Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 20:36, 7 June 2008

• WP:ANI
• WP:AN/I

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

• Before posting:
  • Consider other means of dispute resolution first
  • Read these tips for dealing with incivility
  • If the issue concerns a specific user, try discussing it with them on their talk page
  • If the issue concerns use of admin tools or other advanced permissions, request an administrative action review
  • 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)

• Refining the administrator elections process
• Blocks for promotional activity outside of mainspace

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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages.--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: . 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- Misplaced Pages: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 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 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages, 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 Misplaced Pages has become a very visible venue on the internet, and therefore Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages. 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, Misplaced Pages 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 17:52, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, are you suggesting the comments and reviews by RandomPeople 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 (sic) 'the 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" 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

• The Yahoo! White Pride and Racialism list includes links to Stormfront and the Klu Klux Klan and David Duke and the National Socialist Movement (Nazi) the Afrikaner Resistance Movement of South Africa 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 Misplaced Pages article. If you find such a suggestion, please provide a link to it. Otherwise, I humbly suggest that some might regard your post as a flagrant violation of WP:POINT. I posted this list in answer to the question I posed, "Is White Pride offensive to anyone and does any significant group claim that it has racist overtones ?". I believe that this list suggests that there might be at least one significant group that claims the term has racist overtones. Do you believe that this list does not suggest that there is at least one significant group that claims the term has racist overtones?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Anybody who denies that historically the term "White Pride" has been associated with White Supremacy is mistakenly niave. But I do believe that the two terms are not necessarily synonymous. Historically a white male who shaved his head was also a racist, but the tie between a shaven head and being a skin-head is not as pronounced today as it was 20 years ago. Likewise, there is tons of words that have been reclaimed by different groups. Today, there are people who, when properly couched, do not see "white pride" as any more racist than "black pride", "Korean Pride", "Gay Pride" etc. While the term "white pride" is often a strong indicator of a white supremist, the use has to be viewed in full context of the person using it. I do not hide from my heritage and am not embarrassed by it---but that doesn't mean that I am a supremist (if I was I would have a problem with my black sister-in-law and even my son!) Instead. I encourage those who are interested to embrace their own heritages as well. I think it's a shame that a caucassian who fails to express remorse over his/her race, is labelled a racist by some. Some use the term "White Pride" because they wish join other Pride movements in their self identify exploration (ala Black/Korean/Asian/gay) not because they see themselves as being superior. When given the proper context, I will use the term "white pride" both in an effort to reclaim it from the bastards to who it is usually applied AND in an effort to join my brothers and sisters in their various cultural/racial/ethnic/religious pride movements. I know that is not how the term is typically used, and thus only use it when/where I can explain what I am doing. But I also know that I am not the only one who wants to reclaim the phrase.---Balloonman 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 15:45, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

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

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

Just a question for Fill, and OM (that I do think deserved what came his way). So if I am white, and proud of it I'm a racist, right? But a black is racist for invoking Black Pride (or Afro-American Pride as the political correctness demands. Or is an asian 9broadly defined here for simplistic sakes) a racist because he say Asian Pride? And what about ]? Are all GLBT hetero-phobics racists because they are proud of been gay? Come on, this is ridiculous.

And on another note, OM comment about talking with "fellow of the herd" (don't remember the exact phrase right now) is much more racist and separatism, with some bits of elitism than anything H2O said about White Pride. Samuel Sol (talk) 07:17, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

There is nothing wrong with being white and proud or black and proud or Asian and proud or Southern and proud or a yankee and proud or a European and proud or an Australian and proud or a hispanic and proud or a Russian and proud or Jewish and proud or Hindu and proud or Buddhist and proud or whatever. However, as I said above, rightly or wrongly, the phrase "white pride" has become a code word that has obviously acquired negative connotations. And some of those negative connotations are associated with a particularly ugly form racism, unfortunately. And therefore, since we should not go out of our way to offend people (which I believe is the main reason and the best reason we have become far more aggressive about WP:CIVIL in the last year or so), we have to avoid words and phrases which might inadvertantly be offensive to large groups of readers and other editors. It is that simple. Whether you personally have a different meaning in mind for the phrase "white pride" is frankly, irrelevant. It does not matter what you think and it does not matter what you mean. It only matters that there are large groups of editors and readers that will take offense at the use of the term. Sorry. It is just that simple.

If you want to deny that this interpretation is correct, we can take it up with the WMF and Jimbo and see what they think. We can also ask for wider community input if you think that you will get support for using "white pride" frequently here on Misplaced Pages. My prediction is that such an effort to gain approval for widespread use of the term "white pride" will not be successful. But you are welcome to try.--Filll (talk | wpc) 17:26, 7 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.
• 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, RHMED compounded the insult. 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 19:49, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Concur with Durova, an administrative response is appropriate and overdue. Amerique 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. 32 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 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 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 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 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. 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 21:04, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

• Just noticed this edit by Orangemarlin, it's hard to spot among that monster of an RfA,, 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 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 Misplaced Pages a better place to work; it does not make it more civil. This attempt does not serve Misplaced Pages's interests. It serves the interests only of racists. Slrubenstein | Talk 12:35, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

user:Jagz: Topic ban for review

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

Jagz was blocked for edit-warring on the article in March, and for personal attacks and incivility in May (see diffs and block log). Since the expiration of the block for personal attacks, he's "retired" from Misplaced Pages, 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  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  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. 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 , making personal attacks on Ramdrake, Alun (Wobble) and above all Slrubenstein (whom he tried unsuccessfully to report here recently) . 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) . 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. 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? 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 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 00:29, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Cailil, I didn't appreciate you essentially scuttling my good faith effort here:. --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 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 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 Misplaced Pages contributions, they can start here: . --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 Misplaced Pages 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 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Dysgenics (people) just one example of race and intelligence topic trolling--Cailil 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 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)

? 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 --Cailil 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 03:04, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages 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 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 Misplaced Pages 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:

Misplaced Pages's strength of egalitarian contribution, which is effective on most articles, may also be its greatest weakness on others. 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 Misplaced Pages is built on. Maybe Misplaced Pages 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

Misplaced Pages 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 16:40, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

different suggestion

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

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

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

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

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

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

I'm not aware of any instances where clearing out a whole set of editors has led to improvement, though to be fair I'm not aware of any instance where it's been attempted. Does anyone know of any? On the other hand, I am intimately familiar with an extremely divisive dispute involving multiple editors and an poisonous, acrimonious environment where the removal of a single excessively tendentious editor (see Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Strider12) led to complete calm. That has informed my thinking somewhat. MastCell  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  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 Misplaced Pages: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 17:37, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Okay, so the consensus appears to be:

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

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

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

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

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

Thats already discussed. See what I mean about consensus (above)? Brusegadi (talk) 03:15, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Your comment is not worthy of a proper reply. --Jagz (talk) 14:12, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Alternate suggestion

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

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

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

Suggestions: remember that there is no deadline. Make one salient point per post. Follow a thread/discussion through to its conclusion before starting a new one. Before hitting save, re-read your post and ask, "Could someone else be expected to find this readable and convincing?" If the post is >2 paragraphs or looks like a page from Absalom, Absalom!, the answer is likely to be no. For the record, I am willing to enforce Jagz' voluntary avoidance of R&I-related articles and talk pages with a block if he returns to editing them during 2008. MastCell  16:35, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to second what MastCell suggests. I'd also point out that when I suggested something like this to Elonka I used a significantly lower word limit but I think these ideas put forward by Ramdrake, MastCell & Elonka are better.

It might be helpful if somebody involved in the article would gauge interest in mediation--Cailil 18:41, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I can't talk for everyone else obviously, but I think at this point it would be quite welcome. I know I strongly support it, personnally.--Ramdrake (talk) 18:51, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Beware of Slrubenstein going on the mediator's Talk page prior to mediation and calling editors racists and trolls. --Jagz (talk) 20:40, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Can somebody please remind Jagz to WP:AGF? Thanks!--Ramdrake (talk) 20:01, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Jagz, I hope you realize that commenting here or anywhere else in the talk-space about Race topics and/or the editors involved on those pages violates your agreement above. Either you have agreed to avoid the topic or not--Cailil 20:12, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Can someone please hold Jagz to his agreement as per Cailil's reminder above? It's getting tiresome.--Ramdrake (talk) 20:50, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

My feeling is that if there's an ANI thread about Jagz (as this one is), it makes sense that he should be allowed to participate in it. And Jagz is absolutely correct, that Slrubenstein has been uncivil. However, it's probably not necessary to point it out anymore... Admins have been alerted, so it's no longer necessary for Jagz to be as, hmm, "vigilant". --Elonka 23:01, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I am the banned user Flameviper.

I was banned in '07 following a long string of nastiness and broken edits. I came back under a couple other accounts (user:Two Sixteen and this one). As Two-Sixteen, I was blocked after Jpgordon did a checkuser and confirmed my identity; I created this account to see if I could truly contribute productively or whether I was really just a bad person. I leave my fate in your hands, Misplaced Pages. 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 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, Misplaced Pages:Requests for adminship/Ziggy Sawdust raises a whole new set of red flags for me. --jonny-mt 01:42, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

• Others

• Misplaced Pages:Requests for adminship/Flameviper
• Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_adminship/Flameviper12
• Misplaced Pages:Requests for adminship/Son of a Peach
• Misplaced Pages:Requests for adminship/Son of a Peach II
• Misplaced Pages: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 Misplaced Pages 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 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 02:21, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

• Keep banned. Unlike in real life, on Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages'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 Misplaced Pages, 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 Misplaced Pages 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 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 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 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: =? 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 00:44, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

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

• No real strong opinion on Flameviper himself, but the fact that he socked again to get around his ban doesn't sit too well with me and makes me none to quick to think we should unban. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 23:22, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
• Wait. I'm willing to consider the unban, but on a short leash after a month or so long wait. bibliomaniac15 00:29, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
• Support unban. This discussion is disappointingly filled with the idea that the user is an unreformed scoundrel, needs to repent, needs to abstain from improving the encyclopedia as some kind of gesture of goodwill. It appears that this user has been editing in a mostly constructive fashion and wants to continue doing so, but feels that his participation should have the approval of the community. I find all that to be very encouraging. Everyking (talk) 07:42, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose unban - I hate to sound like I'm not showing good faith, but AGF says "assume good faith in the absence of evidence to the contrary". I have reviewed the edits of all the accounts in this saga and I am not convinced that unbanning this account, the latest in a long line of socks (some of which were used to support his last blocking request, others of which even fairly recently were simply vandalism-only accounts) will have any net benefit for the encyclopaedia. Others such as Poetlister and Moulton that we've unblocked are potentially strong contributors capable of improving the encyclopaedia, and any controversy surrounding their edits did not extend to living Wikimemory of the unblock requests. It's very easy to stay under the radar simply by sticking to speedy deletions and script warnings. From the last two weeks alone - unhelpful edits like and suggest someone will have to spend a lot of time running after him fixing up, and needlessly offensive edit summaries and . I'm not seeing the "constructive editing", sorry. Orderinchaos 01:38, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

If unbanned

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  For the record, Flameviper has another sock, KONATA KONATA KONATA (talk · contribs · count · logs · page moves · block log) as confirmed in this diff.
  

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

Proposal for unbanning

I think it would be good to put everyones cards on the table and I'd like to offer some proposed community sanctions should he be unbanned....

"Ziggy Sawdust (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is unblocked and is allowed to resume normal editing, under a community editing restriction. He is placed under community civility parole. Should he make any comments which are personal attacks, assumptions of bad faith or any other comment which is perceived to be incivil, he may be blocked for up to one week. He is also banned from editing any reference desk, or help desk pages indefinitely. Ziggy is permitted to use just one account and any further instances of sockpuppetry will lead to his ban being reinstated. Further to these restrictions, he is placed under the mentorship of Ryan Postlethwaite (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)."

Any thoughts on this? Ryan Postlethwaite 16:16, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

• Very important point: no more socks. --Kyoko 16:20, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Oops, forgot to add that in. Now done. Ryan Postlethwaite 16:22, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

That is acceptable to me with one reservation: That the user (Ziggy/Flamewiper) be placed on something of a "probationary" period for one year, under my or someone else's supervision, where the user be required to make at least 100 contributions (edits) to[REDACTED] articles a month. The contributions may either be substantive or minor, but the total must exceed 100 a month. If at the end of any month the user's article edits are less than 100, the "probation" will be revoked and the user perma-banned. That way we can not only rehabilitate this user, and monitor him, but also get some productive work out of him in building the encyclopedia. JeanLatore (talk) 17:25, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

That seems awfully strict. It would be better if we eased him into articles, which I could do with mentorship. I don't see this probation as productive - it essentially says that he should be banned if he doesn't do enough graft in one month as a volunteer - that's not right. Ryan Postlethwaite 17:32, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I feel it's unreasonable to demand an edit quota out of someone. This is a volunteer project. Making 50 (or five) good edits a month is something to be applauded, not something that a person should be banned for. Everyking (talk) 17:37, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, exactly. Any good contributions are good contributions and are welcome. Misplaced Pages is not about racking up a high score. Friday (talk) 17:40, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

If I wasn't assuming good faith, I might think this was a deliberately ridiculous proposal by someone trolling ANI (again). Delicious carbuncle (talk) 17:51, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I sincerely hope it isn't, and I would also hope that he is closely watched and infractions scrupulously policed. Orderinchaos 01:49, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

To clarify, my comment above is directed at JeanLatore's ludicrous mandatory edits proposal, not the request by Flameviper to be unbanned, nor the proposal by Ryan Postlethwaite to mentor. While I don't support the latter two proposals, I don't think they were suggested for the purposes of trolling. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 16:40, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

The distinction is that this is not a volunteer project when it comes to the user in question, as the user in question has been previously banned from the project. Therefore, if the project allows him to come back (thus overturning their decision) the project does reserve the right to impose a less-than-full set of "rights" to him for a while, and making the user produce some article edits would be a good way to turn the probation/mentorship time into improvement of the articles. JeanLatore (talk) 17:42, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

How could we justify banning him in July if he made fewer than 100 edits in June, provided all the edits he did make were good? I think any number of good edits is better than zero. One imagines a starving man pushing away a slice of bread—"I'm starving, and you think I'm going to settle for that?" If he makes bad edits, then we could consider a penalty, but that's a different story. Everyking (talk) 02:45, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

No, no, no. If you create a requirement like that, volunteers who work mostly with content will have to fix 98 articles he felt obliged to edit. By past experience this would mean dozens of useless tags per article. Orderinchaos 01:43, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand what you mean. Are you saying he is incapable of helpful edits to articles? JeanLatore (talk) 02:09, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

No, I'm saying if you force numbers on people that they will make up the numbers by whatever means. It's human nature. Orderinchaos 05:15, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Still oppose on principle. This proposal would send a subtext to every banned editor who pays attention: Don't sit out your ban; come back and sock. And if you're sly and political enough about it, the site will even reward you for that by lifting your ban! You've got nothing to lose anyway--you're already on the outs. So sock away... Life is waaaay too short to deal with the fallout of that message. We don't owe one difficult individual a free pass at the price of charging our productive volunteers that heavy a price. My previous offer to mentor on another project stands: I'll open a new unban thread myself in due course if he does good work elsewhere. But this way? No way. Durova 05:25, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

• Agree with Durova: rewarding editors for violating sitebans sends, to put it lightly, quite the wrong message. And Ryan, please stop misplacing your efforts towards mentoring people that have proven to be useless in the past and redirect it towards productive contributors who haven't yet been able to pass the hurdle of enculturing themselves with our wacky customs. Or put your considerable talents at mediation to use in resolving a dispute somewhere... something, anything besides wasting your time on incompetent editors. It's pure hubris to think that you'll finally be the one to turn a banned editor around, and it never happens; the proverbial fall inevitably comes around in the form of the person in question becoming recidivous. (Okay, maybe there's the one exception, but that's not happening again soon. :]) east.718 at 05:57, June 7, 2008
  • Agree with Durova and East. People do not get banned for no reason, it's usually done at a point where community patience has been exhausted, and they have usually done a lot to get there. I've been at the other end watching someone being given chance after chance and then finally the last straw where they get banned, but usually only after driving productive contributors off the project. It wastes project and volunteer time to unban people who cannot offer us anything and have demonstrated an unwillingness to work within the rules. I've seen mentorship work at close range, but it only works where the mentoree is basically there but has regular lapses of judgement. This is not one such case. Orderinchaos 06:53, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
• People who get banned and sock are either going to help the project or hurt it. In my opinion, you can't reasonably decide what to do with them until you judge which course they've taken by evaluating their edits. Banning people is a practical measure that should intended purely to prevent them from causing harm. If unbanning Flameviper sends a message to other banned users that they can sock, work constructively, and get themselves unbanned as a result, then I'm happy to send that message. What if Flameviper wanted to donate money to the project—should the foundation refuse to accept his money? It makes no more sense to reject his good edits than it would make to reject his money; in fact it makes even less sense, because the improvement of articles is our highest priority. Everyking (talk) 07:29, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Assuming capability here. Please show me one article he has significantly improved under any of his nicks. Good faith alone doesn't cover bad behaviour in the absence of positive contributions. Orderinchaos 08:33, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

I scanned his contributions going back through mid-May and found that it's overwhelmingly tagging and notifications for speedy deletions, coupled with many minor edits (I don't want to dismiss this kind of work, but clearly it's not on the same level as content addition). However, I did find a few examples of him adding substantial article content: Lutetium is the best example, followed by this edit, which also appears to be high quality. So my evaluation of his work through that time is that he is someone who spends a lot of time patrolling new pages, but is also capable of adding an occasional bit of quality, referenced content to science-related articles. On the other hand, he does tend towards occasional silliness, but he doesn't seem to do so in a harmful way. The best example of this is User:Ziggy Sawdust/Avril. I don't really know what's going on with that page—the questions are obviously not genuine, and the page is bizarrely popular among users who don't edit anything else. It would be easy to assume he created all those accounts as sockpuppets for fun—since they're doing nothing but editing his own "reference desk", I'm not sure I could define that as disruption, but it's obviously not something we should look very kindly on. Everyking (talk) 09:06, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

What this proposal and its supporters are overlooking is that it not only sets a bad precedent; it's unnecessary. There are plenty of other projects where this editor isn't banned and could demonstrate a good history legitimately. I extended an offer of mentorship to him for another wikiproject days ago. He evaded his ban to post to my user talk page, so I blanked he ban-evading post and replied to his IP's talk page with instructions about how to follow up legitimately, via e-mail. He hasn't replied. With that already on the table before Ryan extended his offer, there's no excuse to bend the rules. I'm an admin on Commons and I edit a variety of other WMF projects. I'll put my reputation on the line at any of those to offer Flameviper a policy-compliant return. That should be more than generous enough in this situation. Durova 09:15, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Durova, East and Orderinchaos and I'm very troubled about the precedent the community is going to be setting if this happens. I regularly get emails from Eddie Segoura, the "Exicornt Vandal", saying that he wants to be unbanned. He has appealed without success to the ArbCom several times now and he has had a few socks that have been productive by all appearances but he has also had many sockpuppets that were not productive. Shall I tell him to keep creating sockpuppets and when he has a constructive one that has gone unnoticed for awhile, to come here and announce who he is and he'll be unbanned? Seriously? He watches the admin noticeboards and I know he would be most delighted if this is the precedent we are going to set for future appeals but I'm not so thrilled with it myself. I'll guarantee that he'll be creating socks minutes after he sees flameviper is unblocked. Also, for informational purposes, I received an email from flameviper after commenting on this subject earlier and he indignantly asked me to point out one policy he had violated since he was banned. Ugh, SOCK, BAN, BLOCK? That he doesn't get even *this* much is extremely concerning. But maybe that's just to me... Sarah 11:42, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

I've got to agree with Durova and east718 here, too much headache for so little a chance of success, seeing this user on IRC, I do not see there being any chance of success IMO. I'll note that there are 24 users in Category:Wikipedians seeking to be adopted in Adopt-a-user who to my knowledge are not banned, socking, etc. Rather then rehashing every good ban we've ever done (something I've seen more and more of recently), I've got to echo the feeling that we need to be workong on helping totally new contributors learn to contribute at progressively higher levels of quality. MBisanz 11:57, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, and a good wider perspective on the matter. Orderinchaos 13:22, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Durova too that Ziggy S. got banned for a reason, seems intellectually incapable of making productive content additions to the articles (which is -- or should be -- our priority), and clear evidence of Ziggy's current sockpuppets being disruptive at the very time his "main" sockpuppet account is begging to be re-instated probably doesn't sit well with other editors either. My proposal above still stands, however, I would like to clarify I would like to see about 125 solid, referenced article content edits a month out of him for a year before he were to be granted full user status. Most people don't even want him back under any circumstances. JeanLatore (talk) 14:54, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Please be more careful with syntax: a reader could infer from your statement that I've insulted his intellect. I haven't, and I ask you to refactor the opinion itself. It's one thing to point out behavioral problems, another thing to speculate about a person's intellect or state of mind. He's banned and not allowed to respond here. Durova 16:27, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm still uneasy about unbanning him, because Durova, Sarah, and other people do have a point about the principle of a ban. Furthermore, I don't get any sense of contrition in Flameviper's/Ziggy's unban request, and he was dishonest in not revealing his identity in his RfA, and in his unban request (four socks I know of post-ban, not two as stated). Ryan, could you please explain further what convinced you that he had reformed?

As a side note, I find Jean's proposed requirement of "125 solid, referenced article content edits a month" quite demanding. I don't believe I satisfy that requirement myself. --Kyoko 17:18, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but you are not banned and asking to come back for no reason. This gentleman is at Misplaced Pages's mercy right now, Misplaced Pages might as well turn that to its advantage. If Ziggy/Flamewiper wants to come back, he'll do so as a constructive article editor for a year...if not, then CYA! JeanLatore (talk) 18:22, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

He's already past CYA, and the burden's on him to come back from the corner where he's painted himself. There are open doors from that corner to Commons, Wikinews, Wikibooks, etc. And from there we can unlock a door back to Misplaced Pages without ruining the paint job. Durova 19:03, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Adding to my last message: I'm not convinced that he has reformed, after discovering his edits to Lutetium, in which he adds content but also adds inappropriate ref tags. I don't want to repeat them here, but I've removed them. I did only a cursory reading, so there might be other hidden jokes. While he might conceivably feel this is just harmless fun, I think it conveys the message that he doesn't take Misplaced Pages seriously. I'm not saying that Misplaced Pages should be a joyless enterprise, but I also think that I or other people should not have to screen his edits for possible hidden messages. Sorry, Ryan, but I don't think he should be unbanned. --Kyoko 19:12, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Astrotheology

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

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

Dzonatas has been blocked indefinitely. Durova 16:46, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

On the Astrotheology page, two users have been warned several times (through edit summaries and extensive debates on talk page) and continue to cause disruptive edits: PelleSmith (talk · contribs) and Hrafn (talk · contribs). Please, also note the tone general used against me with their hyperbolic language. It has caused much distraction and stress in trying to expand a stub. They continue to edit back to dubious (tagged) versions for which a request to clearly cite the source has been unmet. I've shown in plain explain how their argument is a fallacy on the talk page. The continue to ignore all other reliable sources that do not agree with their position and state only one as the one and only WP:RS source. The page was also put on AfD a few days ago, but it has had the basic claim resolved, and it is continues to carry past the AfD's WP:POINT. Hrafn in particular wants to make the claim that "astrotheology 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 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[REDACTED] 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 ~ Evidence 17:17, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

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

History of User:Dzonatas

The editor who started this thread is forum shopping. See this invalid 3RR complaint he opened concurrently. Dzonatas has a highly disruptive history and his principal contributions to Misplaced Pages 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:
  • October 2005: fabricating a nonexistent primary source
• 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.
  • Fall 2005: during mediation, alters another editor’s posts.
• Advocates nonsense articles:
  • This week: Misplaced Pages: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.
• Frivolous 3RR reports:
  • Today: (see above)
  • December 2005 – January 2006: three frivolous complaints: when in fact the only 3RR violations were his own.

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. 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 Misplaced Pages 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 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[REDACTED] 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 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 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 . 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 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 Misplaced Pages on a page that also linked to an article that mentioned Durova. Very thin gruel, and if it actually did say what you claim it does, then it would be strong evidence against your claim of collaboration between Durova and Ruud. Which, I might add, has no evidence either. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 19:01, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Back to Astrotheology

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ongoing disruption

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Other debates

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Cue admins ...

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

It does look like there is enough here to make a decision one way or the other. If no blocks are forthcoming, an RfC is a possibility (for its own sake, or as a prelude to arbitration). Since further discussion of the sort occurring above is unlikely to be constructive, I've archived all sections but this one. Avruch * 22:34, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

One final note on this sad case: Dzonatas has sent me obscene e-mail. If any admin contemplates unblocking him, please contact me for a copy. Durova 23:02, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Testimony

• Previously archived section, modified 21:29, 5 June 2008. — Dzonatas 07:38, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
• Edited 21:32, 5 June 2008. Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Astrotheology — Dzonatas 07:49, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
• Edited 21:31, 5 June 2008. Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/St. Luke Lutheran Church — Dzonatas 07:49, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
• , — Dzonatas 13:44, 6 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 ~ Evidence 17:44, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

The real Jerusalem Post is a respectable newspaper. Apparently the standard for its online supplement is somewhat lower. I'm of half a mind to publish my correspondence with Shamah (after all, it was five e-mails in that he said, "By the way, I'll be using this correspondence to attack you in a future editorial piece, hahaha," so I don't see an ethical issue) so maybe I'll post it to Misplaced Pages Review or somewhere. <eleland/talkedits> 00:20, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Conspiracy theory and BLP issues - eyes requested

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

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

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

I've raised the issue at WP:BLPN and WP:FTN and I've tried extensively to explain on the article talk page what's required by ). This is despite the fact that the article is under arbitration sanctions per WP:ARBPIA#Remedies - I've notified the editors involved of the sanctions but it doesn't seem to have made any difference to their conduct.

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

Yes, I’d welcome some new, uninvolved editors’ eyes on this. Just to set the record straight, though, it would help if those joining the discussion note that the statement currently in dispute (“reportedly been killed”) has been the consensus version in this article for over two years, and that contrary to User:ChrisO’s one sided presentation above, it is actually ChrisO and friends (User:Tarc; User:Nickhh; User:CJCUrrie) who are trying to change this long standing consensus, and replace it with a new statement introduced just 5 days ago with this edit, after they had agreed to the previous wording for a long time.

The overwhelming majority of reliable sources on the case published since the recent French court’s ruling have either labeled the incident a “likely hoax”, or at a minimum, treat the theory that he was killed as being very suspect. ChrisO did indeed notify some participants of the ArbCom sanction – but curiously all those notified happened to be holding a viewpoint different than his, while his fellow editors named above received no such notice, and unsurprisingly, alongside Chris (who has already been reported for violating 3RR on the article), continue to happily edit war over this statement, some of them (User:CJCurrie, User:Moreschi) blindly reverting without bothering to participate at all on the Talk page. Canadian Monkey (talk) 04:28, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

I checked out CM's contention that "reportedly killed" has been consensus for some time, and that's just a fact. Since we are accusing those of us currently editing the page of 'promoting a conspiracy theory', perhaps some of these other users who have argued the point that this is a legitimate controversy and not a conspiracy ought to be notified that their position is now being relegated to 'conspiracy-theory' 911-conspiracy theory dustbin, subject to sanctions: 66.81.115.85 , bibigon, Humus Sapiens , Jayg , ,KazakhPol , Slim Virgin, Netscott, Viriditas — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tundrabuggy (talk • contribs)

After Tundrabuggy was informed of the sanctions, the user edit warred, and so in my humble opinion, a ban / block could be applied. Stating the blindingly obvious, that doesn't apply to the editors listed above. PhilKnight (talk) 18:16, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Please put up the diffs demonstrating that I initiated an edit war. I argued my point (I have considerably more edits on the talk page than on the article) and was not the one that began edit warring, nor did I try to "finish" it. Please look closely. Tundrabuggy (talk) 19:01, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't matter whether you initiated the edit war. Nor does it matter that you argued your point. You edit warred after being notified of sanctions, and in this context a ban / block could be applied. PhilKnight (talk) 19:30, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Please demonstrate with diffs. The use of the word "reported" had been established through consensus over the years. To suddenly rip it out without consensus is wrong, whether it is done by an admin or not.Tundrabuggy (talk) 20:22, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

NPOV cannot be superseded by editors' consensus, as WP:NPOV states. If a previous consensus (and I'm doubtful whether this was really a consensus as opposed to going by default) reached a conclusion that violates NPOV, it can't be sustained. In addition, consensus isn't immutable. If a consensus was reached two years ago as you claim, don't you think it's about time it was reviewed? -- ChrisO (talk) 22:39, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

What you are doing is trying to justify your position by wielding one wiki "policy" after another as a club when others have disagreed with your POV. I certainly do not object to reviewing a consensus but as the WP:BOLD policy states

substantial changes or deletions to the articles on complex, controversial subjects with long histories, such as the Israeli-Palestinian conflict or abortion, or to Featured Articles and Good Articles, should be done with extra care. In many cases, the text as you find it has come into being after long and arduous negotiations between Wikipedians of diverse backgrounds and points of view.

The article had carried the word "reported" or "reportedly" for something like 2 years before you apparently changed it. It had been hammered out "after long and arduous negotiations." You have been adamant that you would not accept the previous consensus view under any circumstances, despite the fact that the latest verdict makes the "reported" tag more appropriate today than ever. Your means for achieving consensus was/is to knock off all the users who do not accept your POV, by logging warnings, then shopping for "uninvolved" admins in forums such as this and the WP:FTN who would apply a ban or a block on other users. Basically it is the politics of intimidation, some might call it "bullying." Tundrabuggy (talk) 03:08, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

If you consider changing the article was 'wrong', then ok, that's your opinion. However, it doesn't justify revert warring. PhilKnight (talk) 00:25, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

I was asked to comment here about the use of the word "reportedly." That word has been in the article for a couple of years, as I recall, and it seems to be the most accurate rendering — the boy was reportedly killed (i.e. was reported to have been killed) during the incident. There is actually no evidence that he died: no forensic evidence was offered by either side, and in fact evidence was destroyed, which is why there is a dispute. Having said that, most reliable sources accept that he died, with just a few notable dissenters. That is why "reportedly killed" was felt to be appropriate. It casts less doubt on the killing that "allegedly killed," or "claimed to have been killed," but it also does not imply that the killing is an undisputed fact. SlimVirgin 03:18, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

"Reportedly" seems to be the better word choice in this case. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:23, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

"reportedly killed" indeed casts less doubt. Given the new doubts that now emerged does "allegedly killed" seems appropriate ? --Julia1987 (talk) 04:11, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Personally, I would say "reportedly killed" is still appropriate. There are indeed new doubts emerging, but it's nevertheless the case that the boy's death was widely reported, and so far as I know, most reliable sources would stick by those reports. I feel "allegedly" signals more skepticism than most reliable sources would say was appropriate. SlimVirgin 04:43, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

As I've said on the article talk page, "reportedly killed" still gives far too much prominence to the conspiracy theory viewpoint. We do not say that the Apollo astronauts "reportedly" landed on the Moon or that the World Trade Center was "reportedly" destroyed by hijacked aircraft, even though there are some prominent skeptics on those issues. I did some research a few months ago to determine the relevant prominence of the POVs on this particular issue, using Lexis-Nexis and other databases, and found that (1) the overwhelming majority (thousands of works) state definitively that al-Durrah is dead; (2) there is no general agreement about who killed him; (3) a small number of articles (a few dozen works) describe a conspiracy theory that he is not dead and attribute it to two particular activists; and (4) a handful of articles (less than 10), mostly op-eds which we cannot use for statements of fact, endorse the conspiracy theory. This is clearly a situation where the undue weight provisions of NPOV apply. As WP:UNDUE says, "Keep in mind that in determining proper weight we consider a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources, not its prevalence among Misplaced Pages editors." The problem we are having is essentially the same as with the 9/11 articles: a number of editors have a strong personal belief in the conspiracy theory and do not accept either that it is a tiny-minority viewpoint among our sources or that policy requires tiny-minority viewpoints to be treated differently from overwhelming-majority POVs. These principles were very recently endorsed by the ArbCom in Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/September 11 conspiracy theories#Principles. -- ChrisO (talk) 10:02, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Chris, it's a while since I've looked at this page, but my memory is that mainstream newspapers were reporting the doubts that he had died, and were discussing the video where he appears to have moved after the shooting. That he didn't die is still a minority view (so far as I know) but not a tiny-minority one. SlimVirgin 17:12, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

A Lexis-Nexus search "a few months ago" would have been done before the France Appeals Court saw the available evidence in relation to the hoax theory, and said that it was not libelous to claim that Charles Enderlin & France 2 "knowingly mislead the watching world about the death of the Palestinian child Muhammad al-Dura in the Gaza Strip in 2000." Tundrabuggy (talk) 15:33, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

It seems to me that, given the reliable sources on this issue and their respective prominence, the words "reportedly killed" reflect a fair and neutral compromise. On the one hand, we have some sources (including linked video footage, which I have viewed) telling us that the boy was not killed, and that it was all an act. On the other hand, we have many other sources who tell us he was in fact killed. Overall, it seems to me that there are more sources supporting the "killed" version than the "faked" version, so it makes sense to use the term "reportedly killed", as opposed to "claimed killed" or "allegedly killed" as suggested above. Crum375 (talk) 12:01, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

"More" sources? Try "nearly all". In fact, try "all" really reliable sources, judging by a cursory look. We don't push fringe viewpoints like this, particularly not in the first sentence of articles. Whichever 'consensus' arrived at "reportedly" was absurdly mistaken, or perhaps dated to before WP woke up to the problem summarised in WP:FRINGE. "Reportedly" is precisely the kind of weaseling fringers and truthers like to introduce, and its as unacceptable here as elsewhere. --Relata refero (disp.) 12:15, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

You're quite right, it's exactly the situation envisaged at the start of WP:WEASEL: "Weasel words can imply that a statement is more controversial than it is. For example, saying "some people claim that The Beatles were a popular band" unnecessarily raises a (false) question about the statement's truth." To be fair to the people who arrived at the earlier consensus, they may not have done the kind of detailed research that I recently undertook to determine the relative prominence of the various POVs on this issue. It took some time, required some specialist databases and cost a fair bit (good thing I wasn't paying for it!) so it's understandable that not everyone would be able to do that sort of thing. But having now done it and obtained some firm empirical data which we didn't have before, we need to ensure that the article reflects it. By the way, when Crum says "there are more sources supporting the "killed" version than the "faked" version" he's understating it - the former outnumber the latter by a ratio of at least a hundred to one. The latter is a tiny-minority viewpoint. -- ChrisO (talk) 12:41, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) Although what really happened there is unclear, the strongest source is the complete and uncensored video footage itself, which appears to show fakery, including in related incidents shot on the same day. The other sources are mostly interpretations of that footage. Crum375 (talk) 13:03, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Surely that's original research from a primary source? The fact is that reliable mainstream media sources all count the boy as having been killed. When the media report someone as dead, we have to take that as read. In virtually every case there is of course no "video evidence" of their death. The problem here is that precisely because there is some video evidence in the public domain, people with an agenda have taken it upon themselves to offer the world their own personal interpretation of those images, and to claim there is doubt as to what they show. However no source - even an unreliable one - has provided details of how the supposed hoax was carried out, or located where the boy is now happily carrying on with his life. This really has to stop, it's getting silly now. --Nickhh (talk) 13:40, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

No it isn't. The video I saw was primary, but it was accompanied by a POV source making the point while showing the footage. So you could argue the POV issue, but all sources have some POV, and that doesn't rule them out as sources. Also, in this case the footage speaks for itself. Crum375 (talk) 17:42, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

The Australian Rationalist magazine has published an interesting piece on the background to the conspiracy theories - see http://www.rationalist.com.au/archive/78/p38_AR78.pdf . It's worth a read. The bottom line in this case is that some political activists are trying to use Misplaced Pages as a vehicle for promoting a fringe hypothesis. Misplaced Pages is not a soapbox. -- ChrisO (talk) 14:53, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

This is a one-page Op-ed, written by a work colleague of now-discredited FT2 freelancer Talal, written before the most recent court verdict. Why we should rely on this dated, partisan opinion piece rather than on current German TV reports calling the incident an "alleged murder" is for ChrisO to explain (unless of course, he succeeds in banning all his opponents as he is threatening to do) Canadian Monkey (talk) 17:08, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

I haven't advocated relying on it, as you very well know; all I said was it was worth a read. Please stop deliberately misrepresenting what I say; it's getting very tiresome. -- ChrisO (talk) 18:43, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Some sources who report doubts about the killing:

• A Reuters story reporting that a court has supported a critic who claims the French tape of the reported killing may have been doctored.
• An International Herald Tribune story reporting the doubts over the tape.
• A Los Angeles Times report (reproduced by Jewish World Review).
• The Esther Shapira documentary, "Three Bullets and a Child: Who Killed the Young Muhammad al-Dura?", shown on ARD television in Germany, which contains the extraordinary interview with the original cameraman who shot the footage, who laughs when asked why no bullets were recovered.
• A Wall Street Journal Europe opinion piece (reproduced by Isranet; scroll down to see it).
• Then there is the original footage itself, which anyone can view, and from which the correspondent/cameraman clearly cut out a scene at the end, where the boy appears to move.

These are just some of the reliable sources who have published doubts about the mainstream view. We have to report those doubts dispassionately. SlimVirgin 18:13, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Come now, SlimVirgin, you're an experienced editor; you know what WP:NPOV, WP:V and WP:NOR require. Your first and second sources are neutrally worded reports on the conspiracy theorists, attributing claims to them without endorsing them. Your third, fourth and fifth sources are all opinion pieces, which we cannot use for statements of fact. Your sixth source is a primary source and your comments about it are bordering on original research; it's not our job to analyse grainy videos on partisan websites. ("All interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source, rather than original analysis of the primary-source material by Misplaced Pages editors." - WP:NOR). The article does indeed report the conspiracy theories (in rather too much detail, to be honest) but the key point is that any such reporting should be in proportion to the prominence of those views, as WP:UNDUE requires. That means we do not give tiny-minority viewpoints as much attention or weight as overwhelming-majority ones. But you know all of this. Why do I have to repeat this so many times? -- ChrisO (talk) 18:43, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

I rewrote this article a few months ago to make it more neutrally worded, and I think the end result was okay. This is roughly the version I'd stand by. Since then, it's been battered back and forth by both sides, so I don't know what the current issues are. What I do know is that it's a statement of fact that the boy was reported to have been killed, and that several people -- including non-partisan, responsible people, such as the independent French journalists who investigated it -- have disputed the France 2 version of events. Some of them believe the boy is dead, but that he didn't die the way France 2 claimed, and others believe he didn't die at all. Their views have to be included, and the presentation of the views shouldn't serve to undermine them. Having said that, there are also some non-reliable sources claiming the boy's alive. This is why it's a difficult article to work on, because it needs cool heads to evaluate the sources fairly, and the back and forth reverting doesn't help to achieve that. SlimVirgin 18:53, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

CAMERA known to be pushing this case

Can I draw everyone's attention to the fact that CAMERA, known to be trying to infiltrate Misplaced Pages, are taking a special interest in this case, with a massive 33 articles devoted to it.

CAMERA's director, Andrea Levin makes their intention clear: "CAMERA has taken some cautious steps into the non-English-speaking arena. One subject of particular interest is the Mohammed Al Dura issue. ... We, like many others, do not consider this a closed chapter. The more so as the journalist who made the report, Charles Enderlin, and his cameraman are still employed by France 2." Under these circumstances, new SPAs should be treated not just with caution, but with suspicion.

It's important to recognise that this article does us no credit in the first place, being written to a one-dimensional "Israel suffers unfair allegations" narrative, when this incident (whether true or false) is much more important than that. It's closely linked to the Second Intifada, particularly to the lynching in Ramallah of two Israeli soldiers 12 days later and the beheading of Daniel Pearl in Pakistan 4 months later. We're even specifically informed of this linkage at the CBS article we're citing 7 times - and yet, this real historical importance has been edit-warred out. (The obverse has happened too, the article on the Ramallah lynching is aggressively patrolled and all mention of Al-Durrah edit-warred out of it). As an Israeli newspaper story reminds us "no other case in which Palestinians ... hit a Palestinian child" and "even if there is some doubt, it is certain that the IDF has killed and is killing children ... a frightening pace". Haaretz continues: "Al-Dura became a symbol because every struggle needs a symbol" - and that's largely what we should be aiming to document. This article was quite severely compromised before these un-labelled SPAs arrived, demanding that a fringe theory be high-lighted and BLP be broken. (I have no problem with documenting the real doubt about the origin of the shots, perhaps we should give this element some prominence and as much as 1/6th of the entire article).

Can we also take note that there have now been several examples of established editors carrying out deliberate cheating, often behaving as if they had complete impunity. In (all?) cases they seem to have been on good (even exceptionally good) terms with other established editors of a "similar" POV. This is another factor we should be worrying about, since it is dangerous indeed. PR 10:05, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

The "CBS News" article you're linking seems to be something else entirely - an outfit called Cybercast News Service, which I've never heard of before. I have no idea whether this is a reliable source or not. If you think it's worth quoting, I'd suggest taking it to the reliable sources noticeboard for verification first. Second, I don't think there's any evidence that CAMERA has been involved with our al-Durrah article, so I wouldn't want to point the finger in that direction without proof. The recent court verdict has been widely reported by conservative bloggers - it wouldn't be a surprise if some of them have linked to our article. -- ChrisO (talk) 10:29, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

PalestineRemembered, please take a more conservative approach with potential CAMERA-Misplaced Pages connections. We also know, for instance, that in early 2007 Microsoft attempted to hire a blogger to edit a Misplaced Pages article. This does not mean Microsoft attempts to manipulate Misplaced Pages content at every article that relates to its business. Durova 16:49, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, I may be paranoid. But we've now seen a number of really long-standing cheats caught out, and in each case they seem to think they've both got, and should have, impunity (in general, but in particular to sock-puppet abusively). Furthermore, each of the ones I've noticed seem to have been treated in an almost excessively collegiate fashion by editors who, IMHO, are themselves genuine but should definitely have known better. I fear the same thing is happening here, very suspicious behavior is being AGF'd well beyond the point where it's reasonable to do so. PR 18:04, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

There have been many more organizations, including highly partisan ones, pushing the view that the boy was killed, than the view that he wasn't. We don't ignore either view just because one or another side is particularly enthusiastic about it. We just report what the reliable sources have said, on all sides. SlimVirgin 18:13, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Just so, in proportion to the prominence of each significant published viewpoint. -- ChrisO (talk) 18:30, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

No offense, but just why is this content issue being discussed in an ephemeral forum like WP:ANI. I move that the whole thread be relocated to the article's talk page. Kelly 18:58, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

I realize that was a rhetorical question, but the answer is that it is here because the administrator who started the section (not this subsection, which is a different issue) thought that this was a more effective place for him to troll for people who would agree with the POV that he is trying to push into the article. 6SJ7 (talk) 19:11, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

SUL offensive username problem

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Well, a check needs to be performed, but since we are able to determine the home wiki without a cross-project check, we'd not perform one, at least not at first, unless circumstances justify it. The ramification of that (yes, there is one) is that, if the Steward determines that the home wiki is one with local CheckUsers, elected or appointed locally, the Steward will be forced to defer the check to a local CheckUser, unless it is a clear emergency and a local CU cannot be reached expeditiously, or if the local CUs remain unresponsive after a reasonable (but short, in this case) period of time. All of this per Foundation policy regarding CheckUser. So far, there has been no innovation in policy to accomodate the innovations brought on by SUL, so Stewards will still have no choice but to ask the user reporting the problem to at least try to contact a local CheckUser first. We are only able to avoid that if we are "lucky" (if you can call it that) enought that the vandal happened to establish the home wiki in a project with no local CUs appointed.
Ok, the BEANS are all over the place now. We should give it a short while for people to be able to read this, since I suppose it is valuable information regarding how this works on the Foundation level, but then we will need to blank this, for obvious reasons. Redux (talk) 01:51, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Block evasion

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I am disappointed at the lack of substantive response. I need to know if it is appropriate for this user to edit these archives in the way documented. Thanks. Edison (talk) 04:16, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

User Myheartinchile

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

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

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

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

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

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

Myheartinchile again has accused Benjiboi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) having a "very serious POV issues since you are Chris Crocker" . Bidgee (talk) 04:08, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Personal attacks and incivility by suspected sock

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

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

No idea about the sock part, as to the personal attacks I don't see much of it, but then again, he is going on soliloquies in another language which is inappropriate and nonconstructive on the english wiki. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs 16:22, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

As for the sock part, his IP appears to finally be using a different IP after being banned several times, but everything else points to sockpuppetry.

1. Just like User:PIO, he can't speak English that well and frequently uses Italian when attempting to convey a complex thought. His grammar mistakes when he does use English are identical (I'll leave out all the examples at this time).
2. He edits the exact same articles as User:PIO (controversial Dalmatian articles, like Istrian exodus) ands his socks, and in the same manner.
3. His very first edit on Misplaced Pages was the restoration of a removed fact tag added by User:PIO and his socks.
4. User:PIO (i.e. his sock) stated that he has nothing to do with User:Luigi_28 when nobody even asked about him, mentioned him, or pointed him out to the sock.
5. He added PIO's disputed census data () to the controversial, but recently peaceful, Istrian exodus article within hours of the expiry of the semi-protection placed there against User:PIO's socks.

--DIREKTOR 16:47, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

As for sock part:

1. I speak a very bad English. I want to see my identical mistakes. Every single identical mistake!
   
2. My family comes from Losinj (Lussino). The family of my wife comes from Rijeka (Fiume). I read more than 300 books in four languages (Italian, French, English, German) about the Adriatic. This is my point of interest from more than 20 years. I want to see every words wrote by User:PIO and every words I wrote. I want to see the census data posted by User:PIO and the census data I posted.
   
3. I restored the fact, but I didn't knew the fact posted by User:PIO. However, the point need a source, because the voice stated that: Alleanza Nazionale has often claimed that Italy paid too much for her defeat in WWII, repeating that "Dalmatia was stolen to Italy". I'm Italian, and I've never read from Alleanza Nazionale that "Dalmatia was stolen to Italy"! If you have a single source (every kind of source!), I'll write a 2-pages letter of apology.
4. I wrote here about Istrian Exodus, but also Rijeka, Boscovich, Andrea Antico. If you want, I can send to you for every one word I wrote one, two or three sources (more books than links). I would like to see what is wrong in my words and in my sources!
   
5. I don't know why that PIO stated that he has nothing to do with me. I know that PIO wrote to me an e-mail regarding Misplaced Pages, in Italian, after the very first time you wrote that I was a sock. If you want, I can send to you this e-mail.
   

That's all.--Luigi 28 (talk) 17:06, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi all.
From my first message here in Misplaced Pages, I was accused to be a sockpuppet:

1. Here: User:AlasdairGreen27 wrote that I'm the banned User:PIO
   
2. Here: Alasdair insinuated that I'm the banned user Agazio/alias PIO: seem pretty conclusive to me that Agazio and Luigi 28 are one and the same
   
3. Here: Alasdair confirm that I'm PIO: I'm getting together an RFCU now
   
4. Here: Alasdair wrote that I'm the banned user PIO: they're indeed the same person
   
5. Here: User:DIREKTOR wrote that I'm the banned user PIO: they're the same person allright, the grammar mistakes are identical. When one listens to him long enough, one gets used to PIO's distinct "style" of expression. My God: I have the PIO's style of expression!
   
6. Here: DIREKTOR wrote that I'm the banned user PIO, and call me Venetian irredentist radical. Irredentist radical !!!
   
7. Here: ">DIREKTOR wrote: reverting unreferenced info added by banned User:PIO
   
8. Here: DIREKTOR reverted for the second time my contribute.
   
9. Here: DIREKTOR reverted my contribute for the third time, and wrote: you're banned from editing remember?
   
10. Here: DIREKTOR wrote that I was another guy, named PIO: What are we going to do about PIO? He's a real fanatic, this one. Please, note the word fanatic.
    
11. Here: User:AlasdairGreen27 is trying to insinuate that I'm that banned PIO
    
12. Here: DIREKTOR wrote that I'm the banned Pio: Yep, you're PIO alright
    
13. Here: DIREKTOR wrote that I'm the bannedo PIO
    
14. Here: Alasdair wrote another time that I'm PIO and others banned contributors.
    
15. Here: Alasdair insinuate that I'm PIO: If you click on the IP addresses, then at the user contributions screen click on WHOIS at the bottom left of the page, it tells us they are all the same and the others banned contributors.
    
16. Here: DIREKTOR wrote that I'm PIO: I know, you're Luigi. Your Misplaced Pages name was PIO, though...
    
17. Here: Alasdair insinuate that I'm another one: Yes, Luigi, you know who you are. Your problem is that everyone else also knows
    
18. Here: DIREKTOR insinuate that I'm that banned PIO
    
19. Here: DIREKTOR wrote that I'm PIO (hi PIO) and reverted my contribute without any explanation
    
20. Here: DIREKTOR reverted my contribute without any explanation
    
21. Here: DIREKTOR reverted my contribute without any explanation
    

About Antico: I think that the expert prof. Picker was in error, I read maybe five books and articles (in Italian, in German and in English) about Antico. The first who wrote that Antico was "of Croatian birth" was professor Lovro Zupanovic from Zagreb, in 1969. The "Muzika Enciklopedija" (Zagreb, 1971) mentions Zupanovic's claims (under the entry 'Antico') more as an oddity than an established fact. See also: Bojan Bujic, "Music & Letters", Oxford University Press, LVI (34), 441 (1975), p. 441. The voice Andrea Antico was changed after my discussions.

I'm not a sock. I'm sorry, but I speak a terrible English, and I'm sorry for the words "fool" or "crazy": but for DIREKTOR and Alasdair I was "guilty" of "sock" before every kind of judge!

Finally. Here: DIREKTOR wrote: if this guy isn't User:PIO I'll write a 2-page letter of apology.. You can make everything, but I want the "2-page letter of apology"!

Regards.--Luigi 28 (talk) 16:43, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I said User:PIO is a fanatic, what are you going to say about a guy who devises plots all the time just to edit an internet article? The real question is why does that bother you? You're not supposed to be PIO remember? ;) --DIREKTOR 16:52, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

• • I repeat: I don't know that PIO. I know that I'm not fanatic. That's all.
    
  • You wrote that I'm a banned guy many times. I was never banned in my life from mailing list, groups, clubs and so on. Please, remember this.
    
  • I'm not bother, except for you and Alisdair: you repeat more and more time that I'm a banned contributor: and sorry another time for my bad English.--Luigi 28 (talk) 17:13, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps this needs to be addressed at WP:SSP then? Wildthing61476 (talk) 16:55, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Oh it will, but he should not be allowed to insult Wikipedians and call them "insane" and "fools". Even more so when he uses Italian to do it and WP:SHOUTs all over the place. I just wanted to clarify my reasons for saying he's a sock. (Evidently he perceives that as a personal attack.) --DIREKTOR 17:02, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

• • Yes, for me is a personal attack, because you reverted me more than five time, only for this! But I repeat: I'm not a sock: that's a fact.--Luigi 28 (talk) 17:16, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Luigi, here you say that an edit by IP 151.70.75.185 was by you. In the same conversation you made a bit of a slip as to whether you were 151.67 or 151.70 . According to this , one of PIO's last known IPs was 151.67.85.112. Now, a WHOIS check reveals that 151.70.75.185 and 151.67.85.112 are identical, so you are, what, PIO's very close neighbour?. So, with the best will in the world I'll ask you to ease my doubts as to whether you are PIO or not. Because the heady brew of yelling , reverting , removal of references to Croatia and POV pushing in every edit is what makes me think that you just may be my old friend PIO wearing a false moustache and glasses. Some months apart, there's also a bit of an overlap, oddly enough, at User_talk:Angelo.romano between PIO here and you here . AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 18:49, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Dear , please, listen to me
I would like to write something in Misplaced Pages. I'm tired, because you and User:DIREKTOR think that I'm another user. I repeat for the last time: I'm not PIO, my name in Real Life is Luigi Vianelli. I live in Venice, you can read something about me in WWW, you can call me so you can hear my voice.
I'm a fanatic reader of books regarding the world, the history, the land of my grand-grand-grand-grandfather, my grand-grand-father, my grand-grandfather wich unfortunately was the Eastern part of the Adriatic Sea.
I wrote to User:Angelo.romano, because he is the FIRST admin in alphabetical order who speaks Italian. I don't want to read another time that I'm a person who I don't know. For me Misplaced Pages is a new world. If you want - i know that you speak also Italian - you can read my contributions in Italian Misplaced Pages. I started in the same days here and there!
I repeat: you can make every kind of check about me, my IP, my history here in Misplaced Pages, my history in real life and so on... I have nothing to hide. But for me all this story is in-cre-di-ble: one think that I'm another people, like in Hitchkock's movie! And you, like a little Sherlock Holmes, scan all the old messages in Misplaced Pages, to find the connections between me and YOUR phantoms! In-cre-di-ble!
You don't know nothing about me, but sixteen times you and User:DIREKTOR wrote that I'm that Pio or another one sockpuppet. Your friend wrote that I'm that PIO and that I'm fanatic, and reverted my contributions six times without any kind of explanation, except: "You are PIO"!
I'm the only one here that wrote his real name! Then, if after all my explanations you and the other guy want to pull out me and my possible contributions (please, read here and tell me if someone else here knows what I know: ) from Misplaced Pages, make your work, but I know if I'm that PIO or don't! I repeat: for me all this story is in-cre-di-ble!--Luigi 28 (talk) 19:19, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Direktor -- I recommend you file a report at WP:SSP if you are convinced this is a sock. Then Luigi doesn't have to defend himself and you don't have to accuse him, because the truth will be there for all to see. --Jaysweet (talk) 19:27, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm ready and very happy to check my messages and my IP with ALL the possible methods, incluse the checkuser. But when "mr Misplaced Pages" will find that I'm not a sockpuppet, I want the 2-page letter of apology from User:DIREKTOR. Remember: no 1-page, but 2-page... and I prefer the hand-made letters!--Luigi 28 (talk) 20:42, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Few minutes ago, the latest provocation from User:DIREKTOR here: . He wrote another time that I'm the banned user PIO: I'm sorry I doubted your word, PIO--Luigi 28 (talk) 23:25, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Minor Image Issue

I hope I'm posting this in the right place. I like to browse for Google Earth images from time to time and tag them for deletion as most are replaceable. Anyways, I ran into some Panoramio images and I tagged them, but honsetly, I'm not sure if the person who uploaded them is actually the source. The three I tagged are: Image:Johnsons beach east view.jpg, Image:Johnson Beach west view.jpg, and Image:Langley Point.jpg. The copyright tags said he was the copyright holder and he released it, but the image description said they were on Google Earth and Panoramio. What should I do? -- VegitaU (talk) 17:28, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

The user is fairly active. You should leave him a message explaining the confusion and ask him to clarify. You should probably direct him here also. --Selket 17:35, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Alrighty, I've done so. -- VegitaU (talk) 17:42, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

All images using Google Earth and Panoramio are copyrighted, and cannot be tagged as a freely licensed image screenshot. — Moe ε 19:47, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Removal of sourced content / edit warring by User:RedSpruce

User:RedSpruce has claimed WP:OWNership of a series of articles related to McCarthyism and has been involved in extensive edit warring, removing sourced content that has been added to a series of articles, most notably G. David Schine, Elizabeth Bentley‎ and William Remington. In all three of these particular cases, RedSpruce has arbitrarily removed content added by other editors. The pattern is that other editors, including myself have added content and sources, and then RedSpruce has removed it. While it takes at least two to edit war, the pattern here is that of an arsonist who sets new fires after the firefighters have put out the previous one and built a new building in its place; the arsonist then blames the firefighters for causing the problem. This can be best seen by User:RedSpruce's recent edits over this past week, a total of nearly one dozen edits, every single one of which has removed sourced content: June 1st) this diff of William Remington‎ (rm repetitious & unnecessary footnote quotes); June 2nd) this diff of G. David Schine‎ (rv); this diff of Elizabeth Bentley‎ (with the classic edit summary of "rv for the usual reasons..."); June 3rd) this diff of William Remington, removing sourced content without bothering to provide an explanation; this diff of Elizabeth Bentley‎ (with an edit summary falsely justifying the removal of content as "rv per RFC (and everyone else)".); this diff of William Remington‎ (again, based on a false claim of "RV per RFC and general consensus"); June 4) this diff of William Remington‎ (again, falsely claiming "RV, per RFC and general consensus"); this diff of G. David Schine‎ (with an edit summary of "RV per general consensus. Editors can look at the history and the discussion if they want to see what the issue is" after deleting content uder discussion at RfC). On June 5, User:RedSpruce swept through all three articles -- Remington, Bentley andf Shine -- again deleting sourced content without explanation or justification, a continuation of the WP:OWNership rights improperly arrogated over these articles. In the span of this one week, dozens of edits adding sources and sourced content to these three articles has been removed by User:RedSpruce. In no case has RedSpruce indicated why this content violates Misplaced Pages policy nor has he added content or sources to any of these articles. I and other editors have shown a sincere interest in improving these articles; User:RedSpruce has shown a persistent objective with interfering with any effort to change these articles from what he has decided is appropriate. Administrative intervention to address these issues is sorely needed. Alansohn (talk) 18:02, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

• I have informed the user about this thread. Black Kite 18:19, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
  • According to this and this, this is not the first time he has been accused of McCarthyism ownership. Paragon12321 (talk) 18:33, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

We should put him in front of a committee and ask him, Are you now, or have you ever been, a tedentious editor? --Jaysweet (talk) 18:36, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

How about a OTRS affidavit? Seriously though, this is a repeat offender, and he should probably be blocked. Paragon12321 (talk) 18:49, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

• Comment: I am a regular RfC commenter who has come across disputes between these two (Richard Arthur Norton and RedSpruce) at least six times. Through those RfCs (spanning at least three months or more), I believe I have a thorough understanding of the nature of these perpetual incidents. For the purpose of full disclosure, I only skimmed the complaint above; it alludes to the problems, but misses some of the greater fundamental issues. Someone involved (I believe Alansohn, a recent participant in the disputes) alerted me to the discussion, and invited me to comment. There are three main relevant elements to these disputes (A) The issue. Richard Arthur Norton (heretofore referred to as RAN for the sake of brevity) has the custom of adding multiple references for virtually incontestable facts (eg. someone's name). RAN also has the custom of including in almost all of his citations the text of the actually-referenced part from the source. This latter practice in particular (while occasionally appropriate) is not Misplaced Pages policy, has some copyright issues, is very bulky to the articles, has been rebutted in numerous RfCs and a discussion at citing sources. But he continues to do so. (B) Incivility. Both parties have handled the dispute in highly uncivil ways. RAN largely just reverts or adds without comment until it escalates into a revert war, RfC or worse. But, RedSpruce is often flat out aggressive, and sometimes stoops to name-calling, presumption of bad-faith and other unproductive behavior; he is also generally the initiator of the RfCs, which in itself not a problem, but the discussions there are often inflammatory with little progress beyond the current article, only to take the battle to a new article. (C) Ownership. I would say that in my personal experience (I can't speak for other incidents outside of these RfCs) that RedSpruce has not shown ownership of articles. Both parties have a primary interest in McCarthy related topics, and despite my pleas for them to play in separate sandboxes, they continue to antagonize each other. Additionally, mine and others comments at RfCs are often mixed (some for RAN some for RedSpruce) and RedSpruce tends to implement any suggestions whether they are in his or RAN's favor. But, the conflicts always resume in a new article. While I generally feel like RAN has made up his own citation policy the lack of humility on both sides, and general condescension on RedSpruce's part, have brought this situationto the impasse we see now. Over the course of the debates, others have become involved, like Alansohn (who uses similar citation methods as RAN), but these are the most fundamental issues.--Esprit15d • talk • contribs 19:08, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
  • I would suggest that anyone contemplating administrative action take a look at Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Footnoted quotes, which deals with these editors and some of these issues. It's about to close with findings and remedies that may be relevant here. MastCell  19:28, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

• Comment on contested name adding multiple references to a contested name is not being stubborn, its good research. I made the discovery that there are two versions of her name here, RedSpruce then dismissed it as a typo here. Then after I complained to Arbcom, he reinserted his own reference, and left mine deleted here a few days later. Having both references to her multiple spellings of her name is good research. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 22:59, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
• Comment on RedSpruce showing ownership Here is a good summary of RedSpruce deleting referenced material from articles including removing dates of birth and death, siblings names, parents names, and wikified links. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 23:31, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
• Comment on RAN largely just reverts or adds without comment I think after the 5th deletion of the same material, the comments on the talk page, don't need to be written again. The issue hasn't changed, and retyping them again is not going to change the situation, anyone can read the first, second, or third time I wrote the same thing. Some of the material has been deleted and restored 6 times. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 15:11, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
• Comment on incivilities Here is a good summary of the incivilities in a previous ANI RedSpruce brought against me after calling me a "moron" --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 23:13, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

• • Misplaced Pages:Ownership of articles defines the issue as "Some contributors feel very possessive about material ... that they have contributed to this project. Some go so far as to defend them against all others. It is one thing to take an interest in an article that you maintain on your watchlist. Maybe you really are an expert or you just care about the topic. But if this watchfulness starts to become possessiveness, then you may be overdoing it." User:RedSpruce has made a dozen reverts to these articles to remove content and sources he disagrees with. He has done the same on no fewer than 80-100 other occasions to these three articles and to other related articles. If User:RedSpruce's hundreds of reverts are not violations of WP:OWN, I don't know what is. Alansohn (talk) 20:08, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

make it stop, please

it keeps removing sound clips from the page im editing. it isnt even in article space, it removed the photos too. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ritzbitz00 (talk • contribs) 19:18, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

What did? - DiligentTerrier (and friends) 19:19, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I did a little checking, so let me try to rephrase Ritzbitz00's complaint so other's can understand it:

Ritzbitz is working on a draft article in userspace: User:Ritzbitz00/Maximum Bob (singer) (Not sure if this would pass WP:Notability, but let's remain agnostic about that for now, shall we?) He is adding non-free images and sound clips to the draft article (again, remaining agnostic for now as to whether the NFCC justification is valid or not). BJBot is removing them since non-free content is prohibited outside of article space -- BJBot does not realize this is a draft article.

Not sure what the policy is here...? --Jaysweet (talk) 19:23, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

It looks like this article was previously deleted here and endorsed at deletion review. However, judging by the discussions the problem was lack of content which appears to be fixed now. I suggest moving the article to mainspace and allowing Ritzbitz to continue working on it. BradV 19:35, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

The policy is to make the images links rather than inline: ] instead of ]. When the draft is moved to mainspace, convert them back to inline images. --Carnildo (talk) 19:45, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I had userfied this after a DRV and unless there are some sources it needs to be deleted again and am in contact with rizbtitz for this part. I advised him generically on fair use, and that the sound clips can't substitute for references. As far as i see licensing info is incorrect. If it can be fixed they might be usable in the Deli Creeps article, but I am not much into sound and images. --Tikiwont (talk) 19:51, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Is it correct to use a FUR to temporally "save" the sound sample until the draft is restored to mainspace? See my test addition of a userspace FUR. Or it's better to just delete it in order to disincentive non-free content, and let him re-upload the sample when he finds an article for it? --Enric Naval (talk) 19:00, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

When drafting or storing an article in user space, one can use nowiki like this: <nowiki>whatever should not be in user space, like categories</nowiki>. WAS 4.250 (talk) 21:54, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

User:Fuzzmetlacker

Self-styled vandal running amock. Can someone block this guy and undo the damage? Baseball Bugs 19:31, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Already blocked and being reverted. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 19:32, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I think a bunch of us all crapped our pants at once at that one, ha hah a... this is the first time I have ever reported a user to AIV without issuing a single warning! --Jaysweet (talk) 19:34, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. When the guy announces he's seeking revenge of some kind, a warning is not likely to be heeded. As for the bizarre re-routing of various users' pages to something about a "skater girl"... well, if it's Katarina Witt, sign me up. :) Baseball Bugs 19:37, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

It's an Avril Lavigne reference. A favourite of a certain group of trolls and vandals. See User:Ziggy_Sawdust/Avril for example. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 19:43, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Does anyone know he did that? (the simultaneous actions) . Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 19:36, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Took the liberty of correcting your statement. Baseball Bugs 19:37, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Opening a bunch of tabs and clicking in rapid succession? It's still supposed to be restricted to 6 a minute, I thought. Enigma 19:37, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

It absolutely was not through clicking, no way no how. He was doing page moves at a rate of 50-100 per second!

Perhaps by some oversight in the software, page moves don't have the 6-edits-per-minute limit? Or something like that? Even still, getting Misplaced Pages to even respond to you that fast is quite a trick... --Jaysweet (talk) 19:40, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

The latter half of this discussion on the village pump is relevant. —Cryptic 19:42, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

I'm sorry, 50-100 page moves per minute. Still, I doubt it was via a click, he must have done this with a script. --Jaysweet (talk) 19:43, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

rev:33565. —Wknight94 (talk) 20:41, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

AV-THE-3RD (talk · contribs)

May need an instant block. SWik78 (talk • contribs) 19:55, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

This is another sock of User:Fuzzmetlacker. A CheckUser is urgently needed to apply an appropriate rangeblock. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 19:59, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Hes gotta be running a bot. Made over 50 pages moves in a minute or so. Chrislk02 20:10, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

rev:33565. —Wknight94 (talk) 20:38, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Strange page moves

Has anyone else noticed:

• (Move log); 19:54 . . AV-THE-3RD (Talk | contribs) moved User talk:The Transhumanist/Workshop2 to User talk:The Transhumanist loves the skater girl/Workshop2 (punishing[REDACTED] for its anti-Avril hate campaign)
• (Move log); 19:54 . . AV-THE-3RD (Talk | contribs) moved User talk:The Transhumanist/Archive 11 to User talk:The Transhumanist loves the skater girl/Archive 11 (punishing[REDACTED] for its anti-Avril hate campaign)
• (Move log); 19:54 . . AV-THE-3RD (Talk | contribs) moved User talk:The Transhumanist/Archive 12 to User talk:The Transhumanist loves the skater girl/Archive 12 (punishing[REDACTED] for its anti-Avril hate campaign)
• (Move log); 19:54 . . AV-THE-3RD (Talk | contribs) moved User talk:The Transhumanist/Archive 13 to User talk:The Transhumanist loves the skater girl/Archive 13 (punishing[REDACTED] for its anti-Avril hate campaign)
• (Move log); 19:54 . . AV-THE-3RD (Talk | contribs) moved User talk:The Transhumanist/Archive 10 to User talk:The Transhumanist loves the skater girl/Archive 10 (punishing[REDACTED] for its anti-Avril hate campaign)

Something does not seem right there. The editor who made the moves seems to have been blocked per User talk:AV-THE-3RD, but I am not sure if regular users like myself should revert the moves or if that's something admins do? Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles 20:11, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

It's being reverted, and investigated -- hopefully sooner rather than later. This is the second time in the last half hour this guy has struck. Both accounts were indef blocked immediately, but it leaves a big mess and I would not be surprised if he did it again if it is not dealt with in a more permanent manner soon. --Jaysweet (talk) 20:14, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, please feel free to move it back over the redirect and tag the remnant with G3 or R3, whatever tickles your fancy. xenocidic (talk) 20:16, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

For the record, the other user was User:Fuzzmetlacker. Probably sock... Tan | 39 20:16, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

They seem to have been moved back now. Thanks for the replies! Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles 20:28, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I believe this is all from the new recursive page move capability. I haven't tried it myself but this guy apparently has! Great for vandals. —Wknight94 (talk) 20:35, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

rev:35065 rev:33565 for anyone that is interested. —Wknight94 (talk) 20:37, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I would think this should be something that is conditionally enabled for users, like Rollback. I can't think of any legitimate reason for a non-established editor to do a recursive page move.. --Jaysweet (talk) 20:38, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't see why a brand-new user would need to do page moves. Baseball Bugs 20:39, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

They're autoconfirmed sleeper socks. xenocidic (talk) 20:41, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I was going to say that it should need to be explicit enabled, but reading the rev provided by Wknight, I see why this would be undesirable, at least for some projects.

Uh, hey, maybe we should WP:DENY and cease discussing this until the user in question stops? Although I suppose he'll eventually run out of sleepers too, right? --Jaysweet (talk) 20:44, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

(I'm not an admin)Wow. When I log onto my watchlist I see this mess. Twenty-four of my pages were moved. Perhaps the user did this with a check that does both the talkpages and the subpages? Well, I would like to thank Wknight94, Shanel, Hu12, PeterSymonds, NawlinWiki, Chemistrygeek, Tiptoey, Keeper76, and Xenocidic in helping with the cleanup efforts. Or, should I not be posting this due to DENY? Can't we just autoblock this user? I think this "skater girl" stuff has to do with our blocking of the Avril Lavine trolls. DENY! Thanks. ~AH1 20:50, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

He's back

Matt the barber (talk · contribs)—get him quick. Deor (talk) 20:40, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

He's already blocked. Thanks. xenocidic (talk) 20:42, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

blocked, all reverted. Sigh. Next? Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 20:43, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm guessing retaliation for the above thread, thanks Deor and Keeper76 for spotting and taking care of it. How could he have moved the pages so fast though? I type over a hundred words a minute, but still... Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles 21:12, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

rev:33565. —Wknight94 (talk) 21:13, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Hm. Apparently the move capability allows you to move after having performed any ten edits. Shouldn't that throttle be limited to article space edits? Letting these sleepers just mess around with their user space for ten edits before they start mass moving seems like it doesn't really serve any purpose. Corvus cornix_talk 21:17, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I believe the recursive move was mostly put in place to help crats do user renames (and catch all the archive pages in one shot) but no one else should really need this capability IMHO. —Wknight94 (talk) 21:22, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Has a checkuser been done on these accounts yet to 1) confirm that they are the same editor and 2) see if it is more extensive than we think? Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles 21:24, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

See Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_checkuser/IP_check/Archive#Avril_Vandals. Apparently, the vandal or vandals have been using TOR nodes, and some of the underlying IPs are dynamic. Admins have been playing whack-a-mole with these accounts for weeks now. Deor (talk) 21:33, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

See also Misplaced Pages:Requests for checkuser/IP check#Avril Lavigne pagemove vandals. Regards, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles 21:47, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi. Couldn't the mass move be useful for mass reverting of vandalism? I think moving pages should be limited until an admin changes the user's rights and gives mass-move privilages. Or maybe a useful tool for admins in combating pagemove vandalism should be a button that says ]. Thanks. ~AH1 21:27, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree, there must be some way to make reverting page move vandalism easier than it is right now. Maybe some way to simply rollback the page move, opposed to having to do it by hand? (Or is there already a tool that does this?). Tiptoety 22:13, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Do just the opposite - revert the move of the "root" page (should be their first move) and tick "move subpages" yourself too. After that, it's only redirects to clean up. Миша13 22:54, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I started a new thread at WP:VPT#Recursive page moves (rev:33565) is a great tool for vandals regarding this subject. —Wknight94 (talk) 01:17, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

IP editor removing rational skepticism templates

I raised this at the Fringe notice board and it was suggested I take this here. Take a look at the edits: including an NPOV warning on ScienceApologists page. He's not a newbie, that's for sure, and I'm not sure what to make of these template removals (which he somments on at User talk:ScienceApologist. Thanks. Doug Weller (talk) 19:46, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Someone's blocked him for a year now, no problem. Doug Weller (talk) 20:35, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Request confirmation of MascotGuy sock block

I just blocked a likely MascotGuy sock, but found some edits that actually corrected wrong things in the editors contrib logs. Could someone more familiar please take a look? See Special:Contributions/Techtonic's_Techno_Metro-Funk_5000 and Misplaced Pages:Long term abuse/MascotGuy. I have to go offline, so I other admins are requested to take whatever action they deem necessary.--chaser - t 20:02, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

User:Techtonic's Techno Metro-Funk 5000

Yet another MascotGuy sock leaving more destruction in his wake. I don't have rollback privileges, so I'd like to bring him to the attention of someone who does. I've reverted a couple, but he was just too active. It'll take me an hour to set things right without the rollback and I don't have that time right now. Thanks. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 20:04, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I've reverted a few, but he's left a huge amount of edits and I can't delete the redirects. That's what I get for giving up the mop and bucket, I suppose. Gotta get back to the real job. Thanks for the help.  :) --PMDrive1061 (talk) 20:35, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Long-term sneaky vandalism by IP

Could someone keep an eye on 67.163.21.228 (talk · contribs). O'ver a long period of time, this IP has been sneakily introducing deliberate factual errors. Diffs: , , . The error on the article about Gerald Ford has been there for quite some time. The only reason I noticed is because the vandal hit the Frazier Thomas article and I took the time to look through his edit log. Nobody of Consequence (talk) 20:33, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Blocked. EdJohnston (talk) 20:59, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

User:170.94.143.231

170.94.143.231 (talk · contribs) is editing from an IP which resolves to the state of Arkansas. The user was inserting intentionally false information into the Arkansas article. I've rolled back, but just a heads up that this could be a sensitive editor. Corvus cornix_talk 21:14, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, the IP appears partly right. Many web sites support this IP editor's claim that that Orval Faubus met with Eisenhower in Newport, RI, which is where Eisenhower was vacationing at at the time. (Google for 'Eisenhower Faubus Newport'). The meeting took place on 14 September, 1957. Our article currently states that Eisenhower tried three times to communicate with Faubus but (by implication) couldn't get through. So the IP was trying to correct a factual error in the article. The IP is presumably wrong when claiming that the citizens of the state voted to close the school. EdJohnston (talk) 02:14, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

William Melmoth

An editor who has previously displayed serious WP:OWN problems with the above article has recently reverted sourced material from the article. He has repeatedly reverted assessments of the articles, by three separate editors, myself included, as can be seen on the talk page. He has also, as indicated, reverted souced additions to the article. I regret to say that I have no reason to believe that this tendency toward WP:OWN problems this editor has regarding this material are likely to be addresed without formal warnings. John Carter (talk) 21:31, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Diffs? Which editor? Hard to tell from page history, although I admit I only did a cursory look...Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 21:37, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

He's talking about Geogre, who reverted John Carter's apparently plagiarized version of the article. There is only a single source for this article about an obscure 18th century religious pamphleteer. The dispute is about whether or not the article, because of the paucity of source material, should be assessed as "Start" or "B" class, and what the value of assessment is when the assessor knows little about the subject and instead is looking for things like subheadings and infoboxes and images. Risker (talk) 21:45, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I would dispute the term plagarized; I saw the edit summary myself, and, honestly, it is mistaken. Regretably, Geogre has repeatedly had a history of reverting assessments, such that twice to receive comments on the Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Christianity page. I added much of the material which he had earlier deemed not worthy of inclusion from the article, only to have it reverted on the basis of the, I believe, scurrilous charge of plagarism. I would be willing to have anyone investigate whether the charges are accurate. To date, for several months, he has regularly insisted that he have ownership of the article. I think he needs to have some outsider perhaps inform him that policy does not permit that. John Carter (talk) 21:49, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, it would seem to me that this is either a general content dispute, in which case dispute resolution is down the hall and to the right, or it is a copyright issue, in which case it should be at Misplaced Pages:Copyright problems. Risker (talk) 21:58, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

If that editor wants to raise copyright issues, I wouldn't object. It is however the editor's absolute insistence that his view of the article, including it having only the text he permits and having any assessment of the article be one that agrees with him, when in fact both of the other editors who assessed it have to date called for someone else to support it, which is I believe a serious indication that this editor has very problematic WP:OWN issues with the article. John Carter (talk) 22:02, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

User:Geogre highly experienced user, certainly well aware of our better-known policies. Ownership accusation against him scurrilous in itself. Unless WikiProject Christianity perhaps own article? bishzilla _ROARR!! 22:03, 6 June 2008 (UTC).

He may well be, and, no I don't think the project owns the article, although it is the only one which has shown the slightest interest in it. He has also, as per the article talk page, regularly insisted on adjusting assessments on his own say-so, apparently often not even bothering to inform anyone that he had done so. And there is a difference between being aware of policies and thinking they apply to oneself. John Carter (talk) 22:09, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

And there is difference between "sourced material" and "relevant material". Also between unreasonable block threats and responsible discussion. bishzilla _ROARR!! 22:22, 6 June 2008 (UTC).

All the material added, and since removed, was directly relevant to the life of the subject, or at, best, his family, like indicating how his wives happened to get some money he liked having. In fact, prior to a short power surge, I had started a separate article for the book itself, moving the bulk of the content there, only to have the power failure kick in a few seconds before I was going to save. John Carter (talk) 22:33, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

• Few questions, John. When you added information using the DNB as a source, did you substantially reproduce its content? Is the article, prior to your edits, a substantial reproduction of the DNB entry? Do you think its a generally a good idea (or helpful for collaborative editing) to mark an experienced, longtime contributors removal of a template as vandalism and evidence of a COI in your reverting edit summary? Mountain out of a molehill, I think, in this case. Find more references, if there are any, and in the mean time use the talkpage to post your argument about why your additions are not violating the O-DNB copyright. Avruch * 22:14, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Ansers: The content was pretty much relevant, although I did remove the content about the book, as per the above. The article as it has since been reverted omits some information from the DNB book, but the content it does have is clearly all from that source. When an editor who has a history of unilateral reversions, such as this one acknowledges, and rather arrogant reversions at that, does so, and I regret I didn't check his history at the time, reverts, yeah, particularly when it is on such small basis, I tend to think that there is a big ego there. I honestly thought he was newer, as his page at the time didn't indicate any real experience. I also noted that Tinucherian indicated that Geogre was an admin when he first requested the reassessment here, and George apparently isn't, which lead to think that Geogre had lied somewhere about being an admin for some reason. That was an additional cause for concern. Also, for what little it might be worth, one of the bases I try to use for selecting DYKs for the various portals is whether the article in question is the assessment of the article, trying to choose the better ones, so, in that sense, the assessment can be important. John Carter (talk) 22:33, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Geogre most certainly is an administrator and has been for some time. Otherwise, he wouldn't be helping out with the deletion backlog today. Do check his logs, or check the WP:List of Administrators before making such an allegation, please. Risker (talk) 22:38, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

John, take deep breath, drink cold water. Geogre admin since 2004, and Geogre page indicate truckloads of experience. "lead to think that Geogre had lied somewhere about being an admin for some reason"... sheesh. Good job you not talking with people who issue block threats for personal attacks. Time to back-pedal, hard. Get some sleep or something. bishzilla _ROARR!! 22:45, 6 June 2008 (UTC).

For what it's worth, I said when I ran that I wouldn't be blocking, just doing banners. and I think at the time of Tinucherian's request I did check the log, which I have known about for some time, having given a few rollbacks, and for whatever reason either mistyped or whatever, but the name did not appear with an admin flag. And, like I said, the book by his son, who also is in the DNB, had his last book be a biography of his father, so it is generally available. But, like I've said before, the temper does get a bit heated, particularly when dealing with what strikes me as, dare I say, arrogant, undiscussed, and unilateral behavior, particularly when it is in disagreement with several others as well. Also, I just saw that at least one book of Christian "masterplots" type works also includes a bio of the subject. John Carter (talk) 22:52, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Summarizing your posts here and those on Geogre's page, I hardly think your RFA would have succeeded under any conditions if you had behaved like this before it. If I were you, I'd stop going on about the other person and give a full and frank apology, it's high time. bishzilla _ROARR!! 23:28, 6 June 2008 (UTC).

This is a content dispute. On my talk page, John Carter tells us that he has rated 40,000 articles, and "many of them" are biographies. I can only assume that I am the first person to have ever had the gall and temerity to disagree with a rating. I have read their guidelines, and the article doesn't fit "start class." It simply doesn't.

I don't care if it has an assessment. I don't believe that assessments do any good whatever, but I am capable of reading, and, if it must have one, it simply isn't a "start class" article. How do I know? Well, aside from spending my entire life studying the period and nation involved and doing the primary research on the fellow in the first place and writing the article (more to flesh out the many red links found in the ____ in literature articles than any abiding interest), I did additional research.

Additionally, John Carter has asserted that it is the duty of an encyclopedia to repeat whatever is found in outside sources, but in a legally protected manner. That's a different issue, but one I feel strongly about. Misplaced Pages is not "legally skeevy duplication of the web." It's an encyclopedia, and that means having a thesis, inclusion and exclusion criteria, and economy of expression.

This is a silly content dispute, but it shows absolute rage and campaigning irrationally by John Carter. If he has assessed 40,000 articles without anyone ever disagreeing, then he should continue to pat himself on the back. If they have disagreed, though, I worry that he may have used his admin status to buffalo them. I'm not very easily cowed, myself. Geogre (talk) 18:25, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Long-term issue

Would someone please check the contributions, the warning list and the block log of User:Danieljuravsky? This user continually creates redlinks in Barney-related articles, despite a near-infinity of warnings and several lengthy blocks for exactly that. He's been more-than-thoroughly warned, and he's just crafty enough to wait til one final warning is "stale" before doing it again. This is deliberate disruptive behavior--there's no way to construe it otherwise, even with the most liberal applications of good faith--and there's no reason whatsoever for this user to still be here, as literally every single solitary one of his edits is Barney-related. Can we please put him out of our misery? Thank you... Gladys J Cortez 22:37, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

User:81.103.27.204

81.103.27.204 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log): troll, vandalising under a large number of usernames, including Glass my anus, Huggy hezz, Susanlee57, The Last Project, The Apple Scruffs, The down & outs, Gregscruff, Thom's fundament, Bobby winslow, Johnny Scruff Hates Other Glasgow Bands, Glasanus, The Ronelles rock on!, Johnnyscruffrocks, Johnnyscruff, Efdjsfjseki, You Say You're A Layman and Tim Roth47. Subjects of vandalisms often include references to Sidney Cooke, the Anus, Kurt Cobain, and Jimi Hendrix. Thom (talk) 22:38, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I have indef'd the few remaining non blocked accounts, but review of the ip given does not show any related vandalism. Given that the last edits by the ip are early May I am inclined not to action any sanctions on this account. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:46, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Ivo Andrić

We are having vandalism in article so... I have seen many nationalistic genius but this is my absolute winner. Suspected puppet of banned user Velebit (user:71.252.83.33) has deleted statement confirmed with 5 NPOV internet links that parents of nobel winner Ivo Andrić has been Croats and changed with statement that his parents has been Serbs . "Sources" of his statement are obscure book and internet link which is not saying nationality of his parents. It is important to notice that 1 of deleted links which this user has deleted is New York Times !

I know that somebody of administrators will think that this is not vandalism but editorial dispute, but after that we are having genius moment of this user:Velebit puppet. He is demanding that picture "Ivo Andric declaring himself as Croat" is deleted from[REDACTED] because of Copyright violation  ! Can somebody explain me how is possible to first delete statement confirmed by many sources because they are "false or bad" and then demand deletion of "wikipedia" document which is supporting "bad" sources with claim of copyright violation.

Earlier today he has been warned on his talk page of possible block because of his earlier vandalism in this article so I will now ask for that block and possible page protection.

Can somebody please finish Misplaced Pages:Requests for checkuser/Case/J. A. Comment so that this nightmare can end. Thanks --Rjecina (talk) 00:28, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

On[REDACTED] commons user:71.252.83.33 has confirmed that this picture In which Ivo Andrić is declaring to be of Croat nationality is authentic document so we can now close discussion if he is vandal or not when he is declaring other things on[REDACTED] --Rjecina (talk) 01:12, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

The case Misplaced Pages:Requests for checkuser/Case/J. A. Comment is confusing and the evidence is hard to follow. If you want admins to take action on this a better story is desirable. You could well be right, but the case seems to demand either total confidence in your statements, or a great deal of new research. EdJohnston (talk) 04:50, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

About checkuser case I will this tuesday (or maybe little sooner) ask administrators which has earlier worked in case user:Velebit and user:Standshown because they know situation. Now I am going on small wiki break but hardest evidence is 1 earlier block of IP from this range. Look this --Rjecina (talk) 05:07, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Comment See my explanation of the Ivo Andric article changes here . I provided three biographical notes written by people of formidable academic background and who are world-renown personnae - who were close Andric's friends and whose biographical notes were known and approved by very Andric. Contrary to that, Rjecina gathers some Internet links which are written by anonymous people, which are not primary sources of information nor they (authors) gave any information what their primary sources are. This person Rjecina is interested only in chasing away as many people as possible - in order to impose his/her point of view i.e. gain the right to censor other people contributions.

From the case Misplaced Pages:Requests for checkuser/Case/J. A. Comment I'd like to highlight this warning against a campaign of harassment conducted by Rjecina - written by Fut.Perf.:

• Also, his harassment of other users is already noticed by an administrator and proper warning is given here , which reads:

• You, however, Rjecina, are very clearly engaging in a campaign of harassment in order to get as many opposing editors blocked as possible. You're apparently even keeping a list of trophies (). I'll wait for comments from others here, but I'm seriously considering handing out some fresh sanction under WP:ARBMAC against you at this point. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:03, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

--71.252.83.33 (talk) 20:04, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Seemingly legit article by a prolific vandal

I am in a real quandry. A new article titled Random House Home Video is a legit-looking, well-formed stub article. Problem: It was created by hard-banned user User:MascotGuy, perhaps the most prolific (and clueless) vandal in the history of this site. I've tagged it for speedy deletion since it was created by a hard-banned user, but it's actually useful. I would never otherwise have tagged such an article for speedy deletion. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 03:13, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

IMHO, articles are judged by their content, not their creators'. --Selket 04:11, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Usually, but not always. According to WP:CSD#G5, articles created by banned users (or socks of banned users, for that matter) in violation of their ban may be tagged with {{db-g5}}. Of course, articles that meet the criteria do not need to be speedily deleted, but in some cases it is necessary that they are. --Mizu onna sango15/水女珊瑚15 04:24, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Comment on content, not contributors. --Doctor Bojangles (talk) 04:51, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm very tempted to overrule the keep of this article. MascotGuy is banned largely for introducing misinformation, no? Random House Home Video is not a company (it's just part of Random House), there is no source given that it was established in 1976, saying it is "best-known" for animated videos is unsourced and WP:WEASELy, the link given doesn't support that Random House Home Video released the Arthur TV series... This is classic MascotGuy and a nice example of why he's banned. He can't be trusted. —Wknight94 (talk) 04:56, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

I was about to delete it, I don't trust it at all, that's why content by banned users can be deleted on sight. Gwen Gale (talk) 05:01, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, please do. —Wknight94 (talk) 05:04, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you all so much. Reverting those edits without rollback privileges took a long time, but it was worth it. A well-meaning user took the speedy notices off of a couple of his redirects. I put the G5 back on and with all due respect to the user in question. I simply feel that evn a plausible or positive contribution by this guy isn't enough to offset the damage he's done and the waste of time editors have had to endure. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 06:18, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Paleocon

Paleocon (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) Anti-semitic diatribe on Craigslist talk page after history of blocks, racist comments, trolling, etc. Does not seem to have ever contributed constructively to encyclopedia. Thanks, Wikidemo (talk) 04:10, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

user vandalizing article by removing an image from it

Hello. On the Blond article I added an image of a blonde haired South American baby to show that blondism occurs among them also. However, a vandal user:Rewinn keeps removing it immediately after I added it for no good reason. I keep reverting his vandalism but he reverts it again and edit wars and does not listen to warnings to stop his vandalism. He also tries to scare me off since he knows I'm a new editor with his edit summaries. Really, he is removing the image for no apparent reason. Can an administrator please send a warning to him so he understands? Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by CanuckAnthropologist (talk • contribs) 05:29, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

My vote would have been to block CanuckAnthropologist considerably longer for WP:POINT. --Selket 05:48, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

(Multiple EC's)A review of the history shows that CanuckAnthropologist seems to be opposed to the inclusion of an image which shows a non-'white' person with naturally occuring blond hair. After numerous reversion of his removal of the image, which was in opposition to consensus demonstrated on the page via a poll (a separate issue), he tried adding a second image. His comments show a temper tantrum and POINTy editing. Rewinn has been reverting his tantrum. Canuck was clearly and repeatedly warned on the talk page, and at this point, ought to recieve a block to prevent him from continuing his reversion warring. ThuranX (talk) 05:51, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Althought it took numerous Edit conflicts to get this up, I nwo want to respond. I don't think that block is fair. Look at the talk page, and the page edit history. It's clear that Rewinn's reverts were against vandalism, not content. POINTy vandalism is vandalism. There was consensus against CA's edits, and had Rewinn not reverted, the talk page makes clear that it would've inevitably been reverted by others, prolonging CA's side of this edit war conflict. As such, a block against Rewinn is inappropriate. At best, a warnign reminding him to use AIV, 3RR, or AN/I is sufficient. Further, the extensive point and revert history by CA warrants longer blocking. ThuranX (talk) 05:54, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

I didn't block to punish past behaviour, I gave them both short blocks to stop an edit war which they both stirred up between themselves. Consensus will sort out the content. Gwen Gale (talk) 06:10, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

So, you didn't bother to read the talk page for the article, where consensus was clearly, and long established? The only fault rewinn has in this is not finding an admin sooner. I suggest you reexamine this block, because it's a cop=out to say 'i gave them both jail time because they were both fighting in the street', and ignoring that one was a mugger and the other a victim. Context matters in such situations. There was consensus for inclusion of the one image, and when CA couldn't get it taken out, he went to the alternate tactic of adding more and more. It's vandalism, plain and simple. 3RR doesn't apply to obvious vandalism opposed by multiple editors, and which goes against consensus. And when a content dispute is resolved by all involved except one agitator who persists, then all that agitator is doing is vandalizing. That's CA's part. Rewinn stood up against it, with consensus established backing him up,and now he's been blocked for that. Hardly the best way to keep good editors here, and it rewards CA, who now gets to gloat that he took another editor down with him. ThuranX (talk) 06:26, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

I've done the samething in the past on what Rewinn did which was to revert on what the consensus supported but what did I get? A 24 hour block so I feel the same should be done to anyone who does the same otherwise it become unfair for other editors who have been blocked for doing the very samething. Bidgee (talk) 07:31, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Bidgee, you wouldn't prefer that Misplaced Pages change its' attitude and learn from its' mistakes, thus NOT penalizing others in the way you and Rewinn have been? From now until forever, we have to repeat our mistake? that's not a sensible view on this matter. ThuranX (talk) 12:20, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

I removed the "resolved" template. This is outrageous. --Irpen 06:41, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Consensus would have had its sway and without the disruption. From WP:3rr: If an action really requires reversion, some other editor will probably do it — and that will serve the vital purpose of showing that the community at large is in agreement over which course of action is preferable. Gwen Gale (talk) 07:01, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

It is considerably more difficult for consensus to "get its sway" if those who enforce it get blocked for it. I'm with the others here. We admins must stop pretending we don't care about content. Being neutral does not mean being agnostic as to who is working for consensus and who against it. Suggest unblocking of the one editor and considerably longer block for the other. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:17, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

(ec) in Re to GG above: "Concesus would get its sway" is not the point. The point is trigger-happy blocking of a good user along with disruptive one. Blocks is a very serious matter. Was there a better way to address the conflict than alienating a productive user with a long history of good contributions than treating him the same way as a disruptive account? Sure there was. Takes research (on who is more at fault) and humility rather than love to use buttons. No wonder. --Irpen 07:20, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree with both editors being blocked, Rewinn should have asked for help from a uninvolved third party or an Admin so I agree with the 12 hour block however CanuckAnthropologist should be blocked for 24 hours (if first block) or longer if they have had more then one block in the past. Bidgee (talk) 07:26, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

I'd also like to report, for the record, that many of User:CanuckAnthropologist's edits have to do with pushing a pointy POV that a Black person cannot be considered European, as is evidenced from the user's contribution history, such as moving Afro-Europeans to Black-Africans in Europe and Afro-Polish to Africans in Poland, and insisting that Josephine Baker couldn't be French since she was Black. Even though he's been warned multiple times on multiple pages about consensus, he keeps pushing the same POV. The constant removal of the Pacific Islander child with blond hair from the Blond page is just another example. I feel a longer block than a mere 12 hours would be necessary for this user to cool down and understand Misplaced Pages policies.--Ramdrake (talk) 11:34, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

I have lengthened the block on User:CanuckAnthropologist to 55 hours per the rough consensus above, and for his disruptive and pointy editing. I personally disagree with Rewinn's block but let's not make a mountain out of a molehill; there's nothing "outrageous" about a short block on a user who has been edit warring - that's not how we solve stuff here. Trebor (talk) 12:06, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

I support this extension. CA's been pushing for a while. I'm satisfied with the current status of this; So long as the blocks are proportional to the offenses, I can live with Rewinn's small block. I found that equal blocks for unequal behavior was absurd though, and since it's often harder to lengthen one, I sought to shorten the other. I'd still like to see his shortened to time served, with a link to this discussion, to make it harder for later editors to use this block against him, but at least there's some actual fairness here, instead of a falsely perceived equality. ThuranX (talk) 12:20, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

I think this is settled at this point so I'm going to mark it resolved. I might not have blocked Rewinn, but he did violate 3RR and the Gwen's block was certainly reasonable. I don't think any admin would overturn either at this point. --Selket 18:07, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Resquest immediate help in deleting an edit

Could an administrator please act upon this request? It would be greatly appreciated. Thanks in advance. Chicken Wing (talk) 07:00, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

M-72 and the continuing disruption

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

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

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

Why was this archived with no feedback given? Roguegeek (talk) 07:22, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

I've blocked him for 48 hours for repeated incivility despite many warnings. Trebor (talk) 12:15, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Sock needs blocking

User:THROUGH?AWIKI?DARKLY is quite clearly another sock of User:Adrian Fletcher just as User:Magically Clever and User:Wannabe Wiki. He is trying to restart the dispute on Jimbo's user page and needs to be blocked. I've reverted him once now, I'll refrain from reverting again to avoid the unpleasentness of last time. EconomicsGuy (talk) 07:30, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

This is how it happens, and YOU sysops help it happen

You bust me for 3RR, but if I fight the good fight for Wiki I will be 3RR'd again. I will be alone, and silliness will rule yet again. Take a look at Jane Bunford. Take a look at those insisting on using first names instead of surnames in the article. Why isn't User:KJP200876 told to pull his head in> How many times is he allowed to 3RR? Why don't you check to see if he is also User:82.38.18.89 who made the exact same edits? Sheesh. Kaiwhakahaere (talk) 08:36, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

I support this observation. In general, admins should realize that violating WP:3RR is not always WP:Edit warring. A violation of WP:3RR should be thoroughly investigated before any action is taken. Guido den Broeder (talk) 08:49, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Tu quoque is not an excuse to violate policy. Recommend dispute resolution. Also recommend observing 3RR yourself, then requesting edit protection and/or filing reports at the 3RR noticeboard. Self-restraint is the first step toward earning clout with the community. Durova 09:28, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

NO one talked about 'earning clout'. Throwing out wikilawyering terms instead of addressing his complaint, as Black Kite handily did below, does not help a user trust in the current system. Further, the casual dismissal of due diligence is disturbing. ThuranX (talk) 12:29, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

The opening post posits that violating 3RR in pursuit of the right version is a good thing for the encyclopedia, and that sysops are to blame for other people's policy violations. English Misplaced Pages has the lowest admin-to-user ratio among all 253 language editions of Misplaced Pages and that ratio has been dropping steadily for years. In this situation it simply isn't practical to behave in ways that require a block, then scold the scarce administrator pool for not having done a better job. Administrators are volunteers. This person has asked for the courtesy of their time and attention, without acknowledging his own culpability or being courteous to the people he's asking for help. Request strikethrough of the term wikilawyering; it appears to derive from a misreading of my post. Durova 17:18, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

There's no misreading, and there will be no strike-through. Your response at him was to accuse him of tu quoque, a latin term used primarily in law and debate, as a response to a user's frustrations with an imbalanced blocking. I stand by my assertion that Black Kite's response was far more useful, whereas yours is essentially 'tough shit, now go away', followed by a rationalization of such attitude based on how tough it would be since no one wants to be an admin here anymore, so time saving is more important than follow-through and accuracy. Further, we DO have 3RR exceptions in place, so a user being confused about BIo pages and policy is hardly surprising. I'm not defending his block, or opposing it; I'm referring to your assertion that he's interested in making a power play ('earning clout')instead of directly addressing the issues. ThuranX (talk) 19:11, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Your edits on Jane Bunford are correct (I certainly wouldn't block you for fixing that, and I doubt if anyone else would too), but you were blocked for edit-warring on Miss Universe 2008 where you repeatedly removed sourced information from an article purely because the reference was not in English; our guidelines say "Because this is the English Misplaced Pages, for the convenience of our readers, editors should use English-language sources in preference to sources in other languages, assuming the availability of an English-language source of equal quality" - in this case there did not appear to be one. Black Kite 09:34, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

The situation on Miss Universe 2008 is somewhat different, IMHO. There is in fact an English source, one that another user also finds reliable. Opposing user, however, seems to claim authority on this matter, and has been less than civil about it. A possible solution might be to mention both sources. Guido den Broeder (talk) 10:43, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Which would be something to discuss, rather than edit-warring about it. Black Kite 10:53, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

You may think you're "fighting the good fight", but so does everyone else. The only way to determine which course is "right" is by consensus, and this is why the three-revert rule exists, to ensure that people make efforts to attract outside participants to help resolve a dispute instead of perpetuating it amongst themselves. --bainer (talk) 11:18, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

The rule does nothing to ensure normal dispute resolution. It's function is to alert, nothing more. On a case-by-case basis, one has to decide what is the best way to get there. Blocking users in a content dispute isn't necessarily the answer. In my opinion, users should be encouraged to fight the good fight, even if sometimes they are mistaken. If both sides act in good faith, a third party seeing the reverts can initiate dispute resolution right away. Guido den Broeder (talk) 12:18, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Now, on Jane Bunford the situation is different. Here, one side is acting in good faith, whereas KJP200876 is a new user who hasn't yet found their own talk page. Kaiwhakahaere is not editwarring at all, but merely performing maintenance. He is aware of the fact that he has done so more than once and therefore does not need to be warned and thereby discouraged. But, now that he has been unnecessarily blocked for 3RR recently, his actions are looked upon with suspicion, which will make him think twice before doing similar maintenance again. Guido den Broeder (talk) 12:40, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm on record as supporting a broadening of the 3RR rule - for example I don't believe it should be regarded as violating 3RR to remove unsourced material. That works fine on WP:BIO pages, why shouldn't it be used on other pages? Editors do need more support I think, for "fighting the good fight" wherever practicable. Gatoclass (talk) 12:25, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

There is a huge difference between WP:BLP articles (which is what I think you meant to link to) and other articles. If we have some inaccurate information on a chemistry article someone's homework might be wrong. If we have inaccurate information on a biography of a living person we can cause huge real-world damage to the subject. --Hut 8.5 19:11, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

While I would have liked to see more discussion on the talk page of Miss Universe 2008, this was a pretty strict application of the 3RR rule and I can understand why Kaiwhakahaere is frustrated. For anyone commenting here, it is worth glancing at the time stamps on the 3RR report -- it was unquestionably a 3RR violation, but the reverts and warnings and spread out like 15 hours, and the formal warning itself was buried in another comment. In my mind, this is sort of like getting a speeding ticket for being 5mph over the speed limit. Yeah, you were breaking the rule, and yeah you probably shouldn't be driving so fast. But it still feels like a raw deal because 9 times out of 10 nothing would have happened.

My advice to Kaiwhakahaere is to try and keep things in perspective. It's only a 24 hour block, and it's not meant as a critique of you as a person -- or necessarily, even as a Misplaced Pages editor. I can't recall the details offhand, but I have heard of cases where very well-established and well-respected editors have been given short blocks for 3RR when they were acting completely in good faith, but get a little overzealous with the undo button. There are important reasons why 3RR is enforced so stricly. Edit warring is highly corrosive to the process of consensus-building. If everyone started undoing each other's changes without discussion, the project would rapidly collapse. Hence, the 3RR rule -- which prohibits edit warring even if you are correct.

Don't feel bad that you got a 3RR block. It's quite possible you were doing the right thing, with a slightly wrong method. This kind of thing happens, and it's a necessary cost to keep the focus on consensus in an environment where anyone with an internet connection is invited to participate. It sucks you got dinged by it, but the best thing to do is shrug it off and keep plugging away. Best of luck!

(I am copying some of this to Kaiwhakahaere's talk page) --Jaysweet (talk) 13:36, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

In Kaiwhakahaere's case, both parties to the revert war were blocked. Note that the underlying issue of the struggle was a non-trivial one regarding what type of references ought to be allowed in the article. Though both parties were well-intentioned, many 3RRs occur between well-intentioned people, and it is not practical to excuse all participants in such wars. Those who want to help solve the underlying issue on Miss Universe 2008 are invited add their opinion in the article RfC which is a section on that article's Talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 14:21, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

However, PageantUpdater was unblocked by Blnguyen. See the ensuing discussion here and here. I'm a bit concerned that Blnguyen felt unblocking was needed to make his point about what he thought of the situation, but that he dismissed Scarian's question with "It's a bit late and irrelevant now.". I'm not entirely comfortable with this block being brought up 5 days later, but maybe one of those involved has been away or something. Anyway, I'll drop Blnguyen a note now that his name has been mentioned. Some of the other people whose actions are being discussed don't seem to have been notified. Could someone do that? User:Scarian, User:PageantUpdater, for starters. Probably no need to bother User:KJP200876, as there doesn't seem to be any dispute about how their edits and edit warring was handled. Carcharoth (talk) 14:56, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I was notified pretty late. Despite the opinions of the blocking admin (who I note blocked me once before in unfair circumstances) I never violated 3RR (check the edit history) and (although I must say I lost the string of quite who the editor above was talking about so I may be mistaken) I strongly dispute that I was in any way uncivil, on the contrary it was Kaiwhakahaere who was violating WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL. And unlike Kaiwhakahaere (who was acting extremely differently than his normal sunny self ) I sought a third opinion on this matter in a number of places. Another editor confirmed that my application of WP:VUE was accurate, and that the initial English source, was more than likely not reliable ( ) (I strongly believe that Global Beauties is not a reliable source per WP:SPS). As well as my numerous attempts to seek neutral opinions before I was incorrectly blocked on this matter, I later brought the whole issue of referencing in this article up at the Reliable sources noticeboard, although it has not had any comments. In my opinion the block on Kaiwhakahaere was appropriate because he did violate 3RR despite a warning, continually reverting myself and another editor whilst studiously ignoring the policy I highlighted many times... and I will admit I am also a little disappointed that nothing was ever done to warn him against or sanction him for his WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF violations against me. PageantUpdater talk • contribs 20:31, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Block of Megangibsonfan

I've blocked Megangibsonfan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) for 24 hours for vandalism of various Misplaced Pages: and User talk: pages. Looking at his contributions, most have been vandalism or otherwise reverted. Should the block be lengthened to indefinite? Does someone want to check to see if he's a sockpuppet? --Carnildo (talk) 08:39, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

There didn't seem to be much intent to improve the wiki from this user at all. I was surprised at him getting only 24 hours, to be honest, and I could certainly see an indef block as being understandable. Dayewalker (talk) 08:44, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

I lengthened to indef, almost no useful contributions. Trebor (talk) 11:40, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Mass Vandalism at Gabe Saporta

Using Huggle, I found this page and upon looking in the history, have found numerous vandalous edits. Can an admin please look through and do some massive rollbacking? I have rollback, but I can't do bundles. Dusti 11:30, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

As far as I am aware, administrator rollback has no added functionality compared to non-admin rollback. I see from looking at your monobook.js that you have Twinkle; the best way to remove the vandalism would be to look through the diffs, and after finding the last good revision, click on button, which is above the "Revision as of ... (edit)" line when looking at the diff. Hope this helps, EJF (talk) 12:13, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

EJF is correct. However, I have removed all the vandalism and indefinitely semi-protected the article. CIreland (talk) 12:18, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

User:Tegwarrior on David Littman (historian) and elsewhere

David Littman is a British historian, who has also worked for several NGOs defending human rights in Muslim countries and the Soviet Union. In early May, User:Tegwarrior arrived at the article and began making changes intended to demonstrate that Mr. Littman was not a historian at all. The user first called Mr. Littman "historical author", then removed the word "historian" at all, then proceeded to move the article from David Littman (historian) to David Littman (human rights activist). In doing so, the user disregarded reliable sources that refer to Mr. Littman as "historian"; they also moved the article from where it stood from the start to a new title without even attempting to find consensus for the move. Though the move was reverted, the user moving the article back to their preferred title without having consensus for that. Later, Tegwarrior added a piece of original research, calling Mr Littman's work "amateur historical writings".

Tegwarrior has also edited in a similar fashion the article on Bat Ye'or, who happens to be David Littman's wife. The user repeatedly removed her description as "historian", replacing it with "writer" or "author", and did the same for her husband, again despite multiple reliable sources referring to her as "historian" and objections of other editors. Tegwarrior once did a self-revert after violating WP:3RR, but then proceeded to revert again after about an hour.

Several users have reverted Tegwarrior's edits and warned them repeated on the article and user talk pages, as well as in edit summaries, that such edits violate WP:BLP and other policies. I am bringing the matter to this board because Tegwarrior seems impervious to warnings and is determined to continue editing in the same fashion. Beit Or 13:57, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

I've blocked for 48 hours for repeated edit warring. Trebor (talk) 15:12, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

User:Bjaco18

Bjaco18 (talk · contribs) seems to be making a good effort to expand Misplaced Pages's body of knowledge regarding insects. However, he seems to have a penchant for uploading copyrighted material. I happened to notice that fellow admin J Milburn deleted another of his images, and per numerous warnings on his talk page I've blocked him for 72 hours. However, in looking at his upload log, I noticed that many of his pictures are marked as free under the Creative Commons license and the GFDL, but don't have any metadata. Apologies if I'm being too jumpy, but it seems that serial copyviolators around here tend to upload images without any metadata. Could use some help here ... Blueboy96 14:23, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Strongly endorse. Bjaco18 has been warned multiple times but several editors that he has to stop violating copyright. For all his good faith )if often flawed) additions, he needs to get the message that he cannot continue to upload copyright violations in this way. J Milburn has been extremely patient and Bjaco18 has ignored his good advice. Gwernol 15:14, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Certainly seems reasonable. That coupled with the creation of sockpuppets to participate in disruptive self-nom-under-another-name RfAs isn't constructive to the encyclopedia. ╟─TreasuryTag (talk ╬ contribs)─╢ 15:28, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

That image was actually uploaded before I gave him his last warning, but that is about his third last warning, so I'm certainly not going to argue the block needs undoing. I am fairly certain that the remaining images (mostly slightly grainy images of stick insects) are his own work- he claims to breed them. J Milburn (talk) 15:43, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Images or insects? ;-) As a side-issue, what do people think about Stop and stare14 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)? No edits since May 29th, and only about seven then, all to make the userpage identical to that of BJ. Recipient of a barnstar from BJ despite having done nothing, and claimed on BJ's userpage to be his sister... another sock? ╟─TreasuryTag (talk ╬ contribs)─╢ 15:52, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

No, from what I know of Bjaco, that is actually his sister. She writes in a slightly different way- I suspect Bjaco just encouraged her to sign up, and she did even though she wasn't particularly interested in contributing. However, if that account now suddenly starts editing stick-insect related pages... J Milburn (talk) 16:07, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

I've notified Bjaco of this thread. J Milburn (talk) 16:10, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Jim McKay

His page is being vandalized, mostly with 'Fark'-origin quotes. 70.122.33.213 (talk) 16:16, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Wannabe wiki Wannabe possible User:Adrian Fletcher sock

I am suspisious of the user Wannabe Wiki Wannabe, the username matches the style of all the socks the blocked user:Adrian Fletcher has created, can I get a second opinion on this? Thanks, Chafford (talk) 16:30, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

See also: Category:Misplaced Pages sockpuppets of Adrian Fletcher. Chafford (talk) 16:32, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

links? Agathoclea (talk) 16:38, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Apparently Wannabe wiki Wannabe (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) isn't registered...... Dendodge .. Talk 16:40, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

That's because the "wiki" is capitalized

Links: User:Wannabe Wiki Wannabe, of confirmed sockpuppets. Chafford (talk) 16:48, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Sockpuppeteer here

I am writing here in regards to an edit on my talk page. User:Toddst1 has placed this tag on my page in regards to an incident that occured over two months ago seen here. Basically, in a silly brankster bout, I blatantly vandalized various pages in order to see what admin reactions were under various circumstances. I wanted to see how blocks worked from the vantage point of the vandal. Once the issue escalated to this board, however, I owned up to it in order to diffuse anything and apologized to everyone involved individually. It was a stupid thing to do and I was properly reprimanded and given a short block.

I promised not to do such things again and knuckled down in my edits here on Misplaced Pages to try and redeem what had been an obviously stupid thing to do. I began by driving toward improving articles of my interest. I contributed significantly to the September 11, 2001 attacks article and successfully nominated it for good article status. Afterwards, I contributed toward the American Airlines Flight 11 article and nominated it for Featured Article where it seems to be doing all right so far. I've also been active in the 9/11 talk page trying to enforce the arbitration decision. Most recently, I've been following the footsteps of the Flight 11 article and have improved the American Airlines Flight 77 article to try and achieve Featured Article status here as well. Besides these dedicated works, I have been active in enforcing image copyright violations.

Since that stupid incident of mine, I've logged over 600 good edits dedicated to the improvement of Misplaced Pages's articles. My bottom line is this: Do I really need a belated Mark of Cain on my talk page for an incident that occurred long ago? One that I've taken responsibility and apologized for, one that I've promised not to repeat, and one I feel I've redeemed myself for? I'm not vying to be an admin; I just want to keep editing without one idiotic episode of mine from the past haunting me. Thank you for your time. -- VegitaU (talk) 18:29, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

As marks of Cain go, that one's pretty weird. It says you're a proven sockmaster, but there are no links to suspected or proven sockpuppets. Perhaps Toddst1 would like to comment? SHEFFIELDSTEEL 20:00, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

User:Raul654 and indefinite full protection of 10 global warming related pages

Global warming pages have had a recurring issue for many months now with sockpuppets of a banned user: User:Scibaby. In response to the following two user accounts which are allegedly two more sockpuppets (here and here, whose edits aren't even disruptive), User:Raul654 took the step of fully protecting all pages global warming. He intends for this full protection to last "until we know he's lost interest," which seems to indicate an indefinite duration. This step was taken with no discussion before the fact, and after the fact discussion at global warming talk, which includes several editors, has overwhelmingly opposed this action in favor of continued vigilance against these sockpuppets and potential indefinite semi-protection. The blocking admin refuses to budge, though, so I figure this is the next place to go to get these pages unblocked. Oren0 (talk) 18:45, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

I would support indef. semi-protection, but full protection is excessively too much, unless of course, a full-scale edit war or something of that scale broke out. If Raul654 is refusing to budge, it sounds like he's attempting to create disruption and make a point with this protection. Seeing as he is using admin tools "to his advantage" it could be said, maybe a WP:RFC is warranted here to see if he has abused the tools with this. In any event, I think his protection should be reverted as many people are disagreeing with him. D.M.N. (talk) 19:15, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Indefinite full protection seems excessive. Edison (talk) 19:17, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Though not necessarily agreeing with this, I can at least understand why Raul made the full protection indefinite as any limited time frame would only likely cause the sockpuppeteer to wait for expiry before resuming their crusade. It's a shame that there isn't some way of only allowing more established users from editing certain articles. Maybe in future some way could be found to allow only those with rollback rights to edit these high vandalism target articles, or would that be to difficult to implement? RMHED (talk) 19:27, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Oren0's description is both biased and factually wrong. The articles in question have been under attack by one determined banned user (Scibaby) since december. I semi-protected the articles several months ago, but that was ineffective at stopping him from editing them using sockpuppets. (He's the most prolific sockpuppeteer on Misplaced Pages, ever -- he's used 500 of them, and dozens/hundreds of IPs across many ranges. All of which have been blocked). Full protection is the logical next step. And contrary to Oren's description, discussion on the talk page has been mixed - everyone recognizes that this is a problem, and that full protection is the only thing not yet tried. Raul654 (talk) 19:28, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Agree that full protection is inappropriate. I assume the articles are pretty heavily watchlisted, semi-protection should do the job just fine. Kelly 19:30, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Then perhaps you'd care to explain why we should expect semi-protection to start being effective when we've already tried it for two months without success? Raul654 (talk) 19:32, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

"And contrary to Oren's description, discussion on the talk page has been mixed - everyone recognizes that this is a problem, and that full protection is the only thing not yet tried" - At the time I placed my initial notice here, not one editor who had replied endorsed your protection by my interpretation (since then User:Stephan Schulz has). I agree that Scibaby is a problem; I've reverted his edits in the past as well. But I still maintain that this is entirely overkill. Vandalism comes with the territory on Misplaced Pages and if we're going to have a freely editable encyclopedia this is just something we have to deal with. Nobody is requiring you to monitor and continuously block IP ranges if you don't want to. We can undo the edits and get the users blocked when they become nuisances. And I'm not convinced that even your full protection will stop these socks. Another suspected sock has been editing hockey stick controversy and global climate model today. Do you want to fully protect those too? Where does it end? Oren0 (talk) 19:46, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

I think it's highly unlikely Raul654 wants to keep these pages fully protected for very long. Gwen Gale (talk) 19:33, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

The way you say that it sounds like Raul654 owns the article. D.M.N. (talk) 19:35, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I guess so but I didn't mean to make it sound like that. Core, controversial articles nettled by sockpuppets are tough to handle, hence he's done something bold. Gwen Gale (talk) 19:46, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

This is a hard call. There are repeated and annoying socks on these pages and the socks have tried lots of means to waste everyone's time deliberately. I see the alternative to protection would be blocking more aggressively and assuming good faith less when each batch of new accounts with 20 edits comes back and starts vandalising these pages. But that would have more risks in terms of damage to Newbies falsely identified and is more in the face of WP policy, which does accept protection for some things. Page protection isn't that much of a catastrophy on fairly mature pages, although no one wants it. Perhaps it is for the best for a bit? Alternatively don't blame Raul blame Scibaby. --BozMo talk 19:42, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Just out of curiousity, what is the reason for assuming all of the "dozens/hundrend" of individual IP's are this scibaby person? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sirwells (talk • contribs) 19:49, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

We don't assume anything. Their behavior from account to account is the same (inserting global warming denial propaganda - often using verbatim text and edit summaries), combined with checkuser results. Raul654 (talk) 19:53, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Sometimes it's obvious (he likes to insert the same bit about cow flatulence causing global warming on multiple pages). But some of them (like, in my opinion, the latest two linked above) are hard to identify sans the checkuser evidence. Oren0 (talk) 19:55, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

We have had endless socks on these pages. Lets not get hung up on asking Raul about CU evidence - thats pointless. I trust him on that, without question, and urge Oreno not to worry about "alleged" socks. The issue here is what to do about these socks. My opinion is fairly close to what Bozmo said: There are repeated and annoying socks - buts thats all they are. They make minor, trivial, easily reverted POV edits. Global warming will suffer from these forever, whether scibaby exists or not. As soon as they do anything non-trivial, they can be recognised and blocked. Full protection - especially over so wide a range of articles - is overkill. A minor level of trivial vandalism is the price we pay for freedom, and we should be prepared to pay that price. Several of the protected pages weren't even semi before. Please can we have those, at the very least, restored to an editable state William M. Connolley (talk) 20:00, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Range block

Could someone who knows the intricacies of rangeblocking take a look at what range needs to be blocked to shut down the person at Special:Contributions/144.122.250.138, Special:Contributions/144.122.250.139, Special:Contributions/144.122.250.150, and probably more I don't know about? User talk:144.122.250.139 has a template on it suggesting a long term soft block. All 3 vandalizing random articles and user pages. Thanks. --barneca (talk) 19:15, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Also Special:Contributions/144.122.250.140, Special:Contributions/144.122.250.143, Special:Contributions/144.122.250.223. --barneca (talk) 19:24, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

A block on 144.122.250.0/24 (talk · contribs · block log) would cover those IPs, and it's already been done. -- zzuuzz 20:08, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

(ec) 144.122.250.0/24 was blocked by User:Longhair for 2 days. I think 144.122.250.128/25 would've been enough, as I found no related contributions outside of that smaller range. It's an university range, but the only unrelated edits from this and the last month seem to be from 144.122.250.142 (talk · contribs) and 144.122.250.229 (talk · contribs). I think it should be reduced to /25. --Oxymoron 20:11, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

The y__-__.pclabs.metu.edu.tr range extends from 144.122.250.130-237 so I'd pick 144.122.250.128/25 too– Zedla (talk) 20:18, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

User:SlimVirgin removing image problem tags

The above user has been removing problem tags from images that he/she has uploaded, even using Twinkle in the process. I've twice warned the user, but I got a response on my talk page not to issue any more warnings and the behavior has continued. The user is an administrator so I'm not sure how to proceed. Kelly 20:01, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

It's a difficult situation, abusing Twinkle is serious, so I'd suggest maybe a 24 hr block or something along those lines, and if the behavior continues, perhaps requesting comment? For the record, I am not an administrator Chafford (talk) 20:17, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Kelly seems to be trying to draw me into conflict or make extra work for me, so I'll keep this brief. He has gone through all my uploaded images, and is liberally tagging them, even when they're clearly PD according to the source, or have been explicitly released under a free licence. Some of the legitimately tagged ones (e.g. of living people before we had such strict rules about them), I've deleted myself. But when it reaches the point of tagging the Eichmann trial for deletion when the Israeli government has released the images, and the source states that clearly, then it becomes make-work and lacks common sense. Add to which that this is his second post about it on AN/I, plus numerous posts to my talk page, image pages, deletion pages, and now "warnings" on my talk page, all of which I am supposed to respond to post-haste. I think an uninvolved admin should handle this, rather than Kelly, if anyone. SlimVirgin 20:36, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

• I'm shocked, no outraged that slimVirgin has been removing these tags, surely that's Crum375's job? Is Crum slacking or something? Buck up Crum, Slim needs ya. RMHED (talk) 20:19, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards