article's talk page. 2) Contested deletions: If anyone, including the article's creator, removes a {{prod}} tag from an article for any reason, do not put it back, except when the removal is clearly not an objection to deletion (such as blanking the entire article). (The bolding is mine).

I sort of agree with davidwr, as I wouldn't have replaced the PROD tags (as evidenced by my creation of an AfD). However, as it looks like this editor wasn't so much against the deletion of the articles but was on a vendatta against Qworty, I think it's okay to replace the tags. If the editor then removes them again in an appropriate manner, someone can take it to AfD if they are so inclined. Tan | 39 17:04, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, to get hypertechnical, if I'm behaving like a child and I know you want to delete X, I may object to deleting X at any time in the future simply because I know you want to delete X. Ergo, my deprodding is a legitimate deprod because I am objecting to the deletion of X. Editors who are disruptive like this/behaving like children need to be sent to time-out, but in this case, their individual edits qualify as legitimate, even if as a whole they indicate a disruptive editor. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 17:13, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Wafulz: True, but the remedy is not to undo the prod, the remedy is to take it to the "we have a disruptive editor" sanctioning process. Besides, it's simply more efficient to replace the deleted PRODs with AfDs and let the AfDs run their course. If the original PROD was legit and was likely to have no article-related opposition, it will probably get WP:SNOWballed as a speedy-close/delete or at worst, get deleted after 5 days. Taking the editor to task through the normal editor-dispute process will hopefully deter or, by blocks or other sanctions, prevent, similar happenings in the future. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 17:10, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, you're right, at least in that you definitely got hypertechnical. :-) I think we can consider this incident closed. Tan | 39 17:17, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I think we can. What I didn't want to do is set a precedent where you can stalk someone around and remove valid PROD tags, thus causing wasted time for other people. All the PRODs I restored were pretty much uncontroversial (one was probably a speedy), and I didn't restore the one I think had a chance at AfD, so we're all good, I think. Black Kite 17:24, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I see this is resolved now, but I was invited to chime in. One of the articles I prodded recently, Zena Timber, was deprodded by Enchantress after a {{prod2}} by Qworty. Knowing full well that I am not an unreliable editor, I suspected this must have been a problem with Qworty, but I didn't have time to look into it this morning, although I did revert one other deprodding and had planned to do the rest. I haven't looked into the situation so I don't know if removing Qworty's edits was justified, but obviously Enchantress should have reverted only Qworty's edits. Qworty's chiming in on otherwise legitimate prods doesn't invalidate the original prod. Katr67 (talk) 17:34, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I'll additionally chime in, one of the articles I prodded recently, Eric J. Wilson was prod2ed by Qworty which then was reverted by enchantress. In this case, qworty's edits were also (I think) worthwhile (he prod2ed, COId and asked for citations on the article) and Enchantress reverted them all with the text 'unreliable proponent'. I don't really care either way, seeing as the original prod is set to go off tomorrow night which'll take all of this with it. Shoopdawhoop-lazor (talk) 22:56, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

An interesting addition to this apparently-not-yet-resolved event. Tan | 39 03:42, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm concerned by EoF's extremely hostile response to timely questions. Engaging in dialogue, now (difficult, since they seem to make a habit of blanking threads). – Luna Santin (talk) 11:15, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

You should be more concerned over your own participation in this lynch mob, and your manifested belief that commenting on a user's long, well-documented and undeniable pattern of abusive behavior is worse than the abusive behavior (which includes lying about the living and gratuitously abusing the dead. Is anything I have said have so bad as the comment which introduces this lynching, which assumes bad faith simply because I a employed, as I note above. The Enchantress Of Florence (talk) 12:16, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I'll make this simple, then: if you continue to treat Wikipedians with open hostility and contempt as you have in the past, you will find yourself blocked from editing for a time. You've had enough friendly requests and veiled warnings over the past month or two. It's quite possible to address a user's behavior and statements without commenting on them personally. – Luna Santin (talk) 12:30, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Exactly why is this not a concern of yours with regard to the troll whose misbehavior I cited, who regularly assaults other users (and article subjects) with far more open hostility and contempt, regularly laced with dishonesty? Your concern appears greatly misplaced. I would also note no small share of the warnings you cite relate to my responsive to an administrator who gratuitously (and, by consensus, falsely) characterized my spouse's editing as "deceptive," a characterization that inexplicably met far less condemnation that my more restrained (and much more accurate) "unreliable." I am sure you or your cohorts here will easily find rationales for silencing my criticisms, which are, after all, so much damaging to a supposed encyclopedia than the outright dishonesty, wilful and repeated personal abuse (not to mention occasional cultural insensitivity bordering on racism ([84], here an offensive comment from an editor whose later accusation of incivility you seem to endorse).The Enchantress Of Florence (talk) 01:32, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Following an editor around and removing deletion tags simply because they they supported the deletion is not appropriate and is certainly not a "criticism" of that user. There are numerous venues where you can air greivances which do not hurt other editor's work on the project. Removing tags to "criticize" another editor serves no purpose to help the Wikipedia, and is essentially pointy grudge-mongering, which does little more than exacerbate drama and damage the encyclopedia. --Haemo (talk) 21:42, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I prodded Sophie Costa, which was prod2ed by Qworty. EoF removed the prod. Black Kite replaced it. EoF removed it again. I've taken it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sophie Costa. EoF gave no explanation for removing the prod except for accusing me of being an 'unreliable proponent', even though I had tagged the article as non-notable in November 2007, and left a polite message on the creator's talkpage in April of this year [85]. Her edits have been disruptive, and her rudeness unwarranted.--Ethicoaestheticist (talk) 18:34, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Editor deleting reliable sources

As much as I understand PetraSchelm's attempts to galvanise the project actively against child-abuse, and the emotional strain that such a self-imposed task must bring about, I cannot support her recent removal of reliable sources, even when pub info was in the source or readily available from scientific databases. The justification for this string of edits appears to have been the discovery of a Pedophile-supported website that hosts copies of scientific papers. She claims that this website is not a reliable source, and in removing the entire source, fails to understand that in most cases their online copy is simply a backup to already reproduced or easily retrievable pub info that would suffice on its own. This has lead to the loss of a number of independent and well-researched sources, none of which I see as supporting the ethos of the website in question.

It would be better - instead of blanking the source without warning, to simply remove the link from the reference, if one objects to it. I do not want to incite any kind of kneejerk reaction against this person, but she does need putting right in this instance.

See E.g.. The entire pub info is reproduced. Even though the paper itself (available in databases) supports the text, she removes the whole lot because someone has backed it up with a questionable link. forestPIG 20:18, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

ipce--International Pedophile Child Emancipation--is not a reliable source. It's a website hosted with no known author, and we have no way of knowing if anything hosted by ipce is complete/unaltered etc. -PetraSchelm (talk) 20:24, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

There are a number of editors deleting ipce, not merely Petra. I think John Nevard's user page provides the clue as to why now, this site is best described as fringe and IMHO admins would do well not to get involved in this content dispute about fringe RS acceptability in the pedophile articles. Thanks, SqueakBox 20:28, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

See my comments below regarding low-quality websites reproducing material that has appeared elsewhere as a cite-able publication. Perhaps IPCE material can be treated the same way: If it reprints something from the American Journal of Pediatrics or even from a completed Ph.D. dissertation, let it stand, if it's spouting nonsense that would never be printed by a reliable publication, then don't. Treat each citation on its own merits. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 21:22, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

This begs a larger question: What to do when editors use a secondary source which cherry-picks primary sources which support its point of view, particularly when the primary source is a paid-subscription, print-only, or otherwise not-available-to-everyone source. In other words, if I source "Hitler allowed 3 million Jews to live" from a Neo-Nazi web site's reprint of a peer-reviewed print-only scientific journal from 1953, should I leave the source and the link, leave only a reference to the hard-to-find printed paper, or eliminate the source altogether and tag the text as {{fact}}, leaving it up to the next editor to delete it entirely? As much as I don't want to send traffic to neo-Nazi sites, having an online copy is better than having only a paper reference.

Now, if the paper in question was never published in a cite-able publication, e.g. it was only published in some Neo-Nazi newsletter from 1953, then by all means can it. The same goes for pedophile manifestos that were never published in a quality publication. About the only claim those sources are useful for are passages like "Most people consider Neo-Nazism to be an offront to society[insert cites here] but at least one group from 1953 disagrees[insert garbage newsletter citation here, or better yet, a non-Nazi 3rd party quoting from said garbage newsletter]. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 20:29, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

For that situation we have {{cherrypicked}}. --Relata refero (disp.) 17:10, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I invoke Godwin's Law. Please continue without further Nazi/Hitler comparisons. Thank you. CharonX/talk 22:28, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Please read Godwin's Law; it is a mere statement of fact that compels nothing. And as the article says, "The rule does not make any statement whether any particular reference or comparison to Hitler or the Nazis might be appropriate"; given that the concrete examples behind this are to pedophile sights, referring to neo-Nazis might actually less hyperbolic than the original.--Prosfilaes (talk) 22:37, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

That is not my concern. Even though the articles are in fact exact copies of independent work, I am concerned by the fact that you extend this observation to delete the reliable book or journal refs that form the core of these sources. This is not acceptable behaviour, and I suggest that you read up on our policies if you wish to continue in this way. forestPIG 20:31, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

No, Davidwr brings up very good points. And I did indeed notice that there were 138 links to ipce by reading John Nevard's userpage. I think ipce should be on a blacklist, to keep these links from creeping back in (and to get rid of the 100+ that are linked from talkpages). We're not a linkfarm to boost ipce's Google stats, and there's never any reason to cite it; anything published elsewhere can be cited from elsewhere. -PetraSchelm (talk) 20:36, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

PetraSchelm, could you please pay a bit closer attention to the arguments of myself and David above. I am not asking you to leave links to the offensive site. I am asking you to cease in blanking the whole independent pub info because a copy is hosted on an offensive site. And where the pub info is not reproduced, yet readily available, you should be prepared to put in that little extra bit of work to improve the source. forestPIG 20:46, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't think wikilawyering will get you very far, ForestPig, whose admin sock are you anyway (email me privately if you like). Thanks, SqueakBox 20:56, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

If the sources are reliable sources, then there is no need to link to an iffy website that hosts them. There should be original links available. Corvus cornix_talk 20:44, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Or a book/journal ref. This is what PetraSchelm has actually been deleting. forestPIG 20:48, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

keeping the original reference to the book/journal is no sin. Sure it makes it more difficult to a) check the source yourself for more research, or b) figure out if it is used appropriately, but I'd rather not link to polemic sites (of any stripe) if we can avoid it. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 20:55, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

The letters IPCE stand for "International Pedophile and Child Emancipation" - it is the successor organization to the Paedophile Information Exchange (PIE). Among the people who founded both organizations is Tom O'Carroll, convicted in the UK of a couple pedophilia-related offenses and child pornography.

Nothing on the IPCE website can be considered a trustworthy source, since its purpose is activism and has no independent fact-checking oversight, there is no way to know if anything posted their is true or not.

If someone can find them, the sources quoted on IPCE might be reliable as originally published. They would need to be located and vetted on their own merits, and unless someone has done that, they can't be used either. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 21:23, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Don't discount a source just because its purpose is activism. Political web sites, lobbying web sites, womens- and childrens-issues-advocacy web sites, and many others are inherently activist, but I would not summarily discount the material on them just because they are activist and POV-pushing web sites. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 21:41, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I think there is a difference between activism and fringe. Thanks, SqueakBox 21:43, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

If the standard of extra scrutiny is a site whose "purpose is activism and has no independent fact-checking oversight" that would apply to a lot of non-fringe sources. In fact, most activist web sites run by small- and medium-sized organizations would fail this test because we can't know if they have an independent fact-checker. We can probably trust big-and-popular sites because if they screw up it will be in tomorrow's newspapers. If on the other hand the standard of extra scrutiny is "fringe sites" then we get into wikidebates over where the exact border between "fringe", "nearly fringe," "2 steps away from fringe," and "not fringe" are, and that's a debate that will just waste everyone's time.

A reasonable measure is "Does this site claim to have fact-checking and is this claim credible? If not, how likely is it their reputation will be hurt if they screw up and misprint something, and do they even care about their reputation?" The more fringe a site is, the less of a reputation they have to be damaged, and therefore the less external motivation they have to get it right and the greater scrutiny they deserve. It's a sliding scale that is best decided by the editors of the individual articles where the citation is made, not on a Wiki-wide basis. I suspect articles on controversial issues tend to have a lot of watchlist-ers, so such a discussion won't want for lack of participation. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 21:56, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

The thing about ipce is that it's run/maintained by only one person, according to ipce, who has not disclosed his identity. So it's officially maintained by Anonymous, and has all the credibility of Anonymous, who is in no way accountable. -PetraSchelm (talk) 22:03, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

In this case, not just fringe, but extreme fringe. The difference is the reliability of the particular activists; what are their qualifications, are they experts, are they otherwise notable, are they published elsewhere, what is the reputation of their organization, etc... ? In the case of IPCE, the founders include convicted criminals, some of whom have advocated sex with children and distributed child pornography. So, no, don't discount them just because they're activists. Discount them because they are not reliable. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 22:00, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

This can be dangerous: There are unreliable activists who are not on the fringe. As a hypothetical, if I were a woman's rights activist from 1972 advocating for abortion rights, but I routinely got sloppy when copying academic work into my newsletter, then I'm unreliable. On the other hand, if I'm a Neo-Nazi and I am meticulously accurate in reproducing others' academic works, then I'm reliable even though I'm extreme fringe. I'd be more likely to trust the reprinted works of the latter than the former. When it comes to original material of course, the Neo-Nazi's garbage-spew would go straight to the trash-can where it belongs. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 22:06, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I'll jump in as a neutral party. This seems to be a case where the correct procedure is to change the citations to reference the original scientific research papers directly. We ARE allowed to reference offline sources as long as they can be accessed somehow. The correct procedure is to change all the citations thus. Squeakbox, I do not see any 'wikilawyering' in ForestPig's contributions and if you have credible evidence he is an alternate admin account attempting to avoid scrutiny then I suggest you bring this up at the appropiate channel rather than making a wild accusation - WP:AGF applies in the absence. Exxolon (talk) 21:22, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

• ForestPig states on his userpage that he operates "a moderately active admin account" and that this is his alternate account for "controversial articles." -PetraSchelm (talk) 21:44, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Of course we must verify that the papers are actually genuine and not forgeries hosted by the questionable site to further it's agenda that goes without saying. Exxolon (talk) 21:28, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, we should hold these sites to the same verification standards as we do other non-reliable sites. For example, if DanRatherFanclub.blogspot.com reprinted one of Dan Rather's early newspaper articles, and someone cites it, it deserves the same scrutiny as if www.AdolfHitlerFanClub.blogspot.com reprinted one of Hitler's lesser-known works and someone cites it. No more, no less. WP:IDONTLIKEIT or WP:YOUSOUNDLIKEAGOODGUY are not good reasons to hold someone to a higher standard or let someone off with a free pass. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 21:32, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I think we are in agreement, the original-source citations should stay even if they are not in an easily-accessible form. There is a difference of opinion over whether online copies which are on questionable sites should be allowed to remain. On one hand, an online copy makes it easy to check the reference to make sure it actually backs up the claim. On the other hand, it can allow Wikipedia to turn into a link-farm to www.adolfhitleristhecoolest.com. I recommend allowing these types of links but only as a last resort, if there is not another free-and-easily-accessible copy. One solution is to track down the original source, contact the publisher, and 1) ask permission to host it on your personal site or on Wikimedia Commons and link from there, and 2) alert him to the fact that the material is being used on the questionable site. Typically the publisher will either say "okay" or he will send a DMCA request to the questionable site. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 21:29, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

This, and Jack-A-Roe sound the most sensible opinions so far. I am able to verify many sources, as I have access to some databases. I am sure that many other users do too. forestPIG 21:37, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

On an unrelated matter, if a source like www.AdolfHitlerFanClub is KNOWN to frequently mis-copy cite-able material or edit them in a slanted way and misrepresent them as an unedited version, then it's grounds to blacklist that particular site as a source for Wikipedia article references. However, that should be taken up on a site-by-site basis. If anyone is making such a claim about IPCE, then please open a separate discussion, call it "Move to blacklist IPCE as a fraudulent source" or something like that. Have your evidence ready before you start, and make sure the fraud is wholesale or at least significant enough to be a problem. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 21:38, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

That's a good point, but as you wrote, let's keep that question out of this thread. Whether or not IPCE is blackllisted, it still can't be used as a WP:V source. The only thing IPCE can be used to support is statements about its own opinions, not any facts or sources that require independent verification. This needs to be clearly decided in this thread so it doesn't come up again, because the purpose of that website is pedophile activism - its use in footnotes on Wikipedia undermines that dependable accuracy of our articles. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 21:51, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

"Can't be used as a WP:V source" is the crux of the discussion, and there isn't a consensus yet. Let me explain. If IPCE reproduced an article from George W. Bush's high school newspaper about him, and that article wasn't found anywhere else on the Internet, I would have no problem including a link to it if I needed to. However, I would include the paper-citation information as well and would probably ask someone who had access to check his school newspaper's printed archives to verify the copy was accurate, just as I would if the same newspaper article showed up at www.DubyaIsTheCoolest.blogger.com. Some editors in this discussion disagree with me: They say I should limit myself to just the paper citation and not include the hyperlink. That is the question that is still on the table. I suspect we will not resolve it globally, and frankly, I think it should not be resolved globally but rather by the editors of George W. Bush or whatever article it is we are talking about. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 22:02, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

In my opinion, IPCE may be a good starting point for some research in this area (this does not mean that I endorse their opinions, but just their rather thorough coverage of the topics). They do appear to reproduce accurate copies of scientific and sociological works, and one imagines that this is probably important for a group who have all the dignity of campaigning pedophiles. If people find the EL offensive, I am not opposed to having it removed. Editors should always cite the journal/book/publisher anyway. forestPIG 21:54, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I think the question that's being missed here - has anyone looked at the print source to verify that the website is reproducing it faithfully? If not, since the website is of unknown quality, it shouldn't be used as a reference yet. No harm in putting that statement it references back once someone has been able to verify that the actual source supports it. Shell ^babelfish 23:59, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

That sounds fair, but if and only if the same standards are applied to all web sites of similar quality. I would put almost all blogs in that category. If www.ilovemykittycat.blogging.com had an excert from "How To Raise Cats, by Ima Catlover, (c)1990" that would be just as untrusted. Google Book Search is good but only if the book in question is in their database and the page in question is publicly available. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 00:11, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

No text at all was removed--fact tags were placed after the ipce links were removed. -PetraSchelm (talk) 00:16, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Quite. This should apply to at least 3 "believe the children" sites frequently quoted in satanic ritual abuse- and false memory-related articles. The bias of the site-owner is clear, and the question of whether quoted articles are edited is open. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 00:19, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Which sites? I don't edit any of those articles, but I'll take a look. -PetraSchelm (talk) 00:22, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

The question that needs to be asked is, "does the IPCE website have a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy?" If so, then it's a reliable source; if not, not. I'm not averse to the idea of providing "convenience links" to third-party online copies of published documents which the publisher has not made available online (assuming there are no copyright concerns) but I'm convinced that we should not approve the practice in principle, only on a case-by-case basis, and taking particular care when the third-party is strongly partisan or advocating for a minority, fringe or extreme point of view. In any case, the citation should always be made to the original publisher, not to any mirror site. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 04:31, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I also believe that removing the whole reference because of a link cannot be justified because someone may not have looked at a reiable copy. How do we know that the referee has not looked at a reliable copy, and is not just giving the online copy for informational purposes? Anyways, if PetraSchelm does not have the original source, a civil way of settling the issue would be to contact another editor, not to go removing sources, because her knowledge or access to databases is lacking in that area. forestPIG 08:22, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

The onus is on the editor who wants to include information, and always has been. (And that would be completely bizarre to expect anyone to go through the entire revision history of an article to determine which particular editor added something, and notify them personally--the 30 links I removed were not added recently; who knows how long they have been there.) But, the question of ipce is for 1) the RS noticeboard 2) the talkpages of articles. The consensus already long established at articles is that ipce is not RS, but exceptions have been allowed for use of ipce as a fringe source in fringe articles such as the pro-pedophile activism article--although there was some discussion if it qualified as an exception because there is no known authorship, and that is one criteria of an acceptable fringe source. -PetraSchelm (talk) 17:04, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

From what I understand from today's and yesterday's discussion here, IPCE has two types of materials: Original material and copied material. I understand there is no known author, which typically makes the original material not a reliable source. As far as copied material, I assume that breaks down into 2 categories: Material which has easily-accessible copies elsewhere and material which has copies elsewhere that are not easily accessible. Links to the former can be simply replaced by links to more-mainstream locations. Furthermore, links to the former can be used to determine if IPCE is making faithful copies or not. If it is making faithful copies to these, then it's reasonable to assume the copies to the less-accessible materials are also faithful copies. If that is the case, then I see no problem using them as a link in Wikipedia. This concept can be generalized to any source which is not considered reliable but which republishes, or claims to republish, material from reliable sources. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 17:36, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

That's a much higher standard than has been used for ipce links, which have mostly been indiscriminately spammed in without regard for accuracy or info, or whether there is another copy on a non-polemic non-fringe site. Here [86], for example, ForestPig complained to someone else, who replied that she couldn't find the source in the LC (and replaced it with an alternate source which meets WP:V). Ipce is questionable enough as a source that anyone who wants to use it should make a strong case in every instance for why ipce and nothing else is a good link, IMO -PetraSchelm (talk) 18:16, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I see the standard davdwr proposes above a very good one for sites such as this. It represents the common sense consensus we try for, and I suggest he propose it explicitly as an addition to our V policy or whatever is the appropriate guideline in our morass of rules. Petra is right that we should upgrade the articles for this, but it will take a while, for it requires a serious effort at finding a better source before the links to them are removed. We shouldnt remove what links we have while we work on improving them. DGG (talk) 18:29, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I have opened a discussion on WP:V to change that section. Please participate. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 20:52, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

In point of fact, IPCE is not the source at all; the papers and articles themselves are. That IPCE is used as a convenience link is not a problem, as long as the original article is fully cited. Those wanting the original rather than IPCE's copy are free to pay the requisite journal for a reprint. We've been doing exactly this with convenience links for quite some time. It's easier to delete than to add; I ask that we not take the easy way. Wishful thinking: It would be nice if the articles were available for free from an organization that didn't advocate for any side of this or any other issue. However, it's usually only the partisans who care enough to host materials such as these. --SSBohio 08:18, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

That's not the consensus at talk:Verifiability. Also, you should talk to Legitimus, who has now verified that ipce changes documents (deletes graphs/charts/conclusions...) -PetraSchelm (talk) 01:11, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

'tis true 'tis pity. I have access to some original print copies of some studies hosted by IPCE, and have found that on occasion, IPCE may have altered a document's content, left out critical parts like statistical graphs, or is hosting a commentary rather than the true study. If you must have details, I'm afraid you'll need to wait for a bit. I do not want to access IPCE from my location.Legitimus (talk) 12:45, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Review of indefinite block of User:Zerida

Based on the findings at Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Fantevd, I have indefinitely blocked User:Zerida.

Fantevd was a throwaway account for the purpose of attacking Dbachmann. Fantevd led to a family of accounts all editing from overlapping anonymous proxies (One proxy would have users A, B and C, another proxy would have A, D, and E, and so on). All the accounts edit similar topics. The main account seemed to be Egyegy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), an old account with 2000 edits, who it turns out was involved in a dispute with Dbachmann.

However, a few of the proxies used by the sock accounts were not actually anonymous, and passed on the originating IPs. There were two different IPs disclosed, about 2 weeks apart, and both of them were IPs that were assigned to Zerida (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) on the same day. The IPs are, as near as I can tell, typical residential IP addresses and unlikely to be shared.

Zerida and Egyegy both protested the findings in email to me. but after sending them a version of this message with my findings they have not replied. I have rechecked my findings; they have also contacted other checkusers, I believe.

Based on the long-term nature of the abuse I have indefinitely blocked the accounts; however, the community is invited to review the situation. Thatcher 17:01, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Looked it over a bit, and support the indef. Setting up sock accounts to attack editors is really bad form. The timing of the attacks with respect to the dispute, coupled with IP evidence is enough *more than enough* for me to be convinced. R. Baley (talk) 17:26, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

So is Zerida confirmed (most likely) to be the sockmaster? If so, I could undo most of the deletions I did on the userpages. Rudget (Help?) 17:28, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Zerida is on a typical residential ISP, while the other accounts were on open proxies (some of which accidentally tied back to her). Plus, her account is the oldest and has the most edits. So I would call her the master account, yes. Thatcher 17:35, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

That makes sense. Thanks. Rudget (Help?) 17:38, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

If Thatcher's technical evidence is convincing, I'm OK with this block. Zerida does have some good contributions but this kind of stuff is not forgivable. I notice that Zerida was in some disputes with Dbachmann. EdJohnston (talk) 17:43, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I have independently reviewed the checkuser evidence in this case and can corroborate what Thatcher said above. Block endorsed - Alison ^❤ 18:05, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Eek, seems I forget to include this in the above comments. I endorse block based on CU evidence. Rudget (Help?) 18:08, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

This is very unacceptable - it goes much further than basic policy violations in my view. I looked through some of the discussion between the two accounts and Dbachmann after I read EdJohnston's note above, and I see some clear similarities between the two accounts through the discussion. I don't think he's unfamiliar with the relevant policies either (looking through his talk page). It brings me to formally ask; is there any admin who is willing to unblock him? Ncmvocalist (talk) 04:18, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, I certainly wouldn't be willing to do so. --Akhilleus (talk) 04:27, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

It is really regretful to get to know that after a couple of years you now feel that it was so tedious, for all that time, answering the "concerns" of presently blocked accounts. Sockpuppetry wastes more contributors' energies than anything else. I have to say that it was because of Zerida and Egyegy that I decided to stay away from Arab-related articles. I read the discussions now and find it very ridiculous. Pwned but glad I am still contributing to the project. Someone else would have already gone feeling distress as it has been the case in some other areas of the project. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 05:00, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

If a couple more admins can add their assurance that they are not willing to unblock him, or if there is no admin that steps forward saying that they are willing, I think the community ban can be logged. Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:01, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm actually pretty shocked by this. I do hope nobody plans to unblock on a whim: this has been sustained troublesome-hand terrible-hand disruption. I came across the two hands at Talk:Egyptian after a post at one of the noticeboards; they certainly played a good game. IIRC, I appealed to one account to help me keep the other account focused on the article....[facepalm]. --Relata refero (disp.) 05:34, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

London cities template - slow edit war

NuclearVacuum (talk · contribs) has been slow edit warring (mostly against myself and DCGeist (talk · contribs)) on Template:Largest cities of the United Kingdom, which was until earlier named Template:United Kingdom cities; it was renamed by NuclearVacuum in what I can only presume was an attempt to reinforce his own position.

The dispute is regarding the images; the general consensus on the talk page seems to be to include one picture for each constituent nation, the most populous in each. NuclearVacuum insists that there should be exactly two pictures, of the two most populous in the UK. He has even used such misleading edit summaries as "this makes the box not so wordy and spacy" and "reletive cleanup" when restoring his preferred versions, if he gives any summary at all. When stating his position on the talk page (last time he deigned to do so), he simply headed the section "consensus" as if describing a clearly existing consensus. This is getting silly, frankly, and I don't know what else to do about it. SamBC(talk) 21:30, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I actually don't think the images add anything at all... EVula // talk // ☯ // 21:33, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

This has come up before, and it's purely a content dispute. There's nothing that an administrator can do here, so I'm afraid you'll have to deal with WP:DR. Alex Muller 22:15, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I was under the impression that slow edit warring and misleading edit summaries were a problem. SamBC(talk) 08:09, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Why is it even a template? It is only used on United Kingdom (where the 4 images cause the article to exceed the page width). MickMacNee (talk) 22:19, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I had that thought initially as well, but given the scope of the article, I can easily see this being a template to cut down on the size of United Kingdom. It's already 140k long. EVula // talk // ☯ // 00:01, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Putting it in template form only shortens the raw wikitext. It won't affect things like load time, it might actually make it slightly worse. Mr.Z-man 02:02, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Why not remove the pictures, subst the template and let the argument move to the larger article space where more editors can debate? Then it's not just 3 fighting but a group forming consensus (or more edit-warring but more obvious). -- Ricky81682 (talk) 20:21, 4 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. [87] 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 [88] [89], making personal attacks on Ramdrake, [90] [91] [92] [93] [94] [95] [96] [97] Alun (Wobble) [98] [99] [100] [101] [102] and above all Slrubenstein (whom he tried unsuccessfully to report here recently) [103] [104] [105] [106] [107] [108] [109] [110]. 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) [111]. 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. [112] 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? [113] [114] 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:[115]. --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: [116]. --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)

?[117][118][119][120][121][122] 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 [123]--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 [124] 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.[125] 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)

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)

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)

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 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 [126] 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)

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)

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 [127], [128], [129].) 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)

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)

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)

:'( 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)

Request of Rangeblocks regarding the banned user, and Sock master, Hdayejr

As the title states, I request that the following range blocks be issued. The following IP ranges have been found by finding sockpuppets and taggin accordingly:

• 24.172.0.0 - 24.172.255.255
• 65.28.0.0 - 65.31.255.255
• 66.240.192.0 - 66.240.255.255
• 68.24.0.0 - 68.31.255.255
• 69.4.224.0 - 69.4.239.255
• 69.61.231.0 - 69.61.231.255
• 69.89.96.0 - 69.89.127.255
• 70.0.0.0 - 70.14.255.255
• 70.144.0.0 - 70.159.255.255
• 70.192.0.0 - 70.223.255.255
• 71.64.0.0 - 71.79.255.255
• 72.56.0.0 - 72.63.255.255
• 75.176.0.0 - 75.191.255.255
• 75.192.0.0 - 75.255.255.255
• 96.12.0.0 - 96.15.255.255
• 99.200.0.0 - 99.207.255.255
• 140.106.0.0 - 140.106.255.255
• 207.10.0.0 - 207.10.255.255
• 207.10.224.0 - 207.10.239.255

Here is the sock case for the user, well, the most recent sock case. Thankyou for your time.— Dædαlus^T@lk / Improve\ ^Contribs 05:34, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Those ranges are way way too extensive. By my count, you're asking for a block on at least 10 million IPs. WP:RBI. The Evil Spartan (talk) 05:44, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I was just going off of the WHOIS reports for the IP net ranges. I shall go directly from the list now.— Dædαlus^T@lk / Improve\ ^Contribs 06:14, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

New list:

• 65.31.*.*
• 68.24-31.*.*
• 69.4-89.*.*
• 70.9.59-237.*
• 70.210-212.32-117.*
• 72.59-60.*.*
• 75.185.202.*
• 75.218.*.*
• 99.201-205.*.*

— Dædαlus^T@lk / Improve\ ^Contribs 07:19, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

• That is still too much. For one thing, admins can't block anything bigger than a /16 block (like 65.31.*.*) — 68.24-31.*.* is a /13 block, 99.201-205.*.* is a /16, a /15 and a /14 block, and so on. Blocking those ranges would be using a sledgehammer to crack a peanut — the risk of collateral damage is far too high. (See Classless Inter-Domain Routing for explanations of what a /16 block, and so on, are.) We have had long discussions here before blocking a /18 — there's no way that that many IPs can be blocked because of one user who uses a few of them. Stifle (talk) 11:42, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
  • I concur against the blanket raneblocks as the collateral damage is way too high, unfortunately. -- Avi (talk) 20:02, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree as well, however, it is worth pointing out that Hdayejr is really persistent so rapid mole-whacking is the order of the day. Ideally there would be a AIV-like noticeboard for "simple socking", i.e. a case where a well-known sockmaster has re-emerged with an obvious repeat of their old MO. I guess right here (ANI) is the place, but it's not always simple to get admin attention on this.

For persistent (and apparently unemployed) sockmasters like Hdayejr, it's a fine line between letting them get away with it and giving them trophy pages. I agree the only solution is whack-a-mole, but I'd love to hear any suggestions on how to more effeciently report moles for whacking. --Jaysweet (talk) 13:20, 5 June 2008 (UTC) Full disclosure: I am not an admin, but I feel I can help out here anyway.

Evolutionary psychology

I need some eyes over at evolutionary psychology. According to the page history, someone is using WP:SPA accounts and anonymizing proxies to delete content from the article, edit war, and avoid the 3RR. Having just seen this, it appears to have been going on for some time. Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 04:23, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Request for semi-protect filed here. Viriditas (talk) 04:29, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Update: All of the accounts engaging in edit wars on this and several related pages appear to be connected to User:Memills. Request for checkuser in progress. Viriditas (talk) 10:26, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Memills. --Viriditas (talk) 10:43, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I am willing to have an admin mark this as "resolved" if they will simply ask User:Memills on his talk page to limit himself to one account and to edit while logged in. The problem tends to come up when he reverts multiple editors while logged in as different IP's, some of which appear to be proxies. Limiting himself to one account and staying logged in will help clear up some of the confusion. Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 13:35, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Update: Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard#Evolutionary_psychology filed. Viriditas (talk) 09:07, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Astrotheology

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)

Houston, we have a problem

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:[130] [131]
  • October 2005: fabricating a nonexistent primary source[132]
• 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.[133]
  • Fall 2005: during mediation, alters another editor’s posts.[134][135]
• 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.[136]
• Frivolous 3RR reports:
  • Today: (see above)
  • December 2005 – January 2006: three frivolous complaints:[137][138][139] when in fact the only 3RR violations were his own.[140]

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.[141] 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)

User:Tancarville

Resolved

_TalkIslander 15:12, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Quite aside from some massive WP:CIVIL violations, Tancarville has made legal threats on my user page; see diff at [142].  RGTraynor  14:45, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

The user also makes bizarre accusations. An "organism" every night? Eek. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 14:57, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

"I also will advise you to clean your act as a few people are considering taking you to court." is clearly an attempt to intimidate through a thinly veiled legal threat, I suggest at least a long block, but considering the type of behavior we have seen so far from this user probably indefinite blocking(pending some clear resolution of the mentioned court issues) would be better. _{1 != 2} 15:02, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

The user was warned this morning, ignored the warning and made a legal threat, so I felt an indef. block was warrented. Contact me if you disagree. _TalkIslander 15:12, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't, regrettably. It's a shame it wound up coming to this.  RGTraynor  15:25, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Does anyone know if wikipedia has ever actually been taken to court for any reason, and if so, how did it turn out? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 15:52, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Yep. French and German were both taken to court and both won (so far).-Wafulz (talk) 16:37, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Excellent information. Those decisions define a framework for protection of wikipedia from these kinds of suits: (1) The open nature of wikipedia is a "given" and hence defamatory material could slip in; (2) wikipedians make a good faith effort to remove such info; and (3) the verifiability requirement essentially equates to, "wikipedia didn't orginate this, someone else did - go talk to them." Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 19:39, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

User:JTWoodsworth - misleading user page and sockpuppetry

Resolved

 – Blocked one week. EdJohnston (talk) 20:36, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

JTWoodsworth (talk · contribs) has a user page which identifies them as a professor ("Dr. Jehad T. Woodsworth") at the University of Arizona, but there is no professor there by that name. Instead, the user page is a slightly edited copy of a genuine professor: http://www.optics.arizona.edu/faculty/Resumes/Norwood.htm. I was going to report this to WP:AIV, but I discovered it's not quite that simple. I can't find a case filed, but there is blatant sockpuppetry from this user (see discussion here and Category:Suspected_Wikipedia_sockpuppets_of_JTWoodsworth). I think a CU might be helpful here. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 16:40, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it's got to do with a series of sockpuppets connected with that user and it's a battle over that user's obsession with and/or trolling about, an AFD'd article he wrote called Indiana Jones and the Saucer Men from Mars (script). Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 17:28, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I was posting here hoping an admin would take a look at the larger (sockpuppetry) issue to see if it's a better-known sockmaster. Current sock User:Dipolemoment is active at the moment. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 17:42, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Seems our little friend is now claiming that anyone opposed to him/her/it is a sockpuppet of Alientraveller or ColdFusion650. TheRealFennShysa (talk) 18:18, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Hello! I'm new to wikipedia, and I may have broken some rules, but I apologize and won't do it anymore.... I was just having fun, but I found out it's a lot more fun to play by the rules in the wikiworld than to break them, so I promise to be a good girl from now on (and I'm sure Delicious carbuncle will be keeping an eye on me!) I do want to mention that Delicious is particularly upset because I'm creating a page he and his friends don't like (Indiana Jones and the Saucer Men from Mars) which he's trying to delete, and has resorted to ad hominem attacks (English Lit minor!) because Truth and Justice and the Wikipedian Way are no longer on his side! So, any adminstrators who are on this page, totally feel free to reprimand me (spank me if you have to!) but do check out my page and vote with your heart!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dipolemoment (talk • contribs) 18:25, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Please point out the "ad hominem" attacks or withdraw the accusation. Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 18:38, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Sorry. I meant only as a philosophical interpration of a form of dialectic argumenation, not as a slight. Neverthessless, if it offends you, I apologize and I take it back. :) Dipolemoment (talk) 19:25, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

The above user might not be a sock, since he apparently knows how to write in real English, although the broken English of the other users could just as easily have been purposeful. However, the article is under attack, so to speak, simply on grounds of lack of notability. An article about a script that never went beyond the script stage seems a bit excessive. Many films begin with scripts that get significantly altered over time. That doesn't justify a separate article about each one. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 19:31, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Interesting timing.... TheRealFennShysa (talk) 19:47, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Shazam! Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 19:58, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't be suprised if User:Scifigeek314, whose opposing lone edit, was a just a setup for the "dork" comment shortly thereafter. ccwaters (talk) 20:30, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I have blocked JTWoodsworth one week for apparent sockpuppetry, and for disruptive editing at Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull. He has recently taken down his extremely dubious user page. EdJohnston (talk) 20:36, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

The sockpuppet or "close associate" of that user, User:JulieKO, who is still active after being similarly short-term blocked last week [143] is also trying to cover its tracks a bit. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 21:26, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Somebody seems to be looking for attention: see this and this. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 22:18, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I finished indef blocking all the accounts Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of JTWoodsworth that were not already blocked by others. Conceivably a checkuser may be helpful just because new socks may continue to appear. There is not much doubt about the socks that are already dealt with. EdJohnston (talk) 22:44, 4 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)

Massive and confusing revert war at WP:V

Resolved

 – Page protected for 3 days.

We are currently discussing something like 12 seperate proposed and counter proposed changes to this policy page... Multiple editors are being overly bold and adding changes/reverting changes without obtaining a consensus on the talk page ... there is far too much activity all at once to make sense of what is being changed or offer constructive comments. I request that the page be protected so that people are forced to actually sit down and discuss the matter and reach a consensus. Blueboar (talk) 18:52, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I have protected the page for three days. Marskell (talk) 19:08, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

WILL SOMEONE PLEASE CLEAR AIV?????

Resolved

 – Vandals blocked, talk page protected until 9:00 June 4 (UTC), my sanity restored. J.delanoy^gabsanalyze 03:28, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Look at the history of my talk page, and DO SOMETHING!!! I'm about to go out of my mind... J.delanoy^gabsanalyze 20:25, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Your issue seems to have been solved. Anyone feel like semi-protection on their talk page? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 20:33, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I've blocked those who've carried on after final warnings. However, there are still a number of editors who have been reported but given final warnings. Therefore, their names remain on AIV until they are 'block-worthy', as it were. Lradrama 20:34, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, guys. I mean that far more than I can say merely by writing it. I apologize for being so dramatic, but all those "you have new messages" banners on huggle and Firefox were breaking my concentration, and, apparently, eroding my sanity. I appreciate the quick action with the ban-hammers, and the offers for semi-protection, but I really don't want to do that. (see User:J.delanoy/protection, although apparently, my resiliency to persistent vandals is not as good as I thought it was when I wrote that page.) I will assure you, though, tf it ever gets bad enough to force me to do this again, my request won't be only to "clear AIV".... J.delanoy^gabsanalyze 20:48, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

If you have troubles with vandals targeting your TP, gimme a note on my TP and I'll see what I can do. If these are the same wethers as follow him around... -Jéské ^{(v^_^v E pluribus unum)} 04:48, 5 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)

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)

Edit/Revert War in progress...

Resolved

on Video games notable for negative reception. While discussion is taking place the two sides are also reverting to their preferred version. I would suggest a lockdown on the article so a consensus on inclusion criteria can be reached before the article is opened up for editing again. Exxolon (talk) 21:50, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Request made at WP:RFPP <3 Tinkleheimer TALK!! 21:55, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Revert/edit war in 'List of Civilian Nuclear Accidents'

User:Eiland insists on reordering this list to newest-oldest. User's stated reason (on Wikipedia_talk:Recentism) is 'personal preference'. Reasons against newest-oldest are that there are a group of radiation and nuclear related lists that are all ordered in oldest-newest, so LoCNA should be ordered to match.

I'm requesting List of civilian nuclear accidents be rolled back to "09:08, 21 May 2008" before his first edit to repair damage from edit war. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nailedtooth (talk • contribs)

This appears to be a content dispute, in which case you and the other editors involved should work it out on the article's talk page or through wikipedia dispute resolution. I don't see any obvious three revert rule violations. You should not be arguing your side of the content dispute here. If I'm missing something please let me know, but otherwise please try to build a consensus for one version or the other. --Selket ^Talk 01:28, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Arbcom article blocked user editing with IP

User:Pete_K was article banned by arbcom and has lately resumed with provocative test editing in the involved articles under his IP. A WP:SSP was filed a few weeks ago, resulting in a two week semi block in involved articles and two week editor block. After the block expired, sock edits have resumed:75.35.23.210, 75.31.77.70, 75.28.138.60. These socks will probably continue to wage slow edit wars and soapbox on the talk pages. The talk pages of the articles have a template notify users of the editor ban, but since the semi-protect hasn't stopped it, the articles probably need a "heads up" that he's persistently sock-puppeting there under dynamically assigned IPs. Professor marginalia (talk) 23:29, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I've semi-protected PLAN for another two weeks, since the three IPs you mentioned have all been targeting it. Still worth keeping an eye on the talk page. Are any other articles being affected? – Luna Santin (talk) 02:43, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Anything to do with Rudolf Steiner or Anthroposophy, the user in question has some issues with any portrayal that doesn't meet his POV (that it's all evil). --Rocksanddirt (talk) 04:37, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Edit war

Resolved

In progress on The Twinz over an exceedingly trivial matter. Participants are User:Tasc0 and User:Qlazarus. Qlazarus is a new editor. Chubbles (talk) 00:47, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Protected by User:Anetode. Trebor (talk) 01:16, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

User:Abtract

Abtract just returned from his most recent block (48 hour), and has already begun his stalking activities again.[144][145] and contacting the people he was told to stay away from[146].

Related/previous history: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Abtract, Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive426#user:Abtract, Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive426#Abtract, still stalking at Aladdin (disambiguation). -- [[::User:Collectonian|Collectonian]] ([[::User talk:Collectonian|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Collectonian|contribs]]) 01:26, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

From an outsider's perspective, his first three edits upon returning were all in direct challenge to Sesshomaru's edits. That seems to indicate pretty clearly that he either doesn't understand, or doesn't care. Either way, the lesson that was to be learned from his block has been lost. Disappointing, but pretty clear. Dayewalker (talk) 01:34, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Really, some people never learn. Why isn't this guy banned? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 01:36, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Blocked for 1 week for harrassment. Trebor (talk) 01:44, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps it should be more permamant? – ClockworkSoul 01:44, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps, and I won't object. A quick scan of his contributions however suggested he is capable of contributing constructively at times. If he continues it'll end up permanent soon enough. Trebor (talk) 01:49, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

This is the fourth block for practically the same reason. The subsequent block will be either for a month or we can simply inform him that any subsequent harassment will result in an indef block. I think the latter is appropriate given how many warnings he has received so far. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 01:53, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

I second that. If he demonstrates no interest in playing nice, I don't see why he should be able to edit at all. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 01:58, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Sock of Hdayejr Again

We were advised to bring it here for quick notice, so User:68.31.102.232 clearly appears to be another IP sock of blocked user Hdayejr. Thanks! Dayewalker (talk) 03:00, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Looking into it contributions R. Baley (talk) 03:15, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't think blocking the IP will do much good as it's already been over half an hour already and he tends to change IPs anyway (in addition to making all edits in a couple of minutes and then ducking out). I was going to batch semi-p the lot of articles for a couple of days to see if he gets bored, but am running into technical issues (someone want to do that?) Dayewalker, I recommend that you still post at the WP:suspected sock puppet page just so the info is all in one place. R. Baley (talk) 03:26, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Roger that, good buddy. I posted here as soon as I saw him, but he had already given up by the time the cavalry came. I'll post on the SSP board to keep things all together. Dayewalker (talk) 03:38, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Soviet War in Afghanistan

Apparently stemming from a single user, given the similarity of his/her IP address, this user repeatedely deletes sourced and cited information in an unwarranted manner. Claiming that his/her source is "respected," while foregoing the six cited sources I offered along with completely disregarding recent consensus, the unknown and unregistered user defiantly insists that his course of action is justified. See the recent edits at Soviet War in Afghanistan for details. Best regards, Scythian1 (talk) 03:29, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

I have gone ahead and semi-protected the page and left a note on the IP's talk page. Hopefully this will bring them to the talk page for discussion. --Daniel J. Leivick (talk) 04:07, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

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)

User A Link to the Past

This user has been stalking me for the past day or two. Trolling with other users and Flaming please see my talk page under User talk:Lbrun12415/Archive 2 and see # 34 Response, # 35 Response, # 36 Response, # 37 Response, # 38 Don't worry too much(proof of flaming and trolling on other users), # 40 Response, # 41 Response. and last talk

Wow, be quiet. After you continuously vandalized my statement, I have decided to be done with you. - A Link to the Past (talk) 20:12, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

WHy do you have to be so rude and you call me a troll. I'm trying to help.--Lbrun12415 20:18, 3 June 2008 (UTC) from here Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games.

Every time I went to two different Admin he would alos comment with negative comments, also I tried to tell him that Gamefaqs is not a source and he started fighting with me about it. also here history of List of Wii games he has vandalized List of Wii games as you can see I told him twice "(Before you do something like that see the talk page. They NEVER said to delete half the pages information, BUT to make new pages to split it in half meain # to N and O - Z" and "(Once again please see the talk page. And also all the other list of games don't include a 4th box.)" please help me. --Lbrun12415 04:49, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

It's been 2 days since he's done anything particularly related to you, why don't you let it go? Chan Yin Keen | Talk 05:01, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

User:96.238.40.131

User:96.238.40.131 has been doing nothing since March but adding an unreliable source at Sportsbook.com. I blocked for 31 hours after more incivility and edit warring but after this nice little edit to my user page (which I would ask someone to delete from the edit history once this is over), I would suggest calling this a static IP address deserving a longer block. To reduce the abuse claim that will follow, could someone else do it? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:16, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Also, could someone do a checkuser to see if this is related to User:Fadeintoyou? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:19, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Bogus Article: The Feather Cave (novel)

The subj article claims to be a fraud that's existed for a year, and the edit history would seem to support that. I tagged it nonsense, but am now wondering if there's any other response appropriate for this WP:POINT article. Jclemens (talk) 07:12, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't meet the criteria for nonsense, so you make be better taking it to articles for deletion. Kevin (talk) 07:21, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

I updated it to G3, thanks, but I don't understand the AFD reference--if the author of a stub comes back later and says "ha ha, Wikipedia's unreliable because this was nonsense" shouldn't that be speedied? Apologies if I'm being dense, and feel free to delete this thread and follow up on my talk page if appropriate. Jclemens (talk) 07:32, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Article gone now. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 07:35, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Range block for a troll?

Resolved

See #IP troll above for the previous history. There is a nasty troll using multiple IP addresses in the 77.78.196/197/198.* fields. 8 were given long blocks yesterday, and then there was more of the same. A range block would appear to be in order, but the scope of such a block is beyond me and I don't know about the collateral damage it would cause. Can someone else deal with this, please? Thanks. Bencherlite^Talk 10:22, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

• Blocked 77.78.196.0/22 anon only and ACB for 3 months. There doesn't seem to be anyone else on this range at this time. Thatcher 11:07, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

User Pompertown disruptive.

User Pompertown (talk · contribs · count · logs · page moves · block log) keeps on reverting in Backstreet boys article with no edit summary or comment on the talk page for the revert. It's clear that the user knows what they're doing (Myself and Foetusized (talk · contribs · count · logs · page moves · block log) have left a message to them). Bidgee (talk) 11:26, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

My question is how has this person been allowed to edit for so long? I have never seen so many block notices/warnings on anyones talkpage, so I am proposing an immediate indefinite block. Chafford (talk) 11:48, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

After reviewing the user's contributions and long block and warning history, I've blocked them indefinitely; simply ignored too many chances to reform their behavior. A fuller rationale is on their talk page. --barneca (talk) 12:44, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Further comment, copied (with editorial changes) from User talk:Foetusized:I've blocked this user indefinitely, not for this latest edit war, but for the consistent history of doing nothing but revert with little/no explanation. I have no position on the actual subject of your disagrement, so if someone else comes along and thinks they liked his version better, this isn't a free pass to revert them with no discussion; please try to start a discussion with any new editor if they show up preferring his version, and assume it isn't the same user unless they start reverting with no discussion too.

I'm not going to warn anyone who reverted him for edit warring, since no one came anywhere near 3RR, and several others agreed. Just noting that perhaps the "perfect world" solution would have been for you to start a discussion with other editors about the edit in question, which you could point to as "consensus" in your re-adding the material he removed. Perhaps that's a little too utopian in dealing with a clearly disruptive editor, but I was slightly disappointed to see all that reverting going on with no talk page thread (at least that I noticed, apologies if I just missed it).

So hopefully that should improve the editing environment at the article. --barneca (talk) 13:04, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Lard Sock

Someone keeps creating pages called lard land and typing lard into articles plus other varients such as ard. This vandal surfaced earlier today and has just resurfaced just now. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wheelclerk4567 (talk • contribs) 11:57, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

AIV is thataway ->. shoy 12:39, 5 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,[147] also wrongly labelling some as vandalism.[148][149]

Despite being warned about this,[150] he continues to do so.[151] 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)

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 - [152]) - 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)

Problematic user (Arcayne)

• Arcayne (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.