Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
This page is for urgent incidents or chronic, intractable behavioral problems. Before posting: Take a look at these tips for dealing with incivility If the issue concerns a specific user, try discussing it with them on their talk page Try dispute resolution Just want an admin? Contact a recently active admin directly. Be brief and include diffs demonstrating the problem Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead go to Requests for oversight. When starting a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page; pinging is not enough. You may use {{subst:ANI-notice}} ~~~~ to do so. Closed discussions are usually not archived for at least 24 hours. Routine matters might be archived more quickly; complex or controversial matters should remain longer. Sections inactive for 72 hours are archived automatically by Lowercase sigmabot III. Editors unable to edit here are sent to the /Non-autoconfirmed posts subpage. (archives, search)
Start a new discussion

User:Ed Fitzgerald relocating clean-up templates

First, let me start off by saying that I do not believe this is in any way malicious and/or vandalism, but I do think it's necessary to bring it to others' attention. User:Ed Fitzgerald has been relocating clean-up templates in articles so that they are placed at the bottom of the page with a "pointer," or short message, at the top of the article.[1][2][3] Several of his changes have since been reverted by various users. I have contacted the user on three separate occasions: 1). when he moved a template to the article's talk page [4], 2). when he moved a couple templates to the bottom of the page [5], and 3). recently when I noticed the new development of the "pointer" and after another user attempted to contact him regarding the relocations.[6] Although the user is mostly civil, I find their dismissal of guideline and clearly stated reason mystifying. I'm concerned that his personal opinion ("the tags, especially multiple tags, disfigure the article, and discourage readers from accessing the material") conflicts greatly with accepted Wikipedia guideline/procedure and that he is not willing to take his (admittedly well thought out and articulated) concerns to the proper channels. He seems to have dismissed my final attempt at advice (as can be seen by his further template relocating here. María (críticame) 22:20, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Discussion concerning this can be found on my talk page here, and my further thoughts on this and other (related and unrelated) subjects can be found on my user page. Thank you. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk/cont) 22:53, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Tags, especially dispute and cleanup tags, play an important role -- they alert a reader that what he is reading may be disputed, confusingly written, poorly sourced, or what have you. It is important that readers are aware of these issues before they read the content on the tag; that is why most tags go at the top of a given article. You seem to feel that tagging is a way for users to contest the content of an article without editing it -- this is not the case; "drive-by-taggings", that is, without substantive discussion on the talk page, can and should be summarily removed. --Haemo 23:18, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

There are a number of issues here, but I think the only one in question at the moment is the position of tags, since I'm not eliminating them but relocating them, and providing a pointer to their placement. Anyone interested can follow the pointer and see the tags, as will everyone who reads the article to the end. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk/cont) 00:07, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

The position is important; people need to be aware of issues on the page before they read the article, not after. Nebulously stating "This page has been tagged" does not help anyone, and would be totally opaque to a general reader. --Haemo 01:44, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Precisely. It may appear that tags are addressed to the general reader, but because they represent only the opinion of an editor, and are not in any way definitive, they are better considered as communications between editors, expressing views on how articles can be improved. If the purpose of a tag is to warn the reader, then there should be some sort of process in place to control their use, to make it the subject of consensus, which there is not.

A tag is a flag, saying "Here there is a problem, in my opinion", not a definitive statement, and the audience that cares about possible problems (as opposed to definite ones) is the editors of Wikipedia, and not the readers, two separate but overlapping groups.

By the way, you referred earlier to "drive-by-tagging" as if this was merely an occasional thing. In fact, my experience is that the vast majority of tags are placed without any discussion at all on the talk page, and therefore represent the view of a single editor. They can't even be considered to have been accepted by follow-up editors (as article content can when it passes review and is not changed) because of the taboo against removing them, which is what I'm (in part) currently up against. (In fact, I'm not removing them, only moving them.) Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk/cont) 02:00, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

As you have moved {{unsourced}} tags on articles which have, in fact, no sources whatsover, I must disagree that the tags constitute "the opinion of a single editor". No sources is simple enough to view and confirm. If there are no sources, this is not opinion. Further, I concur with Haemo - the time to inform readers there is a potential problem or issue with an article is before, not after, they have invested their time and effort in reading it. By burying the tags and adding your non-informative notes in teeny font at the top, you are damaging the credibility of Wikipedia. One puppy's opinion. KillerChihuahua^?!? 02:15, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

I disagree with your premise that there is not "some of process in place to control their use, to make it the subject of consensus". The inclusion of maintenance tags, just like any other material added to or taken away from an article, is a matter of consensus among the editors who contribute toward it. As for disfigurement: I'd much prefer a disfigured article than one that incorrectly gives the a reader the incorrect impression that they're looking at well-refined material. There's been mention of "drive-by tagging," but what about the "drive-by readers"? An aesthetically dis-pleasing "Hey, this article is missing reliable sources or is short on citations" can effectively give pause to the folks who are trying to get info. on some nugget they just saw on CSI or are scrambling to write about for English class. I'd much rather "inconvenience" users by making them look at clashing colors and scrolling down a bit more if it also means they know to put a few more grains of salt next to their mouse. --EEMeltonIV 09:39, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Let us come to face with the facts, please: unsourced articles are more the rule than the exception on Wikipedia -- but that doesn't mean that the articles aren't authoritative, factual, informative and interesting. (There are other ways to ascertain an article's value than whether it has sourcing or not.) But let's not get caught up in ancilliary matters -- to answer your on-topic question, I am not "hiding" tags -- would you say that Categories are being hidden, or External Links, or See Also links?, or links to other Wikipedia projects? All of those things are at the bottom of the page, which is where I'm putting the tags. That's a place where they don't discourage readers from using the encyclopedia as a resource, and yet they're available to the people that are interested in them, and to whom they are addressed, the editors of Wikipedia.

I'll reiterate, if the intent of tags is as a warning to readers, than there are only a few tags that should be at the top, none of which are internally directed, and the use of tags should be regulated or controlled so that when a reader sees a tag that says there's a problem with an article, they know that to be a reasonably definitive statement, and not an offhand opinion. Failing that, tags are better viewed as communication between editors, and not as warnings to the reader. 02:32, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Citation tags can be construed as warnings to the reader, as the absence of citations can imply the advice to the reader to take the article with a pinch of salt given the lack of a solid foundation for the article. Citation templates can serve both as a alert for the editor and a warning for the reader, as do most other tags. —Kurykh 02:43, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Exactly right, Kurykh. I find the implication that there is an audience we as editors should be catering to rather absurd; this isn't a play and we aren't stage hands. Everyone who reads Wikipedia is a potential editor, and therefore the templates are relevant to everyone. The reason why they are placed at the top of the page, as is said by the style guidelines, is visibility. María (críticame) 12:09, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

I find the implication that there is an audience we as editors should be catering to rather absurd; What an absolutely extraordinary statement! I'm totally flabbergasted. What do imagine is the point of Wikipedia, to be a fun place to play around in? It exists to create a reference work to be used, and the people who use it are the "audience". Call them what you will -- user base, clientele, whatever, it is for they and them only that the project exists, and considerations about ease of use and functionality should be second only to considerations of factuality of content.

Obviously, this aspect of Wikipedia has been given short shrift for much too long, if an editor can make a statement like that in all sincerity. Everyone's all tied up in policy disputes, which serve (badly) to regulate editor behavior, to the exclusion of consideration of the needs of the user. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk/cont) 13:36, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

You stated that "users of the encyclopedia [are] supposedly our clientele, the people for whom the encyclopedia exists." This is a misstatement: the encyclopedia exists for everyone. If any reader is a potential editor, than templates are useful for them, as well. María (críticame) 13:56, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Oh, incidentally, very nice attempt to tie in my professional background! Bravo, points for research! But, unfortunately, stage hands don't cater to the audience, they do what other people (director, designers, stage manager) tell them to, so that rather messes up your metaphor. Besides, as a rather famous thespian once said "All the world's a stage." Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk/cont) 13:41, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Please be WP:CIVIL, as you have shown you are capable of doing in the past. Not that it means much to delve into the personal, the stage hand comment was a metaphor I pulled not from your life, but my own (speaking as an ex-theatre major). I was not aware of your profession, nor do I think it pertinent to the discussion. Let's remain on topic. María (críticame) 13:56, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

It's a category error to treat the class of Wikipedia editors as being equivalent to the class of Wikipedia users. It's certainly (and obviously) true that all Wikipedia editors began as users, so that Editors is a subset of Users, but in actuality they have totally different relationships to Wikipedia, and should not be treated as equivalent. (I'll also say that many editors become so involved in internal Wikipedia matters they really cease to be, in any meaningful sense, users of the encyclopedia. Their concerns are no longer the concerns of the casual user, and it's this disfunction that I'm suggesting needs to be addressed.) It's my contention, which I think is obvious from even the most cursory examination of internal pages such as this one, or from a close look at Wikipedia policy, that ease of use and other user-function matters are not given their proper due, and need to be made more important.

Also, let me play the Wikipolicy card and cite WP:BB and WP:IAR as justifying my actions. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk/cont) 15:45, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Both of which work until and unless one meets with resistance, which you have - quite strong resistance. Please re-read the pages to which you have linked. IAR and BB have limitations - they are not a blanket permission to do whatever you wish against consensus. KillerChihuahua^?!? 15:49, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

"Strong resistance"? I see here three people arguing against what I'm doing, and two people agreeing with it. I'd hardly categorize that as "strong resistance". Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk/cont) 16:32, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Ed is right on this. The tags are opinion graffiti of no value to an intelligent reader. They deserve as much respect as a sidewalk passerby stopping to tell construction workers how to build a building. If an editor wants to express his opinion on an article, but is too lazy to make the changes, look up some citations, or just explain politely on the talk page, he isnt worth listening to. I propose we require editors to earn the right to hang their opinions on articles--- you can place one criticism tag for every measly 2000 characters of text you contribute. Wikipedia needs more workers and less sidewalk supervisors. alteripse 02:39, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

I hadn't heard the phrase "opinion graffiti" before, but it's spot-on. Thanks. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk/cont) 02:48, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

You are welcome to it. I was tired of feeling like the Lone Ranger on this. Or maybe you can be the Lone Ranger and I'll be Tonto. alteripse 02:53, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

In many cases I strongly support the approach taken by Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) – I've seen a very good expert editor infuriated and driven from the project by the row over a "TONE" tag placed at the top of an article as a quick and easy way of someone expressing the opinion that the writing was too interesting, without having to bother with explaining themselves on the talk page. There are occasions where, for example, an "Unreferenced" tag is important at the start, but I've seen that tag added to articles that clearly do have references – again, the tagger couldn't be bothered with checking the article or explaining themselves. Tags within sections or at the foot of the article achieve the aim without disfiguring the article as a whole, tags at the head should only be used in specific circumstances. Oh, and we've probably all come across tag vandalism..... dave souza, talk 15:43, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Wow, this makes three of us. Anyone else out there? We could start our own cabal. alteripse 19:08, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

dave souza: Tags within sections or at the foot of the article achieve the aim without disfiguring the article as a whole, tags at the head should only be used in specific circumstances. I agree with this, and wouldn't be undertaking my current windmill-tilting if tags were controlled and perhaps redesigned to be less visually disruptive. I'd also like to point out that I have not been in any way relocating or disturbing the vast majority of section tags, since moving them to the end of the section would not be in any way less disruptive than leaving them where they are, and moving them to the end of the article would make no sense. I'd still like to see section tags be redesigned to take up less real estate and be less annoying, and their use in some way regulated, but I don't see much point in disturbing them. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk/cont) 22:06, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm not as conversant with Wikipedia's internal processes as others are, so I'd like to ask: what is the purpose of bringing this particular complaint here? A cursory look at the instructions on the page makes it appear to not be the correct venue for this, but, as I said, I'm not knowledgeable in this rather esoteric area. What is the administrative action that the editor who filed the complaint wishes to bring about? Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk/cont) 16:39, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

OK, the pointer I've been putting at the top of articles after moving tags to the bottom has said this:

This article has been tagged by one or more editors — please see the bottom of the page for more information.

This is perhaps too non-specific and presumes that the reader knows what a "tag" is, so I plan to replace it with this:

Note: For information about the content, tone or sourcing of this article, please see the tags at the bottom of this page.

Would this be more acceptable to those objecting to my actions? Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk/cont) 22:23, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

I am admittedly a newbie, but it strikes me that this sort of tag would only be well understood by Wikipedians who have some experience with editing. As a newbie, I find the large references at the point of infraction to be useful, even if only to teach me about what is considered to be good/bad writing. From this point of view, I would advocate a larger notice Jddphd 01:58, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Point of clarification -- what I'm really trying to say is that Ed's proposal above seems a little too small. Jddphd 02:00, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Jddphd: a little too small That's a very useful suggestion, thank you. I have no objection to increasing the size of the typeface of the pointer, and trying that, so I'll make that change. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk/cont) 02:36, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

All tags aren't the same. A simple "cleanup" tag might benefit from shrinking and/or relocation. NPOV tags, totally-disputed, unsourced tags, and so on definitely need to be front and centre; they provide vital information to all readers. My apologies if this is obvious. Hornplease 19:23, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Now, I have a complaint: I have not made a massive project out of this, my "initiative" has extended only to articles that I come across in my everyday use of Wikipedia, my thought being that such a small semi-random sampling could be seen and evaluated by the users in context, and perhaps (forlorn hope) catch on. On the other hand, it seems that at least one of the people arguing here against my actions is following me around and reverting my changes (see: [7][8][9][10], for instance and the editor's contribution page[11]), thus subverting my attempt to allow people to see this and judge it, in context, for themselves and without prejudice. His action leaves me with no reasonable action besides reverting his reversion, the first step in an edit war that noone wants, least of all me, or meekly acquiescing in his mass reversions and doing nothing. This doesn't seem fair, especially when the issue is under discussion here.

I haven't been around Wikipedia for all that long, just over two years, but I guarantee that the way things are done here is not the way they were done when it was founded, or five years ago or three years ago, and at least one of the ways that evolutionary changes come about is by people trying things out and other people taking a look and giving the change a fair shake. The actions of this editor in undoing my changes take away that possibility and is not, I submit, at all in the spirit of Wikipedia. I think my suggested change has clear value, I think it deserves a chance from editors without an axe to grind to look at it and either leave it or revert it, so I ask that KillerChihuahua be asked to stop following my contribution trail and undoing my efforts. Thank you. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk/cont) 00:37, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

I have updated all the articles I changed so that they have the new pointer I listed above, and also added the pointer to a few articles where I moved the tags before I had come up with the idea of using a pointer to redirect attention to the tags' new location.

I have also found it interesting that in going through those articles, only a very few were reverted by everyday editors, the vast majority were reverted by three editors: KillerChihuahua,Maria and AxG -- so there has been, so far, no true picture of what the "grassroots" of the Wikipedia community thinks about this idea, because these three editors have not given them a chance to see it. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk/cont) 02:31, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps you should start a discussion on WP:MOS on the style manual to get a feel for what the community thinks. --Haemo 02:41, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Last time I checked, there has never been consensus to put the tags at the top or at the bottom. For example, I've been placing unreferenced tags in the references section for some time now. Just recently, there was a message on Template talk:Cleanup by Rich Farmbrough who stated, "many of us support sending all/most of the cleanup-tags to the end of the page. They could also be mad more subtle once there." I support Rich and Ed in this endeavor as only one small baby step towards a better solution to a serious problem. —Viriditas | Talk 02:58, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Haemo: Perhaps you should start a discussion on WP:MOS Sure, that's a possible avenue, but my experience of Wikipedia is that it's generally such an open system that there are a number of valid ways to get things done. Despite (or perhaps because of) my propensity for long-windedness, I'm not a big fan of talking an idea to death as a means of getting something done. That's why I chose the route I've taken, which appears to me to be justifiable under Wikipedia's (admittedly crazy-quilt) policies. Also, and this may be a sore point, I'm much more interested in the response of the everyday, ordinary, run-of-the-mill editor to this then I am in the response of the editors who gets caught up in policy debates deep in the bowels of Wikipedia. I think the everyday editors have a relationship with Wikipedia which is closer to that of the user who is a non-editor, and their responses will be mnore indicative of whether the change is useful to the user, as opposed to upholding current Wikipedia practice (which it obviously is not). Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk/cont) 03:00, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, I am a "everyday, ordinary, run-of-the-mill editor" and I believe it is a big mistake to hide what is perhaps critical information from the reader. If an article is potentially deficient, especially in terms of content as opposed to style, a reader should be forewarned in as bold a manner as feasible. A fine-print tag is something I associate with tobacco warnings, insurance ads and snake-oil salesmen, rather than an open honest system that wikipedia aims to be. Abecedare 04:07, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

I would agree with you if the tags were a reasonable guarantee that the problem they announce is actually true, but, in point of fact, anybody can slap a tag on an article at any time, without having to provide justification or proving their case. (I'd also want the tags to be redesigned to be less obstructive, but that's another matter.) If there was some kind of process or procedure in place to insure that tags were only placed in serious cases, after either extensive discussion or soul-searching on the part of the editor, that would be one thing, but, as I mentioned above, the vast majority of tags that I've found have not been justified or discussed in the article's talk pages, and it's clear that some editors do almost nothing except seek out articles that they disagree with, or which fit some preset conditions, and hitting them with tags. This kind of "drive-by" tagging is what's created the epidemic, and it's diluted the value of the tags to the point where having them up top is not justified. But, in any case, the tags are not "hidden", since the pointer to them is right there at the top of the page.

I will make an analogy I've made before: if we make an analogy between Wikipedia and a print encyclopedia, opening an article with multiple tags at the top is equivalent to opening the reference book and finding that the article you want is covered in post-it notes containing messages from the book's editors: "I think this article needs some work," "The sourcing on this article is deficient", "Let's get a more global view on this" and so on. This does not increase the user's appreciation of the diligence of the editors, it serves to decrease their respect for the reference work.

Now, it's true that Wikipedia is not a print encyclopedia, it's an online encyclopedia (one in the midst of discovering exactly what that means, if people would only let it find out), but the analogy still holds. Tags could be messages to the reader, if they were authoritative (as authoritative as the articles aspire to be) and well-regulated, but in the absence of those attributes, they are merely (at best!) post-it notes between editors, if they are not actually "opinion graffiti". Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk/cont) 04:38, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

But, this is patently untrue; again, you appear only to object to "drive-by" tagging — a practice which is contrary to the purpose of tags. Tags, especially ones that go beyond simple clean-up requests, can be summarily reverted if they are not discussed. This has been repeatedly affirmed on numerous pages -- only uncontroversial tags should remain in place. If you feel a tag is not appropriate, then remove it, don't systematically undermine the purpose of tags by removing them out of sight, and thus, out of mind.

Your analogy to a print encyclopedia is perhaps apt. Print encyclopedias are edited, the published -- one would not expect to see "post-its" in a published work. But, Wikipedia is in the process of being edited. That is its very nature -- what you are looking at is a work in progress; and its readers are the editorial staff. The "published" versions of Wikipedia are the CDs the foundation publishes; and you won't see "post-its" in those. --Haemo 17:03, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

To say Wikipedia is a "work-in-progress" is a little misleading, because we generally use that expression for something that's in the process of moving to some pre-set state of completion, but that's not the case here. Wikipedia will never be "completed" unless it is shut down and abandoned. As long as it exists, it's going to be in the process of being worked on, much like a living entity. And a living entity exists in the here-and-now just as much as it potentially exists in the future, but we don't expect to relate to other people as they might be someday, we interact we them as they are right now.

So as a reference work, we really can't behave as if we're saying to the reader "Please excuse our appearance while we get ourselves in order", the reference work is meant to be used right now, and anything in its makeup which gets in the way of being used right now should be strongly considered for renovation. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk/cont) 02:54, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

A fair assessment, in my opinion. Editors in good faith feel they are improving Wikipedia by adding tags when they vaguely feel that improvement is needed. If they raised their concern on the talk page this would be useful, even if half the time the most appropriate response would be {{sofixit}}. However, tags provide a message to the world that "this article's rubbish", insulting editors who are doing their best and leading to arguments when the tag is deleted. Where an article is completely unreferenced at tag at the top can be a suitable caution to unwary readers, but when it has at least one reference a more detailed and nuanced criticism is needed: a tag under a "References" heading makes the suggestion, and adds the article to a category for anyone using such categories to find something to do.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Dave souza (talk • contribs) 09:42, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you, dave souza, but your example can be best fixed by common sense; the {{references}} tag states that the article has no references, so I would hope that any Joe or Jane editor would see that if the article contains even one references, it is not, in fact, entirely unreferenced. I am obviously one for putting necessary tags for overlong plots, trivia, and similar other section-specific templates in the section it belongs; that's also common sense, I should hope. I would also hope that templates that deal with POV or OR are placed in a corresponding section, unless it's an extreme case and it is obvious that the entire article needs help. My concern is mostly with visibility, and the mistaken belief that articles need to be cleaned-up for the sake of aesthetics. Tags are useful, they serve a purpose, both categorically and accessibly -- why hide them at the bottom of the page? The "pointer" is also fairly inconspicuous and easily overlooked by Wikipedia's "readers." María (críticame) 12:47, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Woops, sorry for failing to sign. It's really a question of balance, and a lack of common sense from some taggers. Dr. Gene Scott desperately needs cleaned up, but the two tags are a bit iffy – "This article has been nominated to be checked for its neutrality." relates to a recent comment "There is not one mention of the man's controversial nature, and bizarre presentation" - there's a source for that in the talk, why didn't the tagger just add a mention? "This article has been tagged since July 2006" as not citing refs or sources, technically true, but the nine external links listed look very much like sources from the days when references which were external links were commonly put under "External links". So, the tagger couldn't be bothered checking to see if these were sources for the article as written, and for a year no one else has bothered either. Tags can tend to be a way of not doing anything. .. dave souza, talk 19:23, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Maria: The "pointer" is also fairly inconspicuous and easily overlooked by Wikipedia's "readers." A number of people have made that objection, here and elsewhere where this is being discussed, and I think it's a valid one. I made the pointer small because I found that the tags at the top get in the way of using the article, but perhaps I made it too small, perhaps there is an aesthetically acceptable middle ground where the pointer is large enough to attract the kind of attention that folks want, but not so large as to disfigure the page and get in the way? Also, perhaps my second revision of the pointers wording could be beefed up in some way. Does anyone have suggestions, I'd be very interested in hearing them. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk/cont) 03:04, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

I came here after finding the tags on Dr. Gene Scott at the bottom of the page. (Please don't ask me why I was looking up Dr. Gene Scott :) ) In any case, I disagree that editors and readers should be seen differently. Since all readers are potential editors, a tag at the top of the page encourages participation. I don't see good articles being tagged. Tagged articles that I see are usually tagged for a reason. Especially as a generation grows up with wikipedia, it is important for wikipedia to be honest about its limitations, to be seen as a first source of collective knowledge, and not the authortative source on anything. Tags at the top remind everyone of the limitations of what wikipedia is, and encourages deeper study of the subject, which also encourages better editing of articles. 16:48, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

I wrote the above statement, sorry for screwing up the wikicode XinJeisan 16:49, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

That is not my experience at all, I'm sorry to say. I haven't done any kind of formal survey, but I use Wikipedia extensively on a daily basis, not primarily for editing, but to look things up, and what I've found is that close to 50% of the articles I reference have tags on them -- and I'm not looking only in a limited range of subjects, I'm generally all over the map. If 50% of Wikipedia's articles are really so deficient that they deserve pointing out their deficiencies to the reader, then Wikipedia is a lot less useful than I've actually found it to be, and it hardly deserves to be used as a reference work. I don't think that's the case, since most of the articles I read are functional and informative. (In fact, the biggest problem I've found is that some of the articles are very poorly written.)

Perhaps some kind of blue-ribbon panel of well-respected Wikipedia editors should take a look at the tagging situation to see if, as I contend, it's out of control and needs re-vamping. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk/cont) 03:15, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

I have done a formal survey -- in fact, I've done five of them. In general, less than 5% of all articles are tagged, and even in the most-tagged group, biographies of living persons, only 15% are tagged. Either you're viewing a very atypical selection of articles, or you're experiencing confirmation bias. --Carnildo 04:07, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm with Ed, alteripse, and dave. References go at the bottom; that's why they're called footnotes. For exactly the same reason, tags, which are a sort of anti-reference, also belong on the bottom. All that needs to be at the top (if that) is something to indicate that the tags exist, and then anyone who's interested in seeing them can look at the bottom, just as people do now if they're interested in seeing the references and other footnotes. Zsero 02:29, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

I see no analogy between tags and footnotes. As I said, some tags need to be front and centre, to alert all readers that an article's content is disputed. Hornplease 08:14, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

MONGO: vexatious litigation

Yet another frivolous RfC on MONGO: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/MONGO 3, this time by an obvious sockpuppet. It has been certified by two people and consequestly moved to "Approved pages" on the Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct page. But isn't that formalism run mad? Does the community actually "approve"? I have moved the page from "Approved" to a new section I just created, Vexatious litigation, defined as a special section for frivolous RfCs on MONGO.[12] (Non-frivolous RfCs on MONGO, should one be brought, go in one of the other sections.) Comments? Bishonen | talk 15:54, 6 July 2007 (UTC).

I object. There was nothing frivoluous about this Rfc. These were serious violations of the norms of conduct that should be been clearly exposed and condemned by the community as unacceptable. That the evidence presented was quickly deleted is also disturbing. Esp. on the basis of some technicality that could have been easily remedied? Wikilawyering, and frivolity is what we have here by those who have suppressed a valid examination of a serious and ongong problem with Mongo on this article. I have nothing against him personally, but his behavior has been out of line. If a Rfc is deemed the incorrect approach to get the community to stand up and issue preventative measure to stop him from continuing it, then I take it an Arbitration case would be?Giovanni33 01:27, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

P.S. My re-structuring of the main RfC page has been reverted, well, fancy that.[13] Bishonen | talk 16:14, 6 July 2007 (UTC).

That seems just about right. To would-be Wikilawyers: if you wish someone to be more polite, be more polite to them. Eventually, they'll get the point. Filing an RfC as if it's a lawsuit will probably not have the effect you desire, and it might cause the community to think less of you. In this case, you didn't score any points in any column where you want them. -GTBacchus^(talk) 16:07, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Looks like you were reverted. The Rfc is unsubstantiated. I was never informed by the filing parties on my usertalk or via email. No effort on my usertalk or via email has been made to work things out...just editors who toss out insults and evade admin warnings repeatedly and then when someone like me stands their ground with them and calls a spade a WP:SPADE they get hot and bothered. I do have a compliant board and had they simply come there and griped, they could have even possibly won a few terrific barnstars!--MONGO 16:15, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Which ED sock is it this week, one wonders? Corvus cornix 16:15, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for commenting on a situation you didn't even bother to even glance at. --MichaelLinnear 07:17, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

I, in turn, have moved the page to "MONGO Ω", as it certainly seems more than the third or even thirtieth RFC against him. Will ^(talk) 16:22, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

You know, the fact that this RFC was created by Seabhcan without ever having attempted to resolve the dispute (as required) could arguably be seen as a blockable offense under Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Seabhcan#Seabhcan_is_placed_on_personal_attack_parole. Thatcher131 16:37, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Lets not do that...I just hope he doesn't decide to go to arbcom as I believe it will be a really bad idea for all involved. I think the best thing to do is for all warring parties on the article in question take the weekend off from that place...I intend to...little is being accomplished in the talkpage there anyway...just a lot of mudslinging by all of us.--MONGO 16:40, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Nuked. As was blatantly apparent from the RfC, the people creating this had no intention of trying resolve their differences with MONGO before going to RfC. They presented no evidence that they had tried to resolve their personal differences with him, other than a recantation of their farcical grievances. Uncertified RfC gets deleted. You have to actually resolve the dispute before resorting to mud-flinging. Moreschi ^Talk 16:59, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm afraid I don't fully understand, though these kind of processes are still kinda a mystery to me (I've never participated in an RfC before). I did not start this RfC and had not planned to do anything like that, but once it was started I signed on as being in agreement with the summary (and added a small piece of evidence) because in my opinion MONGO was behaving in a very uncivil fashion and not responding well to comments from users (including me) to tone down his rhetoric (I similarly asked a user on the other side of the debate to do the same thing on their talk page). MONGO should absolutely have been told about this and the fact that he was not is probably reason enough to cancel this thing (I did not realize he had not been informed), but I guess I do not see what the huge problem is beyond that. I don't see how one of the users who signed on to it is an "obvious sockpuppet" but maybe I'm missing something. Perhaps more effort could have been made to engage MONGO, but when I asked him on the article talk page to stop the incivility he told me to "not wikistalk my edits and stop POV pushing" while largely ignoring my complaint about his behavior (he was similarly non-responsive on his talk page regarding a separate issue, so it did not seem possible for me to work out anything with him, though as I said I would not have opened an RfC). Looking at my edit history I think you will see that I am a good faith user and nobody's sock nor an SPA. I agree with MONGO that it's best for all of us to take time off from the article talk page (most of us seem to be doing that) and perhaps an RfC would have just made things worse, but the manner in which this RfC was closed down (for example creating a special RfC section just for MONGO, and another editor moving the RfC title to "MONGO Ω" while posting a note on MONGO's talk page which says "They can't just shut the fucking hell up, can they?" and awarding him a barnstar) does not inspire a great deal of confidence in me as to how this was handled. If the RfC was set up poorly (particularly by not informing MONGO) I think it was shut down poorly too. I find these processes very intimidating and was reluctant to even sign on to this, but I found MONGO's behavior extremely problematic (unlike other users on the article talk page who were beginning to work together a bit) and wanted to try to do something about it because trying to communicate with him was not working. Unlike MONGO, I'm not well known with a bunch of friends here on Wikipedia, and don't particularly enjoy sticking my neck out like this, but I wanted to point out that it is possible to have issues with MONGO and not be a an ED sock or a troll or a habitual RfC filer etc. etc. I'm not sure if some of the folks who've posted here even read the basis for the dispute (including a comment MONGO made accusing a new anon editor of being anti-American simply because s/he apparently had an IP address from Brunei) but it was substantive in my opinion, which is not to say that I'm asking for it to be re-opened because I am not since I understand the problems with how this was filed. Thanks, and sorry for the lengthy post.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 17:43, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

The truth of the matter is MONGO seems protected. He has created articles on many wildlife related places and as such as earned a status where he is not required to be civil to others. After reading over the past RfC's and RFaR's, which there are 4 total. It seems Wikipedia operates more on the buddy system then anything, being able to contribute over weighs hostility. I am apparently a sockpuppet because the intricacies of Wiki markup, you know adding a < and closing with a >, the very basic tenants of html are to be a mystery. I only hope I too can garner a large sum of edits so I can no longer be held accountable for attacking people based on their place of origin. You would think the existence of 4 total prior complaints would lead to someone questioning the overzealous hostility, I believe that is what Arbcom called it. --SixOfDiamonds 17:47, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Nuked as I was trying to endorse Bishzilla's outside ROAR, darnit. Regarding "protection" - I wish. Were he protected, he wouldn't have been de-sysopped for holding the line against POV pushing vandals and edit warriors, and oh yes - not being sweet enough to them as they ran roughshod over every Wikipedia policy in place. KillerChihuahua^?!? 18:12, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Update: My creation of a special "Vexatious litigation" section for bad-faith MONGO RfCs on the Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct page was reverted,[14] by User:.V., but has been reinstated[15] by User:Bunchofgrapes. It's still there now, two hours later ... so I'm allowing myself to hope the section will become a standing and useful feature of the RfC/User Conduct page. Perhaps it could accommodate other frivolous RfCs than those on MONGO, too? Please remember to place your bad-faith RfCs there and nowhere else. Bishonen | talk 18:31, 6 July 2007 (UTC).

Is this a productive line of dialogue? I mean, it's funny, and I understand the spirit in which you're working here, but are we actually addressing a problem in a way that will lead to a solution? Is "calling a spade a spade" actually helpful here? (Is it helpful ever?) -GTBacchus^(talk) 18:35, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

This is pretty sad people are honestly advocating here on Wikipedia, a global project, that it is ok for Mongo to call people "Anti-American" because of the country they are editing from. Its is disgusting that people would allow that to happen, and insult those who bring it forward. These are the types of things that end up giving Wikipedia a bad name, things that end up in news articles. --SixOfDiamonds 18:56, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Sigh SixofDiamonds leave MONGO alone, that useless RFC you did and the comments you making here didn't doesn't help. Take your Point of View somewhere else. Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 19:00, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

So is Bishonen's "Vexatious litigation" section serious or just a joke? I'm asking in all seriousness because I cannot tell, and that is not good. Personally I find the phrase "Non-frivolous RfCs on MONGO, if any, go in one of the sections above" disturbing because the snippy phrase "if any" implies that there could not be a non-frivolous RfC against MONGO, which is obviously not true. I'm sure Bishonen did not mean to say it that way and maybe her creation of that section is largely tongue-in-cheek, but if so it's not particularly funny in my opinion. Bishonen's last comment does nothing to comfort me about how the deletion of the RfC went down, and I do feel some of the points I raised in my comment above are worthy of a reply from those who were involved in closing this out and changing the name to "MONGO Ω". In general I'm wondering if others feel if this is the way we should do business around here (i.e. making light of legitimate and serious complaints about user conduct, even if the original RfC was admittedly improper in certain respects). I'm asking about this in good faith and really would appreciate replies, if this is an improper thing to bring up in this venue let me know and I could discuss it on user talk pages. Thank you.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 19:16, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

The "Update" above came out a little meaner than I intended it. I'm sorry. I guess I'll revert the "Vexatious litigation" section on the RfC page myself, if it's still there. Bishonen | talk 20:04, 6 July 2007 (UTC).

• It was reinstated, but I removed it again. .V. _[Talk|Email] 20:05, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Thank you Bishonen for your reply and mea culpa, no worries, and to V for removing the section on the RfC page. I guess we should just move on from this. Hopefully those of us working on the State terrorism by the United States article can work more civilly with one another in the future, otherwise I fear the same issues mentioned in the now-deleted RfC (and to be fair some of the concerns mentioned there probably apply to other editors besides MONGO, and on both sides of the issue) will come up again.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 21:07, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Is this an acceptable edit?

• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=State_terrorism_by_the_United_States&diff=142403955&oldid=142403728

MONGO's summary: "revert vandalism by anon IP, soon ot end up blocked...shoul we belive than an editor from Brunei Darussalam is not anti-American? I think not.". Note that the edit which was reverted was not vandalism, but a content dispute. 200.58.112.238 21:19, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps not a good edit summary, but that IP has 4 edits and not one to a talkpage and was adding contencious material (I and others disagreed with it) repeatedly. Please use your username.--MONGO 22:30, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Only perhaps!? It's not a question of it maybe not being a good edit summary--its clearly is a gross and unacceptable violation of policy that should have earned you a block. First, you call it vandalism, when the editor was actually restoring (not adding, as you claim) the long standing and most stable version, supported by various editors; he was removing the additions that went against consensus, added by UltraMarine. His edit was supported by many other long term, established editors. Thus, this was clearly a content dispute, yet you wrongly label it as vandalism. Surely you have been around long enough to know that is not appropriate. Add to that the bullying threat that he is "soon to end up blocked."

Secondly, and more serious, is the fact that you felt it necessary to do an IP search to discover this editors country of origin, and then make a personal attack on this editor based on his national origin—the country he happened to be editing from, as if that is relevant. Maybe you something against Brunei or its people (I don't know) but its very repugnant and ugly to display such prejudice openly, much less use it as the basis to attack an editor, i.e., attacking him on the basis of his national origin. That crosses any conceivable grey lines, and is not something to be tolerated anywhere, by anyone, at anytime. If you don't see how wrong what you did is (not just perhaps), then we have a serious problem (it also calls into question your fallacious reasoning process on these types of articles). Unless WP takes a strong stance against this behavior, per its rules, it shares in the complicity of allowing it to continue. If it becomes known that WP tolerates this kind of behavior, then it does immeasurable damage to the projects reputation.Giovanni33 00:49, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, perhaps. I don't add anything ever that could conceivably be seen as contencious to articles about other countries. I have nothing against that country where those edits came from...the question is, does that person have a beef with the U.S. to add such material. Claiming long term editors have more clout on material in article space is akin to saying you own the article, which you don't. I urge you to prove to me that you are here to incorporate neutral information into our articles and not misuse Wikipedia as a soapbox or advocacy platform for your cherry picked references to advance a position.--MONGO 04:21, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for a civil response. You say: "the question is, does that person have a beef with the U.S..." I disagree. That is not the question at all. It doesn't matter if an editor disagrees with US foreign policy or not (what I assume you mean by "beef with the US"). It's not our POV's that matters. Sure, we all have bias, but we should not let that get in the way--even if its reporting on political concepts and perspectives (i.e. the concept of State terrorism and the allegations that the US has been guilty of such practices) that we personally disagree with. But, why is that question presumptive based on the editors national origin? That remains unanswered. What does this editors nationality have to do with anything? You say you never add anything contintious to article about other countries. Well, what you wrote in that edit summary is an attack on the editor for being from another country, and therefore you are implying that merely being from that country makes the editor, in your mind, "anti-American" (whatever that silly term means). That is certainly a contentious (and irrational) written comment about another country and/or its people.

The fact is we have many subjects that are very contencious in nature, and there is nothing wrong with working on and adding such material, provided it means WP requirements of Verifability, Notablity, and Reliablity, among other sound policies. Among these other sound policies is assume good faith that is esp. important on such topics. Thus, I don't have to prove to you first that that my edits or participation are in good faith, that I'm interested in developing this project according to its goals, including this article in question, making it an educational and encyclopedic article that reports on these notable observations from various notable sources, using reliable referenced material--the only extent of my "cherry picking". I welcome all relevant POV's to balance the article provided it follows the same criteria, and is relavent to the subject matter.

It seems you are operating on a the wrong assumption: an editor does not need to first prove to you he is editing in good faith per policies, before you can consider if you want to treat him as a good faith contributor, and then be civil, etc. There is no such burden of proof. When there is an assumption to be made, (prior to proof one way or the other), then that assumption, per policy, is to assume its good. Otherwise, you will be excessively combative, and work to work with others, of other POV's (yes, including far leftists like myself. I've read your blog so I know you are quite right-wing, but that doesnt bother me). If we do not assume good faith (and follow the other rules) we will spiral downward, with the project suffering in the end. WP has good rules. I only ask that we all be expected to follow them not as a luxury but as a requirement. If for whatever reason one finds he can not follow the rules for a particular article (and that includes being civil), then one should simply not edit in that article. Adherence to these rulres, I think, are prerequisite for the privlege of editing.Giovanni33 07:03, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't have a blog! Please, link me to the blog so I can see what I have supposedly been writing there.--MONGO 07:15, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

I had just assumed this [16] was your blog based on the name and similar politics. If its not, then I stand corrected (not that this fact matters). I've answered all your quesitons, but you keep ignoring mine.Giovanni33 17:45, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

I disagree with Giovanni that MONGO's reply was "civil". MONGO presents as an arbiter of fairness -- "I urge you to prove to me..." -- when it is no contributor's responsibility to prove their good intentions to any other individual contributor. The policy is to "assume good faith." Proof isn't required when a condition has already been stipulated. MONGO violates the stipulation of good faith by asserting a person's good faith, in this instance faith "that you are here to incorporate neutral information", is not to be assumed, but proven to him as the sole arbiter of what is good or neutral. MONGO has failed to prove consistent neutrality -- especially by calling those who offer neutral information that is less than flattering of United States "anti-American."

MONGO improperly asserts a claim of proprietary interest in the content of Wikipedia when he demands that someone prove to him personally their intent with regard to "our articles." MONGO is part of no organization that owns any article on Wikipedia. MONGO edits here as a guest of and donor to the Wikimedia Foundation. The Foundation is not a membership organization and MONGO is not a member of any organization that owns these articles. The articles are the property of Wikimedia Foundation, licensed for free distribution under GFDL. MONGO and Wikipedia would accomplish much more for the world's access to collective knowledge if they would use reason rather than intimidation to resolve conflicts. Intimidation by inappropriate claims of authority and ownership is not civil. H8 Buster 18:11, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Another brand new account that finds its way to ANI and jumps straight in to a dispute about MONGO. Yawn! ElinorD (talk) 07:20, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

The fact that is a new account is irrelevant. Lets focus on the content of what their claims are, the merits or lackthereof, its veracity, instead of who happened to make them. Obviously its a puppet account, but it seems to be a legitimate use of a socket puppet, since some people, apparently, have a fear of speaking their mind, openly, without fear of retaliation, hence the anon account. Lets respect the users choice not to disclose their main account and focus only on the argument they make.Giovanni33 17:53, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

I do not understand why we are allowing this harassment to continue. I propose blocking the SPA's and blanking their contributions to these threads.Proabivouac 07:23, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand why you call pointing out serious and repeated policy violations, and discussions about this conduct, harassment. Its like a women who has been raped, saying, "why did you rape me, stop raping me,' and you asking the women why is she harrassing her rapist? The question is absurd. Mongo has yet to even agree to stop violating WP policy. WP rules must apply to everyone. Do you disagree?Giovanni33 17:50, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Haha, and the username is real charming isn't it. --MichaelLinnear 07:26, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

As usual, because of the powerful clique he has behind him, MONGO proves to be of an Untouchable Caste, with a free pass to be as uncivil as he wants, and anybody who objects to it gets personally attacked with impunity. *Dan T.* 03:07, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

I am a bit confused by all of this as well, such a hateful quote assuming all people of a country are Anti-American would surely have led to a block if not ban for hate speech to anyone else. I have decided not to work with MONGO at all from this point forward, there are others on the article who actually are attempting to work in a civil manner such as Tom. --74.73.16.230 10:51, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

User:Akradecki reverts and threats

Akradecki has a history of wholesale reverts of my edits to fetus in fetu, and now threatens that I face being blocked because some of the text I moved to talk:fetus in fetu includes citations. I have tried discussing the problem with him, and I have tried a month-long cool down. All to no effect. I think Akradecki may need to be blocked for a while. --Una Smith 03:02, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Only 2 reverts by him since June 5th. User is an Admin, so I highly doubt any wrongdoing in bad faith. trey^{Sex Me} 03:13, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Re only 2 reverts since June 5th, in the interest of not warring, I did not revert his reverts. Akradecki has made other prior reverts of my contributions there. I have been very patient. I don't claim he acts in bad faith, but he does revert and now threaten reprisal. He insists on citing TV news stories as sources of scientific and medical data. That was bad enough. And he is an Admin, eh? Does that mean he threatens to personally block me? --Una Smith 03:47, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

That would be a conflict of interest if he did, I don't think he will. —trey^{is the sex}

Una Smith's "contributions" has been to repeatedly remove sourced (with non-trivial secondary sources) information from the article, despite being asked not to (some examples: this where he calls cited information "speculation"; this where he adds unverified tags to sourced information; this where he questions the credibility of MSNBC source). My reverts, as well as that of at least one other editor (here), have been to put this material back into the article. Smith is insisting that generally recognized independent secondary sources such as ABC News and MSNBC are not valid sources, despite the fact that they directly address the subject and are properly used as citations. Further he insists that only primary sources be used (here (where he demands a source that "does not simply repeat a claim made elsewhere", which is exactly the kind of secondary source we do want) and here), despite being told that our guidelines advise against use of primary sources. This user has been directed repeatedly to our guidelines which spell this out. Instead, this user insists on removing such sourced material. Further, it is apparent from his comments and edit summaries that this user is trying to push is POV regarding the subject in general and even questions the existence of this article on its talk page. As I have escalated the warnings, I have told him that removal of properly sourced information, if kept up, will indeed lead to a block. I did not, however, necessarily threaten to block him personally. It is my practice when issues like this come up, to include a second admin to avoid any appearance of COI. This would be especially the case, since I resurrected this article from a redirect, and used it to consolidate material from several other stubs, at least one of which was up for AfD and was closed as a merge to here, and thus it would be COI for me to block. AKRadecki^Speaketh 05:12, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

While removing sourced content should be done carefully, User:Una Smith has a point that referencing medicine and science articles from the popular news media is fraught with problems, and should be avoided or supplemented with more scientific sources (which may be primary or secondary sources themselves). The news media gets such detail wrong often enough that I am wary of a scientific or medical detail sourced only from the general news media. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 21:16, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

I have no problem with scientific sources, as long as they are secondary. But to say they should be avoided? That flies in the face of policy and guidelines. If you want to propose such changes at WP:RS and WP:V, have at it, but until then, existing policy and guidelines need to be respected, and removing sources without providing others is tantamount to vandalism. AKRadecki^Speaketh 23:06, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Akradecki seems a little confused about "primary" and "secondary" sources. So I'll restate the problem: we should use (and cite) only high-quality sources. For medical and biological information, TV news programs are not high quality sources. Furthermore, I think that the editor who contributes information has an obligation to contribute a high-quality source for that information. To insert junk science, then insist that other editors can remove it only if they provide citations to the contrary, is not constructive. --Una Smith 15:05, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Akradecki:

1. WP:MEDMOS includes tips on how to find high-quality sources for medical articles.
2. I suggest that you retract your remark about "tantamount to vandalism".

--Una Smith 15:05, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Red text and personal attacks on talk page

Duke53 (talk · contribs) is making personal attacks on other editors on his talk page, and also has quite a bit of red text there which could cause reactions in others. I took the liberty of refactoring it, as I understand is the right of any user, per WP:NPA and WP:USER ([17]) only to have Duke53 undo it ([18]) and dare me to report it. Well, I'm obliging--if an admin would kindly have a look, it would be appreciated. Blueboy96 04:08, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

• Well, here we go again! Any admin who wants to get involved in this might want to check out this [19] first; apparently this guy's last ploy didn't work, so he is now going to start this attack on me. p.s. I would like to see proof of the 'reactions' the red typeface could cause. I guess this guy must be a physician, as well as a journalist.Duke53 | ^Talk 04:25, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
• p.p.s. this is a picture of his user page; maybe he should be concerned about 'reactions' because of it.

  

  colors on his page

• Somebody should tell the person in charge of the Administrators' noticeboard page that they are using some 'dangerous, reaction causing' type on this page:

Duke53 | ^Talk 16:24, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Blueboy96, it looks rather petty to be complaining about a user's text colors on their userpage. Being so petty makes it more likely that other complaints from you will be ignored. Don't take disagreement with another user to this level. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 21:01, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Agree with Morven. This is pettiness at it's most extreme, and such Nanny-state watchdogging is absurd. If a user is going to have a 'reaction' to font colors, he's not going to learn it from DUke53's talk page on wikipedia. He'll find it out on his homepage, which will undoubtedly have lots more colors in the pictures and icons. And such a person probably shouldn't be near the computer screen anyways, as the refresh rate/epilepsy link, whether true or not, has a place in pop culture already. ThuranX 13:39, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

User Abecedare edit warring

User Abecedare is reverting cited article with improper explanation.

Check his explanations http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Vedas&diff=143046523&oldid=143046439

Check his reverts http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Vedas&action=history

BalanceRestored 06:02, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

BalanceRestored (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was blocked indefinitely in May for edit-warring and sock-puppetry. His account was unblocked by admin Vassyana, assuming good faith, and under stringent conditions agreed to by the user, which are listed here
However the user has resumed his disruptive editing, most recently on the Veda article where he has added factually incorrect information based on two lines of sample text he saw in an journal article on Google books - a journal article for which he does not even know the title and author(s)!
He has been explained in detail (with reference to gold-standard sources) why his source and edits are incorrect (see Talk:Vedas#5 Vedas not 4 Vedas) but he does not seem to understand either the article content or the wikipedia policies. He has already reverted the article twice in the past hour [20], [21] and violated the conditions of his probation. It would help if an admin can look into his actions and take appropriate action. Thanks. Abecedare 06:47, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Here is the link to the earlier ANI thread on the user. Abecedare 07:10, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Here is another instance a couple of days back in which User:BalanceRestored made edits violating NPOV and verifiability policies, and his 1-revert/day unblock condition [22], [23] Abecedare 07:31, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

I've realised that I was probably edit warring and had immeadiately stopped the same. I did refer to a cited text the very next day and changed the text to keep that more appropriate. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Vishwabrahmin&diff=142644388&oldid=142637275 I did not continue with edits and stopped that immeadiately. I only edited the text the next day with all the required citations. BalanceRestored 08:49, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

This editor is surprisingly ignoring the facts those I am presenting http://books.google.com/books?id=oeMvAAAAIAAJ&q=%22five+vedas%22&dq=%22five+vedas%22&pgis=1 and is ignoring the presence of the citations in this book. Also is challenging the book that is clearly visible. BalanceRestored 08:13, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

It clearly appears that the editor is not trying to move the discussion in a healthy mood. Instead of trying to find the facts about the book is taking the discussion with negetive sense. BalanceRestored 08:21, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

I am sure wikipedia is a place where editors guide newbies and not ignore the edits the way it is being done. I understand Abecedare is a very experienced editor but it is very apparent from the recent edits that the editor is trying to take the edits more personally. BalanceRestored 08:36, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

BalanceRestored (talk · contribs) has been blocked for 24 hour for violating his unblock conditions.[24][25] I encourage both parties to seek dispute resolution for the content disagreement. Vassyana 08:55, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Kindly let know the details about ignoring the book that was clearly visible?BalanceRestored 09:05, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Block of Qst (talk · contribs)

Following this incident report and this SSP, I have blocked the account of Qst (talk · contribs) for 1 month for abusive sockpuppetry. Comments and reviews are welcomed. Regards, ~ Riana ⁂ 06:19, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm, seems like Molag Bal in my opinion. --MichaelLinnear 07:10, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

I second that opinion. Daniel 07:17, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

This checkuser proved wrong yesterday, so I don't see why this is still a subject of debate. I've removed the tag from his userpage. Michaelas¹⁰ 23:19, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Yep, this is completely inappropriate behaviour from Daniel and Riana. Those blocks were way out of line. I'm very, very disappointed with this whole situation. Majorly (talk) 23:26, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

I have to completely agree that the block should not have been made. The checkuser made it very clear that the vandalising IP was Molag Bal and that Qst was completely unrelated. Rushing to block an established editor on the basis of dubious evidence is very disappointing and, as is now clear, was only ever going to inflame the situation. Will (aka Wimt) 23:37, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm afraid this is the second time Qst/The Sunshine Man has been found adopting a Molag Bal sockpuppet (previously happened with Retionio Virginian. There's no checkuser evidence, but there's sufficient circumstantial evidence to show a bothersome connection between the two users, and considering Qst's behaviour yesterday following his aborted RfA, which likely culminated in vandalism on Moreschi's talk page, a block was completely in order. Nick 23:44, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Smells like meatpuppetry to me. Michaelas¹⁰ 23:51, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Nick, a block for 32 days? I agree he was trolling but long term established users do not get a month and a day block for that... 24 hours would have sufficed to let him calm down. There may be an unfortunate connection... have you not considered Molag Bal actively finds Qst? Majorly (talk) 23:57, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

The unfortunate connection extends to shared editing interests, pointing more to meatpuppetry or unprovable sockpuppetry rather than a simple passing acquaintance. Nick 23:59, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Well it's true to say that they generally hang around each other (in the sense that Qst has adopted a number of Molag socks). However, it seems pretty unclear to me as to whether this is Molag hanging around Qst and asking to be adopted by him on each incarnation or whether they do know each other. Either way though, I don't see much evidence of meatpuppetry from their wider edits. Take this RfA for instance, a page I found them both contributing to. Qst supports strongly whereas Molag's sock opposes. Now that doesn't prove anything of course, but this isn't a case of Molag agreeing with everything that Qst ever does. Also, the two got into a big argument with each other after Qst's recent RfA. Will (aka Wimt) 00:12, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Um, actually, the IP was not commented upon in the checkuser. My point is that continuing to accuse him of being a Molag Bal sockpuppet in spite of its results is unreasonable. Michaelas¹⁰ 23:48, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

This is my point too. I believe that Qst and Molag may know each other, but it seems very unlikely on present evidence they are the same person. And a big of assuming good faith doesn't hurt, considering there was no imminent need to block Qst. Also, in relation to that IP, although the checkuser may not have specifically stated it on that page, it is an IP from a range that Molag uses (not one that Qst uses). Will (aka Wimt) 23:58, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

I would appreciate an update on this issue from the various administrators involved. It appears that Qst has been indefinitely blocked now and at his request. I would appreciate clarification as to the basis upon which he is believed to be a Molag Bal sock. Checkuser does not support such a conclusion. What edits by Qst are sufficiently similar to those by Molag Bal? It seems that Molag Bal has at various times shown a liking for this user thriough sock accounts - does that necessarily mean they are the same person? Are users automatically tainted by association where they form a friendly relationship with the sock of a banned user (even though they may do so unknowingly?) I recognise that I may be being naive here and that I had a fondness for Qst - but I think a fuller explanation from those involved in blocking this account is called for. WjBscribe 23:55, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

• Here goes. My original block was preventative rather than punitive. I see a lot of funny business occurring around this account - this series of accounts, as the case may be - I see reams of very damning evidence at the SSP, and I see continued bad faith gestures from the Qst account - not that I blamed him at the beginning, but after repeated appeals to calm down, he did not do so, but responded to continued baiting. OK, so I blocked based on all that. The 'one month' figure was arbitrary. I might just as well have blocked for 48 hours or indefinitely. It was an attempt to get the people involved to focus their attention on the issue at hand. All I wanted was a thorough explanation from the Qst account, since none of his previous explanations have been completely satisfactory.

• Any admin may undo my block, although that seems to be a moot point now, seeing as Qst has chosen to leave. If he is innocent, this is most unfortunate, and I will feel great regret about that. Despite some of his faults Qst was not a bad contributor, or an actively disruptive one, until matters came to a head over the past few days. If, however, he is not - and I personally think that there is considerable evidence that shows that he is not entirely so - then I believe we've stopped ourselves from being trolled. In my heart, I believe that is what is happening. ~ Riana ⁂ 04:05, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

• I'm not an admin, but... in defence of Riana and Daniel, Qst's edit summaries and contributions over the past few days have included a number of heated comments and personal attacks, and it is curious that both Daniel's and Riana's talk pages have been the subject of someone adding huge amounts of headlines proclaiming "QST IS INNOCENT". I would include diffs, but for some reason the large resulting pages (more than 100 KB added) make my browser freeze. The relevant diffs are in the page histories, anyway. The IPs involved, User:81.132.214.215 and User:86.148.189.170 have already been blocked. The 81.132.214.215 anon claims to be Molag Bal and not Qst, but only a checkuser would be able to establish that conclusively, and only within certain limits. The vandalism creates the appearance of sockpuppetry/meatpuppetry, regardless of whether or not it is actually the case. Getting back to my point, I tend to think that Qst's recent behaviour was sufficiently disruptive to merit a cool-down block. Perhaps something more like 24 hrs to a few days rather than an entire month might have been more appropriate. To be fair to Qst, Moreschi's comments on Qst's failed RfA did sound rather harsh to me, but harsh comments are not an excuse to escalate the situation. It's too bad how this all turned out, because all of this could have been avoided if one or the other party chose instead to just disengage when tempers started to rise. --Kyoko 05:49, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
  • As the editor who originally placed the suspected sock template, I felt that there were similarities in behavior and too many coincidences that lead me to do so. --MichaelLinnear 07:21, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
    • I think I need to explain myself a little more. When I said that a 24 hour to a few days block might have been more appropriate, I was considering solely the various personal attacks (comments, edit summaries) by User:Qst. Further blocks on Qst's account may have been justified by the actions of the various anons (User:81.153.223.189, User:81.132.214.215, User:86.148.189.170) pending findings of sockpuppetry. Could these all be separate people? Yes, they could, but the timing (all coming out now) and choice of their edits (all targeting Moreschi, Riana, or Daniel) does raise questions. --Kyoko 09:02, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Qst == very obvious Molag Bal meatpuppet. Not a sockpuppet, meatpuppet. Blatant tag-team. No great loss. Get over it, people. You don't adopt multiple socks of the same banned user by coincidence. Yes, I was harsh on that RfA. Mostly because I was terrified (not something that happens very often). Moreschi ^Talk 09:43, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

• I agree, they don't appear to be precisely the same guy but it's very clear that they have a tag-team going on. Riana's block was wholly justified. Ƙɽɨɱρᶓȶ 09:50, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
  • I'm sorry but I still disagree with the idea that this is some kind of open and shut case. It's true, you don't adopt socks of the same banned user by coincidence. But as I've said above, knowing Molag, it is my belief that he asked to be adopted by Qst on each incarnation. After all, we know beyond doubt that Molag actively follows Qst around because he sees him as a friend. This does not automatically mean Qst is at fault. And I still don't understand what you all think we have gained from blocking Qst. To those that think it will somehow make Molag go away, I rather believe you are mistaken. As for IP evidence, every IP that has been quoted in this thread so far is part of the dynamic pool that Molag uses. Numerous checkusers, both on and off wiki, have confirmed that Qst edits from an entirely different ISP in a different location. As far as meatpuppetry goes, of course I can't prove that Qst didn't ask Molag to vandalise. However, we know Molag in the past has been "protective" of Qst (albeit in the worst way possible) of his own accord. Whatever has happened here, it is far more complicated than a "blatant tag team". Will (aka Wimt) 10:01, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
    • I agree with Wimt. There's no "blatant meatpuppetry". It's Molag simply being an idiot and following Qst around. It saddens me there are people, who obviously know little about Molag Bal, that cannot accept this and are treating Qst so badly because of this... suspicion. Please get over it, Qst != Molag Bal. Majorly (talk) 10:08, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
    • Oh, come on. Haven't we been here before with another Molag Bal sock? RfA goes sour, user goes batshit insane? Then we find out a link to Molag Bal? I belive Kelly Martin filled my role on that occasion. There are too many patterns and too many coincidences here to be ignored. If Molag Bal does not == Qst, then they simply have to be meatpuppets. Regardless, Qst badly screwed us around here, and the connection to Molag Bal is far too strong to be ignored. We are supposed to use our common sense, damnit. Under these circumstances, accusations that blocking this nest of iniquity was wrong are inappropriate. It's not as if we blocked Giano, or Ghirla, or Piotrus, or Antandrus, or Dev, or someone like that - and given what I've seen of Molag Bal/Qst, I've no doubt they'll be back. Moreschi ^Talk 10:13, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
      • I can guarantee you I'm using common sense. It just so happens, however, that knowing as much as I do about Molag, I don't agree with your conclusions. Of course Molag will be back regardless of what happens here, I've already said that. But will Qst? I hope he will but that's much less certain. As for your "it's not as if we blocked...", well so what? Qst was still a hard working editor on this project, even if he didn't write lots of articles like Giano etc. Will (aka Wimt) 10:24, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
        • Common sense? Blocking a good faith editor because you are suspicious? That's a really good way to go isn't it? Also the fact that you don't like Qst doesn't help things hereMajorly (talk) 10:33, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Has anyone actually bothered to look into how Qst was chosen as an adoptee by the socks? Without that info the adoptions may be no more than unlucky coincidence, especially in light over very negative checuser results that (apparently) place them in entirely different locations. Viridae^Talk 10:39, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

• If the main problem involving the person behind the Qst account is that he is followed around by Molag Bal, then frankly I think we've done him a service by allowing him a fresh start, away from any associations with past accounts - because he won't want to associate himself with an account that was once indefblocked. I'm not trying to put a positive spin on a bad situation in any way possible. And I object to the implication that if I've driven away a good contributor, I won't regret it a hundred times more than anyone else will. I trust that I have managed to prove over the months I've put in here that I tend to stick up for the little guy.
• Having said that, the block was preventative. The block was based on evidence I saw at the time, right in front of me. I frankly can't understand why this was such a bad thing to do. If other administrators are privy to other information, I would strongly encourage them to put that forth when they can, because all this talk of 'people who don't know Molag's style' and 'this situation is more complicated than it looks' is starting to grind my gears. I thought we were about being transparent. Please help to uncomplicate the situation. ~ Riana ⁂ 11:03, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Riana, I know you made the block in good faith, believe me. I also can see why Qst could be blocked as a cool down. I do however, think it was very unfortunate that Qst was branded as a Molag sock because, as I have reiterated, checkuser evidence is pretty clear about this not being the case. Now I'm sorry if all the talk of it being complicated is grinding, but unfortunately it isn't a simple situation. I am attempting to be as transparent as possible though. Now I think Viridae makes a good point above. What I am saying is that Molag follows Qst around, but they do not conspire with each other. I believe this is supported by the evidence of how Qst became an adopter of Molag's latest sock. Molag approached Qst and posed the question of whether Qst would adopt him on Qst's talk page, and Qst agreed to do so. Will (aka Wimt) 11:16, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
    • Then I return to to the first part of my comment. If Molag is trolling the person behind the Qst account, Qst now has the golden opportunity to make a fresh start away from associations with either Molag or his previous accounts. I think he made a mistake when he returned as The Sunshine Man by making it so public that he used to be Tellyaddict. This time, should he choose to return, he need only inform people he trusts, like the two Wills and Majorly. If Qst is innocent - and I hope he is - then I hope he has not been too discouraged by this experience to not return. ~ Riana ⁂ 11:31, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

• I am disappointed by Moreschi's comments both at the RfA and immediately above, where it's like it's OK to harass and indefinitely ban anyone who isn't some sort of higher being (and on the flimsiest of evidence too). The coincidences of adoption, and meatpuppetry by the unconnected IP address don't cut it for me. The SSP case is unconvincing, and checkuser even shows evidence to the contrary. There is but one shred of hard evidence offered - Qst reverting back to the anon's edit [26]. Note that the IP made this edit at 18:10:38 [27], while Qst made an edit 12 seconds earlier at 18:10:26 [28], on an apparently unrelated IP address (according to CU). Whether Qst remains blocked of his own volition or not, he should not be prevented from returning, if he chooses to do so. The accusations remain unproven as far as I'm concerned. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 11:31, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

A checkuser could be done on the other anon accounts involved, User:81.132.214.215, User:86.148.189.170, so as to determine any link with Qst or Molag Bal. I have to confess my ignorance about using WP:RFCU, though I do think it would help demonstrate if Qst were behind the vandalism to Daniel's page and Riana's talk page.

I still think that a short block of Qst was appropriate as a cool-down, preventative measure. A month-long block for sockpuppetry? I understand why it would be done in the face of so many coincidences, but I also see that the evidence is less conclusive than Qst's known contributions. If Qst is entirely innocent of sock/meatpuppetry here, and someone else (Molag Bal?) has been speaking on his behalf, then that form of "advocacy" is probably the worst kind of help that he could have received. Wherever Qst is, innocent or not, I still wish him well. --Kyoko 13:24, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Kyoko, those two IPs you mentioned are part of the dynamic pool of IPs that Molag is known to use (this has been confirmed by checkusers off wiki and it can also be seen by whoising them that they are from the same ISP). Qst was also checkusered and found to use a different ISP altogether. Thus that vandalism was undoubtedly Molag rather than Qst. Will (aka Wimt) 13:50, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. If Molag Bal was behind the various anonymous vandalism, then he should surely understand by now that his efforts only hurt Qst's case rather than helped it. With this in mind, I hope that Qst isn't permanently soured on Wikipedia and that he will consider returning. --Kyoko 14:21, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Yeah unfortunately in his attempts to defend Qst, in this instance Molag has made everything a whole lot worse. I'm hoping Qst will change his mind and decide to return too. Will (aka Wimt) 15:09, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

I still have concerns, because the pattern of vandalism gives the appearance of sockpuppetry or meatpuppetry. I think Riana's block was based upon the same impression, especially in the absence of checkuser info. Given the information she likely had at the time, I can see why she would block Qst for sockpuppetry, and I don't think she should be judged too harshly. I think the discussion here has raised reasonable doubt about Qst's involvement. Lots of odd coincidences, but nothing conclusive. It seems as if Molag and Qst may know each other, but as for actual meatpuppetry, I'm just not certain. I hope that Qst is innocent. --Kyoko 18:26, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

With respect, the comment above By Moreschi are outrageous, I have no connection with Molag Bal, I dont know him in real life and I didn't ask him to vandalise or post them abusive unblock requests, maybe you people should learn from thism accusing established and long term editors of sockpuppetry is not good, there are only two people on this who I consider to be decent they are Wimt and Majorly, when it came to the crunch, all the rest just went along with the flow and abonded me, what kind of community is this? Qst (Userspace) 11:34, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Mark Covell/Diaz Pertini school raid... incident

Hi, I'd really appreciate it if a couple other users could help me out with a problem user Indynessuno (talk · contribs), who is insisting (he initially made a legal threat, against which I have given him a single (final) warning in my reply) that I help him post an article relating to events regarding the 27th G8 summit. He claims to be (and I assume that it is a valid claim) Mark Covell, a journalist who was, according to the article, put into a coma because of police brutality in the attack. His comments initially primarily concerned my deletion of Talk:Diaz Pertini School Raid which I deleted under CSD G8 after deleting Diaz Pertini School Raid itself because of an expired prod, and additionally (having noted this in the deletion log) CSD A3 (which may have been borderline or A1). Administrators viewing these deleted pages will note that Covell (or rather, although he doesn't seem to be the same person at all, User:HResearcher) posted his essay on the talk page, rather than the article. I'll ask HResearcher about his post for Covell later.

The primary problem with this is that the user appears to want to completely disregard NPOV and COI, not to mention (although I haven't warned him yet of such) NOR. He's being a little difficult, so I'd appreciate it if some other users take a look at the thread on my talk page and perhaps make helpful comments.

I'd also like to note that some recent vandalism to my userspace has been made by 2 anon users, whose IPs both trace to the United Kingdom or even (one) London, where Covell claims to be located:

81.86.107.17 (talk · contribs) -- diff of vandalism (not warned, page is a sandbox.)

82.2.224.210 (talk · contribs) -- diff of vandalism diff of self revert (?!?) (not warned, self revert within 60 seconds)

Again, if you have some time, I'd appreciate more eyes on the incident, not least because I think that he won't appreciate my next reply - I have to clarify what I said and explain that his position really isn't supported by policy. Nihiltres^(t.l) 18:22, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Virtually all of his posts contain one legal threat or another - he's now threatening legal action if his account is not deleted and we do not produce an article at his behest. --Fredrick day 14:01, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Complex sockpuppetry case

I've been dealing with sockpuppetry by multiple users across projects over the past few months (if it were not obvious from my requests across projects for checkuser), however, there is one user in question that I am unsure about dealing with right now.

In one of the checkusers, a specific account's name came up in the search that was divulged to me in a private correspondence. Within the past couple of weeks, an account with that same name was established here at the English Wikipedia. The user has not done anything wrong with this or the other account at the other project, but I am well aware that the user is in question a good hand sockpuppet of a prolific sockpuppeteer.

What should be done in this situation?—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 22:05, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Is the puppeteer blocked or banned? If so, the sock is de facto abusive ("Circumventing policy", from WP:SOCK) and should be blocked, assuming you are confident that it is indeed a sock and not a naming coincidence. That's what I'd do, anyway. MastCell ^Talk 22:32, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

The puppeteer is indeed blocked. And I am confident that the user is a sockpuppet.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 23:15, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Then I'd block the account as a block-evading (ergo policy-circumventing) sock. I'd be interested to hear what others would do, though. MastCell ^Talk 02:31, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

In the interest of assuming good faith, could the suspect be asked about the conincidence? and maybe asked to change name if it turns out to be someone else? --Rocksanddirt 16:43, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

I would assume good faith, but the evidence is not circumstantial and this is the user that was harassing me through the e-mail service. A checkuser at meta showed that an account name (that I will not reveal yet) was the same individual as several blatant sockpuppet accounts at Meta, the Commons, and here at the English Wikipedia (and very likely at the English Wikiversity, where some other accounts showed up). I know of the IPs that were used due to e-mail headers and checkuserblocked IPs.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 21:51, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

And now he's resumed acting like JarAxleArtemis...—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 04:50, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

User:Francis_Tyers using intimidation, personal attacks, and abuse of administrative powers

Hi everyone. Could someone take a look at the following quotes by User:Francis_Tyers? To my knowledge, he is an administrator, and he has been acting abusively, using intimidation, personal attacks, and an attitude of owning an article. Such behaviour is unacceptable, and I suggest appropriate sanctions against him, including removal of his admin privileges.

Here are the diffs:

[29] [30]

In the first one, I wrote that I do not edit much any more, and Francis' response was:

"Good, because you're in no position to judge what is bad and not. "

Not only it's a personal attack, it's directed to prevent an editor from editting in general.

In the second one, I voiced my concerns over his neutrality, and his response was:

"And please, do not assume just because I have not commented it means I'm supporting Grandmaster. He can be as absurd as you."

I am not sure calling editors absurd is acceptable for an editor, let alone of an adminstrator.

Furthermore, User:Francis_Tyers behaves on the Khojaly_Massacre article as if he owns it, which violates the Wikipedia rules of WP:OWN. After I added a sourced information, he simply reverted it with the simple explanation "rv, irrelevant." [31]

His comment on the talk page was "drop it, it isn't going in": [32]

Clearly, using a language of intimidation to exclude sourced information from an article is unacceptable. I don't think this user should be allowed to edit on this particular article.

Please note that this user has previously relinquished his administrative privileges due to violating 3RR. --TigranTheGreat 22:23, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

He is not an administrator, thus no administrator abuse is possible. — Moe ε 22:45, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

That's fine. It doesn't excuse him from using personal attacks and intimidation, or from *owning* an article. He acts abusively as an editor.--TigranTheGreat 22:57, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Just judging from your own account I tend to agree. Perhapses a user conduct request for comment would be in order? ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 23:09, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

I believe that one needs a more in-depth study of this issue than a few differences provided above. Anyway, TigranTheGreat, what administrative action do you expect will be taken? If you want Francis Tyers blocked, then it's unlikely to happen based only on your diffs. Beit Or 23:15, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't see any evidence of any of the three accusations in when reviewing the talkpage. I do see a great deal of POV pushing, from contributors editing in accordance with the views of one side or the other. I note that Francis Tyers participates in a great many of the discussions, and it appears that he is attempting to keep as much a NPOV (un)bias as possible in the article. His perceived summary removal of edits which might appear to go against that standard is not WP:OWN.

In a contentious subject involving nationalistic perceptions over recent conflicts I think the best option is to continue good faith discussions on the article talkpage, and not attempt to influence the editing of an article by cherry picking from the comments of persons with different views in an attempt to have them blocked or otherwise sanctioned. LessHeard vanU 23:29, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

If block is unlikely, simple warning would be more than appropriate. Are you saying that the his behavior is acceptable? So, editors can call each other absurd? And tell others "you shouldn't edit, since you can't judge what's bad or good"? Because if no action is taken, that's what will be regarded as acceptable.--TigranTheGreat 00:23, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Nobody said that, and "absurd" isn't as bad as your making it out to be.. A block is out of the question for this situation, a polite message telling him that he could be nicer isn't too far fetched, so why not tell him yourself if you feel this way? — Moe ε 03:46, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

As for the "...good or bad" comment, I feel that it is a completely legitimate comment. You have a distinct POV toward the article, which is fine for when it comes to locating and referencing content but not as helpful in determining what constitutes a balanced article. I believe that Francis Tyler is noting that a reduction in your contributions would be a potential de-escalation of the POV pushing endemic in the article, a position confirmed by the comment that another editors contributions (supporting an opposing interpretation) is often as "absurd" (that is, extremely biased toward a particular viewpoint). Steven Tylers comments are in keeping with an editor who has expended some considerable effort in attempting to maintain an article which is both as well balanced as possible and also include the contrary viewpoints of the protagonists (regarding the event, not the editors). If Steven Tylers comments are a little terse now it may because he has already provided his rational (in perfectly civil terms) several times before. Be that as it may, I will request that he considers his future interactions with you in regard with this matter. LessHeard vanU 09:46, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Haha, wow I'm honoured. I welcome people to look at the historical exchanges on the talk page and in the archive. Both of that article, of Sumgait massacre, or Nagorno-Karabakh. My comments should be taken in the context of a long-time mediation between Armenian and Azerbaijani users. I'm not going to comment on Tigran's views on the massacre as he has explained them to me in private, but needless to say, the Armenians would like to downplay the massacre as much as possible, and the Azerbaijanis would like to upplay it as much as possible.

And finally, in response to the section title, "using intimidation, personal attacks, and abuse of administrative powers". I can't abuse administrative powers because I voluntarily de-sysopped after violating the 3RR. I have not used any personal attacks against Tigran or any other user on that talk page. If I have intimidated Tigran by my force of personality or superior display of talent, or have induced fear in him, then I apologise.

At most I am guilty of being a little uncivil, and for that I also apologise, but keeping this article neutral is quite some work, and it can get frustrating going over the same points over-and-over-and-over. - Francis Tyers · 11:48, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Note, this is the edit that Tigran would like included. - Francis Tyers · 11:54, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

I also note that Tigran does not complain, when further up the page I use the same language dealing with the opposite side, "The quotes will not be included. - Francis Tyers · 09:03, 27 March 2007 (UTC)" from Talk:Khojaly massacre#problems in all NK War cycle articles and Talk:Khojaly massacre#Recent additions / edits. - Francis Tyers · 12:03, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

I think the last point is well made; the complainer only refers to the tone when addressed, and not in relation to the other parties. LessHeard vanU 20:29, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Image issue

Would somebody please intervene at the images Image:Godmotherback.jpg Image:Godmotherfront.jpg and the article The Godmother: The True Story of the Hunt for the Most Bloodthirsty Female Criminal in Our Time, Griselda Blanco to avoid an edit war. The issues are the +tags in the images and editors that keep deleting the images from the book article. Thank you. PianoKeys 02:33, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

The other editors you're editwarring with are correct, you know. Carson 02:37, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

There's no fair use rationale for those images. You must have a fair use rationale to include them. See Wikipedia:Image_description_page#Fair_use_rationale.--Chaser - T 02:43, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

I slapped a fair use rationale on the front cover; now it just needs to be reduced in resolution. I don't believe the back-cover will qualify, even with a fair use rationale, so I left it alone. - auburnpilot talk 03:49, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

There's no possible justification for including the back cover, in light of WP:NFCC #3 "minimal use". Additionally, your efforts to slap four fair-use portraits into Griselda Blanco is quite clearly against policy too - one image might be okay, and a strong case could be made for zero non-free images since she's still alive and thus the image is replaceable. More users should watchlist both of these pages to help enforce our fair-use policies. (ESkog)^(Talk) 05:01, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

User:PianoKeys has now re-inserted the back cover image into the article. Corvus cornix 19:43, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Abusive use of anon IP by User:Grandia01

I had originally reported this at WP:AIV, but User:Daniel Case suggested I bring it here as it relates not just to vandalism but also abusive sockpuppetry.[33] User:Grandia01 posted this offensive drivel on my talk page under anon IP User:68.75.59.31. A glance at the histories of the articles to which this IP has contributed plainly shows that this is Grandia01.[34],[35][36][37][38][39][40] He removed my request for an explanation from his talk page without directly denying it (indeed, still addressing me as "dude".)[41],[42] Already completely obvious, the case becomes still more impossible to deny in light of Grandia01's frequent use of "u" and "ur" for "you" and "your", as seen in these edit summaries [43] [44][45][46]. Grandia01 has been warned to avoid personal attacks on many occasions (several of these may be found on his talk page.)Proabivouac 05:50, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Yeah the foul-mouthed IP is obviously him. He needs to meet the cluestick. - Merzbow 07:14, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

What motivated this? I can't find any prior conflict between the two of you.--Chaser - T 03:02, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

OK, so the evidence is pretty strong that the IP is acting like Grandia01, but it doesn't indicate that Grandia01 is the person behind the IP (it could be someone else); as Grandia's edits are invariably before the IPs. I'm going to leave this up for other sysops to comment on.--Chaser - T 03:27, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

The first Grandia01 edits come before the IP's because he's only had this IP for a few weeks. I haven't checked the histories to see what his IP was before this, though as most of the edits from the references IP appear to result from forgetting to sign in, I imagine it could be discovered. The underlying cause of conflict is Grandia01's slow edit-warring to push low-quality material onto Muhammad, and his frustration that it's invariably reverted:

• Gospel of Barnabas:[47][48][49][50][51][52][53][54][55][56][57][58][59][60][61][62][63][64][65]
• Michael H. Hart:[66][67][68][69][70][71][72][73][74]
• "Selected quotations" (note the bizarre nature of the third):[75][76][77]

These edits have been reverted by at least ten different editors, including Merzbow and myself. During this time, he has made hardly any attempt to gain consensus on talk, where it's pretty unlikely that such consensus could ever be gained. He's expressed frustration at the fact that his edits get removed, for example, regarding the Hart material and "selected quotations" respectively:[78], [79]. I haven't the time nor the inclination to review all of Grandia01's contributions, but several others I've seen range from unencyclopedic to tendentious to outright bizarre, e.g. (as referenced above): [80].

Why this juvenile attack came at this time, I have no idea. However, the alternative explanation, that another editor has cleverly stalked him for several weeks to seem like his IP in order to post the attack and provoke this complaint - i.e. a false flag operation - is just not reasonable, and I have no idea who would be moved to do that. Grandia01 isn't active or convincing enough that anyone should be inclined to put too much energy into stopping him, but is only a perennial annoyance; indeed I already feel that I've put far too much time into this thread.Proabivouac 05:51, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

So do I. Unless you want some admin help with something he's doing specifically with his account, I'm inclined to drop it.--Chaser - T 06:36, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

So he can post obscene attacks at will, so long as they're done anonymously or with a sock? You asked me to illustrate the existence of a previous conflict and I gave you over thirty diffs. Why did you ask, if you were only going to walk away anyhow? It is ridiculous that editors who post this kind of stuff, along with the absurd edits shown above, are welcome to contribute here, while serious editors like Giano are harassed and blocked at every turn.Proabivouac 06:59, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

This is strange. Arrow740 07:23, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't think a single personal attack by an IP is enough to even merit a checkuser, though you're welcome to file a request for one. I got involved with this when I expected it was an isolated personal attack, but there's not enough evidence to prove that Grandia01 was behind that attack, so I blocked only the IP. Unfortunately, I don't have time to look into the details of the long-term problems you have with this editor, which is what this personal attack report is rapidly turning into. I suggest you file an RFC and leave a note about it at Talk:Muhammad. If this is really that bad, then regular editors at that page will make their opinions known. Alternatively, try another step in dispute resolution. In the meantime, I will leave a message on his talk page regarding the personal attack.--Chaser - T 07:37, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Chaser, it only "turn[ed] into" that because you asked for evidence of a preexisting dispute, and for diffs per my talk page.

"there's not enough evidence to prove that Grandia01 was behind that attack" - how astonishingly gobsmackingly whack-me-with-a-mackerel clueless. Did you actually examine the evidence?Proabivouac 08:13, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Need a neutral admin to look at Christianity and Buddhism

Hi,

There is a user who has a strong POV against the content of Christianity and Buddhism. I understand his POV, the article describes a very marginal, fringe theory about how Buddhism influenced Christianity in its formative years. The flakiness of the theories notwithstanding, I believe the theories should be presented if sourced.

User:A.J.A. on the other hand believes that the whole article is a load of garbage and wants to stubify the article against consensus. In fact, he has done so several times already despite being reverted and despite the fact that the consensus on the Talk Page is against deletion or stubbification of the article. (Or, to be more precise, there is no consensus to delete or stubbify the article.)

I have warned A.J.A. on the article's Talk Page, on his Talk Page and via edit summaries. He deleted my warning on his Talk Page with an edit summary that indicated that he thought I had no right to make the warning. About once a week or so, he comes back and re-stubbifies the article against consensus.

I think this sort of repeated insistence on pushing his POV is bordering on blockable behavior. I'm not requesting that he be blocked at this time. What I would appreciate is someone reviewing the edit history and [[Talk: Christianity and Buddhism|Talk Page]] of the article and then warning him if that seems appropriate.

--Richard 06:38, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Iwent and looked, as an editor, and without 'judging' which article is better, I can say that the stubbed version by User:A.J.A. lacks a lead paragraph and central premise of any sort. It reads as a series of unconnected, sometimes completely incomprehensible statements. I say incomprehensible because pronouns are used which refer to proper nouns which aren't in the article. I left a note about that on the talk page, but the larger issues still need Admin attentions.ThuranX 07:01, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

I have requested User:A.J.A. not to remove content, by stubifying, without consensus. I have also suggested that their concerns are that of a content dispute, and that they should explore the various avenues (but particularly the article talkpage), in addressing that. Hopefully this will resolve matters. LessHeard vanU 10:32, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Richardshusr is misusing the concept of POV pushing, the "POV" in this case being a POV about how an article should read; by definition every edit advances a POV about how the article in question should read, which in most cases is necessarily in conflicty with at least one other user, since the previous editors could have written the article differently, but didn't. As for my POV about the substantive claims of the article, I do regard them with (well justified) contempt as ignorant nonsense of the kind which any project professing to write a dictionary should remove on sight. What is relevant for "POV pushing", however, is that fact that my version does not polemicize for my own view, while the long version does advocate Richard's (as I will shortly demonstrate).

This is only part of a consistent pattern of bad faith on his part. In his Talk page comments, and now here, he distances himself from the viewpoint advocated by the long version But when he edits the article itself (every time I touch the article he makes a series of edits; otherwise he ignores it) he invariably adds to the bias. An example:

the great king Ashoka ascended the throne, and after his conversation to Buddhism, he sent missionaries around the world to preach the word of the Lord Buddha.

In that vein, note the careful ambiguity of how he ended the first paragraph of his complaint: "I believe the theories should be presented if sourced". He's presenting them as fact, but using words here that others will take to mean that he thinks it should merely say, "So-and-so believes..." Of course, we would still need to avoid undue weight (something else he pays lip service to, then craps on whenever he edits the article).

For some time I've been considering a line-by-line demonstration of how poorly-sourced and inaccurate the article is, but I don't have much free time these days and am convinced that there is no chance whatsoever that my opponents here will consent to anything that looks like a decent article, especially with the involvement of Giovanni33 and ThuranX. A.J.A. 19:21, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

There may well be valid concerns regarding the neutrality and use of language in this article. There are several ways in which you could address this, and bring in other editors to comment. I recommend you investigate these avenues. I would suggest that removing the majority of the material, including referenced passages, in the article and returning it to stub status is not an appropriate response. It should be noted that if you were to provide references contradicting those points you are uncomfortable with then it doesn't mean that they should be removed, rather that both viewpoints should be included. This is a matter to be discussed on the article talkpage. LessHeard vanU 20:51, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Wow, what an amazing load of complete OR crap. It doesn't even present it as a fringe academic opinion: it presents it as fact. The Evil Spartan 22:45, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Let's AFD the article again. How about that? WhisperToMe 22:56, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Because a nuclear strike is always the appropriate answer to a content dispute. Take it to the article talk page. -- nae'blis 13:42, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

User:Deleti

• Deleti (talk · contribs)

Despite of being warned multiple times (his response, blanking), user has continued in uploading same copyrighted images multiple times and later puts them on to Kurdistan Workers Party article. I hereby request admin intervention. -- Cat ^chi? 08:02, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Images deleted. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 08:13, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Sockpuppet/stalker

User:Nate1485 and similarly named accounts have been harrassing User:Nate1481 by following him around and reverting all of his edits, though this particular account's edits so far have been odd edits to Dalton, Richmondshire, North Yorkshire, as well as creating userpages and talk pages for what I assume are more socks. As soon as one account gets blocked, he moves on to another one. Any help would be appreciated. --Bongwarrior 08:17, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

This guy has a lot of energy. He original edit was pretty bad though, so the real Nate was probably correct to revert. I've extended semi-protection for an additional 2 weeks this time. — Rebelguys2 ^talk 09:46, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Joehazelton and 68.75.161.124

68.75.161.124 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

User:Joehazelton is trying to soapbox again. I know WP:SSP is a better place for this, but the Sockpuppet page for that user redirects to a checkuser page, which isn't what I'm looking for.

Simple block will do, possibly sprotecting the page as there's not much of a reason for anons to edit it. --Sigma 7 09:23, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Griselda Blanco

Hello, would somebody please intervene at this article, you can check the articles edit history to see the extent of the problem. I added images with appropriate license +tags of Griselda Blanco to the article and one or two editors keep reverting them. Would you please intervene to avoid and edit war. I will abide by others input, perhaps you could comment on the articles talk page. thank you. PianoKeys 10:11, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

ESkog is correct. There's no reason we should have an overabundance of non-free images in that article, especially since they're all being used for decorative purposes. Please read our non-free content policies more closely. Even keeping the one image (Image:Griselda.jpg) is pushing it, considering that a "fair use replaceable" argument could be made. — Rebelguys2 ^talk 10:32, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Many of the images are allowed to be used. read the rationale at each one. PianoKeys 12:25, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

She's still alive. Besides which, you have provided zero fair use rationale for the use of any of those images. Corvus cornix 19:49, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Another TyrusThomas4lyf sock-puppet

Blocked user TyrusThomas4lyf continues to evade the block put in place in May of this year. He is now using the moniker Hoopsknowledge. Evidence includes this user's focus on the same articles edited by TyrusThomas4lyf and the very same edits (in the case of List of National Basketball Association teams by single season win pct, see the history of List of National Basketball Association teams by single season record prior to the redirect). If you need additional information, let me know. Myasuda 14:13, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

DVD covers/movie posters removed by BJBOT

Just wanted to drop a quick message and say that BJBOT deleted dozens of my images - scans of DVD covers and movie posters that were tagged correctly and used correctly under fair use act. I don't have the time to go and restore all of them, but it's pretty frustrating that I followed the rules and did hours worth of work only to have a crazy bot remove them. I haven't been on Wikipedia for a while, so I missed all the messages about deletions. Just to be clear, all these images were correctly tagged and appeared to be OK under the usage guidelines. Steve-O 15:14, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

The bot did not delete them; it tagged them as being orphaned fair use images and notified you as such. This means that your images were not being used in articles and were deleted several days later by an administrator. The bot did nothing wrong here. Metros 15:21, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Do you have some examples we can take a look at? ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 16:18, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Take a look at the huge number of warnings on User talk:Steve Eifert. Corvus cornix 19:53, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Weird edit/Possible sock...

Check out Snapped_tooth's contributions, and his very first edit.... I don't know who, but I think this could be a sock of someone attempting to evade a block. Davnel03 15:37, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Perhapses, but there simply isn't any evidence that this sock is being used to evade policy. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 15:50, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Possibly not, I'll keep an eye on it though. Davnel03 15:52, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Sounds like a good idea. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 16:26, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Check this out... [81] Davnel03 16:49, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Err... it all had sources, he removes the ref-tag-name and then removes everything associated with it. THEN he claims he didn't know it was sourced. Weird. Yeah, keep an eye on this guy. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 17:25, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

After a discussion with MPJ-DK, we believe this could be a sock of Burntsauce, who hasn't edited since 30th June. I've filed a request for checkuser. Davnel03 18:05, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

K P Botany

Another note to the administrators please, regarding the simply awful behavior of KP Botany towards a few who were new to Wikipedia and really needed someone to be encouraging and helpful. He has insinuated on this page, that we are responsible for other good administrators departing Wikipedia, due to their extremely difficult experiences with us. However fact is, we would surmise that it might be more likely due to his contamination. Please know that Absolutely no instances of what I've seen so often on this site, such as Trolling, Stalking, use of Vulgarity, Personal attacks, etc., etc, or any kind of bad behavior by myself or associates, have occurred on the Daniel Rodriguez talk pages or anywhere else, where we have been a party. We simply have higher life standards than that. It should be noted also, that we asked for help on a few other administrations talk pages, when we learned that we had much to learn and were not knowledgeable in what was required to get this article to Wikpedia standards. That is the ONLY reason Jeff kindly accepted the challenge of helping educate and information us. He was Always polite and understanding, and together with the valuable and important information I provided, was able to bring this article up to a very high standard. Botany's claims are absolutely inaccurate, and border on Libel. He is NOT a positive force, despite some of his good additions to Wikipedia. His contributions on our page, for the most part, were patronizing, and unthoughtful comments to attempts to do what was being asked. I highly request that all his activity towards newcomers be Very carefully monitored in the future. Thank you again. (retired) 66.216.231.232 15:42, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

See talk page of WP:AN/I VK35 18:14, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Why are you referring to yourself in the plural? Are there multiple users using this account? Corvus cornix 19:55, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that is the case. See User talk:Leah01, the blocked sockpuppeteer, & Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Operadog. Apparently an entire "family" used the same computer to create several accounts that were all single-purposedly adding essentially promotional content to a couple of articles. This became an issue when they vote-stacked on an AfD.

KP Botany (talk · contribs), an admittedly abrasive editor, was involved in all this and is the target of this IP who seems to be seeking some sort of redress against KP's manner in the matter. — Scientizzle 01:34, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Please Good grief. I had hoped that my earlier post was to be my last. However please allow me to make one more thing perfectly clear, and Please check it out for yourself. Previous commens (and others on various Talk pages) and particularly the mention of "promotional information".. is at the best, very misleading. The truth is that I am among those who Began/created several articles..No one else!! such as Chelsea Opera, Maryann Mootos, Broadway Magic, and the more well known Daniel Rodriguez pages, with help from a few who knew a bit more than I, but clearly not enough. We did ask for help when we were not even told why everthing we had put on the pages, were being either removed or filled with a bunch of symbols that none of us, understood and felt was someone just being mean or playing some kind of game. I don't think anyone even discovered "talk pages, and other places where, IF we had more time, would have done so and eventually figured things out..however the treatment we were given, was far less than helpful. The reason I was deserted by my helpers and left to do and keep these articles moving in the right direction. This past year has been the most stressful thing I have ever encountered in my life. So please know that you are not being given the true picture of events and why things happened as they did. Any "promotional" information that was being addded, was done, as it was felt that was what was being asked for to make it more "journalistic" and more up to Wikipedia demands. Jeff and a few others were the only ones to realize, that perhaps we had jumped into the deep water before even knowing how to tread. Absolutely true. So please get your facts right, check the talk pages, and stop making these inaccurage claims. Please, just take this and read it and allow me to continue in my retirement.. As far as wanting any "redress" against Botany, (Someone else's words and opinions - not my own!)all I want is to hopefully help others from this kind of awful experiene on Wikipedia. It should Never have happened. I love Wikipedia and will always use this as a basis for my work and do recommend it to others, but as far as becoming part of the "team".. NO WAY! Never again! Please take this and make a the first step in a more positive experience for all. We will all be the better for it..Best of luck! 66.216.231.232 12:16, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

If you will allow me a bit more space here please. First to say that when I began all these articles, it was a choice I had to make, of either jumping in and just doing it, or wait to navigate through the vast numbers of pages, to try and understand how things should be done on Wikipedia. But I felt my previous professional experience in managing several internet sites, might have given me enough basic understanding, to be able to create something good here or at least get it started. Like most, I have a very demanding life, a full time job, a part time job and other committments, such as travel, etc. I simply did not have the luxury to give the necessary time, that clearly is required for a novice. Perhaps if there was just one Single page, that would be clearly - something I had been perhaps even Reguired to be read, before even pemitted to make a contribution, some of this might have been avoided. Not sure, but I do know that there is Way too much information for the average person to be able to read and absorb, to be able to come here and be a positive contributor, without risking what I did. and the treatment received.. So again, please take my comments as a hope to turn this regrettable experience for myself and others, into something positive for the future. (hopefully retired again..no more comebacks..lol) 66.216.231.232 12:54, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

ThePromenader's bullying attitude

User:ThePromenader unilaterally moved the template Template:Paris Metropolitan Area to the new title Template:Paris urban area. This move is contested (Template talk:Paris urban area#title change). ThePromenader then "cleverly" edited the original page Template:Paris Metropolitan Area by changing the word "redirect" from capital to lower-case ([82]), thus making a move back to the original title (Paris Metropolitan Area) impossible. This behaviour is not only disgraceful, it is also rude to other contributors, and it is pure and simple bullying. This is not the first time ThePromenader is trying to bully his way in the Paris related articles. Those who have followed these articles are fully aware of this user's unfriendly and uncompromising attitude. Check with some editors who know ThePromenader such as User:Metropolitan or User:Stevage. This latest incident today is just a disgusting example of bullying, I'm appalled. Hardouin 15:48, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Also note that the Template:Paris Metropolitan Area which ThePromenader has unilateraly moved to a new title is used in 263 articles of Paris suburban municipalities (such as Suresnes, Versailles, Sannois, Grigny, and so forth). All these articles now have a template leading to a redirect, which may create problems with some browsers, but did ThePromenader even think about that?! Hardouin 16:09, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

I see user:Stemonitis has now deleted ThePromenader's edit (which consisted in changing the word "redirect" from capital to lower case) in order to allow a move back to the original title: [83]. This is why if you click on ThePromenader's edit that I linked to above it now says "The database did not find the text of a page that it should have found, etc.". Thanks Stemonitis, now what about ThePromenader's action? This guy has so far avoided any real sanctions, except a few blocks for violating the 3RR ([84]). Hardouin 17:06, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Oh, call the waaaaambulance. The above "contributor" has always profited from a lack of knowledgable contributors in our subject (Paris) to publish ficticious and fanciful information (with the goal of highlighting his own 'knowledge' over others ?!) and, even when his contributions were proven unfounded and erronous, he has always bullied and revert-warred to protect the same. The accusations above are just mirrors of those already made of him - he move-reverted twice even after being shown he was wrong through the highest official sources - so go figure. Fanciful and misleaeding 'translations' (instead of easily-found official ones) are embarrassing for a publication that deems itself 'encyclopaedic', and move-warring is evil. Cheers. THEPROMENADER 12:59, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

I've simply renamed an "envious" foreign statistical appelation translation for a real and official one. Please see Talk:Paris urban area or Urban area for referenced proof and motives. Since two years Wiki has been the only "plausible source" to turn up "credible information" for this term. All is fixed now. If anyone has any truck with anything I've done, please feel free to contact me on my user page. Cheers. THEPROMENADER 21:06, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry and blatent 3RR violations by User:Narinen

See Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Artemisse and edit history of Great Pyramid of Giza (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) IPSOS (talk) 17:16, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

All the puppets were blocked hours ago.. what else do you want? ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 17:59, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

More User:Danny Daniel sockpuppetry

Resolved

JackPee (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) fits the pattern of the sockpuppets listed at User:Squirepants101/Danny Daniel. The username is in CamelCase, just like the last seven sockpuppets. The user created some hoaxes, including Foster's Home for Imaginary Friends X!, Ninja No Evil (a Naruto hoax, some of the sockpuppets I've reported here have created hoaxes that are very similar to that) and List of songs in My Gym Partner's A Monkey, which are both related to pages edited by this vandal. Pants^(T) 19:02, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

User:172.164.196.50 added a contradict tag to Foster's Home for Imaginary Friends X!, claiming that it is an "upcoming show." Pants^(T) 19:08, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Hoaxes Deleted and sock smacked. SirFozzie 20:05, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

User:Suud Vaastereimergraadt legal threats

After deleting an article that User:Suud Vaastereimergraadt posted—which was a clear attack article—and ultimately after said user threatened continued vandalism via a message on my talk page ([85]), I blocked the user indefinitely. The user then responded with an unblock request with a clear legal threat ([86]). Besides upholding the block, what else needs done with this? —C.Fred (talk) 20:56, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Upheld. Further action: block, revert, ignore, repeat. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 20:59, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Ttturbo doesn't know when to stop (disruption)

Resolved

Keen followers of this channel might remember that this user was recently blocked because he was unable to understand that his actions were disruptive - in particular his series of POV red army crimes articles (all deleted). He was unblocked and has now been reblocked for disruption - one of his original claims that his userpage was hacked and he's busy building a bigger and bigger userbox that lists which users were involved in the hacking - see here. This guy just doesn't get it - wikipedia or how to be part of a community. Anyone want to lock down his talkpage to stop his soapboxing and accusations of hacking against good faith editors. --Fredrick day 21:26, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Indef blocked. People, please, I know him from Lithuanian Wikipedia. Stop waisting your time with him. It's absolutely hopeless matter. Renata 03:07, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

User:Roundwell unilaterally removing the royal anthem

User:Roundwell has been removing the British Commonwealth royal anthem from the userboxes of all Commonwealth countries, citing that consensus has been reached on the Australia talk page to do so. However, the discussion there only shows that the editors of Australia agreed to remove the royal anthem from only the Australia page, naturally. User also ignored and deleted the inline comment in New Zealand specifically asking editors not to remove the anthem. SPA has been reverted 3 times in the past few days on all articles, and is not being reasonable in discussion. May be a sockpuppet. Carson 23:05, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

They seem to be a SPA. I'll give them a final warning, and blocks will follow if they persist.-gadfium 02:20, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

User:Gundor Twintle Fluffy

A few days ago, I submitted an MfD after getting no response to a warning over userpage content, on the premise that at the time it was full of material not related to WP, from an editor with 13 article edits out of 467 at the time. The user then cleaned out all the material, at which time I withdrew the MfD. Gundor has since replied with this diff in a old discussion on my talk page, and then added what ended up being this diff at the bottom. The user clearly misunderstands how Wikipedia "takes care of things", and I'd like the user to be warned for uncivil behavior for the first diff, and also that he be educated that users issuing notices and using procedures is precisely how things are taken care of on WP. MSJapan 23:45, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

To many POV pushing single purpose accounts?

Maybe I just have a suspicious mind but there seem to be single purpose accounts hitting Narcissism and Psychopathy over the past 3 or 4 days, with determined "similar but different" POV-pushing...

It could be just coincidence and good faith newbie enthusiam, at the start of the holidays, and so far I have treated it as such, but I would rather someone else was keeping an eye on it too please? --Zeraeph 00:00, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Block request re Amir Taheri

A team of anons and SPA-ish accounts keep reverting Amir Taheri (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) to a version with uncited attacks on Mr Taheri. (Note this edit's summary: "RV, well there are about 12 people who are dedicated to blocking your attempted whitewash of the Taheri entry. Either compromise or have fun reverting forever".) The article is now semi-protected. See WP:BLPN#Amir_Taheri for more details.

One of the SPA-ish accounts, Nyisnotbad (talk · contribs), has now reverted to the bad version at least 3 times after getting a {{uw-biog4}} warning from me. Could an admin investigate and take appropriate action, please? Thanks, CWC 01:31, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

There's been a lot of edit-warring there, and it's a little out of hand. I'm not really sure which edit I agree with, but some of the information warred over is not cited sufficiently. I suggest you guys work it out on the talk page to find a compromise version which is properly cited. --Haemo 02:12, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/Lesliegainesross

Can someone have a look at the contributions of this user please. Thanks Gustav von Humpelschmumpel 01:48, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

[87]. Gustav von Humpelschmumpel 01:49, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Behaviour of Jeffrey O. Gustafson

I am concerned by the recent behaviour of Jeffrey O. Gustafson (talk · contribs · logs), an administrator since November 2005 (see log). Among some of the worrying things he has done recently are:

• Repeatedly deleting his user talk page (see log).
  • Page restored once again with summary: "crybabies need their binkies. myam mnyam mnyum yum".
• Deleting images per CSD I7 without the required 48-hour notification. After one user commented that "ignoring the arbitrary 48h is one thing, but it would help to inform" uploaders so they don't make similar mistakes in the future (see diff), Jeffrey responded with the following edit summary: "I'm an executioner, not a teacher." (see diff).
• Numerous editors, some or all of them administrators, have expressed concern about his actions and requested that he reconsider his approach, but he has always blanked their comments with edit summaries such as "views noted" (see also the deleted history here).
• In deleting his user talk page, he has used strange edit summaries such as "Bow before me, for I am your King", "Because I am the once and future king", "No Mr. Bond, I expect you to fetch me the Times and a spot of Tea", and "wakka wakka" (see log)
• On May 30, 2007, he deleted his userpage with the edit summary: "Fuck you, Veridae" (see here)
• In this edit, he removes himself from the list of admins, noting in the edit summary: "... I wish not to be pestered by anyone looking for help I will not give".

I'd prefer to avoid the bureaucracy of an RfC, so I'm noting the problem here as an "open informal complaint" in the hope that something else can be done. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 04:08, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

• It would appear that your "open formal complaint" will be ignored by him. --Hemlock Martinis 04:18, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

:*AN/I is not a complaint board. Nevertheless, a quick ten minute review of his talk page shows that what you're saying has merit. An RfC would be the best way to resolve these issues. --Hemlock Martinis 04:26, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

• • But the header of AN/I does say, "If you want to make an open informal complaint about misuse of administrative powers, you can do so here." --Iamunknown 04:30, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

• It would appear that I am an idiot. My apologies. --Hemlock Martinis 04:33, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
  • No, you are not an idiot. It is a common mistake.  :) --Iamunknown 05:00, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

This is unacceptable behavior for an administrator. Any admin is free to take a break from editing or from adminning, but to continue performing administrator actions while refusing to discuss them with editors (except in occasional sarcastic edit summaries) is highly inappropriate, as is preemptively announcing that one will not read or respond to an ANI thread about one's behavior. I hope that someone can successfully intercede with Mr. Gustafson soon because otherwise this is heading toward an arbitration case. Newyorkbrad 04:30, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. I've only been noticing this a little bit over the past few hours, but his attitude is definitely unbecoming of an administrator, or even a reasonable editor. If he doesn't want to do it anymore, he's perfectly welcome to leave. --L^augh! 04:36, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

That's the strange thing here: from his logs, he does seem to want to do it (delete unsourced images, block the occasional vandal, etc.); he just doesn't want to interact with users on-wiki. Unfortunately, that's a bad combination. Newyorkbrad 04:46, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree. I don't think his behaviour is appropriate for an administrator. --Deskana (talk) 04:43, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Wrong. His behavior isn't appropriate for anybody. Period. -- tariqabjotu 04:52, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

• I did not realize that he was actually contributing. Definitely agreed, you can not edit if you refuse to discuss your edits. -Amarkov moo! 04:55, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
  • He has pretty much stopped editing, except for his talk page (see Special:Contributions/Jeffrey O. Gustafson). However, since June 23 (when he first deleted his talk page), he has made nearly 400 administrative actions (mostly image deletions). -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 05:02, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

At no point have I refused any meaningful or legitimate questioning of my actions (and I have reversed several upon request). The main recent conversation where I brushed off the repeated badgerings of an editor over his uploads was from a petulant troll who has recently been revealed to have used deceptive copyleft tagging, copyright violations, and even OTRS forging. Another editor, an admin, wanted to draw me out into a time wasting philosophical debate on the finer points of wiki-policy, a debate I wouldn't waste time with any other day, and requests I thus ignored. If someone has asked a question of me, I have answered in my reversion edit summary. This is no different than blanking-archiving, the turn around is just quicker. I had been deleting my talk page for my own whacked out reasons, but it is restored for good. This is not refusal to interact, but just not interacting in the method others choose. One would imagine there are more pressing issues to address than the eccentric practices of a disenfranchised admin, but such trivial bickering is a staple of this fetid cesspool, and does not surprise me in the least. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 05:10, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Like I said above, any admin who's tired of Wikipedia (the pros as well as the cons) should leave, not do whatever the hell he wants --L^augh! 05:16, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Jeffrey, the admin who you claim attempted to engage you in a philosophical debate raised a concern about how your actions may be perceived, to which you replied "apologies, but at the moment, and for the foreseeable future, I just don't care" (diff) and "I don't feel like answering that. Thus, my not answering it previously. Kindly leave me alone." (diff). If you "wish to be left alone", you should not be carrying out admin actions.

You write that your actions are no different from "blanking-archiving", yet you in numerous instances blanked without responding or giving someone the opportunity to respond to your post (especially once you started deleting your talk page after every few edits). Though you may see it as nothing more than "eccentric", more than a few editors have stated that it is or comes across as rude and hostile.

Lastly, your comment does not address the incivility in your edit and deletion summaries, your image deletions, and the "executioner" comment. I hope that you will not continue to dismiss the concerns raised here and your talk page; my goal is not to get you desysopped and certainly not to get you to leave. By the way, to what does the "fetid cesspool" comment refer: ANI or Wikipedia? -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 05:34, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm seeing a pattern here. Many administrators are getting sick of having to have the same stupid conversations over and over again, having to be eternally ready to justify their actions in the face of ignorant or self-serving accusations and/or arguments by trolls, vandals, and people who cannot, it would seem, comprehend basic stuff like fair use policy. Hands up if you're sick to death of having every single block you ever apply appealed, no matter how obviously meritorious the block, simply because the blocked user can't pass up the opportunity to declare you an abusive admin who doesn't understand policy yadda yadda yadda, thereby wasting that little bit more of the community's time. It wears you down after a while; you know it's true. Yes I agree that all administrators have an obligation to justify their actions when asked to do so, but part of the problem here is that this obligation is constantly being abused. Hesperian 05:55, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

That's probably true; so far, I just regard that sort of thing as part of the humor and the psychological insight that comes with Wikipedia, if whoever I blocked is clearly in the wrong. Grandmasterka 06:05, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

(EC) True, but that's what wikibreaks are for. I also want to note that there are hundreds of admins who face the same situation but do not do what Jeffrey has done. There are many solutions to the kind of exasperation you describe: take a break, get involved in less controversial actions (or actions that do not require as much interaction with trolls and vandals), cut back on admin actions and focus more on editing articles for a while, and so on. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 06:15, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't worry about it too much. I set up an FAQ for deletion questions (here), and it actually has seemed to significantly reduce the number of "Why did you delete my advertisement????" questions. As to blocks, if they request a review and I know damn well I was right, I just chuckle imagining the steam coming out of their ears once they see "Decline, no, really, we mean it, you can't revert sixteen times." But if it is wearing you down, probably the best thing to do would be to just request a voluntary desysop, and then have a crat re-sysop you once you're in a better frame of mind and have blown off some stress. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 06:19, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

As the "petulant troll" Jeffrey referred to above, I thought I'd throw in my two cents. First of all, his accusations of me committing "deceptive copyleft tagging, copyright violations, and even OTRS forging" are ridiculous (the worst I'm guilty of is misinformation), and for what it is worth I'll do my best to clear my name. But, this isn't about me, it's about Jeffrey, so let's stay on topic.

So, to add to the list of Jeffrey's questionable antics which Black Falcon began this discussion with:

• Jeffrey has been temporarily banned 6 times (twice by himself). (see: Jeffrey O. Gustafson's "block log" page)
• Jeffrey is consistently uncivil in discussions and edit summaries. (for example: "Because I'm a fucking monster" as an edit summary)
• Jeffrey has already been the subject of a previous administrator review/incident report (namely concerning his incivility and Talk Page purging)
• Jeffrey has also been the subject of a deletion review (again, concerning his talk page purging. A deletion review probably wasn't the most appropriate venue for such concerns, but I thought I'd mention it and provide a link anyways)
• And, on a personal note, since attempting to discuss such matters with Jeffrey, he seems to have intentionally targeted pages which I have had a hand in or images which I have uploaded. Some of these deletions were genuine copyright violations, but they were handled poorly - without notice, discussion, or civility. To add to that, just recently, he deleted images for which I've obtained GFDL permission for and documented my correspondence according to WP:COPYREQ and WP:ERP, even though he has admitted to not having access to the OTRS system. Does he even have such authority? I really don't know, but that just seems inflammatory and uncivil. I don't mind being wrong (and have been proven so in previous matters with Jeffrey), but I do mind being bullied.

Anyways, that's my say. I don't want a witch hunt, but I think something should be done, especially since Jeffrey doesn't seem to care that so many people have found his methods to be questionable, which leads me to believe unless something is done he'll continue to act this way. Drewcifer3000 09:13, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

• Okay, can we cut to the chase here, is JOG actually deleting stuff on invalid grounds? Or are some people just pissed off because at the person who deletes their copyvios? I found the above accusations ("he's blocked himself - he's been listed on ANI before - one of his deletions has been reviewed") rather spurious. >Radiant< 11:12, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

If I may be so bold as to attempt to summarize the discussion thus far: I don't think anyone finds fault that Jeffrey exercises his administrative powers, namely in deleting images in violation of fair use/copyright/whatever. I think the main issue at hand is the manner in which he does so (without the usual notice period and other formalities) and the way in which he handles himself after the fact (being uncivil, refusing to discuss things, purging any ensuing discussions, etc). I would argue that with weilding administrative powers, especially as often as he has recently, certain responsibilities arise which he has ignored and shown disdain for.

However, I would say his recent deletions of a few images which I uploaded with GFDL permissions were done on invalid grounds, but that is an issue for another venue. And just to clarify my last edit, I brought up the previous ANI, block logs, and deletion review (a review of his own Talk Page, not of a particular deletion he made of an image/article) not to accumulate evidence, but to show that this is an ongoing trend and that he has come under similar scrutiny before, and not just for deleting somebody's picture. Drewcifer3000 11:29, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

User:3bulletproof16- account hacked, now back to rightful owner

3bulletproof16 had a period of inactivity, and an IP came to the page claiming to be 3bulletproof16, saying that User:JB196 had hacked his account. After a lot of discussion with the person claiming to be the owner of the account, he eventually managed to guess the password that JB196 had used to lock him out, and has now regained control of his account. I am reasonably satisfied that the account is back in its original owner's hands, but I would appreciate a few other admins keeping an eye out for suspicious behaviour. I will be watching the contributions from that account too, incase the person I've been talking to wasn't as honest as they said they were. --Deskana (talk) 04:22, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Get this Person Blocked, Please.

Resolved

 – We don't (usually) block editors for a single bit of vandalism. EVula // talk // ☯ // 06:28, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

I would like to have this person blocked: IP address 12.214.246.157. In the List of Students at South Park Elementary section, they added in that South Park character Craig's surname is Nommel. Yet no information on his surname has ever been given in the show. This is an act of vandalism, and I don't think this person should be allowed to run around like that anymore. Who knows where in Wikipedia they'll strike next???

Wilhelmina Will July 9th, 2007.

You're overreacting...that's the sole edit from that IP. You need to exhaust your warning options first, then bring it to AIV. Maybe it was just a newbie test... Carson 04:37, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Carson's right. In this case, it's not even really vandalism, just a test edit. And IPs don't get permablocked or anything, anyway. I've given the user test1. Best you can do is revert, warn and move on until it becomes an issue for AIV.--Ispy1981 06:26, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I guess I was being rash there. But if I were an administrator myself, even the first time someone vandalized this site, I would have them blocked for a long time. Besides, characters like Craig, Tweek, Clyde, Anne, Heidi, and such are very important to me, and I get very hyper when anyone does anything to them. Wilhelmina Will July 9th, 2007.

Help! Good-faith but unresponsive editor contiues to posts copyvios

Will an administrator please attempt to talk with Mr wiggl3s (talk · contribs)? The editor has, since he or she created his or her account in September 2006, posted copyrighted material on many occasions to his or her user page without evidence of the permission of the copyright holder. I approached the editor in early April,[88] perhaps too aggressively, again later that month, [89] and again two days ago.[90] The editor has neither responded to me nor has posted anything in any talk namespace.

I fear that after my approach in April and after having removed two copyvios,[91] [92] Mr wiggl3s will not respond to me, but he or she is continuing to post copyvios (even today), and something needs to be done. Will an administrator familiar with copyrights please attempt to contact the editor? Thank you, Iamunknown 04:58, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

As he'd posted yet more copyrighted material on his user page, I've removed the material and protected the page. Hopefully that'll get his attention enough to discuss the issue. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 05:15, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. Hopefully Mr wiggl3s responds. --Iamunknown 05:24, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Request assistance by an uninvolved admin.

I have, for weeks now, been under attack by an editor who has a grudge, apparently for my deletion of a page at some point in the past. They have repeatedly made accusations on my talk page that there are racist motives behind my deletions. The first two such [93][94] I deleted as trolling. Then they made a third accusation, and began a WP:AN thread with the accusations. Others in that thread stressed that the user needed to back up their accusations with proof. I have since tried to engage the user on my talk page, but it has become obvious that the user does not care to actually read reasoned explanations why they are off-base, but just wants to continue lobbing the accusations of racism at me without making any attempt to back them up. Overall though, I have no clue which deletion of mine could be the cause of all this. Most likely an A7 speedy, from the user's comments, but who knows.

As I am definitely involved in this, it would not be appropriate for me to deal with the continual WP:NPA violations in these unfounded accusations. But if an uninvolved admin could look over the situation and help deal with it, I would appreciate it. - TexasAndroid 06:02, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

I've blocked the IP address for three months, considering that it's been involved in this since at least early June. There's no indication he's done any of use for Wikipedia in the past, and there's no indication he's going to stop anytime soon. I think a nice, long block for such absurd accusations and egregious personal attacks can't hurt. — Rebelguys2 ^talk 07:45, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, I guess he found a new address earlier today. I blocked that one for a week, because I can't yet tell if there's going to be much collateral damage there. — Rebelguys2 ^talk 07:48, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Eep² blocked indefinitely

Eep² (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been a problem on Wikipedia for some time now. He's been bypassing AFDs by copying the content into a subpage so he will have a copy that he will be able to work on. He has been disrupting the disambiguation system, believing that Wikipedia is a dictionary or a search engine. He's been turning articles into disambiguation pages. I blocked him for a week in June due to a discussion that went on at the community sanction noticeboard. He has since returned to his old tricks, with copying Action (gaming), a page that he primarily authored, into his user subspace at User:Eep²/action (gaming) (which I have since deleted). I've blocked him indefinitely for his extreme inability to cope with Wikipedia, consensus, and our policies and guidelines. If a plain old ban is in order here, let that be brought up here. I've given him the option of appealing his block, but we really need to make sure that he does not continue if he is unblocked.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 07:05, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

• I endorse this block. Eep has absolutely no respect for the encyclopedia or those who work on it, as his RFC demonstrated. He's been given enough chances. --Coredesat 07:07, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
• I also endorse the block. Eep is the most unpleasant editor that I have encountered on Wikipedia. I feel this AfD and its talk page are perfect examples of Eep's behavior and his refusal to abide by Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. He has been given more than enough chances to change his constant incivility and assumptions of bad faith. I would fully support a permanent ban. Pablo Talk | Contributions 07:14, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
• I previously indef blocked Eep a couple weeks ago for the same reason: constant disruption and massive unilateral refactoring of disambiguation pages against consensus, blatant incivility, and repeated personal attacks despite a multitude of warnings and prior blocks, as the RFC Coredesat linked to demonstrates. He appealed the indef block and it was reduced to 24 hours. He has toned down his incivility somewhat since (though he continues to use words like "duh" in edit summaries), but his disruption and disrespect for the community continues. As there is no indication that Eep is willing to work in a civil manner with the community despite plenty of chances to improve his behavior, and this is a community project, it seems an indefinite block is the proper solution. Ƙɽɨɱρᶓȶ 07:20, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
• Can't say I'm surprised. I put a short block on Eep in the past and his behavior has not exactly improved since, more like the opposite. >Radiant< 11:04, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Perhaps we should clean out his userspace; it's being used as a storage for deleted articles. >Radiant< 11:05, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
• See also Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Eep. Guy (Help!) 12:04, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Don't template the n00bs either

[95] It's from a search engine spammer, but the point stands: Templating is not only insulting to the regulars, it's insulting to all recipients.

How about some RFA opposes: "Too much templating, no conversation." That should get the goldfarmers off the templating kick. - David Gerard 07:06, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

I think that using standard templates helps keep things CIVIL and with the right tone. If you create your own message, then no one else had approved of it for the situation. On the other hand, the standard templates have different types and levels - and had been approved by the community for the erlevant situations. Od Mishehu 07:25, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

That is a good point-encouraging people to roll their own will likely just result in more insulting of the vandals. And I'm not going to shed too many tears for the poor, unfortunate linkspammer. (What linkspammer hasn't claimed that their content is essential, ESSENTIAL I tell you, to Wikipedia?) Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 07:30, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

At the same time, when you are reverting and barely keeping up, you either do that, or you don't leave a message at all. The second is even more confusing ("Why did my edit vanish?"), and if you can't afford to stop and write a message to everyone, then I don't know. It's a bad situation, either way. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 07:32, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Using templates is a good idea, but the person placing the template must be prepared to explain it. Anynobody 07:36, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree; personally I always make sure I watchlist a talk page after templating, to ensure that I can personal answer any followup questions they may have. Ƙɽɨɱρᶓȶ 07:38, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

So we now need approval to leave warning messages if they are not the one of the proper templates? CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 07:49, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

What they mean is that you know a templated message is appropriate for the situation, whereas a personalized message might be too harsh, or not clear, or whatever else. --Haemo 07:54, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I've found just the opposite. Templated messages tend to be ambiguous and vague, to the point of uselessness. And since templated warnings are all identical, it give the person recieving the warnings the feeling that they're dealing with a machine, rather than with a person. --Carnildo 08:14, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Some templated messages are understandable but not all. Plus with using the templates you can end up with "Well they didn't get the full 4 warnings." CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 08:25, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

When you disagree with the wording, please either let WP:UW know or edit it yourself :). We are all here to enhance the project, making the warning templates better also counts. For my opinion, templates are very useful for 2 things: first, it allows us to go fast in simples cases (I once started by typing my warnings by hand), and it allows us not to forget to link to the relevant policies/pages. Templates of course are not suitable 100% of the time, but 95% is probably a good estimate. -- lucasbfr ^talk 11:14, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

• (unindent) Templates can be misused, but someone who misuses templates probably wouldn't have written a clear personalized message anyway. When used appropriately, and in moderation, templates are helpful for keeping things calm and providing links to relevent info (something users sometimes forget in personalized messages). It's up to the discretion of the user applying the template... if the message you wish to get across isn't summed up by any template, or the issue requires discussion/diffs, don't just use a template. Leebo ^T/C 11:30, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Edit warring and harassment by User:Mathsci

Dear admins, here I request for bannig of User:Mathsci for his:

• persistent harassment;
• persistently posting material contrary to the biographies of living persons policy;
• edit warring or revert warring;

He was engaged with me personally where he accused me because I do not have PhD in mathematics I should not edit math articles in Wikipedia. What is more he completely ignores that I have several published articles in professional mathematical journals, and I have collaborations with well-known professors in mathematics (I am listed as author in AMS), while the mentioned User:Mathsci claims to have Master of arts from Cambridge University, and claims to be professional pure mathematicians without revealing his identity. Despite of the fact that Wikipedia policy guarantees that all editors might insert changes according to their own visions on the subject, and that these changes are subject to discussion on the talk pages, User:Mathsci believes that he has "superiority" over my edits, and thus is allowed to revert my edits, and to post on the talk pages personal offences against me. This however is the beggining of the story. Due to discussion on some mathematical concepts and definitions I suspected that he might be anonymous teen, or self-educated person, who likes to pretend himself to be math professional, covered by the anonymous account. Although I had my own reasons to suspect that, User:Mathsci took this comment too personally, and using my User page with editted entries, he started a long-term war accusing me in plagiarism, stealing images from other sources and copy-pasting content from other GFDL sources without understanding. In one of the cases I have copy-pasted my own post from PlanetMath, where I am also editor, in the second case I was accused of plagiarising images, which were programmed by me in Maple, and the web page from where I was accused to have stollen the animated images, actually cites two published works by me [D. Georgiev]. All this farce is documented by admin User:Quadell, and this was just a thrid accusation in a row for plagiarism by User:Mathsci. I have for another time requested him to stop this personal war (I ask him since a month or so), and I asked him to appologize for these false accusations which are result of his utter desire to blacken my name. Unfortunately, User:Mathsci did not stop, and continued to revert virtually all math entries using the links from my User page, that link to my edits. And last but not least, User:Mathsci violated several times the policies for biography of living person. Despite of the fact that Florentin Smarandache is controversial name in the mathematical circles, I have tried to make the biography not-biased, but to present some objective information of Smarandache who is also poet, philosopher, and anti-totalitarian dissident fighting against the Nicolae Ceauşescu regime. User:Mathsci numerous time reverted/blanked my edits, and I was called Smarandache's sockpuppet, or even User:Mathsci issued a rumor that my PhD dissertation in molecular pharmacology (in Kanazawa, Japan) depends critically on Smarandache's reputation (Gallup, USA)?? User:Phiwum supported me at Talk:Florentin_Smarandache saying "I do not understand Mathsci's edits." and requested discussion. Instead User:Mathsci continued to vandalize my edits, and to post on many talk pages long proof of my "mathematical incompetence" suggesting that I must read "freshman calculus" and "stop edit math articles in Wikipedia or elsewhere". Although the exposed here material cannot capture even a tenth of what User:Mathsci did, I request that there is arbitration by admin and User:Mathsci banned from editing Wikipedia for a certain period of time. I believe also that there should be some actions by Wikipedia admins to protect people with revealed identity against malicious actions from anonymous users. I have revealed my idendity solely in order to be able to release under GFDL content - such as figures and plots from advanced scientific areas, example is the Image:Exocytosis-machinery.jpg, which has been used in numerous publications, theses, and presentations all over the world, and was directly used from Wikipedia, also I have released numerous mathematical plots of functions, solitons, etc., and also high quality photos from Japan, on Japanese culture, festivals and architecture. I have stopped to contribute to Wikipedia, because I really don't want to fight with anonymous people who envy my contributions. I have contributed in many areas including biographies, neuroscience, music, geography, mathematics and physics, and I believe that editors should not use as argument their PhD's in given subject and act like owners of the whole field. User:Mathsci has not only lead personal war against me, but many times requested me to stop to contribute to mathematics, and published derogative content against me, and also false information of me being plagiarist, ill-educated, incompetent, and "ill or on medication". Regards, Danko Georgiev MD 08:50, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

You are supposed to tell other editors if you report them to ANI. I have done this for you. Concerning your complaint, there appears to be a long-running disagreement between the two of you. I can't see anything obvious outstanding that requires an admin's attention. Can you provide diffs to any specific issues? Otherwise, please follow dispute resolution. Spartaz ^Humbug! 10:10, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the note and for notifying User:Mathsci. There is no particular issue that I have to resolve with him. I have stopped editting Wikipedia for indefinite period of time, as seen in my last edits. User:Mathsci uses links at User:Danko_Georgiev_MD#My_Edits to created by me entries, then following the link, goes to the entry, and vandalizes the whole of it deleting huge portions of text. This is typical issue of personal edit warring, and harrasment. User:Mathsci has never editted on the entries created by me, now he went there just because they are "my" entries. Well, I think such a personal warring is for banning and requires admin sanction. I have peacefully requested User:Mathsci to stop, but he thinks it is funny to check my entries and blank them. Well, I don't like such partisan wars, nor I understand why User:Mathsci is such a fan of mine -- obviously he wants to establish close relationship with my personality. Unfortunately I am busy with research and other issues, and if User:Mathsci is not banned or punished, I shall not contribute to Wikipedia. I have belived I edit here for altruistic reasons, but if vandals are not punished and instead their harassment is tolerated I will quit Wikipedia. Danko Georgiev MD 10:20, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Template created/corrupted by mistake

Hi, I,ve create or corrupted Template:POTD_protected/2007-07-15 trying to view a projected image from Picture of The Day archive. Could somebody please either delete or re-instate page for me? Sorry for being so incapable. --Eddie | Talk 09:03, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

done. Agathoclea 09:10, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Promoting Racial Slur at wikipedia

Buddhipriya, Abecedare, nids and others are directly promoting Racial Slur at wikipedia. They are major edits are from the 2 editors Buddhipriya, Abecedare for the page Nastika which is a Racial Slur.

"Dayanand Commemoration Volume: A Homage to Maharshi Dayanand Saraswati, from India and the World"

• By Har Bilas Sarda
• Page 154
• Published 1933 Chandmal Chandak

"It conveys simply the derogatory sense of a general character. By using Nastika, the writers want us to understand a negator, one not abiding by the Vedas"BalanceRestored 11:35, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Check more books and references http://books.google.com/books?q=derogatory+nastika+&btnG=Search+Books to understand more about this very word. The term nastik is very similar pejorative as nigger.

They are attacking 2-3 important religions in India.. While there are 66 more religions other than Hinduism in the world who do not follow the vedas.

FYI: This is word that is used at people in India who are cheaply looked at. BalanceRestored 12:22, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

You mean to say that they are promoting racial slurs by editing the article Nastika? Please understand that Wikipedia is not censored. If a term is in common usage, we describe it in an article. Editing an article does not mean endorsement of the subject of the article. Aecis^Brievenbus 12:23, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

In arguing that we should not have an article on this term you compare it to 'Nigger'... on which we have an article. If the term is a racial slur then the article should say that, with references, but we would still have an article. If there is controversy about the use of the term that should be referenced in the article. From your quotation above and the current text of the article it seems like more of a religious denouncement... similar to 'infidel', 'blasphemer', or 'atheist'. --12.42.51.27 12:26, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

This word is a tease for sure. You can ask about the same to people from Indian origin who will tell you the term better. It is a derogatory term that is clearly cited. The article is citing 2-3 religions when all religions other than Hinduism is a non follower of Vedas. Then call all religions Nastik why cite only 2?BalanceRestored 12:40, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

With a little research over the internet you can find that the word hurts the sentiments of people

http://www.echarcha.com/forum/archive/index.php?t-6847.html

http://www.punjabi.net/talk/messages/1/62451.html?1099314940 you can research how the term is being used.. BalanceRestored 12:49, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

What about "Bastard", is the use of this term also ok? It literally mean one who does not have a father. Why not use the same at everyone who does not have a father?BalanceRestored 12:52, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Pointing groups Nastik is also not good. Bastard is their in the English Dictionary, But the same is not used because the term is derogatory.BalanceRestored

ED trolling

Please extend the block on 205.251.30.76 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) per finding of fact 16) and enforcement 1) of Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/MONGO - Specifically, vandalising my about page with a very offensive cutpaste of ED's article on me. Will ^(talk) (Originally posted 20:57, 7 July 2007 (UTC)) 11:53, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

That edit was a couple of days ago and there has been no further edits from that IP, which, correct me if I am wrong, is a dynamic IP address. JodyB _talk 12:39, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Correction, it's been blocked. But I still think its a dynamic IP address so extending the block will not accomplish much. JodyB _talk 12:41, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

If an abusive user has sockpuppets but was blocked for something else... (a complicated question)

Let's put it this way:

- User was blocked for threatening litigation on someone else. - User also made a bunch of sockpuppets and vandalized pages. - User was recently unblocked because the litigation issue is cleared up - but the damage and insults done by the user were not rectified and it is a hot button issue for those affected. - and keep in mind, the sysop admin who unblocked said user is being questioned for this unblocking.

Can the user be re-blocked for previous abuses that are separate from the reason for the block?

Before you ask, who are we talking about? I want the basic question answered first.

But for the sake of clarity, I am discussing this: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Spartaz.

Thank you, Guroadrunner 14:11, 9 July 2007 (UTC)