Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Community sanction

< Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Rex Germanus (talk | contribs) at 15:31, 3 October 2007 (→Closing). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 15:31, 3 October 2007 by Rex Germanus (talk | contribs) (→Closing)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

Template loop detected: Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Community sanction/Header

Mrs random et al

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.

Please don't fork the discussion; it is already at Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Case_of_abusive_sockpuppetry_by_Mrs_random. Discuss there, it's why I posted. Dmcdevit·t 09:17, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Based on this Checkuser finding, I propose that the above sockpuppeteer be community banned. The various accounts...

Mrs random (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Yeshivish (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Truest blue (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
LAZY 1L (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Miamite (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
AmerHisBuff (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Macallan 12 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

... have been used to votestack on Number 57's RFA - , and . Some of the accounts have significant afd participation, for example Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/AJOP: , and as well as Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/List of Messianic Jewish organizations - the nominator, and . I'm sure this would only be the tip of the iceberg. MER-C 09:07, 23 September 2007 (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.

User:EddieSegoura and overturning his community ban.

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

Invalid request per WP:SOCK. Snowball support for the ban. Durova 19:04, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

I have recently been in contact via e-mail with this geezer, and he has stated he would like to return to Misplaced Pages if the community will allow it.

He wants a formal request for arbitration to decide if the community can formally un-ban him, and has promised to make no mention of Exicornt anywhere on Misplaced Pages.

This is just a mere formality, discuss amongst yourselves. Yes, he's sockpuppeted, yes he's disrupted AFD (Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Exicornt) but now he's showing remorse.

In any case, I leave it to you to decide.... anyway, let the discussions commence concerning the fate of Mr. Segoura and the former exicornt vandal.. of which I am not, but I have blocked him before on other Wikimedia site - (won't say which though!) - heh!--Malmindser 09:45, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Eddie Segoura?? No no no no no. And no. That guy got chance after chance after chance to reform, and has never been anything but a drain on the project and a waste of the editing time of productive users, ever. Don't let the Exicornt Man back. Bishonen | talk 10:46, 24 September 2007 (UTC).

Using the law of ducks, I've determined that it is very likely that Malmindser is EddieSegoura himself, as creating this thread is the user's only contributions to Misplaced Pages.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 15:06, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Keep him banned. As Bishonen says too much time was wasted with Eddie. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 15:37, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Regarding Ryulong's comments....don't people realize that the contributions of people making requests such as this are generally checked to see if they are a 1) new acct., 2) related pov pushing edit knucklehead? --Rocksanddirt 18:06, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Hell no. Next. JoshuaZ 17:06, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Everything I've read indicates he never was a producte contributor. Why waste any more time on him? Odd nature 18:32, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely not. Too much of a history of disruption. NawlinWiki 18:33, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Whaaaa? No way. Absolutely not. Eddie hasn't honoured any part of his ban, and he isn't even honouring his ban right now. Sorry, but there is absolutely no way I would support this. Not after the vicious trolling and abuse he subjected BoG to and his obsession with forcing his neologism into articles all over Foundation projects. Cheers Ryu for the block. I think this CSN request should be speedy closed as blatant trolling and abuse of the CSN noticeboard. Sarah 18:43, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

User:Mclao

I am proposing a community ban against User:Mclao and his suspected sockpuppets including User:Vinvinkid who is his second most account on WP. This user has disruptively edited the articles Iglesia ni Cristo and Eliseo Soriano. His disruption has caused the INC article to be semi-protected for a month, and an edit war at Soriano is being fought. We have continuously reminded him of his violations, but he does not reply outside of edit summaries, nor intends to cooperate with anybody. It is difficult to keep track of this user, as he uses a wide variety of sockpuppets, but can be identified by his grammar and edit summaries. Please see Misplaced Pages:Suspected sock puppets/Mclao for a full listing of disputed edits and sockpuppets. --w 03:24, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

would a topic ban be appriopriate, similar to what is being discussed in a section below? alternately if there is a finding of abusive sockpuppetry, I have no problem with a ban. --Rocksanddirt 18:56, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

That's a good ideal. I'm all for a ban against editing articles related to Iglesia ni Cristo and Members Church of God International, if not all religious based articles. But how are we going to enforce? --w 17:35, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

There's not a real software-level mechanism for topic bans; generally we just leave it up to the editors who frequent the articles to informally keep an eye out for topic ban violations. Occasionally a violation is reported, and I'm sure there are some which aren't noticed/reported, but overall I think they tend to be effective. Note: I don't mean this as an endorsement of any particular action, as I haven't reviewed the issue raised in the nomination. — xDanielx /_C 05:00, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, if he's vandalizing a lot of topics, then a community ban (at least for a few months) would be appropriate... but if it's just one or two pages and a lot of sockpuppets, then we'd be better off with a topic ban. — Rickyrab | Talk 00:48, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Jmfangio-Chrisjnelson closed

The above arbitration case is closed. Jmfangio has been blocked as a sockpuppet of banned user Tecmobowl. Chrisjnelson is restricted to one revert per page per week (excepting obvious vandalism), and is required to discuss any content reversions on the page's talk page for a duration of six months. If he exceeds this limit, fails to discuss a content reversion, or makes any edits which are judged by an administrator to be uncivil, personal attacks, or assumptions of bad faith, he may be blocked. For the Arbitration Committee, Picaroon (t) 15:17, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Naacats (talk · contribs)

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.

Consensus to ban user whose fundamental approach to Misplaced Pages is at direct odds with our policies

Naacats (talk · contribs) is the apparent operator of a website (http://naacats.com) which argues that the harms of tobacco are exaggerated. Using the above account, he has come to Misplaced Pages to advance this POV. In a short time he has created several POV forks to advance his POV (see Smokers Rights and History of Smoking), engaged in tendentious editing (, , , ), defined editors who have disagreed with him as "anti-smoking bigots" (), systematically labeled reliable sources as "biased" without evidence (, ), tagged articles as {{POV}} if they say that smoking causes lung cancer (, , , , ), redirected long-established pages to POV forks of his own making (, ), removed other editors' comments from article-talk space on very dubious grounds (), decided to "dismantle" the smoking article (), defined the idea that smoking is harmful as a "fringe theory" (), and rapidly exhausted the patience of editors on a wide range of smoking-related articles (see Talk:Smoking, Talk:Health effects of tobacco smoking, etc). The final straw, though, was off-wiki canvassing for meatpuppets (). Lest I be accused of biting a newbie, please take a look at the efforts on User Talk:Naacats by a number of editors to gently bring Naacats around, yet he persists in viewing Misplaced Pages as a battleground to push his minoritarian POV. Oh, yes, he did also state explicitly that his group was "created SPECIFICLY (sic) for fighting falsehood in places like wiki."

I propose a topic ban for tendentious POV-pushing, disruptiveness, WP:BATTLE issues, COI, and off-wiki solicitation of meatpuppetry; Naacats would be banned from all smoking- and tobacco-related articles (loosely construed), including the creation of articles on these topics. We all have our POV's and pet issues, but I'd like to see evidence that he has something to contribute to Misplaced Pages beyond tendentious editing of smoking articles. The topic ban could be reconsidered in 6 months to 1 year by the community.

I will notify Naacats (talk · contribs) of this thread, as well as post a notice on the talk pages of smoking-related articles where he has been active. MastCell 18:31, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Topic-ban sounds appropriate. Pseudoscience-pushing is a major problem and we shouldn't have to put up with any more than we have to. We can review this in six months or so and hopefully by then he will have realised that Misplaced Pages is not the place for his personal, and highly original, POV. BTW, should he violate this ban, I would propose the usual: blocks of up to a month, after 5 blocks this can escalate to a year's block, blocks to be logged here. Moreschi 18:51, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
Based on the sheer amount of tenditiosness in less than a month and the solicitation of meatpuppets I think the topic ban is appropriate. The user does appear to be able to learn, but may need some horizon broadening to get there. --Rocksanddirt 18:53, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
Support topic ban for now, since this user obviously has confused what he wants wikipedia to be with what it actually is. A 6 or 12 month topic ban will allow him to gain experience editing in other areas and hopefully learn about and accept wikipedia for what it actually is. Note this user hasn't made many edit during the time in between my posting of this advice and my vote here. If the users' behavior significantly improves over the next few days, I may change my position to neutral or even oppose. It's really up to him. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yilloslime (talk • contribs) 20:27, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
I agree there are massive problems with their behaviour but has anything else WP:DR-wise been tried before looking for a ban? I certainly think they should be blocked (perhaps even indefinitely) for meat-puppetry but I really think WP:ANI was the venue for this rather than here--Cailil 20:54, 26 September 2007 (UTC) I take it back, see comment below-->User:Cailil12:22, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
- Comment: The first step (discussion) in WP:DR has been tried. I don't think an RfC would shed any additional light; his conduct is clearly inappropriate and he's already received feedback on it from a pretty broad section of editors without any change in behavior thus far. WP:DR is most useful for serious good-faith content disputes rather than out-and-out disruptive or blatantly inappropriate behavior. For those things, this board or AN/I are the best places to go, I think. I could see a block being appropriate for disruption or off-wiki canvassing, but I actually view the proposed remedy here as less severe than a block - it's only a topic ban. I considered bringing this to AN/I or asking a neutral admin to look it over, but the end result would likely be a block. I think that a topic ban would be a more constructive way to give this user a chance to reform, and thus proposed it here instead. MastCell 21:01, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
Strong support - tenditiosness & meat-puppetry, but to his credit has remained polite and civil on wikipedia. Certainly there has been some backlash against anti-smoking policies, and clearly could be a useful editor to add information about this. However the learning curve has not climbed high and needs have far better grasp of NPOVing his own personal viewpoint. A topic ban is warrented, but I'd be generous and state that 12 months seems too long. 23:31, 26 September 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Davidruben (talk • contribs)
Support. The sad thing is that if he hadn't pushed his agenda so zealously, he may have been able to write-up a good piece on the issues surrounding the smokers' rights movement, and that could have been informative... TeamZissou 23:34, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Stongly Does Not Support.Oh joy. Yet another attempt to stifle my voice on this subject. I have admitted that I am somewhat biased - but not as biased as the author of the smoking article. If you just look at his Edit history you can see that much. I am innocent of the charges that you are levying against me. Never once did I say that smoking did not cause lung cancer, and do not support changing the articles to say otherwise. What I have proposed the artcles say is that "according to some studies, smoking causes lung cancer" - the studies in question are hotly debated, and the articles (listed below) only show one side of the story. Any (including attempts by other users) attempt to improve the article to include information on the other side of the issue are reverted and end up in these editing wars.

Regarding the PRIVATE post (which can only be seen by 1 category of registered members) on naacats.com requesting EXPERT assistance on the smokers rights page, I don't see what the problem with that is. The group NAACATS (as opposed to me) has several experts on the subject in its membership, and requesting their assistance with writing the article hardly seems like it would be a problem.

You state yourself: Pseudoscience-pushing is a major problem and we shouldn't have to put up with any more than we have to. -- That is exactly my point. The wiki articles all are listing the various health effects as if they have been proven beyond a reasonable doubt. I still have a lot more points that need to be made, but I was hoping that you guys would be reasonable and willing to compromise on the issue, so that I didn't have to go and dig for more facts. Instead 3 editors (Davidruben along with the 2 below) have done everything they can to muddle the issue, and stifle my comments claiming them to be "wrong" despite strong scientific evidence to back them up. Even so on the major issue of debate I have offered a concession, but apparently that is not enough.

Regardless, I stated that I was willing to concede the issue, but they STILL won't leave it alone. I have come up with multiple solutions to the problem, and have polietly requested comments and discussion on the matter.

There was one instance where I removed a comment by a user, regarding a private note on the website that he was somehow able to see, and regarding an article that was being worked on at the time. I let the user know about it, and requested that he repost the comment. Perhaps I should have handled it differently, but as you have stated I am still somewhat new to Wiki and made a small error there that was quickly and professionally corrected.

Regarding the following users: Peter (sorry forgot his last name) and TeamNizziou- I have been in discussion with admins about getting THEM banned for 3RRs and several other violations. They continuously revert changes being made without discussion, including the removal of POV flags from articles that are OBVIOUSLY biased (health effects of tobacco smoking for example).

Regarding my own statement about why the group was founded. Yes, I did speak truthfully. NAACATS main mission objective is to remove the public perception that the antismoking lobby is the only POV (or even the leading POV which it is not), and since Wiki is one of the #1 sources of information people look to today, wiki is a large part of that. By simply DENYING OUR EXISITANCE as you are trying to do, I feel this goes against the very heart of Wiki.

Regarding the claim that my POV is the minority, even if you use the Surgeon Generals own facts (who admits to being biased against smokers, and supports the banning of tobacco in the USA - i'm not going to bother citing this one, as it would just be a waste of time since you guys call anything I cite as psudoscience) we still make up a sizable portion of the population. http://www.surgeongeneral.gov/library/secondhandsmoke/report/chapter10.pdf -- shows peoples beliefs according to these numbers.

We are not a fringe minority as Mastcell has stated (although I personally do believe that your POV is a fringe theory and holds little basis in reality). Even according to the polls shown here (which if you read the way many questions were asked will show the polls had some bias in them) we are still around 40-60 % of the population.

Now about the individual articles:

Smokers Rights - This was a stub when I found it - I'm still heavily working on this article and I admit at the current time it is biased. I myself put the POV flag on this article, as I know I have not yet balanced it. Banning me from working on this article is (in my opinion) yet another attempt to prevent any information on the other side of the issue from being . If you look at the categories on this page you can see that I am working to balance the article, and have invited criticism, discussion, and editing by both sides of the issue.

Smoking - This is the article all this stems from. I offered to concede my point for the time being, but thats not enough for them. Now they want to ban me to prevent me from "Spreading lies" as they have stated. I am doing no such thing, but have merely asked that the article mention that there is another side of the issue (similar to how evolution mentions the scientific design). Some of the numbers here are wrong, even if you take the antismoking side of the issue. This article is biased, but as I said I offered to concede on this issue numerous times.

health effects of tobacco smoking - This entire article is a showboat of the antismoking lobby. It is ridiculously POV in so many ways I can't count. The POV flag needs to stand there and HEAVY work needs to be done to make it accurate. Even from the antismoking side of the issue, almost all the facts are enlarged, it cites clearly biased sources (for example the WHO who actively promotes and encourages smoking discrimination http://www.who.int/employment/FAQs_smoking_English.pdf), and is just a poor example of a Wiki article.

Richard Doll - It states in the FIRST PARAGRAPH that he PROVED that smoking causes lung cancer. He did no such thing. He proved that there was a link between smoking and lung cancer - that is weasel wording in all its glory.

Before closing I would also like to state that this ban was requested by MastCell, about 2 hours after he messaged me regarding the issues. Instead of waiting for my response and been willing to talk about the issue, he instead chose to than request this ban (even after stating that "should I continue...he'd request the ban". (meanwhile I was asleep during this whole time) - you can see this on my talk page.

Finally in closing, I'd like to again state that a ban at this time would be pointless. I have been polite, willing to discuss issues (even made offers to concede my point!), and have made relatively few changes (since my first couple of days) without discussing the issue first. The few changes I have made include putting POV flags on issues in discussion (which are always reverted as soon as I put them up- without discussion in most cases), and putting various suggestion (expert, fact, and suggested merge) tags to improve the articles. Yes I made a few newbie mistakes along the way, but all of these were corrected and apologized for. At a bare minimum leave the Smokers rights article unaffected at this is an important article that needs to be completed. I have invited everyone who has an interest in the subject to assist, and I promise a fair and unbiased article when it is completed.

Naacats 00:50, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Naacats, on a different note, it would appear that your username violates username policy in that it promotes a group. Is there some reason why your account shouldn't be blocked on that basis? Ronnotel 02:07, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Support topic ban or stronger measure. I started reading this thread from the top, and was prepared to oppose until I saw Naacats' spectacular act of self-immolation above. Misplaced Pages does not need more people who are to push their own agenda, casting aside WP:RS, WP:NPOV, WP:BATTLE, WP:TE and any other policy that happens to get in the way of spreading The Truth. Raymond Arritt 02:42, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Arrit - Could you please explain what you mean by self-immolation? I'm not trying to push an agenda - I'm in fact doing the exact opposite. These articles were written by people who have an agenda (antitobacco), and apparently people who support that POV are preventing ANY attempt to remove (i'm not just talking about my own attempts - if you look through the history theres plenty of other examples to back this up) the POV Pushing thats on those articles. Even attempts to soften the bias, and cite related science have been blocked. This ban is not being requested on the basis that i'm trying to put my POV into the articles, but rather because i'm trying to remove theirs and make the article neutral according to Wiki's own guidelines.

In regards to Ronnotels comment- you are correct. I did not read that article when creating the account. Tommorow I will request a change in username. To do so now would likely cause other problems (people would claim that I was trying to "hide" from the ban for example).

Wiki is not a Battleground and shouldn't be used to POV push. Thats why I'm so opposed to these articles only showing one side of the story, one set of data, and one conclusion. Even still as I have stated so many times now I can't even think straight - I was willing to CONCEDE THE POINT on smoking -- how is that not enough for you guys? How can you support banning someone for simply trying to discuss clearing up infactual information?

As a courtesy I am not touching any articles related to the subject while this discussion is going on.

Naacats 03:26, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

It's pretty clear that no benefit will be gained from someone who insists that any organization which is against smoking is an unreliable source. -Amarkov moo! 03:40, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Any orginization that activily promotes and practices discrimination (such as the WHO http://www.who.int/employment/FAQs_smoking_English.pdf) against another POV in my opinion is an unreliable source. But thats what discussions are for, and thats why I brought those points up in DISCUSSION rather than simply editing them into the documents (the only edits outside of discussion and request flags I made were to clear up points where they stated information as fact), and refusing to discuss them as the other side had been doing.

Adding this - Imagine someone trying to cite a study done by The KKK in civil rights. Its the best comparison I can make to the WHO being cited for an article on Smoking - its a biased source (in my humble opinion)Naacats 03:47, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Erm, you realize that analogizing the WHO to the KKK isn't helping your case? -Amarkov moo! 03:56, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Prolly not, but its a good analogy none the less. They admittedly practice discrimination (like the KKK), and as such they are taking a side politically in this debate. For that reason, their results are suspect. -- again I did state in my own humble opinion. I did not make such a comparison in the articles discussion pages, but did so here only. Such a comparison in the discussion page WOULD be POV pushing, and thats something I've been avoiding like the plague. Naacats 04:07, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

After re-reading this I figured I should add that I'm not COMPARING the KKK to the WHO, but am simply stating that both groups actively practice and encourage discrimination. Naacats 04:09, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Support — it's clear this user doesn't understand what is wrong with his behavior, and isn't inclined to change. The above is a clear demonstration of this problem. --Haemo 04:43, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

How is DISCUSSION wrong in any way? Naacats 04:44, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment: I was going to add on-wiki canvassing to the list of user-conduct issues here, but apparently Naacats has been username-blocked. I'd prefer to wrap up this discussion anyway, though, because if he returns with another username the same issues will still exist. I'd like to get them sorted, though the username block throws a monkey wrench into the equation. MastCell 05:17, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Support - a topic ban. It was actually that diff on delldot's page that drew my attention here, as this noticeboard isn't on my watch list. I cleaned up one of this user's edits to World Health Organization, but by the weight of the rest of them, it's clear that they are here only to push an agenda, fringe or otherwise. Oh, and for the record for anyone that looks at that diff, of course delldot did not vandalize the page. To the contrary. Into The Fray /C 05:23, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Support What's most bizarre about Naacats' behavior is that he seems to be utterly oblivious to the fact that the very POV he represents, that of an upset smoker who feels patronized by health moralism, is actually well-represented in the article. For example, the section "Social effects" treats smoking as a highly varied and popular activity, and contains the following passages:

The rise of the modern anti-smoking movement in the late 19th century did more than create awareness of the hazards of smoking; it provoked reactions of smokers against what was, and often still is, perceived as an assault on personal freedom and has created an identity among smokers as rebels, apart from non-smokers.

Until the mid-20th century, the majority of the adult population in many Western nations were smokers and the claims of anti-smoking activists were met with much skepticism, if not outright contempt. Today the movement has considerably more weight and evidence of its claims, but a considerable proportion of the population remains steadfast smokers.

There's even a sub-section of "History" on the 20th century which bears the heading "The social stigma", a description which would be flat-out ridiculous to describe as decidedly anti-smoking. And on top of all this, Naacats is accusing myself and Zissou as "antitobacco" despite us both being smokers. I think a 6 month ban from any smoking-related article is a good solution, and if Naacats returns, I believe he should be given a chance to better himself. I wouldn't mind having a pro-smoking advocate writing about the resistance to smoking that does exist, but if that is going to happen, he will have to drop the mind-twisting style of argumentation and the staunch conviction of his own self-righteousness. Peter 09:13, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Support - not the worst I've seen, but still. ←Ben 09:48, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
Strong support for siteban. All the reasons listed above, plus attempt to subvert this discussion by canvassing. For the record I'm posting late because I was undecided and leaning toward opposing any community remedy when this thread began. Durova 09:54, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
I had my reservations last night but on reflection and after Naacats spectacular performace I support a complete ban (with the usual caveats of review after a few months).--Cailil 12:22, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
support complete ban per the above really. Canvassing just tips the iceberg. -- Anonymous Dissident 14:22, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
oppose While personally anti-smoking, it does seem like a pro-smokers rights POV would be useful input to the project. I agree that behavior has been poor in many areas, but I'd like to see how he performs after some time to reflect. I think 6 months is too long and would suggest one month, which I think would send the right message. Ronnotel 14:33, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
It isn't the POV that's an issue; it's the tendentiousness. One intractable editor can stymie progress with unending debates over the obvious, such as whether the World Health Organization is a reliable source. Durova 14:48, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
In that case, he just needs to be taught the definition of WP:RS and he'll be much more useful. Perhaps a one month ban can do that as effectively as a six month ban? Ronnotel 14:52, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
Comment: I don't think this is someone who simply misunderstands WP:V and WP:RS; more someone whose fundamental approach to Misplaced Pages is at direct odds with our policies. His edits, up to this point, have been met with unanimous disapproval, efforts to steer him in the right direction, and ultimately exasperation. I've seen a lot of initially problematic editors turn into good contributors, and I don't come to this board lightly, but this is exactly the kind of editing that is detrimental to the encyclopedia, frustrates and drives off good contributors, and indefinitely stalls article improvement. MastCell 18:21, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
Support topic ban and possibly a forced username change. Behavior is clearly unacceptable, and shows little evidence that change is desired. RyanGerbil10(C-Town) 15:23, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
For clarity, I would not be opposed to a siteban, as per Durova. RyanGerbil10(C-Town) 15:25, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
Support, obvious WP:TE and WP:SOAP ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:25, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
This appears to have repeated examples of tendentious edits, many of which are in defiance of WP:NPOV especially the undue weight clause. I see little hope for someone editing this topic if they think that the CDC and the WHO are not reliable sources. JoshuaZ 15:36, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Hang on a cotton pickin' minute. This user has been editing for just two weeks. He clearly doesn't understand policies like WP:RS. I haven't had a chance to look at his edit history yet, but talking about an indef siteban sounds totally over the top to me.

I'd suggest giving the guy a three to six month topic ban to give him a chance to get some experience on Wiki and come to grips with some of the basic policies. For goodness sakes, I've been on Wiki a good 18 months now and I'm still struggling with policy nuances. Gatoclass 15:52, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment: I think most of the support was for a topic ban of 6-12 months, rather than a siteban. This does go well beyond a simple learning-curve issue, though, as detailed above. MastCell 18:21, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment - Just to be clear, though it was referenced above, the username was blocked. There doesn't seem to have been a return of this user since that point. Into The Fray /C 15:58, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
Support, just in case this issue isn't moot at this point. – Quadell 16:11, 27 September 2007 (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.

Rex Germanus (talk · contribs)

This user should not be allowed anywhere near anything German-related. A long record of trouble-making, edit-warring and incivility has recently culminated in a block for a month: see ANI here. Rex is on probation and revert-parole, but these restrictions are going to expire in a couple of months. Repellent comments such as these , , and dubious edit summaries like this have managed to persuade me that we should topic-ban Rex Germanus from all Germany-related articles, loosely defined, violations to be rewarded with blocks of up to a month, after 5 violations the block length to increase to up to a year. Rex can make valuable contributions, but it is quite evident he cannot restrain his Germanophobic POV. If that's the case, we can't let him edit these articles. Note: I do not think he should be sitebanned without formal arbitration. Oh, and good heavens: Austin Powers villains are not Dutch, they're German! Moreschi 19:26, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Support indefinite topic ban on German naming and Germany related topics. In spite of repeated blocks, Rex has shown no improvement of any kind of tact in these topics, although in other areas he tends to be a valuable editor. Some discretion maybe needed on some of the more distantly Germany related topics, it could for example be argued that any Netherlands (Rex homecountry) (due to several historic links), or indeed every topic concerning any country in WOII is also Germany related. Note: In the past I have frequently defended Rex, as he is not making his case better by refusing to appease admins, and by making many enemies; however I am getting wary of this and hope this would take the sting out of most of his less well thought trhough edits. Arnoutf 19:42, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
I do support a topic ban but I think it might be difficult to formulate one since user:Rex Germanus has threatened to police German sounding names through-out en-WP--Cailil 19:48, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment Hoping to avoid just that, is why I explicitly added the "German naming" under the topics. Arnoutf 19:50, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Support without prejudice to extending the ban to any other area he disrupts. He lost the benefit of the doubt a long time ago. Let's be on guard for WP:POINT violations too. --Folantin 21:21, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
All the editor did was Germany related pages, A indef user ban likely works instead. 131.94.65.77 22:13, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
Comment While we have to make Rex somehow understand that his actions (based on his POV) are counter-productive and distruptive I'm not certain that we can find a ban wide enough to prevent further issues, while being narrow enough to allow his constructive edits to continue. Moreso, we cannot be to vague about this, unless we wish to continue the current situation on an additional meta-level, i.e. if that article is sufficiently related to "German" to be covered under the ban. Also the issues of Dutch articles were raised, as both the Netherlands and Germany are closely connected through their geographical and historic ties. 84.145.229.133 22:49, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
Support indef topic ban per Moreschi and Arnoutf. But note that this comment (#2) has been repeatedly misinterpreted. Comments #1 and #2 both refer to allegedly being called a racist. #2 says that Rex considers racists "low lifes". Avb 23:02, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
Agree with topic-ban, although I share anon's concerns above about the clarity of the ban. I think that he should also be prohibited from moving pages based on POV pushing and the (ongoing?) discussion at Talk:Johann van Beethoven. R. Baley 23:12, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
Support topic ban, with scope to be interpreted liberally. RyanGerbil10(C-Town) 02:19, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
Support Would you be receptive to a friendly amendment, specifically replacing "of up to a month, after 5 violations the block length to increase to up to a year" with a simple "at the discretion of the blocking admin"? The intent is to allow particularly egregious violations to be dealt with accordingly. Raymond Arritt 02:26, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
- If a block longer than a month is necessary, then we can do that through ANI. Plus, it's easier to get a clear consensus if we don't change the boilerplate halfway through.--Chaser - T 07:50, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
Support topic ban as proposed, with strong caution to the editor that sanctions can be expanded as necessary. Please continue editing productively on other topics. Durova 16:12, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
support rapidly escalating topic ban, escallation of revert parole bans. --Rocksanddirt 16:57, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
Support escalating topic ban on all edits related to German words (not just Germany related articles) and escalating block also earned for incivility, and other WP:POINT related disruptions such as replacing French names of places and works of art, etc. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:39, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
I support the idea because it'll give a break to our friends who contribute on German-related articles, but I'd like to advise that Rex will be just as likely to proceed likewise on topics related to France, or even to Lotharingia if he gets a chance (see the nice mess he made on Charlemagne). Rama 20:43, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
- Could we banish him from Europe? (rigging clipper ship to Australia) ;) Durova 20:52, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
  - That would effectively be a project ban as Rex expertise is mainly on Dutch issues. Arnoutf 21:53, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
    - It's up to him: if he edits productively there then I have no objection. If he decides to be disruptive then eventually he might actually get banned. Durova 22:44, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
I Support the ban. But WikiProject Germany should be informed so they can be a watchdog for this. Kingjeff 21:31, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
- I am strongly against explicitly informing a WikiProject, these have no official status in reinforcement of bans. By giving them a watchdog task your are effectively making them prosecutors. It is likely that inflammatory (and even helpful edits) within the ban will be flagged up anyway (by you or other enemies of Rex).Arnoutf 21:53, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
  - Please refactor the enemies characterization. Durova 22:44, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
    - Informing a WikiProject is not about making anyone or any group procecutors. This is about effectively maintaining the ban. They do watch Germany-related articles and should be aware of this ban if it gets passed. In fact it doesn't even have to be the entire WikiProject that gets informed. There are administrators that are involed with WikiProject Germany. User:Agathoclea and User:Kusma are 2 admins that I know that participate Kingjeff 01:34, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
      - Rex has made enemies; there are cases in articles where edits are being reverted or debated "just because Rex made them". I think this kind of content unelated behaviour may count as enmity. It is likely that these editors will keep trailing Rex and call out whenever he step a hair-width over the line of his ban. With regard to Kingjeff's comment, this enforcement is exactly what I mean; why we should not give it to a project. Ban-enforcement should not be given over to a project; it is an issue for admins who care about these things; not all editors and admins who are much happier making edits and not being involved in messy things like this. Arnoutf 06:35, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
        I don't think that's what Kingjeff is proposing at all. Anyway, ideal practice is a note on the project's discussion page informing them about the ban and instructing them to ask a neutral admin to make a determination about whether a block is necessary, and then that admin will implement it if it is.--Chaser - T 06:41, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
        Leaving a note on the project's discussion page is exactly what needs to happen and I have already mentioned 2 admins in the project. Kingjeff 17:19, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
Support due to wiki-yobbery. (A topic ban on both the Netherlands and Germany, given the issues at hand.) — Rickyrab | Talk 01:25, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
Support topic ban, with scope as expansive as is seen necessary in relation to Germany-related articles. -- Anonymous Dissident 06:37, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
there is a reason people are suspicious of Rex' edits now. In his place, I would consider just starting over with a clean slate (this is no endorsement of abusive sockpuppetry). I would be reluctant to impose a full topic ban ("German-related"? I am sure you can find some way to consider "German-related" tens of thousands of articles). But this needs to stop. Rex has shown no signs of introspection even after he was placed under revert parole. Instead of a topic-ban, I would propose indefinite extension of probation, with escalating blocks over 1RR-violations. dab (𒁳) 10:02, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
I think the indefinite extension of the arbcom-imposed probation/1RR is the least that needs to be done. (Only now occurred to me that the year was almost up! Heavens, time...). New, specific topic ban could be defined as: "any edits or discussions relating to issues of using German names", plus, admins should additionally be encouraged to invoke the existing probation rule to ban him from additional German-related disputes when necessary. At the same time, his old opponents must be closely watched for harassment or taunting, and should be blocked at the slightest signs of aggressive behaviour. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:15, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
- an all-out "German" topic ban would be nearly equivalent to a full ban, since most of Rex' edits by far are concerned with "removing German pov". It would be easier to enforce a strict 1RR parole, since it would (a) avoid fruitless discussions whether a given topic is "German related", and (b) wouldn't prevent Rex from making harmless and undisputed edits to articles. We don't want to ban him from fixing typos at Germans, we want him to stop his pointless and misguided "anti-German pov" campaign. dab (𒁳) 11:39, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
  - I agree. That's why I said: hard topic ban only on the issue of German names, and ad-hoc additional topic or article bans, possibly temporary, in probation style at the discretion of administrators. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:58, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Me

I don't see anyway in how you're going to pull this off. You'll see I have rarely edited either the Germany article or the German language article, leaving the German people article, which also has been quite a while, as the 3 articles that really spring to my (most) mind(s) when I hear a "topic bann related to Germany". Thing is, in many cases my edits concern 2 things, (in my opinion, all is relative) innapropriate/unneccesary German terms or German POV, and these articles often have little true linkage to Germany/German/Germans. Think of a Polish town, a ship or a musician. Thing is, I bet you could link most articles on wikipedia to Germans, German or Germany, indeed many German contributors seem to be generally fond of it.

A simple made-up example, the Dutch people-article, something I consider "my" pet article, and have been planning to work towards featured status for about a year now, when someone adds a line saying "Dutch people are a subgroup of Germans" then effectively, despite piles and piles of books behind me that say otherwise, I'm not allowed to touch it. Ridiculous, this damages the reliablity (something I for one hold very dear) of wikipedia.

Also, I will definately leave wikipedia if the ideas of Kingjeff (a "watchdog" in the form of Wikiproject Germany) are implemented. I already forsee what is going to happen. Not only will User:Kingjeff, who already watches my edits and makes quasi-personal attacks on my talkpage from time to time, be on wikipedia ANI every day with theories how a edits to "trade" are related to the German as the German wikipedia uses Handel, he will have dozens of little friends to help him. Never in my lifetime.

A German topic bann is impossible to implement, because who defines what is truly related and what isn't? I can already see Kingjeff, Matthead, Dbachman, Sciurnea, and Rama (well not realy him, als he blocks first and talks later) on ANI with links to articles I made an edit to and going into week-long discussions in which they try to prove its related to Germany ... it does not work, you either need a very (extremely clear) definition, or a list in which articles are named which can't be edited.Rex 10:47, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

nobody disputes that you are editing in good faith. Your problem is that you are unable to reflect on your position and let alone step back even when everyone tells you that it is unreasonable. This isn't about protecting your "pet" article Dutch people from passing trolls adding "Dutch people are a subgroup of Germans": I doubt this would stand for more than five minutes even without your intervention, and I doubt you would be pooh-pooed for reverting such an edit. The fact that you are presenting this case as an illegitimate German conspiracy even in the face of community support and repeated arbcom sanctions really speaks volumes about where the problem really lies. I was the first voter proposing a more lenient solution after a dozen support votes, and you still list me among your nemesises. As it stands, my suggestion of "indefinite parole" has a consensus for an all-out topic ban against it. --dab (𒁳) 11:30, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Linking "pet" to "WP:OWN" was not neccesary, I thought the bracing of ""my"" in my initial comment spoke for itself, in which I know I do not own wikipedia articles. Has it ever occured to anyone that most people I come into conflict with are not perfect editors themselves? Or are we too focussed on singling out 'one' badguy? I do not believe in any German conspiracy, I gave those examples because that's what's going to happen. You'll note that a number of them aren't even German. I listed you among others, because you too tried to make it harder for me to edit wikipedia (I recall the fact-taggs to I believe either Germans or Ethnic Germans, in which you continually removed them for straw man reasons)and are always willing to add a sneer on matters concerning me even when not involved, just like Kingjeff with his semi-personal attacks and Matthead with his prefabricated 'please bann this user' ANI messages. I'm sick and tired of continually being accused of matters I did not do, by people who aren't as much as a hair better themselves. I also don't think "your" solution is any more lenient or better than a bann from some articles. I'd rather be banned from some articles than to constantly have to worry of not making a revert too many every week on every article I edit. I've been doing that for nearly a year now, and it sucks. Especially when user, like Matthead for example, a German nationalist (fact, not accusation) use it at their own advantage to push POV that in my opinion is much more harmfull to wikipedia than any of my edits that have been labelled anti-German POV by others. I'd like to note that something can seem Anti-German much faster when you're yourself (not you Dbachman, others) a German nationalist. I name a Matthead (in constant conflict with Polish users for about a year) and User:Antman, who even had an infobox saying he was one. Where do I stand there?Rex 11:57, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

after two years, we can confidently say that there is a systematic problem with you. Everybody gets into disputes. But not everyone is the consistently innocent victim of an otherwise unnoted German conspiracy subverting Misplaced Pages. You are not 'singled out as the bad guy'. You have been treated with almost limitless leniency. After a full year of probation, it has become clear that there is simply no way to impress on you how your editing is problematic. You are set in your belief in German nationalist conspiracies, and we won't convince you otherwise. But we have to take measures to prevent disruption, and establish a sane editing environment for others, no hard feelings. dab (𒁳) 12:03, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Oh, the way I was treated this year was lenient? Ah I see, well then it's just a matter of making a few adjustments to my dictionary. I'll tell you this again Dbachman. I do not believe in any German conspiracy, I believe and know that German nationalism is present on Misplaced Pages. No where near all my edits to German related articles on Misplaced Pages were because I 'smelled' nationalism, all my edits have a logical reason and I stand by every single one of them. Trying to Labelme as insane will not change any of that,no hard feelings. Rex 12:22, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Just a message to the initiator

This user should not be allowed anywhere near anything German-related. A long record of trouble-making, edit-warring and incivility has recently culminated in a block for a month: see ANI here. Rex is on probation and revert-parole, but these restrictions are going to expire in a couple of months. Repellent comments such as these ,, and dubious edit summaries like this have managed to persuade me that we should topic-ban Rex Germanus from all Germany-related articles, loosely defined, violations to be rewarded with blocks of up to a month, after 5 violations the block length to increase to up to a year. Rex can make valuable contributions, but it is quite evident he cannot restrain his Germanophobic POV. If that's the case, we can't let him edit these articles. Note: I do not think he should be sitebanned without formal arbitration. Oh, and good heavens: Austin Powers villains are not Dutch, they're German!

Moreschi 19:26, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Just a note; this (marked as a 'repellent comment' ) was sarcasm, a sneer at Matthead who, through this comment indirectly tried to insult me. Luckily, I'm not as easily offended as he is when "my people" are insulted. This one, has been, either by accident of purposely, mininterpreted. I objected to Matthead calling me a rascist, and wished not to be compared to such, racists, lowlifes. I wasn't refering to Germans. To whom he did not compare me. Then, this remark surprised me, so Moreschi, that edit summary is 'dubious' is worse than a claim (already tagged!) that could have come right out of Die Sturmer or Signal? Now that's dubious. Finally, this was an attempt (?) to add some humor to a very unfunny event? Next time when you (try to) make a joke, check your facts first will you? Cheers. Rex 12:22, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

I think it's the mention of "German peasant blood", as opposed to wonderful Dutch genes, that so perturbed us. Your messing around with the Goldmember articles speaks for itself, really. He's not Dutch...honestly. The sardonic edit summary nicely displays your anti-German bias: don't suppose you looked to find a source for that, did you? Moreschi 12:26, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

"Wonderful", did I use that word? Don't think so, again you need to understand and differentiate sarcasm from attacks. I wasn't messing around I made sourced observations. If a character is supposed to be Dutch, but has a German accent I'm allowed to write that, especially when fully explained with IPA et all. Don't you think? Also, because you're disturbing me more and more, are you really saying I should have found a source saying the brave nazi soldier DID NOT shoot themselves because they did not want to take up space? Did cite your sources just die or something?Rex 12:31, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

The Goldmember page is the reductio ad absurdum of your editing behaviour, Rex. Dutch = good, German = bad. So you create articles stressing Beethoven's Dutch heritage, but when a comedy villain is supposed to come from the Netherlands you devote paragraphs of linguistic analysis trying to prove he must speak German rather than "freaky deaky Dutch". (All of it, I might add, unsourced original reseach on your part, so maybe you'd better find some academic material on the phonology of Austin Powers characters). It's ludicrous. --Folantin 12:52, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Beethovens ancestry was Dutch, if you call adding a line explaining his Dutch surname stressing then I did do that, otherwise you're exagerating. And no, no OR I based myself on Dutch, English and German phonology. Your accusations of "Dutch good/Germans bad" offends me, do you honestly I think that way? Because it's sad if you do. Ludicrous indeed.Rex 13:33, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Careful Rex, disengage. I've stated below that I think it is good to give you another chance, but as you allow yourself to be dragged into the same old discussions even here on the sanctions board, I can but wonder... Ignoring all other claims involved, the original research issue clearly illuminates that you act upon your bias, even though you know you are biased. Know your bias, then avoid it. In doubt, ask a neutral 3rd party for a review. Consider getting yourself a mentor to aid you in avoiding said behaviour. 84.145.241.203 13:42, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Goldmember is blatant OR based on your own personal interpretation of his accent. There are no sources and no references. --Folantin 14:58, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

I already said I based it on Dutch, English and German phonology.Rex 15:21, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

No, it's based on your own interpretation of his accent, which ignores some obvious counter-evidence like the fact that Goldmember shoundsh shuspicioushly like a comedy Dutchman to my earsh. Now I could add my own personal research with the relevant phonetics to the article but I won't because just like your material it would be original research, in other words there are no references from reliable, third-party sources to substantiate your claims. --Folantin 15:30, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Right and I guess it's also based on my interpretation of German, Dutch and English phonology? That's why they invented IPA, to avoid just that, countless of different personal observation.Rex 16:09, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

You still don't get it? No wonder you've ended up on this noticeboard. Try reading some policies. I'll remove your speculations from the Goldmember article and you can re-add them when you've found some reliable sourcing. --Folantin 16:22, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't have to look for them, I already had them, when I wrote that piece.Rex 17:16, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

So please add those references to the books or articles you have to back your claims. --Folantin 17:21, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Better solution

Dbachmann and Future Perfect have persuaded me that extending Rex's probation and 1RR revert parole (as laid out by the ArbCom) to indefinite is a better solution than a complete topic-ban. This is a given, I think. Potentially also a topic-ban banning Rex from edits, articles and discussions relating to issues of using German names? Thoughts? Moreschi 12:21, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

I think 1RR is (objectively speaking) easier to enforce. I would also add 'no page moves' on his part per my earlier statement (also an objective standard, he could still advocate for page moves of course, through discussion.) R. Baley 12:32, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

This might be a workable solution, if pagemoves are restricted also (necessary moves can be done via WP:RM). Still, Rex should be made aware, in no uncertain terms, that continuing his current editstyle (e.g. "Potsdamer Platz" move to "Potsdam Square", "Johann van Beethoven" to "Johan van Beethoven", unwillingness to accept that everybody is wrong at times (see the talkpages of the articles mentioned earlier), gross incivility to the "opposing side" in a dispute (see the deletion of WP:RM comments, the "German peasant blood" comment), and associated WP:POINT violations (move of Dora Maar au Chat)) will lead to a ban from this wikipedia. Currently his good contributions (and the prospect that he will continue these) outweight the disruption caused in the past; this is the reason why he is still invited to edit here, even after an ArbCom case and several WP:ANI appearances. Yet, it must be made clear that this is in no way a blank cheque to act in the way he did in the past, and that this is not a "slap on the wrists", that rather a fair - and final - chance for a otherwise good editor to clear up his act. Other people acting like this while on probation would already have been shown the door. I don't know if we can find a good and precise coverage for a topical ban, but outside this, Rex should be strongly urged to stay away from articles covering topics he himself admits is strongly biased with, if only to avoid the temptation to re-engage his previous edit style. And of course, like I said earlier, he must be warned in direct and plain words that causing further disruption even while on ArbCom probation and after repeated warnings by administrators, several WP:ANI incidents and this Community sanction discussion, will lead - good editor or not - to a community ban, as the decision to invite him to continue to edit is not only based upon his previous edits, but on the assumptions that the good edits continue and the bad ones won't. He has shown in the past that he was unwilling or unable to change his style, so this is his final chance to show us that he can, as, if we have to take into account not only good edits but also the same amount of disruption as in the past, we would be operating at a loss. 84.145.241.203 13:34, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Addendum: Should Rex take Mentor(s) to aid him chance his edit style to avoid further biased editing and disruption, I think we could forgo the topical-ban and the pagemove restrictions. Of course, ignoring the mentor or causing further disruption would have to be seen as further unwillingness to change or cooperate, leading to indef blocks (until he agrees to return to uncontroversial edits) or finally ban in repeated case. 84.145.241.203 13:52, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm willing to support/selfimplement/or accept the idea of an article ban, on Germany, Germans and German. Furthermore I would agree, with an 1RR parole, indefinately, but preferably for Germany-related articles, in that case, be as liberal as you want.Rex 14:37, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

If Mr. Germanus is willing to accept this solution, it seems adequate - if he engages in any serious POV pushing he'll just earn himself some long vacations. Everyone has topics that get them all agitatied - if they can self-moderate on those topic great - if not we have to moderate them. I'll say it's probably easier to stick with a complete 1RR to all articles for now, and if no incidents occur, maybe consider relaxing it in the future. WilyD 14:51, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

I past years history will show most (alledged) cases of 1RR breaches occured on Germany related articles, not 'regular' ones. I would also like to truly be banned from those articles, I do believe I can moderate myself, but I don't want to get blocked for I "don't know how long" amounts of time given a sudden twist of passion that might come around or perhaps automated behavior... Rex 14:56, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

I will be blunt, Rex, you have read my suggestions above (albeit striken-through right now), and I'm positively impressed by your latest comments - if you are willing to go through with this, I'd really like you to stay on Misplaced Pages. In that case I'd support the solution above. 84.145.241.203 15:02, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

I did not (or barely) read your comments. I don't really trust you or your comments in this entire matter, you only have edited wikipedia for what 2 weeks, and spend nearly all of it on talkpages in discussions either with or closely related to me. I think you're a registered user, and don't plan to take you fully serious until you reveal your true identity.Rex 17:23, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

New Proposal: Community Ban on User:Rex Germanus

With a heavy heart I hereby propose a community ban on User:Rex Germanus, as he has shown he is unwilling or unable to change his editing behavior even now while unblocked specifically to plea his case here. He already is under ArbCom Probation and has several times been warned against and blocked for his editing style, and his aggressive, uncivil and disruptive behavior when engaged in a dispute. Still he fails to realize or understand that his behavior is not acceptable within the Misplaced Pages community, as he continues to defend a highly uncivil comment "as a 'repellent comment'", that "was sarcasm, a sneer at Matthead who, through this comment indirectly tried to insult me." ~~He denies claims of original research even though the actions in questions are the very definition of it,~~ He allows himself to be dragged into a content dispute even here, and accuses another user of being "a german nationalist" ("Especially when user, like Matthead for example, a German nationalist (fact, not accusation) use it at their own advantage to push POV that in my opinion is much more harmfull to wikipedia than any of my edits that have been labelled anti-German POV by others. I'd like to note that something can seem Anti-German much faster when you're yourself (not you Dbachman, others) a German nationalist.") along with general less-than-civil behavior. Due to all this, I fail to believe that Rex Germanus can change his behavior (as it would be the aim of any topical-restricted ban or probation) but will continue to cause disruption by controversial edits and gross incivility, overshadowing all good edits he may make. 84.145.241.203 14:19, 2 October 2007 (UTC) Edit: If Rex is truely willing to change his behavior this one will not be necessary. 84.145.241.203 15:04, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

When I say I try to refrain as much as I can from Original research, I do. In fact I'm the one, who's constantly asking for other peoples sources. Look at the Dutch people article, how many references does that have? 1? 4? maybe 10? No, a staggering 114. So please, whatever you do, do not accuse me of original research.Rex 14:34, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and on the matter of calling someone a nationalist. And I'll be blund and fair here, there are only 3 persons on the entire project that I know/consider nationalists. User:Ulritz (left wikipedia), Matthead (see any of his contributions on Polish-German issues or the eastern fron of WW2) and Antman (who admits it himself, oddly an American btw) I would strongly suggest you'd never take up the sword for these people. Really, don't. You will not do any good. I don't support Personal attacks, though I know I have occasionally made them when dragged away, and I will never call either of them assholes or inferior but these people are nationalists, and everyone knows it. This isn't "insanity", blind hate or extreme POV, just the truth and I don't care if I get banned for it. Rex 14:41, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Dutch people is an excellent article. The OR issues come from Goldmember, but I shall strike that one as a very borderline case. Yet the heart of the issue still stands. You produce good articles, but at the same time you cause too much disruption with controversial edits on other articles and the big problems with civility while in disputes. You have been put under Probation by ArbCom and you were specifically unblocked to plea your case here, and both times you allowed yourself to slip into said behavior, choosing to defend it (see the repellent comment comment above) . I just do not believe anymore that you can make a long-term change to your editing style, and that, if the current tendentious editing continues, it simply outweights all good edits you make. 84.145.241.203 14:56, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

You have postively impressed me by your comment regarding "Better solution". If you are truely willing to change your behaviour I'd love to have you stay here on Misplaced Pages. 84.145.241.203 15:04, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

why are you commenting logged out? I do not think anonymous comments should carry any weight here at all. --dab (𒁳) 17:04, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. It comes over as suspect. --Folantin 17:24, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Then please disregard them. As to why I'm logged out - I'm trying to stay on a self-imposed wikibreak (but I have to admit myself it is not really working *sigh* curse you, wikipedia!) 84.145.241.203 17:32, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

I already know your IP adress is from Germany, apparently the Nurnberg area, and I would very much like to know who I'm dealing with here.Rex 17:38, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Closing

I think we are ready to close this with a 1RR parole in any article, a hard topic ban on the issue of German names, and ad-hoc additional topic or article bans, possibly temporary, in probation style at the discretion of administrators. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:14, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Looks good by me. (Though I'd still suggest Rex to consider getting a mentor, it really helps to have someone of your choice dedicated to kick you in the behind if you stray from your chosen path. You know they don't do it out of malice, but because you asked them to, so you are far less likely to take it personal; secondly, its always good to have some external reinforcement and neutral "reality check", at least in the beginning, if you want to get rid of a habit. And finally, said mentor will also come to your aid in cases where you are right and the others are wrong, which helps to shorten disputes and avoid escalation.) 84.145.241.203 16:48, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Don't think so. I don't see why a 1RR parole on all articles is neccesary, and a "German topic ban" or variants have been proven to be virtually unworkable. I don't think this is anywhere near 'closing'.Rex 17:14, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, if neither a 1RR nor a "German topic ban" is workable, that leaves us with a siteban. (Doing nothing isn't an option.) Raymond Arritt 17:25, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

I wasn't suggesting doing nothing. I'm suggesting a topic ban for Germany, Germans and German and an indefinate 1RR for all Germany-related articles.Rex 17:35, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

my suggestion: indefinite site-wide 1RR. Bans for disruption, gaming the system and WP:POINT after due warning, but escalating in length. No definition of a topic is necessary, since experience shows that disruption caused by this user will always be in some way "German related". The only workable alternative will be a complete ban, since the user shows no appreciation of his problems. dab (𒁳) 18:24, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Again I distance myself from WP:POINT. Experiences shows nothing, diffs do. Please do provide them.Rex 18:28, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

? -- if you refrain from WP:POINT, you obviously won't be blocked for it, so this shouldn't give you a headache either way. --dab (𒁳) 18:46, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

I moved that page because it also had an English title, I realy don't see the connection in making a point on the German language on English wikipedia.Rex 18:53, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

No you moved that page because someone suggested moving Potsdamer Platz to "Potsdam Square" would be like moving Dora Maar au Chat to "Dora Maar with cat", so you went ahead and did the latter too. Surprise, surprise, this arose from a German-language issue. A classic violation of WP:POINT. --Folantin 19:17, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

As I recall the someone said 'we don't move DMaC to DMwC either, so I checked if there were enough references to it in English (which was before the move, as can be proven) and moved it, noting in the intro its original name was DMaC. If I'd done it 3 days later no one would have said it would have been WP:POINT, which I believe is harming wikipedia to prove a point on another page.Rex 19:24, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

I would prefer to see a ban on moving articles included in the above close. (Preferably for Matthead as well) Agathoclea 21:24, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

I thoroughly agree with this last point. --Folantin 21:30, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Sure. I had assumed that was included in the clause about "edits relating to naming". Or do you mean all article moves, irrespective of whether they are related to the German names issue? Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:17, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, probably all page moves, or at least those which move titles between languages, to avoid pointy things like the Dora Maar au Chat move. --Folantin 08:21, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

A title move between langiages would sound most logical. I've moved countless of pages, so far only German to English creates problems (for some). I don't see any reason to include all pages.Rex 15:31, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

ok, so a ban on any article moves. But before we extend that to Matthead just for good measure, we'll have to discuss Matthead's behaviour first (evidence for disruptive behaviour?). We cannot impose sanctions on editors out of the blue. --dab (𒁳) 10:29, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Sure, I was only referring to Rex Germanus. Any action against Matthead would need a whole new investigation and debate. --Folantin 10:32, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

One that will certainly take place I can assure that.Rex 15:31, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

What about Rex' scale of nationalism etc.?

May I dare to ask about Rex' scale of nationalism, in which edits of mine are featured? Also, is it okay for him to call me nationalist time and again? -- Matthead O —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 16:50, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but it seems I lost my spade somewhere, anybody here seen it laying around ? --Van helsing 16:58, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

I have no idea if Matthead is, in fact, a nationalist. He appears to deny it (most nationalists are proud of being one). If you're going to "call a spade a spade", it is useful to have the actual spade handy (such as a condemning diff). otherwise you find yourself shouting "spade" at embarassed passers-by, without any spade in sight. dab (𒁳) 17:02, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

"...without any spade in sight". Well... I think I sort of said I lost it ? --Van helsing 17:08, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

then, sir, it appears I underestimated the raffinesse of your humour. dab (𒁳) 17:18, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

I think Rex' "nationalism scale" is illustrative all in itself. His "scale III" (we are to assume, extreme near-völkisch German nationalism) is illustrated by a softening of "Dutch hate" to "Dutch resentment" against Germans (meaning of course, Rex' resentment/hatred). Any questions? It is not ok to call people "nationalists" idly, without good cause. But I think Rex is in enough trouble without us picking on him for civility issues. --dab (𒁳) 17:00, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

I will not go into this very much, as I get quite angry with matters like these (people like Matthead euphemising world war II victims) when you call the occupation of the Netherlands, in which nearly a quarter of a million people died 'lenient', then you're in dire need of world war II education and some human decency. Also, you're lucky I censured your name from that edit, because I wouldn't even want to be found dead next to edits like that. Rex 17:10, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

You are a victim of our own censorship in your "scale", apparently attributing the "lenient" summary to me, when in fact it was Ulritz. I had tried to insert links to your censored examples in order to facilitate looking them up, but you denied that.-- Matthead O 17:37, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

The article "names for Germans" is not the place to rant about the Holocaust and against Germans and Nazis in general. Ulritz and Antman were both self-declared German nationalists, and, little surprisingly, US born ethnic German ones. Matthead is just a German editor, and to claim that he is "euphemising world war II victims" is a severe attack on his integrity. You should be careful with this sort of thing. Insisting that we do not hear about the Holocaust on every article somehow related to Germany isn't "euphemising world war II victims", give us a break. --dab (𒁳) 17:16, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Surprising that you use 'we', I was under the impression you were a Swiss person. The article you mentioned is on terms used for Germans and for some it gives the etymology and social background. To say the Dutch occupation was lenient, or indeed to suggest any occupation in which people experienced terrible missery, hunger and death was lenient is a terrible thing to do, and if calling something in which hundreds of thousands died lenient isn't euphemising, then please enlighten me as to what is. We apparently both agree Ulritz and Antman are/were German nationalists, but we disagree on Matthead, maybe we need a second opinion. Should we post a notice on the Polish Wikipedians noticeboard and see what comes out? (both in diffs and opinons)Rex 17:31, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

I am indeed Swiss, not German. By "we", I mean readers of Misplaced Pages in general. In my book, you are just demonstrating once again that every discussion with you will degenerate into a rant over German atrocities, no matter what the actual topic of the debate may be. I am agnostic of whether Matthead is a nationalist, and the question is not the topic here. The topic is your pronounced (Dutch) nationalism. If Matthead is showing disruptive patterns similar to yours, it would be high time to open an RfC on him. If you want to do that, you are welcome to it, I suppose, but you'll need to compile something resembling a case, with diffs. Ulritz is indeed a problem user, and in terms of misbehaviour something of your German counterpart. Matthead isn't Ulritz. dab (𒁳) 18:13, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Please, so now suddenly it's about Dutch nationalism? Try to stick to a single topic at a time please. I already said, to someone who is a German nationalist, negativating or neutralizing matters related to Germany will always be called nationalism from the other side. When a German user adds an unreferenced claim on Soviet soldiers killing 20 babys in a shed south of Berlin and a Russian user removes it, guess who will call who a nationalist.Rex 18:58, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Mrs random et al

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.

Based on this Checkuser finding, I propose that the above sockpuppeteer be community banned. The various accounts...

Mrs random (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Yeshivish (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Truest blue (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
LAZY 1L (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Miamite (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
AmerHisBuff (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Macallan 12 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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.

User:EddieSegoura and overturning his community ban.

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

Invalid request per WP:SOCK. Snowball support for the ban. Durova 19:04, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

I have recently been in contact via e-mail with this geezer, and he has stated he would like to return to Misplaced Pages if the community will allow it.

He wants a formal request for arbitration to decide if the community can formally un-ban him, and has promised to make no mention of Exicornt anywhere on Misplaced Pages.

This is just a mere formality, discuss amongst yourselves. Yes, he's sockpuppeted, yes he's disrupted AFD (Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Exicornt) but now he's showing remorse.

Keep him banned. As Bishonen says too much time was wasted with Eddie. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 15:37, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Hell no. Next. JoshuaZ 17:06, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Everything I've read indicates he never was a producte contributor. Why waste any more time on him? Odd nature 18:32, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely not. Too much of a history of disruption. NawlinWiki 18:33, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

User:Mclao

Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Jmfangio-Chrisjnelson closed

Naacats (talk · contribs)

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.

Consensus to ban user whose fundamental approach to Misplaced Pages is at direct odds with our policies

I will notify Naacats (talk · contribs) of this thread, as well as post a notice on the talk pages of smoking-related articles where he has been active. MastCell 18:31, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Topic-ban sounds appropriate. Pseudoscience-pushing is a major problem and we shouldn't have to put up with any more than we have to. We can review this in six months or so and hopefully by then he will have realised that Misplaced Pages is not the place for his personal, and highly original, POV. BTW, should he violate this ban, I would propose the usual: blocks of up to a month, after 5 blocks this can escalate to a year's block, blocks to be logged here. Moreschi 18:51, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
Based on the sheer amount of tenditiosness in less than a month and the solicitation of meatpuppets I think the topic ban is appropriate. The user does appear to be able to learn, but may need some horizon broadening to get there. --Rocksanddirt 18:53, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
Support topic ban for now, since this user obviously has confused what he wants wikipedia to be with what it actually is. A 6 or 12 month topic ban will allow him to gain experience editing in other areas and hopefully learn about and accept wikipedia for what it actually is. Note this user hasn't made many edit during the time in between my posting of this advice and my vote here. If the users' behavior significantly improves over the next few days, I may change my position to neutral or even oppose. It's really up to him. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yilloslime (talk • contribs) 20:27, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
I agree there are massive problems with their behaviour but has anything else WP:DR-wise been tried before looking for a ban? I certainly think they should be blocked (perhaps even indefinitely) for meat-puppetry but I really think WP:ANI was the venue for this rather than here--Cailil 20:54, 26 September 2007 (UTC) I take it back, see comment below-->User:Cailil12:22, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
- Comment: The first step (discussion) in WP:DR has been tried. I don't think an RfC would shed any additional light; his conduct is clearly inappropriate and he's already received feedback on it from a pretty broad section of editors without any change in behavior thus far. WP:DR is most useful for serious good-faith content disputes rather than out-and-out disruptive or blatantly inappropriate behavior. For those things, this board or AN/I are the best places to go, I think. I could see a block being appropriate for disruption or off-wiki canvassing, but I actually view the proposed remedy here as less severe than a block - it's only a topic ban. I considered bringing this to AN/I or asking a neutral admin to look it over, but the end result would likely be a block. I think that a topic ban would be a more constructive way to give this user a chance to reform, and thus proposed it here instead. MastCell 21:01, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
Strong support - tenditiosness & meat-puppetry, but to his credit has remained polite and civil on wikipedia. Certainly there has been some backlash against anti-smoking policies, and clearly could be a useful editor to add information about this. However the learning curve has not climbed high and needs have far better grasp of NPOVing his own personal viewpoint. A topic ban is warrented, but I'd be generous and state that 12 months seems too long. 23:31, 26 September 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Davidruben (talk • contribs)
Support. The sad thing is that if he hadn't pushed his agenda so zealously, he may have been able to write-up a good piece on the issues surrounding the smokers' rights movement, and that could have been informative... TeamZissou 23:34, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Stongly Does Not Support.Oh joy. Yet another attempt to stifle my voice on this subject. I have admitted that I am somewhat biased - but not as biased as the author of the smoking article. If you just look at his Edit history you can see that much. I am innocent of the charges that you are levying against me. Never once did I say that smoking did not cause lung cancer, and do not support changing the articles to say otherwise. What I have proposed the artcles say is that "according to some studies, smoking causes lung cancer" - the studies in question are hotly debated, and the articles (listed below) only show one side of the story. Any (including attempts by other users) attempt to improve the article to include information on the other side of the issue are reverted and end up in these editing wars.

Regarding the PRIVATE post (which can only be seen by 1 category of registered members) on naacats.com requesting EXPERT assistance on the smokers rights page, I don't see what the problem with that is. The group NAACATS (as opposed to me) has several experts on the subject in its membership, and requesting their assistance with writing the article hardly seems like it would be a problem.

You state yourself: Pseudoscience-pushing is a major problem and we shouldn't have to put up with any more than we have to. -- That is exactly my point. The wiki articles all are listing the various health effects as if they have been proven beyond a reasonable doubt. I still have a lot more points that need to be made, but I was hoping that you guys would be reasonable and willing to compromise on the issue, so that I didn't have to go and dig for more facts. Instead 3 editors (Davidruben along with the 2 below) have done everything they can to muddle the issue, and stifle my comments claiming them to be "wrong" despite strong scientific evidence to back them up. Even so on the major issue of debate I have offered a concession, but apparently that is not enough.

Regardless, I stated that I was willing to concede the issue, but they STILL won't leave it alone. I have come up with multiple solutions to the problem, and have polietly requested comments and discussion on the matter.

There was one instance where I removed a comment by a user, regarding a private note on the website that he was somehow able to see, and regarding an article that was being worked on at the time. I let the user know about it, and requested that he repost the comment. Perhaps I should have handled it differently, but as you have stated I am still somewhat new to Wiki and made a small error there that was quickly and professionally corrected.

Regarding the following users: Peter (sorry forgot his last name) and TeamNizziou- I have been in discussion with admins about getting THEM banned for 3RRs and several other violations. They continuously revert changes being made without discussion, including the removal of POV flags from articles that are OBVIOUSLY biased (health effects of tobacco smoking for example).

Regarding my own statement about why the group was founded. Yes, I did speak truthfully. NAACATS main mission objective is to remove the public perception that the antismoking lobby is the only POV (or even the leading POV which it is not), and since Wiki is one of the #1 sources of information people look to today, wiki is a large part of that. By simply DENYING OUR EXISITANCE as you are trying to do, I feel this goes against the very heart of Wiki.

Regarding the claim that my POV is the minority, even if you use the Surgeon Generals own facts (who admits to being biased against smokers, and supports the banning of tobacco in the USA - i'm not going to bother citing this one, as it would just be a waste of time since you guys call anything I cite as psudoscience) we still make up a sizable portion of the population. http://www.surgeongeneral.gov/library/secondhandsmoke/report/chapter10.pdf -- shows peoples beliefs according to these numbers.

We are not a fringe minority as Mastcell has stated (although I personally do believe that your POV is a fringe theory and holds little basis in reality). Even according to the polls shown here (which if you read the way many questions were asked will show the polls had some bias in them) we are still around 40-60 % of the population.

Now about the individual articles:

Smokers Rights - This was a stub when I found it - I'm still heavily working on this article and I admit at the current time it is biased. I myself put the POV flag on this article, as I know I have not yet balanced it. Banning me from working on this article is (in my opinion) yet another attempt to prevent any information on the other side of the issue from being . If you look at the categories on this page you can see that I am working to balance the article, and have invited criticism, discussion, and editing by both sides of the issue.

Smoking - This is the article all this stems from. I offered to concede my point for the time being, but thats not enough for them. Now they want to ban me to prevent me from "Spreading lies" as they have stated. I am doing no such thing, but have merely asked that the article mention that there is another side of the issue (similar to how evolution mentions the scientific design). Some of the numbers here are wrong, even if you take the antismoking side of the issue. This article is biased, but as I said I offered to concede on this issue numerous times.

health effects of tobacco smoking - This entire article is a showboat of the antismoking lobby. It is ridiculously POV in so many ways I can't count. The POV flag needs to stand there and HEAVY work needs to be done to make it accurate. Even from the antismoking side of the issue, almost all the facts are enlarged, it cites clearly biased sources (for example the WHO who actively promotes and encourages smoking discrimination http://www.who.int/employment/FAQs_smoking_English.pdf), and is just a poor example of a Wiki article.

Richard Doll - It states in the FIRST PARAGRAPH that he PROVED that smoking causes lung cancer. He did no such thing. He proved that there was a link between smoking and lung cancer - that is weasel wording in all its glory.

Before closing I would also like to state that this ban was requested by MastCell, about 2 hours after he messaged me regarding the issues. Instead of waiting for my response and been willing to talk about the issue, he instead chose to than request this ban (even after stating that "should I continue...he'd request the ban". (meanwhile I was asleep during this whole time) - you can see this on my talk page.

Finally in closing, I'd like to again state that a ban at this time would be pointless. I have been polite, willing to discuss issues (even made offers to concede my point!), and have made relatively few changes (since my first couple of days) without discussing the issue first. The few changes I have made include putting POV flags on issues in discussion (which are always reverted as soon as I put them up- without discussion in most cases), and putting various suggestion (expert, fact, and suggested merge) tags to improve the articles. Yes I made a few newbie mistakes along the way, but all of these were corrected and apologized for. At a bare minimum leave the Smokers rights article unaffected at this is an important article that needs to be completed. I have invited everyone who has an interest in the subject to assist, and I promise a fair and unbiased article when it is completed.

Naacats 00:50, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Naacats, on a different note, it would appear that your username violates username policy in that it promotes a group. Is there some reason why your account shouldn't be blocked on that basis? Ronnotel 02:07, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Support topic ban or stronger measure. I started reading this thread from the top, and was prepared to oppose until I saw Naacats' spectacular act of self-immolation above. Misplaced Pages does not need more people who are to push their own agenda, casting aside WP:RS, WP:NPOV, WP:BATTLE, WP:TE and any other policy that happens to get in the way of spreading The Truth. Raymond Arritt 02:42, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

As a courtesy I am not touching any articles related to the subject while this discussion is going on.

Naacats 03:26, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

It's pretty clear that no benefit will be gained from someone who insists that any organization which is against smoking is an unreliable source. -Amarkov moo! 03:40, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Erm, you realize that analogizing the WHO to the KKK isn't helping your case? -Amarkov moo! 03:56, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

How is DISCUSSION wrong in any way? Naacats 04:44, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment: I was going to add on-wiki canvassing to the list of user-conduct issues here, but apparently Naacats has been username-blocked. I'd prefer to wrap up this discussion anyway, though, because if he returns with another username the same issues will still exist. I'd like to get them sorted, though the username block throws a monkey wrench into the equation. MastCell 05:17, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Support - a topic ban. It was actually that diff on delldot's page that drew my attention here, as this noticeboard isn't on my watch list. I cleaned up one of this user's edits to World Health Organization, but by the weight of the rest of them, it's clear that they are here only to push an agenda, fringe or otherwise. Oh, and for the record for anyone that looks at that diff, of course delldot did not vandalize the page. To the contrary. Into The Fray /C 05:23, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Support - not the worst I've seen, but still. ←Ben 09:48, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
Strong support for siteban. All the reasons listed above, plus attempt to subvert this discussion by canvassing. For the record I'm posting late because I was undecided and leaning toward opposing any community remedy when this thread began. Durova 09:54, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
I had my reservations last night but on reflection and after Naacats spectacular performace I support a complete ban (with the usual caveats of review after a few months).--Cailil 12:22, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
support complete ban per the above really. Canvassing just tips the iceberg. -- Anonymous Dissident 14:22, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
oppose While personally anti-smoking, it does seem like a pro-smokers rights POV would be useful input to the project. I agree that behavior has been poor in many areas, but I'd like to see how he performs after some time to reflect. I think 6 months is too long and would suggest one month, which I think would send the right message. Ronnotel 14:33, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
It isn't the POV that's an issue; it's the tendentiousness. One intractable editor can stymie progress with unending debates over the obvious, such as whether the World Health Organization is a reliable source. Durova 14:48, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
In that case, he just needs to be taught the definition of WP:RS and he'll be much more useful. Perhaps a one month ban can do that as effectively as a six month ban? Ronnotel 14:52, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
Comment: I don't think this is someone who simply misunderstands WP:V and WP:RS; more someone whose fundamental approach to Misplaced Pages is at direct odds with our policies. His edits, up to this point, have been met with unanimous disapproval, efforts to steer him in the right direction, and ultimately exasperation. I've seen a lot of initially problematic editors turn into good contributors, and I don't come to this board lightly, but this is exactly the kind of editing that is detrimental to the encyclopedia, frustrates and drives off good contributors, and indefinitely stalls article improvement. MastCell 18:21, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
Support topic ban and possibly a forced username change. Behavior is clearly unacceptable, and shows little evidence that change is desired. RyanGerbil10(C-Town) 15:23, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
For clarity, I would not be opposed to a siteban, as per Durova. RyanGerbil10(C-Town) 15:25, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
Support, obvious WP:TE and WP:SOAP ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:25, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
This appears to have repeated examples of tendentious edits, many of which are in defiance of WP:NPOV especially the undue weight clause. I see little hope for someone editing this topic if they think that the CDC and the WHO are not reliable sources. JoshuaZ 15:36, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Hang on a cotton pickin' minute. This user has been editing for just two weeks. He clearly doesn't understand policies like WP:RS. I haven't had a chance to look at his edit history yet, but talking about an indef siteban sounds totally over the top to me.

Comment - Just to be clear, though it was referenced above, the username was blocked. There doesn't seem to have been a return of this user since that point. Into The Fray /C 15:58, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
Support, just in case this issue isn't moot at this point. – Quadell 16:11, 27 September 2007 (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.

Rex Germanus (talk · contribs)

Support indefinite topic ban on German naming and Germany related topics. In spite of repeated blocks, Rex has shown no improvement of any kind of tact in these topics, although in other areas he tends to be a valuable editor. Some discretion maybe needed on some of the more distantly Germany related topics, it could for example be argued that any Netherlands (Rex homecountry) (due to several historic links), or indeed every topic concerning any country in WOII is also Germany related. Note: In the past I have frequently defended Rex, as he is not making his case better by refusing to appease admins, and by making many enemies; however I am getting wary of this and hope this would take the sting out of most of his less well thought trhough edits. Arnoutf 19:42, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
I do support a topic ban but I think it might be difficult to formulate one since user:Rex Germanus has threatened to police German sounding names through-out en-WP--Cailil 19:48, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment Hoping to avoid just that, is why I explicitly added the "German naming" under the topics. Arnoutf 19:50, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Support without prejudice to extending the ban to any other area he disrupts. He lost the benefit of the doubt a long time ago. Let's be on guard for WP:POINT violations too. --Folantin 21:21, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
All the editor did was Germany related pages, A indef user ban likely works instead. 131.94.65.77 22:13, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
Comment While we have to make Rex somehow understand that his actions (based on his POV) are counter-productive and distruptive I'm not certain that we can find a ban wide enough to prevent further issues, while being narrow enough to allow his constructive edits to continue. Moreso, we cannot be to vague about this, unless we wish to continue the current situation on an additional meta-level, i.e. if that article is sufficiently related to "German" to be covered under the ban. Also the issues of Dutch articles were raised, as both the Netherlands and Germany are closely connected through their geographical and historic ties. 84.145.229.133 22:49, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
Support indef topic ban per Moreschi and Arnoutf. But note that this comment (#2) has been repeatedly misinterpreted. Comments #1 and #2 both refer to allegedly being called a racist. #2 says that Rex considers racists "low lifes". Avb 23:02, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
Agree with topic-ban, although I share anon's concerns above about the clarity of the ban. I think that he should also be prohibited from moving pages based on POV pushing and the (ongoing?) discussion at Talk:Johann van Beethoven. R. Baley 23:12, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
Support topic ban, with scope to be interpreted liberally. RyanGerbil10(C-Town) 02:19, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
Support Would you be receptive to a friendly amendment, specifically replacing "of up to a month, after 5 violations the block length to increase to up to a year" with a simple "at the discretion of the blocking admin"? The intent is to allow particularly egregious violations to be dealt with accordingly. Raymond Arritt 02:26, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
- If a block longer than a month is necessary, then we can do that through ANI. Plus, it's easier to get a clear consensus if we don't change the boilerplate halfway through.--Chaser - T 07:50, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
Support topic ban as proposed, with strong caution to the editor that sanctions can be expanded as necessary. Please continue editing productively on other topics. Durova 16:12, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
support rapidly escalating topic ban, escallation of revert parole bans. --Rocksanddirt 16:57, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
Support escalating topic ban on all edits related to German words (not just Germany related articles) and escalating block also earned for incivility, and other WP:POINT related disruptions such as replacing French names of places and works of art, etc. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:39, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
I support the idea because it'll give a break to our friends who contribute on German-related articles, but I'd like to advise that Rex will be just as likely to proceed likewise on topics related to France, or even to Lotharingia if he gets a chance (see the nice mess he made on Charlemagne). Rama 20:43, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
- Could we banish him from Europe? (rigging clipper ship to Australia) ;) Durova 20:52, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
  - That would effectively be a project ban as Rex expertise is mainly on Dutch issues. Arnoutf 21:53, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
    - It's up to him: if he edits productively there then I have no objection. If he decides to be disruptive then eventually he might actually get banned. Durova 22:44, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
I Support the ban. But WikiProject Germany should be informed so they can be a watchdog for this. Kingjeff 21:31, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
- I am strongly against explicitly informing a WikiProject, these have no official status in reinforcement of bans. By giving them a watchdog task your are effectively making them prosecutors. It is likely that inflammatory (and even helpful edits) within the ban will be flagged up anyway (by you or other enemies of Rex).Arnoutf 21:53, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
  - Please refactor the enemies characterization. Durova 22:44, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
    - Informing a WikiProject is not about making anyone or any group procecutors. This is about effectively maintaining the ban. They do watch Germany-related articles and should be aware of this ban if it gets passed. In fact it doesn't even have to be the entire WikiProject that gets informed. There are administrators that are involed with WikiProject Germany. User:Agathoclea and User:Kusma are 2 admins that I know that participate Kingjeff 01:34, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
      - Rex has made enemies; there are cases in articles where edits are being reverted or debated "just because Rex made them". I think this kind of content unelated behaviour may count as enmity. It is likely that these editors will keep trailing Rex and call out whenever he step a hair-width over the line of his ban. With regard to Kingjeff's comment, this enforcement is exactly what I mean; why we should not give it to a project. Ban-enforcement should not be given over to a project; it is an issue for admins who care about these things; not all editors and admins who are much happier making edits and not being involved in messy things like this. Arnoutf 06:35, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
        I don't think that's what Kingjeff is proposing at all. Anyway, ideal practice is a note on the project's discussion page informing them about the ban and instructing them to ask a neutral admin to make a determination about whether a block is necessary, and then that admin will implement it if it is.--Chaser - T 06:41, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
        Leaving a note on the project's discussion page is exactly what needs to happen and I have already mentioned 2 admins in the project. Kingjeff 17:19, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
Support due to wiki-yobbery. (A topic ban on both the Netherlands and Germany, given the issues at hand.) — Rickyrab | Talk 01:25, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
Support topic ban, with scope as expansive as is seen necessary in relation to Germany-related articles. -- Anonymous Dissident 06:37, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
there is a reason people are suspicious of Rex' edits now. In his place, I would consider just starting over with a clean slate (this is no endorsement of abusive sockpuppetry). I would be reluctant to impose a full topic ban ("German-related"? I am sure you can find some way to consider "German-related" tens of thousands of articles). But this needs to stop. Rex has shown no signs of introspection even after he was placed under revert parole. Instead of a topic-ban, I would propose indefinite extension of probation, with escalating blocks over 1RR-violations. dab (𒁳) 10:02, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
I think the indefinite extension of the arbcom-imposed probation/1RR is the least that needs to be done. (Only now occurred to me that the year was almost up! Heavens, time...). New, specific topic ban could be defined as: "any edits or discussions relating to issues of using German names", plus, admins should additionally be encouraged to invoke the existing probation rule to ban him from additional German-related disputes when necessary. At the same time, his old opponents must be closely watched for harassment or taunting, and should be blocked at the slightest signs of aggressive behaviour. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:15, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
- an all-out "German" topic ban would be nearly equivalent to a full ban, since most of Rex' edits by far are concerned with "removing German pov". It would be easier to enforce a strict 1RR parole, since it would (a) avoid fruitless discussions whether a given topic is "German related", and (b) wouldn't prevent Rex from making harmless and undisputed edits to articles. We don't want to ban him from fixing typos at Germans, we want him to stop his pointless and misguided "anti-German pov" campaign. dab (𒁳) 11:39, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
  - I agree. That's why I said: hard topic ban only on the issue of German names, and ad-hoc additional topic or article bans, possibly temporary, in probation style at the discretion of administrators. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:58, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Me

Just a message to the initiator

This user should not be allowed anywhere near anything German-related. A long record of trouble-making, edit-warring and incivility has recently culminated in a block for a month: see ANI here. Rex is on probation and revert-parole, but these restrictions are going to expire in a couple of months. Repellent comments such as these ,, and dubious edit summaries like this have managed to persuade me that we should topic-ban Rex Germanus from all Germany-related articles, loosely defined, violations to be rewarded with blocks of up to a month, after 5 violations the block length to increase to up to a year. Rex can make valuable contributions, but it is quite evident he cannot restrain his Germanophobic POV. If that's the case, we can't let him edit these articles. Note: I do not think he should be sitebanned without formal arbitration. Oh, and good heavens: Austin Powers villains are not Dutch, they're German!

Moreschi 19:26, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Goldmember is blatant OR based on your own personal interpretation of his accent. There are no sources and no references. --Folantin 14:58, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

I already said I based it on Dutch, English and German phonology.Rex 15:21, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't have to look for them, I already had them, when I wrote that piece.Rex 17:16, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

So please add those references to the books or articles you have to back your claims. --Folantin 17:21, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Better solution

New Proposal: Community Ban on User:Rex Germanus

why are you commenting logged out? I do not think anonymous comments should carry any weight here at all. --dab (𒁳) 17:04, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. It comes over as suspect. --Folantin 17:24, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

I already know your IP adress is from Germany, apparently the Nurnberg area, and I would very much like to know who I'm dealing with here.Rex 17:38, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Closing

Well, if neither a 1RR nor a "German topic ban" is workable, that leaves us with a siteban. (Doing nothing isn't an option.) Raymond Arritt 17:25, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

I wasn't suggesting doing nothing. I'm suggesting a topic ban for Germany, Germans and German and an indefinate 1RR for all Germany-related articles.Rex 17:35, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Again I distance myself from WP:POINT. Experiences shows nothing, diffs do. Please do provide them.Rex 18:28, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

? -- if you refrain from WP:POINT, you obviously won't be blocked for it, so this shouldn't give you a headache either way. --dab (𒁳) 18:46, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

I moved that page because it also had an English title, I realy don't see the connection in making a point on the German language on English wikipedia.Rex 18:53, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

I would prefer to see a ban on moving articles included in the above close. (Preferably for Matthead as well) Agathoclea 21:24, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

I thoroughly agree with this last point. --Folantin 21:30, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, probably all page moves, or at least those which move titles between languages, to avoid pointy things like the Dora Maar au Chat move. --Folantin 08:21, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Sure, I was only referring to Rex Germanus. Any action against Matthead would need a whole new investigation and debate. --Folantin 10:32, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

One that will certainly take place I can assure that.Rex 15:31, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

What about Rex' scale of nationalism etc.?

Sorry, but it seems I lost my spade somewhere, anybody here seen it laying around ? --Van helsing 16:58, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

"...without any spade in sight". Well... I think I sort of said I lost it ? --Van helsing 17:08, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

then, sir, it appears I underestimated the raffinesse of your humour. dab (𒁳) 17:18, 2 October 2007 (UTC)