Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive108

Reverts of non-vandalism without explanation are a bad idea, regardless of whether the rollback tool is used. Abuse of the rollback tool only makes it worse. I would say that Rebecca needs to be asked to revert with accurate edit comments, as a simple matter of courtesy and fairness. Al 16:43, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Margana: while you are not using the rollback tool, you are also reverting with content-free edit summaries. Is it too much to ask for you to have clean hands before complaining about someone else's behaviour? It takes two to revert-war, and you're being an enthusiastic revert warrior - constantly, if a view of your recent edits is any guide. Wikipedia should not be used as a battlefield, and that's what you're doing, article after article after article. I note your original edit to Psephos that started the whole thing was summary-free as well.

I would urge you to learn more collegial ways of improving Wikipedia than the battering-ram approach you are using right now. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 17:00, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Nice diversion. My original edit to Psephos was not a revert, and as I said above, it seemed neither practical nor particularly necessary to leave an edit summary; I didn't expect it to be controversial. When it turned out to be, I discussed it on the talk page, as I do with any other article where there's a dispute. How is that a "battering-ram approach"? Am I supposed to just let people revert my edits without explanation and be done with it? If they revert and refuse to explain themselves, I can't do much else than revert myself. Margana 20:35, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm afraid that just because you start a thread on AN/I you don't get to force everyone to stick within your definition of 'on topic'. You brought up Rebecca's behaviour during a revert war; that makes your behaviour also on topic, and not a 'diversion'. Since it turns out that you are also reverting without edit summaries, and making changes to articles without an edit summary, it seems that you're behaving similarly yourself - this makes your complaining about her behaviour sheer hypocrisy. As Tom Harrison says below: using rollback on non-vandalism isn't frowned upon because it's an admin function, but because it breaks our standards of civility by not explaining the reason for the revert. If you behave better than those you're complaining about, maybe I'd take you more seriously.

My comments about your confrontational approach to Wikipedia stem from looking at your recent contributions and finding you engaged in multiple, simultaneous edit and revert wars. Every Wiki-warrior claims the other guy started it and all they're doing is following suit: "I can't do much else than revert myself", to quote your own words back at you. Well ... there IS much else you can do. Starting with discussion, with using edit summaries that don't leave people feeling that you're trying to sneak in changes without anyone noticing, with trying to find compromise and an accurate statement that everyone can agree with. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 20:52, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

When I revert without an edit summary, it's because I explained myself in a previous summary or on the talk page. I do not revert without explanation. I don't care what "every Wiki-warrior claims", in my case it is evidently true that I didn't start reverting, and you can't show otherwise. And the fact that you did (and still do) try to find fault with me, without losing one word on Rebecca, shows that you are just trying to defend her by means of diversion. Margana 21:12, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

She's been uncivil, you've been uncivil. I'd rather you put more effort into avoiding conflict, improving your collaboration with other editors, and suchlike. Complaining to AN/I when your own hands aren't all that clean doesn't really leave you looking all that good, IMO. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 21:19, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

My hands are clean. Pray tell, how do I improve my collaboration with someone like Rebecca who abuses rollback and steadfastly refuses to talk? Be specific: assuming she continues that way, am I supposed to just give up on my edit, modify it by guessing what her objection may be (without knowing that, I can hardly work toward a compromise), or what? Margana 21:31, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

I think the larger concern is not so much with the roll-back button as with the uninformative edit summary. A blank edit summary is uninformative, but so is "removed POV" or "NPOV" or "added clarity". Honestly, I'd rather see "rv - stoopid" than another "rv - pov". Tom Harrison ^Talk 18:41, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Wait, does this mean that I'm violating policy by using my godmode-light script to revert edits that I didn't agree with? Uh-oh. ${\displaystyle Insertformulahere}$--mboverload@ 19:15, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes.

WP:CIVIL. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C

) 20:54, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, if I put in an edit summary its fine. --mboverload@ 21:19, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Exactly, so long as it's not just 'rv' ... Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 21:20, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure I agree that a rollback with no summary is a violation of

WP:CIVIL. I think it depends on the context and editing history, and the existing consensus on the page. Tom Harrison ^Talk

21:54, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Not necessarily in ALL cases, I'll give you - but still better provided than not. Rollbacks of pure vandalism do not need much explanation, of course. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 21:59, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Margana seems to think that the existence of this discussion gives him/her the right to revert to a version that has been rejected by the vast majority of contributors. Snottygobble 12:51, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

This user is trolling, and should know better, being an admin.

• first, he deletes a DRV i put up re Userbox [2]. That has now been recreated and received some good intelligent discussion, leading to a resolution of the issue which could not have happened if tony had his way.
• I put a comment on his talk page asking him to talk about it, and he deletes the comment. [3]
• And again... i continue to try and get him to address the real issue, but he keeps deleting my edits [4]
• I find on his talk page that i'm not the only one disturbed by his behaviour. You'll have to check the history, he keeps deleting any posts which are not favourable to him.
• He creates a sockpuppet, User:64.132.163.178, and blows his own trumpet on his userpage, about him being a good boy and everything, before deleting the discussion because he realised that he got totally owned.
• I think an admin or someone with a bit of power ought to knock him down a few bars. Being an admin doesn't make you a god, as most admins would be happy to admit, because they can have intelligent discussions and accept criticism, unlike tony.
• Best outcome = deadmin, most likely = severe talking to by another admin, a 'please explain', most dangerous = he just continues on his vandalism rampage and deletes this post, in which case i will refer the matter to another admin via their talk page.

THE KING 18:40, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

/me notes that "

Willow

18:44, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

• debatable. If it's just him but not logged in, it's still unacceptable to masquarade as someone else and write about how good he is on his talk page. THE KING 18:47, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

  Um, sessions drop all the time. Assume good faith and all that. Mackensen (talk) 18:50, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Nonsense. A checkuser would have to be performed in order to establish that, and even so, it's not masquerading (he would have to get another username to do so) -- Drini 18:53, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

The edits by 64.132.163.178 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) are not authored by me. I've been deleting edits by THE_KING (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) from my talk page because he's one of a few noisemaking nuisances currently putting aggressive nonsense there. --Tony Sidaway 18:51, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

• Why were you unwilling to respond to my requests for explanation of your random deletion of the userbox drv then? Anyway this isn't about you creating a sockpuppet its about deleting my edits and then not being willing to talk about it or explain your actions. I think you thought i'd just forget if you kept deleting me often enough. THE KING 18:55, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

I can verify that Tony Sidaway is telling the truth here (regarding authorship). Mackensen (talk) 18:54, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

• Comment Tony is not vandalizing, you have accused him of such with no diffs and no evidence. I strongly advise you to constrain yourself to actual areas of concern rather than tossing about accusations with no substance. One puppy's opinion. KillerChihuahua^?!? 19:01, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Tony and Cyde...some of the most (in)famous admins we have. It's always about them, what about the other admins? Why can't we pay attention to them, too? =D However, in this incident I would have to see much more evidence against Tony to even start insulting him. You know, that

• He's done it again! [5] i was about to add a comment and found the page missing - cant this editor see how much this pisses other editors off? THE KING 19:02, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
  • There was already a DRV debate some time ago which upheld deletion. There's no need to go through it again. Consider this your civility warning as well–such language is completely uncalled for. Mackensen (talk) 19:06, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

For background, I should add that the deletion of Userbox has been discussed to death. It has not been restored, contrary to this very confused individual's belief. I have just deleted an attempt to revive this tired subject YET AGAIN from DRV. --Tony Sidaway 19:03, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Without explaining it - despite repeated attempts at procuring an answer from you. Also i'm not confused - you're the confused one: i said 'resolved' not 'restored'. THE KING 19:05, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

To preface this comment, in the past me and Tony haven't exactly agreed...on anything =D. However in this case I believe Tony to be in the %100 right. Although I usually don't like people removing other people's comments from their talk page, I think your comments are there just to cause trouble and I know I wouldn't blame anyone for removing them. There IS a reason that Userbox doesn't have a redirect, I even tried to get it unprotected so I could put a redirect but I widthdrew my nomination because I actually took the time to listen. Perhaps you should try this thing called "listening". People don't just do random things for no reason. --mboverload@ 19:06, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

• Yeah i know what's going on re userbox now. But i dont see why tony couldn't have just told me when he deleted my comments. I am fully aware of what's going on with userbox. it just annoys me how this tony fellow thinks he's god. THE KING 19:10, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Thinks he's god? You've clearly never spoken to him properly. --Lord Deskana ^{Dark Lord of the Sith} 19:13, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Thinks! Ha! --Tony Sidaway 19:14, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
      • Hehe =D --mboverload@ 19:15, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
      • It's no laughing matter. If it still existed, i'd list tony on my list of people who need a kick up the arse. Excuse the lannguage, it was a subsection of my userpage that no longer exists due to obvious reasons. THE KING 19:24, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
        • Well, if you insist on keeping this serious, I'm going to give you a three-hour cooling-off block the next time you verbally assault someone. Cheers, Mackensen (talk) 19:28, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
          • • • Roger that. THE KING 19:39, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

I cannot think of a better chance to note this classic for no reason at all. Bonus points in that this drama seems to be related to Userboxen and DRV. --Avillia ^{(Avillia me!)} 19:30, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Dammit Avillia, stop trolling. Don't make me get out my asbestos chainsaw again. --Cyde↔Weys 19:33, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

mboverload redirects DRV to User:Cyde

If we still had the separate

Wikipedia:Deletion review/Userbox debates we could simply replace it with #REDIRECT [[No]] without losing much of worth. --Sam Blanning^(talk)

19:40, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

dueds not funny. Take it too #wikipedia-en-admins.Geni 13:26, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

• King, I would suggest that it may not be wise, when attempting to suggest that someone else is not behaving the way you would like, to bring up as evidence their removal of something you wrote that is blatantly a personal attack, amazingly incivil, and otherwise unproductive. Do you expect any sympathy or consideration when people can read the very you provide and see you tossing around swear words, saying "You bloody idiot", and "Please use your brain"? You make it very hard for people to even consider your position. --Improv 23:05, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

I plan to block Irishpunktom for one week based on his history of edit-warring and previous blocks for 3RR. Since it's a long block, I thought I'd mention it here first in case anyone wants to comment. Tom Harrison ^Talk 18:59, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Irishpunktom has violated 3RR on Islam in the Soviet Union today. I didn't report him yet, still hoping he would self-revert. Pecher ^Talk 19:07, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Ugg, anyone who violates 3RR MULTIPLE times deserves a nice long block to cool off. No problem here. --mboverload@ 19:10, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

I've blocked him for one week. Tom Harrison ^Talk 20:20, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

I've unblocked him so he can respond to the Arbcom. I asked him not to edit anything unrelated to his arbitration, and I think he'll respect that. Tom Harrison ^Talk 22:20, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

The application for arbitration is here. --Tony Sidaway 22

43, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

This edit accused me of being rascist and threatening the editor and the editor's son. While it almost goes without saying that I am not rascist, I want to specifically point out that I had no idea or reason to believe that this particular editor was black. I blocked the editor for vandalism after the editor had been warned by many independent editors. I reverted the attack but did not extend the block (primarily because the editor is using an IP address). I did, however, mark that user talk page as protected. Am I meant to make a note of that anywhere else? Also, I welcome examination of my actions here in case it turns out I exceeded my authority here. --Yamla 20:28, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

What a complete douchebag. I think you may have been a little too easy on him. --mboverload@ 20:38, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

On the subject of discrimination:

17:45, June 3, 2006 Cyde blocked "ImAnElderlyHandicappedHomosexual.DontBlockMeThatsDiscrimination. (contribs)" with an expiry time of indefinite (ImAYouthfulAbleBodiedHeterosexualAdmin.DontContestThisBlockIt'sAnInapporpriateUsername,NotDiscrimination).

Someone pulling the race card. I hate it when people do that. Will (^E_@) T 20:46, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

The user was warned by several people, but continued adding nonsense, and made personal attacks. Finally you blocked them. You actions were absolutely correct. Tom Harrison ^Talk 20:47, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Yamla, you were one of the ones combatting me, when I was trying to get rid of the racist slurs in the Paris Hilton article. It is not very nice when you are called a racist, is it? It is even worse, if you are a pretty young woman. Now you can understand what I was getting at. Wallie 22:08, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

What's that suppose to mean... Sasquatch t|c 23:40, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

• Collin marks (
  Danny Lilithborne
  01:37, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
  • I'll take care of it, but this is what
    WP:AIV is for. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops
    ) 01:38, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
    • My original idea was to post it there, but I was told AIV was only for those who'd gone through the full warn template process.
      Danny Lilithborne
      01:41, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
      • Process? Good grief. — Jun. 9, '06 [02:56] <freak|talk>

The page

Here is the chronology:

1. 31 May 2006: Bush joke by 4.249.9.39, who also contributed to Image talk:Lipadom.jpg
2. 1 June 2006: Newton joke by 64.18.16.251 - this IP address is used by single user since september 2005.
3. 7 June 2006: Newton joke by 4.249.90.168 (single edit from this IP address)
4. 9 June 2006: Napoleon joke by 4.249.9.232, who also contributed to
   Talk:List of Croatians

I believe that this might be the same person - user behind IP 64.18.16.251. After examining histories of articles edited by 64.18.16.251, I believe I know who he is (regarding his "real" username), but I don't know if that is relevant.

Can someone please investigate this and try to stop this vandal. I don't know is this a case of vandalism of a single user with multiple IP adresses or just meat-puppet vandalism.

Anyway, as You can see by dates listed, it's becoming more and more often and I believe this user has to be stopped. --

This is not exactly high-volume vandalism - if you have the page on your watchlist, reverting nonsense every few days isn't a big deal. --ajn (talk) 08:22, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Can somone undelete User:Striver/users that view the 9/11 attacks article as govement pov, it was nowhere close to consensus to delete. --Striver 17:31, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Alkivar uses profanity in his edit summaries and practices incivility. Here are just a few examples. Check his user contributions, and you'll find regular use of "shit" and "fuck". Check out his talk page in which he routinely removes comments that are not vandalism (also notice the number of complaints he receives on his talk page). Only administrators can do this, but notice his inappropriate use of deleting histories. Check out the brassiere page where he tried to add some awful picture to it that everyone hated, and then he insulted everyone (except one user) who complained about the picture. He also seems to be in the habit of provoking vandals by making his feuds with them personal. Why hasn't Alkivar ever been blocked for this kind of behavior or been removed from his position as an administrator? This is a travesty. Duckdid 05:56, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I haven't any opinion with respect to most of the points you raise, as I've only a passing familiarity with Alkivar and am disinclined to spend time reading through his talk page. Apropos of his profane edit summaries, though, one finds that his profanity isn't directed in specific at other users (as would perhaps be in contravention of

RfC, which will surely bear out any actual malfeasance (even as I suspect none has occurred). Joe

06:25, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Here is an example of some comments I found in his edit summaries and other places by searching just for a minute or so: "jesus fuck learn grammar you tards", "why do idiots insist on adding images without reading the HELP documentation first?", "All i've gotten is shit over this picture ... fuck you all its deleted", "Fuck You." Yes, Alkivar breaks incivility and he uses profanity to further that goal. Please, don't try to ignore this obvious fact. Doing a search on Wikipedia, I also found a reference to Alkivar deliberately trying to lure a guy he was feuding with into a 3RR block. Duckdid 06:43, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I know the feeling when people add in the worst-written shit you have ever read. Makes me want to say that first think, too. However, the rest is just unexcusable. Either this is a different user than the person elected to admin, or it has gone to his head in a bad way. --mboverload@ 07:12, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

It doesn't look like you've talked to him about this, which should be the first step rather than taking it here. Talk to him first, try to work it out, and if that doesn't work bring it here. I'm tired of people complaining on this NB without first trying to actually resolve the issue (wow! what a concept!).

(talk)

07:17, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Talking to him is a great idea, but it's not a terrible idea for a fellow admin to do the talking. As it stands, he appears to be an ongoing embarassment to less potty-mouthed admins.

When you loose a cannon, you have the responsibility to reign it back in. Every person who voted in support on Alkivar's RFA should be jumping down his throat right now. Al 07:23, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

No, no, no, no. He made what may or may not be a mistake, and going "Ohnoes, sysop abuse!" is absurd (as per "why hasn't Alkivar ever been blocked for this kind of behavior or been removed from his position as an administrator?"). Talking to him is exactly what should be done here, as always.

(talk)

07:28, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Wait, are you saying we have TWO standards? Because when I once made a single edit comment that could be taken as an insult, I was blocked for a week. This guy is cursing out people repeatedly, but since he's an admin, all you suggest is that someone speak to him politely about it? With all due respect, there is clearly at least the appearance of disparity here. Al 07:46, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Good point, Alienus. Admins should be blocked, or not, for violations according to the very same standards (at least) which would be applied to any other editor.Timothy Usher 07:54, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Of course. But I'm not playing a double standard, see below for details.

(talk)

16:08, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't know your situation, but I reckon that you should've been talked to first as well. If you'd already been talked with or warned or whatever, then I'd understand it. No one's brought up the subject with Alkivar. In fact, no one who brought this topic up appears to even have had the decency to let him know that he's being talked about on this noticeboard. Talk to him, take it to RfC. That's the dispute resolution process. The whole way this wiki works is through communucation. A lot of people seem to be under the misapprehension that when they don't like something, the best thing to do is shout over here, Abuse! Abuse! and then not bother to tell the "abusing" person anything about it or do any leg work themselves. If you'd mentioned the issue and then he'd said Fuck off, this post would be far more reasonable. But then that hasn't happened.

(talk)

16:08, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't understand. If a user is uncivil, why are we shooting the messenger rather than dealing with the problem. Fine, if Duckdid is a banned user, ban him again. But don't just assume that because a banned user brings something up, the complaint is ipso facto invalid. Alkivar's edit summaries DO contain problems, regardless of whether someone haas talked to him about it yet (and maybe no one has talked to him about it because of the perception that it will do no good, vis double-standards?). -- nae'blis _(talk) 17:44, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm not shooting the messenger, nor do I think that the complaint is invalid. I'm saying that the messenger is taking the wrong steps. If I have a problem with a user, I talk to him about it. That I've assumed that he'll respond poorly is no reason to not talk to him about it (I may be wrong, he may say, "Oh, feck, right, sorry about that," and the problem's solved. I've seen it happen). If he responds poorly, then that's a good reason to bring it here. It's just plain rude to post a message here before first even going over the problem with the person you have a problem with. Talking to them first is indeed the first step in our dispute resolution process, a long-standing policy. Try it, and you may get good results. If that's done, then come here with the problem and we'll do our best.

(talk)

18:41, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

You guys have to realize the near impossibility of not being an “insider” and trying to get things done. I’ve been told that I shouldn’t have posted this concern here, even though the directions at the top of the page say this is where to do it. I’ve been told to talk to Alkivar, which is impossible since he has removed my comments from his talk page in the past. I’ve been told that I should appeal to a committee instead of creating a sockpuppet if I’m blocked, but how do I do such things if I’m blocked to begin with? And what about Snoutwood, who appears (though this could be wrong) to be interpreting everything in the light most favorable to Alkivar? Snoutwood claimed no one had the decency to tell Alkivar that he’s being talked about, and that’s a non-issue. Alkivar tried to have me blocked about thirty minutes after I posted here. He knew about it. He just didn’t want to say anything here.

No one has looked at this from my perspective. Administrators go around making binding decisions with blocks and deletions and so forth. I just make a few edits and create a few articles here and there. When people talk about needing to do a WP:RfA because the WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL were violated when there was a WP:3RR or whatever, I don’t know what any of that means. I have to sit here for an hour clicking on the links to figure out what those acronyms mean and what the substance of those policies are. So, I’m stuck hindered by an overly bureaucratic process that I don’t understand (and several in this conversation have interpreted differently) while groupthink and the good ol’ boys network run amok. Dizzied 05:01, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Um, where's your proof that Alkivar tried to have you blocked?

As I've said, I don't have a stand in regards to Alkivar, and if it's in the interest of the encyclopedia for him to be desysopped or whatever else than I would wholeheartedly support it. I think that there's very much an isue that needs to be addressed here, and I think that you're going about this the wrong way. However, that doesn't have anything to do with what I've been saying. What I've been saying is that he needed to be talked to first. As that still hasn't happened, I left a message on his talk page asking him to talk about this here. I won't have anything else to do with this: all I was trying to do is bring in some dispute common sense, and since it's being ignored I won't reiterate it any more.

(talk)

07:11, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I can see now that my efforts to reign in Alkivar's terrible behavior have been futile. This thread has stagnated. I have been attacked rather than the substantitive issue of Alkivar's bad behavior being dealt with. Even though people here claimed they would help with this, Alkivar has already removed the comments from his talk page regarding his unacceptable attitutde.

I have no interest in circumventing Wikipedia policy, and despite the unjust nature of my original block, I request that an administrator block the account I am currently using, as it is merely a sockpuppet of a pre-existing indefinitely blocked user. Dizzied 04:52, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Quick comment: Duckdid appears to be a reincarnation of User:Beisnj, please see the respective logs or email me for details. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 07:37, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I've tried to talk to him before under just my IP address before I had an account, and he just removed my comment. His explanation was that he doesn't respond to anonymous users. Later, someone made a similar complaint under a real account, so I thought that would settle it, but he just deleted that one also. I also realize this next comment will likely result in getting me blocked indefinitely, but the Beisnj account was my account. An admin blocked that account indefinitely, however, please note that none of my edits were vandalism, I never harassed anybody, etc. Under this account, I have continued to make appropriate edits as well. I could have easily hidden that the Beisnj account was mine simply by not adding to my user page the list of articles I've created. I just want to edit on Wikipedia from time to time and be left alone while I do it. The only people I've ever complained about was one guy who tried to overtake an article about French military history, and Alkivar because of his string of abuses. Two mure notes: (1)As an added note, I see that his RfA was approved by a 28-21 vote. Now, I don't know much about the inner-workings of Wikipedia, nor have I ever attempted to be an "insider", but that doesn't seem like a very solid vote. Most of the "oppose" votes voiced the same concerns I have voiced here. (2) This entire conversation is hypocritical. I'm being asked to go talk to Alkivar about it, but he hasn't attempted to talk to me about this. His immediate response was to petition to Jayjg to have me permentantly blocked. Notice in Alkivar's complaint that he doesn't have an argument of substance against me, he just saw a previous block and is hoping for the easy way out. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if he uses my "self-incrimination" above to permanantly block me himself. Duckdid 08:02, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I have blocked User:Duckdid indefinitely as a self-confessed sockpuppet of a banned user. Sockpuppetry to evade bans is not acceptable, no matter how well the sock contributes. Inicidentally, the RfA Duckdid refers to failed. Alkivar's third RfA was the one that got him promoted, by 69/20/8. The allegations of incivility are disturbing, but an RfC sounds like the proper venue for this, with evidence that people have tried and failed to resolve this with Alkivar, and allowing Alkivar a response. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 08:46, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree, RfC is the place for these kinds of complaints. ANI has become almost a replacement for RfC. --Deathphoenix ʕ 14:25, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Then the header for this page needs to be reworded. Currently it says:

If you want to make an open informal complaint over the behaviour of an admin, you can do so here, but please only do either that, or file a RFC or RFAr, but not both.

-- nae'blis _(talk) 17:44, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

He also called me a troll and blocked my user page for having a creative user name. (User:Can sleep, clown will not eat me) I saw someone named User:Can't sleep, clown will eat me in the Special:Recentchanges, and thought it was good user name, so I created a similar one. It is not impersonation.--4.19.93.2 17:26, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Alkivar didn't block that username, Jni and FireFox did.

(talk)

17:43, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Although i have no personal insight into, or interest in, either editor's behaviour, i have to say that reading this section hardly instils confidence in our administration system. I reads very much like Admins covering each other's back, selectively quoting policy to justify awfully poor behaviour, and a warning to any non admin who dares to point out that some one may be abusing their tools. Per

WP:AGF, i'll accept that is not the motivation of the admins here, but its hard to deny that is what it looks like. Irrespective of where or whether a complaint has been made, in light of the evidence quoted above would it not make sense of one of you to say youl will have a quiet word in Alkivar's ear and point out that such language and behaviour is unbecoming on an admin? Instead we say to the person making the complaint: "talk to him/her about it" then immediately we block them. Result? The problem goes away. Until next time. Rockpocket

18:10, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

If you're worried that Alkivar will block you for criticising him, which I think is highly unlikely, I will personally supervise the exchange and make sure that it doesn't happen. O.K.? I'm not "covering" Alkivar, I've no particular attachment to him or admins as some sort of cabal. If an admin came here without discussion with the person they're having trouble with, I'd say the same thing. Discusison with the user is first and foremost, that's all. People seem to be forgetting that these days.

(talk)

18:41, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

My point was more that of nae'blis'. Irrespective of the situation, an editor had pointed out out what appears to be a very valid concern. That user not cannot resolve the situation him or herself (as soon as they self identify they will be blocked again, moreover he tried to talk anonymously and was ignored or the comment removed). So the situation goes unresolved and Alkivar will continue to edit in a frankly, occasionally offensive manner. Although it has nothing to do with me whatsoever, i'll happily ask Alkivar if he would mind toning down his language and improve his behaviour, seeing as User:Duckdid no longer can and no administrator appears willing to. I'm not concerned about being blocked for that. But its unfortunate that one of the admins here doesn't see that as the commonsense way forward, instead of telling him to resolve it by talking then banning him. Rockpocket 20:04, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

*sigh* Since no one else will, I guess I have to. Hopefully this shows that I'm not necessarily supporting these actions, a point which no one seems interested in trusting me on.

I just went over the history of Alkivar's talk page, back to January. No anonymous edits talking about this stuff. I didn't see any other edits talking about this stuff either. Course, I could've missed it. Can anyone provide the diff?

Until I see that I just don't believe that Alkivar would block him for raising a valid concern. If he would, that's a Bad Thing and certainly needs to be dealt with. Rocket, since you've got a problem with this issue, why don't you just go and deal with it rather than saying that it's an admin problem, or that we're covering each other's backs? I don't understand why you don't just go and talk to him (still not done by anyone who is involved in the dispute). I don't understand why you don't see talking to him as being the commonsense way forwards.

As for

(talk)

07:11, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

(1) Yes, Alkivar knew about this comment on the ANI, and his response was to attempt to get me blocked. I posted here at 05:56, 5 June 2006. At 06:28, 5 June 2006, Alkivar requested from Jayjg that he run checkuser on me and block me. Alkivar hadn’t even posted on Wikipedia in three days, but he responded to that comment in roughly 30 minutes by trying to get me blocked. (Note also that Jayjg did, in fact, run Checkuser on me. As far as I can tell under these circumstances, that was not an acceptable use of Checkuser privileges.)

(2) There is plenty of evidence that these problems have been brought to Alkivar’s attention. At this point, you’re making it hard for me to not think that you’re not blatantly ignoring the evidence. At all three of his RfA the problems of his incivility and poor edit summaries were talked about extensively.

(3) A good example of Alkivar ignoring and deleting posts about his behavior can be found on February 8th. He went on a roll deleting comments critical of him with such edit summaries as “poof” and “wipe away useless post.” On December 6th, 2005, he deleted a comment from his talk page asking him to be civil, and Alkivar’s edit summary was “rv vandalism.”

(4) I was given the same kind of run-around as I’m being given now when I tried to get out of my block. I e-mailed Jayjg, and he basically said he wasn’t going to do it. I listed the unblock template on my talk page, and people basically told me that wasn’t the right way to handle it (which seems to be a common response to attempts to follow the bureaucratic process). Dizzied 16:56, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

1. I see. Yes, you're right about that, and that he didn't respond to the issues listed is a problem. Note that I don't see you being blocked as necessarily being a problem, as the way things work around here is, if you're blocked, you don't create sockpuppets to get around the block, like you've done. You e-mail the blocking admin with your main account and talk to them about the issue (which it sounds like you did, but I don't know the story). In case you didn't see, I've already asked Alkivar to contribute to the discussion, and we'll see what comes of that.

2. I don't know almost anything about Alkivar. There are over 900 admins on this project, and there's no way I'm going to remember the issues brought up in each one's RfA, especially in ones where I didn't participate. Indeed, however, apart from this your point is well made.

3. Yes, those edits are definitely problems. However, they took place some time ago... I mean, they don't have any impact on current events, except to note that this has been going on for a while. More recent examples would be more germane to this thread.

4. I'm not trying to run you around, I'm trying to have you solve your own problems before coming to the admins' board. The block template just don't work well, unfortunately, e-mail is best (people don't notice the template). Now that you have shown that Alkivar didn't bother to deal with the issue although he was aware of it, then your position makes more sense. It appears to me that his civility is certainly an issue that he needs to address, and much as I don't want to get more involved in this I've posted a message to his talk page. It's important that he respond to criticism. Note that while I say this I don't expect anything to happen while you refuse to directly talk to him about your trouble with his behavior.

(talk)

06:57, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Snoutwood, when an admin deletes good-faith complaints and requests, I don't see what options are left other than ANI and RFC. Whatever the details, it's still clear that this admin made many uncivil edit comments and has not been warned, much less blocked, for it. It's also clear that the person who made this complaint has been banned. The end result is that justice is not served and it looks a whole lot like admins sticking up for each other. However untrue this may be, this is genuinely how it appears, and this appearance itself causes harm.

I suggest that we put aside all this endless debate and solve the problem: an admin who violates the very rules he is charged to enforce and gets alway with it. Ask him to stop. Block him if he doesn't. That would be productive. Telling people to go talk to him is clearly not. Al 07:08, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Snoutwood has kindly requested Alkivar respond to these allegations. I think he deserves the opportunity to have his say. However, should he decline the offer to explain his contested edits or fail to justify them (admittedly, i can't imagine any valid justification for leaving an edit summary "jesus fuck learn grammar you tards" when an editor had used "An" instead of "The" [6]) then i would also suggest that a process be initiated in the same way as it would if a non admin showed this pattern of behaviour. I concur with Al in how it "looks". That is unfortunate, as i don't believe there is any conspiracy here, but as he suggests, appearance itself can cause harm. Neverthless, i don't believe this is necessarily Snoutwood's problem and, at this stage, either of us could as easily engage Alkivar in a discussion about this since we are concerned. Rockpocket 07:33, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

I've just talked to Alkivar on IRC, which I know isn't a substitute for onwiki comment, but it just sort of fell together and I seized the opportunity. Since no-one's bothered to show the "good faith" efforts to deal with the situation, I'll show the two edits shown to me by Alkivar as being the most likely to have been the "criticism" from Beisnj, seeing as they edited the same pages as Beisnj and he said that he posted anonymously: [7] and [8]. Jusge for yourself; those strike me as defiantly trolling posts and as such I refute Duckdid/Beisnj's opinion of himself as being the bearer of good-faith criticism, pending further information. As for the incivility and cursing, he said that he'd already begun to tone down on that and would continue to do so (there have been a few recent bits of cursing in summaries, but as the edits weren't inicivil or in any way attacking I don't really see a problem). Seeing the situation in that light, I'm inclined to agree with the block of Duckdid and Alkivar's opinion that he shouldn't respond to a post from a troll, which is what this appears to be. As for the incivility, if it continues, which hopefully it won't, we can deal with it then; I don't believe any further action is necessary. Course, if you're inclined you can still talk to him about it, but I think it superfluous.

(talk)

08:17, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Actually, you will note on the Duckdid user page that there is a list of pages I have created, and some of them were created from IP addresses. Those addresses were 209.30.22.214, 209.30.41.59, and 64.233.47.250. Dizzied 16:41, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Until you provide diffs of your "polite, civil, anonymous, criticism," I can't say that I really care what other IPs you've used.

(talk)

20:25, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Okay, Snoutwood, you'll see above that Alkivar took three RfAs to gain the mop; part of that was likely his promise in that 3rd RfA to be civil and polite in his intereactions with others. So all arguments that he is "unaware of the problem" should be null and void; like any other user, he had been warned, repeatedly! Then above it's stated that his incivility lies in the past, citing diffs from as long ago as December 2005. This ignores the why do idiots comment from June 1, SHOUTING IN ALL CAPS on May 22nd, and the gratuitous usage of fuck or fucking in edit summaries from June 1 and May 30 respectively. Is that what he's calling "toning it down"? -- nae'blis _(talk) 17:28, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Since I believe you to be an honest, good-faith user, I'm going to say this one more time and then be gone from this thread (barring further information, of course): I have no interest in solving your problems for you, with no help. If you have a problem with Alkivar, talk to him. If you're worried about being blocked, I personally swear that if Alkivar blocks you for politely criticising him I will unblock (course, this isn't actually going to happen, since Alkivar isn't stupid). And, since I'm an idiot and can't help myself, a parting note: I see little wrong with any of your diffs, they're hardly admin abuse (not even admin related). None of them really attack anybody, and although they could certainly be better I think that he'll respond if you just try and talk to him about it.

(talk)

20:25, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

As far as i'm concerned, Snoutwood has taken this as far as he should, and i'd like to go on record in thanking him for that. Its clear that Dizzied was less than frank about his "good-faith criticism". Similarly Alkivar has been less than civil in the past, and while he recent summaries as still not what i would expect of an admin, they are not quite as blatantly offensive as some older examples. He has said he is working on it and now Snoutwood has expressed further concern, Alkivar will realise that this problem is not going to go away unless he pulls up his socks. Should he continue to be uncivil then this exchange can be used as evidence of his lack of progress in that area. Thats my opinion anyway. Rockpocket 05:35, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

"Its clear that Dizzied was less than frank about his 'good-faith criticism'." So, apparently, criticism of Alkivar requires several days, multiple posts, and a series of evidence. But "clear" proof against me requires nothing. Hey, wasn't Alkivar supposed to come by and say something? Dizzied 09:58, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

So you are saying these were not your communiques with him: [9] and [10]? You lack of denial at the time suggested to me that were. If not, perhaps you could provide the diffs that illustrate the "good faith criticisms" from you that he deleted then. Note, however, that i immediately criticised Alkivar's behaviour on the evidence provided also. You suggestion of double standards has no basis. Rockpocket 06:32, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Two points. First, while it is possible I may have used the term “good faith criticisms”, I fail to recall this ever happening. Secondly, I was deliberately cryptic about the two criticisms in question because I was protecting a privacy concern. I don’t want to say anything more than that I agree largely with the wording and intent of those two posts and that the IP address was apparently not blocked or warned for those comments.

I just don’t understand why people are taking a “wait and see” approach to Alkivar’s openly unacceptable behavior – the kind of behavior that would get others blocked – and meanwhile there is this ongoing attempt to strain a gnat to find the most subtle of evidence with which to persecute me.

Consider this: if I had never posted the list of pages I had created on the Duckdid page, no one would have ever known that I had the Beisnj account. Without any of these attacks on me, this whole thread would (hopefully) be nothing but a condemnation of Alkivar’s behavior.

So, what does that tell us? It shows that no arguments of substance have yet to be made in support of Alkivar. Every argument in his defense has really been an ad hominem against me. And then consider that even if every single accusation was true (except the CapnCrack vandalism), if I did make the two edits in question, if I never attempted to talk to Alkivar personally, and whatever else has been stewed up, none of that compares to the poor behavior of Alkivar (note that I haven’t even brought up Alkivar’s possible sockpuppetry). Yet I’ve been permanently blocked, and he is an administrator with not even a warning. Dizzied 08:22, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

I couldn't've put it better myself. Very well put.

(talk)

06:17, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Beisnj, contrary to your claims, I did not run a CheckUser on your User:Duckdid account, and I did explain quite clearly why your User:Beisnj account was blocked. The "CapnCrack" vandalism coming from your computer for months now has been quite disturbing, and your claims that although you found it amusing, it wasn't you, just relatives and friends of yours, were hardly re-assuring. I conferred with the rest of the CheckUser group regarding your block, and they concurred that it was justified. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:36, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Interestingly, I got blocked, but the CapnCrack vandalism has continued. Never let reality stand in the way of bias. Amazingly, as well, the precious CheckUser was unable to show that the Beisnj and Duckdid accounts originate from the same computer and same IP address. No doubt, I am probably an imposter of Beisnj and not the real Beisnj. But rest assured, I am, in fact, a real vandal, CapnCrack, a sockpuppet, JFK's assassin, and the person who shot JR. Dizzied 05:16, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

This blatant and obvious smear campaign continues.

For example, you claim, “Beisnj, contrary to your claims, I did not run a CheckUser on your User:Duckdid account…” First note that I never specifically stated that you ran a CheckUser on the Duckdid account; I simply said you ran it on me. And my comment about user CheckUser use is a reasonable interpretation of your statement to Alkivar, “CheckUser is inconclusive at this point, so you'd have to block based on other grounds (e.g. being an obvious sockpuppet).” To act like I just made that up out of thin air is just bad faith on your part.

“…your claims that although you found it [CapnCrack’s vandalism] amusing…” An obvious distortion of the facts. I might as well say that every administrator who banters with a blocked user in the blocking edit summary must find vandalism to be amusing and is encouraging continued vandalism with the humorous edit summaries.

But, please, don’t stay on subject. Don’t talk about Alkivar’s profane outbursts, deleting of comments, incivility, bad edit summaries, attempt to add a bizarre picture to the brassiere page, or documented history of bad behavior in his three RfA.

It’s a lot easier to plop down on the drumhead and stir up the lynch mob.

PS: Speaking of Alkivar’s bad edit summaries, notice in the block log that the reason given for CapnCrack’s infinite block is “bad edit summaries.” Interesting how irony works, isn’t it? Dizzied 05:56, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

There is a concerted campaign by just a few hardened and very un-Christian individuals, including it would appear two administrators, to demonise

Please be very careful, you are bordering on legal threats, and legal threats are cause for an immediate, permanent block from further editing. Wikipedia is bound by US law, not UK law; if you believe laws are being violated, you need to raise it with Wikimedia's legal department. Your first point of contact would be Wikimedia's attorney, Brad Patrick. Essjay (Talk • Connect) 11:21, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Re. the above, the following was posted on Humansdorpie talk page by User:213.122.46.228: You have deliberately chosen to flout the law because you think you are very clever. You are not. Believe me. Is this a threat? Yes, it certainly is. --Tyrenius 12:15, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

I have blocked

WP:NLT. In my opinion, it is virtually beyond doubt that the IP address behind this post is Lightoftheworld, given that he has continued to carry on in the same vein. --Sam Blanning^(talk)

12:30, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

I'd urge caution about blocking people in this case. This has been a troubled article for some time, there are unsourced claims in it, and the intro indicates the subject is not being written about in a neutral tone. I've put the blp template on the talk page so the subject (if he's the one complaining) can see what policies ought to be followed. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 17:17, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Users cannnot expect to collaborate in writing an encyclopaedia with people they are suing or trying to get arrested. Preventing off-wiki intimidation takes precedence over everything else. He can withdraw his threats and edit (for good or for ill), or he can go to the police and not edit until legal action is completed. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 18:23, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

"Preventing off-wiki intimidation takes precedence over everything else." Samuel, I agree that ought to be the case, but unfortunately it isn't. I also agree that editors can't be expected to collaborate with threats going on. All I know about this article is that it has a long and troubled history. It's a bio of a living person and so it has to be written in strict accordance with the content policies, and it currently isn't, so whoever is complaining about it is almost certainly right to do so.

WP:BLP and the ArbCom both urge admins to handle complaints about living bios with sensitivity, so blocking the complainant may not be the best way to proceed, although I agree that he should offer constructive suggestions and not threats — but then again, this situation has been going on for a very long time. SlimVirgin ^(talk)

20:13, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

If an article is in such a bad state that telling someone they are "evil" and "You are not immune from prosecution in this matter. I will be happy to act for GLF and we will locate you" is an acceptable reaction and behaviour that needs to be handled with sensitivity, then reduce the (

WP:CIVIL

)ing thing to a stub and start over from scratch if anyone really cares.

Let me put the sentence you quoted another way - keeping Humansdorpie on this project would be better for this encyclopaedia than keeping Lightoftheworld. (Though sadly, it's already too late [11].) --Sam Blanning^(talk) 21:09, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Hopefully only for a cooling-off period, and he'll be back. From what I can tell, Humansdorpie was trying his best to improve the article - I really cannot see him having a personal stake in attacking Gregory Lauder-Frost. Unfortunately, Lightoftheworld and cronies/sockpuppets seemed to instantly believe anyone who wasn't 'with them' was an enemy.

I've noted on the article's talk page that I can't find any (online, at least) justification for Lightbringer's assertion that the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 prohibits the mention of past, "spent" convictions when the information is obtained from public sources such as newspapers. It explicitly prohibits those with access to confidential records from releasing such info, but that doesn't apply here. In the UK, where suing for libel and defamation is commonplace, I'd have expected to find some mention of using this Act in such a way, and I did not. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 22:14, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

I hope Humansdorpie comes back. I know what it feels like to be driven off by off-wiki attacks. As for the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act: BLP says we should be sensitive to requests from subjects of bios to remove material that isn't relevant to their notability. I don't know how notable Lauder-Frost is, or exactly what he's notable for. I haven't heard of him apart from on Wikipedia and there doesn't seem to be a huge amount published. I'd therefore say that any minor convictions from a long time ago probably shouldn't be in the article. I don't know how others feel about that. I prefer to err on the side of caution where living people are concerned. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:25, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

His claim to notability is "as a political activist, describing himself as a "High Tory."" His own conduct in respect to the law is in this case highly relevant to his notability. Tyrenius 23:55, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

As I just commented on the article's talk page, I fail to be convinced by Lightbringer/Sussexman's arguments that mentioning his conviction is illegal in the UK, since they bring no evidence to the table to support it (and in any case, these legal arguments are irrelevant to Wikipedia itself or to non-UK editors). However, I also remain to be convinced that mention of the conviction is necessary.

As you mention on the talk page, it's best to avoid our making a judgment at all - if we can track down genuine press quotations, for instance, then we can use those. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 00:10, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

I have never heard of any mention of illegality mentioning something of that nature in the UK. Besides which it's US laws that are relevant, as Wiki is hosted in the US. Tyrenius 01:09, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

You insulting someone by calling them "very un-Christian individuals" is pretty disgusting. --mboverload@ 19:12, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

One might quote certain parables about motes and beams and suchlike back at those who call others un-Christian while behaving badly themselves. Though the insult in "un-Christian" only works on those who consider themselves Christians. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 22:16, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

we disscussed a simular issue a while back WRT a canadain court order. the general consensus was that we should ignore them although of ocurse editors should always be mindful of their local laws.Geni 13:30, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

I think they are right as to UK law, but in the Robert I arbitration case we decided it didn't apply. I wonder though if the information is relevant. Gregory Lauder-Frost is mainly known for his political associations and views. It is hard to see how his legal difficulties are relevant or notable. If the point is to embarrass him, well done, but if the idea to record the history of his political life, it is a distraction. Fred Bauder 01:19, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

This user is going to each article that has the term "Operation Iraqi Freedom" in it and removed the term stating "no propaganda terms" or has added POV tags to any use of the term. This user has done this on the following articles

Is this the current standing of Wikipedia policy that military operation names are not permitted on any article space? Or is this over zealous editing. I am fearing this user is attempting to remove any mention of the operation from Wikipedia space. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 15:42, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Just to add this user moved

When a colloquial name exists it should be used in preference to the military propaganda name. For example: "Gulf War" instead of "Operation Desert Storm", "Iraq War" instead of "Operation Iraqi Freedom", "World War II" or "Second World War" instead of "The Emergency", etc. I think this user is being overzealous though: obviously the propaganda names are notable and need to be discussed, but they shouldn't be the primary name we use to refer to events. --Cyde↔Weys 16:16, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

The user has attempted to remove the term from every article, sometimes causing it to be reffered to as both in the same article. Breaking the uniform of the article itself. For instance some state the places the person served by operation, then state in the article now, the non operation term. It seems to me its also sloppy editing as enough thought was not put into its effects. Considering all were made today in the span of 2 hours or so. Are operation names allows in the body of articles? I understand possibly redirecting titles, but there is no policy regarding article bodies I would assume. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 16:22, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm not going to argue over names, but I would be reluctant to call an operational name a "propaganda name." Operational names may be chosen for propaganda purposes, but I think it is more NPOV to refer to an operational name. Moreover, there have been arguably more than 1 U.S. invasion of Panama, so how do we distinguish between them? --CSTAR 17:52, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

I had not even thought of that, its one article now. I did not see a disambiguation page, perhaps there was not an article on one? I worry about the obliteration of the term throughout wikipedia, but not had thought about the point you brought up. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 17:58, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

I disagree, Cyde. Operation names are unambiguous, official (at least for one side), and verifiable. Popular names for conflicts often don't get decided until years/decades later, when the historians start publishing. -- nae'blis _(talk) 22:07, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

No one would even think of naming World War II with an "official" Nazi term. Why then use propaganda terms like "Iraqi Freedom" or "Just Cause", the latter of which will not even allow most readers to guess which conflict is written about? Añoranza 00:42, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Añoranza has had a history of POV edits and demeanor, this is no different. By the logic he is using, the term "United States" would be a propaganda term because we are not currently united. Haizum 01:12, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm finding this logic more dillusional by the second. If the military gives an operation a name, that is its name, the propaganda value is irrelevant. Why is it OK to change the facts when it benefits the anti-American agenda? Haizum 01:20, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Its even being taken to the extreme as cited below Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:A.C3.B1oranza_again the user is creating problems with articles she is removing the wording from to the point where they are creating inconsistencies and redundant mentioning. When this issue is brought to their attention they say other people should fix it. There is even proof the user is not even read the articles before editing. Now there reason have even changed from propaganda terms do not belong on wikipedia, to I was doing it to prevent redirects. If we removed all terms that are deamed propaganda then we would have to remove Cold War, Holocaust (burnt offering to the Gods), etc. It is what it is called, they are operation names. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 01:27, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Can we stop the hyperbole and strawman arguments PLEASE? Note how the articles on the

Operation Iraqi Freedom. The operation names as chosen by the U.S. government are specficially chosen for propaganda reasons. Additionally, we are writing a worldwide encyclopedia, and very few people from other countries are going to know U.S. military names for certain invasions, but all of them are going to know "Iraq War". It's just common sense. This isn't to defend Anoranza, who is apparently making detrimental edits. --Cyde↔Weys

02:17, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

When an article warrents it, we should use the military name. When the article warrents it, we should use 2003 invasion of Iraq. It's as simple as that. --mboverload@ 02:28, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

And I'm saying the article only warrants it when you're talking specifically about the propaganda name (e.g. why they chose "Operation Iraqi Freedom" over "Operation Iraqi Liberation"). When you're just talking about it in a normal historical context, as in "when the United States invaded Iraq", just say ... "when the United States invaded Iraq" or whatever. Very few people outside the U.S. know the propaganda names and they're less appropriate anyway. --Cyde↔Weys 02:34, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

I still prefer to use the military name. After all, we call it operation overlord, not invasion of normandy...*actually checks before posting this*....wow, we actually don't call it Operation Overlord, we redirect it to Battle of Normandy. History is on your side in this debate, Cyde. I have changed my mind. --mboverload@ 03:15, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

If someone outside of the US doesn't know the factual and official name for an operation, too bad. Plenty of people don't mind going back to Operation Anaconda and beating the drum about the US not being able to catch/kill UBL, so do you still want to change the name to "Operation Botched Attempt to Find UBL," if not, what other name would you give it? Please. Haizum 04:59, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

What an incredibly insipid view to have of a worldwide encyclopedia. Did you know that the majority of English speakers in the world do not reside in the United States? Saying "if you don't know the official United States name of the operation, too fucking bad" is patently absurd and is in direct contradiction with our mission. Wikipedia is not US-centric. --Cyde↔Weys 13:30, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

This has nothing to do with the United States, but it has everything to do with the facts. I will say that it would make sense to use a general name and a specific operational name, eg, The First Gulf War / Operation Desert Storm. I believe the article is already written that way...*checks*...yes, it is. For smaller operations like Operation Anaconda I honestly don't see what other name it could be given. Haizum 23:35, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Regardless of whether the edits themselves are legitimate, I believe edit summaries such as 'No propaganda terms, please' cast unwarranted aspersions on previous editors' motives. I would suggest that such edits be explained more diplomatically in future. Perodicticus 11:46, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Operational names are often used when there is no generally accepted name otherwise, or if the operational name itself is the commonly used term to describe the battle that occured. Other times one side or another names the battle a name, such as

Operation Desert Fox an invasion of Iraq? When referring to the event, most do not call it "Bombardment of Iraq" but instead Operation Desert Fox. When most people refer to Operation Rolling Thunder, they call it this rather than "Bombardment of North Vietnam." It does not violate NPOV to call them these code names or government chosen battle names if these battle names or operation names have entered the vocabulary of the public. When most people think of the Iraq War, they call it this, not Operation Iraqi Freedom (which was only the US operation that took place in the invasion). Thus Iraq War

is aptly named, not because it is totally neutral, for instance the insurgents might call it the American War like Vietnam called their war, or perhaps they have a different name entirely. But to us english speaking public, Iraq War is the standard. If most people called World War Two "The Crisis" then that would be what we call it, but as they do not we call it what is the most common name, World War Two.

So to reiterate, we name wars, operations, and battles not because they were chosen neutrally, by a third party, or by the involved parties, but instead because they have entered society and become the accepted name for the respective event. Anoranzo has consistently ignored this and consistently edited likewise, and it has been detrimental to the articles, giving false impressions both of the conflicts the articles are about, and of Wikipedia's policy on neutrality. Rangeley 21:31, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

The user is once again up to removing all mentioning of Operation Iraqi Freedom from Wikipedia stating "an encyclopedia should not use propaganda terms".[18] Its not just the removal of Operation names reagrding the US only. The user is also creating articles where sometimes they use operation names and sometimes they do not, further more they are not taking into account that wars are split into multiple operations and some soldiers and officials only serve during certain parts, therefore removing all mention of the operations with the larger war is not as specific as referencing it by operation name. The worst part is they are creating situations where the userbox states the person served in OIF but OIF isnt mentioned in the article anymore like in the case ofJeffrey_Chessani. Lastly the edits are sloppy, they are removing the term then telling other editors to clean up the rest of the article with edits summaries like this "revert as propaganda terms are inappropriate. If you find more, please remove them, too" [19], its not other editors job to clean up articles that other editors are knowingly creating problems in. Its even more proof as the last edit shows another operation name right before the one she is constantly attempting to remove, impossible to miss if this user was reading the articles before editing them and not blanket editing with no concern for structure and consistency.

Redundancy Issues - [20] [21] Consistency Issues - Jeffrey_Chessani and OICW having all operation names except for OIF, including the sentence before[22]

Can someone please stop this user, they are editing every page with the term. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 23:50, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Pluralis majestatis for me coming from a user who supports sockpuppets? Who removes complaints from his talk page, personally attacks me, ignores NPOV and even reverts corrected typos? [23] Añoranza 00:39, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

There is an issue here, please stop trying to divert the topic. Thank you. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 00:44, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Your issue is you are unhappy with me. I am unhappy with you. Avoiding redirects is nothing wrong. Añoranza 00:46, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

That was not your cited reason oddly enough. Your own words speak against you. The article has been moved back as well, I think its time you revert all the articles back to avoid redirects since its your primary concern. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 00:50, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Your complaint here was about Operation Iraqi Freedom, which redirects to

Iraq war. Añoranza

00:55, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Your summaries have already been shown, you are making yourself look bad by trying to hide your edits via another reason. To avoid redirects you could have formatted the links with the | symbol, however you already know that cause you used it today. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 00:58, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Proof this user is now lying as to their intent, after stating above its because of redirects, they have now edited an article with the summary of propaganda as show above numerous times. [24] Once again also showing they are attempting to remove all mention of the term from Wikipedia. They have even edited articles on Michael Jordan and a cartoon strip. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 01:06, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

You were complaining here about a case where removing the propaganda term even avoided a redirect. I also remove propaganda terms in a case where the article title has not yet been rendered neutral. So what? Añoranza 01:09, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

We will let an admin decide on your wholesale removal of every mention you can find of Operation Iraqi Freedom, including in Michael Jordans article and a comic strip. I am done arguing with you and your double talk. Your summaries speak for themselves, especially in an article where you used both reasons like

Norman_Schwarzkopf,_Jr. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|}

01:11, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Proof user is not even reading articles - David_Kay article still states "Operation Iraqi Freedom" in section "Subsequent Interviews" proving the user is not even reading the articles before editing and is creating inconsistencies. [25] --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 01:15, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Could you two calm down a bit, please. This is a bit much. Some admin is likely to block both of you. Thanks. --John Nagle 01:30, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

three-revert rule. JDoorjam Talk

01:57, 9 June 2006 (UTC)