Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive354

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Noticeboard archives

Neutral Good[edit]

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

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

Lawrence is leading a cabal of meatpuppets from the Blackwater Worldwide artiole, pushing his own POV with a Caterpillar bulldozer (which is what attracted my attention in the first place), and trying to intimidate editors who disagree with them by making false accusations of sockpuppetry, in an obvious effort to WP:OWN the article. An illustration of how Lawrence tells you only half the truth: both Henrik and jehochman have taken his side in this content dispute. Lawrence is in the habit of marching over here to WP:ANI or WP:RFCU on an almost daily basis, telling half the truth and spin-doctoring it as well, in an effort to get editors who disagree with him blocked. I survived two consecutive findings of  Unrelated on RFCU within a week. That is the Wikipedia equivalent of a body cavity search. And I'm supposed to just shut up and take it? Get him off my back, and stop him and his meatpuppets from WP:OWNing the article. Allow me to thank any admin in advance who is contemplating an effort to get Lawrence Cohen and his meatpuppets under control. Neutral Good (talk) 10:07, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
This is not an endorsement of Neutral Good's methods but I have a problem with this posting by Lawrence. Both Lawrence and Jehochman are active and biased editors on the article in question. They disagree with Neutral Good. I have detected a consistent pattern on the part of Lawrence and Jehochman to eliminate people from the article who disagree with them using administrative measures and influence to the point that it may reach to harassment and could cause someone to say the sorts of things that Neutral Good said. Other editors that Lawrence and Jehochman agree with are left untouched by these complaints even if they are also problematic. Jehochman has engaged in general threatening of editors on the page on very flimsy grounds. Lawrence has engaged in personal attacks. If I were another neutral admin, I would proceed cautiously and not automatically assume that either Lawrence or Jehochman come with entirely clean hands to the matter.
Incidentally, I consider the edit war to be the result of actions by another editor, not even mentioned here, who initiated edit changes witout consensus. However, Lawrence happens to agree with this other editor so he could not be the source of the problem. --Blue Tie (talk) 11:34, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
Blue tie, I disagree strongly with your analysis. In the case of Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/GooseCreek I identified a group of checkuser confirmed sock puppets. In a second case Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Shamulou I identified yet another group of editors who had collaborated off wiki and then put forward a proposal without identifying their connections to each other. Both situations were serious violations of policy. Alison decided to unblock Shibumi2 early because he had come to an agreement with her via email.[1] That may be forgiveness, not vindication. Jehochman Talk 14:16, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
For the record, that was forgiveness and understanding but not vindication - Alison 15:42, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
I'm only peripherally acquainted with this article, but the claim by User:Neutral Good that it was POV-pushing that "attracted his attention" to the article strikes me as rather rich, given that he is a single-purpose account, 99% of whose edits are to this article and related talk pages. BLACKKITE 13:38, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
Reliable sources almost unanimously state that waterboarding is torture. A few fringe sources, as well as editorials and political pundits claim that waterboarding is not torture. Blue tie and Neutral Good have been attempting to synthesize the viewpoints of these different sources to say that the classification of waterboarding as torture is controversial. This is not a verifiable fact; it is their own original research. As a matter of verifiable fact, there is no legitimate dispute that waterboarding is torture. (See Talk:Waterboarding/Definition, the RfC page.)
Wikipedia is not a battleground, but Neutral Good in particular appears to be to making it one. He appears to endlessly argue against consensus. His editing has contributed to the article being protected endlessly. Jehochman Talk 14:16, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
Notice how deeply involved Jechochman is in the article content. Though this particular page that we are reading right now has NOTHING to do with the content of that article, he brings the whole debate from that page here, where it is irrelevant. I will forego proving his contentions wrong, as they belong on that page not this one. But, the important thing to notice is how he is using wikipedia administrative practices to push around people that he disagrees with on the article. Before any action is taken based upon his words, his motives and demeanor should be examined as well. --Blue Tie (talk) 02:57, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

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

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


That "waterboarding is torture" is indeed reported by many reliable sources. That "waterboarding" is an buzzword that has a variety of confounding meanings with other tortures -- even within those hallowed sources deploring it -- seems to be irrelevant. htom (talk) 14:48, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
What does this have to do with Neutral Good running around Wikipedia, leaving nasty messages about me after receiving final warnings from two administrators, and complaining bitterly when I ask admins to review the only page he focuses on? Lawrence Cohen 14:51, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

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

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

Proposal: Temporary topic ban[edit]

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

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

As long as it is the first step, and that any other edit warriors who pop up get the same treatment, I would endorse this. SirFozzie (talk) 19:29, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
Yesterday I protected the article again only a few days after it came out of the previous protection. It's clear that what we've been doing up to now hasn't worked. I don't know the positions or histories of the combatants, but any admin who has the fortitude to dive in and start topic banning (or blocking) the most troublesome edit warriors has my support. Raymond Arritt (talk) 20:23, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
(ec) I like the imagination behind this solution. "If you aren't a single-purpose account, then prove it by editing other articles for a while." This solution should be used more often. -- llywrch (talk) 20:27, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
Support a topic ban. I believe that without this editor the Waterboarding dispute will be resolved more quickly, and allow Neutral Good to improve unrelated articles in the meantime. henriktalk 20:29, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

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

Suddenly, I hear crickets chirping rather loudly ... (talk) 21:06, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
I'm sorry that 20 minutes were allowed to lapse before your comment got a response. I don't see evidence of "abuse of administrative processes in a campaign to own the article." I see a tense situation involving a number of otherwise productive contributors and at least one tendentious, single-purpose agenda account. My instinct is to remove the single-purpose agenda warrior from the equation temporarily and allow the other editors, who generally have track records of constructive collaboration and encyclopedia-building, a chance to work it out. On Wikipedia, it's very easy for one person shouting at the top of their lungs to drown out 10 people trying to be reasonable. If you have actual diffs and a more compelling argument that some sort of abuse of process is taking place, then please present them, but rhetoric alone is not particularly convincing. MastCell Talk 21:34, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
I'm sorry that I didn't respond sooner, but I only look in on WP:AN/I about once every day or two -- I find it more enjoyable to spend my time working various articles than to opine on disputes. But I stand by my earlier statement: if a given editor appears to have no other other goal than to force her or his own point of view on an article, that person should be encouraged to work on other parts of Wikipedia for a while -- regardless of allegations of "administrative abuses" or whether I agree or disagree with the point of view in question. The fact is that we have over two million articles here; getting into a long, tedious fight over one of them is counterproductive at best -- & self-destructive at worst. -- llywrch (talk) 07:07, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

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

Inertia Tensor (talk · contribs) certainly looks bad from a brief skim, but has not edited in the past 2 weeks, so I'm not sure what you expect me to do with him unless he acts up again. I'd recuse myself from any action regarding Badagnani (talk · contribs), since I seem to recall we've had some fairly heated discussion on diet-related articles. Lawrence Cohen (talk · contribs) has a track record of positive collaboration and encyclopedia-building, including several FA/GA's, and I don't see anything in his contribs there warranting sanctions, though diffs are always welcome. MastCell Talk 22:09, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
Inertia Tensor: I've been silent recently, because I've been in this cyclical wheel for a long time, as see no point in repeating myself on the talk page. I've been staying off the article main page, and even the talk recently as it is pointless. As soon as consensus is achieved, the article is unlocked, it then hits the fan again. If people would rather I would keep on ....? I'm tired of being baited by puppets and trolls there. You will note I did not get involved in this latest go at Neutral Good. Since when was backing off bad? Unrelated, I have no issue with IP editors, I preffered to do so as an IP but eventually had to switch to user with all the RfCs to vote (as annoyingly, IPs are banned there) - plenty of bay area comcast IPs before the creation of this Inertia Tensor account were me. Inertia Tensor (talk) 08:23, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

Leaving aside the SPA issue, are Good's edits tendentious or needlessly provocative? Looking no further than his contributions from today, I see edits along the lines of this[4]. Raymond Arritt (talk) 21:55, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
Yeah not a particularly good comment. However, considering the heat on the topic, my completely uneducated, uninformed, worthless opinion is that it isn't worthy of a topic ban of any sort. Arkon (talk) 22:03, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

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

It seems to me that a 3 month ban for violating something that is not policy (SPA) is extreme. If the problem is WP:TE, I was unaware that TE was a policy either. If you are going to exercise a ban, it really should be for something that the community has agreed to by policy. But realizing that wikipedia does not always operate by either consensus or policy but on some other indescribable basis, I would at least suggest that there should be better evidence of evil than has been presented here. The frustrations of two highly biased admins (at least on this topic) who are pushing other editors away from that page should not be sufficient testimony for extreme actions. I do not like to communicate the way that NG does, but as with Arkon, I just do not see a serious violation in his comments. And I believe it is incorrect to say that NG was the cause of most of the protections on the article and it is inconceivable that he is the only cause ... yet he is the only one accused. I get the feeling that this is a case of scapegoat.--Blue Tie (talk) 03:08, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
I think every good editor agrees that incivility and disruptive editing are not helpful or wanted on wikipedia. Accusing admins of being biased is not going to help. They are chosen for their track record in good editing practice. If you find yourself in confrontation with one you should be questioning your behaviour and your bias. In my opinion there is clearly enough evidence on the talk page. --neonwhite user page talk 03:39, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
You're damn straight, Blue Tie. Here's what I've seen in Internet communities and this one is no different. The trolls pick on the new guy. The new guy reacts a little strongly. The community, to the astonishment of the new guy and any detached observers, rises up in defense of their trolls because they are, after all, THEIR trolls. Neutral Good (talk) 03:24, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
Well, on the other hand, you sort of play right into it and do yourself no favors by calling people trolls. I suspect, like many people, you are getting emotional over these things (feeling targeted can do that too). I recommend that if you feel emotional, you take some time off to cool down. --Blue Tie (talk) 03:33, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
I take time off to cool down on a regular basis. In fact, I just came back around Christmas from (approximately) two months of Wikibreak and saw this mess. I also take at least two eight-hour periods off every day, to work and to sleep. There appear to be several editors on the article who don't even do that. Neutral Good (talk) 03:39, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
A BETTER PROPOSAL would be to instead LOCK the article and the talk page thread each for 16 hours each day to allow editors a hance to cool off and relax withoitu worrying that the others guys are fucking around with the original ocntent. Smith Jones (talk) 03:46, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
That makes no sense. Tendentious editing is a subset of disruptive editing. Which is a guideline. As I said, Neutral Good is not the only problematic presence on the article, nor is s/he the root of all evil. On the other hand, the other editors currently involved generally have a track record of being able to work collaboratively elsewhere. Neutral Good has a track record of unmitigated tendentiousness. The idea behind the topic ban is not to excuse everyone else, but to a) temporarily remove a particularly inflammatory and unconstructive presence, and b) to give Neutral Good a chance to build up a better track record of collaborative editing on other articles before returning to waterboarding. Trust me, the article and the issue will still be there in 3 months. MastCell Talk 03:46, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
I see a problem with you last statement based upon the history there. Previously (before I edited there), there were apparently disputes. Supposedly they came to some consensus. Some of the editors now claim that regardless of right wrong, left right, etc. they are simply seeking to preserve consensus. The argument boils down to "We already decided so it must not change". If that philosophy prevails, then when he returns in 3 months, the chorus will be "We already decide now go away". I must have missed it, because I do not see NG's edits as being especially bad on that page, and I think it should bear some weight on the matter that he was, almost immediately accused of being malicious (as I recall) based upon the fact that he was new but seemed to know wiki-editing. When an editor is greeted with that, and treated badly by a small mob, their reaction to that treatment can look like tendentious editing. And perhaps it is. But it is not exactly one sided.
I believe a real solution to the problems on that page would be to ban anyone who insists on only one form of wording and nothing else. The only folk left then would be those who are willing to consider other wordings. Such people are able to negotiate and eventually come to consensus. People who are intractable, not just on principles but on exact wording cannot come to consensus if anyone else disagrees with them. That is a big part of the problem there. --Blue Tie (talk) 06:35, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

A summary of the problem[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

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

I disagree. The problem has nothing to do with the Election Cycle. The fundamental problem is simply that the issue is disputed in society at large and wikipedia, for better or worse, reflects society. However, that basic problem is compounded when editors not only refuse to assume good faith but actively look and seek for ways to discredit anyone who disagrees with their perspective. The post above is an example. Sure... he does not "say" that certain people are responsible, but he names names, one after the other, of people who disagree with him and says the last one "puts icing on the cake". It throws gas on the fire for an admin to take a strong partisan view and then post about the guilt all around him, while he and fellow sympathizers are innocent victims tolerating hoodlums. One would think that only the people who disagree with Lawrence are causing problems. I guess if everyone who disagree with him would go away, things would be just fine. But that works both ways. Sure, he's not canvassing for support. He's just dragging the content debate from that talk page over to this one -- and complaining. No, that's not canvassing. That's getting "more eyes". Look at how hard he tries to convince everyone here that his position is the right one... even before you get to that talk page! But its all in the name of keeping you neutral when you arrive. And to emphasize how neutral his position is, he asserts that all the new people agree with his view. He then asserts that these new people joining up on that side have enraged some small minority to ferocity, apparently because they are somehow outnumbered. Well, from the perspective of editing suggestions for the articlethat is simply not so. New editors have stated that the firm stance that the article takes "Waterboarding is torture" is not correct and should be adjusted. In fact, there really has not been a terribly uncivil situation on that page that I have seen. It has been very active. Sometimes heated. But the uncivility has not been all that bad until tonight when an admin imposed new rules on the page, but then did not enforce them -- leading to a sense that things were "unfair". THAT is the problem and it will soon die away. But meanwhile, Lawrence comes here and salts the well against the people who disagree with him by claiming that they are unreasonable, uncivil and basically horrible --- so all fair minded admins can know exactly what they should do or who they should target when they arrive if they are even remotely sane or good people.
Other than the fundamentally difficult nature of the topic, the most important contribution to that article's heat has been a constant drum-beat of subtle and overt provocations and bullying actions by admins who take a strong pov in the debate. Perhaps due to the nature of the issue, it is impossible for an admin to be unbiased. But I do not agree with the causes that Lawrence postulates above. --Blue Tie (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 08:13, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
What you decline to mention was that this fake consensus was the pre-made meatpuppetry from Harvard, that has already been discredited here: those people are all the admitted Harvard classmates that made a decision ahead of time, in real life, then all came to Wikipedia to post that very section. Abusive meatpuppetry. Lawrence Cohen 14:57, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
Probably because it was not discredited.--Blue Tie (talk) 19:43, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
I originally got involved after a posting by Lawrence on WP:RSN asking for uninvolved editors to contribute. After watching for a few weeks, I will agree with him that the presence of certain editors is extremely disruptive to the consensus building approach. Almost every posting by a certain editor is designed to drive other editors apart and provoke confrontation and endless argument. The endless contributions from anonymous Sprint wireless IP addresses, the confirmed sockpuppeting from those addresses, Neutral Good's Request for Adminship for the sock-puppeteer, the support of those addresses here etc. I don't know how these editors are connected, but it seems to involve Free Republic somehow. While all of this is going on, any attempt to build consensus will fail, and editors will be driven away from the article.
I also agree with Lawrence (and disagree with Blue Tie): this disruption is completely about American politics. There are absolutely no citations from before 2001 questioning the status of waterboarding as a form of torture. The dispute is wholly as a result of its use by the CIA, and those who wish to justify that use. Chris Bainbridge (talk) 12:40, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
I think it is possible that there are no sources prior to 2001 that use the term waterboarding at all. If you have seen any, I would be very excited to read them. --Blue Tie (talk) 19:45, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
The origin of the English word "waterboard" is an interesting question, but does not affect the meaning of what I wrote: every reliable source reported the drowning technique as torture when done by the Spanish, Japanese, Vietnamese, Khmer Rouge etc. Nobody claimed the technique might not be torture before 2001. Chris Bainbridge (talk) 20:23, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
It seems to have been used at least as early as 1946 in UN documents. All evidence I have is the second entry on this Google Books search[5], I have no easy access to these documents to check it any further. Fram (talk) 14:40, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
I've been watching infrequently and endorse Lawrence's summary of the situation given above. Orderinchaos 05:35, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
Thank you. The situation has presently gone to arbitration: Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Waterboarding/Evidence. Lawrence Cohen 20:48, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Stone put to sky[edit]

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

This interaction took place on my talk page, and was occasioned by MONGO's appearance and declaration that i was not to make any mention of a publicly available admission published on this site by a former partner of his. Following that, he made a thinly-veiled threat that he would seek administrative intervention should i choose to do so. MONGO's rhetoric and choice of words were unambiguous violations of WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA; coupled with past disciplinary actions taken against him as well as his active pursuit of me, independent of any pages on which he or i am currently editing, then i must protest that the root problem here are his actions -- not mine.
The exchange took place on my talk page, and would never have happened had it not been initiated by him. None of it has been nor ever will be used in any of the pages where i am editing. MONGO pursued the exchange even though i made it quite clear that i considered his activity to be tantamount to bullying threats. In an extremely surreal move, JungleCat suddenly appeared -- i have had virtually no interaction with this poster ever, so far as i can remember -- and began asserting that MONGO was correct. Why this person appeared i have no idea, but the distinct impression was that there was some sort of set-up or collaboration taking place. Regardless, i politely rejected their interpretation of the word "fascist" and -- again, politely -- referred them to any common dictionary or other reference for proof.
MONGO was quite upset, apparently, that i had referred to admissions made by NuclearUmpf -- a former, long-term poster and editing partner of MONGO's -- that were made here on the Wikipedia website and are freely available to all. Regarding the specific accusations made against MONGO, i would like to point out that it was he who appeared on my talk page and engaged me in this course of conversation. I did not seek him out, nor did i press the issue publicly (i.e. -- on a public page frequented by many, nor in a formal administrative move, nor on a page's talk-page). I find it hard to understand why any objections should arise when mention is made of a public admission by a former, long-term user. NuclearUmpf's revelations outlined a modus operandi that has been openly commented upon and observed by many users from all across the website. I believe that this is usually referred to as "The Elephant in the Room", but in this instance these were published admissions and revelations, not mere accusations made by me, and it seems rather beyond the pale for someone to insist that they be stricken from the public record. My characterization of the members of such cabals as "kiddie thugs" may be mildly distasteful, but it is not inaccurate and was not directed at any particular person or group. A general observation made about a class of people universally rejected by all wikipedia policies and administrators certanly can not be considered a personal insult, can it?
I would further like to point out that we would not be discussing any of this in the public section of the site were it not for MONGO's own pursuit of the matter, as well as the implicit threats and incivility of his entire comportment throughout this entire affair.
Finally, most of the "incivility" that MONGO claims occurred was nothing more than a discussion of whether the word "fascist" is a pejorative epithet or a neutral descriptive. I maintain the latter; MONGO feels it is, however, an insult. Nowhere in that particular discussion did i use invective, and throughout the exchange i re-iterated repeatedly that A) I have friends who self-identify as fascists, B) fascism as a mainstream political movement is still quite alive and kicking, and C) the implication was clearly that, insofar as i have friends who call themselves fascists, i can hardly be accused of considering the word an ipso facto insult. Stone put to sky (talk) 10:33, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
In all fairness, many today proudly call themselves Nazi, but to suggest being called a Nazi is therefore not insulting sounds a bit naive to me. Nomen NescioGnothi seauton 11:08, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
And i agree. But "fascism" does not espouse openly racist beliefs, nor does it promote social darwinism, eugenics, or genocide. Fascism is one aspect of Nazism; but it was also espoused by high-ranking members of the U.S. and British government, powerful businessmen in both of those countries, and of course by the governments of Mussolini, Chiang Kai-shek and Franco. Franco and Chiang Kai-shek were close allies of the U.S. for many years, all the way up until their respective deaths. There are fascist groups openly at work in Italy, Germany, France and Britain even today. So while calling someone a "Nazi" is, i admit, an insult, saying that someone is a "fascist" is -- for me, at least -- just a descriptive term.
I'd also add that i have never taunted MONGO -- or anyone else, for that matter -- with this term; i do, however, strongly object to demands that i excise it from my vocabulary. Stone put to sky (talk) 12:00, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
You will excise it from your vocabulary when you refer to me again. If you don't agree that most would see it as an epithet, then maybe you need some familiarization as can be seen at our own article......Fascist (epithet).--MONGO 12:16, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
I'm sorry -- was that a threat that you just made? Some sort of ultimatum you think you have the power to issue? Obviously, MONGO, you have some personal issues you need to work through, because you most assuredly do not possess the authority to dictate to me how i use language. And, in that vein -- having just pointed out your authoritarian tendencies and the general lack of civility they imply -- i suggest that you check out the entry here . The first paragraph seems particularly apropos. Stone put to sky (talk) 13:37, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
Okay...thats very nice. Thanks.--MONGO 21:49, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
I'm sorry, MONGO, but i don't really understand your answer. My question was honest: are you threatening me? And if so, then with what? Because the english you used was clearly a command: "You will...." (or else!). The "or else" is clearly implied, and so the usage appears distinctly uncivil to me. Then you follow it up with this...taunt? What else could one call it? In the meantime, i have yet to get an answer from you: do you really feel as if i am bound by wikipedia guidelines to submit to your caprice and whim? Because with the two statements just made by you it certainly seems to me as if that's how you think. Stone put to sky (talk) 06:18, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
I don't make threats, but if you persist in this violation of policy regarding WP:NPA then I have no recourse aside from seeking further dispute resolution. If you can't abide by the comments here asking you to cease making wild accusations and to cease referring to those you disagree with as fascists, some of which have been made by people that in no way could ever be part of my alledged "cabal", then I think further action may be necessary.--MONGO 16:54, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
Out of the blue, you brought up the issue of this illusionary cabal some days ago by posting here and I responded here and you didn't. I had had zero interaction with you for a long time until I saw this bogus report. I have no idea what compelled you to suddenly make these false acusations. I then asked you on your talkpage to refrain from making these unsubstantiated allegations and have asked you repeatedly to not call me a fascist, yet you persist. You also persist in posting incorrect allusions regarding my involvement in some cabal. I have asked you to furnish proof and you won't or can't. I even suggested you request a checkuser on me and these other editors and you won't do that either.--MONGO 10:43, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
MONGO, walk away per WP:DENY. LessHeard vanU (talk) 11:12, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

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

Stone put to sky is referring I believe to this posting made by User:NuclearUmpf (aka User:SevenOfDiamonds shortly before he was banned. It was never proven of course. I guess since Stone put to sky is now in edit conflicts with a User:Raggz, he assumes that this newer editor has some connection with me or others who also disagreed with his contributions in the past. Nevertheless, I certainly don't appreciate being brought up out of the blue based on some unsubstantiated allegation made by an editor in imminent threat of being banned, nor do I appreciate the insult of being called a fascist.--MONGO 11:28, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
Thank you, I am aware of that statement by Zer0faults (talk · contribs) (yet another aka), however, his reliability around the time of his indef ban appears to be somewhat less than 100%.:) Certainly Stone should be smarter than to use this as evidence. Personally I am not convinced and urge people to ignore that statement by what I consider a disruptive element. Especially since that statement is a decade old. Again I ask Stone to provide more compelling evidence or stop making wild accusations. Second, eventhough he sees things defferently I think using fascist to describe other editors is not a constructive way of communicating. Nomen NescioGnothi seauton 11:47, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
I think it odd that i be asked to provide evidence for something that speaks for itself. All i have done -- and i think it not unreasonable nor uncivil -- is point out that a long-term compadre of MONGO's has admitted to behavior that i myself have outlined elsewhere (pointedly without reference, i might add, to any sort of off-site coordination or leadership). In that admission my name was specifically mentioned as one of the objects of this behavior. Other posters and other contributors -- not to mention other websites -- have long insisted that this behavior is rampant across all of Wikipedia. I am not advocating any action specifically based upon these revelations or admissions; all i have done is point out that, in light of these admissions, certain behavior by certain posters on the State Terrorism thread is reasonably suspect.
If evidence is being asked for, then i would suggest somebody just pop in over there and watch the merry-go-round i've been on these last few days with one particular poster there. I have asked -- repeatedly -- to be accorded the simple courtesy of discussing edits before they are posted on the page. Yet for some reason the poster in question cannot figure out that really, that's all i want. I have suffered a lot of ham-fisted wikilawyering and been the object of a lot of accusations, but even up to now the poster insists that there is only one answer to the page's problems: his introduction (part of which is patently untrue, and the other part of which has already been made an explicit foundation of the article), and massive deletions.
In the past this sort of behavior has served as the prelude to an AfD nomination, preceded and/or followed by the appearance of MONGO, Harrison, and a host of other, less well-known posters. In each case repeated attempts to delete large portions of reliably sourced, relevant material are made. NuclearUmpf/Zerofaults/etc was often at the forefront of this activity. Are you suggesting, Nomen, that when a poster who has been the cause of so much destructive activity admits that he was not working alone, explains how it was coordinated and for what reasons, and then points a finger at me -- are you actually suggesting that it is uncivil of me to make mention of that?
Need i add that this behavior -- this JungleCat/MONGO tag-team that suddenly appeared on my talk page -- is circumstantial corroboration? I don't understand what the problem is with pointing out something that all long-term posters here already understand to be true. Stone put to sky (talk) 12:17, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
Zer0Faults/NuclearUmpf/SevenOfDiamonds was never a compadre of mine. Your ongoing insinuations that content disputes you are having with Raggz have something to do with myself and or others you have previously been in disputes with are ridiculous. I haven't touched that page in over 6 months. As I have pointed out, that post about some cabal was made by an editor in bad standing in the community and was banned, repeatedly. It was unsubstantiated and your conspiracy theory on this matter is laughable. Surely, you're not so sheltered to assume that only a few people would oppose your content additions? You really think that just myself and other editors are the only ones on earth that would? How preposterous. Cease with your unsubstantiated allegations and wikilawyering about why it is "okay" to call myself and others fascist, please.--MONGO 12:29, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
Well, we shall agree to disagree about your relationship with Zerofaults. From my position it seemed quite clear that you, he and others were supporting each others' edits and defending each others' deletions, even in the face of vociferous disapproval from the vast majority of regular editors. IIRC, there was often considerable backslapping amongst you all. Would you like me to go find a bit of evidence to support these observations?
For the moment, however, i am content to point out that MONGO is, most assuredly, not "assuming good faith". I do acknowledge that yes, it is quite possible that MONGO and Raggz have no relationship whatsoever; it's easy for me to say that. I have never sought to push this issue and nothing i have said so far has suggested that it's a problem for me. I have not been running around, willy-nilly, tossing out accusations and/or demanding action. The inference that MONGO has drawn is that i am pointing a finger at him and drawing a target. I am not. I am, however, drawing attention to the behavior of Raggz and suggesting that now may be a good time for conscientious Wikipedia administrators to pay attention to what's happening over on the State Terrorism page; and there is a reason for my concern: the admission by NuclearUmpf that i have often been the target of coordinated group activity. I have not demanded that anyone be banned, nor have i demanded any recognition of the truth or falsehood of this accusation. I have, however, pointed out that there is a great deal of corroborating evidence on the "State Terrorism by United States" page and that there is good justification for concern. My only desire is to improve the page, nothing else. Yet out of this simple observation MONGO has -- through clearly aggressive, uncivil behavior -- provoked a confrontation and convinced himself that it is in fact i who am attacking him.
Finally, i'd like to point out that i haven't ever labled MONGO a fascist! Even so i do insist that, were i to do so, it would remain a neutral term, entirely less of an invective than his own usage of words like "liberal", "democrats", "defeatocrats", or whatever ("conspiracy nut", anyone?). MONGO has repeatedly demonstrated a penchant for hurling epithets and insults at others, and i doubt a day passes that doesn't see him utilizing this particular skill of his. With the exception of a few, extremely rare instances, i do not. When i have transgressed those boundaries, i have apologized. Thus, i find it ironic that i am suffering the ire of MONGO for the use of a term that was never directed at him personally, and -- moreover -- which i consider to be both neutral and trivial. Stone put to sky (talk) 13:20, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
All I am asking Stone not to do is use the word "fascist" to describe me or anyone else that objects to that term, it's as simple as that. To me, someone calling me that is assuming bad faith about me and I see it as a personal attack. JungleCat Shiny!/Oohhh! 20:09, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

Goodness! We do have a coterie, here, don't we! JTrainor, Durova, JungleCat and MONGO -- all in the same place, once again!
Regarding my supposed lack of "good faith", i would like to request evidence. MONGO has levelled charges. I have responded to them in a serious, sincere, and polite fashion. I have not made any accusations of bad faith nor implied any ill intent or motives on the part of any of the participants, here. I have pointed out that they are famous collaborators who support each other wiki-wide -- but that is transparently evident to anyone who posts here for some time and does not suggest any "bad faith" on my part. Beyond that, i have addressed the accusations being leveled at me -- and nothing more.
I would also like to point out -- for the third or fourth time now -- that i have never used the word fascist to refer to any particular person. JungleCat has joined into this conversation protesting that he doesn't like me using the word "fascist" to refer to him. That would be like me jumping into an AN/I involving him and some random user and declaring that i don't like him calling me a "liberal" (which, incidentally, i really do hate -- but since he never has, then why would i bother?). The same goes for Durova and her objections. These people are referring to an exchange that never took place.
Even so, i will also refer once again to the well-known fact that "fascist" is a clearly defined technical term that is -- when not being slung around in the same way the word "liberal" often is -- morally neutral. That is simply a fact. Nothing more.
From that, i wold like to summarize the current arguments as i see them (and please -- correct me if i'm wrong):
A) I should never have mentioned the admissions of NuclearUmpf, even though i was particularly named in it. So you are all declaring that my mention of certain revelations is actionable in and of itself -- even when i was one of the named objects in those revelations? Once again: i'm not asking for any sort of official action, apology, or acknowledgment. I'm not jumping up and down and throwing a tantrum. All i have done is point out that these admissions were made, nothing more.
B) I should never use the word "fascist" to refer to any person's political ideas or world view because some here feel strongly about it's use. The argument is, apparently, that i should excise the word "fascist" from my vocabulary and never use it again on Wikipedia. Am i correct? In response, i would ask if it's apropos for me to demand that some here never use the word "conspiracy", because i perceive it as an epithet they use to bully others. Would that be reasonable? If not, then i can only protest that i see no point to the argument. Since there is no evidence that i have ever used this particular word as an epithet aimed at any particular person then it really does seem to me as if we are engaged in a lot of hypothesizing and aggrandized posturing, and nothing more. I do respect, however, that some here seem to have strong feelings; i would respond, however, that i, too, have strong inclinations over these matters.
These being the sum of the charges here before me, i am wondering where we should now proceed. I was sought out by MONGO, who plastered my talk page with all sorts of unambiguously uncivil assertions that both presume and imply bad faith. I responded measuredly and without ire. When called here i appeared, and have negotiated in good faith to work out these issues with MONGO. I am obviously not out to pick a fight or provoke any ill will. I am clearly representing myself, and only myself, over and against a rapidly expanding array of MONGO's allies. Some of these are very visible, high-powered administrators and editors. Should we conclude from this that -- apparently -- he does not feel comfortable enough with the arguments themselves and -- for some reason -- fears unemotional consideration by neutral admins? For my part, i rarely appear at AN/I. This is, IIRC, only my second or third time to be here. I do not bully other editors, pick fights, vandalize web-pages, or seek anything but conscientious, solid expansion of Wikipedia. I do not coordinate actions behind-the-scenes. I come here when i can and add what i can. That's the sum of my contributions here, and although they are rather plain and unremarkable i'm proud of them, and happy to be a part of this project. Am i now to be disciplined? Because as we all know, the internet is a big place. People who post here also post in other places, and i have seen rumours on other websites that i am to be banned. Is that what is intended?
For insisting that "fascist" is a useful, neutral, technical descriptive? Because i had the gumption to make reference to posts here that mention me, by name?
Is that really where this is headed? Stone put to sky (talk) 06:14, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
Several sarcastic responses at your expense come to mind, but instead I'll just point to my contribs and MONGO's contribs, where anyone can see that we have never interacted before a few days ago, and that being a brief conversation on his talk page. Jtrainor (talk) 06:20, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
Well, then -- why did you seek out my talk page? But even so, IIRC you are a bit mistaken. We have encountered each other, but that was quite some time back. I can understand how you might have forgotten. For my part, bygones are bygones. Thus, it seems rather unfortunate that you have now taken such a confrontational posture towards me. Stone put to sky (talk) 06:29, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
Uh, I've never posted on your talk page. I've posted to Viriditas's talk page and MONGO's and Raggz's recently, but not yours. Jtrainor (talk) 07:16, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
Ah. My mistake. I went back into the archives and verified that it wasn't you. Please accept my apologies and consider the comment retracted in full. Stone put to sky (talk) 07:58, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

ome final observations:

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

Respectfully Nomen NescioGnothi seauton 16:18, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, Nomen, but i must protest.
FIrst, i have drawn no conclusions. I have left the conclusions entirely up to the Wikipedia administration. All i have done is ask for attention.
Second, my usage of the word "fascist" was never directed at any particular person or group. For instance, i never said "I think _____ is a ____ble fascist!!". Instead, i suggested that there existed fascists who were more interested in seeing a particular viewpoint eliminated from Wikipedia's public boards. Am i wrong for suspecting that? Isn't it true that fascists do exist in this world of ours, and that fascists are as capable as any other of pushing their own viewpoint through Wikipedia's channels? If so then am i not justified in suspecting that they may be interested in suppressing certain viewpoints? Correct me if i'm wrong, but is it not true that many people on Wikipedia suppress ides based on their supposed origination in "Holocaust denial", "White Supremacist" or "Neo-Nazi" ideology? Isn't it true that many people around Wikipedia challenge each other as -- personally -- as conservative, liberal, Republican, Democrat, or some other such label? How is my usage in this particular instance any different?
Finally, i would liike to re-iterate that i have never demanded any sort of official action or acknowledgment of any cabals. If i think a cabal exists then shouldn't it be perceived as entirely my personal failing? The only thing i have ever done is to call attention to the postings of a single editor here, on these pages (AN/I and Talk). I have only ever asked that, in the light of these admissions, particular attention should be paid to one of the pages he clearly indicated. Am i wrong to be concerned over the clear identification of myself as an object of these plans?
More importantly -- are you seriously asserting that i should disregard them? Stone put to sky (talk) 18:59, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
In addition to all of that i would like to specifically request clarification: are you saying i am or am not allowed to use the word "fascist"? The current edit does not make that clear. Stone put to sky (talk) 19:05, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
You shouldn't be calling anyone a fascist. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 22:11, 14 January 2008 (UTC)


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

slakrtalk /

Stale: User warned. Future issues should seek continued dispute resolution, including mediation or arbitration. --slakrtalk / 19:15, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Seek dispute resolution or use the subpage for further comments. slakrtalk /

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

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

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

I'm thinking this is stale. You might consider arbitration or another form of dispute resolution if the problem behavior persists; but, for now the user has been warned. --slakrtalk / 19:15, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
By the way, the only reason I say it's stale is that it doesn't look like any administrator is going to act on it for the time being, and it looks like it's turning into an arbitration discussion, so it doesn't help to keep it posted here unless the problem involves a seriously pressing issue requiring emergency attention. --slakrtalk / 19:19, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
Sorry if this is a stupid question but what do you mean by "the user has been warned"? Sideshow Bob Roberts (talk) 19:36, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
Minor note. For those who are interested the longer discussion thread still exists. It is at
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/User:Raggz
I noticed that the link to it was struck out higher up. --Timeshifter (talk) 19:36, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
Ah, sorry, it was only mean tto strike out the actual "unresolved" tag. I suppose I could just replace it entirely. Anyway, the warning was Coren's post later in the page. I don't know if anything is resolved or not, but it seems like the discussion is considerably more in depth and requires more than a simple discussion on ANI (i.e., it requires dispute resolution, or, if that hasn't worked, the final step arbitration. There's little else that is willing to be done here, else it probably would have been done already. --slakrtalk / 20:33, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
You mean this? I don't see an actual user warning there, and Raggz certainly didn't interpret it as one. On the contrary, this sends a clear message that he can keep lying in Wikipedia articles, edit summaries and discussion pages, and no administrator will ever do anything about it. Sideshow Bob Roberts (talk) 23:06, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
Be civil and don't use personal attacks. Jtrainor (talk) 03:41, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
Raggz has told dozens of outright lies in articles, in edit summaries, and on discussion pages. He has told a bunch of outright lies about me personally. I've provided plenty of diffs that demonstrate this, but no-one here seems to be interested.
Apologies if I've misunderstood, but I don't think anything in WP:NPA or WP:CIVIL implies that we shouldn't point out when a person is lying. Sideshow Bob Roberts (talk) 04:43, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

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


Resolved: IP blocked by admin.

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

  1. IP talk page warnings
  2. [ latest incident - Will Turner
  3. [ latest incident - POTC:AWE

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

The IP hasn't edited since your last warning. Next time, please take these reports to WP:AIV. —Kurykh 03:39, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
Thanks Kurykh, sorry to trouble you with this one, I'll repost there. Edit Centric (talk) 03:49, 13 January 2008 (UTC) implicit message was that a block isn't needed at this juncture. Block at next offense. —Kurykh 03:55, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
Um...I respectfully disagree. If you look again, you'll see that this same IP user comes back every few days, and removes the same content from the same articles. The latest two incidents were performed after the level-4 warning. After reverting these changes, I issued the 4-im. So in essence, the IP has received five warnings for the month so far. However, I do respect your position and opinion, whatever becomes of this one is kosher by me. Edit Centric (talk) 04:00, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
Just noting, the IP is currently blocked for 31 hours by User:C.Fred. It doesn't appear to be shared or dynamic (or at any rate, it's been static for several days). I might be willing to apply longer blocks, in the event they continue. Seems a compromise? – Luna Santin (talk) 21:42, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
Seems at least appropriate. Thanks again! Edit Centric (talk) 10:30, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

The Troubles - ArbCom remedy request for views[edit]

Resolved: last chances being given out

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

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

I'm sure padraig will agree, this is a massive over reaction to a small event.Traditional unionist (talk) 14:47, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
Which is why I asked for comments. On the other hand, it could be argued that if we are not to use the tools provided by ArbCom for moderating the problems with these articles, what is the point of having ArbCom at all? BLACKKITE 14:50, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
I ask myself the same question (for different reasons) frequently.Traditional unionist (talk) 14:58, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
Comment an unsourced claim was removed from the article by another editor who started a discussion on the talk page, User:Traditional Unionist immediately reverted its removal, I responded on the talk page and then removed the reverted text as OR and POV Here, TU then reverted with the [15] edit summary desist from removing referenced material. start a dicsussion this is dispite the fact the the source, the text of the GFA dosen't support the text being added and a discussion was already underway on the talk page, He also deleted a message i placed on his talk page here, I then removed the unsourced material, which is when the article was protected. I have not edit warred but removed unsourced claims as per WP policy.--Padraig (talk) 15:06, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

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

BLACKKITE 15:05, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

The claim is not supported by the source, they are trying to add their own interpertation or opinion on a issue and claiming the source supports it, that is WP:OR, this was addressed in the talk page. I have already been involved in the discussion on the talk page and have no problem continuing to do so.--Padraig (talk) 15:12, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
1)I apologise for my edit summary, I didn't notice a discussion had been opened. 2)It is not OR or intrepretation. It is a referenced statement, which I have added a further reference for on the talk page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Traditional unionist (talkcontribs) 15:15, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
You didn't check to see if there was one either, so explain why you deleted my comment from your talk page, It is a interpertation on your part, Sinn Fein have never stated they see Northern Ireland as a viable and seperate state, you are inserting your own opinion.--Padraig (talk) 15:26, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
  • OK right - let's be WP:BOLD - I have stubbed that paragraph. Let's get a discussion going, please, and I will unprotect at some point (not immediately). BLACKKITE 15:20, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
I agree with the wording on your stubbed version. That is all needs to be said in the article on the issue.--Padraig (talk) 17:29, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

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

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

List of hooligan firms[edit]

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

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

JackQBP has been blocked for edit warring. In the future, you may want to bring such concerns to places like ANI or WP:RFC sooner. Revert wars are unproductive ways of handling content disputes like this; you are quite likely yourself to be blocked for WP:3RR violation, even if you are in the right. 3RR blocks are not about endorsing one person's view over another, but will be given to all involved to stop the war. In this case, it is clear you have been trying to talk to the user in question and start a discussion, and he is not willing to, which is why I only blocked him. But please take care in the future, and when problems arise like this, enlist outside opinion OR help from admins sooner rather than later. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 17:19, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
Cheers, my apologies for not bringing it up sooner as myself (and other users who have also reverted the edits) should have done so. I will do as you state in future if anything like this arises again.♦Tangerines♦·Talk 17:26, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
What are people's feelings concerning this? Corvus cornixtalk 03:03, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
Retention of deleted content in userspace. Might as well kill it. --tjstrf talk 03:07, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
Actually, I have the opposite opinion. Let us still assume good faith here, (and remember, I blocked this user for disruption) and consider that he intends to use this space to work on finding sources and build the section up to meet Wikipedia standards. Plus, userfying deleted material (unless clear copyvio or BLP problems) is usually allowed fairly liberally. This particular page does no harm, and if the user returns with the same behavior, they will be blocked for a longer period. This page has no bearing on that. I say let it be, and no need to flog the deceased pony here... 03:20, 15 January 2008 (UTC)



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

I fixed it by deleting it. It was malformed and one of the the editor's few contributions. No point keeping it or archiving it. If he runs in the future it can be re-created.Pedro :  Chat  21:47, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
I actually think it would be better if it was actually kept, and allowed to run properly. If you see my talk page, they did fully intend to submit themselves, despite what they were told last time they tried, back in Nov. If it was to run it would press home to this user that they are not ready for adminship. Who knows, it might make them stay on and become a admin in the future, if they know what to aim for--Jac16888 (talk) 22:39, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
It's deleted with no prejudice to re-creation. I just don't think we need to formally close and archive it. If the editor wishes to run then he can just create it again as his first RfA, and fill it in properly. It wasn't transcluded to WP:RFA so I don't see any issues that anything has been hidden or what-have-you. Pedro :  Chat  22:48, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
Ok then. I've explained this to the user, and i'm gonna re-mark this as resolved--Jac16888 (talk) 23:19, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Valley Lines[edit]

Resolved: content dispute, nothing that needs administrative attention here

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

I would request any administrator taking action here to check their facts first. WL has attempted (and succeeded on one occasion) to mislead administrators as to his own conduct. Further to the abuse reported here, I have requested that in future the user should seek clarification should his edits be reverted in future, to which he agreed. I have asked no fewer than seven times for him to justify his choice of formatting over the status quo ante, and he has refused each time. His edit was not "logical", but rather was tendentious, giving undue prominence to the stations within one of the five principal areas covered by the extent of the subject. (talk) 19:50, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
Requested the reasoning eight times: [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] [23]. WL then sought to harass User:AlisonW, who had intervened previously - by casting themselves as the innocent party, and falsely accusing me of breaching 3RR. [24] Having not gained instant satisfaction, he then turned to harass me, accusing a "blatant disregard for Wikipedia" [25], and of "chasing" him [26] - though it is worth noting that WP:STALK makes it clear that reviewing an editor's contributions to deal with "errors or violations of Wikipedia policy, or correcting related problems on multiple articles" (q.v.) is not only not prohibited but actively encouraged. (talk) 20:02, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

Recent creation of User:Gray Wanderer[edit]


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

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

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

User:Turtlescrubber seems to be having a bad day[edit]


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

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

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

Racism in user page[edit]

Resolved: Offending content removed and page full-protected. Further concerns about the content of User: pages should be directed to miscellany for deletion. Suspected sockpuppets should go to suspected sockpuppetry. slakrtalk /
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

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

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

If you are offended by a single header ("China=shame") and you can't look away from the page, then you need to ask Certified.Gangsta in a nice tone if s/he would mind removing it or clarifying the statement. I really don't see it as racist or an abuse of user page privileges in current (non-)context. And a brief look through the recent history show that most people agree with this position (the ask nicely one, not the China=shame one) and are restoring it when it is removed. I don't think there's anything for administrators to do here. Ask first, then dispute resolution, then WP:RfC. ➔ REDVEЯS is standing in the dark 13:19, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
To disagree with the actions of a government is not to be a racist. No where does it say anything about the Chinese people. I don't see this as racist in ANY way... 19:10, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
here is a typical example of what was previously included under the header. I won't comment on whether the header by itself is offensive, but its intent is clearly _not_ to "disagree with the actions of a government". —Random832 19:16, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
Oh, shit. never mind. That is disturbing... 22:01, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
It would be a different matter if it said "the People's Republic of China government = shame". But it doesn't. It says "China=shame". As the article China explains, "China" is a national, ethnic or pan-ethnic concept that may not be readily identifiable with any one government. When looking at whether something is objectively offensive, the question should be what is the most obvious meaning. Does "China" mean the country or nation and its people? Or does it mean its government? I think most people would say the former.
And as Random832 pointed out, the previous content of that section makes it clear that the author intended it to be racially offensive. Replacing the explicitly offensive content with an ambiguous comment as the user has done does not change that.
Finally, as far as "asking nicely" goes, the user has been asked nicely numerous times - as a perousal of the history of the talk page reveals. Even some of the editors who restored the deletion of the heading has asked him nicely to remove it.
This is not just a swearword or a pornographical picture, guys. Wikipedia has no room for racial hatred. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 22:08, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
Childish trolling rather than racial hatered. We can't mandate what people think, and there is nothing offensive on the page now (only in the history). The best way to respond to trolling is to ignore it don't you think? Theresa Knott | The otter sank 23:03, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

Calling someone an abusive sockpuppet is a serious allegation. And I'm not American, thank you very much. Do you have any evidence to back that up with? --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 03:22, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
Checkuser is not going to work, it is too old. I suggest you find an admin familiar with the user in question to block them if they are in violation of WP:SOCK. (Blnguyen seems to be a good start). ViridaeTalk 03:27, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
To Theresa: it may be trolling perhaps, but it is also offensive because it targets a specific ethnicity. Based on your user page, I am assuming you are English. If that were true, how would you like a banner of "England=Shame" on a user page? Especially if it preceded a curious statement that, on examination of history, followed from explicit and hate-filled racial attack?
Perhaps you are more tolerant of such insults than other editors - but the fact that many different editors have been so offended by the banner that they have directly intervened to remove it speaks for the level of offence it causes, I think.
To Viridae: User:Certified.Gangsta has not supplied any evidence that I am either a sockpuppet nor, most importantly, abusive. Notice how User:Certified.Gangsta has, in the same post, accused me of being the sockpuppet of three separate users? Either we are all the same person, or User:Certified.Gangsta doesn't know what he is talking about. Perhaps he genuinely fails to understand why his behaviour offends other users.
Nor is User:Blnguyen a good choice of authority in the present case: he has a tendency to react violently and negatively to me for reasons I cannot fathom, e.g. see Talk:Gedhun Choekyi Nyima. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 03:37, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
Can I just point out that the silly practical joke banner has caused much more drama than his China=shame section. Also, it says "China=shame" not "Chinese=shame". That would be an attack on an ethnicity, and let's be honest, there isn't a single country in the history of the world that hasn't done things to be ashamed of. I'm from the U.S., and I've often fantasized about decorating every piece of clothing I had with some sort of insult about my country. My bumper sticker currently sports one. Let him keep his banner, and unprotect his page. If it is that vexatious and that offensive, I'm sure you will have no problem following the steps of dispute resolution. AniMate 04:05, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
I'm going to go ahead and say that I agree those who've said that this content isn't appropriate for a userpage, and I disagree with those who are making light of it. This is trolling, which is not what userpages are for. Furthermore, I don't agree with the notion that China=shame is just an attack on a government. If I saw something saying "USA=shame", I would read this as an attack on the country itself, not the government, and would be offended. I support its removal. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 05:23, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
The only people who are trolling is Palace, who is an obvious sockpuppet bringing out old dirt that was settled years ago. The other troll is Viridae who is abusing his admin tool by protecting my userpage despite the fact that many respected admins disagree with him on here and on the diffs I cited above.--Certified.Gangsta (talk) 07:40, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

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

Regardless of whether this true, this is not abusive sockpuppetry, as the account Sumple has been abandoned, effectively exercising the right to vanish and return with a new name. Nothing abusive about that. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 05:09, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
He's trying to sound like he is a neutral editor despite the fact that he clearly raised this frivolous non-issue out of personal vendetta. If this isn't trolling and gaming the system, I don't know what is. He should be blocked on sight. He is also trying to create a crowd atmosphere when it is clear that the only one who had any objection to the header is himself and hide his previous similar involvement on AN/I, which resulted in an outburst and a block by User:Geogre. [[36]]. He also humoursly added Bishonen and Geogre to persona non grata on User talk:Sumple, (the so-called Gangsta's powerful friends he alluded to above)--Certified.Gangsta (talk) 07:49, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

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

And I suggest you read carefully WP:SOCK to understand what is and isn't a sockpuppet, and especially, an abusive sockpuppet. The topic of discussion is whether User:Certified.Gangsta's section header is offensive. Please contribute constructively to that discussion. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 08:09, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
Oh, I read it long ago. If you were cheating the system I would have blocked you already. I do see that you want to shift the topic away from your dishonesty about your identity. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 08:14, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
Please clarify what you mean by "dishonesty". And I request that Certified.Gangsta stop posting my personal information on this page. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 08:16, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
May I also remind you that the topic of this discussion is whether User:Certified.Gangsta's heading is offensive. User:Certified.Gangsta tries to shift the topic, and lo and behold, Blnguyen obediently follows. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 08:20, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
Wikilawyering isn't gonna get you anywhere. Maybe lil Tommy Chen should be more careful on his userpage next time. But jokes aside, the fact that he's trying to stir up a frivolous non-issue under a new identity (the header has been there for almost 2 years) is despicable and trolling.--Certified.Gangsta (talk) 08:12, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
Why would I want to shift the topic, Sumple? My userpage is protected by a rogue, incompetent admin who clearly thinks he owns my userpage and that his own personal interpretation trumps policy and consensus. I didn’t post any personal info other than the ones you released already.--Certified.Gangsta (talk) 08:25, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

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

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


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

Action needed now please - could someone at the very least blank his sandbox (1.4M in size) that he's transcluding onto multiple pages - Thanks Giles Bennett (Talk, Contribs) 13:35, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Could you also block him? He's been listed at WP:AIV but persists. Giles Bennett (Talk, Contribs) 13:41, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
FYI, Toolssmile34 is the latest of many sockpuppets of Primetime (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log). As I reported last week, Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive351#Primetime, he's back and in a bad mood. In the past week he's used at least 3 dozen socks, most created months ago as sleepers. Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Primetime. He's been taking his anger out on me in three ways: by vandalizing my user page, by following my edits to mass-revert or vandalize them, and by sending hundreds of emails. He tends to use open proxies, so at least his rampages helps us identify those. Other than reverting his mischief I don't know how else to handle this guy. Any suggestions? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 20:09, 15 January 2008 (UTC)


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

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

Racism, threats of violence, personal attacks[edit]

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

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

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

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

Stop x nuvola with clock.svg User(s) blocked. - IP BLOCKED for 31 hours nat.utoronto 20:12, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Personal information[edit]

Resolved: User page deleted and username blocked

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

And Jimmie lee bynum age 13, although I've tagged it for speedy. Giles Bennett (Talk, Contribs) 20:57, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
I've deleted the contents of the User talk page. - Philippe | Talk 21:11, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
And I've blocked the account. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 22:45, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Htlr88 [edit]


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

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


Resolved: closed by user:east718

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

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

Deletion & Redirecting of an Article Without Consensus[edit]


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

Lilkunta requests unblock, promises better behavior[edit]

Lilkunta (talk · contribs) was blocked indefinitely around eight months ago for repeatedly using nonstandard font (like this) off of his talk page, and for ignoring warnings of administrators in regards to this. He has emailed me, stating his intent to, if allowed to edit again, only use nonstandard font on his talk page, and adhere to Wikipedia policies and behavioral standards. His two most recent unblock requests were declined by admins who doubted he would behave differently. Should he be given another chance? I think so, because if he lapses back into his old behavior he can be quickly reblocked by any of 1,149 admins; his emails suggest he wants to make a good faith attempt to help Wikipedia. Other thoughts? Picaroon (t) 19:31, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I see no reason not to unblock. —Random832 19:35, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
A trial unblock sounds fine. The only other question I have in these sorts of cases: are there any editors who were directly and negatively affected by her behavior whom we should notify or solicit opinions from before unblocking? MastCell Talk 19:37, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
I am not an admin nor was I in any way involved back then. Just thought I'd point out that a scan of his talk page archives indicates that the font issue was only one of many. Ros0709 (talk) 19:40, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
Like Ros0709 said, using non-standard fonts is just part of the issue that caused me and others to block him. He was incivil and disruptive, even to those who tried to help him. He was specifically incivil to myself and Cascadia with edits like this. Cascadia and I tried to be helpful to Lilkunta when he broke his own talk page by turning it all green (see this) and accused people of vandalizing it to turn it green (in other words, we were responsible for the font breaking). I fixed it as did Cascadia. But each time we were reverted and he made 6 different attempts to fix it himself, each time doing just as much damage instead of solving the issue.
So the crux of it may stem from the font usage, but the overlying issue is his incivility and unwillingness to accept help from others. Because of this immaturity and nonsense, I do not feel comfortable with an unblock of him. Metros (talk) 20:08, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
I have never encountered this user before, but after browsing his archives and seeing his responses, I have to agree with Metros. - Caribbean~H.Q. 20:18, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
(ec) Unblock request has been declined by Moondyne. I agree with Metros and Ros0709: the font issue, in and of itself, does not seem to be the reason he or she was indef blocked, so I cannot support unblocking. — Satori Son 20:24, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
I would endorse the block and keeping it as it stands. This user showed a level of incivility that went beyond the pale. Also, his unblock request shows that he is not truly contrite, as he is conflating the minor font issue with the TRUE issue of his block, which is his incivility. 22:05, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
Lilkunta did have trouble explaining satisfactorily his desire to be unblocked in his unblock messages. However, I think he does understand that there is more at issue than the font. Again, what's the harm in offering him another chance? There are clearly plenty of people willing to reblock quickly if he lapses back to old behavior; I suspect that he, more than everyone else, wouldn't want that to happen, as it means being unable to edit again. Picaroon (t) 23:34, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
This is my first encounter with this editor, and I fully endorse the block and Moondyne's decline on the unblock request. We appear to have someone who is not yet mature enough to be a net positive to the project. Horologium (talk) 00:22, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

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

Blocked VoABot II[edit]

I blocked VoABot II per AzaToth 19:47, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

User:Doc glasgow[edit]

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

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

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

You need to read our guidelines on biographies of living people. A criticism isn't a random cut and pasted negative quote either. 21:29, 14 January 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Secretlondon (talkcontribs)
I read it. There is no reason for censorship of notable and representative (see many arguments of many users here) criticism and no reason for vulgar insults by Doc glasgow. --Dezidor (talk) 21:37, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
I would point out that "we don't piss about with..." is British slang meaning "we don't mess about with...". It's hardly a deadly insult. BLACKKITE 21:46, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
OK, that pissing is some slang that I didn´t know, but his block in his dispute was unjustified and abusive. --Dezidor (talk) 23:06, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

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

Dezidor, you were rightfully blocked for blatent trolling, and you are continuing to troll here. Stop it. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 21:47, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
WP:AGF Dezidor has stated that he does not speak English natively or well, and I can see that the "vulgarity" could be mis-construed. However, per Black Kite, it's a pretty common term for Brits. I'm not exactly impressed an admin felt in vital that it go in an edit summary (which can't therefore be stricken or redacted), I must admit, but it pretty minor. A review here seems to indicate all was in order in terms of the block and actions by Doc Glasgow. Pedro :  Chat  21:52, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
I don´t know why you speak about some vendetta. I read first time about about Chip Berlet at Wikipedia at the end of 2007. Another false acussation. --Dezidor (talk) 21:57, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
It's also not used as an insult - an insult is aimed at a person, Doc's use of "pissing" is not aimed at anyone. I don't see any problems with his actions here. --Fredrick day (talk) 21:53, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
(ec)Yes, I agree, also, he was assuming bad faith only because you had proven that your edits were not done in good faith.--Phoenix-wiki 21:55, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
(ec)The (unblued) point is that whilst swearing in an edit summary (which only dev's can then alter) is hardly ideal or clever it's not that big a deal either. It brings no benefit to the project, only detriment, and therefore should be avoided but that's an aside. Doc's admin actions were totally correct. Pedro :  Chat  22:00, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
I endorse Doc Glasgow's move. Enforcement of wikipedia's clear WP:BLP policy is not editwaring, and admins are right to use blocking to prevent continued disruption and insertion of controversial or enflamatory material per WP:BLP. If you wish to continue to add such material, discuss the matter on the article talk page, and by discuss I mean establish consensus among users, not simply announce your intentions and go on. 21:58, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
I have reviewed the diffs and links that Dezidor provided in his argument, and I find absolutely NO evidence of offensive conduct directed towards this user by DocG. The comment that was made on the block, "playing hard and fast with BLP" I do not find offensive in the least bit, on the contrary, I assume (you know what they say about assume!) that what DocG meant was that Dezidor was making some hasty implementations in the article. There IS one minor consideration to be made here; DocG, not everyone that edits the english-language Wikipedia knows what "pissing about" means, as it's a decidedly British term (I do, I've had the pleasure of living on both sides of the pond). Might want to consider that in the interactions with other editors. Other than that, I see nothing wrong with DocG's actions. Edit Centric (talk) 22:00, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
I would not have blocked here, but this doesn't unreasonable a response given the context. Antiwar is not a reliable source and we need to be very careful with BLPs. JoshuaZ (talk) 22:37, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
  • I checked the Wikipedia entry. According to this entry, Justin Raimondo is "founder and editorial director." Since the quote in question comes from Raimondo, this means that there's a good chance it is self-published. We cannot use self-published sources on BLP articles. Part of the problem is that there really hasn't been much discussion of Chip Berlet in scholarly sources; JSTOR shows only 19 hits. Still, a dearth of good sources is no excuse to use bad ones. Maybe this could have been handled a bit more diplomatically, but the material was clearly against policy and should have been removed from the article. *** Crotalus *** 00:33, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
I encourage everyone to check WP:RS/N, where this point is debated: indeed, the very valid point is made that while the editor of is considered a self-published source for biographies, the editor of is not considered a self-published source for bios. That seems like a fairly inconsistent position to me, actually. Relata refero (talk) 08:18, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

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

The quote in question described the subject as a "professional political hitman" as per the quotation here. I personally have to question very much both the neutrality and reliability of the source, particularly considering that source, Justin Raimondo, was speaking in the context of a campaign in which he was a clear supporter of the candidate the subject opposed. In this instance, I have to say that, barring similar language from more neutral, uninvolved parties, the content was justifiably removed. John Carter (talk) 00:46, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
Mongo, I was thinking of trying to formulate something to that effect for BLP. That if someone seems overly focused on adding negative information to a particular BLP, especially if it's a marginal BLP, it should raise a red flag for administrators, who could apply an article ban. I've not thought it through yet, but I may try to propose some wording on talk. We've had too many cases of people using Wikipedia as an attack platform. SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 00:49, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
There's already some language that speaks to that issue - see the end of WP:BLP#Criricism - and any further expansion, especially of arbitrary admin powers in content disputes - wouldn't be a good idea. Relata refero (talk) 08:14, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
I think that would be a very welcome idea, particularly considering the US is entering its main political season and I personally expect to see the metaphorical knives to be coming out on a regular basis. John Carter (talk) 00:55, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
SlimVirgin, perhaps you should wander into Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Bluemarine, which deals with this to a large extent. Your input would probably be appreciated, since most of the commenters are involved to some extent. Horologium (talk) 01:05, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
Berlet seems to be acting in a highly hypocritical manner by objecting to quotes like that, considering that he's making a practice of inserting quotes from himself that do similarly harsh criticism of other individuals, like in a dispute currently in progress at Public Information Research. He can't take it, but he sure dishes it out. Is the pot calling the kettle black? *Dan T.* (talk) 00:53, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
This is a separate issue from the one that started this thread, but perhaps an RfC is in order about CBerlet's editing in Wikipedia and discussion on whether he has been receiving favorable treatment or not. Cla68 (talk) 00:58, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, that's quite irrelevant and out of line. We demand our articles are neutral and fair to the subject. We insist that the subject should not have to out up with vandalism, abuse or pov warriors on the article about them. AND WE DO THAT REGARDLESS of any moral opinion of the subject. Perhaps he's a hypocrite - you are entitled to your opinion. But given that I've defended articles where the subject has been a neo-nazi, a convicted felon, a pedophile (yes) and a dozen racists - most of whom I regard as scum - I really must insist that we apply BLP without exception. All other ways lead to disaster. Shall we stop reverting vandalism on George W Bush because we think he's a slimeball?--Docg 01:01, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
I don't think dan was suggesting we stop removing BLP vios from Chip's Bio, more that he needs counselling and needs to follow his own rules. ViridaeTalk 01:06, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Hostile attitude of Admin[edit]

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

have you tried approaching Shell Kinney and asking him to be nicer, before coming here? ViridaeTalk 02:24, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
Never mind the fact that the remark by Shell was addressed to self-admitted sole purpose account with a clear agenda - see User:Tennessee Jed 4415. WjBscribe 02:26, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
Reviewed, Tennessee Jed needs to be referred to WP:NOT as a source reference. Edit Centric (talk) 02:28, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

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

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