Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive354

Neutral Good

• Neutral Good (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• Waterboarding (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Can someone please tell this person to lay off the accusations, innuendo, and personal attacks? He has received final warnings from two admins (Henrik and Jehochman) and is still continuing. He just caused Waterboarding to be reprotected a 5th or 6th time with another edit war. More chestnuts:

• here
• here

He had posted the same text on Ned Scott's page here on ANI, and then pulled it. I have several times publically asked this person to stop with this poisonous atmosphere, and have largely abandoned that damned page because of his POV pushing and harassment. Lawrence Cohen 04:04, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Lawrence is leading a cabal of meatpuppets from the Blackwater Worldwide artiole, pushing his own POV with a Caterpillar bulldozer (which is what attracted my attention in the first place), and trying to intimidate editors who disagree with them by making false accusations of sockpuppetry, in an obvious effort to WP:OWN the article. An illustration of how Lawrence tells you only half the truth: both Henrik and jehochman have taken his side in this content dispute. Lawrence is in the habit of marching over here to WP:ANI or WP:RFCU on an almost daily basis, telling half the truth and spin-doctoring it as well, in an effort to get editors who disagree with him blocked. I survived two consecutive findings of  Unrelated on RFCU within a week. That is the Wikipedia equivalent of a body cavity search. And I'm supposed to just shut up and take it? Get him off my back, and stop him and his meatpuppets from WP:OWNing the article. Allow me to thank any admin in advance who is contemplating an effort to get Lawrence Cohen and his meatpuppets under control. Neutral Good (talk) 10:07, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

This is not an endorsement of Neutral Good's methods but I have a problem with this posting by Lawrence. Both Lawrence and Jehochman are active and biased editors on the article in question. They disagree with Neutral Good. I have detected a consistent pattern on the part of Lawrence and Jehochman to eliminate people from the article who disagree with them using administrative measures and influence to the point that it may reach to harassment and could cause someone to say the sorts of things that Neutral Good said. Other editors that Lawrence and Jehochman agree with are left untouched by these complaints even if they are also problematic. Jehochman has engaged in general threatening of editors on the page on very flimsy grounds. Lawrence has engaged in personal attacks. If I were another neutral admin, I would proceed cautiously and not automatically assume that either Lawrence or Jehochman come with entirely clean hands to the matter.

Incidentally, I consider the edit war to be the result of actions by another editor, not even mentioned here, who initiated edit changes witout consensus. However, Lawrence happens to agree with this other editor so he could not be the source of the problem. --Blue Tie (talk) 11:34, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Blue tie, I disagree strongly with your analysis. In the case of Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/GooseCreek I identified a group of checkuser confirmed sock puppets. In a second case Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Shamulou I identified yet another group of editors who had collaborated off wiki and then put forward a proposal without identifying their connections to each other. Both situations were serious violations of policy. Alison decided to unblock Shibumi2 early because he had come to an agreement with her via email.[1] That may be forgiveness, not vindication. Jehochman ^Talk 14:16, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

For the record, that was forgiveness and understanding but not vindication - Alison ^❤ 15:42, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm only peripherally acquainted with this article, but the claim by User:Neutral Good that it was POV-pushing that "attracted his attention" to the article strikes me as rather rich, given that he is a single-purpose account, 99% of whose edits are to this article and related talk pages. BLACKKITE 13:38, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Reliable sources almost unanimously state that waterboarding is torture. A few fringe sources, as well as editorials and political pundits claim that waterboarding is not torture. Blue tie and Neutral Good have been attempting to synthesize the viewpoints of these different sources to say that the classification of waterboarding as torture is controversial. This is not a verifiable fact; it is their own original research. As a matter of verifiable fact, there is no legitimate dispute that waterboarding is torture. (See Talk:Waterboarding/Definition, the RfC page.)

Wikipedia is not a battleground, but Neutral Good in particular appears to be to making it one. He appears to endlessly argue against consensus. His editing has contributed to the article being protected endlessly. Jehochman ^Talk 14:16, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Notice how deeply involved Jechochman is in the article content. Though this particular page that we are reading right now has NOTHING to do with the content of that article, he brings the whole debate from that page here, where it is irrelevant. I will forego proving his contentions wrong, as they belong on that page not this one. But, the important thing to notice is how he is using wikipedia administrative practices to push around people that he disagrees with on the article. Before any action is taken based upon his words, his motives and demeanor should be examined as well. --Blue Tie (talk) 02:57, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Completely false statements by both Neutral Good and Blue Tie. I came into that article after an edit war I found via RC, and that Alison locked down. I stuck around, and occasionally helped out on talk over the months, and finally helped to get it unprotected--I have nearly no edits to the article itself, beyond gnome work like reference formatting. I have consistently asked for more people to look at and watch the mess on Talk:Waterboarding as the situation had begun to deteriorate: why would I do that, exactly, on multiple noticeboards over the past 6-7 weeks, if I was doing something illicit or trying to hide some nefarious activity? If there is some sort of contested situation I believe the only people who would not want more attention drawn to it are the people who are wrong, and arguing from a position either not supported by policy or by facts. I've told both Neutral Good and Blue Tie to get more attention from admins on the article themselves if they wanted. They complain rather loudly when I do so, myself. Why is it they want less attention drawn to Talk:Waterboarding...?

The waves of SPAs then all arrived en masse for whatever American election cycle reason. Either way, this has nothing to do with the waterboarding article specifically in this posting I did--it is not a content matter. It is about the aggressive SPA Neutral Good, who does not contribute to anything but one topic (Waterboarding), runs around this site in my wake, waging some sort of campaign against me. He appears to be either a troll or bad hand account. Lawrence Cohen 14:44, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

(conflict)

That "waterboarding is torture" is indeed reported by many reliable sources. That "waterboarding" is an buzzword that has a variety of confounding meanings with other tortures -- even within those hallowed sources deploring it -- seems to be irrelevant. htom (talk) 14:48, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

What does this have to do with Neutral Good running around Wikipedia, leaving nasty messages about me after receiving final warnings from two administrators, and complaining bitterly when I ask admins to review the only page he focuses on? Lawrence Cohen 14:51, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Neutral Good has spoken out (unfortunately in a sarcastic and confrontational manner) about a problem that has concerned many of us on the Waterboarding article. Please do not disregard what he says simply because of the way that he says it. Lawrence, Jehochman and their friends came up empty-handed on their first two Checkuser attempts, were partially (and only briefly) successful on their third and, despite all of their caterwauling, the influence of the Harvard Law students has been positive, thoughtful and well-measured. They are abusing the administrative processes in an attempt to WP:OWN the article, and should be banned from it for a week. Maybe even a month. Regards, Bob 68.31.166.239 (talk) 15:47, 9 January 2008 (UTC) — 68.31.166.239 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

And now, if you don't mind, I'll respond to the preceding sneaky, underhanded attempt to delegitimize me by labeling my account as an SPA. I happen to choose to edit anonymously from an IP address, as I have every right to do. I happen to have an ISP that gives me a rapidly shifting IP address; otherwise, I could point to a trail of thousands of edits on hundreds of unrelated articles, going back more than two years. This SPA tag is precisely what I'm talking about when I say, "They are abusing administrative processes in an attempt to WP:OWN this article." There is a constant level of low-level needling and baiting coming from them and it is destroying WP:CIV. I will not tolerate being delegitimized in this fashion. Please do something effective about this sneaky little pack of trolls. Forgive me for this outburst, but they are really getting on my last nerve. Regards, Bob 70.9.48.23 (talk) 18:34, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Proposal: Temporary topic ban

OK, as I've become more frustrated with the ability of tendentious single-purpose agenda-driven editing to stall improvement of articles, I'm going to propose something here, as an admin uninvolved in this dispute. Neutral Good (talk · contribs), based on current contribution history, appears to be an aggressive single-purpose agenda-driven account with evidence of edit-warring and tendentious editing. S/he is by no means the sole problematic presence at the Waterboarding page, but his activity has been signficantly unconstructive and is unbalanced by positive contributions elsewhere.

I propose that Neutral Good be banned from article/talk pages relating to waterboarding, loosely defined, for a period of 1-3 months. This will provide an opportunity for this user to contribute elsewhere on the encyclopedia (they have expressed an interest in improving several unrelated articles: [2], [3]) and develop a track record of positive contribution. The waterboarding article will still be there in a few months. I'd like to hear thoughts on this proposal, ideally from uninvolved editors and admins. MastCell ^Talk 19:21, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

As long as it is the first step, and that any other edit warriors who pop up get the same treatment, I would endorse this. SirFozzie (talk) 19:29, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Yesterday I protected the article again only a few days after it came out of the previous protection. It's clear that what we've been doing up to now hasn't worked. I don't know the positions or histories of the combatants, but any admin who has the fortitude to dive in and start topic banning (or blocking) the most troublesome edit warriors has my support. Raymond Arritt (talk) 20:23, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

(ec) I like the imagination behind this solution. "If you aren't a single-purpose account, then prove it by editing other articles for a while." This solution should be used more often. -- llywrch (talk) 20:27, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Support a topic ban. I believe that without this editor the Waterboarding dispute will be resolved more quickly, and allow Neutral Good to improve unrelated articles in the meantime. henrik•talk 20:29, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

And what were the lot of you planning to do about the editors who "are abusing administrative processes in a campaign to WP:OWN the article"? Three-month article bans for them as well? That would be the only fair solution. If you're going to ban Neutral Good from the article for three months, ban the people who have been abusing admin processes in their effort to harass Neutral Good and others who disagree with them. Otherwise, you endorse abuse of admin processes, and you endorse this violation of the Wikipedia policy known as WP:OWN. 209.221.240.193 (talk) 20:44, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Suddenly, I hear crickets chirping rather loudly ... 209.221.240.193 (talk) 21:06, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry that 20 minutes were allowed to lapse before your comment got a response. I don't see evidence of "abuse of administrative processes in a campaign to own the article." I see a tense situation involving a number of otherwise productive contributors and at least one tendentious, single-purpose agenda account. My instinct is to remove the single-purpose agenda warrior from the equation temporarily and allow the other editors, who generally have track records of constructive collaboration and encyclopedia-building, a chance to work it out. On Wikipedia, it's very easy for one person shouting at the top of their lungs to drown out 10 people trying to be reasonable. If you have actual diffs and a more compelling argument that some sort of abuse of process is taking place, then please present them, but rhetoric alone is not particularly convincing. MastCell ^Talk 21:34, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry that I didn't respond sooner, but I only look in on WP:AN/I about once every day or two -- I find it more enjoyable to spend my time working various articles than to opine on disputes. But I stand by my earlier statement: if a given editor appears to have no other other goal than to force her or his own point of view on an article, that person should be encouraged to work on other parts of Wikipedia for a while -- regardless of allegations of "administrative abuses" or whether I agree or disagree with the point of view in question. The fact is that we have over two million articles here; getting into a long, tedious fight over one of them is counterproductive at best -- & self-destructive at worst. -- llywrch (talk) 07:07, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, I couldn't help noticing that the endorsements of a block for Neutral Good were coming like machine-gun fire about two minutes apart, and in fact encountered an edit conflict with one another; but the moment I suggested some equity, the machine gun fell silent. If you want diffs, I'll look them up tonight and post them on your Talk page in the morning. Fair enough? In the meantime, try reviewing the Talk:Waterboarding page and the edit histories of Badagnani (talk · contribs), Inertia Tensor (talk · contribs), and Lawrence Cohen (talk · contribs) over the past couple of weeks. That's where I'll be looking. Thanks. 209.221.240.193 (talk) 21:44, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Inertia Tensor (talk · contribs) certainly looks bad from a brief skim, but has not edited in the past 2 weeks, so I'm not sure what you expect me to do with him unless he acts up again. I'd recuse myself from any action regarding Badagnani (talk · contribs), since I seem to recall we've had some fairly heated discussion on diet-related articles. Lawrence Cohen (talk · contribs) has a track record of positive collaboration and encyclopedia-building, including several FA/GA's, and I don't see anything in his contribs there warranting sanctions, though diffs are always welcome. MastCell ^Talk 22:09, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Inertia Tensor: I've been silent recently, because I've been in this cyclical wheel for a long time, as see no point in repeating myself on the talk page. I've been staying off the article main page, and even the talk recently as it is pointless. As soon as consensus is achieved, the article is unlocked, it then hits the fan again. If people would rather I would keep on ....? I'm tired of being baited by puppets and trolls there. You will note I did not get involved in this latest go at Neutral Good. Since when was backing off bad? Unrelated, I have no issue with IP editors, I preffered to do so as an IP but eventually had to switch to user with all the RfCs to vote (as annoyingly, IPs are banned there) - plenty of bay area comcast IPs before the creation of this Inertia Tensor account were me. Inertia Tensor (talk) 08:23, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I've gotta stick my nose in this. I keep seeing SPA being thrown around as a pretty bad thing over and over lately. It is not inherently a bad thing. It is not against policy. Some here do seem to be trying to turn it into a bad word though. Arkon (talk) 21:46, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

SPA's are not inherently bad. Some of our best articles are written largely by SPA's. However, SPA plus soapbox plus tendentious editing is a noxious and all-too-common combination. MastCell ^Talk 22:02, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Neutral Good has already explained, on Talk:Waterboarding, that he had an extensive history of editing as an anonymous IP. Again, that is not inherently a bad thing, nor is it against policy, but some her do seem to be trying to turn it into a bad word. 209.221.240.193 (talk) 21:52, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Leaving aside the SPA issue, are Good's edits tendentious or needlessly provocative? Looking no further than his contributions from today, I see edits along the lines of this[4]. Raymond Arritt (talk) 21:55, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Yeah not a particularly good comment. However, considering the heat on the topic, my completely uneducated, uninformed, worthless opinion is that it isn't worthy of a topic ban of any sort. Arkon (talk) 22:03, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Support ban as a marginally involved editor with this page watchlisted for a while. ➪HiDrNick! 02:05, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

It seems to me that a 3 month ban for violating something that is not policy (SPA) is extreme. If the problem is WP:TE, I was unaware that TE was a policy either. If you are going to exercise a ban, it really should be for something that the community has agreed to by policy. But realizing that wikipedia does not always operate by either consensus or policy but on some other indescribable basis, I would at least suggest that there should be better evidence of evil than has been presented here. The frustrations of two highly biased admins (at least on this topic) who are pushing other editors away from that page should not be sufficient testimony for extreme actions. I do not like to communicate the way that NG does, but as with Arkon, I just do not see a serious violation in his comments. And I believe it is incorrect to say that NG was the cause of most of the protections on the article and it is inconceivable that he is the only cause ... yet he is the only one accused. I get the feeling that this is a case of scapegoat.--Blue Tie (talk) 03:08, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I think every good editor agrees that incivility and disruptive editing are not helpful or wanted on wikipedia. Accusing admins of being biased is not going to help. They are chosen for their track record in good editing practice. If you find yourself in confrontation with one you should be questioning your behaviour and your bias. In my opinion there is clearly enough evidence on the talk page. --neonwhite user page talk 03:39, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

You're damn straight, Blue Tie. Here's what I've seen in Internet communities and this one is no different. The trolls pick on the new guy. The new guy reacts a little strongly. The community, to the astonishment of the new guy and any detached observers, rises up in defense of their trolls because they are, after all, THEIR trolls. Neutral Good (talk) 03:24, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, on the other hand, you sort of play right into it and do yourself no favors by calling people trolls. I suspect, like many people, you are getting emotional over these things (feeling targeted can do that too). I recommend that if you feel emotional, you take some time off to cool down. --Blue Tie (talk) 03:33, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I take time off to cool down on a regular basis. In fact, I just came back around Christmas from (approximately) two months of Wikibreak and saw this mess. I also take at least two eight-hour periods off every day, to work and to sleep. There appear to be several editors on the article who don't even do that. Neutral Good (talk) 03:39, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

A BETTER PROPOSAL would be to instead LOCK the article and the talk page thread each for 16 hours each day to allow editors a hance to cool off and relax withoitu worrying that the others guys are fucking around with the original ocntent. Smith Jones (talk) 03:46, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

That makes no sense. Tendentious editing is a subset of disruptive editing. Which is a guideline. As I said, Neutral Good is not the only problematic presence on the article, nor is s/he the root of all evil. On the other hand, the other editors currently involved generally have a track record of being able to work collaboratively elsewhere. Neutral Good has a track record of unmitigated tendentiousness. The idea behind the topic ban is not to excuse everyone else, but to a) temporarily remove a particularly inflammatory and unconstructive presence, and b) to give Neutral Good a chance to build up a better track record of collaborative editing on other articles before returning to waterboarding. Trust me, the article and the issue will still be there in 3 months. MastCell ^Talk 03:46, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I see a problem with you last statement based upon the history there. Previously (before I edited there), there were apparently disputes. Supposedly they came to some consensus. Some of the editors now claim that regardless of right wrong, left right, etc. they are simply seeking to preserve consensus. The argument boils down to "We already decided so it must not change". If that philosophy prevails, then when he returns in 3 months, the chorus will be "We already decide now go away". I must have missed it, because I do not see NG's edits as being especially bad on that page, and I think it should bear some weight on the matter that he was, almost immediately accused of being malicious (as I recall) based upon the fact that he was new but seemed to know wiki-editing. When an editor is greeted with that, and treated badly by a small mob, their reaction to that treatment can look like tendentious editing. And perhaps it is. But it is not exactly one sided.

I believe a real solution to the problems on that page would be to ban anyone who insists on only one form of wording and nothing else. The only folk left then would be those who are willing to consider other wordings. Such people are able to negotiate and eventually come to consensus. People who are intractable, not just on principles but on exact wording cannot come to consensus if anyone else disagrees with them. That is a big part of the problem there. --Blue Tie (talk) 06:35, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

A summary of the problem

Yes, it's long. Sorry. Please read it anyway.

The problem is that Waterboarding is a massive hot potato in the current American election cycle, which is attracting more and more people that want to install an American-centric POV onto the article, irregardless of minor details such as the fact that American politics are a tiny fraction of what has significance and weight in Wikipedia articles. 144 sources say Waterboarding is torture, a solid half dozen to a dozen say it's not. The ones that say "not" are all American, right-of-center types. One political viewpoint of one idealogical bent getting to install modern American POV onto a topic that dates back to around the year 1400, predating the United States, is the problem, but no one is hardly willing to come out and say that in the interests of WP:AGF. I'm going to suspend AGF a moment here, which I know I shouldn't do, but someone needs to try to summarize this mess. If this goes to Arbcom this is probably going to be my statement.

That is the crux of the entire problem--it's a pure push to minimize and downplay the wording and effects of the article, specifically in calling waterboarding "torture". That simple facet is a content dispute, but an extremely, extremely weakly positioned one, that virtually every new person to the waterboarding page has agreed is a weak position--the views of the American Right are a lone viewpoint in general, and the view that waterboarding is not torture is a very, very small minority viewpoint. Various courageous warriors however are trying to inflate this fictional disparity into something on the level of the debates on abortion, Holocaust denial, or global warming. It simply isnt. It's a small number of Americans saying that after 9/11, it's not torture. It doesn't work that way, because that violates NPOV. It can argued it may be disputed in some American political circles, but it's preposterous to say that globally waterboarding is contested as a form of torture. Any suggestions that the article and in particular it's lead reflect a global world view primarily are met with scorn. One person even was so bold as to say that foreign opinion is irrelevant, because they haven't been through what we Americans have.

That is the problem: a tiny minority group of very vocal tenditious editors are insisting that a minority American point of view needs to have elevated, weight-enhanced authority to preserve NPOV. Everyone else says that in the interests of NPOV, the exact opposite needs to happen, with the minority American POV (that is held by very few sourced, notable authorities) being relegated to the WP:FRINGE side of things per WP:WEIGHT. Neither side is willing to budge, and with each verbal body check it just gets worse each day, until the past 24 hours when we finally had people running around virtually waving their arms screaming "FIRE! FIRE! FIRE!" in all directions, on every side, following the Harvard class experiment that en masse decided to decend on the waterboarding debate to weigh in (just when you thought it couldn't get any more bizarre).

Before waterboarding was on the news media every day the page and talk were quite manageable. Things went downhill civility-wise here (no offense: just saying this based on chronology, not saying they were directly responsible) after Neutral Good arrived; after 209.221.240.193, a confirmed IP address of User:BryanFromPalatine/User:DeanHinnen arrived, and several weeks after Blue Tie arrived further. Those were the basic landmarks for downward progress as I recall. Add in the confirmed per User:Alison sockpuppetry involving Shibumi2 and others, and the random ever changing massive cloud of Sprint Wireless IPs that sometimes (but not always) calls itself "Bob" was just the icing on the cake. Other than that, debate had been quite civil, barring the occasional drive-by lunacy, until roughly the past three weeks.

I am routinely astonished that one side of the debate goes ballistic with anger and innuendo whenever any user attempts to get more eyes on the problem. I and others have been derided for having the nerve to ask in places like the RS noticeboard, Fringe theory noticeboard, and here on ANI, and was accused of using requests for more people to review a situation as an attempt at canvassing. If some were so convinced that they were truly defending Wikipedia in the name of NPOV, why would they be so upset at the fact that I wanted more people to review the situation? If the defense of NPOV was true, then all the "new" people would side with the correct side of the NPOV debate here. The fact that nearly every single "new" person has sided with the "Is torture", global sourced view, over the past week since this got wide exposure after civility went out the door, has caused civility on the talk pages to completely flush itself down the toilet in response. Make of all that what you will. Lawrence Cohen 07:14, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. The problem has nothing to do with the Election Cycle. The fundamental problem is simply that the issue is disputed in society at large and wikipedia, for better or worse, reflects society. However, that basic problem is compounded when editors not only refuse to assume good faith but actively look and seek for ways to discredit anyone who disagrees with their perspective. The post above is an example. Sure... he does not "say" that certain people are responsible, but he names names, one after the other, of people who disagree with him and says the last one "puts icing on the cake". It throws gas on the fire for an admin to take a strong partisan view and then post about the guilt all around him, while he and fellow sympathizers are innocent victims tolerating hoodlums. One would think that only the people who disagree with Lawrence are causing problems. I guess if everyone who disagree with him would go away, things would be just fine. But that works both ways. Sure, he's not canvassing for support. He's just dragging the content debate from that talk page over to this one -- and complaining. No, that's not canvassing. That's getting "more eyes". Look at how hard he tries to convince everyone here that his position is the right one... even before you get to that talk page! But its all in the name of keeping you neutral when you arrive. And to emphasize how neutral his position is, he asserts that all the new people agree with his view. He then asserts that these new people joining up on that side have enraged some small minority to ferocity, apparently because they are somehow outnumbered. Well, from the perspective of editing suggestions for the articlethat is simply not so. New editors have stated that the firm stance that the article takes "Waterboarding is torture" is not correct and should be adjusted. In fact, there really has not been a terribly uncivil situation on that page that I have seen. It has been very active. Sometimes heated. But the uncivility has not been all that bad until tonight when an admin imposed new rules on the page, but then did not enforce them -- leading to a sense that things were "unfair". THAT is the problem and it will soon die away. But meanwhile, Lawrence comes here and salts the well against the people who disagree with him by claiming that they are unreasonable, uncivil and basically horrible --- so all fair minded admins can know exactly what they should do or who they should target when they arrive if they are even remotely sane or good people.

Other than the fundamentally difficult nature of the topic, the most important contribution to that article's heat has been a constant drum-beat of subtle and overt provocations and bullying actions by admins who take a strong pov in the debate. Perhaps due to the nature of the issue, it is impossible for an admin to be unbiased. But I do not agree with the causes that Lawrence postulates above. --Blue Tie (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 08:13, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

What you decline to mention was that this fake consensus was the pre-made meatpuppetry from Harvard, that has already been discredited here: those people are all the admitted Harvard classmates that made a decision ahead of time, in real life, then all came to Wikipedia to post that very section. Abusive meatpuppetry. Lawrence Cohen 14:57, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Probably because it was not discredited.--Blue Tie (talk) 19:43, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I originally got involved after a posting by Lawrence on WP:RSN asking for uninvolved editors to contribute. After watching for a few weeks, I will agree with him that the presence of certain editors is extremely disruptive to the consensus building approach. Almost every posting by a certain editor is designed to drive other editors apart and provoke confrontation and endless argument. The endless contributions from anonymous Sprint wireless IP addresses, the confirmed sockpuppeting from those addresses, Neutral Good's Request for Adminship for the sock-puppeteer, the support of those addresses here etc. I don't know how these editors are connected, but it seems to involve Free Republic somehow. While all of this is going on, any attempt to build consensus will fail, and editors will be driven away from the article.

I also agree with Lawrence (and disagree with Blue Tie): this disruption is completely about American politics. There are absolutely no citations from before 2001 questioning the status of waterboarding as a form of torture. The dispute is wholly as a result of its use by the CIA, and those who wish to justify that use. Chris Bainbridge (talk) 12:40, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I think it is possible that there are no sources prior to 2001 that use the term waterboarding at all. If you have seen any, I would be very excited to read them. --Blue Tie (talk) 19:45, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

The origin of the English word "waterboard" is an interesting question, but does not affect the meaning of what I wrote: every reliable source reported the drowning technique as torture when done by the Spanish, Japanese, Vietnamese, Khmer Rouge etc. Nobody claimed the technique might not be torture before 2001. Chris Bainbridge (talk) 20:23, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

It seems to have been used at least as early as 1946 in UN documents. All evidence I have is the second entry on this Google Books search[5], I have no easy access to these documents to check it any further. Fram (talk) 14:40, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I've been watching infrequently and endorse Lawrence's summary of the situation given above. Orderinchaos 05:35, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. The situation has presently gone to arbitration: Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Waterboarding/Evidence. Lawrence Cohen 20:48, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Stone put to sky

After seeing a posting made by Stone put to sky (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) on this noticeboard a few days ago in which he claims myself and others are part of a "cabal", I responded (full thread) and then asked him to cease with these allegations if he couldn't prove them. In fact, two of the editors he mentions as being part of this "cabal" haven't edited for some time now. Previously, Stone put to sky commented on an AFD that those who wished to see the article now titled Allegations of state terrorism committed by the United States deleted were "fascists". [6]...when that issue was brought up with him again (full thread), he reserved the right to continue to label myself and others with this word. "Until such time, however, that the Oxford Dictionary singularly labels this particular word as a "pejorative epithet" (those big words are what we linguists use to mean "insult"), then you must simply deal with the fact that you are not allowed to stop people from using it when referring to you." When asked by User:JungleCat to not use that word to describe those he disagrees with his retort was no more civil.[7]. It's pretty obvious Stone puts to sky feels I am part of a cabal [8] (which I have asked him to prove but won't/can't)[9], that myself and others are fascists [10] and that I am "lying"[11] and that I have "sockpuppeteers" and "kiddie-thugs"[12] I assume to supposedly do my nefarious actions for me, of course. Would a neutral admin please remind Stone put to sky about our policies regarding WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA...I [13] and others tried to do so, but it seems to have failed.--MONGO 10:15, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

This interaction took place on my talk page, and was occasioned by MONGO's appearance and declaration that i was not to make any mention of a publicly available admission published on this site by a former partner of his. Following that, he made a thinly-veiled threat that he would seek administrative intervention should i choose to do so. MONGO's rhetoric and choice of words were unambiguous violations of WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA; coupled with past disciplinary actions taken against him as well as his active pursuit of me, independent of any pages on which he or i am currently editing, then i must protest that the root problem here are his actions -- not mine.

The exchange took place on my talk page, and would never have happened had it not been initiated by him. None of it has been nor ever will be used in any of the pages where i am editing. MONGO pursued the exchange even though i made it quite clear that i considered his activity to be tantamount to bullying threats. In an extremely surreal move, JungleCat suddenly appeared -- i have had virtually no interaction with this poster ever, so far as i can remember -- and began asserting that MONGO was correct. Why this person appeared i have no idea, but the distinct impression was that there was some sort of set-up or collaboration taking place. Regardless, i politely rejected their interpretation of the word "fascist" and -- again, politely -- referred them to any common dictionary or other reference for proof.

MONGO was quite upset, apparently, that i had referred to admissions made by NuclearUmpf -- a former, long-term poster and editing partner of MONGO's -- that were made here on the Wikipedia website and are freely available to all. Regarding the specific accusations made against MONGO, i would like to point out that it was he who appeared on my talk page and engaged me in this course of conversation. I did not seek him out, nor did i press the issue publicly (i.e. -- on a public page frequented by many, nor in a formal administrative move, nor on a page's talk-page). I find it hard to understand why any objections should arise when mention is made of a public admission by a former, long-term user. NuclearUmpf's revelations outlined a modus operandi that has been openly commented upon and observed by many users from all across the website. I believe that this is usually referred to as "The Elephant in the Room", but in this instance these were published admissions and revelations, not mere accusations made by me, and it seems rather beyond the pale for someone to insist that they be stricken from the public record. My characterization of the members of such cabals as "kiddie thugs" may be mildly distasteful, but it is not inaccurate and was not directed at any particular person or group. A general observation made about a class of people universally rejected by all wikipedia policies and administrators certanly can not be considered a personal insult, can it?

I would further like to point out that we would not be discussing any of this in the public section of the site were it not for MONGO's own pursuit of the matter, as well as the implicit threats and incivility of his entire comportment throughout this entire affair.

Finally, most of the "incivility" that MONGO claims occurred was nothing more than a discussion of whether the word "fascist" is a pejorative epithet or a neutral descriptive. I maintain the latter; MONGO feels it is, however, an insult. Nowhere in that particular discussion did i use invective, and throughout the exchange i re-iterated repeatedly that A) I have friends who self-identify as fascists, B) fascism as a mainstream political movement is still quite alive and kicking, and C) the implication was clearly that, insofar as i have friends who call themselves fascists, i can hardly be accused of considering the word an ipso facto insult. Stone put to sky (talk) 10:33, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

In all fairness, many today proudly call themselves Nazi, but to suggest being called a Nazi is therefore not insulting sounds a bit naive to me.Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 11:08, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

And i agree. But "fascism" does not espouse openly racist beliefs, nor does it promote social darwinism, eugenics, or genocide. Fascism is one aspect of Nazism; but it was also espoused by high-ranking members of the U.S. and British government, powerful businessmen in both of those countries, and of course by the governments of Mussolini, Chiang Kai-shek and Franco. Franco and Chiang Kai-shek were close allies of the U.S. for many years, all the way up until their respective deaths. There are fascist groups openly at work in Italy, Germany, France and Britain even today. So while calling someone a "Nazi" is, i admit, an insult, saying that someone is a "fascist" is -- for me, at least -- just a descriptive term.

I'd also add that i have never taunted MONGO -- or anyone else, for that matter -- with this term; i do, however, strongly object to demands that i excise it from my vocabulary. Stone put to sky (talk) 12:00, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

You will excise it from your vocabulary when you refer to me again. If you don't agree that most would see it as an epithet, then maybe you need some familiarization as can be seen at our own article......Fascist (epithet).--MONGO 12:16, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry -- was that a threat that you just made? Some sort of ultimatum you think you have the power to issue? Obviously, MONGO, you have some personal issues you need to work through, because you most assuredly do not possess the authority to dictate to me how i use language. And, in that vein -- having just pointed out your authoritarian tendencies and the general lack of civility they imply -- i suggest that you check out the entry here . The first paragraph seems particularly apropos. Stone put to sky (talk) 13:37, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Okay...thats very nice. Thanks.--MONGO 21:49, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, MONGO, but i don't really understand your answer. My question was honest: are you threatening me? And if so, then with what? Because the english you used was clearly a command: "You will...." (or else!). The "or else" is clearly implied, and so the usage appears distinctly uncivil to me. Then you follow it up with this...taunt? What else could one call it? In the meantime, i have yet to get an answer from you: do you really feel as if i am bound by wikipedia guidelines to submit to your caprice and whim? Because with the two statements just made by you it certainly seems to me as if that's how you think. Stone put to sky (talk) 06:18, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't make threats, but if you persist in this violation of policy regarding WP:NPA then I have no recourse aside from seeking further dispute resolution. If you can't abide by the comments here asking you to cease making wild accusations and to cease referring to those you disagree with as fascists, some of which have been made by people that in no way could ever be part of my alledged "cabal", then I think further action may be necessary.--MONGO 16:54, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Out of the blue, you brought up the issue of this illusionary cabal some days ago by posting here and I responded here and you didn't. I had had zero interaction with you for a long time until I saw this bogus report. I have no idea what compelled you to suddenly make these false acusations. I then asked you on your talkpage to refrain from making these unsubstantiated allegations and have asked you repeatedly to not call me a fascist, yet you persist. You also persist in posting incorrect allusions regarding my involvement in some cabal. I have asked you to furnish proof and you won't or can't. I even suggested you request a checkuser on me and these other editors and you won't do that either.--MONGO 10:43, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

MONGO, walk away per WP:DENY. LessHeard vanU (talk) 11:12, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Would it be reasonable to either provide sufficient support for the cabal allegation, or stop this unproductive exchange of, what I remember to be nothing more than, hearsay?Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 11:16, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Stone put to sky is referring I believe to this posting made by User:NuclearUmpf (aka User:SevenOfDiamonds shortly before he was banned. It was never proven of course. I guess since Stone put to sky is now in edit conflicts with a User:Raggz, he assumes that this newer editor has some connection with me or others who also disagreed with his contributions in the past. Nevertheless, I certainly don't appreciate being brought up out of the blue based on some unsubstantiated allegation made by an editor in imminent threat of being banned, nor do I appreciate the insult of being called a fascist.--MONGO 11:28, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, I am aware of that statement by Zer0faults (talk · contribs) (yet another aka), however, his reliability around the time of his indef ban appears to be somewhat less than 100%.:) Certainly Stone should be smarter than to use this as evidence. Personally I am not convinced and urge people to ignore that statement by what I consider a disruptive element. Especially since that statement is a decade old. Again I ask Stone to provide more compelling evidence or stop making wild accusations. Second, eventhough he sees things defferently I think using fascist to describe other editors is not a constructive way of communicating.Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 11:47, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I think it odd that i be asked to provide evidence for something that speaks for itself. All i have done -- and i think it not unreasonable nor uncivil -- is point out that a long-term compadre of MONGO's has admitted to behavior that i myself have outlined elsewhere (pointedly without reference, i might add, to any sort of off-site coordination or leadership). In that admission my name was specifically mentioned as one of the objects of this behavior. Other posters and other contributors -- not to mention other websites -- have long insisted that this behavior is rampant across all of Wikipedia. I am not advocating any action specifically based upon these revelations or admissions; all i have done is point out that, in light of these admissions, certain behavior by certain posters on the State Terrorism thread is reasonably suspect.

If evidence is being asked for, then i would suggest somebody just pop in over there and watch the merry-go-round i've been on these last few days with one particular poster there. I have asked -- repeatedly -- to be accorded the simple courtesy of discussing edits before they are posted on the page. Yet for some reason the poster in question cannot figure out that really, that's all i want. I have suffered a lot of ham-fisted wikilawyering and been the object of a lot of accusations, but even up to now the poster insists that there is only one answer to the page's problems: his introduction (part of which is patently untrue, and the other part of which has already been made an explicit foundation of the article), and massive deletions.

In the past this sort of behavior has served as the prelude to an AfD nomination, preceded and/or followed by the appearance of MONGO, Harrison, and a host of other, less well-known posters. In each case repeated attempts to delete large portions of reliably sourced, relevant material are made. NuclearUmpf/Zerofaults/etc was often at the forefront of this activity. Are you suggesting, Nomen, that when a poster who has been the cause of so much destructive activity admits that he was not working alone, explains how it was coordinated and for what reasons, and then points a finger at me -- are you actually suggesting that it is uncivil of me to make mention of that?

Need i add that this behavior -- this JungleCat/MONGO tag-team that suddenly appeared on my talk page -- is circumstantial corroboration? I don't understand what the problem is with pointing out something that all long-term posters here already understand to be true. Stone put to sky (talk) 12:17, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Zer0Faults/NuclearUmpf/SevenOfDiamonds was never a compadre of mine. Your ongoing insinuations that content disputes you are having with Raggz have something to do with myself and or others you have previously been in disputes with are ridiculous. I haven't touched that page in over 6 months. As I have pointed out, that post about some cabal was made by an editor in bad standing in the community and was banned, repeatedly. It was unsubstantiated and your conspiracy theory on this matter is laughable. Surely, you're not so sheltered to assume that only a few people would oppose your content additions? You really think that just myself and other editors are the only ones on earth that would? How preposterous. Cease with your unsubstantiated allegations and wikilawyering about why it is "okay" to call myself and others fascist, please.--MONGO 12:29, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, we shall agree to disagree about your relationship with Zerofaults. From my position it seemed quite clear that you, he and others were supporting each others' edits and defending each others' deletions, even in the face of vociferous disapproval from the vast majority of regular editors. IIRC, there was often considerable backslapping amongst you all. Would you like me to go find a bit of evidence to support these observations?

For the moment, however, i am content to point out that MONGO is, most assuredly, not "assuming good faith". I do acknowledge that yes, it is quite possible that MONGO and Raggz have no relationship whatsoever; it's easy for me to say that. I have never sought to push this issue and nothing i have said so far has suggested that it's a problem for me. I have not been running around, willy-nilly, tossing out accusations and/or demanding action. The inference that MONGO has drawn is that i am pointing a finger at him and drawing a target. I am not. I am, however, drawing attention to the behavior of Raggz and suggesting that now may be a good time for conscientious Wikipedia administrators to pay attention to what's happening over on the State Terrorism page; and there is a reason for my concern: the admission by NuclearUmpf that i have often been the target of coordinated group activity. I have not demanded that anyone be banned, nor have i demanded any recognition of the truth or falsehood of this accusation. I have, however, pointed out that there is a great deal of corroborating evidence on the "State Terrorism by United States" page and that there is good justification for concern. My only desire is to improve the page, nothing else. Yet out of this simple observation MONGO has -- through clearly aggressive, uncivil behavior -- provoked a confrontation and convinced himself that it is in fact i who am attacking him.

Finally, i'd like to point out that i haven't ever labled MONGO a fascist! Even so i do insist that, were i to do so, it would remain a neutral term, entirely less of an invective than his own usage of words like "liberal", "democrats", "defeatocrats", or whatever ("conspiracy nut", anyone?). MONGO has repeatedly demonstrated a penchant for hurling epithets and insults at others, and i doubt a day passes that doesn't see him utilizing this particular skill of his. With the exception of a few, extremely rare instances, i do not. When i have transgressed those boundaries, i have apologized. Thus, i find it ironic that i am suffering the ire of MONGO for the use of a term that was never directed at him personally, and -- moreover -- which i consider to be both neutral and trivial. Stone put to sky (talk) 13:20, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

All I am asking Stone not to do is use the word "fascist" to describe me or anyone else that objects to that term, it's as simple as that. To me, someone calling me that is assuming bad faith about me and I see it as a personal attack. JungleCat Shiny!/Oohhh! 20:09, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

This is unacceptable. By any ordinary standard, calling someone a fascist is a personal attack. The target of that statement objects to it as such. End of story. The lengthy rebuttal is a waste of perfectly good electrons. Civil discourse does not consist of forcing a label onto someone who rejects it. Durova^Charge! 21:35, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Whether or not Stone expressly used the word fascist to describe a particular editor (clearly a personal attack to my mind) his line of argument here is not fruitful and I suggest that he drop it. The ZeroFaults "cabal" accusations are very old news and ZF/NucleaUmpf is hardly a reliable source. Stone is wrong to bring these up again (it accomplishes nothing, even if it were true) and MONGO is completely justified in taking issue with being associated with "cabalism." I would say to Stone that the crazy drama over at the "Allegations" article has died down a great deal in the last few months and I don't think stirring up these old battles (as MONGO points out a couple of the editors in question are not editing anymore, and others just are not participating over there very much or at all) is useful. I would also say to Stone (and to anyone else) that I am one who has been critical of MONGO in the past for what I saw as issues relating to civility, but comments he made recently during some ArbCom drama have convinced me that he is very much working on that {call it the "MONGO margarita before editing" strategy :) } and since MONGO is not creating any problems over at the "Allegations" article I don't see any reason to bring him up. Try to work out your issues with User:Raggz without dredging up a lot of old nonsense that really does not bear on the present situation and if that happens I think we can close this thread and move on to more important matters.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 23:34, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I would like to note in this venue that Stone put to sky has consistently failed to assume good faith with regards to any edits that are not in line with his own POV (note blanket reversions of all of User:Raggz's edits to controversial articles concerning the US, and accusations of bad faith, tendetious/disruptive editing, etc etc etc) and now these wild accusations against MONGO, who isn't even involved in the ongoing dispute concerning Raggz at all except as a spectator. If this crap continues, we're going to have to shuffle the whole larger mess concering the edit warring, incivility, puppet accusations and so forth across all these articles up to Arbcom. Jtrainor (talk) 01:28, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Goodness! We do have a coterie, here, don't we! JTrainor, Durova, JungleCat and MONGO -- all in the same place, once again!

Regarding my supposed lack of "good faith", i would like to request evidence. MONGO has levelled charges. I have responded to them in a serious, sincere, and polite fashion. I have not made any accusations of bad faith nor implied any ill intent or motives on the part of any of the participants, here. I have pointed out that they are famous collaborators who support each other wiki-wide -- but that is transparently evident to anyone who posts here for some time and does not suggest any "bad faith" on my part. Beyond that, i have addressed the accusations being leveled at me -- and nothing more.

I would also like to point out -- for the third or fourth time now -- that i have never used the word fascist to refer to any particular person. JungleCat has joined into this conversation protesting that he doesn't like me using the word "fascist" to refer to him. That would be like me jumping into an AN/I involving him and some random user and declaring that i don't like him calling me a "liberal" (which, incidentally, i really do hate -- but since he never has, then why would i bother?). The same goes for Durova and her objections. These people are referring to an exchange that never took place.

Even so, i will also refer once again to the well-known fact that "fascist" is a clearly defined technical term that is -- when not being slung around in the same way the word "liberal" often is -- morally neutral. That is simply a fact. Nothing more.

From that, i wold like to summarize the current arguments as i see them (and please -- correct me if i'm wrong):

A) I should never have mentioned the admissions of NuclearUmpf, even though i was particularly named in it. So you are all declaring that my mention of certain revelations is actionable in and of itself -- even when i was one of the named objects in those revelations? Once again: i'm not asking for any sort of official action, apology, or acknowledgment. I'm not jumping up and down and throwing a tantrum. All i have done is point out that these admissions were made, nothing more.

B) I should never use the word "fascist" to refer to any person's political ideas or world view because some here feel strongly about it's use. The argument is, apparently, that i should excise the word "fascist" from my vocabulary and never use it again on Wikipedia. Am i correct? In response, i would ask if it's apropos for me to demand that some here never use the word "conspiracy", because i perceive it as an epithet they use to bully others. Would that be reasonable? If not, then i can only protest that i see no point to the argument. Since there is no evidence that i have ever used this particular word as an epithet aimed at any particular person then it really does seem to me as if we are engaged in a lot of hypothesizing and aggrandized posturing, and nothing more. I do respect, however, that some here seem to have strong feelings; i would respond, however, that i, too, have strong inclinations over these matters.

These being the sum of the charges here before me, i am wondering where we should now proceed. I was sought out by MONGO, who plastered my talk page with all sorts of unambiguously uncivil assertions that both presume and imply bad faith. I responded measuredly and without ire. When called here i appeared, and have negotiated in good faith to work out these issues with MONGO. I am obviously not out to pick a fight or provoke any ill will. I am clearly representing myself, and only myself, over and against a rapidly expanding array of MONGO's allies. Some of these are very visible, high-powered administrators and editors. Should we conclude from this that -- apparently -- he does not feel comfortable enough with the arguments themselves and -- for some reason -- fears unemotional consideration by neutral admins? For my part, i rarely appear at AN/I. This is, IIRC, only my second or third time to be here. I do not bully other editors, pick fights, vandalize web-pages, or seek anything but conscientious, solid expansion of Wikipedia. I do not coordinate actions behind-the-scenes. I come here when i can and add what i can. That's the sum of my contributions here, and although they are rather plain and unremarkable i'm proud of them, and happy to be a part of this project. Am i now to be disciplined? Because as we all know, the internet is a big place. People who post here also post in other places, and i have seen rumours on other websites that i am to be banned. Is that what is intended?

For insisting that "fascist" is a useful, neutral, technical descriptive? Because i had the gumption to make reference to posts here that mention me, by name?

Is that really where this is headed? Stone put to sky (talk) 06:14, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Several sarcastic responses at your expense come to mind, but instead I'll just point to my contribs and MONGO's contribs, where anyone can see that we have never interacted before a few days ago, and that being a brief conversation on his talk page. Jtrainor (talk) 06:20, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, then -- why did you seek out my talk page? But even so, IIRC you are a bit mistaken. We have encountered each other, but that was quite some time back. I can understand how you might have forgotten. For my part, bygones are bygones. Thus, it seems rather unfortunate that you have now taken such a confrontational posture towards me. Stone put to sky (talk) 06:29, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Uh, I've never posted on your talk page. I've posted to Viriditas's talk page and MONGO's and Raggz's recently, but not yours. Jtrainor (talk) 07:16, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Ah. My mistake. I went back into the archives and verified that it wasn't you. Please accept my apologies and consider the comment retracted in full. Stone put to sky (talk) 07:58, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

ome final observations:

1. Whether or not we can have a philosophical, metaphysical and etymological debate regarding the neutrality of certain words, i.e. shorty, negro, stupid, et cetera. Fact remains you are not prohibited from refraining from using the word fascist. Especially after being specifically asked I think it borders on being rude.
2. As to the cabal, clearly there are some observations and you have gone and drawn conclusions based upon circumstantial evidence. While it is entirely possiblethose conclusions are correct I personally think that voicing such accusations without any hard evidence is at best regrettable.

RespectfullyNomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 16:18, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, Nomen, but i must protest.

FIrst, i have drawn no conclusions. I have left the conclusions entirely up to the Wikipedia administration. All i have done is ask for attention.

Second, my usage of the word "fascist" was never directed at any particular person or group. For instance, i never said "I think _____ is a ____ble fascist!!". Instead, i suggested that there existed fascists who were more interested in seeing a particular viewpoint eliminated from Wikipedia's public boards. Am i wrong for suspecting that? Isn't it true that fascists do exist in this world of ours, and that fascists are as capable as any other of pushing their own viewpoint through Wikipedia's channels? If so then am i not justified in suspecting that they may be interested in suppressing certain viewpoints? Correct me if i'm wrong, but is it not true that many people on Wikipedia suppress ides based on their supposed origination in "Holocaust denial", "White Supremacist" or "Neo-Nazi" ideology? Isn't it true that many people around Wikipedia challenge each other as -- personally -- as conservative, liberal, Republican, Democrat, or some other such label? How is my usage in this particular instance any different?

Finally, i would liike to re-iterate that i have never demanded any sort of official action or acknowledgment of any cabals. If i think a cabal exists then shouldn't it be perceived as entirely my personal failing? The only thing i have ever done is to call attention to the postings of a single editor here, on these pages (AN/I and Talk). I have only ever asked that, in the light of these admissions, particular attention should be paid to one of the pages he clearly indicated. Am i wrong to be concerned over the clear identification of myself as an object of these plans?

More importantly -- are you seriously asserting that i should disregard them? Stone put to sky (talk) 18:59, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

In addition to all of that i would like to specifically request clarification: are you saying i am or am not allowed to use the word "fascist"? The current edit does not make that clear. Stone put to sky (talk) 19:05, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

You shouldn't be calling anyone a fascist. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 22:11, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Raggz

Unresolved

 – Moved thread over 50kb to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/User:Raggz

slakr^\ talk /

Stale

 – User warned. Future issues should seek continued dispute resolution, including mediation or arbitration. --slakr^\ talk / 19:15, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Seek dispute resolution or use the subpage for further comments. slakr^\ talk /

---

Can someone please have a look at this thread? I appreciate that it's long and tedious, and a lot of crazy claims have been made, but the original complaint (that Raggz has been persistently making false claims in various articles and deleting stuff he doesn't like for false reasons) is quite serious and hasn't been resolved. Some editors are trying to characterise it as a content dispute but it manifestly is not.

So far, the only admin who's commented, Coren, has agreed that this is not a content dispute and that Raggz "is currently a net liability to the project"[14] but no action has been taken and Raggz continues to disrupt the project. Until an administrator intervenes, he will continue to insert blatant lies into Wikipedia articles and remove the facts he doesn't like.

Cheers, Sideshow Bob Roberts (talk) 18:12, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm thinking this is stale. You might consider arbitration or another form of dispute resolution if the problem behavior persists; but, for now the user has been warned. --slakr^\ talk / 19:15, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

By the way, the only reason I say it's stale is that it doesn't look like any administrator is going to act on it for the time being, and it looks like it's turning into an arbitration discussion, so it doesn't help to keep it posted here unless the problem involves a seriously pressing issue requiring emergency attention. --slakr^\ talk / 19:19, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorry if this is a stupid question but what do you mean by "the user has been warned"? Sideshow Bob Roberts (talk) 19:36, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Minor note. For those who are interested the longer discussion thread still exists. It is at

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/User:Raggz

I noticed that the link to it was struck out higher up. --Timeshifter (talk) 19:36, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Ah, sorry, it was only mean tto strike out the actual "unresolved" tag. I suppose I could just replace it entirely. Anyway, the warning was Coren's post later in the page. I don't know if anything is resolved or not, but it seems like the discussion is considerably more in depth and requires more than a simple discussion on ANI (i.e., it requires dispute resolution, or, if that hasn't worked, the final step arbitration. There's little else that is willing to be done here, else it probably would have been done already. --slakr^\ talk / 20:33, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

You mean this? I don't see an actual user warning there, and Raggz certainly didn't interpret it as one. On the contrary, this sends a clear message that he can keep lying in Wikipedia articles, edit summaries and discussion pages, and no administrator will ever do anything about it. Sideshow Bob Roberts (talk) 23:06, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Be civil and don't use personal attacks. Jtrainor (talk) 03:41, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Raggz has told dozens of outright lies in articles, in edit summaries, and on discussion pages. He has told a bunch of outright lies about me personally. I've provided plenty of diffs that demonstrate this, but no-one here seems to be interested.

Apologies if I've misunderstood, but I don't think anything in WP:NPA or WP:CIVIL implies that we shouldn't point out when a person is lying. Sideshow Bob Roberts (talk) 04:43, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

REFERRED FOR BLOCKING - IP 209.244.30.109

Resolved

 – IP blocked by admin.

As the reviewing admin can see from the following evidence, this IP has received the requisite warnings prior to any possible blocks:

1. IP talk page warnings
2. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Will_Turner&diff=prev&oldid=183970993 latest incident - Will Turner
3. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pirates_of_the_Caribbean:_At_World%27s_End&diff=prev&oldid=183970836 latest incident - POTC:AWE

Previous edits can be traced by links from the IP talk page. If an admin could look at this IP for possible block, I'd appreciate it. Thanks. Edit Centric (talk) 03:37, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

The IP hasn't edited since your last warning. Next time, please take these reports to WP:AIV. —Kurykh 03:39, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Kurykh, sorry to trouble you with this one, I'll repost there. Edit Centric (talk) 03:49, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Um...my implicit message was that a block isn't needed at this juncture. Block at next offense. —Kurykh 03:55, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Um...I respectfully disagree. If you look again, you'll see that this same IP user comes back every few days, and removes the same content from the same articles. The latest two incidents were performed after the level-4 warning. After reverting these changes, I issued the 4-im. So in essence, the IP has received five warnings for the month so far. However, I do respect your position and opinion, whatever becomes of this one is kosher by me. Edit Centric (talk) 04:00, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Just noting, the IP is currently blocked for 31 hours by User:C.Fred. It doesn't appear to be shared or dynamic (or at any rate, it's been static for several days). I might be willing to apply longer blocks, in the event they continue. Seems a compromise? – Luna Santin (talk) 21:42, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Seems at least appropriate. Thanks again! Edit Centric (talk) 10:30, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

The Troubles - ArbCom remedy request for views

Resolved

 – last chances being given out

I protected Flag of Northern Ireland on 11 January for one day to prevent an incipent edit war occurring. This morning, three editors reverted a total of five times on the issue. There was a small amount of discussion on the talk page, but only to give opposing reasons for reverting. I have re-protected the article for a week.

Per the Arbcom ruling on these articles, I am considering placing User:Padraig and User:Traditional unionist (three reverts each on this article since 9 Jan) on 1RR/week probation for one month. Any comments would be gratefully received. BLACKKITE 14:43, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm sure padraig will agree, this is a massive over reaction to a small event.Traditional unionist (talk) 14:47, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Which is why I asked for comments. On the other hand, it could be argued that if we are not to use the tools provided by ArbCom for moderating the problems with these articles, what is the point of having ArbCom at all? BLACKKITE 14:50, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I ask myself the same question (for different reasons) frequently.Traditional unionist (talk) 14:58, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Comment an unsourced claim was removed from the article by another editor who started a discussion on the talk page, User:Traditional Unionist immediately reverted its removal, I responded on the talk page and then removed the reverted text as OR and POV Here, TU then reverted with the [15] edit summary desist from removing referenced material. start a dicsussion this is dispite the fact the the source, the text of the GFA dosen't support the text being added and a discussion was already underway on the talk page, He also deleted a message i placed on his talk page here, I then removed the unsourced material, which is when the article was protected. I have not edit warred but removed unsourced claims as per WP policy.--Padraig (talk) 15:06, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

• OK, how about this for a proposed remedy?
  • (1) I stub that paragraph to a neutral sentence.
  • (2) Discussion takes place ONLY on the talk page until some sort of consensus is reached; otherwise the paragraph stays how it is.
  • (3) A final warning; any further revert warring by either of you on any Troubles-related article will lead to immediate probation being invoked.

BLACKKITE 15:05, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

The claim is not supported by the source, they are trying to add their own interpertation or opinion on a issue and claiming the source supports it, that is WP:OR, this was addressed in the talk page. I have already been involved in the discussion on the talk page and have no problem continuing to do so.--Padraig (talk) 15:12, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

1)I apologise for my edit summary, I didn't notice a discussion had been opened. 2)It is not OR or intrepretation. It is a referenced statement, which I have added a further reference for on the talk page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Traditional unionist (talk • contribs) 15:15, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

You didn't check to see if there was one either, so explain why you deleted my comment from your talk page, It is a interpertation on your part, Sinn Fein have never stated they see Northern Ireland as a viable and seperate state, you are inserting your own opinion.--Padraig (talk) 15:26, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

• OK right - let's be WP:BOLD - I have stubbed that paragraph. Let's get a discussion going, please, and I will unprotect at some point (not immediately). BLACKKITE 15:20, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree with the wording on your stubbed version. That is all needs to be said in the article on the issue.--Padraig (talk) 17:29, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I think your proposed remedy makes sense, Black Kite. Making it clear that the ArbCom ruling is supposed to stop this type of revert-warring, and thus if it continues the ruling will be implemented, is sufficient at this time. Rockpocket 18:40, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Revert parole is a very mild sanction all things considered. You could just as easily ban both editors from that page for a month or two. Be sure to log your final action. Thatcher 01:20, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

List of hooligan firms

Resolved

 – problem user blocked, other users reminded of 3RR policy and outlets for resolving disputes in the future. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 22:11, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

User:JackQPR has, since 18 December 2007, kept adding into the list the name of a "firm". On the article it states that any firms added without a correct source will be removed, which is what has happened each and every time this user adds the firm as the source they are providing does not verify the firms existence. However, this user keeps adding the same firm over and over, despite being told numerous times that the source they are providing does not mention the firms name. I have left a number of messages on the users talk page and offered to help them, and have even created a sandbox for them to use to experiment. However, despite all the messages left, they have thus far not responded and each time another user removes the firm (and each time explaining that the firm is not mentioned in the source) they simply add them back in again. I don't know what should happen now? As I said, they haven't responded at all to any messages left, and seem unwilling to communicate. I have informed them that I have left a message about this on the Admin Board. Any advice on what should happen? Thank you. ♦Tangerines♦·Talk 16:45, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

JackQBP has been blocked for edit warring. In the future, you may want to bring such concerns to places like ANI or WP:RFC sooner. Revert wars are unproductive ways of handling content disputes like this; you are quite likely yourself to be blocked for WP:3RR violation, even if you are in the right. 3RR blocks are not about endorsing one person's view over another, but will be given to all involved to stop the war. In this case, it is clear you have been trying to talk to the user in question and start a discussion, and he is not willing to, which is why I only blocked him. But please take care in the future, and when problems arise like this, enlist outside opinion OR help from admins sooner rather than later. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 17:19, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Cheers, my apologies for not bringing it up sooner as myself (and other users who have also reverted the edits) should have done so. I will do as you state in future if anything like this arises again.♦Tangerines♦·Talk 17:26, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

What are people's feelings concerning this? Corvus cornix_talk 03:03, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Retention of deleted content in userspace. Might as well kill it. --tjstrf talk 03:07, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I have the opposite opinion. Let us still assume good faith here, (and remember, I blocked this user for disruption) and consider that he intends to use this space to work on finding sources and build the section up to meet Wikipedia standards. Plus, userfying deleted material (unless clear copyvio or BLP problems) is usually allowed fairly liberally. This particular page does no harm, and if the user returns with the same behavior, they will be blocked for a longer period. This page has no bearing on that. I say let it be, and no need to flog the deceased pony here... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 03:20, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Bobes66

Resolved

Can someone sort out this malformed RFA attempt for me, Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Bobes66 2, the user asked me for help with it since i fixed their last misguided attempt (which was closed early due to massive inexperience) but i cannot figure out how to fix it, and the user seems determined to go ahead with request despite me telling him its doomed to fail. It might be a good idea to let this one run for a bit instead of closing it right away, so Bobes realises what it takes to be an admin. Thanks --Jac16888 (talk) 19:41, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I fixed it by deleting it. It was malformed and one of the the editor's few contributions. No point keeping it or archiving it. If he runs in the future it can be re-created.Pedro :  Chat  21:47, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I actually think it would be better if it was actually kept, and allowed to run properly. If you see my talk page, they did fully intend to submit themselves, despite what they were told last time they tried, back in Nov. If it was to run it would press home to this user that they are not ready for adminship. Who knows, it might make them stay on and become a admin in the future, if they know what to aim for--Jac16888 (talk) 22:39, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

It's deleted with no prejudice to re-creation. I just don't think we need to formally close and archive it. If the editor wishes to run then he can just create it again as his first RfA, and fill it in properly. It wasn't transcluded to WP:RFA so I don't see any issues that anything has been hidden or what-have-you. Pedro :  Chat  22:48, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Ok then. I've explained this to the user, and i'm gonna re-mark this as resolved--Jac16888 (talk) 23:19, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Valley Lines

Resolved

 – content dispute, nothing that needs administrative attention here

User 90.203.45.168 continues to revert logical edits of Valley Lines, the reasons for which I have given on its talk page whereas the user refuses to give any reasons for their edits, and has just broken the 3RR. The user has been recently banned for this and has had their edits reverted by an administrator (Alison W) but still thinks they know better Welshleprechaun (talk) 19:43, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I would request any administrator taking action here to check their facts first. WL has attempted (and succeeded on one occasion) to mislead administrators as to his own conduct. Further to the abuse reported here, I have requested that in future the user should seek clarification should his edits be reverted in future, to which he agreed. I have asked no fewer than seven times for him to justify his choice of formatting over the status quo ante, and he has refused each time. His edit was not "logical", but rather was tendentious, giving undue prominence to the stations within one of the five principal areas covered by the extent of the subject. 90.203.45.168 (talk) 19:50, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Requested the reasoning eight times: [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] [23]. WL then sought to harass User:AlisonW, who had intervened previously - by casting themselves as the innocent party, and falsely accusing me of breaching 3RR. [24] Having not gained instant satisfaction, he then turned to harass me, accusing a "blatant disregard for Wikipedia" [25], and of "chasing" him [26] - though it is worth noting that WP:STALK makes it clear that reviewing an editor's contributions to deal with "errors or violations of Wikipedia policy, or correcting related problems on multiple articles" (q.v.) is not only not prohibited but actively encouraged. 90.203.45.168 (talk) 20:02, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Are you questioning the judgement of administration? And I have repeatedly told this user that my reasons are on the talk page but seems unwilling to read it Welshleprechaun (talk) 19:53, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Reporting a, not false, butclear break of the 3RR (as you can see on the history of Valley Lines) and instructing you to repsect Wikipedia and its editors doesn't count as harassment. As for chasing, reviewing other editors' comments is one thing, actively looking for a reason to revert them is another. Welshleprechaun (talk) 20:06, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

• Whilst edit warring is never a Good Thing, I would point out that there has been no technical breach of 3RR by the IP user on that article. Also, seriously, haven't you both got better things to do than revert war over an explanatory note on a route map? There is nothing that needs admin attention here.BLACKKITE 20:39, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Recent creation of User:Gray Wanderer

Resolved

This user account/name was created by a persistent vandal, who's edits I've reverted often. I've successfully campaigned for him/her to be blocked several times. User seems only interested in adding the same text to the page South Callaway High School over and over. From anon ips and created user names. The most recent user name User:Gray Wanderer bears obvious similarity to my user name User:Grey Wanderer. I'm not sure what action I can take in this instance, but is it possible to permanently block this user name for this action. In all likelihood it won't be used again, but I want to prevent any damage he might do to me by impersonating me on talk pages or in the mainspace.-Grey Wanderer | Talk 23:21, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

User blocked indef for vandalism. Nakon 23:22, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks.-Grey Wanderer | Talk 23:29, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Turtlescrubber seems to be having a bad day

Resolved

Turtlescrubber (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) seems to be having a bad day. He added a couple of talk page contributions that appear to be personal attacks directed at other editors, and I provided him with two warnings. [27][28]

The last warning was met with a personal attack against me.[29] TableManners^C·U·T 04:44, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Nevermind, looks like he was blocked while I was composing the above. TableManners^C·U·T 04:45, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Racism in user page

Resolved

 – Offending content removed and page full-protected. Further concerns about the content of User: pages should be directed to miscellany for deletion. Suspected sockpuppets should go to suspected sockpuppetry. slakr^\ talk /

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

User:Certified.Gangsta has restored racist content to his user page at: User:Certified.Gangsta#China=shame despite numerous notices in the past. In fact, if one reads the content of that section, it is pretty clear that User:Certified.Gangsta appreciates the offensive nature of the content yet persists in keeping it there.

I'm not going to even go near the user page or associated talk page because User:Certified.Gangsta has unsavoury but powerful friends. I ask merely that you guys take the appropriate action to ensure the removal of the racist material. Discrimination should have no place on Wikipedia, and abuse of user page privileges as a medium for racist advertising should not be tolerated. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 12:44, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

A brief look through the recent history of User:Certified.Gangsta will reveal how frequently other users become offended by the racist message and either delete it themselves or ask User:Certified.Gangsta to delete it. He, or one of his friends, always reverts the former and ignores the latter. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 12:48, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

If you are offended by a single header ("China=shame") and you can't look away from the page, then you need to ask Certified.Gangsta in a nice tone if s/he would mind removing it or clarifying the statement. I really don't see it as racist or an abuse of user page privileges in current (non-)context. And a brief look through the recent history show that most people agree with this position (the ask nicely one, not the China=shame one) and are restoring it when it is removed. I don't think there's anything for administrators to do here. Ask first, then dispute resolution, then WP:RfC. ➔ REDVEЯS is standing in the dark 13:19, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

To disagree with the actions of a government is not to be a racist. No where does it say anything about the Chinese people. I don't see this as racist in ANY way... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 19:10, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

here is a typical example of what was previously included under the header. I won't comment on whether the header by itself is offensive, but its intent is clearly _not_ to "disagree with the actions of a government". —Random832 19:16, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh, shit. never mind. That is disturbing... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 22:01, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

It would be a different matter if it said "the People's Republic of China government = shame". But it doesn't. It says "China=shame". As the article China explains, "China" is a national, ethnic or pan-ethnic concept that may not be readily identifiable with any one government. When looking at whether something is objectively offensive, the question should be what is the most obvious meaning. Does "China" mean the country or nation and its people? Or does it mean its government? I think most people would say the former.

And as Random832 pointed out, the previous content of that section makes it clear that the author intended it to be racially offensive. Replacing the explicitly offensive content with an ambiguous comment as the user has done does not change that.

Finally, as far as "asking nicely" goes, the user has been asked nicely numerous times - as a perousal of the history of the talk page reveals. Even some of the editors who restored the deletion of the heading has asked him nicely to remove it.

This is not just a swearword or a pornographical picture, guys. Wikipedia has no room for racial hatred. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 22:08, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Childish trolling rather than racial hatered. We can't mandate what people think, and there is nothing offensive on the page now (only in the history). The best way to respond to trolling is to ignore it don't you think? Theresa Knott | The otter sank 23:03, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

It is a violation of the userpage policy, and it is a violation of common sense. Offensive polemical statements like this have no place on wikipedia user pages, they serve no encyclopedic purpose whatsoever, while increasing animosity. I removed the offending section once already yesterday, just to see it added back. I was going to bring it here for more input, but having seen that that has already happebned, I will remove it again and protect the page. Viridae^Talk 00:30, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

First off, I have strong reason to believe Palace Guard is probably a sockpuppet of User:Ideogram or User:RevolverOcelotX who has a long history with me. This is not the first time Viridae demonstrates his poor use of admin tools on me. Our previous encounter on AN/I [30] shows a disturbing inconsistency in policy enforcement. I was baited into an edit war by Ideogram. Ideogram violated 3RR while I did not. Viridae blocked me for violating the “letter” of 3RR while turning a blind eye on Ideogram. Note the inconsistency pointed out by User:Bladestorm was ignored. It is hard not to suspect Viridae’s personal bias in this issue. Now more than half a year later, when Ideogram is community-banned, Viridae tries to stir up this non-issue. The China=shame header has been there forever with no controversy. When I first arrived in wikipedia, I was told by admin User:Nlu that we can have whatever we want on our userspace as long as it is not personal attack since NPOV doesn’t apply. [[31]] (check the image titled Taiwan=shame in this diff on admin User:Jiang’s talkpage), [[32]] Me and admin El C also have a gentlemen’s agreement to remove the allegedly-racist section (someone was kind enough to dig out the diffs). Anyway, I’m tired of repeating what I said on Viridae’s talkpage (check this diffs [[33]] I contacted Viridae, he chose to follow his own rule. Any admins who has common sense, please unprotect my userpage. Viridae’s action is a blatantly partial course of action. It is disgraceful abuse of his admin power to intimidate editors without admin power while turning a blind eye on admin who have controversial userpage. Please undo this injustice. Lastly, it is not racism. The consensus is to unprotect. If Viridae insist to continue to abuse me, I believs sanctions should be carry out against him..--Certified.Gangsta (talk) 02:54, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Btw after further investigation. Palace Guard is most certainly an abusive sockpuppet of User:Sumple. His first contribution happened on May 28, 2007 while Sumple’s last edit was on May 27, 2007. Both are from Sydney, Australia and are Chinese-American. Both showed strong hatred toward my wiki-friends, most notably admin User:Bishonen. What he said should not taken seriously at all. Whatsup Sumple? We have met yet again.--Certified.Gangsta (talk) 02:59, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Lol, you finally realised that??? Even I noticed that beforehand. He edited all the usual articles, like Fort Street High School. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 03:03, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Yeah well I don’t spend as much on here as you. You should’ve given me a head-up. Do you mind unprotecting my page?--Certified.Gangsta (talk) 03:11, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

And taking on a new identity to settle an old score is trolling. Does checkuser work or are the logs too old to check? Someone should probably block him.--Certified.Gangsta (talk) 03:14, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Calling someone an abusive sockpuppet is a serious allegation. And I'm not American, thank you very much. Do you have any evidence to back that up with? --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 03:22, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Checkuser is not going to work, it is too old. I suggest you find an admin familiar with the user in question to block them if they are in violation of WP:SOCK. (Blnguyen seems to be a good start). Viridae^Talk 03:27, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

To Theresa: it may be trolling perhaps, but it is also offensive because it targets a specific ethnicity. Based on your user page, I am assuming you are English. If that were true, how would you like a banner of "England=Shame" on a user page? Especially if it preceded a curious statement that, on examination of history, followed from explicit and hate-filled racial attack?

Perhaps you are more tolerant of such insults than other editors - but the fact that many different editors have been so offended by the banner that they have directly intervened to remove it speaks for the level of offence it causes, I think.

To Viridae: User:Certified.Gangsta has not supplied any evidence that I am either a sockpuppet nor, most importantly, abusive. Notice how User:Certified.Gangsta has, in the same post, accused me of being the sockpuppet of three separate users? Either we are all the same person, or User:Certified.Gangsta doesn't know what he is talking about. Perhaps he genuinely fails to understand why his behaviour offends other users.

Nor is User:Blnguyen a good choice of authority in the present case: he has a tendency to react violently and negatively to me for reasons I cannot fathom, e.g. see Talk:Gedhun Choekyi Nyima. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 03:37, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Can I just point out that the silly practical joke banner has caused much more drama than his China=shame section. Also, it says "China=shame" not "Chinese=shame". That would be an attack on an ethnicity, and let's be honest, there isn't a single country in the history of the world that hasn't done things to be ashamed of. I'm from the U.S., and I've often fantasized about decorating every piece of clothing I had with some sort of insult about my country. My bumper sticker currently sports one. Let him keep his banner, and unprotect his page. If it is that vexatious and that offensive, I'm sure you will have no problem following the steps of dispute resolution. AniMate 04:05, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to go ahead and say that I agree those who've said that this content isn't appropriate for a userpage, and I disagree with those who are making light of it. This is trolling, which is not what userpages are for. Furthermore, I don't agree with the notion that China=shame is just an attack on a government. If I saw something saying "USA=shame", I would read this as an attack on the country itself, not the government, and would be offended. I support its removal. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 05:23, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

The only people who are trolling is Palace, who is an obvious sockpuppet bringing out old dirt that was settled years ago. The other troll is Viridae who is abusing his admin tool by protecting my userpage despite the fact that many respected admins disagree with him on here and on the diffs I cited above.--Certified.Gangsta (talk) 07:40, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

It is obvious beyond a doubt that Sumple and Palace Guard are the same person. For those who are interested take a look at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Certified.Gangsta-Ideogram/Evidence#Evidence_presented_by_User:Sumple [34] [[35]] This is not the first time Sumple tries to manipulate the system.--Certified.Gangsta (talk) 04:42, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Regardless of whether this true, this is not abusive sockpuppetry, as the account Sumple has been abandoned, effectively exercising the right to vanish and return with a new name. Nothing abusive about that. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 05:09, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

He's trying to sound like he is a neutral editor despite the fact that he clearly raised this frivolous non-issue out of personal vendetta. If this isn't trolling and gaming the system, I don't know what is. He should be blocked on sight. He is also trying to create a crowd atmosphere when it is clear that the only one who had any objection to the header is himself and hide his previous similar involvement on AN/I, which resulted in an outburst and a block by User:Geogre. [[36]]. He also humoursly added Bishonen and Geogre to persona non grata on User talk:Sumple, (the so-called Gangsta's powerful friends he alluded to above)--Certified.Gangsta (talk) 07:49, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Despite Palace Guard's bluff above, his userpage links to his personal website where he says he is Sumple.Blnguyen (bananabucket) 08:06, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

And I suggest you read carefully WP:SOCK to understand what is and isn't a sockpuppet, and especially, an abusive sockpuppet. The topic of discussion is whether User:Certified.Gangsta's section header is offensive. Please contribute constructively to that discussion. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 08:09, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I read it long ago. If you were cheating the system I would have blocked you already. I do see that you want to shift the topic away from your dishonesty about your identity. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 08:14, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Please clarify what you mean by "dishonesty". And I request that Certified.Gangsta stop posting my personal information on this page. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 08:16, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

May I also remind you that the topic of this discussion is whether User:Certified.Gangsta's heading is offensive. User:Certified.Gangsta tries to shift the topic, and lo and behold, Blnguyen obediently follows. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 08:20, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Wikilawyering isn't gonna get you anywhere. Maybe lil Tommy Chen should be more careful on his userpage next time. But jokes aside, the fact that he's trying to stir up a frivolous non-issue under a new identity (the header has been there for almost 2 years) is despicable and trolling.--Certified.Gangsta (talk) 08:12, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Why would I want to shift the topic, Sumple? My userpage is protected by a rogue, incompetent admin who clearly thinks he owns my userpage and that his own personal interpretation trumps policy and consensus. I didn’t post any personal info other than the ones you released already.--Certified.Gangsta (talk) 08:25, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

This edit by Sumple's IP is also very interesting. [37] When is he going to give up on this harassment campaign?--Certified.Gangsta (talk) 08:36, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Toolssmile34

Resolved

 – All reverted, and blocked by Nlu. ➔ REDVEЯS is standing in the dark 14:12, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Action needed now please - could someone at the very least blank his sandbox (1.4M in size) that he's transcluding onto multiple pages - http://wiki.alquds.edu/?query=Special:Contributions/Toolssmile34. Thanks Giles Bennett ^{(Talk, Contribs)} 13:35, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Could you also block him? He's been listed at WP:AIV but persists. Giles Bennett ^{(Talk, Contribs)} 13:41, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

FYI, Toolssmile34 is the latest of many sockpuppets of Primetime (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). As I reported last week, Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive351#Primetime, he's back and in a bad mood. In the past week he's used at least 3 dozen socks, most created months ago as sleepers. Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Primetime. He's been taking his anger out on me in three ways: by vandalizing my user page, by following my edits to mass-revert or vandalize them, and by sending hundreds of emails. He tends to use open proxies, so at least his rampages helps us identify those. Other than reverting his mischief I don't know how else to handle this guy. Any suggestions? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 20:09, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

AIV

Resolved

 – Done. — Satori Son 17:08, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Please could we have an admin on AIV duty? There seems to be a backlog of about 30 mins. Thanks. MSGJ (talk) 16:25, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Racism, threats of violence, personal attacks

Resolved

 – IP blocked for 24 hours. MastCell ^Talk 17:40, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

The user 80.38.72.32 has a particulary deplorable edit history with racism [38], [39] and personal atttacks and threat of violence against another user [40]. JdeJ (talk) 17:37, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Blocked for 24 hours. The IP appears static, so if similar problems resume then let me know or come back here and it can be blocked for a longer period. MastCell ^Talk 17:40, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

24.166.188.91 (talk · contribs)

Resolved

24.166.188.91 (talk · contribs), who appears to be on a static IP, has been, over the past 6 or 7 days, adding unsourced and possibly libellous information to a small collection of pages, including shoplifting and Winona Ryder. There were earlier edits which needed to be reverted at franchising, but he seems to have abandoned that article. The behavior remains the same over at the new articles. I think a block is warranted, given the behavior. Argyriou (talk) 20:01, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

User(s) blocked. - IP BLOCKED for 31 hours nat.utoronto 20:12, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Personal information

Resolved

 – User page deleted and username blocked

Not sure if its been placed by the editor themselves or by a third party, but I suspect an admin may wish to look at User_talk:Jimmie_lee_bynum_age_13 and delete / hide the info? Giles Bennett ^{(Talk, Contribs)} 20:54, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

And Jimmie lee bynum age 13, although I've tagged it for speedy. Giles Bennett ^{(Talk, Contribs)} 20:57, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I've deleted the contents of the User talk page. - Philippe | Talk 21:11, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

And I've blocked the account. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 22:45, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Htlr88

Resolved

Could somebody please speedy block Htlr88 (talk · contribs)? Htlr is a Hitler reference, and 88 in Nazi nomenclature = "HH", which means "Heil Hitler". Corvus cornix_talk 00:27, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

It's been taken care of, thanx. Corvus cornix_talk 00:42, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Please..?

Resolved

 – closed by user:east718

Hey, ANI seems slow tonight so i know that someone will not mind closing this deletion discussion as WP:SNOW, plus the nominator has withdrew. Thanks! Tiptoety ^talk 03:17, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! Tiptoety ^talk 03:39, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Deletion & Redirecting of an Article Without Consensus

Resolved

Main page: Talk:Adult-child_sex § Deletion_.26_Redirecting_of_an_Article_Without_Consensus

moved to talk page for continuity of discussion, especially as discussion was complete here.

Lilkunta requests unblock, promises better behavior

Lilkunta (talk · contribs) was blocked indefinitely around eight months ago for repeatedly using nonstandard font (like this) off of his talk page, and for ignoring warnings of administrators in regards to this. He has emailed me, stating his intent to, if allowed to edit again, only use nonstandard font on his talk page, and adhere to Wikipedia policies and behavioral standards. His two most recent unblock requests were declined by admins who doubted he would behave differently. Should he be given another chance? I think so, because if he lapses back into his old behavior he can be quickly reblocked by any of 862 admins; his emails suggest he wants to make a good faith attempt to help Wikipedia. Other thoughts? Picaroon (t) 19:31, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I see no reason not to unblock. —Random832 19:35, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

A trial unblock sounds fine. The only other question I have in these sorts of cases: are there any editors who were directly and negatively affected by her behavior whom we should notify or solicit opinions from before unblocking? MastCell ^Talk 19:37, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I am not an admin nor was I in any way involved back then. Just thought I'd point out that a scan of his talk page archives indicates that the font issue was only one of many. Ros0709 (talk) 19:40, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Like Ros0709 said, using non-standard fonts is just part of the issue that caused me and others to block him. He was incivil and disruptive, even to those who tried to help him. He was specifically incivil to myself and Cascadia with edits like this. Cascadia and I tried to be helpful to Lilkunta when he broke his own talk page by turning it all green (see this) and accused people of vandalizing it to turn it green (in other words, we were responsible for the font breaking). I fixed it as did Cascadia. But each time we were reverted and he made 6 different attempts to fix it himself, each time doing just as much damage instead of solving the issue.

So the crux of it may stem from the font usage, but the overlying issue is his incivility and unwillingness to accept help from others. Because of this immaturity and nonsense, I do not feel comfortable with an unblock of him. Metros (talk) 20:08, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I have never encountered this user before, but after browsing his archives and seeing his responses, I have to agree with Metros. - Caribbean~H.Q. 20:18, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

(ec) Unblock request has been declined by Moondyne. I agree with Metros and Ros0709: the font issue, in and of itself, does not seem to be the reason he or she was indef blocked, so I cannot support unblocking. — Satori Son 20:24, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I would endorse the block and keeping it as it stands. This user showed a level of incivility that went beyond the pale. Also, his unblock request shows that he is not truly contrite, as he is conflating the minor font issue with the TRUE issue of his block, which is his incivility. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 22:05, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Lilkunta did have trouble explaining satisfactorily his desire to be unblocked in his unblock messages. However, I think he does understand that there is more at issue than the font. Again, what's the harm in offering him another chance? There are clearly plenty of people willing to reblock quickly if he lapses back to old behavior; I suspect that he, more than everyone else, wouldn't want that to happen, as it means being unable to edit again. Picaroon (t) 23:34, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

This is my first encounter with this editor, and I fully endorse the block and Moondyne's decline on the unblock request. We appear to have someone who is not yet mature enough to be a net positive to the project. Horologium (talk) 00:22, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Incidentally, I remember this case, and the entire page turning green was, in fact, nobody's fault at all - a routine HTML-tidy software update broke his and many other pages. —Random832 22:05, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Blocked VoABot II

I blocked VoABot II per http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Yellow_fever&diff=184313809&oldid=184313788 _→AzaToth 19:47, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

• What I wonder is why this page blanking sat unreverted for about 40 minutes, finally reverted by a brand new account? Are the recent changes patrollers on holiday, or was this miss just a fluke? Page blanking seems the sort of thing that should be noticed and dealt within a couple of minutes, at most. Picaroon (t) 20:33, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Recent Changes patrollers who had hidden either minor edits or 'bot edits would not have seen that edit. A 'bot flag isn't a way of marking a 'bot. (Accounts can be 'bots, and easily visible as such, without any special MediaWiki rights.) It's a way of putting all of an account's edits into a class that can be ignored by Recent Changes patrol. Uncle G (talk) 20:49, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
    • I think Picaroon is talking about the original blanking ([41]). BLACKKITE 20:55, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
      • I cannot speak for the other users, but I personally never double check edits made by this bot. Guess I'll have to start. - Rjd0060 (talk) 22:06, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

As for the actual revert - there are likely any number of words in the article text that should have triggered a word or regexp filter; that is probably what happened. A sanity check should be added to make sure the bot isn't blanking the page, or replacing it with the kind of short message that vandals sometimes replace pages with. —Random832 22:01, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I have checked the revert made by this Bot at CompUSA, and the revert looks good. I looked at the Yellow fever article, it looks like there is a blatant effort of page blanking going on there, so I watchlisted the article. Edit Centric (talk) 22:27, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

So wait, you blocked the bot but didn't fix the blanked page? --W.marsh 22:58, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

No Marsh, the page has been fixed. I'm watching for any further IP vandalism / blanking. The Yellow fever article looks intact right now. Edit Centric (talk) 23:02, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

This isn't the only problem this bot is causing. It reverted an IP user here [42] who'd just removed vandalism by a registered user. It also undid another IP's good work here [43] is there an error in the Bots code that causes it to revert ips for some reason? Kelpin (talk) 13:21, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Doc glasgow

Yesterday I was blocked by Doc glasgow in his own content dispute. At his userpage he writes This abusive admin sometimes gives people unjustified blocks and it is exactly the true. He blocked me because I added back text about Chip Berlet per arguments that were written in discussion. It was not based on selfpublished source as he falsely wrote, but it was based on Antiwar.com and arguments in discussion (only real argument against was that User:Cberlet want to have nice article about him). Doc glasgow:

• assumed bad faith.
• abused his admin rights in his own [44] [45] [46] content dispute.
• threted me that he will abuse his right in his own content dispute if I will not accept his false personal opinion [47]
• used vulgar and offensive expressions when he protected page in his favourite version. [48] I don´t think that admin should insult another users (see Talk:Chip Berlet where many users wrote that criticism by Justin Raimondo is notable) by writing about pissing.
• used offensive experession when he unjustifiable blocked me [49] I write encyclopedia, not playing the game.
• Declare that he abuse his right and abuse his rights.

I think he sould be blocked for few weeks for his abusive and vulgar behavior. --Dezidor (talk) 21:20, 14 January 2008 (UTC) (I am not native English speaker, so sorry for my English)

You need to read our guidelines on biographies of living people. A criticism isn't a random cut and pasted negative quote either. 21:29, 14 January 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Secretlondon (talk • contribs)

I read it. There is no reason for censorship of notable and representative (see many arguments of many users here) criticism and no reason for vulgar insults by Doc glasgow. --Dezidor (talk) 21:37, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I would point out that "we don't piss about with..." is British slang meaning "we don't mess about with...". It's hardly a deadly insult. BLACKKITE 21:46, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

OK, that pissing is some slang that I didn´t know, but his block in his dispute was unjustified and abusive. --Dezidor (talk) 23:06, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I have no interest in the subject other than BLP enforcement. This is apparently part of some vendetta against Chip Berlet. Repeatedly adding an attack quote to the article and to wikisource. It has been brought up on the talk page and the BLP noticeboard. The subject has specifically objected to it, and the people pushing it have been unable to show its particular significance. This is either trolling or some outside dispute spilling into wikipedia and onto a WP:BLP. Either way, I am not going to defend myself against this rot. trolls and BLP violators don't get to wikilawyer. I suggest someone cluesticks this user - or simply pull the plug on his account. Take it away.--Doc^g 21:44, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Dezidor, you were rightfully blocked for blatent trolling, and you are continuing to troll here. Stop it. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 21:47, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

WP:AGF Dezidor has stated that he does not speak English natively or well, and I can see that the "vulgarity" could be mis-construed. However, per Black Kite, it's a pretty common term for Brits. I'm not exactly impressed an admin felt in vital that it go in an edit summary (which can't therefore be stricken or redacted), I must admit, but it pretty minor. A review here seems to indicate all was in order in terms of the block and actions by Doc Glasgow. Pedro :  Chat  21:52, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I don´t know why you speak about some vendetta. I read first time about about Chip Berlet at Wikipedia at the end of 2007. Another false acussation. --Dezidor (talk) 21:57, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

It's also not used as an insult - an insult is aimed at a person, Doc's use of "pissing" is not aimed at anyone. I don't see any problems with his actions here. --Fredrick day (talk) 21:53, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

(ec)Yes, I agree, also, he was assuming bad faith only because you had proven that your edits were not done in good faith.--Phoenix-wiki 21:55, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

(ec)The (unblued) point is that whilst swearing in an edit summary (which only dev's can then alter) is hardly ideal or clever it's not that big a deal either. It brings no benefit to the project, only detriment, and therefore should be avoided but that's an aside. Doc's admin actions were totally correct. Pedro :  Chat  22:00, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I endorse Doc Glasgow's move. Enforcement of wikipedia's clear WP:BLP policy is not editwaring, and admins are right to use blocking to prevent continued disruption and insertion of controversial or enflamatory material per WP:BLP. If you wish to continue to add such material, discuss the matter on the article talk page, and by discuss I mean establish consensus among users, not simply announce your intentions and go on. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 21:58, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I have reviewed the diffs and links that Dezidor provided in his argument, and I find absolutely NO evidence of offensive conduct directed towards this user by DocG. The comment that was made on the block, "playing hard and fast with BLP" I do not find offensive in the least bit, on the contrary, I assume (you know what they say about assume!) that what DocG meant was that Dezidor was making some hasty implementations in the article. There IS one minor consideration to be made here; DocG, not everyone that edits the english-language Wikipedia knows what "pissing about" means, as it's a decidedly British term (I do, I've had the pleasure of living on both sides of the pond). Might want to consider that in the interactions with other editors. Other than that, I see nothing wrong with DocG's actions. Edit Centric (talk) 22:00, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I would not have blocked here, but this doesn't unreasonable a response given the context. Antiwar is not a reliable source and we need to be very careful with BLPs. JoshuaZ (talk) 22:37, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

• I checked the antiwar.com Wikipedia entry. According to this entry, Justin Raimondo is "founder and editorial director." Since the quote in question comes from Raimondo, this means that there's a good chance it is self-published. We cannot use self-published sources on BLP articles. Part of the problem is that there really hasn't been much discussion of Chip Berlet in scholarly sources; JSTOR shows only 19 hits. Still, a dearth of good sources is no excuse to use bad ones. Maybe this could have been handled a bit more diplomatically, but the material was clearly against policy and should have been removed from the article. *** Crotalus *** 00:33, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I encourage everyone to check WP:RS/N, where this point is debated: indeed, the very valid point is made that while the editor of antiwar.com is considered a self-published source for biographies, the editor of publiceye.org is not considered a self-published source for bios. That seems like a fairly inconsistent position to me, actually. Relata refero (talk) 08:18, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Red flag warning...if someone is using a bio to add mostly negative info, then they are probably in violation of BLP, or at the very least not working towards NPOV.--MONGO 00:36, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

The quote in question described the subject as a "professional political hitman" as per the quotation here. I personally have to question very much both the neutrality and reliability of the source, particularly considering that source, Justin Raimondo, was speaking in the context of a campaign in which he was a clear supporter of the candidate the subject opposed. In this instance, I have to say that, barring similar language from more neutral, uninvolved parties, the content was justifiably removed. John Carter (talk) 00:46, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Mongo, I was thinking of trying to formulate something to that effect for BLP. That if someone seems overly focused on adding negative information to a particular BLP, especially if it's a marginal BLP, it should raise a red flag for administrators, who could apply an article ban. I've not thought it through yet, but I may try to propose some wording on talk. We've had too many cases of people using Wikipedia as an attack platform. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 00:49, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

There's already some language that speaks to that issue - see the end of WP:BLP#Criricism - and any further expansion, especially of arbitrary admin powers in content disputes - wouldn't be a good idea. Relata refero (talk) 08:14, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I think that would be a very welcome idea, particularly considering the US is entering its main political season and I personally expect to see the metaphorical knives to be coming out on a regular basis. John Carter (talk) 00:55, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

SlimVirgin, perhaps you should wander into Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Bluemarine, which deals with this to a large extent. Your input would probably be appreciated, since most of the commenters are involved to some extent. Horologium (talk) 01:05, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Berlet seems to be acting in a highly hypocritical manner by objecting to quotes like that, considering that he's making a practice of inserting quotes from himself that do similarly harsh criticism of other individuals, like in a dispute currently in progress at Public Information Research. He can't take it, but he sure dishes it out. Is the pot calling the kettle black? *Dan T.* (talk) 00:53, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

This is a separate issue from the one that started this thread, but perhaps an RfC is in order about CBerlet's editing in Wikipedia and discussion on whether he has been receiving favorable treatment or not. Cla68 (talk) 00:58, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, that's quite irrelevant and out of line. We demand our articles are neutral and fair to the subject. We insist that the subject should not have to out up with vandalism, abuse or pov warriors on the article about them. AND WE DO THAT REGARDLESS of any moral opinion of the subject. Perhaps he's a hypocrite - you are entitled to your opinion. But given that I've defended articles where the subject has been a neo-nazi, a convicted felon, a pedophile (yes) and a dozen racists - most of whom I regard as scum - I really must insist that we apply BLP without exception. All other ways lead to disaster. Shall we stop reverting vandalism on George W Bush because we think he's a slimeball?--Doc^g 01:01, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't think dan was suggesting we stop removing BLP vios from Chip's Bio, more that he needs counselling and needs to follow his own rules. Viridae^Talk 01:06, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Hostile attitude of Admin

The admin Shell Kinney left this snide remark against a brand-new editor on my Talk page diff. This is not the way we welcome new editors, by berating them. Wjhonson (talk) 02:23, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

have you tried approaching Shell Kinney and asking him to be nicer, before coming here? Viridae^Talk 02:24, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Never mind the fact that the remark by Shell was addressed to self-admitted sole purpose account with a clear agenda - see User:Tennessee Jed 4415. WjBscribe 02:26, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Reviewed, Tennessee Jed needs to be referred to WP:NOT as a source reference. Edit Centric (talk) 02:28, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I suppose it's moot as I see that Shell is now a Mediator. I wasn't under the impression that Tennessee Jed was an SPA and Shell didn't state that in his reply anyway. It seemed to me a bit of a harsh way to address a proper question. Just ignore all this. Wjhonson (talk) 02:32, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

For the record, Shell is a "her", not a "his". Raymond Arritt (talk) 04:58, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

User:YetanotherGenisock

I am blocking User:YetanotherGenisock for violating WP:SOCK. User:Geni is using it to do mass reverts of redirects that User:TTN is making. This is not a endorsement of what TTN is doing, but a notice that User:Geni should not make a sock used only for edit warring and mass reverts. The Placebo Effect (talk) 02:38, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I should also note that I have had disagreements with his sock about some his reverts (see talk pages). But the main reason I blocked the sock was that it was only used for edit warring. The Placebo Effect (talk) 02:45, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Geoff Pain (Usernames similar to names of real persons...)

Geoff Pain (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) has made contributions to articles adding a real but posibly un-notable chemist, including an article (since speedy deleted for no assertion of notability). It is possible that the user is the real Geoff Pain with a COI, and it is also possible that the user is trying to subtly discredit the real Geoff Pain. Is there a policy on this (e.g., on putting disclaimer regarding relationship between account name and similarities to the name of the real person the account was set up to create?) The user never responded to my offers to help.[50], [51], or my speedy delete notice.[52] This leads me to believe it is possibly a fan of Geoff Pain. TableManners^C·U·T 04:01, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I had not come across this before, but as an Australian chemist, I decided to have a look at the deleted article. It is quite possible that Geoff Pain is notable and that a good article on him could be written, but the deleted article was not it. I know or know off the people he worked with at Monash and Cambridge. However, I have not come across the guy myself, but I could ask people including the first Ph D from Monash and others who know the Australian chemistry scene better than I (I was brought up in the UK chemistry scene). Call on me if you need any help on this at any time. --Bduke (talk) 04:22, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Another case is Pro-Life of Idaho (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) who edited Pro-Life (politician) (which might be afd'd soon). Strange that I came across these two users. TableManners^C·U·T 05:30, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Ferrylodge and why I am leaving wikipedia

Could we reopen the case about Ferrylodge's community ban. I really and truly do think it needs to be expanded. His edits are beyond disruptive and he wears editors down with his constant bickering and half truth style of argumentation. Nobody seems to care that he owns the Mitt Romney article and is about to be responsible for it being protected a second time. He runs rampant on the Fetus article also and just sucks the life out of the people editing the page. I just reported him for a 3rr violation and another edit war he started but have got no real response. [53] The admin there threatened to block me. So, I am leaving and not coming back. I am probably the third or fourth editor that Ferrylodge has pushed out (thanks in part to his new admin best buddy, John Carter). So I hope you as a community do something about it. I give up. I will hit a few talk pages and thats it. Thanks. Turtlescrubber (talk) 03:52, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

"The admin there" didn't threaten to block anyone. I made a very definitive statement that if I were reviewing the case (which obviously I cannot do as an involved user), I would have blocked both of you for edit warring. I looked at it and I can't see for the life of me why one version is better than the other but regardless of that, you both ought to know not to repeatedly revert. I'm sorry that you are planning to leave over this, but looking at it, I can't see what the big deal is over this either way. --B (talk) 04:14, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh, B. You can fuck off too. Turtlescrubber (talk) 04:38, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

You've been blocked for incivility. Nakon 04:42, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I think that's a good block. Still, it should be noted that editing with Ferrylodge requires, in my experience and apparently that of others, the patience of Job. Currently, on Mitt Romney, he's reverted 3 times in less than 30 minutes, calling a clear content dispute "vandalism" in a transparent Wikilawyering attempt to dodge 3RR. If I were not feeling insufficiently neutral about this, I'd have blocked him already. As it is, I think serious thought should be given (in light of his recent ArbCom case, this old RfC, and his long track record) to at the very least a lengthy block for edit-warring and attempting to game the system. I also think reconsideration of his overturned community ban would be indicated at this point. MastCell ^Talk 05:05, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I think it was a good block in the sense that he was ignoring warnings not to attack, and this will prevent him from continuing in those personal attacks. I delivered those warning messages and tried to do so in a way that would not escalate the situation. However, perhaps such warnings were what pushed him over the edge. He has apologized to me in an edit summary and I accepted his apology, but I do think that he should seriously consider apologizing to others as well. I think the block is good. I don't know anything else about the editor, though. TableManners^C·U·T 05:15, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

This is ridiculous. Ferrylodge is a regular 'visitor' to AN/I. He's been the topic of multiple potential community bans. He's a master of provocation. To see that he's driven another editor out, and gets to walk away, yet again, is absurd. Why is it that every few months, we have a big row here about getting tough on persistent trouble-makers, and never do? Let's ban him, and move on. I'm quite sure that Turtlescrubber is still monitoring this thread, and frankly, I'm tired of seeing the same peopel here over and over and over, as I've said often. ThuranX (talk) 05:21, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Hold up ... have you looked at the edits to Mitt Romney (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) in question? I'm not even sure what the dispute was about ... just where to locate the religion section. Ferrylodge's edit summary was incivil, but the reaction was inappropriate and over the top. Turtlescrubber reverted three unrelated edits and then the two of them proceeded to edit war over it. Whether the edits were good, bad, or indifferent I don't know, but there isn't one innocent and one guilty party here. --B (talk) 05:26, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I never objected to the block on Turtlescrubber. I think he should get a block for 3RR/TE, and for the ridiculously incivil fuck off above. I'm not sticking up for him like that - in this particular case, his actions were craptacular. For my opinon, I'd see his block extended for the doubled violations. But Ferrylodge has been through more than enough actions at AN/I to know that he can handle things in other ways. He doesn't change his behavior. IT seems to me that he's a problem too. He was invited to use the talk page, wasn't he? He should've stopped, adn dealt with it there, rather than escalating. HE has been told before about that sort of thing, and again ignored. He needs a block too, to take the time to review our policies, and prevent this sort of behavior again. ThuranX (talk) 05:33, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Given Ferrylodge's history, yes, I think it would be very justified to make a block on him for edit warring. I think a case could have been made for blocking only Ferrylodge and not Turtlesrcubber based on Ferrylodge's history with edit warring, but since Turtlescrubber is already blocked for other reasons, making an agrument concerning equitable treatment seems unnecessary. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 05:37, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Is there any active disruption? Don't forget blocks are not punishment. - Rjd0060 (talk) 05:40, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

There is an An3 thread awaiting the response of an uninvolved admin. There are several regular AN3 patrollers that, as far as I know, are uninvolved and can resolve the issue with respect to Ferrylodge. I doubt anyone would even consider an additional block on Turtlescrubber for 3RR - if he weren't already blocked, yes, but he is, so it's moot. As for active disruption? I guess it depends on your definition of active. 3 reverts apiece in 30 minutes is inherently disruptive and, as it happened within the last few hours, it's not exactly a stale complaint. --B (talk) 05:42, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I didn't look, it was just a question. - Rjd0060 (talk) 05:44, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

(ec)Give it time, give it time. With my experience on the Mitt Romney article and the editors that visit that article, there's going to be three or four more reverts on that page in the next 24 hours. I'd suggest a full protection for a week or so so they can actually talk over the changes instead of shouting past each other. The fighting over how to express Romney's religion and family history has been going for months and now they are fighting over something as silly as the location of a section. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 05:47, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

After some thought, I've decided to act as the uninvolved admin here and make a 72-hour block on Ferrylodge. I suspect some will say this is too harsh, and others will say it's not harsh enough. It's obviously available for review by other admins. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 06:27, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Based on their block history, including a recently-reversed community ban, this 72-hour block for edit warring on the Mitt Romney article seems appropriate. I would have supported up to 1 week. — Satori Son 14:39, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Arbcom unanimously held that the community ban was invalid. A community ban is not a tool to use in a content dispute, but that is what it had become - CSN was being used to AFD editors. --B (talk) 15:55, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

There is however evidently a mechanism for an existing restriction to be broadened. Ferrylodge is currently under an existing restriction. I have contacted ArbCom about this earlier, and they informed me that the restriction does not cover this sort of content, although it would be possible for that restriction to be broadened. I freely acknowledge I have no idea regarding how that might be accomplished, but I think it might not be unreasonable for anyone who seeks to do so to file such a request. John Carter (talk) 16:00, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Ferrylodge has a long and colorful history of disruption. This is the 10th? 20th? 30th? time he has created some huge ruckus. I do not know the particulars, but I do know that he always seems to be center of the dispute. The cases of bad behavior I know about, FL acted atrociously and got away with murder over and over and over. Something has to be done, before he drives more good editors over the edge and drives them away, like he has done a good half dozen already. Is this joker really worth another 5 or 10 other editors? I doubt it. He is not that gifted. I would say more but I do not want to offend anyone.--Filll (talk) 16:08, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

The latest Willy on Wheels wannabe

Uirii on Uiiruzu (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Corvus cornix_talk 04:40, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Gone. Nakon 04:41, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

ThuranX

In a recent unfortunate dispute, I and three other editors were subjected to editing restrictions on East European topics.[54] One of the prime instigators of the dispute however, User:ThuranX, walked away without so much as a word of warning, a state of affairs I find to be unacceptable.

Just when this dispute was on the verge of resolution, ThuranX barged into the discussion recklessly throwing around inflammatory slurs of "race-baiting", [55] "racism" [56] and "bigotry" [57] which I felt compelled to ask him to withdraw,[58] sparking a new round of recriminations [59] [60] which eventually landed everyone except himself at Arbitration Enforcement. After such a performance, I cannot help but note with irony, ThuranX's recent comment that " I watch AN/I and I like reading through some of the cases and chiming in when I think that wider community input is useful, or the opinion of a third party editor can help."[61] Thanks to his "help", which consisted entirely of launching deeply offensive personal attacks, four other editors ending up with editing restrictions.

ThuranX has been blocked on two prior occasions for incivility, the latest as recently as last October,[62] so there is clearly an established pattern here. That he is an administrator in my opinion only makes his behaviour even more inexcusable. He has I believe breached all acceptable bounds of civility and ought to face sanction over it, particularly since he still brazenly flouts his opinion that I am a "bigot" on his talk page in blatant violation of policy. [63] Thanks, Gatoclass (talk) 05:42, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm not an admin. Also, you're now coming here to argue an ArbEnforcement for an ArbCom case i wasn't involved in? For an ArbEnf review I was not notified of, though I was accused of a stack of stuff? When in the original AN/I thread, and in that ArbEnf, it's made clear by others that I was an uninvolved third party? If anyone should be feeling harassed, it's I, as it's clear that failing the first AN/I, and ArbEnforcement, you're back here forum shopping to see if you can get me in trouble for agreeing that you did something wrong, as an uninvolved third party. I suggest you give this up before you wind up getting in more trouble. There's only so much you can push this before it reflects poorly on you for a long time. Finally, the case was not 'on the verge of resolution' when I contributed to the discussion. Addendum: Your watching of my actions in other places seems like a touch of WP:STALK, and the fact that your last diff cited against me specifically predicts you'll be looking for ways to 'get' me is really ironic, as I am apparently right.ThuranX (talk) 06:05, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Thatcher said you were an admin, so I assumed you were. I was going to take this up at WQA, yes, but I thought I'd take it here instead. As for "reflecting poorly on me", that I'm afraid is the risk one always takes when making a complaint.

But I'm not trying "to get you in trouble". I've asked you to withdraw your offensive remarks and if you withdraw them the matter is over as far as I am concerned. But if you don't withdraw them, then I think you should be sanctioned for it, just like anyone else who engages in egregious incivility. Particularly given your record for this sort of thing. Gatoclass (talk) 08:20, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

If this concerns an issue with the ArbCom, is this the correct place to raise the concern? I am not downplaying nor am I endorsing the accusations, but if this was a problem that is being enforced by the Arbitration Committee, what can we, as lowly janitors admins do? --Jayron32.talk.contribs 06:11, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Got nothing to do with arbcom, since ThuranX was not actually an editor on the page in question, and thereby not liable to that particular arbcom enforcement sanction. My complaint here is purely about his incivilities, nothing more. Gatoclass (talk) 08:20, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Any particular reason why this is being brought up now? As far as I can see, the remarks in question were made on or before January 5. That's ten days ago. --Folantin (talk) 09:41, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Folantin - this may have taken that long to reach a "boiling point", where Gatoclass finally feels either ready to address it after cooling off, or addressing it from within the "boil zone". Either way, there IS some ongoing friction between these two editors that needs to be worked out and / or mediated, for the sake of Wiki overall. Edit Centric (talk) 09:56, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

This does look like WP:WQA would be a more appropriate venue, as the sole issue that you're bringing to the fore is ThuranX's perceived incivility (I use perceived as a neutral position term here.) and use of inflammatory terms in message space. If possible, could we move this thread there, and delve into some possible solutions? Edit Centric (talk) 09:51, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I'd again point out that in both the original AN/I thread, and the ARbEnforcement, his complaint was put aside, because I focused on his comments that anyone opposing his edits had to be part of a specific ethnic group (to paraphrase, but only slightly so as not to rehash his own words again) I stated that his assumptions as to the motives of everyone else, which were often clearly stated, but dismissed in favor of his 'them against me' mentality, were bigoted and rude and so on. Other editors agreed, repeatedly, at the time. check the archives. Look at the ArbEnf, not much regard for his assertion there. Gatoclass is simply upset that an uninvolved third party agreed with those accusing him of wrong-doing, instead of with him. Everyone who objected to his statements (I was not the lone voice), received his 'demands' for an apology. IF anyone gave him one, I didn't see it, but I sure didn't, because I didn't say anything that wasn't true. Blunt truth isn't incivility. This is a sour grapes attempt at retribution for my getting involved at all. He couldn't get satisfaction the first time, on AN/I, couldn't get it a second time on my talk page, which was thoroughly inappropriate anyways, couldn't get it a third time at the Arb Enf. Now he's come back here. I did nothing wrong, and I'm not about to apologize for calling him to task for what he said. Blanket statements like his can be easily identified and dismissed as fallacious arguments, and that's what I did. I'll be back to writing articles, because this section has no merits. ThuranX (talk) 12:50, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Blunt truth isn't incivility...I'm not about to apologize

And that's exactly why I felt compelled to make this an issue. Because it's one thing to hurl a slur in the heat of the moment. It's quite another to go on insisting that you're entitled to call a fellow user in good standing a racist and a bigot. And quite frankly, I am amazed that apparently no-one here sees a problem with this.

But if no-one here will do anything, there seems little point in taking it to WQA given the user's attitude. In which case, I guess I will have to issue a warning of my own. You may have gotten away with your nasty little slurs on this occasion ThuranX, but if you repeat them against me in future, you should not anticipate getting off quite so readily. Gatoclass (talk) 15:20, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Masahiro Sakurai

Masahiro Sakurai needs to be semiprotected immediately - massive vandalism at a rate of several edits per minute by multiple IPs. Regards, High on a tree (talk) 07:36, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Done by RockMFR. The best place for protection requests is WP:RFPP. Hut 8.5 07:46, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Yorkshirian

• Yorkshirian (talk · contribs)

There is some difficulty with this editor regarding Yorkshire and related articles. He consistently reverts edits made by a variety of editors even where references are added and with rude edit summaries. [64] [65] A number of editors have tried to draw him into constructive conversation at Talk:Yorkshire instead of edit warring, but this has resulted in a number of abusive comments: [66] [67] [68].

I have made three attempts (10 December 2007, 13 January 2008 and 15 January 2008) to let him know that incivility is unnaceptable and in each case offerred an olive branch of being totally prepared to clear the air and move on: [69] [70] [71] However, he has either not responded or blanked my comments with edit summary "joke": [72] [73]

I have tried three times to guide this this editor and defuse any animosity but these attempts have failed. Can someone take this further or advise futher action? Thanks. MRSC • Talk 08:22, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

• I have informed User:Yorkshirian about this thread. From a quick scan of contribs, most appear to be good or at least good-faith; the blunt edit summaries may possibly be a problem, though perhaps not surprising. BLACKKITE 08:48, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I replied on the talkpage of the article in which the dispute was on and the main dispute is sorted now. My messages are not intended to be "abusive" in any way shape or form and I am sorry if Mr. MRSC perceives them to be. - Yorkshirian (talk) 08:53, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Reviewing the sources that MRSC has provided, this looks like some sort of a regional dispute between editors, (or at least is perceived to be by Yorkshirian,) and does NOT have any place on Wikipedia. (WP:NOT#BATTLE is a good reference.) Yorkshirian, you may not mean for your messages and edit comments to be "abusive", and from what I see they're not, albeit a bit terse though. MRSC, this appears to be more a concern about etiquette, or what we like to refer to as "Wikiquette". If this is the crux of the issue, it might be better served at Wikiquette alerts. I hope that you guys can work out whatever issues that you may be having before taking it there, however... Edit Centric (talk) 09:36, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

MiszaBot II misbehaving

User:MiszaBot II has recently started archiving WT:NOR. This morning's run has deleted a large chunk of current material[74] as well as correctly archiving two threads.[75] I'm reporting this per the message on the bot's user page. I have just undone the bot's edit. —SMALLJIM  08:44, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Weird I checked some other archiving from this morning, and I don't see any other screw ups. I don't think it warrants a block at this stage, but thanks for reporting it. -- lucasbfr ^talk 10:18, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Calm amongst the storms...

I would like to take a moment out from all of the issues here, to thank all of the editors and admins that assist in dispute resolution, fighting vandalism, dealing with the many squabbles, and other sometimes menial, but often interesting tasks here at WP:ANI. If I could, I'd give each and every one of you a barnstar just for dealing with the "sturm-und-drang" day in and day out, on top of your issues IRL. (There IS life outside of the Wiki, I can attest to that!) As a Wikipedian, and an ordained minister IRL, I've made it a point to try and provide some calm rationale here at times. Now, I'm going to try and shift my focus over to WP:WQA for a time, to get a different flavor of the process. Again, keep up the good work, and if you get overly stressed, back up, breathe, count backwards from 1,000, and say "bubble" between each number. (I don't know why it works, it just does sometimes!) Edit Centric (talk) 10:06, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

User 74.46.208.113

In the last 3 days a user at 74.46.208.113 has done nothing but made false entries in Transformers and year articles. I reverted everything I saw that was false, and a few other people have reverted his other stuff. Can anyone watch/warn him? Mathewignash (talk) 10:33, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Gotcha covered, I was the one reverting his / her change to 2007, and have posted the level-1 warning on the IP talk page. Edit Centric (talk) 10:36, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Uploads of User:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- )

This user has uploaded an undetermined number of fair use files that have fair use rationales consisting of a few words. Needless to say, they do not conform to WP:FURG. I've already tagged three for di, but was unsure whether to continue (Twinkle adds a warning to his talk page every time... flooding etc). There may be a large number of others. --Thinboy00 @087, i.e. 01:05, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually, you do need to explain why these rationales don't conform with WP:FURG, otherwise your contest is without basis. If you think that these rationales are in some way deficient, please feel free to expand them or detail your concerns at the respective image description pages. The primary concern remains whether the current use of these images is consistent with the NFCC, the inadequacy of rationales is secondary. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 01:11, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

The problem is that he has a large number of these things, none of which provide a valid fair use rationale. The first one was three words long. He is missing entire criteria in all three. None of the three are more than a sentence in length. WP:FURG is a guideline, and execptions are only made when there is an actual (common sense) reason for doing so. Laziness is not a reason. --Thinboy00 @096, i.e. 01:18, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Why do you think these rationales are not valid? Which specific parts of FURG do they violate? Don't judge a rationale by its length, there is no guideline that requires a set number of paragraphs and most rationales are plagued by redundancy. The concerns that have to be addressed include image quality, replaceability, and purpose for use; Norton's rationale of "low res, dead, no revenue loss" may be concise, but it does address these concerns. And please, don't throw out accusations of laziness. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 01:26, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

(outdent, ec, late comment) It did not address purpose of use on any occasion. --Thinboy00 @135, i.e. 02:14, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

The purpose of using a photograph to identify a person is self-explanatory. Even so, if the lack of a statement on the purpose is your sole concern, then say so in the tag. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 02:39, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Here I echo Wikidemo's comment (further down). --Thinboy00 @192, i.e. 03:35, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

• The guidelines are going to keep evolving, and new templates created. We shouldn't delete the older material, we should fix it each time a new guideline comes out. The purpose is to have a useful reference work. Any new editor can format the rationale to whatever the new standards are, but to delete the material is just silly, and does no service to this reference work. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 01:54, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict, rewrote comment) They (the images) are not old enough for that; one of them was uploaded last August: Image:HalRoach 001a.jpg. Did you read WP:FURG before uploading? This is what it looked like at the time. Even then it required a purpose of use. Not sure what you're getting at here. --Thinboy00 @134, i.e. 02:12, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

• The fair use rationale is there, just not formatted pretty. The pretty templates came later. And more changes will come in years to come, the question is ... do we delete what we don't like, or do we fix and upgrade to accommodate new changes. We don't delete articles with old infoboxes, we upgrade the article with the new infobox. Deletion is for ego satisfaction, fixing is for creating a good reference work. Why are we deleting an image because someone doesn't like the format for the rationale, why not fix? If everyone deleted, we would have nothing. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 07:41, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Richard, a little cut-and-paste work will spare the drama. I'm assuming good faith but the tone of the use rationales is a little dismissive. You can at least use a template or something. Also, the article name ought to be associated with the rationale, not the image as a whole (in case it gets used in more than one article someday). One criterion that's missing from your analysis is the explanation of why the image is important to the article (criterion #8) and not replaceable (#1). Neither "low res" nor "dead" explains that, and "no revenue loss" is a conclusion, not a justification. The area in which you're operating, historical photos, is one that is not an obvious case like record covers, logos, or book jackets. Wikidemo (talk) 02:36, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Richard, that would be a good argument, except that there were templates when you uploaded that image. Click on my link. I'm still assuming good faith, but it's becoming more difficult. I still believe that there is a rational explanation for this -- specifically, you forgot to did not read the guideline. That's all I can come up with. Of course, if you have a rational explanation, feel free to post it. --Thinboy00 @918, i.e. 21:02, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

The good faith explanation you're missing is this: ignoring instruction creep is entirely appropriate in some cases. The phrase "forgot to read the guideline" implies that you think every Wikipedian has your guideline on their watchlist, so they can do things differently every time it changes. Richard Arthur Norton has been improving the encyclopedia, so don't attack him for improving it in what you consider to be slightly the wrong way. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 10:40, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I did not mean to be interpreted that way. His explanation implied that he read, or at least skimmed the guideline ("The pretty templates came later"), and I was upset because this was clearly not the case (see my oldid link). --Thinboy00 @966, i.e. 22:11, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't know if this was exactly RAN's motivation, but I know that if I were uploading non-free images (I don't) I would write a brief, common sense description instead of wading through the red tape of FURG. That kind of instruction creep is exactly what IAR is for.

One thing about Wikipedia is that if you care deeply about something (as you do about every fair-use image using a particular template), you do it yourself. Trying to force other Wikipedians to participate in a process they don't care about and enforcing it with deletion is a destructive way to do things. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 10:05, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

One attempt at a template for historical images is Template:Historic fur. I'll suggest Richard uses that (I have an interest in seeing historical images saved as well). Carcharoth (talk) 16:39, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Another point is that many historical images like this will fall into the public domain in five or ten years, and the vast majority of older ones are never likely to cause any problems in any way - there just isn't any copyright holder around any more. Mindlessly tagging and deleting them may be shooting ourselves in the foot a bit. They should be carefully reviewed and some should be given the approriate PD tag. Carcharoth (talk) 16:42, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

No, nothing is falling into the public domain in the US until 2018, and then it will be the pictures from 1923. Stuff from, say, 1943 won't clearly be in the public domain for another 30 years. It's publication + 95 years, which means we can't just wait until they fall into PD.--Prosfilaes (talk) 00:47, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Pats1

I ask that the actions of this editor be reviewed. I still feel threatened and feel like I am being treated in a uncivil manner. I think this editor may have jumped the gun in warnings and threats when he knew that they were not necessary. I think he may have simply done the bidding of another user, chrisjnelson, who has been banned before for uncivil posts. I simply ask that those with power to block be fair and juducicial, rather than what I think may have been a knee-jerk, unfair, abuse of his powers. 72.0.36.36 (talk) 01:34, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

this was Pats1's response to me when I said I wanted this to be reviewed . . . is this acceptable?72.0.36.36 (talk) 01:45, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Don't hold your breath for too long... Pats1 ^T/C 01:30, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I noticed that you seem to be very interested in bringing this admin to justice... from reading your talk page and his, I think this is a misunderstanding at best, and an ip troll at worst. Of course we assume best case. I think you should read WP:AGF and objectively look at your actions. I advise you not to continue this dispute, as it may lead to blocking or banning, which we seriously don't want to do, but will if we have to. You might try Mediation. If you disagree with me and believe that there are widespread abuses, then ultimately you should go to Arbitration, but you should know that these cases are not accepted lightly, and you should attempt to resolve the issue outside of arbitration, through venues such as an RFC, or request for comment, which is slightly more formal than talk page discussion, and/or mediation. --Thinboy00 @175, i.e. 03:11, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I guarantee this is not an "IP" troll, whatever that is. I have contributed to wiki and think I should be valued as much as anyone else. I do disagree with you, but I do not claim widespread abuses. I agree this is a misunderstanding. I think if you look at what happened, I have remained calm and deliberate. Pats1 was been the one who is, in my view, being uncivil and also keeps changing his story. If you would put yourself in my shoes for a moment you would see that this was a "gang-up" situation, where a misunderstanding excalated, due to Pats1, threatening to block me without a valid reason. I have tried to get Pats1 to be reasonable, yet as you can see, he is still defiant and I see no reason why it is me who is under the scrutiny. As you say I need to assume the best, but it seems to me, and this is just my opinion, there seems to be some "editor" protections I am not aware of. It seems that since I choose to be anonymous that my word is not as good as someone else's. I have asked for fairness. I admit that I am not perfect, however, it is I who have followed the rules. At every step it seems I have been blocked, pardon the pun, from what is fair and right. I cannot comment on how arbitration or mediation would be appropriate---I don't know the process of either. RFC is a new thing to me altogether. I guess I think it is fair that those in power are the ones who should help me in this process, rather than hinder it. I think other editors should look at Pats1's action objectively, not look at him as "one of you" are that he is part of a clique. I understand that is natural . . . but when it is Pats1 who overreacted to a request of chrisjnelson, then threatens to block, even though I had asked for a solution prior to that means that he may have been abusing his power. You see, it is easy to get your way when you have power. In that situation I was at Pats1's mercy. Understand? I had asked that the problem go to dispureresolution. Pats1 says that "means nothing" to him. Well, it meant something to me. SO, this is ultimately not up to me. I have zero power here. I cannot make anyone do anything they don't want to. In a sense, as an IP minority, I have no franchise, but I thought I had the protections afforded anyone else. Now, as far as RFC, Arbitration, Mediation I don't know. Clearly, the most informal should be first. However, it is my view that Pats1 will be defensive about ANY of those. I could not get him to talk to me before he threatend to block me, and he's shown his attitude by his posts . . .

[Special:Contributions/72.0.36.36|72.0.36.36]] (talk) 01:45, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Don't hold your breath for too long... Pats1 ^T/C 01:30, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

....So, if I am wasting my time by asking for a review, formal or informal, then so be it. Then it may be the above statement is considered CIVIL. In my book it is not. 72.0.36.36 (talk) 02:45, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

From what I've read about this whole issue, it seems to be about an incredibly minor issue. The whole conflict between 72.0.36.36 and Chrisjnelson (talk · contribs) I think could've been avoided. Based on my observations, correct me if I'm wrong, when Pats1 (talk · contribs) got involved with the revert war between 72~ and Chrisjnelson, I understand the basis of which Chrisjnelson, and later Pats1, made the reverts. I won't say who I believe was right or wrong.

Now, for 72~'s claim that he was unfairly warned/threatened. The two warnings visible on his talk page right now cite that 72~ had deleted portions of "page content, templates or other materials." The only thing that I've seen that 72~ did was remove {{trivia}} from the Ted Ginn, Jr. article. Now, here is my view of how the situation was handled.

I think that Pats1 knew that the edits that 72~ was making were disputed. The warnings that Pats1 gave out are generally used for users deliberately blanking all or part of an article in a deliberate act of vandalism. There is nothing that indicates to me that 72~ was vandalizing the article. It is my belief that the warnings Pats1 gave to 72~ were not necessary, and made the conflict into more than what it needed to.

In either case, Pats1 is a great contributor and a good admin. I don't think that anybody's behavior needs to be reviewed. But I do side with 72~ about the "unfair warnings", and that has nothing to do with my previous conflicts with Chrisjnelson or Pats1. I think that the best way to resolve this would be for both sides to just go their separate ways and try not to make this issue anything more than it needs to be. I see no reason why any action needs to be taken because this is just one incident. It's not indicative of anybody's overall behavior. Ksy92003(talk) 04:32, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

This is Pats1 attitude

Be prepared to stay in that mode for a long, long, long time (possibly forever, but research on the subject varies). Your AN/I entry has been archived and most likely won't be seen again - like I said before, but you didn't want to listen. Nobody is "looking at it." Pats1 ^T/C 04:04, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, okay, if that's the ruling, I can abide by that. I posted Pats1 most recent post to my talk page. It is not what I call civil, but there are often different standards. Like I said, I can abide this, no problem. I will go my separate way he Pats1 can go his. It is enough for me that there was some sort of review process and now Pats1 is aware that I will assume good faith, but not to a fault. Thanks Ksy92003 I appreciate the review.72.0.36.36 (talk) 04:53, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Be prepared to stay in that mode for a long, long, long time (possibly forever, but research on the subject varies). Your AN/I entry has been archived and most likely won't be seen again - like I said before, but you didn't want to listen. Nobody is "looking at it." Pats1 ^T/C 04:04, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Is Ksy92003(talk) 04:32, 12 January 2008 (UTC) nobody? Besides Pats1 this conversation is between myself and Politik426. What exactly is the purpose for you to comment? That is another example, I think, of your bullying behavior and it is not civil and is yet anotehr example of you flaunting the rules in my face. I don't get why you do that. Perhaps you think you need to hold it over me that you have more power and connections in WIKI than I do, I don't know. I think you and I should take the advise of "nobody" and go our separate ways. I have documented your actions, someone has reviewed them and please go your way, I'll go mine.72.0.36.36 (talk) 04:58, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Pats 1 uncivil?

Ksy92003 can read it or respond to it all he wants. You quite simply have a false assumption of how Wikipedia processes work and I've tried to help you fix that, but to avail. This is going nowhere. Pats1 ^T/C 03:00, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't think there is any evidence that Pats1 tried to help at all. I don't think that is truthful. He clearly does not thinkKsy92003's opinion is worthy of his attention. I find Pats1 attitude to be uncivil . . . however, if WIKI rules cannot do anything and other admins are not "peer reviewed" as it were then I can kind of understand why this kind of abuse can go on. The very fact that he has such contempt for the process is quite interesting in that it goes unchecked. 72.0.36.36 (talk) 07:11, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I've watched this from the beginning and it's absolutely silly. Pats1 has done nothing inappropriate. --B (talk) 19:39, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

B. Has Pats1 action been civil? DId he assume good faith? Did he jump into a content dispute? Was there a collusion with chisjnelson and Pats1? Was the block threatened? Did Pats1 have the power to block? I think all of those things are important. No?72.0.36.36 (talk) 09:05, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

17-0. Wait, no, I mean I don't see what exactly the problem is here. The posting of other people's messages here is making this extremely difficult to read, and if this is just a problem one user has with an admin, then it's really no big deal. J-ſtan^Contribs_{User page} 19:51, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

It seems to be a simple matter - don't block people you're in a content dispute with. That's straight from WP:BLOCK. If Pats1 has not blocked, then no problem. If he has, it'd be challengeable. However, it does not appear he has, so there's nothing for us to do here. I broadly agree with Ksy's summary. Orderinchaos 12:45, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Orderinchaos.. not the "agreeing with me" part. User warnings are not meant to "threaten" people for making certain actions that are the basis of a content dispute. If you know that something is in a content dispute, it's not really very helpful to warm them and threaten them with a block.

Also, to extend on the WP:BLOCK point Orderinchaos brought up. WP:BLOCK says "Administrators must not block users with whom they are engaged in a content dispute; instead, they should report the problem to other administrators." This pretty much applies to threatening to block users with whom they are engaged in a content dispute. That is there for good reason. Without this rule in place, any administrator can virtually trick somebody into getting themselves blocked. That's something that I think any admin needs to keep in mind when getting involved in conflicts.

There is something else that I think is worth noting. This may be a conflict of interest on Pats1's part. In the past, he and Chrisjnelson (talk · contribs) have had a friendly history in the past, and whether he was right or not, it's not a good idea for somebody who has the power to hand out a block to get involved with an incident between two other users and take the side of somebody they consider a friend, and then threaten the other user with a block. This could be seen as a major of conflict of interest if a block was, indeed, handed out. Ksy92003(talk) 23:34, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Ongoing harrassment, vote rigging and sockpuppetery by User:Coloane

I'm being harassed by User:Coloane for making an unfavorable review at Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Macau. The first step of his retaliation was to nominate one of the FA articles I've worked on at Wikipedia:Featured_article_review/Indonesia/archive1. That approach failed with the review being quickly closed with the issues raised being dismissed outright, but he then threatened to renominate the same article again at WP:Featured article review on February 1st, 2008 ([76]). The editor clearly states their motive for renominating Indonesia is revenge here: ([77]). Another editor also unfavorably reviewed the Macau article, and the response from User:Coloane was the same: a threat to vote against one of the articles written by the reviewer at WP:FAC ([78]). There may also be a violation of Wikipedia:Canvassing by this editor - they have asked a number of other like-minded editors to vote at the Macau FA review : [79], [80], [81], [82], [83]. Blackmailing other editors and gaming the system to achieve FA status for articles should be a serious cause for concern.

There is an ongoing pattern of disruptive behavior with this editor. User:Coloane was recently blocked for violating the 3RR on Russia ([84]). Another editor expressed frustration that the editor was also being disruptive on the Singaporean articles: [85]. If you examine the edits made by User:Coloane, User:Fbmmsu and User:Josuechan there is a superficial case that they may all be sockpuppets controlled by the same individual. There is an overlap in the articles they edit and the style of their edit comments - all editors have a habit of writing "+" a lot in their edit comments, specifically "+ comment" or "+ com" for adding comments at talk pages, "+ ref" or "+ reference" for adding references, etc. Indeed, User:Coloane has previously been blocked for block-evasion ([86]), and User:Coloane and User:Fbmmsu have played tag team in reverting at Programme for International Student Assessment to force a 3RR violation block of another editor. A checkuser on these accounts would be helpful in understanding exactly what is going on.

Can someone help solve the ongoing disruption this editor is causing? (Caniago (talk) 23:13, 12 January 2008 (UTC))

Thanks for your message you wrote me in my talk page. Excuse me, for what you claimed about sockpuppet(s) is groundless. Admin can check it. There is nothing wrong to notify my friends, collegues, or other ediors to vote and give me comment over the FAC page as long as I didn't force them to vote either support or oppose. The original spirit for blocking is to quench edit war and I don't think there is edit war over the page of PISA and it passed long time ago inlcuding Russia. For the article Singapore I already compromised with other editors like Huaiwei. For what you claimed about my first block evasion last year because I had used anyo. with Mobile IP, that is why the admin blocked me after I created my account. Caniago, there is nothing wrong for me to put the article Indonesia over the page of FAR. Actually that article is not in FA standard. Lead has no citation, I am not completely wrong. Thanks! Coloane (talk) 23:48, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

We are not in the business, if you do this for me I will do that for you! There are people I do not like, but I do not go to articles conserning them imparting my opinion. We must follow WP:NPOV and supress the evil WP:COI as much as posible to preserve WP:Notable, respect WP:WEIGHT and WP:AGF. Igor Berger (talk) 04:02, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

There is indeed something wrong to notify friends, collegues, or other ediors to vote, for that can amoung to WP:MEAT if their sole purpose to be here is just that...engaging in revert-wars. And I do not consider him as having reached any "compromise" with me, after his failed attempt to abuse the WP:3RR policy [87]. which was the last time he chose to be disruptive in Singapore-related articles.--Huaiwei (talk) 05:01, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

It seems that WP:MEAT only applies to the recruitment of new editors, no? Josuechan (talk) 07:47, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, you are not completely wrong. There is no absolute black and white area in canvassing. It depends on the sitution. I invited them to give me comment. They can give me pos or neg comment; or they can even vote oppose. It seems to me I reported your case of abuse 3RR policy to noticeboard first, am I right? and at the same time, you got a warning message as well, am I right? well, I am not going to argue with you this matter because I forgot it and I am too lazy (unlike you) to find out from my edit history. It seems there is some differences and you changed something after the edit warring. Well, but I just don't care!! Coloane (talk) 05:22, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Coloane also harassed me after I made an unfavourable review on the Macau FAC and after I exposed his lying on another issue. User:Coloane declared - "OK! go ahead! I just don't care! I already illustrated my point. I am not going to revert it. RIght now I will try to make sure your article Russia fail and die from FAC. That is the most important thing."[88] and "whenever you nominate Russia or Russian article, I will surely vote OPPOSE or take them to FAR. This is the heavy price you have to pay"[89]. He encouraged other users to vote oppose to the Russia FAC that I nominated as revenge [90] (please vote "Oppose" to make sure his article Russia fail and leave the page of FAC immediately. His article is almost failed!!!! just give him a last bullet. I will come back and check it tomorrow!!) and here (I would like to suggest that you had better vote OPPOSE as this article also ignored many guidelines. T) [91]. He has made similar disruptive WP:POINTy edits on other pages, see User_talk:Coloane#Stop_the_disruption. User blanks his talk page to hide his history of blocks, disruptive editing, accusations of racism, etc [92] [93] [94]. Furthermore, see the comments written by other users about Coloane when he was reported for 3RR recently.[95]--Miyokan (talk) 03:50, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

wow, last time you copied and pasted this message on 3RR noticeboard the day before yesterday. Then you copied and pasted on the FAC page. And again, now you pasted it over here. Your speed in writing is much faster than before but not much improvement has been made. Coloane (talk) 05:26, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I once again question this user's intentions on Wikipedia. His actions are centered on disrupting highly valued contributors, for the sake of pushing his national interests. I cannot see how he may bring anything constructive to the project. (p.s., this is charming, no?) Bogdan ^що? 06:26, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

so? this is my IP from Ottawa, Canada. I don't mind much if you want to get more info from me. I am currently a neurosurgeon working in Ottawa. What else do you want to know? Coloane (talk) 13:53, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I am currently on vacation, so I am limited in what I can write, but Coloane does have a limited fluency in English which restricts some of his editor interaction (and also wounds his ego when it is pointed out as a mitigation for some of his behaviour). If Wikipedians study the deleted portions of Coloane's talk page (visible in the History) it will become plain that Coloane's agenda is not always coterminous with that of our encyclopedia.

Nevertheless he does have useful contributions to make and I would suggest that outright blocks of whatever duration would be counterproductive and only give him a perverse incentive for puppetry. Better would be a voluntary undertaking from him to only edit Macau articles for 2 months while he learns a less vindictive style and that he seeks mentorship. Alice^✉ 06:22, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Alice, I am not interested in you. I wrote you already on your talk page. If you are seeking a boyfriend or husband, please refer to related classified online. You just disturbed me a lot. If you think your English is wonderful (though this is not your native language), congratulations! please go to ask some one if they can offer you a place as an ESL teacher. Good Luck!!! Coloane (talk) 13:29, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I believe the above is a blatant and very public display of highly unacceptable behaviour, and a clear cut example of his tendency to launch personal attacks against others (and I find it difficult to imagine that he is doing so due to his lack of proficiency in the language). That he even chose to do this right here shows his contempt towards wikipedia policy.--Huaiwei (talk) 15:05, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Having seen Coloane repeatedly cause disruption on Singapore-related articles, I am not surprised to learn about his conduct at the endless nitpicking and incivility that is FAC. In a discussion at Talk:2007 Southeast Asian Games, he made an anti-Singaporean personal attack, claiming that "Singaporeans...[are] basically semi-handicapped". He also edit warred with Huaiwei on Singapore Changi Airport. After both users broke 3RR, he apparently resorted to sock puppetry; the IP should be added to his CheckUser case. Communicating with this user is difficult, as he frequently blanks his talk page. Perhaps a RFC or arbitration case is needed to further investigate his conduct and determine what sanctions, if any, should be imposed on him. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 15:07, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

well, you are still holding the grudge. I nearly forgot this incident which happaned long time ago. I think that I didn't go back to that article for sometime. Actually I did nothing wrong. For what I did is made sure the information up-to-date(i.e. report from 2007). I remember you Huaiwei also got warning of 3RR policy, am I right? of course I can blank or archive all conservation in my talk page, it is my account. For what you talked about sockpuppets is completely groundless. The IP you provided from above is from Malaysia. My IP is from Ottawa, Canada. Anyway, I just don't want to waste my time to talk about this. Regards! Coloane (talk) 15:41, 13 January 2008 (UTC)Coloane (talk) 15:24, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Whether or not I still hold a grudge against you or not, I feel it is important to elaborate on your history of disruption on Singapore-related articles. The more evidence we provide, the easier it is for administrators to investigate your conduct. Note my use of the word "apparently", which indicates that I suspect, but am not sure, that you are behind that anoynymous edit. If you are innocent, CheckUser will help clear your name; however, if you are found guilty of sockpuppetry, prepare to face the music. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 13:51, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Excuse me, there is no owner in wiki. It is not your private and Huaiwei's properties. Everyone can go to that page (i.e. Singapore or Singaporean topics) and edit. "Disruption" is not an excuse to block other editors to improve these articles. Coloane (talk) 16:19, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I would like to draw your attention to the fact that Coloane has made substantial contributions to various Macau-related articles. Given that few editors are involved in those articles, his contributions are much appreciated. His unfavorable vote against Russia FAC is said to be triggered by an editor's critical review on Macau FAC. But this cannot be the case as Coloane made his review on January 1, 2008 [96]. while the other editor made his on January 9, 2008 [97]. He is also accused of sockpuppetery controlling the accounts User:Fbmmsu and User:Josuechan. But the evidences being raised so far are: 1) there is an overlap in the articles they edit; and 2) they use "+" and "-" in the edit summary. It appears to me that the evidences are pretty filmy. Josuechan (talk) 07:35, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Coloane may be disruptive (some of the diffs liked to above are troublesome), but after looking at the edit patterns of the three users -- Coloane, Josuechan, & Fbmmsu -- I wouldn't assume that they are socks of one person. First Fbmmsu has very few edits, so nothing definite can be said about that account -- although it is surprising that Coloane knows this user by name. Next, the periods that Coloane & Josuechan do not edit (assumably, when they sleep) is clearly different, & I identified one period of time when they both were online. While this does not provide definite proof that they aren't all socks controlled by one person, unless someone can provide better evidence than editting habits (as for using the "+" in comments, I do that too & my edit history would show that I'm not another sock), I'm satisfied that they are 3 different people at the moment. -- llywrch (talk) 19:03, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Sockpuppets or not, Coloane alone is still disruptive and doesn't seem to understand what is required in this project. It seems to be about tit-for-tat combat, rather than collaboration. User:Caniago's opening post describes the problem clearly. He doesn't like opinion provided on the FAC for his home town of Macau, and he "retaliates" by putting other countries (in this case Indonesia) up for FARC with very flimsy reasoning. When the reasoning was adequately rebutted and FARC is closed, he promised to put it back later (Feb 1st) with additional reasons. Thus, would I be wrong if I no longer assumed good faith with this editor? --Merbabu (talk) 06:44, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

If you do really care the quality of that article, I don't think you would care much if this article appears on FAR. To have a star on that article is not that important. Why do you feel so sensitive? maybe this is the reason. Coloane (talk) 14:29, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

My concern is that it was starting to look as if Coloane, regardless of his faults, was beginning to be accused of every sort of misbehavior. I wouldn't have been surprised if someone added that he was stealing the toilet paper from the WMF offices & using it to decorate Jimbo's house! More seriously, the best steps for everyone involved in this would be to either take this to Mediation or open an RfC to see if anyone has some useful suggestions to resolve this. Cause the only thing we can do here is warn & block people, & blocks for this alleged behavior don't work very well. -- llywrch (talk) 21:06, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh dear - looking at some of the diffs in this case, I must say I have rarely seen more consistently egregious breaches of WP:NPA in a regular editor in my time on Wikipedia. I have seen no evidence of sockpuppetry and I don't think that should be alleged, but on NPA alone this user's behaviour needs to ease up and their threats to other contributors must stop if they are to continue without sanction. Orderinchaos 12:38, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

As I read this discussion, I'm seeing two different perspective's on Coloane. On the one hand, there are people who say he's been very disruptive and vexatious; on the other hand, there are people who say he brings valuable insight into a area of wikipedia where we have few editors. As such, I think this is a case where a mentorship or some kind of user-user adoption would be in order (preferably with a native Cantonese speaker who can communicate with him without a language barrier.) Raul654 (talk) 21:28, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Valrith

I don't really know the correct place to report this, but I've really had about all of Valrith I can take. The user makes editing Wikipedia a nightmare for other editors by constantly using reverts, "citation needed", and other tools to enforce the policies in a heavy-handed way. It may not sound like the user has done anything wrong from my description, but that's probably part of his/her point. Just check the user's talk page. It's littered with dozens of instances in which Valrith has annoyed other editors. This is just my opinion, but if Wikipedia still has a policy for exhausting the community's patience, I think Valrith is coming dangerously close to reaching that point. Chicken Wing (talk) 23:21, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

How 'bout some diff's? - Rjd0060 (talk) 23:53, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

The user's talk page contains a well-documented history of tormenting other users. Most of his/her disruptions come in the form of deliberately making editing difficult for other users by interpreting the rules in such a restrictive way so as to be absurd. Chicken Wing (talk) 07:28, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Still, how 'bout some diff's?--Tom 18:21, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I took a look at some of Valrith (talk · contribs)'s recent edits. It's amusing. This editor is strictly applying Wikipedia standards to articles about the adult entertainment industry. This, of course, takes all the fun out of writing fan articles about porn actors. Hence the complaints. ("but to say that Taylor Rain's breasts must be cited is going too strict with the editing.") --John Nagle (talk) 08:40, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm not clear what JN's is implying by writing that Valrith's "strictly applying Wikipedia standards to articles about the adult entertainment industry", but reviewing his talk page, I don't see any signs of an uncivil or tendentious editor. Valrith might be opinionated, but so are many other Wikipedians. Lastly, I notice that AnonEMouse has exchanged messages with him, has left no warnings (nor has anyone else), nor has chimed into this thread. I suggest this thread be closed as "Not an issue". -- llywrch (talk) 00:05, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I agree that it's not an issue that needs administrator action. --John Nagle (talk) 04:35, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Personal attacks on the talk:Asian fetish

I was personally attacked on the talk:Asian fetish by user:Crotalus horridus, User:Cool Hand Luke, and User:Saranghae honey. They chose to research me and not the topic of "Asian fetish". They've disparage me on the talk page and posted links to external forums I've posted too. Of course whatever views they perceive I have should bare no importance as long as I abide by wikipedia edit rules. These personal attacks are clear violation of WP:NPA and WP:PROBLEMLINKS. I wish that this section is rolled back and the perpetrators are punished. Here's the entire section of the talk page with the personal attacks Tkguy (talk) 06:09, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Courtesy linking of prior text related to this incident

• Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#Personal_attacks_on_Asian_fetish
• Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive347#User:Tkguy_at_Asian_fetish

Just a note, I think what you're actually looking for is WP:OVERSIGHT. The instructions for seeking an oversight on that page.--Crossmr (talk) 06:12, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Proposed community topic ban for User:Tkguy on Asian fetish

This user is a manifest SPA who edits on Wikipedia to promote his original theories about how Asian fetish causes suicide and other social ills. He apparently can't edit with NPOV because he holds rather extreme views, as evinced off-site, where he claims to be "fighting the good fight" on this article.

This user edit warred with User:Christopher Mann McKay and User:Kaitenbushi in late November, resulting in a page protection (and a block for breaking the 3RR, which was lifted because Tkguy claimed to have been tricked into it). He edit warred in December with User:Saranghae honey and User:Crotalus horridus to same result. In both cases, it appears all editors were against his disrupting changes on the talk page. He is currently edit warring with multiple parties. This page should not be protected again because the problem is with just a single editor.

A partial summary of his history is documented at my last ANI post on him, which elicited almost no helpful response. See also his patently frivolous RFAR, which he filed after threatening to name users as parties. He even edit warred with the clerks over the RFAR title!

I'm tired of this user's sterile disruption. I don't have a grudge with the user, and was just recently alerted to this dispute through an RfC. I intend to enforce a topic ban against him, and I will block him for editing the mainspace of Asian fetish. Does anyone disagree? Cool Hand Luke 06:14, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I am kind of disheartened by both sides of this issue. On the first hand, TKguy's behavior is problematic, what with the edit-warring and article ownership issues clear from the above. On the other hand, the discussion cited by TKguy seems to be inappropriate for the talk page in question. The discussion seems like it belongs more at ANI or RFC, and not on that page. I would not characterize the discussion cited by TKguy as a personal attack (though the discussions of his off-wiki behavior delve somewhat into the realm of revealing personal info. Seeing his off-wiki life discussed like that makes me feel uncomfortable), however the location of the discussions seems inappropriate. I don't see why that discussion cannot be redacted by WP:OVERSIGHT and why we also still cannot discuss the problems with TKguy's edit history. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 06:20, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

No problem, I can selectively delete the edits, unless someone thinks actual oversight is needed. I do think they were misplaced on the talk page, which should focus on the article, but procedural faults besides, we have an editor who persistently edit wars on a topic against everyone. As far as I know, none of the opposing editors have ever worked together. We pointedly disagree with out to handle the article, but we talk about our disagreements, rather that conduct sterile edit wars. Cool Hand Luke 06:26, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

That would be best. If the edits were removed from the talk page history, but ported somewhere else so that we can still access them easily, perhaps as a subpage somewhere, that would be best. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 06:33, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Done. See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/More about Tkguy. And this way they can be easily deleted when the issue is settled. Cool Hand Luke 07:04, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Then what constitute an attack? Tkguy (talk) 06:43, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't disagree with this assessment. I've read the above links and find this to be an accurate description of what has occurred and the current issue on the article. I would encourage everyone to read the above provided links in full before giving their opinion as well as the talk page of the article.--Crossmr (talk) 06:28, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Well Cool Hand Luke is doing the same thing he does with sources on the asian fetish article, mis-represent them. My 3rr block was reverted and User:Kaitenbushi got the 3rr block and User:Christopher Mann McKay got a 48 hour block for violating the 3rr rule on another page and for tricking me too on the Asian fetish page. Talk about all of this on the arbitration proposal and it's here. And the arbitration proposal was not trivial as none of the 3 admin I asked seem to want to help with my personal attack issues. But the board wants me seek out help in the community so I submitted this incident report. I was personally attacked and I would like my attackers to be punished. Cool Hand Luke being one of them.

I can't see how this can not be seen as a personal attack. They are critique me and their perception of my views. They called me a racist and they put up links to offsite websites. Cool Hand Luke did this as well. more than once. But Cool Hand Luke is an admin and he should know better.

All these people are obviously pushing a pov on the article. Obviously I have a bias but I don't go deleting well sourced entries on the page like Cool Hand Luke is doing here. He's actually preventing me from adding or updating the Asian fetish page at all! Him along with User:Headwes and of course Crossmr. He merged User:Saranghae honey's POV pushing sandbox version of the page to the Asian fetish article here. And this is another person who personally attacked me. Tkguy (talk) 06:43, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually, these people are enforcing a neutral point of view on the article. After reviewing the difs provided by you and by the others, it is clear that, despite the fact that there is no consensus to make the changes to the article you wish, you keep making the changes. Per WP:BRD, once an edit is reverted, all parties should go to the talk page to discuss the edit in question. I see no effort made on TKguys part to work collaboratively. Also, it should be noted that no one except TKguy seems to charactarize the edits as "attacks" and it should be noted that no one at Wikipedia "punishes" anyone. What admins DO is to use bans and blocks to minimize damage and disruption to the project. Based on TKguys behavior, I would support Cool Hand Luke's suggested community ban, and TKguy should be restricted from editing articles related to this topic. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 07:02, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

It should also be noted that 4 of the 9 arbitrators has rejected this case sited above by TKguy. They believe that it should be handled "by the community" and that there is " nothing here at this stage that cannot be addressed by appropriate involvement of administrators." Sounds like we are to deal with this here... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 07:14, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

That's what I meant by punishing people. Ban them or block them. And you are obviously wrong about me not wanting to discuss changes. Nearly all the topics on the talk pages are started by me! Look at the talk page and look at who starts each thread. It's says tkguy on nearly all of them! Here are topics I've started:

Adoption, from my talk page

Phoebe Eng

Moe Tkacik

The Fisman Salon article

mail order brides

I am not even getting into the archives. These are topics I've started on the talk page. What do you mean that I do not want to discuss changes? As for those who don't think these are attacks. Well majority of the comments are from people who attacked me. I can't imagine any one of those admitting that these are attacks. Considering how they source their material and delete content for trivial reasons. User:Cool Hand Luke is the only person of the three I report who didn't submit and AfD for the page. Tkguy (talk) 07:25, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

and User:Cool Hand Luke changed nearly the whole article by merging with user:Saranghae honey's restricted sandbox version of the article without gaining consensus. HOw is one person not gaining consensus OK while another person's is not? have you even looked at the changes I've made? tell me which one of them just point it out with a diff, what is wrong? I will assure you that I can prove that I deleted it for very good reasons. Please give me an example. Anyone. Tkguy (talk) 07:34, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

We do that on the talk page, which are for discussing the article. You ignore it. See below. Cool Hand Luke 07:44, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Yet you conclude several of those discussions by claiming that there's no reason to oppose your edits and that all of the other parties are wrong ("its here to stay" stating intent to re-add paragraph after being advised doing so would break 3RR), and you continue edit warring, knowing that literally everyone opposes you. You know where the talk page is, but not how to edit collaboratively. That's why you should be limited to the talk page, which will prevent further disruption to Wikipedia. Cool Hand Luke 07:44, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Saranghae honey threatened to delete the Mail-order bride section due to lack of sources. Yet at the time I added a source from Phoebe and Asianweek and User:Saranghae honey deleted the phoebe entry. and then make the claim that there are not enough sources to support this section! I added the phoebe section back in and people claim that the asianweek source is not good because it's about college students making statements. After the page was unlocked you overwrote the whole article with User:Saranghae honey's version which deleted the mail-order bride section. So I added the section with the deleted phoebe entry back in and two more WP:V sources. and you give me a WP:UNDUE and delete this today! You people made it obvious, it does not matter at all. this section will never ever be added to the asian fetish page. It does matter if there are many WP:V sources out there supports that asian fetish drives the mail-order bride business. And this is the nature of all the changes I've ever tried to make to the page. All of the them! Tkguy (talk) 07:55, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Your edits (such as the diffs above) speak for themselves. I look forward to working with you on the talk page. Cool Hand Luke 08:00, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

The following is an entry I've put in on the talk:Asian fetish, it's an example of the kind of editing I've done along with what kind of editing that have been done on the page. Much of the editing I do is to rid the page of the manipulation of source data. And no I don't believe consensus can be used to allow manipulated sources be placed in an article. That's a direct violation of WP:NOR or WP:NPOV. Tkguy (talk) 08:18, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Please also note that I had to spend a lot of time rewriting much of the quotes and summarization of source because I've found them to not reflect the source data accurately. For example User:Saranghae honey wrote the following:

Asian fetish has been used in a more benign context to mean "a harmless preference for specific physical characteristics, such as narrow eyes and flatter noses, as harmless as some people's preference for dating, say, fatter partners." 19:54, 27 December 2007

The actual quote is the following:

"Some say Asian fetish' is just a harmless preference for specific physical characteristics, such as narrow eyes and flatter noses, as harmless as some people's preference for dating, say, fatter partners." colorq.com source

The colorq source went through a lot of trouble to specify both sides of the asian fetish issue. One side indicating it's a benign while the other side saying it's not. If you read closely you realize that User:Saranghae honey was trying to imply that it's general accepted by ALL the notion that asian fetish is benign when actually the source specifically specified only some believed this notion. I found that way User:Saranghae honey chopped the quote was an attempt to mitigate Asian fetish. Seeing how User:Saranghae honey wanted this page deleted and is continually deleting content from this page I can make this conclusion.

I've found this manipulation of source data all over the page.

Another example is the "Racial preferences in dating" dating part of the page. Originally this was written as claiming that a scientific study proved that asian fetish does not exist. That's so far from the truth. An article was written in salon magazine in which one of the authors of the study derived from the study that it proved to HIM that asian fetish does not exist. Please read the old version of this part of the page and my version and look at the study and the article being referenced. I assure you that my entry is an unbiased view of the article and situation. With that I believe I can actually delete this section as this guy was obviously stating an opinion and wikipedia is not a source for opinions. Or at the very least this section does not deserve to have such a prominent place and use up a lot of space on this page. It's a biased opinion from one man. And it's sad that such bias comes from an author of the study which brings into question the validity of the study itself. old Asian Preference in Dating section vs new Racial preference in Dating section

Here's another example of older version of the definition that was on this page:

Asian fetish denotes a sexual attraction favoring Asian people for their race and perceptions of their culture. 02:45, 28 November 2007

The above was written with a reference to Sheridan Prasso's "The Asian Mystique" book. I found that the following was the actual quote from which the above was summarized from:

"What isn't normal, however, is when preference crosses the invisible line, when Asian and Asian-American women on the receiving end feel--as Liao and Kwon say--objectified and valued not for who they are as people, but for their race or perceptions of the culture they come from."

My version imo accurately convey the exact meaning that the author was trying to convey. The original summary was a gross manipulation of the source once again.

I wrote this to make clear to all that I am neutral. The only mistakes I've made are noobie mistakes that people starting to edit in wikipedia does. And of course to make clear to all the situation I am putting up with on this page. Tkguy (talk) 01:01, 28 December 2007 (UTC)}}

Case in point. Ownership, accusing other editors of "gross manipulation." Tkguy here claims that consensus need not apply to his edits because user is correcting "manipulated sources." A variety of users have made clear their opposition to Tkguy's POV edits, but user feels entitled to ignore them. That's why this SPA should be banned from the mainspace of this topic. Cool Hand Luke 08:19, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Well I proved it right here that sources were being manipulated. If you prefer to look to this as me pushing my pov so be it. I am pushing the pov that sources should speak for itself. And this is the nature of the edit wars on Asian fetish. Tkguy (talk) 08:49, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure whether a non-admin's view is wanted here, but I support a ban. November/December was an odyssey in personal attacks and bad faith accusations on me (and others), partly documented here. Even in this thread Tkguy continues accusing me and User:Christopher Mann McKay of tricking him into a 3rr trap, despite having been warned beforehand. Kaitenbushi (talk) 11:25, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Once again the real story. My 3rr block was reverted and User:Kaitenbushi got the 3rr block and User:Christopher Mann McKay got a 48 hour block for violating the 3rr rule on another page and for tricking me too on the Asian fetish page. Talk about all of this on the arbitration proposal and it's here. We already know that User:Christopher Mann McKay was blocked for 48 HOURS not 24 hours like everybody else 48 hours! This guy has no credibility.

I hope people see a pattern here. user:Crotalus horridus, User:Cool Hand Luke, and User:Saranghae honey already had their comments rollback but yet they were not banded, or blocked or not even a comment, I believe, was put on their talk page. And like I said User:Christopher Mann McKay was already banned for 48 hours partly for his work on Asian fetish. Yet, people are thinking that I am the problem on this article? If I have pov then it's because I am pushing to make the article abide by wikipedia's standards. Nearly all the entries on the article now has WP:NOR, WP:SYN, WP:NPOV, etc. issue. This is because there are no consequences for adding things that breaks wikipedia's policies. I will RfC on all these changes but it seems like the kind of people RfC on Asian fetish attracts are the people who think consensus can overrule the rules of wikipedia! Why were these comments rollback and nobody blocked or banned from the article? According to policies:

“ Rollback is supposed to be used to revert obvious vandalism. ”

At least one things came to light it's official user:Crotalus horridus, User:Cool Hand Luke, and User:Saranghae honey are vandals!!! And as the WP:AGF states.

“ This guideline does not require that editors continue to assume good faith in the presence of evidence to the contrary. ”

This section that was rolleback has many many entries in it (12 entries! Not 1 not 2 not 3, 12 entries!). It's not just one comment. It's multiple comments from each party. So multiple occurrence of vandalism warrants that these people can be assumed not to editing in good-faith. And it's apparent that these people are the people making all the comments against me, I say those comments and their editing must be examined before using them to determine whether or not I AM THE PROBLEM. If I am changing their entries then if it's vandalism then that should be ok. and anything that was changed and no regards were put to abide by wikipedia's standards then it's vandalism. And that's is the nature of the edit wars on Asian fetish 14:34, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I strongly support preventing Tkguy from any further disruptive edit warring on Asian fetish. It is long overdue. миражinred (speak, my child...) 22:39, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Arbitrary break AF1

I will block him

— User:Cool Hand Luke

You may be arguably be involved in a content dispute with Tkguy; if so, the use of sysop tools would not be allowed.

This messageboard is not part of dispute resolution, though many people seem to use it as the first measure. Have WP:3O, Wikipedia:Mediation or Requests for comment/User been attempted? There was a request for arbitration that is being rejected. Likewise, a community topic ban via ANI should not be proposed until all other avenues have failed. If other means have already been tried, please point me to the links. Jehochman ^Talk 11:36, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Arbitration failed but remember it was initiated by Tkguy, not anyone on the other side of the dispute. In fact other attempts were made to reason with him, there was a proposal made on his talk page. He refused to acknowledge it and instead when it looked like consensus was clearly against him, he began making threats of arbitration and eventually filed it (and its now been rejected). 3O wasn't specifically request, but I was a bit of a third opinion, coming to the party quite late. To find the mess on the talk page, and I agree with everything that has been said about what is going on here. Not that 3O really applies here, its specifically for a dispute between two users. This is a dispute between about 6 or 7 in reality. Mediation and RFCU are both slow and neither are binding. In the meantime the edit warring and ownership issues will continue as its unlikely Tkguy would agree to not edit the article until the process is finished since he wouldn't even acknowledge the request to limit himself to a single revert a day.--Crossmr (talk) 14:25, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

This message board is part of dispute resolution. With the dismantling of WP:PAIN, and WP:CSN many users expressed during the MfD process that those issues be brought to either AN/I or AN and separate boards weren't necessary. Since those boards were successfully removed and there wasn't an alternate venue provided for them, this is where they end up.--Crossmr (talk) 14:30, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Is there only one problem editor, or are there more? Jehochman ^Talk 14:28, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

There is only a single problem editor causing the edit warring and causing the article to have been locked twice. If you look at the dispute you have about 6 editors on one side of the dispute, and only Tkguy on the other side of the dispute who has absolutely 0 support for any changes he wants to implement. He has ownership issues and a very evident bias in regards to the subject.--Crossmr (talk) 14:31, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

So my editing is edit warring and their changes are not? And my editing is the problem? So tell me if people deliberately violate WP:NOR, WP:SYN, WP:NPOV, and if I change those entries. Is that edit warring? Tkguy (talk) 14:47, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I'd say that if you can't persuade other editors to support your edits on the talk page to reach consensus then you cannot really see this as anything other then your view against that of the other established editors there. The onus is on the person wishing to make changes to obtain consensus when their edit is challenged so, if you do not have consensus on your side, then you are edit warring. I suggest that you should observe a voluntary 1RR, that is, if your edits are challenged you should seek consensus on the talk page and leave well alone if this is not forthcoming. Cheers Spartaz ^Humbug! 15:09, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

In this situation, you should explain the problem and the desired resolution at Requests for comment/User. Broad input from the community will hopefully end any editing problems. Administrators can use the RFC/U as evidence to justify administrative action. If RFC/U fails to resolve the dispute, you could then file a request for arbitration or seek community sanctions. Jehochman ^Talk 15:02, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

A significant amount of RfC-style evidence was posted at the previous RfC. User has been given countless warnings including prior requests to observe a 1RR, and even here the user insists that he is right and the world is wrong. I would have moved to RfC/U except that literally no user supports this editor's continued disruption, and there's no good reason to allow one user to get the page protected fore a third time. If normal formality gets in the way of improving the encyclopedia, ignore it. Cool Hand Luke 17:36, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

At the very least, a quick review suggests that this editor is edit-warring against multiple others and has reverted somewhere around 5 times in the last 12 hours or so. Therefore, I've blocked Tkguy (talk · contribs) for 31 hours for edit-warring and 3RR violation. As to the larger picture, having spent a bit of time looking this over, a fairly clear picture of a tendentious editor is emerging - refusal to respect consensus or outside opinions, refractory edit-warring, stalling page improvement by refusing to let go of an argument that has failed to convince anyone, etc. That there is fairly good evidence of a single-purpose agenda and abuse of Wikipedia to push a specific agenda (in the form of links to off-wiki sources) is relevant though not central. We should not be allowing individual editors who refuse to edit collaboratively and who reject outside input to stall page improvement indefinitely - the fact that this single editor has driven the page into protection numerous times is A Bad Thing. We also shouldn't require a lengthy series of processes to deal with an obviously tendentious presence. In that respect, I'd lend my support to either a topic ban, or 1RR plus a rapidly escalating series of blocks for any disruptive behavior or incivility. MastCell ^Talk 18:18, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

No problem—community sanctions should take some time and have a good cross-section of input. Incidentally, it appears that user has named seven editors above as vandals, POV-pushers, and tricksters. I think that's a pretty good indication of how singularly disruptive this user is. Cool Hand Luke 18:56, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

This is a good start, but I hope that this issue doesn't fade in to obscurity as to often is the problem on AN/I. While it temporarily resolves the issue we do need much more input so we can put this to bed.--Crossmr (talk) 22:39, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I concur with MastCell, as well as with either of his proposed solutions, and have declined the user's unblock request. Sandstein (talk) 06:40, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Personally I feel a topic ban is more in order here. We're not dealing with an established editor who only loses his cool in regards to a narrow topic. We're dealing with a single purpose account who came here with the intention of pushing his own POV on an article and has done nothing but succeed in locking up the article a couple of times and violating a number of policies. If he really wants to contribute positively to the rest of the encyclopedia, I say give him a chance to do that, but I think he's wasted any possible good faith that could have remained in regards to this article and this topic in general.--Crossmr (talk) 15:25, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Reducing magnetism

The problem is probably, in part, because Asian fetish, like Asiaphile, is an inherently-non-neutral title. The very name implies a slant on the subject. The two names are both names for a single subject, each with a different implicit point of view inherent in the name itself. Thus they attract in non-neutral editors who want to promote the name's point of view and exclude the point of view that is contrary to the one implicit in the title. I've suggested a merger into a neutrally named article before, at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Asiaphile; it's also been suggested at Talk:Asian fetish#Should this article be renamed?; and there's even a consensus to merge and pick a better name at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Asiaphile/2004-12-14. Rather than have this problem carry on for another 3 years, with non-neutrality as its cause, it is probably time that we bite the bullet, stop the non-neutrality, and do that. See User:Uncle G/Preference for Asian women by non-Asian men for something that you are welcome to start a merged article with. Uncle G (talk) 00:24, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

That's a good content solution, and I support it. I do think the title helps attract extremists.

That said, any name change will not deal with this editor, who, after all, began his wikipedia career on Asiaphile before it was turned into a disambiguation. User has an agenda to promote no matter what the article is called. Cool Hand Luke 04:06, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

As per my comments on Talk:Asian fetish, I support a rename. The exact title is negotiable. Uncle G's workshop page looks good to me, and he has a lot of experience with handling merges and similar matters. I think a title change and merge might help defuse the issue. *** Crotalus *** 19:39, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Question

Can someone request a blocking of his OWN IP due to wikiholism? --Damifb (talk) 15:15, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

You can request it, but we won't do it. May I suggest WikiBreak Enforcer instead? ➔ REDVEЯS is standing in the dark 15:20, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Would that work for an IP? I do presume, like you REDVEЯS, that the editor meant "account" instead of "OWN IP".--Alf ^{turning on the light for REDVEЯS} 15:25, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

No, I meant IP, because with a Wiki Break Enforcer you can still edit from your computer. OK, thanks for your answers... I'm laughing because I've been blocked in the past without asking for it lol!--Damifb (talk) 15:42, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I guess that depends on what you mean by "asking for it." ;) — Satori Son 17:15, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

To paraphrase the New Jersey Gambling Commission: "Edit with your head, not over it" David in DC (talk) 03:19, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Callmebc

Callmebc (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was recently unblocked after being indefinitely blocked, apparently for a combination of edit warring, incivility and harassment. In responding to an 3RR report today, I found that he has been edit warring again: [98], [99], [100], [101]. This is contrary to the terms of his unblock: [102]. I don't know this situation well enough to be sure if it's time to reinstate the former block, so for the time being, I've blocked for two weeks. Inviting comments from those who are a bit more aware of this situation. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 05:38, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually, he is trying to get the IP user in question to come to the talk page to discuss further. While possibly a 3RR violation, I am willing to extend good faith here, as he is atleast TRYING to do it the right way. Maybe reverting while making the requests isn't quite right. If the problem extended more to just this one incident, I would think he was violating his block parole, however, this seems like a small problem right now. Perhaps you could remind him that even reverting BAD, but not vandalous, edits is still 3RR, and that he should try other means of getting the user to the talk page, but this seems like a small issue right now. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 05:47, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but you simply don't go wholesale reverting and then hypocritically say in the edit summary to use the talk page. That's the opposite of what's supposed to happen. I agree with Heimstern Läufer's block, and would propose blocking him indefinitely again. Given the beyond numerous warnings and blocks, this seems appropriate. Unblocking his original indefinite block was indeed most generous of Haemo, but to then ignore that generosity, the forewarnings, and even his own promises is simply outrageous. There's no reason to tolerate his behavior any longer. ~ UBeR (talk) 06:01, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Uber's on the right track, but Let's let the block stand until Haemo is both notified and actually responds here. CMB's his responsibility, since he unblocked, let him find out what was going on. Until then, CallMeBC can cool his jets and relax. ThuranX (talk) 06:10, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I've informed Haemo about this thread. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 06:16, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Concur with the block, but for the love of all things holy, can we quit with "fortnight" in block logs? Nobody knows what that means and it just confuses users about how long they have been blocked. --B (talk) 07:01, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I concur with the block, and I concur with B's anti-fortnight initiative also. I know that a fortnight is two weeks, but I came across either a block or a page protection a few days ago (I can't remember which, but I think it was a page) that was something like 8.3482 fortnights. Who has the time to figure _that_ out? I wish I could remember where it was and who did it. I don't know whether to worship them for their massive brain power or slap them with a fish. KrakatoaKatie 08:48, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Four months. Easy enough to guess--it's the standard block length closest to (8 * 14) == 112 days. It *is* a bit ridiculous, though; what's next, measuring speed in furlongs per fortnight? Rdfox 76 (talk) 13:47, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Hang on. Let's not start saying that unblocking admins are responsible for the conduct of the editors they unblock. The unblocked editors are the ones responsible for their own conduct (and CallMeBC made a statement to that effect). The unblocking admin is only (partly) responsible if they have agreed to mentor the editor being unblocked, and I see no sign Haemo agreed to that. In the absence of any mentorship (and even in that case) an unblocked editor is free to be blocked by any admin if there are grounds to do so and the editor has been warned, and it is then that admin who now has the responsibility for the block. No passing the buck around please. Take previous blocks and unblocks into account, but don't block and then ask the previous blocking or unblocking admins to deal with it. Take responsibility for your own blocks. PS. The block looks good. Carcharoth (talk) 11:31, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I promised to "keep an eye out" but I thought I made it very clear that I'm not going to put myself in an authority position over Callmebc on this issue. In any case, it sounds like he, while upset about the length, understands the problem and the block, and was acting entirely with good intentions in mind. --Haemo (talk) 23:10, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, if he understands what he did wrong, and is contrite, should we not unblock him? Continued blocking seems punitive at this point. If this does not yet merit an indefinite block, then what is the point of leaving it up for two weeks, unless to say "you've been naughty and are being punished". The block was there to stop the problem behavior. The person in question has admitted fault and has stopped. If we believe he will not continue the behavior, then we should perhaps lift the block. If we believe he will continue to be disruptive, why lift it in two weeks? Personally, I think it looks like we got his attention, and he understands what he did is wrong. If he does it again, an indefinate block may be in order. But now, why keep the block in place??? --Jayron32.talk.contribs 01:15, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

No, actually he's saying he doesn't understand the block. Read his talk page. He's arguing that he's done absolutely nothing wrong! The matter of fact is that he repeatedly been tendentious and disruptive since he has joined Wikipedia. Somehow, people ignore this and keep giving him more chances. I understand it's rather easy for people with no involvement with his abuse to say it's all A-OK. To people actually involved, we're all quite tired of him. ~ UBeR (talk) 02:35, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I have to agree. He's showing no sign at all of understanding why he's been blocked, or knowing how to move on and do better. I don't think lifting the block would be wise. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 03:20, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough... But what then is the point of a two week block? Will he magically change in two weeks? The length of time seems arbritrary... If we don't believe he will ever change, why not an indefinite block? Not necessarily argueing for that, but trying to understand the justification behind the length... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 03:30, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Escalation from previous blocks for edit warring, and gives the user some time to rethink the situation. Also, the reason I brought this here was to see if it was possible we should move toward restoring the indefblock. Of course the length of time is arbitrary; it always is. It's just based on the admin's judgment. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 03:34, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Ah... thanks for explaining... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 03:47, 22 January 2008 (UTC)