Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive429

Self-styled vandal running amock. Can someone block this guy and undo the damage? [1] Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 19:31, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

Took the liberty of correcting your statement. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 19:37, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

The latter half of

this discussion on the village pump is relevant. —Cryptic

19:42, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

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

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

AV-THE-3RD (talk · contribs)

May need an instant block.

) 19:55, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

Strange page moves

Has anyone else noticed:

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

Something does not seem right there. The editor who made the moves seems to have been blocked per

20:11, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

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

Yes, please feel free to move it back over the redirect and tag the remnant with G3 or R3, whatever tickles your fancy.

talk

) 20:16, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

For the record, the other user was

Tan | 39

20:16, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

They seem to have been moved back now. Thanks for the replies! Sincerely, --

Tally-ho!

20:28, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

I don't see why a brand-new user would need to do page moves. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 20:39, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

They're autoconfirmed sleeper socks.

talk

) 20:41, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

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

Uh, hey, maybe we should

WP:DENY and cease discussing this until the user in question stops? Although I suppose he'll eventually run out of sleepers too, right? --Jaysweet (talk

) 20:44, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

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

U

) 20:50, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

He's back

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

He's already blocked. Thanks.

talk

) 20:42, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

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

I'm guessing retaliation for the above thread, thanks Deor and Keeper76 for spotting and taking care of it. How could he have moved the pages so fast though? I type over a hundred words a minute, but still... Best, --

Tally-ho!

21:12, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

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

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

I believe the recursive move was mostly put in place to help

crats do user renames (and catch all the archive pages in one shot) but no one else should really need this capability IMHO. —Wknight94 (talk

) 21:22, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Has a checkuser been done on these accounts yet to 1) confirm that they are the same editor and 2) see if it is more extensive than we think? Sincerely, --

Tally-ho!

21:24, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

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

See also

Tally-ho!

21:47, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi. Couldn't the mass move be useful for mass reverting of vandalism? I think moving pages should be limited until an admin changes the user's rights and gives mass-move privilages. Or maybe a useful tool for admins in combating pagemove vandalism should be a button that says [rollback all contributions]]. Thanks. ~

U

) 21:27, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

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

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

I started a new thread at

) 01:17, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

IP editor removing rational skepticism templates

I raised this at the Fringe notice board[2] and it was suggested I take this here. Take a look at the edits: [3] including an NPOV warning on ScienceApologists page[4]. He's not a newbie, that's for sure, and I'm not sure what to make of these template removals (which he somments on at

) 19:46, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Someone's blocked him for a year now, no problem.

talk

) 20:35, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Could someone keep an eye on 67.163.21.228 (talk · contribs). O'ver a long period of time, this IP has been sneakily introducing deliberate factual errors. Diffs: [5], [6], [7]. The error on the article about Gerald Ford has been there for quite some time. The only reason I noticed is because the vandal hit the Frazier Thomas article and I took the time to look through his edit log. Nobody of Consequence (talk) 20:33, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

Would someone please check the contributions, the warning list and the block log of

22:37, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

A dynamic IP blocked for edit warring a few hours ago is now editing again. One sock has already been blocked by Trusilver but I think he's offline now. The ip is 216.80.147.214 (talk · contribs). He then used the registered name Firstinline2009 (talk · contribs) and was blocked [8]. Trusilver unblocked him conditionally on the basis that he only use the discussion page and not edit the article [9], however he has violated that agreement. He is now editing as Rodneycwilson (talk · contribs)[10] making the same edits. --Ave Caesar (talk) 03:52, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

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

Is it appropriate for an editor to edit archived request for checkuser pages and change the name of a sockmaster to what is purportedly the present user name of the sockmaster? See [11] , [12] , my warnings [13] and [14] and Very Easy's reply [15]. So is it or is it not vandalism for User:Very easy to alter the contents of these archived pages on the grounds that the sock user now uses a different name? Edison (talk) 04:25, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

This also seems odd in light of the renaming [16] of user Majstor Mile to user Made in Kikinda. Edison (talk) 04:37, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

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

You know, some days, I REALLY heart SineBot.

Gladys J Cortez

08:33, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

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

User

) 07:24, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

Myheartinchile again has accused

talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) having a "very serious POV issues since you are Chris Crocker" [18]. Bidgee (talk

) 04:08, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Seemingly legit article by a prolific vandal

I am in a real quandry. A new article titled

) 03:13, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

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

Usually, but not always. According to

水女珊瑚15

04:24, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

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

I'm very tempted to overrule the keep of this article. MascotGuy is banned largely for introducing misinformation, no? Random House Home Video is not a company (it's just part of Random House), there is no source given that it was established in 1976, saying it is "best-known" for animated videos is unsourced and

WP:WEASELy, the link given doesn't support that Random House Home Video released the Arthur TV series... This is classic MascotGuy and a nice example of why he's banned. He can't be trusted. —Wknight94 (talk

) 04:56, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

talk

) 06:18, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Paleocon (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) Anti-semitic diatribe on Craigslist talk page[19] after history of blocks, racist comments, trolling, etc. Does not seem to have ever contributed constructively to encyclopedia. Thanks, Wikidemo (talk) 04:10, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

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

) 07:30, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

From what I have seen -- and admittedly I am new to these articles, though I have been intending to do work on them for some time, this being an account I set up for the purpose (per

WP:SOCK#LEGIT

) -- the situation seems to be this. The issue of race and intelligence is highly controversial. It is also, unfortunately, politicised. As such, it tends to attract people with extreme viewpoints. Some of these are troll accounts who deposit racist screeds on the talk page, vandalise the article, etc. These tend to be blocked quickly, and lose interest just as fast.

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

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

They are easily as uncivil as Jagz has been. For example, part of what got Jagz into trouble originally was asking for credentials to be verified, on the part of someone who uses their notional qualification to throw a bit of weight around on the talk page. [20] This doesn't seem that outrageous, in light of Essjay. Then, he also said this. Jagz, in other words, was complaining that one of these established editors is in the habit of throwing around ad hominem arguments -- accusing everyone who disagrees with him of having a racist agenda, no matter what the evidence -- and asking if that was the reason for

tendentious editing patterns. How is that different to editors who, in respond to Jagz' talk page comments, post things like do not feed the trolls

? It's exactly the same.

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

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

I agree with MastCell, who I believe has followed

WP:LBGT with worse allegations elsewhere, has called Slrubenstein an a--h-l- on repeated occasions, and has placed in doubt Wobble's motives as an expert in biology. None of these attacks address specific content, but seem to be "hate posts". He disqualified my comments at one point on the NPOV noticeboard apparently for "being French" (untrue alas) [44]. This strange behaviour shows that User:Jagz seems now to have no intention of helping the project. The creation of the now deleted Dysgenics (people) was a further example of disruption by creating a needless fork, just one of several. Mathsci (talk

) 00:50, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

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

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

You were blocked for 24 hours on May 21 for incivility towards some of these users. [45] Mathsci (talk) 07:09, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

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

Why do you think you were blocked? [46] [47] Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 07:42, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

• With respect Plusdown your presentation of Jagz's behaviour is partial it does not take account of Jagz's prolonged and continuous
  WP:SOCK saying

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

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

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

Jagz this COI accusation should be withdrawn it is incivil, it is inaccurate and improper usage of this talk-page. You drew attention to yourself with your behaviour - I have never edited

assumption of bad faith. As stated in the report Jagz: Nemo contra factum suum venire potest - "No man can contradict his own deed"--Cailil ^talk

00:29, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Cailil, I didn't appreciate you essentially scuttling my good faith effort here:[48]. --Jagz (talk) 01:05, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Jagz that's where you came on to my radar. There was an RfC you didn't like the consensus (all one has to do is read the talk page to see that). Then you

disruptive--Cailil ^talk

01:50, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

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

• Plusdown, I would respectfully suggest that you withdraw your remark about those who disagree with Jagz being
  WP:KETTLE remark in light of the fact that the only other editor who supported Jagz was User:Zero_g who has edited only on the topic of Race and mainly in concert with Jagz and it is slightly strange for an account whose sole purpose is editing one topic/subject area to say this - "people in glass houses" and all that--Cailil ^talk
  23:59, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

If someone wants to review my Wikipedia contributions, they can start here: [49]. --Jagz (talk) 00:36, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Plusdown, please feel free to review my contribution history. While it will show that I have a keen interest in the R&I subject matter, you will also find that I have edited a variety of other articles. Also, if you review Jagz' latest contributions, you will find that all they are are pointy remarks that are mostly breaches of

WP:NPA or both. Furthermore, in this edit, he warns other editors about thinking of themselves as vested contributors, while he says this within minutes afterwards: think I deserve a medal for all the bullshit I've had to endure to get anything done on the article. Get anything done is an odd choice of words, as if he saw himself as the one steering the efforts to improve the article, i.e. he seems to think he's the boss. That's a definition of "vested contributor" if I ever saw one. Lastly, I fail to see the wisdom of awarding him a barnstar here for a behavior that got him banned from the article for 6 months. For the record, both you and Jagz misconstrued my words here, where if he had quoted me fully it would have appeared evident I was talking about Rushton and Lynn, and not about other editors. Just another example of Jagz' artful misrepresentation.--Ramdrake (talk

) 00:29, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

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

• Plusdown, I would respectfully suggest that you withdraw your remark about those who disagree with Jagz being
  WP:KETTLE remark in light of the fact that the only other editor who supported Jagz was User:Zero_g who has edited only on the topic of Race and mainly in concert with Jagz and it is slightly strange for an account whose sole purpose is editing one topic/subject area to say this - "people in glass houses" and all that--Cailil ^talk
  23:59, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

WP:NVC

page to saying that because Jagz said 'steering the article', he must also see himself as the boss. Maybe he does think that, but it strikes me as being a very contrived interpretation.

I didn't award him a 'barnstar', I jokingly put a picture of a medal on his page with a humorous message. I did not do it 'for behaviour which got him blocked', but rather for trying his best (

WP:AGF

) to get something done on what is a horrendous article.

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

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

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

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

That would be

tendentious - again your edits will speak for themselves--Cailil ^talk

00:59, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

?[50][51][52][53][54][55] The words "valuable" "contribution" and "dialogue" do not spring to my mind I'm afraid. I do understand your point Anthon but Jagz has been warned, he has been blocked - he has not addressed the behavioural issues. Oh and for those who missed it [56]--Cailil ^talk 01:33, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I have little to add to Calil's and Ramdrake's accurate accounts, but I do want to respond to the suggestion that I hastily call someone a troll. Perhaps Plusdown thinks this because plusdown is relatively new to the article. Let me put my comment in context, actually, in two contexts. On May 14 Jagz said he was done editing the article for one year [57] but continues to make unconstructive and uninformed comments - I consider this pattern of saying I am leaving and then continuing to make disruptive edits trollish behavior. But there is a larger context that goes back many, many months, perhaps close to a year, in which Jagz's comments have all - all - been uninformed, disruptive, and inane. Right here (this AN/I) we have an example of a typically inane remark: 3:03 June 4 "Mathsci lives in France. Mathsci, as far as I know, in France they are liberal about LBGT." This is characteristic of Jagz, who makes gross overgeneralizations in order to provide non-sequitors to explain why he has insulted another editor. The fact is, I did not start calling Jagz a troll in haste. I started calling him a troll only after I was certain that he is a troll, and I took many months of observing and interacting with him before I reached that conclusion. I reached that conclusion for these reasons: first, he clearly has no knowledge of the topic; when anyone has asked him questions about psychometrics or theories of intelligence or physical anthropology or population genetics or molecular genetics he has no response (NOTE: I am not saying an editor needs to have a higher degree on a topic to edit an article. My point is not about credentials. My point is that we should edit articles on topics about which we are knowledgable. Jagz is not knowledgable, and does not even understand basic biology). Second, when a well-informed editor explains the science to him, he ignores or insults them. Third, when someone proposes a constructive suggestion, he makes inane comments and disruptive edits in order to derail the discussion (for example, creating a new section "this article sucks" or adding comments about how this article will never go anywheere ... these are comments he starts adding any time people with opposing views start working together). What motivates this? Racism. All of Jagz's efforts to affect the content of the page - really, what editors should be doing (rather than putting inane non-sequitors on the talk page) have had one objective: to insert into the article the claim that it is mainstream science that blacks are genetically inferior in their mental capacities than whites. This is racism. And it is bad science, as I and many others have explained that there is no geneetic evidence for this. And whenever we have asked Jagz to provide evidence to support his claim, he returns to quoting two or three academics, none of whom are geneticists or who have done research in genetics. A very long time ago I started calling Jagz a troll, and I did this when it became clear to me that he would do anything to ensure that the article be dominated by a racist, fringe-science POV, and would do anything to disrupt any attempt to improve the article.

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

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

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

Wikipedia's strength of egalitarian contribution, which is effective on most articles, may also be its greatest weakness on others.[58] This article is proving to be too divisive for the creation of an informative article with stable content. The non-egalitarian implications of this article stand in contrast to the principles Wikipedia is built on. Maybe Wikipedia is not the proper forum for this article.

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

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

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

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

Probation and/or Civility Parole

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I'm not going to participate in remediation but you can go ahead without me. You can do what you wish with the article[59]

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

different suggestion

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

When Jagz didn't get his own way at

disrupted the project to make a point--Cailil ^talk

17:37, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I disagree with some of your contentions, also please see

WP:NPA. --Jagz (talk

) 17:12, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

I think that rather than banning one editor (Jagz), that this should be extended to multiple editors. I have no opinion on the article content, as my own attention was brought to

WP:SIZE, some people's browsers start having trouble with anything over 32K. I've been attempting to tweak the archivebot to keep things more balanced with a faster cycle, but one of the participants, Ramdrake, disagrees and has even reverted me on one of my cutoff changes,[60]

to keep the bot from archiving things in a timely manner. Because of this, the page is now back up to 150K, and continuing to grow.

Based on a quick perusal of Wikidashboard,[61] and eyeballing the talkpage history, the main participants currently seem to be Jagz, Ramdrake, Slbrubenstein, Plusdown, Wobble, and Legalleft. I recommend putting some sort of a speed-brake on things, which could either be a "go work on something else for a month" ban on the most prolific posters, or maybe limiting people to three posts per day on the talkpage, or perhaps a maximum of 500 words per day per thread. Some of the responses there are clear violations of

WP:TLDR, at 9-10K a pop.[62][63] This ANI thread is another example of the soapboxing nature of many of the participants, as I doubt most admins would take the time to read everything here. And with long posts, both here at ANI and at the talkpage, it makes it extremely difficult for outside parties to offer a comment. Which is why I'm leaning more towards "Ban 'em all", to help restore article stability. Or at least muzzle them a bit, to make the conversations easier to follow. --Elonka

20:01, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Okay, so the consensus appears to be:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Alternate suggestion

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

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

I believe that having a way to enforce Jagz to stay away from these articles (and not just the R&I article) for several months should he change his mind is not a bad thing. I've seen topic bans being reset if the editor touches an article during the ban. All I'm asking is that there be a mechanism to enforce this avoidance should Jagz fail to respect his word. I am not asking for a ban reset, either. Also, I don't think an arbitrary limit on the number of words is useful, as

) 12:24, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Suggestions: remember that

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

16:35, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

Beware of Slrubenstein going on the mediator's Talk page prior to mediation and calling editors racists and trolls.[64] --Jagz (talk) 20:40, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Can somebody please remind Jagz to

WP:AGF? Thanks!--Ramdrake (talk

) 20:01, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Using Huggle, I found this page and upon looking in the history, have found numerous vandalous edits. Can an admin please look through and do some massive rollbacking? I have rollback, but I can't do bundles.

11:30, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

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

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

Disclaimer: I do not make it a habit to complain here, as some do. It seems we have a large body of tattlers whose entire Wikipedia career revolves around getting involved in assorted fights on these noticeboards and filing assorted administrative actions, RfCs and RfArs etc. I also have expressed my opinions about what I see is an irrational application of principles like

).

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

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

No I have not. I only just learned about it from seeing an announcement of the conversation on Orangemarlin's talk page: [65]. Interesting response, but not unexpected. We will see how important

WP:CIVIL is, I guess, won't we? --Filll (talk | wpc

) 17:00, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

? I'm not sure what you mean, but I assure you

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

17:46, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I am no expert in dealing with

WP:CIVIL violation before. In fact, I am fairly unimpressed with noticeboards in general, and usually am only here to defend myself from some attack or other, or chime in to defend a friend. And in those instances, I personally have not seen some sort of delicate coordinated dance with escalating talk page warnings, but maybe they were not following correct procedure. The only case I have ever observed this is for 3RR.--Filll (talk | wpc

) 17:53, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

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

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

Oh a thought- witiquette alerts board-

Wikipedia:Wikiquette_alerts, I'd forgotten about that, might be just the thing you're after. Sticky Parkin

17:55, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

As usual, this just makes things so complicated it is not even worth it. Typical. But of course, calling someone a "homeopathy promoter" or a "self promoter" or saying someone has a "silly argument" are sanctionable under

WP:CIVIL. But implying someone is a f@ckwit is not. Ah, so reasonable and rational...--Filll (talk | wpc

) 18:22, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

And added another example here. I am glad to see that our political correctness police are so anxious to address these violations of

) 20:53, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

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

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

I added it back (fuckwit). I am very tired of the facist like "enforcement" of the

21:32, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

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

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

Well I have been keeping track of some of the nice examples of alleged

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

) 22:20, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Filll, read

WP:POINT please. AN/I is not a mechanism for poking people so you can collect diffs for your pet theory. --Relata refero (disp.

) 10:59, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I fail to see how this is a violation of POINT, Relata. It seems to be a concern about a personal attack in what is already a drama-ridden Rfa. I support Ali'i's attempts to resolve this. Perhaps you should read

WP:AGF, or at least apply it a little better. When people are tossing around terms like "fuckwit" I don't see that being concerned can be construed as POINT. KillerChihuahua^?!?

15:37, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

I would beg to differ. I was not trying to make some sort of

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

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

policy. We shouldn't be going out of our way to offend people when we don't have to.

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

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

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

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

About the racism ...

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

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

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

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

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

What about:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"Section 2(a) Refusal

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

/s/ by Barbara Rutland, USPTO Examining Attorney

When the applicant sought assistance from the

, apparently the ACLU legal assistant agreed:

ACLU agrees "White Pride" is "offensive":

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

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

• The well known neonazi Group Storm Front has a [http://www.stormfront.org/ website] with the title "Stormfront White Pride World Wide" [66] and lists the related links as [http://www.stormfront.org/links/ White Nationalist/ White Pride links]

• Google reports that related searches for "white pride" are kkk, aryan nation, naawp, and skinheads [67]

• The Yahoo! White Pride and Racialism list [68] includes links to Stormfront and the Klu Klux Klan and David Duke and the National Socialist Movement (Nazi) [69] the Afrikaner Resistance Movement of South Africa [70] and similar websites

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

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

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

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

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

You know, I was not aware that this list was suggested for use as

WP:POINT

. I posted this list in answer to the question I posed, "Is White Pride offensive to anyone and does any significant group claim that it has racist overtones ?". I believe that this list suggests that there might be at least one significant group that claims the term has racist overtones. Do you believe that this list does not suggest that there is at least one significant group that claims the term has racist overtones?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Anybody who denies that historically the term "White Pride" has been associated with White Supremacy is mistakenly niave. But I do believe that the two terms are not necessarily synonymous. Historically a white male who shaved his head was also a racist, but the tie between a shaven head and being a skin-head is not as pronounced today as it was 20 years ago. Likewise, there is tons of words that have been

04:01, 5 June 2008 (UTC) Lest somebody point to the use of the word "Black" to describe my sister in law, I should point out that she is not an African American.

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

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

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

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

Just a question for Fill, and OM (that I do think deserved what came his way). So if I am white, and proud of it I'm a racist, right? But a black is racist for invoking

? And what about [{Gay Pride]]? Are all GLBT hetero-phobics racists because they are proud of been gay? Come on, this is ridiculous.

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

There is nothing wrong with being white and proud or black and proud or Asian and proud or Southern and proud or a yankee and proud or a European and proud or an Australian and proud or a hispanic and proud or a Russian and proud or Jewish and proud or Hindu and proud or Buddhist and proud or whatever. However, as I said above, rightly or wrongly, the phrase "white pride" has become a code word that has obviously acquired negative connotations. And some of those negative connotations are associated with a particularly ugly form racism, unfortunately. And therefore, since we should not go out of our way to offend people (which I believe is the main reason and the best reason we have become far more aggressive about

WP:CIVIL

in the last year or so), we have to avoid words and phrases which might inadvertantly be offensive to large groups of readers and other editors. It is that simple. Whether you personally have a different meaning in mind for the phrase "white pride" is frankly, irrelevant. It does not matter what you think and it does not matter what you mean. It only matters that there are large groups of editors and readers that will take offense at the use of the term. Sorry. It is just that simple.

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

Incivility is incivility

Unfortunately, this thread has somehow gotten hijacked by conjectures about the editor who opened it. This is why it is important to respect

in all interactions so that unclean hands arguments cannot derail a legitimate and serious civility issue. In the hopes that my own hands are sufficiently tidy (I've just washed them), allow me to restate the central points here:

• RMHED called Orangemarlin a fuckwit.[71]
• The context of the insult was that Orangemarlin had made a comment that identified white pride as a subtle racist code word in North America, to an editor who resided in another continent and might not have known the history behind that term.
• The profane insult followed immediately after a reference to two senior Wikipeidans, who are respected and openly Jewish.
• When notified about this thread, and politely cautioned about the problem,[72] RHMED compounded the insult.[73] not once but twice.

This has led to an edit war over the word fuckwit (which I repeat here only to quote), and in my opinion is an egregious example of precisely the kind of problem the

19:49, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Don't have to be telepathic to read this series of comments for what it is. [74] Also, if he wasn't proud to do it, why did he make the comments originally on Majorly's page, and defend them so vehemently? SirFozzie (talk) 20:57, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

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

• Just noticed this edit by Orangemarlin, it's hard to spot among that monster of an RfA,[75], that settles it for me. Following OM's retraction of his earlier statement I wish to retract, (and apologise for offence caused), the inference of Fuckwittery I made against OM. Peace shall reign. RMHED (talk) 21:42, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

) 18:02, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

• Comment: I am a regular RfC commenter who has come across disputes between these two (Richard Arthur Norton and RedSpruce) at least six times.[76][77][78][79][80][81][82] Through those RfCs (spanning at least three months or more), I believe I have a thorough understanding of the nature of these perpetual incidents. For the purpose of full disclosure, I only skimmed the complaint above; it alludes to the problems, but misses some of the greater fundamental issues. Someone involved (I believe Alansohn, a recent participant in the disputes) alerted me to the discussion, and invited me to comment. There are three main relevant elements to these disputes (A) The issue. Richard Arthur Norton (heretofore referred to as RAN for the sake of brevity) has the custom of adding multiple references for virtually incontestable facts (eg. someone's name). RAN also has the custom of including in almost all of his citations the text of the actually-referenced part from the source. This latter practice in particular (while occasionally appropriate) is not Wikipedia policy, has some copyright issues, is very bulky to the articles, has been rebutted in numerous RfCs and a discussion at citing sources. But he continues to do so. (B) Incivility. Both parties have handled the dispute in highly uncivil ways. RAN largely just reverts or adds without comment until it escalates into a revert war, RfC or worse. But, RedSpruce is often flat out aggressive, and sometimes stoops to name-calling, presumption of bad-faith and other unproductive behavior; he is also generally the initiator of the RfCs, which in itself not a problem, but the discussions there are often inflammatory with little progress beyond the current article, only to take the battle to a new article. (C) Ownership. I would say that in my personal experience (I can't speak for other incidents outside of these RfCs) that RedSpruce has not shown ownership of articles. Both parties have a primary interest in McCarthy related topics, and despite my pleas for them to play in separate sandboxes, they continue to antagonize each other. Additionally, mine and others comments at RfCs are often mixed (some for RAN some for RedSpruce) and RedSpruce tends to implement any suggestions whether they are in his or RAN's favor. But, the conflicts always resume in a new article. While I generally feel like RAN has made up his own citation policy the lack of humility on both sides, and general condescension on RedSpruce's part, have brought this situationto the impasse we see now. Over the course of the debates, others have become involved, like Alansohn (who uses similar citation methods as RAN), but these are the most fundamental issues.--Esprit15d • talk • contribs 19:08, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
  • I would suggest that anyone contemplating administrative action take a look at
    Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Footnoted quotes, which deals with these editors and some of these issues. It's about to close with findings and remedies that may be relevant here. MastCell ^Talk
    19:28, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

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

• • WP:OWN, I don't know what is. Alansohn (talk
    ) 20:08, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

user vandalizing article by removing an image from it

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

My vote would have been to block

WP:POINT. --Selket ^Talk

05:48, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Consensus would have had its sway and without the disruption. From

WP:3rr: If an action really requires reversion, some other editor will probably do it — and that will serve the vital purpose of showing that the community at large is in agreement over which course of action is preferable. Gwen Gale (talk

) 07:01, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

I'd also like to report, for the record, that many of

Afro-Polish to Africans in Poland, and insisting that Josephine Baker couldn't be French since she was Black. Even though he's been warned multiple times on multiple pages about consensus, he keeps pushing the same POV. The constant removal of the Pacific Islander child with blond hair from the Blond page is just another example. I feel a longer block than a mere 12 hours would be necessary for this user to cool down and understand Wikipedia policies.--Ramdrake (talk

) 11:34, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

I have lengthened the block on

pointy editing. I personally disagree with Rewinn's block but let's not make a mountain out of a molehill; there's nothing "outrageous" about a short block on a user who has been edit warring - that's not how we solve stuff here. Trebor (talk

) 12:06, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

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

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

Tegwarrior has also edited in a similar fashion the article on

Several users have reverted Tegwarrior's edits and warned them repeated on the article[99] and user talk pages,[100][101][102] as well as in edit summaries,[103][104] that such edits violate

13:57, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

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

14:23, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

That's because the "wiki" is capitalized

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

Hello, I was looking at recent changes and noticed Tree Top Circus Guy (talk · contribs · count · logs · page moves · block log), MascotGuy with 100% 2gether-4ever (talk · contribs · count · logs · page moves · block log), and Deep Water Guy (talk · contribs · count · logs · page moves · block log), which I suspect must be the banned user MascotGuy. --Kyoko 22:07, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Other recently created accounts include Open Season Guy (talk · contribs · count · logs · page moves · block log), Rocketeer Ramblers (talk · contribs · count · logs · page moves · block log), and Cartoon Camper World Guy (talk · contribs · count · logs · page moves · block log). Please block those too. Thanks. --Kyoko 22:16, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

All blocked.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 22:18, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

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

I support this observation. In general, admins should realize that violating

WP:3RR should be thoroughly investigated before any action is taken. Guido den Broeder (talk

) 08:49, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

the 3RR noticeboard. Self-restraint is the first step toward earning clout with the community. Durova^Charge!

09:28, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

You didn't address my point, but you demonstrated it admirably, that sysops "help it happen". Rather than say, we'll take a look at Bunford, you lecture me for something which I did not complain about. It is quite clear I was talking now/future, not the past. In a situation like Bunford, your suggestion of DR or 3RR notice is laughable. I left a message re Bunford on the talk page of the sysop who blocked me. No response. No action. Right. Some of the comments below (I suppose from sysops) are ridiculously off topic, commenting on something I never mentioned. Can't people read and comprehend anymore? Kaiwhakahaere (talk) 21:54, 7 June 2008 (UTC) Kaiwhakahaere (talk) 21:54, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

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

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

How an earth did you become a sysop? Where does the opening post posit " that violating 3RR in pursuit of the right version is a good thing for the encyclopedia"? It says no such thing. It truthfully says that "if I fight the good fight for Wiki I will be 3RR'd again. I will be alone, and silliness will rule yet again." That doesn't say anything like violating 3RR is a good thing for wiki. Note the word "IF", not "WILL". If I do it, I get pinged for 3RR, and the article will remain in an unencyclopedic state because the sysop won't fix it. If I don't do it the article remains in an unencyclopedic state because a sysop won't fix it. Sort of fits the heading over this section, doesn't it --This is how it happens, and YOU sysops help it happen. Kaiwhakahaere (talk) 21:54, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

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

Okay, I've double checked. Should have linked to the

WP:AGF: I haven't asserted that he's interested in making a power play - what an odd inference. Collecting blocks simply isn't a good thing to do, and a string of recent blocks does make it harder for an editor who wants to be taken seriously. He is behaving in ways that draw attention to his own conduct and away from the substance of his message. Durova^Charge!

23:58, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

talk

) 11:18, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

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

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

I'm on record as supporting a broadening of the 3RR rule - for example I don't believe it should be regarded as violating 3RR to remove unsourced material. That works fine on

WP:BIO pages, why shouldn't it be used on other pages? Editors do need more support I think, for "fighting the good fight" wherever practicable. Gatoclass (talk

) 12:25, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

There is a huge difference between

huge real-world damage to the subject. --Hut 8.5

19:11, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

However, PageantUpdater was unblocked by Blnguyen. See the ensuing discussion

User:PageantUpdater, for starters. Probably no need to bother User:KJP200876, as there doesn't seem to be any dispute about how their edits and edit warring was handled. Carcharoth (talk

) 14:56, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I was notified pretty late. Despite the opinions of the blocking admin (who I note blocked me once before in unfair circumstances) I never violated 3RR (check the edit history) and (although I must say I lost the string of quite who the editor above was talking about so I may be mistaken) I strongly dispute that I was in any way uncivil, on the contrary it was Kaiwhakahaere who was violating

talk • contribs

20:31, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

WHAT? Where have I bitched here about my block for 3RR on your fansite? I haven't. I was addressing the BS at Jane Bunford only, and the ongoing problem I have if I fight the good fight on that article. All I want is a level playing field, and consistent action from sysops. Also, why do you think no-one bothered to comment on your bit at Reliable sources noticeboard? Kaiwhakahaere (talk) 21:17, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Concerning 217.87.x.x

Hi Guys, i just got the message below on my usertalk page, its inregards to an open abuse report for which i am the contact/or for. And to be honest i do not know what to do enlight of this (if anything) the abuse report is here   «l| Ψrom3th3ăn ™ |l»  01:38, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

---

Excuse me writing here. I'm quite new to wikipedia and registered only for the purpose of communicating with you. I hope this is the right place. I've just been surfing around on wp and got the new message warning leading me to this link. And then I got there. I am in the 217.87.*.*-range, too. It's one of the huge ranges of the biggest German isp - tcom fka. Deutsche Telekom. The 217.237.150.11* range is the range of a public proxy any tcom customer may use (www-proxy.t-online.de). I often use this proxy for speed reasons, and that's basically the reason I got the new message warning and now write here.. The last digit of the ip usually varies, depending on where the abuser lives. Every larger node usually has 3 different possible last digits afaik. The ip can even vary on every refresh. In my area the ip varies from 217.237.150.116 - 217.237.150.118.

To make a long story short: the proxy is transparent, so why not look up and log the abusers real ip? Blocking the whole range would not be a good solution - please only punish those who deserve to be punished. I often have to use this proxy and people like this guy annoy me, as they abuse two systems that are intended to have a good purpose - what a scumbag :(

Once you have this guy's real ip in your logs, you might consider contacting the tcom security team directly with hard evidence at:
phone: +49 180 5334332
fax-no: +49 180 5334252
e-mail: [email protected]
They are usually very friendly and they help unbureaucratically and fast if you provide hard evidence (timestamped logs).

Kind regards & keep me posted,

--Testomaximo (talk) 21:05, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

William Melmoth

An editor who has previously displayed serious

WP:OWN problems this editor has regarding this material are likely to be addresed without formal warnings. John Carter (talk

) 21:31, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

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

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

I would dispute the term plagarized; I saw the edit summary myself, and, honestly, it is mistaken. Regretably, Geogre has repeatedly had a history of reverting assessments, such that twice to receive comments on the

ownership of the article. I think he needs to have some outsider perhaps inform him that policy does not permit that. John Carter (talk

) 21:49, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

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

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

WP:OWN issues with the article. John Carter (talk

) 22:02, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

Geogre most certainly is an administrator and has been for some time. Otherwise, he wouldn't be helping out with the deletion backlog today. Do check his logs, or check the

WP:List of Administrators before making such an allegation, please. Risker (talk

) 22:38, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

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

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

Summarizing your posts here and those on Geogre's page, I hardly think your RFA would have succeeded under any conditions if you had behaved like this before it. If I were you, I'd stop going on about the other person and give a full and frank apology, it's high time. [Wow, zilla obviously very upset to go into not merely

subjunctive mode.] bishzilla _ROARR!!

23:28, 6 June 2008 (UTC).

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

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

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

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

• I've commented on this here. Essentially I think John needs to stop warning people (in this case Geogre) when they strongly criticise him, and should instead engage in frank discussion, even if it might mean one side or the other having to swallow their pride at the end of it. One thing I think is unhelpful is John warning people as a result of what they say to him - he isn't in the best position to judge things there. He needs to seek independent opinion on whether Geogre should be warned. Me personally, I wouldn't warn either of them, as they make points that should be debated, and strong criticism may be part of that, but I have given them advice, as in the link I gave at the beginning on this post. The advice was for Geogre to tone it down a bit (it is possible to point out foolishness without calling someone a fool), and for John to try and engage with what Geogre is saying and not getting distracted by the way Geogre is saying it. Carcharoth (talk) 20:59, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

And the comments are welcome, as they acknowledge the questions raised by me, with Geogre to date has ignored in his own dubiously acceptable comments. There are other sources, which I have indicated I know are available, considering the bio by his son is in a publicly available library in town here, which fill in gaps in the article, and at least one additional volume regarding religious literature which has biographical content relating to the subject. Evidently, the editor above thinks that there is no reason to think the DNB is anything but perfect. As I have found out through personal experience, on the Arthur Bryant article, it can be and at least occasionally is both incomplete and definitely non-neutral. It should also be noted that, in response to the several questions I asked directly relating to the content of the article on the talk page, I received not a single real response. I believe that this ongoing, almost absolute, belief in his own opinion, and his almost worshipful opinion of the DNB, is a serious question, and, as should be noted, one that has yet to be addressed at all, although he has made several insulting, off-topic, and sometimes clearly unknowing and prejudicial statements in the interim, nothing he has said directly addresses the points I made. John Carter (talk) 21:54, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

• The key element of this discussion is that nothing indicates the need for outside administrator intervention, even though this content dispute happens to involve two administrators. You both know as well as anyone that this forum isn't very good for solving content disputes, only inflaming them. Can you both (Geogre and John Carter) agree that arguing this issue further on this page is unnecessary?
  ^T * ^ER
  22:50, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
  • (Er.. cough.) Avruch, do you really see it as urgent to get Geogre to agree to desist from all his inflammatory ANI arguing and quarrelsomeness? He has posted once (having been elaborately attacked), giving his opinion that "this is a silly content dispute" and using the edit summary "My position, and this is all I'll say here. Shouldn't even be an AN/I thread. Silly stuff".[108] Bishonen | talk 08:20, 8 June 2008 (UTC).

Sockpuppeteer here

I am writing here in regards to an edit on my

properly reprimanded and given a short block

.

I promised not to do such things again and knuckled down in my edits here on Wikipedia to try and redeem what had been an obviously stupid thing to do. I began by driving toward improving articles of my interest. I contributed significantly to the

arbitration decision. Most recently, I've been following the footsteps of the Flight 11 article and have improved the American Airlines Flight 77

article to try and achieve Featured Article status here as well. Besides these dedicated works, I have been active in enforcing image copyright violations.

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

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

Gladly. I was called away and hadn't finished that thread. Amazing that it made it so quickly to ANI. Here's the confession/evidence. It was an extremely disruptive episode where Vegita was logging in under a range of IPsocks and harassing the heck out of a bunch of admins. I ended up issuing what was a bad block (should have been much longer - not symbolic) and did not go back to the incident. I just came across this editor again when someone else complained to me about him/her and I remembered I should have added the well-earned sock tag. I'll finish the ipsock tags now. Toddst1 (talk) 21:40, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm not denying what happened. I just disagree with the view that I need a sock tag for all eternity when I've made amends for my mistakes. -- VegitaU (talk) 00:54, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Todd, I agree that the original block should have had some sting to it, but what's done is done. IMHO, based on their behavior since then, I'd recommend taking the sock tag off his user page. I can't really see what good it does anyone at this point. The block is in his block log, now the sockpuppeteer tag is in his talk page history, let's call it a leasson learned. --

barneca (talk

) 01:20, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Agree with barneca. I remember the strange incident from when it happened, and given that Todd recorded it in the block log, I don't think an additional sock tag should be added. Let's not punish this editor further, because I think he learned his lesson. Enigma ^message 03:49, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

"Mark of Cain"??? That's quite victim complex for a guy who still going around threatening to block users on the basis of bogus rules.[109][110][111] Kauffner (talk) 04:29, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Those DIFFs show nothing of the sort. The rules arent bogus, and VegitaU wasn't threatening to block you, or pretending to be an admin as you said. Dayewalker (talk) 07:24, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Bogus rules? I think Todd has already informed you about this. And this section isn't the place to discuss your violations of arbitration decisions. If you need a second opinion, make a new section. Thanks. -- VegitaU (talk) 04:34, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

I've had such a hankering to see what being blocked is like[112] Huh? Are you a member of a cult that requires you abase yourself? Did you start this thread to once again experience the joy of public humiliation? Kauffner (talk) 05:37, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

That DIFF is two months old, and seems to have been brought up more for the purposes of making a personal attack than an actual point on VegitaU's current behavior. Dayewalker (talk) 07:24, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm not inclined to remove it for 3 reasons (the first being the main one):

1. The tag is accurate and appropriate. We were close to issuing a range block of an entire University because of this vandal's behavior. It should have been there months ago. If the editor had the scruples that he/she claims, should have placed it there themself, taking responsibility for their own action.
2. The user didn't discuss objection to this with me at all, instead went straight to ANI
3. The user didn't have the courtesy to inform me that it was being discussed on ANI.

I think the only reason to remove the tag would be because if it was inaccurate or violates a policy. If anyone feels it is inaccurate, please remove it. It's not punitive or a "mark of cain." It's an accurate warning to other editors that this editor has engaged in seriously deceitful behavior in the past, resulting in multiple blocks of IPs and identifying them. It should be there to assist in identifying any future similar problems. Toddst1 (talk) 06:28, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

With all due respect, you, acting as an admin, placed a sockpuppeter tag on his page that said "please do not remove." He might have figured your opinion on this issue was already formed and came to WP:ANI to see if it was an opinon, or a firm policy.

I would think the block log would be sufficient evidence of his past transgressions. I don't even understand why he's not allowed to remove it. Unrepentant vandals remove warning and sock notices from their pages all the time, and wikipedia policy is to allow them as per

WP:TALK. Here's an editor who's trying to make amends and is following the rules, I think he should be allowed to remove the notice. Since there's already a block on his account, it seems like punishment and not prevention. Dayewalker (talk

) 07:24, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

How on earth is placing a tag considered punishment? Is placing {{

repeat vandal

}} on an IP's talk page after their third block punishment? No - it is a way to help other editors/admins know what they're dealing with without having to wade through a lengthy history. If you think placing such a tag is punishment, then you probably shouldn't do vandal patrol. Just like the repeat vandal tag, the same applies here - it's not punishment.

All that being said, if another admin feels strongly enough to remove it, I will not object. That doesn't mean I agree, however. Toddst1 (talk) 08:29, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

If it's listed in his block log, it can already be found easily. The tag seems to be overkill to me. If he socks again, an admin will see the block log and reblock accordingly. If he doesn't, then every other editor he comes into contact with will judge him and his contributions as a formerly blocked user.

I'm just saying, you don't have to look far to find other examples of wikipedia editors who have gotten off to a bad start, and who are going through proper channels to try and become responsible editors and get a second chance. (You can find a couple of examples on this page, although some editors appear to be doing a better job of turning over a new leaf than others.) If there's no way of allowing blocked users who demonstrate the willingness to come back into the fold and earn wikipedia's trust again, we're going to make enemies out of potential friends, and wind up driving away people who could help the project. Dayewalker (talk) 08:47, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to try and address your points.

• I did take responsibility for my own actions. And I was reprimanded then and warned about it and blocked. Then, everything calmed down and I began to make efforts to edit in a much more decent manner. Even you noticed, Todd, that I was doing fine editing when suddenly, you slap that tag on me, two months later. I don't understand why, with a history of good edits since and no relapse, I need that tag on my talk page. I've apologized and made amends for that one lapse in judgment. Is it possible you can forgive what happened and let me continue editing unabated? I haven't been correcting typos these past few weeks, I've edited major articles to Good and (hopefully) Featured Status. I mean I'm making a big effort here to scrub my past clean.
• I'm sorry I didn't bring this up with you or inform you about coming here. But this is the place to seek another opinion for a ruling.

I'm not trying to make you my enemy or stir up bad sentiments, but is it possible you can actually trust me again, Todd? I apologize again for those pranks I pulled. -- VegitaU (talk) 09:42, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

• I have
  WP:BOLDly interpreted the above discussion as an indication that the template can be removed- so I have done so. The editor appears contrite and recognises the stupidity of their actions. As commented, the note remains in the block log. I note that Toddst1, a sysop I think highly of, disagrees with the removal while not disallowing the action, but I think that AGF is the over-riding consideration here. To VegitaU, I suggest that Toddst1 has no reason to trust you, nor to consider you his enemy, but only to apply AGF in any further dealings with you - which I am certain will be the case. You have apologised, I have removed the template, and now we can all move on. LessHeard vanU (talk
  ) 09:58, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

International Reaction to the 2008 Kosovo Declaration of Independence

User:Happy-melon has taken actions in this article which are wrong.

The article

International_reaction_to_the_2008_Kosovo_declaration_of_independence

had the word "unanimous" and someone made a comment in the talk page asking to change it to "unopposed", someone made an edit protect BUT NO consensus was reached so the user Happy-melon took a liberty to delete not just the word "unanimous" itself but change the whole introduction to the article.

Here is what followed:

Y Done but the first sentence of the article now reads awfully, and needs to be reworded more significantly than that. I was on the verge of instituting the wording below, but baulked: how does it sound as a new phrasing? Happy‑melon 18:14, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

“ The international reaction to the 2008 Kosovo declaration of independence follows Kosovo's unilateral declaration of independence from Serbia, enacted on February 17, 2008 by a vote of the Kosovan Parliament 109 in favour, 0 in opposition; all 11 representatives of the Serb minority boycotted the proceedings. ”

Agree with minor alteration - I would change "followed" to "follows" as the reaction is still ongoing. Bazonka (talk) 20:58, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

{{

editprotect

}} Uncontroversial. Change the first sentence of the article to the quote above. (I have changed "followed" to "follows".) Bazonka (talk) 12:25, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Done Happy‑melon 12:59, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

This user finalized an editprotect with 'no CONSENSUS at ALL to completely ALTERED the introduction and changed the wording from "declaration of independence" to "unilateral declaration of independence" all by himself and tagged it "uncontroversial". I must also note that the link "unilateral declaration of independence" leads to 2008_Kosovo_declaration_of_independence

Key Changes in new Introduction:

1. Deleted intro because no concensus was reached to change "unanimous" to "unopposed"

2. Changed "Kosovar Parliament" to "Kosovan Parliament" (No consensus)

3. Changed wording "Declaration of Independence" to "Unilateral Declaration..." (No Consensus)

4. Allowed an editprotect to finalize with no voting or comments from other editors.

Please reply in my talk page. Kosova2008 (talk) 21:36, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Since it's been some time, I'm not going to respond on your talk page, but basically, this is a simple content dispute which doesn't belong here. Follow the steps at

dispute resolution and keep using editprotected if consensus is found. There is no need for forum-shop here. -- Ricky81682 (talk

) 06:43, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Ivo Andrić

We are having vandalism in article so... I have seen many nationalistic genius but this is my absolute winner. Suspected puppet of banned user Velebit (user:71.252.83.33) has deleted statement confirmed with 5 NPOV internet links that parents of nobel winner Ivo Andrić has been Croats and changed with statement that his parents has been Serbs [113]. "Sources" of his statement are obscure book and internet link which is not saying nationality of his parents. It is important to notice that 1 of deleted links which this user has deleted is New York Times !

I know that somebody of administrators will think that this is not vandalism but editorial dispute, but after that we are having genius moment of this user:Velebit puppet. He is demanding that picture "Ivo Andric declaring himself as Croat" is deleted from wikipedia because of Copyright violation [114] ! Can somebody explain me how is possible to first delete statement confirmed by many sources because they are "false or bad" and then demand deletion of "wikipedia" document which is supporting "bad" sources with claim of copyright violation.

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

Can somebody please finish

Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/J. A. Comment so that this nightmare can end. Thanks --Rjecina (talk

) 00:28, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

On wikipedia commons user:71.252.83.33 has confirmed that this picture In which Ivo Andrić is declaring to be of Croat nationality is authentic document so we can now close discussion if he is vandal or not when he is declaring other things on wikipedia [115]--Rjecina (talk) 01:12, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

The case

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

) 04:50, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

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

Comment See my explanation of the Ivo Andric article changes here [116]. I provided three biographical notes written by people of formidable academic background and who are world-renown personnae - who were close Andric's friends and whose biographical notes were known and approved by very Andric. Contrary to that, Rjecina gathers some Internet links which are written by anonymous people, which are not primary sources of information nor they (authors) gave any information what their primary sources are. This person Rjecina is interested only in chasing away as many people as possible - in order to impose his/her point of view i.e. gain the right to censor other people contributions.

From the case

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

:

• Also, his harassment of other users is already noticed by an administrator and proper warning is given here [117],[118] which reads:

• You, however, Rjecina, are very clearly engaging in a campaign of harassment in order to get as many opposing editors blocked as possible. You're apparently even keeping a list of trophies ([119]). I'll wait for comments from others here, but I'm seriously considering handing out some fresh sanction under
  WP:ARBMAC against you at this point. Fut.Perf. ☼
  10:03, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

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

• • You have not shown any NPOV internet source which is saying that his parents are Serbs. On other side I have shown New York Times and 5 other source which are saying that they are Croats. Deleting statements confirmed by NPOV internet sources is vandalism. I have never seen editor which has deleted 1 statement confirmed by 6 internet NPOV sources. You must recieve reward for that because it this is not vandalism I do not know what it is. --Rjecina (talk) 07:52, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

• No need for any NPOV internet source showing anything - McNeil is clear: Andric's mother was a Serb, which denies claim in the New York Times. McNeil is world-renown historian and was a close Andric's friend. All your 'NPOV' are not revealing any primary sources supporting their claim (Andric' parents were Croats). So - all they are worthless scribbling.--71.252.83.33 (talk) 13:20, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Range block

Resolved

 – /24 range block for 48 hrs-- zzuuzz ^(talk) 20:08, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Could someone who knows the intricacies of rangeblocking take a look at what range needs to be blocked to shut down the person at

barneca (talk

) 19:15, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Also

barneca (talk

) 19:24, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

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

(ec) 144.122.250.0/24 was blocked by User:Longhair for 2 days. I think 144.122.250.128/25 would've been enough, as I found no related contributions outside of that smaller range. It's an university range, but the only unrelated edits from this and the last month seem to be from 144.122.250.142 (talk · contribs) and 144.122.250.229 (talk · contribs). I think it should be reduced to /25. --Oxymoron⁸³ 20:11, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

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

Thank you for the rangeblock; don't know anything about it, so I'll leave it to you folks to decide if a smaller range is better. --

barneca (talk

) 20:47, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

It seems 144.122.251.18 (talk · contribs) is also part of y-.pclabs.metu.edu.tr. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 12:58, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

User:mathewignash

Hi. At least as far back as October,

WP:NFC

. I seem to recall it starting with a failure to include fair-use rationales, then those rationales not explaining how the images substantially aided in readers' understanding of the article. mathewignash received a couple of short blocks; long-term ones were lifted after his repeated claims of, "I'm trying to help, I just don't understand the policy." He agreed to cut back on image uploads and I think an admin. undertook some sort of semi-mentorship.

The issue at hand: the editor continues to make significant(?) lapses in abiding by NFC's FUR requirements -- specifically, his cited sources are dubious. Many images of toys and boxart he cites to transformers.com, but that Hasbro site has a limited number of toys (movie-related toys, and not the Gen 1 , comic and CGI/animated versions, for those versed in the franchise). I went through his uploads from 30 Mar to today and found ~20 instances of images cited to "www.transformers.com" and tagged them as disputed with a request for a specific URL. (Images from comics, by the way, are cited generically to "Dreamwave comic series" -- not to specific issues/titles.) He since went through and, for many of them, offered URLs -- but to web sites not at all on the transformers.com domain (e.g. this example of boxart). One image he cited to transformers.com he now claims he took himself. And another oddball: mathewignash changed the source of Image:Clocker-cybertron.jpg (and others) from transformers.com to a Hasbro site. However, while that Hasbro site has two similar images, they are not the same as the one posted to Wikipedia. After pointing that out, mathewignash has since changed the source to the vague "Hasbro Transformers series." -- not really a source at all. (And I just don't know what to make of this.)

After all this, I really do think mathewignash really loves this topic and wants to help by offering visuals; this is clearly not a malicious editor. After a few comments on his and a previously-involved admin.'s talk page, he's been quick to respond -- and while I appreciate his, "Hey, help me out here" requests (demonstrating, again, a good faith intent), after several discussions at ANI, image talk pages, and his talk page, I'm just not inclined to (as fully) give him the benefit of the doubt -- even though, I admit, I don't know an answer to his most recent question. I believe him when he says he downloaded many of these pictures from somewhere else, and I can even accept that former hosts may have removed or replaced them. But, then again, given his previous slaps about image uploads, copy-and-paste FURs don't cut it, and I find annoying/troubling the switch from "it was downloaded" to "Oh, I took it" for a couple of images (although I suspect this stems more from a copy-and-paste error than anything else).

Anyway, at the end of this rant, I think the benefit of having these images is not even close to being worth the time and energy needed to continue to look over and tag/correct this editor's image uploads. I know NFC is a bit tricky, but as User:Steel pointed out on the aforelinked talk page, mathewignash has had ample opportunities to get it -- the most basic aspects of NFC -- right, and he still can't. --EEMIV (talk) 01:30, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me address your concerns. I wish you'd just ask me directly for anything you don't understand, but I'll try to address it here. I added all the specific URLs I could find as you requested. If some pictures don't have them, because the the site changed (the Transformers site removed all pictures over about 2 years old), then I need to know how to site that source now. I had used www.transformers.com, as it's the base for the web site.

I did take this picture myself, the toy is sitting on my shelf if anyone needs proof, I'll take more pictures of it. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Image:Sureshot-g2.jpg&diff=prev&oldid=217857555 I just sited www.transformers.com as the owners of the non-free 3d art, which it is legally owned by. We had this talk, that ALL pictures of action figured are non-free 3d art owned by the original creator, not owned by the photographer.

The picture of Cybertron Clocker IS from the site I mention site, but the original is gone, they had 2 sets of promotional images. I've made requests as to the proper way to source this. Perhaps I should upload the new version of the picture? Let me know.

As for this picture: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Image:Swerve-universe2.jpg&diff=prev&oldid=217854613, the source for it was the Chevrolet web site, where it was sold as a promotional item, but it's since been sold out and removed - the robot turns into a Chevy Aveo.

As to your mention of siting the issue of a comic book a picture is from, no one has mentioned this as necessarry to me back when I submitted examples of "how do I site these correctly" If I need to mention the issue number and title, just say so.

Mathewignash (talk

) 11:21, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

• Never mind NFC, what about
  WP:NFCC?. These Transformers articles (currently 199 articles in CAT:Autobots) are magnets for all sorts of non-free image abuse - see the 19 fair-use images in Bumblebee (Transformers) (tagged for 3 months with no response, so will have to be cleaned up soon) for a good example, but most of those articles violate NFCC in some way or another. Transformers editors should really be fixing the image problems in these articles, not making the problems worse. And that's before we mention the fact that most of the articles need sourcing, copyediting, and the original research and trivia stripping out of them... Black Kite
  12:05, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't know if this is the forum for talking about the length and number of pictures in all Transformer articles, but if I may offer a suggestion, the pictures of the different Bumblebee toys through the 20+ years of it's existance are pictures taken from my collection. Maybe we should merge all those pictures into a single collage picture and post it as a single image? Let me know if this would work and I'll try it. It would knock down the non-free image count in the article a bit.

Mathewignash (talk

) 12:56, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Additionally, the Bumblebee article covers several different fictional characters named Bumblebee. Perhaps the second largest character should be split off into his own article? What's the tag to suggest a splitting of an article?

Mathewignash (talk

) 13:50, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

• A better idea would be to strip all the plot summary and trivia out of the article, thus reducing its length by about 80%. Black Kite 14:13, 8 June 2008 (UTC)