Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

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

Accusations made by User:Pixelface

During User:Someguy1221's RfA, Pixelface made an accusation that Someguy1221 was a sock puppet of User:Jack Merridew. This allegation was found to be untrue on the basis of two CheckUsers 1, 2. PF insisted on the second because, apparently, John Vandenberg isn't impartial enough.

It's no crime to voice one's concern about possible sockpuppeteering. HOWEVER, consider Pixelface's subsequent petulance, this thinly veiled accusation that Jack Merridew is running or intends to run a sockpuppeteering operation, and continued refusal to explain just why he thought there was something dubious going on- this leads me to believe that this was nothing more than a dirty and bad faith attack on Jack Merridew, an editor Pixelface dislikes on purely ideological grounds.

Pixelface has a recent record (complaint of disruption and edit warring, complaint of incivility and hounding, complaint of belligerent editing) of objectionable behaviour and this cheap shot is just the latest escalation. I am concerned that Pixelface will continue to use cheap tricks like spurious accusations of sockpuppetry to sink the boot into other editors he comes into conflict with. Reyk _YO! 03:43, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

FWIW recent history also includes Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Pixelface. Pete.Hurd (talk) 04:06, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Terima kasih (thank you). For the record, I am editing with no other accounts than this one, as the AC has directed. All prior accounts are listed in;

• Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Davenbelle

For background, see

• Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Jack Merridew ban review motion#Indefinite block lifted with editing restrictions and
• User:Jack Merridew/History

Pixelface is in full battleground mode re myself and has been since E&C 2. When my unban was being discussed, he stated his view rather clearly; archived here.

There was an RFC/U re Pixelface recently which he basically blew off;

• Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Pixelface

I have no idea why Pixelface believes, or believed, I and User:Someguy1221 are related. I'd not heard of him previously or crossed his path in any way I'm aware of.

I would like some action here. Cheers, Jack Merridew 04:12, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Checkuser cannot prove a negative. Durova^Charge! 05:17, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Oh, I know that. He has admitted that he was wrong; that's not really the issue. His battleground approach to me, others, and various policies and guidelines is of wide concern as the links I and others have offered show. And of, course, there is more if one digs. Cheers, Jack Merridew 05:25, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, what are you looking for that isn't being addressed at the RFC? What admin action are you seeking? Durova^Charge! 05:27, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, the User RFC garnered a fair number of comments but no real change in behaviour. As to actions, I would think a stern admonishment and warning from the community would be the minimum and a community ban the maximum. Pixelface is relentlessly disruptive. Cheers, Jack Merridew 05:35, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

As a note on the User RFC, PF has not performed any more than 1RR changes on policy/guideline pages since the RFC. But the other factors mentioned do not seem to have changed. --MASEM (t) 15:27, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

As noted by Masem, the only behaviour that Pixelface has changed is the edit-warring on policy pages, and all the other problems remain intact. Since he has already been blocked multiple times for this, I think a 72-hour block is in order, with an eye towards eventually making it indefinite if he cannot learn to civilly engage with other editors.—Kww(talk) 15:33, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Are we blocking people for 72 hours now for filing SPIs on self-admitted sockpuppets? And I believe you made a comment at my user RFC about your own civility Kww. Like I've said before, when I'm treated in a civil way, I typically respond in a civil way. --Pixelface (talk) 22:27, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Masem, your desired outcome was fairly vague. And I never agreed to follow 1RR on policy and guideline pages. Which reminds me, I still need to start a thread about that change to WP:POL which came about in October. --Pixelface (talk) 22:31, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

I didn't blow off that user RFC, although it looks like most of the community ignored it. It was archived by Ncmvocalist after two weeks of no comment, and I had plenty more to say. I edited the page 11 times[1], I edited the talkpage 25 times[2], and I was the first to propose a solution. I promised to not edit WP:NOT during January before you did, and that policy was unprotected as a result. I also promised to not edit WP:NOT for two more months. However, you agreed to avoid all disruptive editing as a condition of being unbanned and you were warned by one of your three assigned mentors after your edit-warring on WP:NOT[3], where you just happened to accuse me of "vandalism." Now there is a baseless accusation. I suggest that if you don't want people to think you're operating sockpuppets, don't operate sockpuppets to begin with. Dominic can verify that he received an email, over 200K, with evidence that led me to believe that you might have been Someguy1221. I really think you should have told Reyk about your history before you let him start this thread. Oh, and please don't leave any more trout on my user talkpage. Cheers, --Pixelface (talk) 22:21, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

As I understand it, there are three problems with Pixelface's conduct in this issue:-

1. An unsubstantiated accusation of sockpuppetry by, and disruption of the RfA of, Someguy1221 - someone completely uninvolved and blameless in this matter. Fortunately this did not affect the outcome of the RfA, and an apology has been made.
2. An unsubstantiated accusation of sockpuppetry against Jack Merridew, which was not so much withdrawn as laughed out of court. There's been no apology for this and judging by the apparent past history between these editors, there is unlikely to be.
3. An unsubstantiated accusation that John Vandenberg isn't impartial - to the extent that he would falsely report checkuser findings. I'm not aware of any withdrawal or apology related to this. I'm aware that there is no explicit accusation of falsification, but it makes no sense to say "I question your impartiality, and I've emailed the evidence to another Checkuser" unless one believes the report of the first checkuser to be false.

Provided that Pixelface accepts that these are serious conduct issues and undertakes to address them, then I think no further sanction is necessary. I am well aware that the editors on the receiving end of Pixelface's problematic conduct are respectively an admin (now), a veteran editor, and a checkuser, and that as such these people ought to be able to laugh off such attacks. I trust that they will be able to do so, but our discussion here ought not to be about punishment for past actions, but prevention of future disruption, in particular prevention of discouragement to the much less-experienced editors that Pixelface will surely come into contact with. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 14:01, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

First of all, my accusation was substantiated, to Dominic, who had previously performed a reliable checkuser on Jack Merridew. Second of all, Jack Merridew is a self-admitted sockpuppet, and is apparently proud of that fact. Third of all, I had no intention of ever submitting my evidence to Jayvdb, one of Jack Merridew's three assigned mentors, who Jack Merridew contacted by himself. I don't think any of his assigned mentors should be performing checkusers on Jack Merridew. In addition to being one of Jack Merridew's mentors, Jayvdb said that Jack Merridew had "earned" a final chance in December and Jack Merridew voted for Jayvdb in the 2008 Arbcom elections. I expect Jayvdb to recuse in any further checkuser requests related to Jack Merridew. It does make sense to provide the evidence which led me to believe that the two accounts may be sockpuppets or meatpuppets to a checkuser, and I did so. Reyk certainly didn't seem to be aware of Jack Merridew's past history and frankly, Jack Merridew should have told Reyk about that history when Reyk told Jack Merridew he was thinking of starting an ANI thread. I have already apologized to Someguy1221 for thinking that he may be Jack Merridew. He is the only editor in this situation who deserved an apology. --Pixelface (talk) 00:15, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

There was no need for Jack to tell me anything. There is a rather conspicuous disclosure of his past on his user page- coming clean about his past is, I think, good evidence that he's acting in good faith now. Reyk _YO! 01:15, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Above at the start of this thread you called this comment by me a "thinly veiled accusation", which seems to indicate you were totally unaware that Jack Merridew is a self-admitted sockpuppet and has edited under several sockpuppets in the past. Jack Merridew has done several disruptive things since being unbanned in December, but that's a topic for another thread. I'd be happy to list them on a user subpage. --Pixelface (talk) 02:01, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

While I disagree with Pixelface's suspicions in this particular instance and encourage him to be cautious when alleging sockpuppetry (perhaps consulting with a trusted fellow editor before making an allegation in an RfA?), he is by and large a constructive and good faith editor who is frequently hounded by those on the opposite end of the inclusion spectrum. A good deal of what is typically alleged against Pixelface is partisan in nature and frequently hypocritical, i.e. dismissing him because of his beleifs when those doing the dismissing engage in the same allegedly poor behavior or worse. Few try to make attempts to reach out and in fact only perpetuate and escalate tensions. It becomes an effort to stifle the dissenting view rather than trying to reach an amicable understanding or a polite agree to disagree. Everyone should spend more time working together to rescue and improve articles rather than on trying to see sockpuppetry under every corner (unless it is blatantly obvious as in the recent report I filed that turned up 25 socks!) or tattling on each other at ANI. WAAAAY too much time is wasted in these discussions rather than on actually building Wikipedia and besides as Sheffield suggests above, it is really not that hard to ignore others when the accusations seem baseless. We typically only encourage people or make things worse by feeding into or getting up in arms over some things that can easily be ignored or passed over. In other words, to Pixelface, please help us work on article rescue and ask someone you trust first if you think sockpuppet looks possibly, because say if you asked me for example first in this case, I would have discouraged making the accusation in the RfA. To everyone else, please stop trying to bait Pixelface and enflaming tensions. We are here first and foremost to build "the paperless encyclopedia anyone can edit". The priority should not be trying to get each other in trouble. Have a wonderful weekend! Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 14:27, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

While it is true that anyone can gode another into behaving improperly, PF is the only editor in these cases that seems to be throwing personal attacks around. There's obviously animosity between Jack and PF, but I have yet to see an instance of Jack attacking PF on a personal note, even when PF starts off that way (I'm not saying there not might be any, I'm just not aware of any). We've been through this before that PF needs to stop engaging in personal attack, even if there seems to be an overwhelming number of more vocal editors that are against his position which may mirror an even larger number of non-vocal editors. WP is not a battleground - calm and rationale discussion is the means to settle disputes, not attacks at editors themselves. --MASEM (t) 14:36, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

I would strongly disagree with the characterization of Pixelface as being "by and large a constructive and good-faith editor". He is by and large a chronic source of low-level disruption and bad behaviour. His RFC demonstrates his general unwillingness to recognize the problems he creates, and, if this event isn't sufficient to cause him to be blocked, it should at least put him at the final warning stage.—Kww(talk) 14:35, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Accusations of sock pupperty are common, and often they are proven wrong. Maybe Pixelface had a legitimate reason to worry about Jack, since he has been blocked multiple times for sock puppet abuse:

1. 16:46, 31 March 2008 Ryan Postlethwaite (talk | contribs) blocked Jack Merridew (talk | contribs) (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of indefinite ‎ (Abusing multiple accounts)
2. Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive142#Jack_Merridew, listing EIGHT sock puppets of Jack.

To paraphrase Reyk's bad faith attack on Pixelface, now we have "editor[s who] dislike [Pixelface] on purely ideological grounds", Kww and Masem joining the argument.

If I were Pixelface I would have consulted the three admins, Casliber (talk · contribs), Jayvdb (talk · contribs) and Moreschi (talk · contribs) which are mentoring Jack to make sure the bad behavior does not happen again.[4]

Pixelface apologized that he was wrong, but that wasn't good enough. Jack Merridew added a huge trout to his page, but that wasn't good enough. Why can't editors accept this apology? Ikip (talk) 14:39, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't dislike Pixelface on "purely ideological grounds". I maintain a civil and friendly relationship with DGG, for example, who is certainly as ideologically my opposite as Pixelface. I dislike Pixelface for edit-warring, incivility, and a complete inability to work with people that disagree with him.—Kww(talk) 14:59, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Struck comment. So do you agree that Pixelface dislikes Jack on purely ideological grounds? Maybe Reyk should strike that comment too. Ikip (talk) 15:06, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Judging only on what I've seen, the language that PF uses in talking about Jack is complete dislike or disrespect for the person, not ideology, due to Jack's past sockpuppetry that he was banned for. At the same time, PF also is very opposite in ideology from Jack. It's fine for PF to comment and debate the ideological differences, but I've seen PF engage in attacks against Jack as an editor (including calling him out by his real name). (And to echo Kww, I certainly don't dislike PF as an editor, and respect that his ideology reflects numerous unvoiced editors of fiction and thus useful; I dislike the means which he approaches debate which edges on the border of appropriate behavior.) --MASEM (t) 15:19, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

It's hard for me to evaluate. I strongly opposed the restoration of Jack Merridew's editing privileges, and still think it was a mistake on philosophical grounds (I'm equal-opportunity on that aspect as well ... I think it's a grievous error to allow A. Nobody to edit, as well, and he's on the opposite end of the exclusionism/inclusionism spectrum from Jack). That said, I'm not aware of any explicit misbehaviour by Jack since his unbanning.—Kww(talk) 15:22, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

You wrote about how Jack Merridew is behaving, but that is not really true. For background, Pixelface and I were among the few editors convinced by White Cat’s evidence that Merridew was indeed a sock and had to contend with the usual hyperbole about us assuming bad faith until check users confirmed it and Merridew was blocked as a sock of Davenbelle who had several socks with which he used to harass various inclusionist editors FOR YEARS. And now, after arbcom unblocked him under strong conditions that he not antagonize anyone or cause any disruption of any kind, he is making a joke out of his being a sock account: [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], etc. The "lulz" is also consistent with the attack site Encyclopedia Dramatica. Given that he was blocked for long term use of socks as harassment, it is hardly "funny" about his being a sock and given what’s on ED about various editors, why use that site’s catchphrases? Would you think it would be a big slap in the face and insult if say I did the same thing? There is also this pointed use of the rescue template: [10]. I am increasingly seeing it as a bad idea having allowed him back as he has numerous instances of pointed or bad taste edits with limited good edits to boot, whether it's the above or other instances where he referred to me by my old username mockingly. Casliber has recently reverted an edit Merridew made to my talk page and then told him to leave me alone: [11], but… I comment in one AFD on one day and argue to delete and notice the post immediately after mine... [12]. That AfD is not an April Fools prank for one thing... Now see this. If you check, his so called apology is [13], i.e. a post by Pixelface. Given the ANI thread, what is with making digs at Pixelface in this manner? He calls for some kind of restriction on Pixelface while using him as part of his “April Fools” jokes? Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 04:09, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

1. I was not blocked per check users; rather per my own admission.
2. You have no sense of humour.
3. Have you seen what Encyclopedia Dramatica has about me? I have nothing nice to say about them.

G'day, Jack Merridew 05:48, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Kww, so I guess now would be a bad time to bring up this[14][15] edit-warring by you, which immediately followed my edits to those articles? At that time, there was no consensus to merge at Talk:List of characters in Watchmen. And there was no consensus to merge at WikiProject Comics either[16][17]. That first thread is basically WesleyDodds telling WikiProject Comics that he boldly redirected them and another editor saying "yay." Look at all the complaints at Talk:List of characters in_Watchmen since then. Are you seriously saying that the characters Ozymandias is not notable? I can work with people who disagree me. But can you? --Pixelface (talk) 02:20, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

I had reason to believe that a user might be a sockpuppet or meatpuppet of Jack Merridew, and I think Dominic may agree with me. He did perform a checkuser after I sent him my evidence afterall. I admit that my edits to articles have drastically fallen off as of late, but part of that is because of editors like you Kww, following me around and reverting my every edit. Like this[18][19][20] for example. Have you noticed how I'm not hounding you and reverting your edits to articles? I would appreciate it if you (and anyone else) didn't do so to me. But even considering all my edits in WP/WT-space lately (which many people support[21][22]), over 50% of my edits are still to article-space[23]. Most of those edits came at a time when people were not hounding me, and I was free to improve any article whatsoever, articles like GTD-5 EAX.

Arbcom has never considered a topic ban for me, something that cannot be said about you Kww. I don't know what problems you think I've "created." I'm not the one who said over seven years ago "I agree with this one completely" when someone said "There is no reason why there shouldn't be a page for every Simpsons character, and even a table listing every episode, all neatly cross-linked and introduced by a shorter central page. Every episode name in the list could link to a separate page for each of those episodes, with links to reviews and trivia." Take it up with the editor who said that and the people who listened to him and followed him. I've never understood your attitude towards me. One of the very first things I remember you saying to me was "Be grateful that I'm not an admin, so I don't have a block button on my screen." And believe me Kww, I am grateful for things like this. --Pixelface (talk) 01:56, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Pixelface is NOT "the only editor...throwing pesonal attacks around." On his talk page, for instance, someone makes a play on his username by calling him "egg on face" or something to that effect and if necessary, I am sure we can turn up a number of diffs in which editors were incivil to him as well. I don't condone incivility by anyone, regardless of inclusion stance. Pixelface should remain civil, but so should others as well. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 14:49, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

If people are ploying him on his talk page, that's a violation of WP:NPA and they should be brought forward as well. I don't watch his talk page, I know what I see through the various talk page discussions on certain policies and guidelines, and clearly there PF is pretty much the only one that engages in personal attacks. --MASEM (t) 15:13, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Kww and User:Jack Merridew routinely engage in incivility and personal attacks. The parole of the latter does not seem to be working as the demands upon his mentors indicate. Colonel Warden (talk) 16:15, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Evidence for this? I don't see it on the policy/guideline talk pages, but it would be helpful to know if it's happening on user pages. (as to justify any addition behavior remedies) --MASEM (t) 16:57, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

I'd be interested in evidence that I "routinely engage in incivility and personal attacks" as well.—Kww(talk) 17:32, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Feel free to provide diffs Masem. --Pixelface (talk) 02:27, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

I realize that alleging that a user may be Jack Merridew can be insulting, but I've already apologized to Someguy1221. And Masem, if the user RFC you started on me hadn't been archived when it did (organizing a timeline from last April was proving to be difficult), you would have seen me present plenty of Jack Merridew's inciviilty towards me, going back to December 2007. I didn't start it. But I may put all that on a user subpage. You're right Masem, Wikipedia is not supposed to a be a battleground, which is why I would really appreciate it if would you stop starting threads about me that go nowhere — your recent AE thread comes to mind. You know, a recent paper has found that Wikipedia's dispute resolution system does not actually resolve disputes — and I've certainly found that to be true in my own experience. And I think it's worth noting that the user who intiated E&C2 and listed me as an involved party is now banned from editing Wikipedia. --Pixelface (talk) 00:39, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

I realize that alleging that a user may be Jack Merridew can be insulting- again with the churlish personal attacks. It never stops with you, does it? Reyk _YO! 01:17, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

One striking element of the RfC is that Pixelface entered no response to it. Also, Pixelface was more recently the subject of a Wikiquette alert. Due to the nature of the surrounding environment (inclusionism/deletionistm) it is unlikely that consensus will form at a community level. So one possibility would be arbitration. There have been enough recent formal DR attempts to justify a case. Durova^Charge! 16:43, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

PF did respond, but on the talk page, as well as offering one possible remedy that wasn't accepted by the editors involved (including myself, full disclaimer). But there seemed to be no effort by PF to work out towards other remedies given. --MASEM (t) 16:57, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, past experience with established editors has been that unless they do something really obviously bannable (legal threats, etc.) it's difficult for the community to take action. Action may occur, but generally slowly and with plenty of drama. Since Pixelface has 12,000 edits and is a participant in a polarized wiki-ideological debate, perhaps the best approach would be:

1. Try a little more dispute resolution.

2. If that doesn't succeed, initiate RFAR.

In the meantime, please exercise care to avoid provocative action. Place trout on the grill, not on the editor's talk page. When a first trout doesn't succeed later trouts are rarely effective. Just be as reasonable as possible. And for editors who agree with Pixelface ideologically, please encourage Pixelface to pursue that belief without sniping at others who disagree. No one likes arbitration, so let's do our best to resolve this amicably. Durova^Charge! 17:49, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Masem created that user RFC about me 5 hours and 20 minutes after Jack Merridew started an ANI thread about me on December 30, following these edits[24] by Jack Merridew and me to the policy Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not, where Jack Merridew stated he was reverting "vandalism" by me. The section of policy I was removing does not have consensus to be policy, it has not had consensus to be policy ever since it was proposed, and many threads at WT:NOT have been devoted to it. The policy Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not was protected for a month, and was unprotected after I promised not to edit that policy at all during the protection period, and after I requested unprotection. In addition to that, at the user RFC, I promised to not to edit that policy at all during February or March 2009, and I've kept that promise. Jack Merridew agreed to avoid all disruptive editing as a condition of being unbanned in December 2008 and was warned by one of his three assigned mentors about his edits to that policy.

In the Statement of the dispute, Masem objected to my long responses and use of diffs, which makes crafting a response a bit difficult in my opinion. I asked Masem and Protonk for a wordlimit, and received none. Nevertheless, I edited the user RFC page 11 times[25], I edited the talkpage 25 times[26], and I was the first editor to propose a solution.

I am still unaware of which dispute it was exactly that the four certifiers made previous attempts to resolve, and when they attempted to resolve it. Diffs were never provided. I did respond in several areas below on the user RFC page, saying much of what I was going to say in the Response section. IIRC, JzG entered no response at his user RFC. I considered (and still am considering) putting a response in my userspace, going over Masem's complaint line by line, as well as others. The user RFC about me was archived by Ncmvocalist after over two weeks of no comment. During that time I was busy doing other things, and I was actually quite surprised when I noticed it had been archived. I had typed up a fairly long statement by that point. Protonk had also started an RFC on a proposal during my user RFC, and that consumed much of my time.

Bignole did file a recent Wikiquette alert against me, but he seemed to misunderstand some things I said to him, although I admit many were uncivil. That WQA thread was archived with no action. Masem did file a recent AE thread against me, after I suggested a thread about Bignole might be warranted because Bignole was arguing over a page that Arbcom explicitly mentioned during E&C1, an arbitration case which lists Bignole as an involved party. The AE thread about me that Masem started was also archived with no action. I am getting really tired of Masem starting threads and pages concerning me.

John254 listed me as an involved party of E&C2 (but is now banned), and Masem's RFA occurred during E&C1 and Masem edited the E&C2 case pages quite a bit. I think arbitration is a bad idea, since I believe E&C2 only served to inflame the dispute and make it worse. Many of the current arbitrators would also have to recuse. I think the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution policy is lacking in several ways, and that seems to be supported by a recent paper which found that Wikipedia's dispute resolution system does not actually resolve disputes. --Pixelface (talk) 03:44, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

This complaint was filed by User:Reyk. This [27] suggests that the complaint is ideologically motivated. It is uncivil to use AN/I to play the "ban my opponent game". I suggest Reyk drops this mode of operation. Arbitration is probably not necessary here. Judicious application of WP:POINT, WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA should be sufficient. Jehochman ^Talk 18:01, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Could you point out where Reyk asked for a ban? I don't see it. It was Jack Merridew who stated I would think a stern admonishment and warning from the community would be the minimum and a community ban the maximum. Mentioning a possible ban as the extreme end of a range of possible remedies is a bit different, and it was not Reyk who made the mention. Unless there's another post to that effect? Durova^Charge! 18:06, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Even if Reyk had brought it, that wouldn't invalidate it. Nothing about being an exclusionist means that he has to accept misbehaviour from anyone, including ardent inclusionists. This board should be about behaviour, not ideology, and Pixelface's behaviour is certainly open to question.—Kww(talk) 18:27, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

It's a bit more worrisome to see an outright accusation of game playing against one editor, based upon a comment made by someone else. If this dispute does sink to outright game playing (which I hope it doesn't) a mistaken accusation by an administrator could be used against Reyk. It would be more helpful of Jehochman to either substantiate the accusation better or else withdraw it. Durova^Charge! 18:34, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

After getting a new source in the mail today, I have made a suggestion for Pixelface to help me at User_talk:Pixelface#Something_different_to_work_on, but I extend the request to help to everyone. Let's all stop trying to get each other in trouble, escalating tensions in AfDs, etc. and work together to use such sources as the one I mention on Pixelface's talk page to bring these articles concerning the most "notable" fictional characters all up to DYK, Good, and/or featured status. We know the sources exist for these ones and now is the time to pool our resources together to bring them to these statuses. I trust any editors who in good faith are not here to perpetuate ideological disputes will put that all aside and work for the good of the project and who knows maybe and hopefully in doing so, we will all gain better respect for each other in the process. Thanks! Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 18:20, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

While there is absolutely nothing wrong with this effort, it doesn't address why this ANI exists: PF's means of editing. We will never get rid of inclusionists vs deletionists, even if we work towards good middle ground efforts, and it is important to keep civility in line regardless of where one is editing. --MASEM (t) 19:33, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

I think editors would be more civil with each other if they have some constructive interactions as well. One editor a while back referred to me as an "extreme inclusionist not welcome" on her talk page. So, rather than just take her to ANI for being incivil or what have you, I helped identify socks that were harassing her and we've had various other helpful gestures toward each other. Sure, we'll still be on opposite sides of AfDs, but it isn't mean when we debate anymore. Rather than trying to defeat opposition by calling for blocks that tend only annoy editors, why not try a more carrot approach? Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 19:43, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, we need editors to behave civilly toward those they disagree with. Behave is the operative word. Speaking polite words while sticking the knife in another editor (and twisting) does not count as civil behavior. The attempt here to get Pixelface sanctioned might have been taken seriously if it had been filed by an uninvolved editor. Disagreements should not be escalated with WP:AN/I filings. People aren't given flowers here--they get blocked or banned. We all know that. Jehochman ^Talk 21:59, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Make tulips, not knives.

This thread is not about me. It's about Pixelface's pattern of escalating belligerence- behaviour for which I and others in this thread have provided actual evidence. Which is more than I can say for your vague and spurious notion that, just because Pixelface and I don't see eye to eye on the inclusionism/deletionism debate, my objections to his behaviour must be politically motivated. Reyk _YO! 22:32, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

It is unclear how uninvolved Wikipedians are to become aware that a problem exists, if involved parties may not post evidence to a noticeboard. Question to Jehochman: what avenue would you recommend as appropriate for Reyk, if you find this so objectionable? Bear in mind that user conduct RFC and Wikiquette alert have both been attempted already. Durova^Charge! 22:44, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

There was an RFC where plenty of uninvolved Wikipedians reviewed the problem, and you'll notice that WP:ANI is not listed on WP:DR. If a user is making snarky comments, WP:WQA is often a useful. "Help me with difficult communications I am having with this user" is a better approach than "sanction this user for being rude." If a sanctions request is made, the prior dispute and the prior RFC should have been disclosed. Both important pieces of context were left out of the initial complaint. That's what made me skeptical about motives. We're here to help each other, not to assume bad faith and bash each other. Jehochman ^Talk 00:56, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Many editors aren't talented at initiating noticeboard threads; they don't know what to say. Yet it certainly added to the appearance of good faith that two prior types of dispute resolution had been tried: these people attempted DR over a conduct issue, then sought administrative attention when the conduct failed to improve. This board would be a more orderly place if more editors followed that approach. WP:AGF is indeed a good idea; best to lead by example. Durova^Charge! 05:32, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Reyk started this thread because of this comment I made at Someguy1221's RFA. I struck that comment 40 minutes after I made it upon MSGJ's suggestion and emailed a checkuser, Dominic, since my evidence pertained to a potential admin, and since it contained some private information, and since WP:SPI says "For exceptionally sensitive matters (e.g., admin sock-puppetry, harassment, privacy), please contact any CheckUser or any Arbitration Committee member, by e-mail." I had already apologized to Someguy1221 two days before Reyk started this thread. I don't know what Reyk wants. I'm certainly not the first person to suspect another user of being a sockpuppet and be wrong, and I think Reyk's creation of this thread has merely served to blow this event out of proportion. --Pixelface (talk) 08:33, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Reyk, first of all, it's not "bad faith" to think that Jack Merridew may have another sockpuppet, since he is an admitted sockpuppet and has edited under multiple previous usernames (D73733C8-CC80-11D0-B225-00C04FB6C2F5, Davenbelle, Diyarbakir, Moby Dick, Note to Cool Cat, Senang Hati, Thomas Jerome Newton), he has previously lied on a noticeboard about it[28][29], and is apparently proud of being a sockpuppet ("This account is a sock puppet of Davenbelle, and has been unblocked indefinitely.", "for great justice and epic lulz" [30])

My suggestion that Someguy1221 might be Jack Merridew was also not baseless. After MSGJ told me to file an SPI, I began gathering my evidence together. My email to Dominic, who previously performed a checkuser on Jack Merridew during the arbitration case E&C2, was over 200K. Dominic can verify that. During the time I was organizing my evidence, Jack Merridew contacted Jayvdb to perform a checkuser, an editor who said Jack Merridew had earned a final chance when Jack Merridew petitioned to be unbanned (from abusing multiple accounts) in December. Jack Merridew voted for Jayvdb in the December 2008 Arbcom elections and I voted against Jayvdb. Jack Merridew contacted Jayvdb before I could email Dominic, and I questioned Jayvdb's impartiality regarding Jack Merridew. I was not going to send the evidence to Jayvdb.

After jeers and sneers yet another unwelcome trout on my talkpage from Jack Merridew, and after what could be interpreted as insults to me from Jayvdb and Sceptre and MSGJ, I apologized to Someguy1221 for thinking he might be Jack Merridew. No insult was intended to Someguy1221. I think I behaved quite civilly, considering.

I would like Sceptre and Jack Merridew to stay away from me. One thing I was never able to bring up at my user RFC (which was apparently closed by Ncmvocalist after two weeks of no comments) is that last May after I got into an argument with Sceptre's friend Seraphim, Sceptre photoshopped a "badger ring" to mock me and showed it to Seraphim. Then Jack Merridew commented, while banned. Sceptre mentioned that "badger ring" just a while ago at WT:RFA.

Jack Merridew has already been ordered by Arbcom to stay away from one editor. And I want him to stay away from me, although that may be a matter for RFAR and not ANI.

I didn't disrupt WP:N like Karanacs claimed, I never called Bignole "pathetic", and Masem apparently only opened that AE thread (yet another thread Masem has started where zero action as taken) because I told Bignole that Bignole's recent actions at Talk:List of South Park episodes (which Arbcom explicitly mentioned in E&C1, an arbitration case Bignole was an involved party of) might violate the ruling of that case.

What admin action is necessary here Reyk? I suggest you brush up on the following pages: [31] [32] [33] [34] [35] --Pixelface (talk) 21:48, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Um, my "involvement" in E&C1 was when I stated that I would not be taking part in said discussion because I didn't have the time to devote to it. So, please stop saying that I was an "involved party", because I wasn't. I have one comment, which was given right when it opened. I never ventured back to the page again. Secondly, I made not "actions" on the List of South Park episodes. Discussions of mergers is not a violation of anything, especially when I did not start said discussion of merger. The E&C1 says, "The parties are urged to work collaboratively and constructively with the broader community and the editors committed to working on the articles in question to develop and implement a generally acceptable approach to resolving the underlying content dispute." Dicussing a merger is exactly that. As for the "pathetic" bit, you called my actions "pathetic", which is the same thing as calling me pathetic. I let it slide, but considering that that wasn't the last time you said that to me at the LoSPe page, that was why I filed that Wikietiquette alert about your behavior. The fact that you cannot even recognize when you are being incivil to other editors shows that there is a problem.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 01:27, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

You're listed as an involved party of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Episodes and characters. In that arbitration case, List of South Park episodes was explicitly mentioned by Arbcom. On March 18, 2008 at Talk:List of South Park episodes I told you "This article was explicitly mentioned by Arbcom in E&C1, an arbitration case that you were an involved party of. A new request for arbitration or arbitration enforcement may be in order, since you apparently refuse to let it go." Six hours later, Masem started an AE thread about me. And once again, a thread started by Masem about me resulted in no action. And no, if I think an action you do is pathetic, that is not the same thing as thinking that you are pathetic. It's the action I disagree with. --Pixelface (talk) 16:11, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

First of all, I know that Jack Merridew has done some shady things in the past. I also know that, for the last ten months or so, he's scrupulously kept his nose clean. All the evidence suggests that he's a reformed character and almost certainly innocent of continued misbehaviour, and deserves to be treated with the same respect and decency given to any other productive member of Wikipedia. Having a bad record does not make him an open target for your frivolous allegations.

You made a baseless accusation in a very public place rather than going through SPI like you should have. You dragged an innocent person into your attack on Jack Merridew. You insisted on a second checkuser after the first one told you something you didn't want to hear and called another editor's impartiality into question in the process. When conclusively proven incorrect you refuse to apologize to the person you've wronged and continue to insist he's currently sockpuppeteering. And throughout the whole thing you have not provided the community one shred of evidence that you were actually acting in good faith; you refuse to, because apparently Jack might use it improve his nonexistent socking campaign. Personally, I think if your "evidence" was ever released the community would ridicule it as obviously desperate and contrived flim-flam.

Now you say you want Jack Merridew to leave you alone. Well, why don't you leave him alone? Why provoke him into "sneering" and troutslapping you with this muck-raking, when otherwise you have not much to do with him at all except maybe the odd encounter in policy and guideline talk pages?

You are in the wrong here, Pixelface, and your behaviour is getting more and more obnoxious. It needs to stop. For your own sake, listen to all these people who say your behaviour is poor and consider they may have a point. Otherwise, one day, you'll go that one step too far and wind up with a lengthy block. Reyk _YO! 01:05, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

It probably would best for those on both sides to disengage and avoid each other. Wikipedia is a big place and as such there are plenty of articles needing improvement and people can and should focus on what interests them while ignoring those trying to bait them. There's been clear incivility and escalation all around and nothing good or bipartisan is coming from anything. As I've suggested above, we should focus on specific article improvements. We should not just beat dead horses on ANI. Pixelface had suspicions, checkuser didn't confirm them and he said he was wrong and apologized on his talk page. All this thread is doing is escalating things. When I recently asked for admin input on ANI when I suspected canvassing, the editor in question notified other editors and that's that. Just as I asked a question in my thread title rather than asserting he had done wrong as if it were a fact. No need to assume I'm right and no sense going on and on any further against him. I should not and have no interest in demanding anything else or needlessly escalating things. I had a concern, it was addressed and that's that. It shouldn't be about venue shopping or trying to squash our opposition. Thus, this thread too is moving away from constructive discussion and is not going to result in anything worthwhile by continuing it. I hope that Pixelface consults with trusted editors before making any accusations public that may be unwise to make and I hope that editors on both sides will not be incivil toward each other. Moreover, I hope that editors will devote the bulk of their energy to improving articles rather than adding to a battleground atmosphere in discussions. And finally, it would indeed be wise if the various editors with argumentative pasts avoid provoking each other further, and I mean all of us. Let's start the week on a good note, disengage from escalation, and all see how many DYK, Good, and featured articles we can get! Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 04:14, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

I think this entire long discussion can be summed up with this sentence found in the first paragraph:

"It's no crime to voice one's concern about possible sockpuppeteering." Ikip (talk) 06:18, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Let me put it this way. Suppose I were to accuse you and some random editor of being the same person. Then, when proven wrong, I profusely apologize to the other editor but sullenly refuse to apologize to you. And when asked why I thought the other editor was your sockpuppet, I refuse to answer, saying "Ikip will just use the information to continue his sockpuppeteering". You'd say I was gaming the system, assuming bad faith and being provocatively nasty to you. You'd be justified to feel that way. Well, that is exactly how Pixelface has behaved toward Jack Merridew. Reyk _YO! 08:08, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Meh, this is a mess. Reyk, I doubt you're going to get the concrete resolution you want here. I'd recommend filing a WP:RFAR. This has gone through plenty of channels and I don't see anything short of arbitration putting down something strong enough to stop his behavior. The thread here has degenerated rather badly, and is far too muddled with random accusations for an outside observer to make any sense of it. A RFAR would be a better and more organized step. — sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 08:36, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, Jack Merridew actually has not "kept is nose clean" for the last ten months or so, but that doesn't have anything to do with this thread. I never said Jack Merridew was, in fact, operating the account Someguy1221. My comment at Someguy1221's RFA, which you seem so enraged about, was on that page for a total of 40 minutes. And I did go to WP:SPI after MSGJ suggested I do so. My comment was not baseless. My email to Dominic was over 200K and apparently Dominic felt it was reason enough to run a checkuser. I apologized to Someguy1221 two days before you started this ANI thread. I emailed my evidence to the checkuser I was planning on emailing my evidence to. Apparently Jack Merridew couldn't wait and decided to contact one of his mentors first. And checkusers cannot "conclusively prove" that one user is not another. I provided my evidence to Dominic. I don't need to provide you, or the "community" with any of it. And I expect Dominic to not provide you or the community with it either.

I think it's safe to say that me and Jack Merridew know more about our interactions than you do. They go back to December 2007, when I contributed to the case pages of E&C1, where I ran into Jack Merridew while he was a banned user, talking to White Cat. Jack Merridew was banned in May 2007 for harassing White Cat, and was ordered by Arbcom to avoid that user as a condition of being unbanned in December 2008. You probably don't know that Jack Merridew followed me around to AFDs in March 2008, much like he followed White Cat around.

I was wrong about Someguy1221. I admitted I was wrong. I apologized. And by the way, there are only two editors on Wikipedia I've ever seen use the word "churlish." There's you. And the other is a friend of Jack Merridew. --Pixelface (talk) 09:12, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

If you're going to vilify a person in a very public place that has nothing to do with the sockpuppet investigation process, potentially torpedoing another user's RfA in the process, then it's only natural to expect that the audience for your attack on Jack Merridew might want to see some justification. And you seem to think that you can justify your present poor behaviour towards him by repeatedly rehashing the same stale litany of his misdeeds from over a year ago. It doesn't work that way. Just because he's done some things in the past does not entitle you to make accusations willy-nilly. You seem to be incapable of understanding that you've wronged Jack Merridew as much as you wronged Someguy1221 and that Jack's equally deserving of an apology, not continued personal attacks and more accusations of continued sock-puppeteering. As for me staring this ANI two days after your post at the RfA, I thought it would be proper to run it by him first. Not that that has anything to do with anything. Finally, I don't know why you would mention the fact that I use the word "churlish" but it could be taken as yet another insinuation of the same kind. I hope that's not what you're getting at, and if it is I advise you to quickly and quietly drop it. Reyk _YO! 22:19, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Please note that I didn't immediately reply to your query because it came on the eve of Nyepi, A Day of Silence in Bali. Cheers, Jack Merridew 04:35, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

I know that the WP:BATTLEGROUND has gotten so bad that people tend to assume bad faith and refuse to apologize for anything, because their apology will be used against them as evidence of their bad behavior. I disagree. I really appreciate some acknowledgment from Pixelface that some of the things he said were incivil, at least to one editor. Let's just drop it for now, because the goal is to correct the bad behavior rather than engage in a witchhunt. Everyone deserves another chance if they acknowledge they got carried away. If Pixelface tones it down and stops focusing on the character/intelligence of other editors in discussions about content/policy, we won't have any problems. Moreover, I think he might actually find that he'll attract more bees with honey than with a stick. Randomran (talk) 17:58, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

General comment: I have two concerns with what seems to be double standards in this thread:

• Outrage over unsubstantiated sockpuppet allegations: Pixelface suspected sockpuppetry; checkusers did not substantiate these suspicions. Pixelface acknowledged his error and apologized. So, he gets a big trout on his userpage (by the way, the same editor trouted Pixelface before...), and taken to ANI... Now, I have had four checkusers done on me. One confirmed my two alternate accounts that have been abandoend since 2007 and another said an account that never edited at the same time as my main account was only "likely" me (that account is also inactive). Yet, in there, I have had a few accounts alleged to be mine on even more baffling of grounds than Pixelface's suspicions regarding these other users. Checkusers naturally did not subtantiate these accounts either and in fact if one editor's username and userpage is correct, he is not even on the same continent as me! So, should someone demand that apoligies be given to User:ISOLA'd ELBA, User:Testmasterflex, and User:Fairfieldfencer? Should those who made unsubtantiated allegations against these editors be blocked for filing frivolous requests? If not, then we should not be up in arms over Pixelface's suspicions as well.
• Concern over suspected incivility: I do not blindly support editors because they are fellow inclusionists. When I asked him to refactor a statement he made, he did indeed stike the word in question. Indeed, incivility should not be acceptable from any of us; that should be a bipartisan stance. As such, it strikes me as not right to demand Pixelface be civil while ignoring how he has been personally attacked and baited by a multitude of editors. Here are just some relatively recent examples: Pixelface opposed in an RfA and so a user says to Support per Pixelface, obviously mocking the opposer (imagine saying to oppose in an RfA because someone supported the candidate...); regarding the same RfA, another editor accused Pixelface of having OCD (a mental disorder); another editor made a play on Pixelface's username and called him "egg on face"; another editor called it an "oddity" that someone would be nice to Pixelface and later referred to Pixelface as "Agitated Toilet Dwarf'; he has had disgusting talk page personal attacks made against him; notice the edit summary as well; etc.

Thus, what we should be saying is that 1) everyone should be more careful about throwing around sockpuppetry accusations; however, at the same time making the accusations especially if an editor in question has a certain kind of past, should not result in sanctions and in all instances if the allegations are not substantiated apologies probably should be made; and 2) everyone should be urged to be more civil and to avoid their opponents. It should be clear that Pixelface should refrain from insulting editors, but it must also be made clear that we will not tolerate personal attacks or baiting of him either. Now as I said above, everyone should try more of the carrot approach and if not then just disengage from opponents. Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 23:27, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

• Not sure why you're calling me out, considering I'm all for letting Pixelface get off by acknowledging some wrongs. But I think you've failed to recognize two factors that distinguish Pixelface's wrongs from others:

1. after accusing someone of being a sock, he went out of his way to freeze out and isolate one of the editors. That's not only a continuing assumption of bad faith on his part, but it's the epitome of violating WP:NOT#BATTLEGROUND by using the selective apology to fuel a grudge against that editor. He'd have been better off not apologizing to anyone at all, rather than offering this kind of backhanded apology.
2. His civility is a repeated problem, and indiscriminately targets anyone who disagrees with him. People he has virtually no history with, and certainly no history of being incivil towards him, will find themselves on the receiving end of a personal attack, or an incivil snide remark about their intelligence or honesty. I agree with you that no one is without sin, but we give much more attention to repeat offenders.

• Now, I think there's been progress if Pixelface recognizes that he hasn't been civil. And like I said, I think this problem would all go away if Pixelface focused more on the substance of Wikipedia in talk page discussions, rather than peoples' character or intelligence. But we have to stop with this false equivalency of "everyone is to blame, so no one is to blame". Some people are clearly bigger problems than others, and have not yet taken personal responsibility. Again, it's not about doling out penalties. It's about Pixelface finally taking responsibility for a consistent pattern of bad behavior. I'm glad that you finally agree that Pixelface should refrain from insulting other editors. But if others are prodding him, he needs to learn to resolve those conflicts productively rather than turning every comment that irks him into a battle. If you're suggesting that one insult will give Pixelface a free pass to go buck wild on anyone he wants for the remainder of tat discussion, or that one person's past transgressions will give Pixelface a free pass to indefinitely treat them like dirt, then we're never going to foster a positive environment where we can build consensus. In fact, the bad attitude will spread to other editors, unless we put a stop to it every time it reaches a boiling point. Randomran (talk) 00:32, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Randomran, where did you think I was calling you out? My post above was a general reply to the thread in general and not directed at anyone specifically. It is below your post solely because your post was the bottommost post when I posted my overall thoughts about the discussion as a whole. Anyway, my recommendation is that everyone refrain from incivility and personal attacks and that those with obviously tense pasts either make good faith efforts to reach out to each other or disengage from each other altogether. We spend too much time going back and forth on ANI, guideline talk pages, and in AfDs as a whole that really could be more effectively spent actually improving articles. Maybe it would be best if all of us involved in some of these disputes to let others give them a try and instead focus on article improvement. Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 02:27, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Ah, that was a little confusing. Try to keep Wikipedia:TALKPAGE#Indentation in mind, because it usually indicates who you're replying to or which thread of thought you're following. It's not always best to just tack your comment onto the bottom. ... as for this situation, as much as I think a blanket warning is accurate, I don't think it's appropriate to just skirt over the repeated problem with Pixelface. When an editor is the victim of incivility, should they: (A) hold an indefinite grudge with the incivil editor and treat their opponent poorly until they feel vindicated, or (B) use that incivility as an excuse to be belligerent to everyone that disagrees with them? My answer is neither, and probably points towards WP:DR. But I'm legitimately curious to know what you think. We can only make progress here if your recommendation is specific. Otherwise it's just an abstract re-statement of our policies, and you shouldn't be surprised when that accomplishes nothing except postpone the AN/I until next time: with Pixelface acting incivilly, and someone jumping in to say "that's okay, other people are doing it too". Randomran (talk) 02:46, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) Seriously, where is this heading? If it settles in polite agreeement (or even polite disagreement) between the parties, then all is well. But if this is likely to fester into Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Episodes and characters 3 then maybe a small arbitration now is better than a big arbitration later. As most of the participants know, I've got no dog in this race. But a small case is bigger than a big case. Can (and will) this dispute get resolved amicably on the community level? Durova^Charge! 04:02, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

In my opinion, a small case will be dismissed. A good, clear, specific warning would accomplish more than a small case. Even if it affects multiple people, a warning would be helpful so long as it is specific. "Everyone drop it and be nicer" is probably the best way for this problem to keep going until it hits something big. Randomran (talk) 04:18, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Honestly, I don't see this getting dismissed if it goes to arbitration. The combative attitude is pretty apparent and the exhaustion of all previous aspects of dispute resolution (WQA, RfC/U, ANI) would give such a case some credibility. I'd like to agree with Randomran in that the notion that everyone can "drop it and be nicer" is plausible, but I don't see anything short of arbitration changing behavior at this point. — sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 07:49, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

To be clear, I think "drop it and be nicer" would be a complete failure, inviting more minor incidents before another explosion. But I don't think ArbCom will be effective, because the other methods of dispute resolution have been undone by the WP:BATTLEGROUNDish defense of "if other people are bad, then Pixelface is allowed to be bad too". I'm not sure why ArbCom would be any different, and would likely end in "we don't take the case... everyone drop it and be nicer". And I've already told you where that will lead. Randomran (talk) 08:20, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

The main problem is that the battleground defense is used when it doesn't even apply. I've been accused of chronic incivility twice in this discussion, for example, but no one can show evidence of me being chronically incivil (or even occasionally). Do I hold opinions that Colonel Warden and Pixelface detest? Certainly. Do I consider undoing redirects on articles that fail WP:N and WP:NOT#PLOT without making any effort to repair that failure to be disruptive editing? Certainly. Do I think trying to hide the fact that you are doing so by not putting it in your edit summary is deceitful? Absolutely. Am I uncivil about it? No.—Kww(talk) 17:33, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, the whole point of arbitration is to put down something binding and concrete that is a bit more substantive than "drop it and be nicer". Again, I don't know why you think ArbCom wouldn't accept this. There has been multiple avenues of dispute resolution that have been exhausted, and as Protonk emphatically said below, this is a conduct issue, which is what ArbCom was made for. — sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 22:48, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Um, Arbcom's ruling in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Episodes and characters wasn't substantive at all. It kind of was "drop it and be nicer." Which is why I thought Bignole should not be at Talk:List of South Park episodes pushing for a merge. Incidentally, in December 2007, I said "I think if this decision mentions List of South Park episodes, the South Park episode articles will be the next target for the merge tag/redirect tactic.", and Jack Merridew, while banned, replied "The rest of your post is merely a massive assumption of bad faith."

At my user RFC, which was instigated by Jack Merridew, the four certifiers (Masem, Protonk, Sgeureka, and Sceptre — notice that Masem contributed to E&C2, Sgeureka was an involved party of E&C1, and Sceptre was an involved party of E&C1 and E&C2 and at Someguy1221's RFA (and I would like to stay away from me)) never explained which dispute it was that they all tried to resolve with me and failed. And E&C1 and E&C2 didn't resolve any disputes. Arbitration cases typically do not resolve disputes. The dispute died down for the most part when TTN was placed under editing restrictions for six months, and then when TTN stopped editing Wikipedia altogether.

But being wrong occasionally and admitting it is not a conduct issue. --Pixelface (talk) 09:50, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm disheartened that we seem to come to the conclusion that PF's hostility toward JM is okay because JM socked before. This isn't just accusations at Someguy's RfA (which can poison the well like all get out). almost every thread w/ the two of them includes the same tired litany of JM's former socks and PF's insistence that JM's contributions are null and void because of it. Taken by itself, an accusation of socking isn't actionable, and it shouldn't be. Presuming that some reasonable grounds fos suspicion might exist (and you could argue they did), we should not generate a chilling effect for accusers. But this wasn't isolated. PF seems incapable of engaging w/ "deletionists" without trotting out JM's past misbehavior and incapable of dealing w/ JM without having things descend into a slugfest. JM isn't blameless here, I've contemplating blocking or waring him for goading PF a few times, but this needs to stop. Also. STOP CONFLATING THIS WITH CONTENT. Stop stop stop stop. This isn't a content issue. This is a conduct issue between editors who happen to stand across a content divide. The content issue is an impetus, not the crux. This isn't a potential E&C 3 and I'm good and tired of hearing that all conduct issues between deletionists and inclusionists be resolved as content issues or dismissed as based hopelessly in wiki-philosophies. Protonk (talk) 22:39, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Damn straight. — sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 22:48, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Eloquent. Durova^Charge! 02:12, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Yep, Protonk is a smart guy. This isn't E&C3, and it isn't a hopeless content dispute. But how many times does a good point get undermined by other peoples' petty bickering? How are we going to actually stop this? Randomran (talk) 16:19, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

That's easy. Everyone stops baiting and being incivil to each other and when someone is incivil to us just ignore them and not feed into it. If we start ANI threads and all, then we're just letting people get to us and in turn we're spending oodles of time on something other than rescuing articles or bringing them to DYK, GA, or FA status. The wisest course of action is to not even humor comments made in bad faith and to absolutely not make any ourselves. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 18:14, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

The problem is that Pixelface doesn't stop making incivil comments, and often one or two "comments made in bad faith" are used as an excuse for him to lash out indiscriminately. At what point are we going to draw a clear line and say it cannot be crossed? At what point do you say to Pixelface "next time someone makes a negative comment, you need to learn to take it to WP:DR instead of storming across the line of good behavior?" Because as far as I can tell, it looks like you've chosen to make excuses for Pixelface no matter how many times he crosses the line. Are you saying he should learn, or are you saying he doesn't have to? Randomran (talk) 21:25, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Pixelface should maintain civility, but so should everyone else who discusses with him. What I have found is that those who have reached out to him rather than starting ANI and RfCs against him actually are able to work constructively with him. Taking people to admin boards tends to make the person brought to the boards resent those doing the bringing. And when it seems like those of different stances are ganging up in those threads and excusing the behavior of those of similar leanings, but anyway, in most istances I think we should take the "not even dignify with a reply" approach when people make unhelpful comments. Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 22:08, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm glad that Pixelface has recognized that he's been incivil, and I'm glad you think he should stop doing that. I also agree with you that everyone should be civil. And while I recognize that Pixelface resents these AN/Is, nobody has the right to be incivil to anyone who participates in an AN/I against them. Wikipedia is not a WP:BATTLEGROUND, and someone's past bad behavior to you is not licence to behave badly towards other people. If he really resents these AN/Is and RFCs, he should stop being incivil -- provoked or not. Learn to disengage, or take it to WP:DR. Don't shift the discussion to peoples' character, and don't insult other people. We can agree to make that clear to everyone, especially repeat offenders like Pixelface... can't we? Randomran (talk) 00:23, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Typically, I only say something uncivil if someone else says something uncivil first. If nothing happens to the first editor, why punish the second? --Pixelface (talk) 11:18, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Because the second editor has worn out that excuse from overuse. Because the second editor's incivility recurs more often. Because the first editor may have already been dealt with, and the second doesn't get to hold a prior resolved issue over their head indefinitely, let alone use it as an excuse to treat the first editor badly. Because the second editor gets overly frustrated by the first editor, and makes the mistake of lashing out at otherwise civil third parties. Because Wikipedia is not a battleground. Because escalating the conflict often drags talk page discussions off topic, and prevents other cooler heads from reaching a consensus. Because escalating the conflict reliably fails to produce a consensus. Because there are other methods of dispute resolution available. Because the second editor should know better by now.

I'm not even saying any significant action needs to be taken, because you obviously appreciate that you've crossed the line more than a few times. Despite accusations of bad faith from your friends, most of us are not on some ideologically minded crusade to expel, silence, or cripple you. But I'm asking you, politely, for the benefit of Wikipedia: can you avoid deriding other editors, avoid taking the WP:BAIT, use WP:DR, and generally stick to making counter-arguments rather than talking about other editors? Or would you rather keep coming back to AN/I? Randomran (talk) 03:57, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Mostly I've been biting my tongue here; I find myself doing this a fair bit. My history is well known and does not need Pixelface and The Team continually dredging it up. The AC has unbanned me and Pixelface et al need to accept that. That they do not puts them in violation of the unban motion re myself. I have made a few 'humourous' comments re Pixelface in reply to provocation; some have cast these as 'mocking' — but I've been quite tame, really. Now it is true that I don't much like Pixelface and view him as highly disruptive, but I'm not after his balls here; I want him to cut it out — 'it' being well discussed above and in the various threads and issues covered.

See these two diffs;

• In spite of not agreeing with much of what you said, I was impressed with with it. It has changed how I see you. Cheers (and goodnight), Jack Merridew ^diff
• My reply may have changed how you see me, but my opinion of you hasn't changed one bit. Cheers, --Pixelface ^diff
• @ User talk:Pixelface#Kiellor and Prufrock
• + Wikipedia talk:Notability (fiction)/Archive 44#No 'trousers rolled' for me, thank you
• & Wikipedia talk:Notability (fiction)/Archive 44#I'll bite

I have tried turning the other cheek and have been slapped again for the effort.

Also, he's commented about the sock motif of my user page, offended at the lulz, it would seem. It is humour. A similar message box graced my user page for 8 months and I got used to it. It is about being straight about my past, something A Somebody Else is not doing. Has anyone noticed this image at the top of my user page? And the alt-text assigned to it? Motif of harmful sensation. Pixelface & Co. can not abide my presence on this site and are going all-out to thwart my return.

Cheers, Jack Merridew 04:32, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Jack, why is it okay to mention Pixelfaces Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Pixelface, but yet editors cannot mention your much more disruptive edit and ban history?

Can't Pixelface write this:

Mostly I've been biting my tongue here; I find myself doing this a fair bit. My history is well known and does not need Jack Merridew and The Team continually dredging it up. The RfC did not proceed and Jack Merridew et al need to accept that.

On wikipedia edit conflict it is important to make yourself sound like the victim.

Regarding this not being about content, recently there were three editors who regularly deleted articles and were talking about another editor. These three editors said they must seperate out the behavior from the content, and if it became a content issue then the chances of punishing this editor (i.e. shutting him up) had no chance.

So who has successfully portrayed themselves as a victim here?

Have the editors who tend to delete sucessfully seperated Pixelface's behavior from his ideology and contributions, which these same editors strongly oppose? Ikip (talk) 20:44, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean Ikip, but the last time Pixelface directed an apology my way it went "I apologize if anyone was offended by my comment, but [...] I would not want any of the fucking readers of the Genderfuck article to be fucking offended by my fucking comments. Fucking thank you for your fucking time." [36]. He !voted to delete, FWIW, and I !voted keep. I see the issue with his behaviour there as one thing, and the substance of his views as a second. Are you suggesting that the fact that I consider his behaviour to have remained fundamentally unchanged is somehow tangled up with my disagreement with his views about notability? Pete.Hurd (talk) 20:58, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Pete, did you read what I wrote to you at my user RFC? And that was the first of two times in total that I have used the word "fuck" on Wikipedia. You were the first editor to ever start an ANI thread about me, and you didn't contact me about that thread either. And people in that ANI thread thought that comment was funny, as it was intended. Clearly your opinion about it has remained unchanged. --Pixelface (talk) 10:44, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Your fellow Australian didn't seem to know about your history before he started this thread. And the history between me and you is actually not well-known. I accepted that Arbcom unbanned you months ago. And I'll let the editors on the receiving end of your "humourous" comments determine how "tame" they've been.

I want you to leave me the hell alone. You and Sceptre. I don't want you following me to any more AFDs. I don't want you talking about me to other editors. And what I said was true: My opinion of you hasn't changed one bit. If the sock motif on your userpage is "humour", WHO thinks it's funny? Do you suppose White Cat think it's funny Jack? I can "abide your presence" just fine. And I'm not out to "thwart" your return. I am just sick and tired of you harassing me, like you've harassed other users.

I had reason to believe that Someguy1221 might be you. You contacted Jayvdb before I had gathered all my evidence together. Next time, I'll go to SPI rather than leaving a comment at RFA (which was only there for forty minutes). Please do not edit my user talkpage any more. --Pixelface (talk) 11:05, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Enough of this bickering. It's not going anywhere. Jack, Reyk, or whoever still has a beef with Pixelface, file a RFAR if you want to proceed on the issue. If not, then this thread should be closed. No impartial observer can make heads or tails of it with people sniping at each other, and nothing concrete is going to come of it. — sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 23:04, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Protonk, I never got to go into detail at my user RFC about Jack Merridew's interactions with me because it was archived while I was busy doing better things with my time. Do you think it's unreasonable to think that an editor who has lied about socking in the past may be socking now? And I have NEVER said that Jack Merridew's contributions are "null and void" because of his history. His article edits are fine. But his interactions with certain users are not fine.

He's already been ordered to stay away from one editor. His incivility towards me started during E&C1 while he was banned. And his hounding of me started in March 2008 during E&C2, when he followed me to several AFDs. Then "cute" messages about a "work assignment committee." After he was banned, he continued to monitor what I was doing and saying on Wikipedia, sometimes commenting on it to other users (like after Sceptre photoshopped a "badger ring" to mock me and showed it to Seraphim) While Jack Merridew was petitioning to be unbanned, he even looked through my contributions and referenced an article about a newscaster that was up for deletion that I commented at. When Jack Merridew petitioned to be unbanned, I said Arbcom might as well open E&C3. After Jack Merridew was unbanned, he gave Gavin.collins a "D&D Barnstar for great justice and epic lulz." Three days after he was unbanned, he told another user "A lot of WikiProject will morph into WikiaProjects. That's what Pixel's so afreaid of." After he was unbanned, I contacted him about Wikia, and he started at thread at WP:FICT called Articles for Wikia to bother me. He also referred to one of my comments as an "inclusionist manifesto" and contacted Jimbo Wales to scare me. And Jack Merridew did instigate my user RFC after he was unbanned. Plus "trout slapping", twice. Then "jeers" and "sneers." And that's just off the top of my head.

I can engage with "deletionists" just fine thank you. Most of their ideology is built around treating notability guidelines as if they were policy (or a legal document), and they're not. But I think this particular ANI thread is more related to nationalism than some people think. --Pixelface (talk) 10:33, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

We'll be sure to pwn-off the ankle biters, and toss back some amber fluid while offering you an Aussie salute. G'day, mate. Jack Merridew 04:56, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

(<--) Okay, I am an unaffected observer, and I see people arguing over something that has nothing to do with the original subject. I'm sort of confused about this. I believe that the best way to resolve this situation is to have Pixelface be mentored by an admin. That's it. No block, no fustration. The end of story. MathCool10 ^{Sign here!} 01:06, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Has Pixelface expressed any interest in mentorship? Has a willing mentor been found? Durova^Charge! 16:46, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

I seem to remember reading that an editor can be forced to attend mentoring  rdunnPLIB  09:26, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Speaking as one of Wikipedia's more experienced mentors, that approach is not advisable. Durova^Charge! 18:30, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

The incident that spurred Reyk to start this thread was resolved two days before Reyk came here. I really don't know what admin action Reyk expected by bringing it here. --Pixelface (talk) 16:19, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

this may be going of the point a bit but why has [37] been mentions so much. If you lo0k at the date it was done surely it would be obvious that peeps have grown up since then.  rdunnPLIB  09:26, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

• That's part of the general problem. If you have ever expressed any sentiment like that, expect to never be able to live it down in these debates. It's frustrating to see people engaging in discussions then have a diff like that waved in their face as proof that they can't be arguing in good faith. Protonk (talk) 16:28, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
  • There is no issue about living anything down. There is nothing, in itself, wrong with taking a stance on the Great Inclusionism/Deletionism Übersquabble. I think it's obvious to most participants in this discussion that dredging that up is just an attempt to deflect attention from the real issue (though it's a little bit alarming to see that at least one admin fell for it). My views on content quality have nothing to do with my views on editor behaviour. I don't really see the need to justify, apologize for, or hide my opinions on that account. Reyk _YO! 22:28, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
    • See this old version of my user page — ;) G'Day, Jack Merridew 05:07, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

I'd just like to point out (since my name has come up three times) that I'm sure the picture of a badger ring was made with the intent to cheer me up, not to mock Pixelface. I have no animus with Pixelface and apologise if the image is seen as mocking. Seraphim♥ 20:40, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Good lord, enough of this circus. Just topic ban them from each other already. Jtrainor (talk) 04:42, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

This is not just about Pixelface and I (although some are attempting to cast things that way); I've not been involved in many of the areas where others have commented about Pixelface's behaviour. FWIW, I was about to close this sprawling thread until I noticed your comment. G'day, Jack Merridew 06:03, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Elisabeth Hasselbeck marriage date & DOBs

redpen keeps reverting. I have made the concession of the bio section being named early life. Having DOBs & marriage dates doesnt make her more likely to have her identity stolen. Mariage dates & DOBs are all throughout wikipedia. So please you alll intercede as redpen keeps reverting. Thanks. 70.108.79.147 (talk) 04:49, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Please see the above thread as well as Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/70.108.110.22. MuZemike 16:18, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

As I had to explain on my talk page here, user is demonstrating a patent unwillingness to work with others. IPs keep adding back in falsified material (violation of BLP) and repeatedly breaking 3RR for it (this is clearly laid out, diff by diff, at SPI). This has also caused Elisabeth Hasselbeck to be protected. IPs are also causing a bit of disruption by placing {{HELPME}} and {{adminhelp}} templates all over the place. I think a rangeblock is necessary here. MuZemike 17:00, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

I have been informed that a rangeblock would case a bit of collateral damage. I would then request that Omarosa Manigault-Stallworth, Carson Daly, and Girlfriends all be protected (note I am requesting it here since we are already here, or I can go to WP:RFPP if not appropriate). MuZemike 17:06, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

I am willing to work with others. I havent added false info. EH page is locked bc redpen successfully manipulated you all. I have not abused helpme or adminhelp tags. Y do u want to lock these pages but not tell redpen to stop editing the pages? 70.108.102.252 (talk) 18:13, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Lilkunta/Archive for more info. Mayalld (talk) 22:03, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Note This thread seems appropriate for the noticeboard about edit-warring. Please move to there in the future with similar problems. Cheers. I'^mperator 20:11, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

User:Future Perfect at Sunrise's and the article Greece

This is going nowhere. No consensus for administrator intervention. yandman 07:19, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

The following content has been placed in a collapse box for improved usability.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. I though first reporting this in the edit-warring noticebard, but I then felt that this is the best place, since edit-warring is not the only thing I wanted to present, and ask for your opinions and feedback. First let me say that I feel really badly, because this is the first time I come here as a "reporter", and especially reporting the behavior of another user. Edit-warring is the first thing. Fut has, only for today, reverted the Greece article 3 times [38], [39],[40]. You can check his contributions for further edit-warring, e.g. in 2008 civil unrest in Greece we have 3 reverts during two days (I also reverted there twice in two days, which I regret). Some days, he was edit-warring in the Greece article for two issues simultaneously, the naming dispute, and the motto (just an example of his reverts on March 25: [41], [42]! But edit-warring is of minor importance for me, when we have to deal with "attitude" issues! Let's explain myself: Fut is insulting towards all the users who do not agree with him. He is impolite, non-civil, and tries to label them in any possible negative way. This remark of his against User:Avg is on the verge of being considered as a personal attack. But the worse came today, and it is this statement of his: "The situation is clear: there is an overwhelming project-wide consensus of uninvolved users, versus an equally overwhelming consensus of a small local faction armed only with undefeatable tenacity. There is not the tiniest chance that one side will ever convince the other. So, the solution is not to have more talk. The solution, I'm very much afraid, is to fight it out, until one side wins. And that, unfortunately, will mean: until one side is banned." Read again: "... fight it out ... until one side is banned". As a member of "a local faction armed only with undefeatable tenacity" I feel really offended. How can these words be written by an administrator, and, especially, by the user who initiated the WP:ARBMAC? Is this the spirit of Wikipedia? Is this how we work and express ourselves here? I think the least Fut could do is to declare that he did not mean what his words say.--Yannismarou (talk) 11:52, 2 April 2009 (UTC) I totally mean it. The current case at Greece reveals a very deep-seated structural problem with the Wikipedia decision-making model: (a) The self-selecting nature of participation in decision-making means that things ultimately get decided by those who are most passionate about them. (b) Where editorial decisions affect POV interests of externally defined groups, such as nationalities or religions, it is naturally members of those groups who are most passionate. (c) This means that things get decided by people who have their own POV interests at stake. Under these circumstances, decision-making in contentious corners of the project is reduced to a stand-off between national factions according to force of numbers, and where one faction numerically dominates, it can create and defend its own POV islands. This can't be tolerated. As long as Wikipedia doesn't find a way to reduce the power of local POV cliques, I will protest and, if necessary, edit-war against them. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:03, 2 April 2009 (UTC) BTW, just one tiny correction: I never "edit-warred" about the national motto on that page. I removed it exactly once, and then consensus for the removal prevailed on the talk page. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:08, 2 April 2009 (UTC) Isn't this an outright admission of WP:POINT?--Avg (talk) 12:06, 2 April 2009 (UTC) How is that? He is stating what a number of editors see as a serious problem on Wikipedia. What he says he will do seems, at the moment, if not the only thing to do about the problem, at least one thing that can be done by those with the stamina. Wikipedia is in danger of having walled gardens -- in fact, I believe it does have a number of walled gardens -- where our policies and guidelines are extremely hard to maintain if they can be maintained at all. Dougweller (talk) 12:23, 2 April 2009 (UTC) It is clear that he disrupts Wikipedia to make a point. However, let's take one step back. Is his point even remotely valid? Future claims he belongs to the moral majority of uninvolved editors who are pushed aside by a small ethnic faction. Has he even substantiated his claims? No. In fact when he's faced with arguments he resorts to personal attacks and threats. What actually happens is that he is a heavily involved party, subject of sanctions of WP:ARBMAC, whose three principles (Purpose of Wikipedia, Decorum, Editorial process) he has repeatedly violated. --Avg (talk) 12:34, 2 April 2009 (UTC) I didn't know that WP:POINT said Thou shalt not disrupt Wikipedia to make a point, unless thy point is valid. ΔιγουρενΕμπρος! 13:04, 2 April 2009 (UTC) By way of clarification, I absolutely agree: when the point is *invalid*, it most certainly doesn't deserve any disruption. Disruption in pursuit of an invalid point is the count buffoon's job; buffoons' labour union would be very unhappy about competition in that area. ΔιγουρενΕμπρος! 16:11, 2 April 2009 (UTC) What is the "moral majority of uninvolved editors" anyways?  rdunnPLIB  14:33, 2 April 2009 (UTC) I think FP could do with a prolonged Wikibreak, to be perfectly frank. His erratic behaviour in recent weeks is a sign of increasing frustration and, sadly, loss of his formerly trademark German sangfroid. The FP of late is certainly not the FP we'd grown to know and love. ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 12:32, 2 April 2009 (UTC) Stop it, I'm gonna cry. My sensitive inner being can't stand such professions of love [43] ;-) Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:39, 2 April 2009 (UTC) And I meant every word. ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 12:44, 2 April 2009 (UTC) Although I tried to stay away and not involve in the current discussions, I see the situation is worsening and I'll comment as well. The cause of the problem is essentially the Macedonia naming dispute that is going on for years in the real world, but reflecting here in WP as well. In short (for those uninformed if there are any...), Greece objects the usage of name Macedonia by its neighboring country (Republic of Macedonia) everywhere in the real world (mainly because there is a region in Greece called with the same name) and, as a consequence, Greek editors here in WP strictly follow that Greek national policy and try to impose their POV as much as possible. However, before several years a WP community wide compromise has been reached and the country here in WP is referred to as Republic of Macedonia, a solution that balances between the option to reference the country as simply as Macedonia (that the Macedonia’s constitutional , it can be also said a self-identification name, and also widely used by English speaking people and media) and the provisional reference the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia that was originally invented before several years and intended to be used in UN until the dispute is resolved (note that it is not a name, it is a provisional reference). However, from time to time there are regular disruptions caused by some Greek editors in order to impose their view (to change the WP policy of usage of Republic of Macedonia to FYROM). I must say it is pretty much irritating, it causes long and unproductive discussions involving politics, history, personal attacks, edit warring, page protections etc, etc… This is pretty much frustrating, it completely takes the time and desire to truly edit and improve those articles and I understand the FPS behavior in such circumstances (that is the reason why I'm always trying to stay away from this kind of discussions because they almost always don’t finish productively). This incident is a result of the long standing discussion on Greece article talk page when several editors (including FPS) tried to line up that article with the rest of WP articles (to use the same naming policy as in the rest of the Macedonia related articles) and it was fiercely opposed by Greek editors. So, we have a situation when all non-Greek editors from different places all over the world have an opposite view with the Greek editors (you can check the talk page to confirm this) and the situation is now even more complicated than it was at the beginning of discussion. I also think there is a problem here in WP because it seems it is very hard to produce neutral solution (there are no applicable mechanisms) when a group of editors (in this case grouped on national basis) is hardly pushing a solution without much concern about opposite views. About FPS, I think he is one of the most devoted, cool-headed and neutral editors involved in Macedonia’s related articles for years, you can check his edit history and see that he really spent hard time to keep those articles neutral and in good shape. These articles we are talking about will be a total mess without having assistance of neutral admins involved as much as FPS in the recent period. Therefore before any decision has been made, I urge neutral and uninvolved readers to dig in more in the history of this conflict, to extract conclusions on their own and probably all this mess should be resolved on a higher level (RfA looks appropriate to me).MatriX (talk) 13:08, 2 April 2009 (UTC) MatriX,Please avoid tagging user with ethnic labels. How does anyone know what ethnicity/nationality we are dealing with? How do you know that FPS is no Greek? Can anyone prove anything? Perhaps. MatriX please remove your ethnic label, otherwise thank you for your contribution and good to have you on board. I consider myself a neutral editor. I am a neutral editor. I follow established precedents and they say that depending on the context we use one of the two (or both) terms. If anyone can prove that I do not back my statements... prove it.Politis (talk) 13:32, 2 April 2009 (UTC) While FP's choice of words could be qualified as — infelicitous — the problem he describes is real and has already led to a number of catastrophic disputes to the quality of the encyclopedia. Because of self-selection, pseudo-consensus forms around local "convection cells" of editors battling around a few very strong points of view, to the point of scaring away anyone with a semblance of neutrality. The constant abuse, disregard for policy, and aggressiveness in those walled gardens are so strong that few administrators dare venture in them, and are always unfailingly attacked for trying to preserve the encyclopedia. FP should be commended for willingly trying to bring some neutrality and conformance to our core principles despite the organized and oftentimes vicious attacks that such attempts bring. The community should seriously consider methods by which the work of dedicated volunteers like FP could be supported; and perhaps consider improvements to policy to solve the longstanding problem of real-world disputes corrupting the encyclopedia before we burn even more admins and have to throw up our hands in defeat. — Coren (talk) 13:24, 2 April 2009 (UTC) Thank you Coren. Just a small point, I would want to stress that in this dispute I definitely do not consider myself as having ventured in "as an administrator". I'm clearly a party with my own opinion here - but it's an opinion not predetermined by my national allegiance, that's the point. – Apart from that, I can only repeat my plea of the other day: the only way, given present wiki procedures, to take the decision out of the hands of the partisans is to outnumber them. There's a poll that's still open. Please please, everybody who has not yet done so, I know it's a boring issue, but please go and register an opinion there. I truly don't care which side you decide, as long as we'll have a result that is not exclusively dominated by the national partisan vote. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:43, 2 April 2009 (UTC) I wonder if the problem is that ArbCom constantly appear to frighten the useful users (inc. admins) away from this much more informal, yet equally important form of dispute resolution. The same goes for when ArbCom fail to recognise things that need to be recognised. For example, certain arbitrators seem to be unable, incapable or unwilling to fully support attempts to recognise or formally appreciate the ideal way things are meant to work, like here, when usually, that's not how it would work. Until each of the users who abstained (as well as that who despicably opposed) get it through their heads that the only kind of obligation on Wikipedia are those that are self-imposed, this will not change. If you want tireless voluntary self-appointed work to be recognised, then please do something more substantive yourself than just ask or talk about a need that it be recognised by everyone else. If ArbCom cannot fully support this sort of thing formally, then it's beyond me how any arbitrator can honestly expect the community as a whole to do so in the same fashion. As it is, although we have legitimate reasons to oppose certain RFAs, it seems we also have a large share of silly excuses too; attempts by the community to formally recognise/support admin-work would have a similar result. I do agree that FPS's work should be commended. Ncmvocalist (talk) 13:57, 2 April 2009 (UTC) I echo Coren's thoughts with respect to the general project-wide problem of clusters of ethno-nationalist editors attempting to circumvent NPOV through supposed consensus. In the instant case, though, the diffs cited by Yannismarou with respect to Future Perfect at Sunrise's edits to Greece could indeed be construed as edit-warring, which I am sure he knows is never an appropriate solution for any problem.  Sandstein  13:39, 2 April 2009 (UTC) For anything like this to have a meaning, the first argument in his whole reasoning has to be correct. And his first argument here is that (in this case) the Greeks are a minority turning consensus around to their favor, while all others are a majority unable to establish NPOV. The fact is that we all remain *unconvinced* of the veracity of this argument, and FP refuses to even discuss about proving it, or about the other side's opinion which he dismisses degradingly. Other than that, I totally support his rationale, and I'd do anything I could to support him in a similar case where I judged that there was collective POV pushing. In this case, however, he is terribly wrong, and the more public such a persistence becomes (like e.g. with this thread right above), the more third party opinions come with the Greek side (just check the last 3-4 oppose votes and their rationale). This is a serious indication he is wrong, which combined with the fact he doesn't want to discuss it, makes things even worse... BTW I also think very high of him, and he knows it. NikoSilver 13:42, 2 April 2009 (UTC) As Coren says, Future Perfect is just describing a real problem, and he should be commended for his efforts (and told to use better wording the next time). --Enric Naval (talk) 13:58, 2 April 2009 (UTC) I would argue that if FPS is to become a high profile case, then all his contributions - under all his user names, if applicable - should be examined. We should examin his method of seeking election, potential racial prejudice (where agreed) and swearing/intimidation tactics. My respectful feeling would be that he is best suited as an editor, not an administrator. He definetly seems to be pursuing something. Thank you all. Politis (talk) 13:46, 2 April 2009 (UTC) I think this affair shows the limitations both of Wikipedia policy and of existing arbitration remedies. Fut. Perf. is absolutely right to point out that we have what amounts to a "walled garden" of POV in articles relating to Greece, where Greek editors seek to impose a form of words that is consistent with the views of their government and nationalist parties. It's comparable to (for instance) Arab editors insisting on referring to Israel as "the Zionist entity" on all articles relating to Arab countries. Clearly this isn't acceptable; it's a fundamental violation of NPOV as well as a range of other policies, including our naming conventions. A number of Greek editors are indisputably using Wikipedia as a vehicle to promote their faction's POV, in open defiance of our standing policies. There's also no doubt that the provisions of the previous arbitration case on this issue - WP:ARBMAC - have been systematically violated. Each one of the principles set out by the ArbCom in that case has been broken by multiple editors. Bad faith is consistently being shown, wikilawyering is endemic, basic policy requirements are simply being ignored and external political dicta are being imported as justifications. Unfortunately, this is where arbitration enforcement appears to break down. We can deal adequately with individual editors, but when you have a dozen or more editors acting as an ethnic-nationalist block vote, admins appear (understandably) to be much more reluctant to impose some order. The problem is endemic across Wikipedia; as well as established editors edit-warring on obvious articles such as Greece, we have a constant drizzle of vandalism from newly-registered editors or Greek IP addresses, often on articles with only a loose connection with Macedonia (such as Staffordshire University). A number of editors, including Fut. Perf. and myself, are monitoring these problems but face constant hostility from nationalists on both sides (predominately Greeks, it has to be said). Unfortunately a second arbitration case is likely to be needed to address this problem. The creation of POV walled gardens by any group, be it an ethnic, religious or political one, is a problem we've had for a long time. It's the nature of these things that they cannot adequately be resolved within the walled garden - someone needs to knock down the walls. -- ChrisO (talk) 13:54, 2 April 2009 (UTC) I think the primary problem here is that Future Perfect is taking on more than one admin should. There should be 6 or 7 admins giving their attention to this particular national issue. Chillum 13:58, 2 April 2009 (UTC) I second that. A group of admins should work on Balkan-related articles, not — as quite frequently — Fut. Perf. alone. If the issue is that much disputed, probably some kind of reference is needed to both solutions ONCE in every article. (According to the Greek government..., according to other sources the name is...) Squash Racket (talk) 14:09, 2 April 2009 (UTC) But FutPer is not acting as an objective adms my friends?! Could you explain me why is he now un-bolging the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia name from the Republic of Macedonia article without prior discussion?!--Yannismarou (talk) 14:15, 2 April 2009 (UTC) As a recent newcomer to the Macedonia naming dispute I think that this complaint is unwarranted. On the Talk:Greece page it was advertised in a discussion of the overall "naming" issue as an attempt to talk things out with a cooler head and more reasonably. When I followed the link, however, it led me here to an attempt to remove from the discussion one of the more vocal opponents of the uncompromising Greek POV. The lead-up text to following the link here was misleading. I think that it is a case of WP:GAME. Future Perfect is trying to improve Wikipedia by enforcing standards within one of its most closely-guarded "walled gardens". He doesn't deserve to be placed here. Some of the same editors who above sound so calm and reasonable are not so calm and reasonable at Talk:Greece. I was accused by one of the preceding editors of being a sockpuppet before he ever even examined my user page and edit history. There is a history there of very strong nationalistic opinions driving unwarranted attacks, rude and insulting comments, and uncompromising positions in violation of Wikipedia policy. Future Perfect needs some help there. (Taivo (talk) 14:20, 2 April 2009 (UTC)) Including yourself, Taivo? [44] Talking about rich northern European neighbors who can buy poor Eastern Europeans in order to shut it up? Kapnisma (talk) 14:30, 2 April 2009 (UTC) No one is immune from hyperbole to make a point in a heated discussion, but I fail to see that as a personal attack. It was a comment about Greece and Greek politics, not about individual editors. (Taivo (talk) 14:54, 2 April 2009 (UTC)) Taivo, I respect your efforts in the talkpage and I thank you. I notice you voted second, before the oppose rationale was posted. Just out of curiosity, and without any intent to imply anything, what brought you to the poll? NikoSilver 14:32, 2 April 2009 (UTC) I don't honestly remember. No one asked me on my talk page, which sometimes happens. I sometimes look at the Wikipedia requests for arbitration page and other such fora and occasionally a topic catches my interest. Sometimes there is something that comes up on a language page that I watch. I don't remember in this case. (Taivo (talk) 14:54, 2 April 2009 (UTC)) It would be helpful if you remembered, because evidently I wasn't the only one wondering about it (only a lot more cautiously). NikoSilver 15:16, 2 April 2009 (UTC) If people are suspecting me of canvassing: I swear I didn't (except through my open appeals on this board, in this very thread), and I specifically don't remember ever having interacted with Taivo (or with any other of the "newcomers" in the debate, certainly not in private.) Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:17, 2 April 2009 (UTC) Let me put this as carefully as possible. You are asking about a single supporter who is clearly an active Wikipedia editor and who is clearly not a sock puppet. Why isn't anyone asking about the drove of opponents who suddenly showed up whose edit history is old and vague at best? My interests have ranged from Book of Mormon to Aramaic language to Death Valley (California) to Buyang language to Rivne (Ukraine) and beyond. I have created dozens of stubs for obscure languages and added bibliographic references for even more languages. You can look at my real world web pages here and here and here and see my photo here and my USU faculty page here. I actually studied Ancient Greek back in graduate school and own three different copies of the film "Alexander", so my interest in Greece is not totally out of the blue. The vast majority of the opponents appear to be one-topic editors and I suspect are little more than ghosts and formerly active accounts. No one is asking about them or how they managed to suddenly appear at Talk:Greece. (Taivo (talk) 13:14, 3 April 2009 (UTC)) If you want genuine sock puppetry there’s some further down this very thread where one of our Greek nationalist editors has logged out and re-emerged as an anonymous IP from Panama in order to accuse Future Perfect of being part of some conspiracy theory to “Balkanise the Balkans” (or whatever). His later comments suggest he thinks sock and meat puppetry is standard practice and allowable by Wiki-policy so you’ve got to wonder how much of this kind of thing is going on in this neck of the woods and how many of the “votes” are genuine. Folantin (talk) 13:29, 3 April 2009 (UTC) For the record, the "Panamese" anon below is one of a small group of well-known banned harassers (and should have been rolled back before people opted to answer to him). But I have no reason to believe he's a sock of any of the people who turned up at the poll, and I also don't think any of those are literally socks of each other. There are a couple of longtime inactive or semi-active accounts there that got suddenly revived, pointing to some possible canvassing among the old boys network, and there are also of course several edit-warring-only single purpose accounts among them, but that's about all. I'm very much in favour of the idea that the weight of a !vote should be evaluated critically according to the account's overall productivity, but none of them is strictly illegitimate. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:46, 3 April 2009 (UTC) Ah, my bad. From past experience I know that ANI is one of the few places on Wikipedia where banned users can sock with impunity ;)!--Folantin (talk) 13:56, 3 April 2009 (UTC) I see suggestions here to even "examine his method of seeking election". FPaS has been an admin since November 2006, for crying out loud; insinuating now, without any evidence provided at all that his "method of seeking election" needs to be examined, is a brutal personal attack and does not help to resolve conflicts like this one at all. Politis, please retract that statement (in full, the rest of your suggestions are not much better) or provide ample diffs to support it. Fram (talk) 14:32, 2 April 2009 (UTC) Fram, I truly agree with your sentiment and you find an ally in me; can you just as forecfully put a stop to editors labelling some users as 'Greeks' and using the term in a deragatory manner? As I keep stating, we should never give ethnic labels in a mostly anonymous site such as wikipedia. Otherwise, I think FPS might have a word to say before I take any reverting or proof-supplying action - it seems fair. Also, if that is a 'brutal attack', then how would you describe swearing (using the f word, etc) as FPS had done. I would say that swearing is bullying and my comment was objective under the circumstances Politis (talk) 14:58, 2 April 2009 (UTC) The problem, Politis, is that few issues are as clearly identified with a particular country and its expatriates as is the Macedonia naming dispute. Greece was the author of the dispute and has pushed its POV throughout the international community. It has singlehandedly blocked Macedonia's membership in international organizations because of it. When you look at the self-proclaimed nationalities of the users who voted "oppose" they were 90% (or more) persons who freely identified themselves as "Greek" on their user pages, used Greek letters to write their user names, or claimed to be native or nearly native speakers of Greek. To identify this group of editors as "Greek" is hardly prejudicial when that is what they call themselves on their user pages and elsewhere. I also notice that the dispute is bleeding over onto the Republic of Macedonia page where editors who oppose Future Perfect at Greece are pushing their POV on that page and overemphasizing the FYROM designation. The present no arguments for why they want to bold FYROM on the Macedonia page other than "Why not?" (Taivo (talk) 15:13, 2 April 2009 (UTC)) Taivo, you receive concrete answers on the bolding issue, while you present inaccurate aguments, e.g. telling that Taiwan's is RoC's internationally recognized name. Can you please respond to what I say in the appropriate talk page. Thank you.--Yannismarou (talk) 15:34, 2 April 2009 (UTC) For anyone who has never spent serious time working on articles which suffer from various forms of nationalist editing, I would strong suggest taking a look at User:Moreschi/The Plague/Nationalist hotspots. This is one of the most contentious areas of Wikipedia, and Fut Perf. is dead on when making the observation that we are not currently set up to prevent it. He also happens to be one of the few people willing to take the grief that comes with trying to keep the peace (or pieces) from crashing to the ground. You're dealing with countless fringe (and some not so fringe) groupes of editors who genuinely, and militantly believe that their specific ethnocentric view of history is "the truth"... that doesn't help foster intellectual, objective discourse. Flagged revisions will probably go a long way to fixing this, but until they are in place, some breathing room needs to be granted to those of us willing to try and mitigate the ugliness. Hiberniantears (talk) 14:44, 2 April 2009 (UTC) Hiberniantears, please give clear example when stating "groupes of editors who genuinely, and militantly believe that their specific ethnocentric view of history is "the truth"...". In this particular case, can you pick up quotes that make your case? If you think you were a bit hasty, you might wish to withdraw your comment. Thanks. Politis (talk) 15:03, 2 April 2009 (UTC) At least give me a challenge. I'll give you this one to start. The history of just one page, Turkey. Total trainwreck, and par for the course. Next, read this, and if you need to view the parade of banned sock armies from any of those articles, I'm sure any number of admins here can provide a myriad of lists. Hiberniantears (talk) 15:39, 2 April 2009 (UTC) Challenge? No challenge intended. Thanks for the links. The first one seemed irrelevant. The second some kind of a list. Is there some umbilical link between people giving their reasoned argument for an edit that contradicts some admin, and the label "groupes of editors who... militantly believe that their specific ethnocentric view of history is the truth"? Think it through (and no, this is not a challenge). Politis (talk) 15:53, 2 April 2009 (UTC) I think User:Future Perfect at Sunrise is mobbed by people who want to push their nationalist ideas on Wikipedia, in any case he's not alone in this discussion, if you have any doubts see talk:Greece. To me this is a situation that should draw attention to POV pushing on national articles and maybe produce a clear policy regarding this attitude, because otherwise, if we accept this situation Wikipedia is doomed, people will simply watch "their" pages and defend their national POV against all the world (like how it's done in talk:Greece at this point). I think if anything Future Perfect should be praised for raising this issue. 147.9.205.47 (talk) 15:17, 2 April 2009 (UTC) At the risk of being accused of repeating myself, I precisely agree to Politis right above. We're not talking about an unsubstantiated opposition here. Nor is it only backed up by the "faction". It is a policy-based rationale backed up by editors of various nationalities at an increasing rate. The problem is that FP (whom I repeat I tremendously respect) refuses to even discuss this rationale and dismisses it as nationalistic. I totally support his rationale as a general idea for examination in other cases, but not this one! Please read for yourselves that other third party users who happen to disagree with the Greeks (including Taivo above)[45], at least acknowledge that the opposition has points which are policy based, and that it is a matter of interpreting which points should prevail over the others. Not to mention that there's a poll running at the moment there, and at least FP should wait for it to finish and then interpret if it is like this or not, and then resort to edit warring (if ever)! NikoSilver 15:35, 2 April 2009 (UTC) For any interesting party, the discussiona about FYROM's bolding (a case where Fut once again allegedly exposed his NPOV proactively reverting against established version of the article and before even opening a discussion in the talk page) is here.--Yannismarou (talk) 15:41, 2 April 2009 (UTC) Why is this here? If it's a content dispute, keep it on the talk pages. If you're alleging edit-warring, take it to 3RR. If the problem is "attitude", take it to Civil. If your arguments in support of administrator intervention are baseless claims of racism against anyone who disagrees with you, repeated cries of "I feel really offended (sic)" and the fact that the admin in question reverted an article (!!!), well... yandman 15:50, 2 April 2009 (UTC) If it is all that except for the latter?--Yannismarou (talk) 16:00, 2 April 2009 (UTC) Well, I think it's safe to say that there is no consensus for a community ban of User:Future Perfect at Sunrise. yandman 16:06, 2 April 2009 (UTC) perhaps there is for a community vote of thanks. DGG (talk) 16:44, 2 April 2009 (UTC) What’s this? Future Perfect has refused to obey Greek nationalist shibboleths and has dared to refer to Macedonia without its obligatory “Former Yugoslav Republic of” figleaf? Oh dear, oh dear. Let’s hang him out to dry. Let’s lynch him at ArbCom. The heretic. As others have said above, the hijacking of articles by various gangs of POV-pushers is one of the most serious issues facing Wikipedia. Whole areas of the encyclopaedia have been given over to factions who care nothing about neutrality, due weight, reliable sourcing or even common English usage (to take one example, most books on Alexander the Great care little about the precise details of his ethnicity – now compare that with the talk pages of his article on Wikipedia). The Balkans is one of the worst of these areas and Future Perfect is one of the few admins with the guts to police it day in day out. We’ve got to decide whether we’re here to provide information for the general reader or to disseminate propaganda by special interest groups. Let's start breaking up the gangs and throwing the worst members off this project. --Folantin (talk) 17:05, 2 April 2009 (UTC) There had been an RfC for this user some time ago. Check it out. Also, note that he usually edits only Greek-related articles, mainly about controversial issues such as minorities etc, with a clear POV in favour of the newly found protectorates. My take (after examining his past here closely; a thing I suggest you do too before rushing out to premature conclusions) is that he's doing mercenary work for establishing the balkanisation of Balkans, that took place in the 90s, further. 190.34.160.226 (talk) 17:30, 2 April 2009 (UTC) An allegation of a conspiracy theory from an anonymous IP. That ploy always works. Must use it myself one day. --Folantin (talk) 17:40, 2 April 2009 (UTC) Folantin or Moreschi or whatever: everyone can edit this page (even users with two or more accounts, like yourself and Fut.Perf. Even IP users like myself). As for the conspiracy theory, allow some of us to know better about Fut.Petf.'s deeds here and in real life. Stick to your eunuch singing: you're being used. (My comment above wasn't referred to you in particular: unindenting.). 190.34.160.226 (talk) 18:06, 2 April 2009 (UTC) Stabbing in the dark. But thanks for giving us a clue as to your identity. If you're such a coward you have to log out in order to peddle your absurd Greek nationalist conspiracy theories, you don't get to talk about other users' "eunuch singing". --Folantin (talk) 18:20, 2 April 2009 (UTC) At least I'm not a hired goon. Cheers, and be loyal you two, employers fire non-loyal goons. 190.34.160.226 (talk) 18:27, 2 April 2009 (UTC) Money not so good in bug-eyed conspiracist lunacy then? Shame. You want to get where the action is. The CIA, the Mossad, the Masons, the Bilderberg Group, the Elders of Zion, the Airfix Modellers' Club, the Secret Seven and the Cult of Cthulhu all pay top dollar for editing Wikipedia.--Folantin (talk) 18:50, 2 April 2009 (UTC) My take on this can be described with the saying the road to hell is paved with good intentions. Future came into Macedonia articles with the purpose of cleaning the crap generated from both sides. Initially he was very successful and respected by everyone. However, he slowly got himself too much into the issue and acquired a very strong POV himself, to the point where he now openly advocates a mass banning of one side of the dispute. His basic mistake is that he constructs his arguments (even immediately above) as if by default he's the NPOV crusader. He didn't even hold back a minute to see if his accusations hold any water at all. He doesn't leave any room to third parties to even examine if he is right or wrong. He simply is right and he just needs help in his just cause against nationalists. Well, I feel personally offended to be labelled a nationalist again and again. I hate nationalism as much as anybody. Again and again, I see Future using "we" versus "them" arguments. I am not "them". I am also "we". This is too unhealthy. --Avg (talk) 17:06, 2 April 2009 (UTC) Community vote of thanks Harde har har :) But, thanks for the hard and difficult work, FPAS. seicer | talk | contribs 16:52, 2 April 2009 (UTC) I'm not sure what is this section for, but I have to thank user Future Perf. for working against national POV ganging on Greece article. man with one red shoe 20:15, 2 April 2009 (UTC) Support thank you. This isn't an easy issue, and FP probably isn't perfect himself, but he's taken on a very big problem and tried to do the best he could with it, and seemingly done well. John Carter (talk) 20:21, 2 April 2009 (UTC) Support thank you. For making all the bigots come out of the closet. Dr.K. logos 21:29, 2 April 2009 (UTC) Support - it's not easy to deal with disruption coming from a group of editors as opposed to individuals, but FP deserves our collective thanks for standing up against the tide of POV. -- ChrisO (talk) 23:54, 2 April 2009 (UTC) Support - I've been involved with other "walled gardens" before, but with time the parochial interests worked with those of us on the outside and improved the article. Consensus was reached, compromises were hammered out, and a good NPOV article was the result. This cabal running the walled garden at Greece and expanding their purview into Republic of Macedonia and other places where the Greek POV ("Greek" as in "of Greece") can be expanded without regard for Wikipedia policy and practice is as uncompromising as any I've seen before. There are some notable exceptions, but the most vocal proponents of the Greek view tend to be utterly convinced of the rightness of their "cause" and they don't care who or what they steamroll. Because of this, Future Perfect is called many names by them, none of them deserved. I applaud his patience and tireless effort in this area. (Taivo (talk) 04:24, 3 April 2009 (UTC)) Taking the opportunity to publically thank Fut. Perf. for his significant contributions to the always conflictive area of South-Eastern Europe. His patience & good-humoured approach to even blatant disruption are truly remarkable. - Ev (talk) 16:29, 3 April 2009 (UTC) No Greek cabal Dr.K. logos 04:59, 3 April 2009 (UTC) Welcome to Greece. Parthenon is on the right side of the entrance. Enjoy your stay ye who enter here. (There are no walled articles. The only real walls are the walls of the mind) Dr.K. logos 13:30, 3 April 2009 (UTC) Welcome to Thessaloniki. The White Tower is easily accessible. How strange! Like so many other monuments in Greece it has no walled garden around! These nationalist Greeks decided to erect them here, in Wikipedia. In any case, the Macedonians are ready to offer you their hospitality and make your staying as comfortable as possible.--Yannismarou (talk) 16:41, 4 April 2009 (UTC) Many thanks to Future Perfect, who deals with the difficult area of POV and fringe theory in the Balkans with a grace, aplomb and humour that few can muster even in less rocky waters. His knowledge of the languages, the region and complexities of the political issues at stake, as well as the various editors involved, are absolutely invaluable. Kafka Liz (talk) 01:25, 4 April 2009 (UTC) Recruiting the mice brigade It's been stated above that 6 or 7 administrators ought to be working on the Greek nationalism dispute. Actually, it should be double that. A team of half a dozen got worn down at a similar dispute (The Troubles). We need a group big enough that work's spread around to a fair share on each set of shoulders. 12 to 15 admins are enough to check and balance each other. Remember the story about the mice who had a meeting about a cat that was eating them? Everybody agreed that the solution was to put a bell around the cat's neck so they could hear it coming. Somebody asked, "Who bells the cat?" That was the end of their meeting. An ethnic dispute is a great big cat and there's safety in numbers. So don't hold a vote to thank Future Perfect at Sunrise; hold a vote to join him. Sign up to watchlist these articles, to semiprotect them when necessary, to communicate with editors on the talk pages and show them site policies mean something. When the need occurs, show up to form an impartial consensus. Although not an administrator, I'll add my name at number 12. It doesn't take effect unless the other spaces get filled. DurovaCharge! 17:45, 2 April 2009 (UTC) Then could we have your input here? And, if you think that I am that wrong, feel free to join him.--Yannismarou (talk) 20:42, 2 April 2009 (UTC) Well, after all, wait a bit first, until he finally decides what he stands for. After his reverting (knowing he is acting against a long-standing consensus resulting from a popular vote), he decided that the things are not exactly the way he thought about. So, let's see ... By the way, I would also like to add my name, but I am an involved party, just like Fut.--Yannismarou (talk) 21:01, 2 April 2009 (UTC) Actually when intervening in policy matters it's best to keep as light a touch as possible about the content side. If there's a question about copyright or reliable sources or BLP application that's one thing, but in a discussion like the one in that link I'd rather step back and keep an eye out for civility etc.--being totally evenhanded. In forming consensus, think procedural or policy consensus. DurovaCharge! 03:08, 3 April 2009 (UTC) Thank you for clarifying that. Therefore, your mice team's purpose is not to join Fut.Per. but to help "forming consensus, thinking procedural or policy consensus". Because I really did not like the wording in your introductory comment of this thread.--Yannismarou (talk) 16:14, 4 April 2009 (UTC) A few good mice: henrik•talk 20:17, 2 April 2009 (UTC)   Will Beback  talk  20:36, 2 April 2009 (UTC) John Carter (talk) 20:45, 2 April 2009 (UTC) (although I might need prompting, as I tend to get sidetracked a lot) SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 21:00, 2 April 2009 (UTC) Not my area of expertise, but sometimes that can be an advantage in situations like this. AniMatetalk 22:29, 2 April 2009 (UTC) Sign yer name here LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:01, 2 April 2009 (UTC) Rklawton (talk) 16:47, 4 April 2009 (UTC) Sign yer name here Sign yer name here Sign yer name here DurovaCharge! 17:45, 2 April 2009 (UTC) Guys I'm touched. But if you want to "vote" for something useful, there is actually still that damned old straw poll open, and as I said, the most crucial thing right now is that it gets a halfway reasonable outcom. It's here. It's now totally submerged by subsequent discussion, but you can safely skip that, there's nothing new in the rest of the page. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:57, 2 April 2009 (UTC) Actually, by Husond's own definition, the poll has closed at 19:30 UTC today. However, I'm proposing extending it for another day, so that everyone can still vote.--Avg (talk) 21:04, 2 April 2009 (UTC) I wasn't voting for anything. I was volunteering to help monitor articles.   Will Beback  talk  21:09, 2 April 2009 (UTC) And I think that just like Beback this is what all sysops who put their name here want to do; something that obviously Fut (and Avg) misunderstood. Anyway, from my part, I support Durova's initiative (not to help Fut, of course, but monitor articles), and I hope the list with the 12 knights is ready the soonest possible.--Yannismarou (talk) 21:27, 2 April 2009 (UTC) Anybody who wants to watch some articles: Cham Albanians, Markos Botsaris and Souliotes could do with a few pairs of eyes. Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:53, 2 April 2009 (UTC) I also strongly recommend watching the Macedonia naming dispute abuse log created by Dragons flight a few days ago. There's a constant stream of vandalism, usually involving defacements of the name "Republic of Macedonia" and/or its replacement with POV terms such as "Skopia", "Slavomacedonia" etc. Many of the vandals are anonymous IP addresses in Greece or newly registered users. This is happening all over Wikipedia, not just on articles about the country or about Greece. Anyone who watches this for a while, as I have, will soon realise that the vandalism is overwhelmingly in one direction - in favour of the Greek nationalist POV. There are structural reasons why disruptive Greek nationalism may be more prevalent than its Macedonian counterpart (more Internet access, more English-speakers, a bigger overseas diaspora etc), but the end result is that most of the disruption you deal with will be from the Greek nationalists. -- ChrisO (talk) 23:51, 2 April 2009 (UTC) Further to ChrisO's request, could please some uninvolved admins have a look at the contributions of some involved admins in the last couple of days since the abuse log does not capture admin renames? As an example, User:Future Perfect at Sunrise changed references from FYROM to ROM at List of Greek roads and User:Ev at a host of articles [46], falsely stating some kind of standard and policy, while the straw poll is still open.--Avg (talk) 20:59, 3 April 2009 (UTC) Good for Ev. L'audace, l'audace, toujours l'audace. (Taivo (talk) 21:21, 3 April 2009 (UTC)) I can't speak for Ev, but it's clearly right that we should have a consistent approach to naming. There's absolutely no policy reason why articles about Greece should be a walled garden in which fYROM is used while RoM is used everywhere else on Wikipedia. The only reasons we've heard so far is "it's confusing" (what other RoM could it be confused with?) and "it's offensive to Greeks" (which is completely irrelevant). I'm all for knocking down the walled garden. -- ChrisO (talk) 13:15, 4 April 2009 (UTC) There is no walled garden. However, there is clearly a crusade from a couple of biased editors to push their POV against Wikipedia policy and previous consensus. Blatant violations of almost every Wikipedia policy I can think of. They consistently disrupt Wikipedia by inserting a controversial name in the place of another controversial name. They should be immediately reverted and cautioned (as a minimum). --Avg (talk) 17:22, 4 April 2009 (UTC) It all comes down to the following question (no kidding) "Is the name former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia POV or NPOV?" I'm not kidding, this is the crux of the matter. Please, please get involved, do your research and weigh in. We want this to be over. This is the cause of all disputes.--Avg (talk) 17:57, 2 April 2009 (UTC) That's not really the right question. The right question is, "By what name is this region most commonly known?" We go by reliable sources, not by worrying about whose feelings might get hurt. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 18:29, 2 April 2009 (UTC) I second that, so what is really the most common unambiguous name for this country? Let me also add that Wikipedia simply describes, does not prescribe. Now the reason an apparent content dispute needs administrative intervention is that both sides adamantly believe they're defending NPOV against POV warriors. This will simply never end unless there is some definitive answer that everyone will be forced to follow.--Avg (talk) 18:34, 2 April 2009 (UTC) In English, it's "Macedonia" or (more formally) "The Republic of Macedonia". "Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia" is regarded as a sesquipedelian joke. --Folantin (talk) 18:41, 2 April 2009 (UTC) And yet, UN, EU, NATO, IMF, FIFA, FIBA, EBU and virtually every international organization on this planet are not laughing. But please, don't bring the dispute here.--Avg (talk) 18:49, 2 April 2009 (UTC) Bugs... by that standard this article would just be titled America. That's why most of these topics are such a disaster... everyone just wheels out their preferred sources. Adding to the problem is a general lack of good English language sources, so various factions within any given article can run circles around the admin corps if too few of us can't read the languages that the sources are written in. Hiberniantears (talk) 18:42, 2 April 2009 (UTC) It's the difference between formal and informal speech. Informally, it's America, England, and Macedonia. The articles are at the names most commonly used in formal contexts. --Carnildo (talk) 08:07, 3 April 2009 (UTC) Actually, "United States" is also semi-informal. "United States of America" is the proper formal name of our nation. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 22:06, 3 April 2009 (UTC) I think you mean: "The Republic of the United States of America". Rklawton (talk) 22:21, 3 April 2009 (UTC) No, it's just "The United States of America". "Republic" is not part of the official name. (Taivo (talk) 05:30, 4 April 2009 (UTC)) Or maybe it's "Former British Republic of the U.S.A." Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 22:24, 3 April 2009 (UTC) It's my understanding that the term Republic of Macedonia is used across Wikipedia, with the exception of Greece. On that basis, I think the question that ought to be asked is: what's different about Greece? Alternatively, one could simply turn the original question around: Is "Republic of Macedonia" POV or NPOV? SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 18:47, 2 April 2009 (UTC) No this is not the case. Republic of Macedonia, former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia and plain Macedonia are all used in Wikipedia, according to certain conditions. --Avg (talk) 18:52, 2 April 2009 (UTC) (e/c) Not entirely. Wikipedia:Manual of Style (Macedonia-related articles) suggests RoM generally, but allows fYROM under some (non-Greek) circumstances: In articles about international political organisations or cultural/athletic events where the Republic participates officially under the appellation former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia or variants thereof (e.g. the United Nations, accession to the European Union, the Olympic Games etc.), the official naming conventions of those organisations should be followed when choosing between Republic of Macedonia and former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia The UN, the EU and Nato all prefer fYROM, so European Union, for example, mentions former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia becoming an EU candidate country. I know that because I reverted several editors making WP:AGF edits before I learnt the error of my ways ;-) Cheers, This flag once was redpropagandadeeds 18:54, 2 April 2009 (UTC) How about: is "Republic of Macedonia" POV or not? Reading the guidelines is very clear a self-identifier is not POV, the guidelines cannot be more clear than that, and yes, why we should use it all over the place but not in Greece page? What's special about Greece? I agree that "Macedonia" can be confused with the Greek region, but "Republic of Macedonia" cannot. So what do you have against "Republic of Macedonia" term and why Greece page should be an island of POV? man with one red shoe 20:12, 2 April 2009 (UTC) So what if I proposed a compromise solution that there are two NPOV names which can be used interchangeably?--Avg (talk) 20:25, 2 April 2009 (UTC) It's not quite that easy. The, more or less, official position of an established country which is a member of a number of international bodies carries quite a bit of weight. On the other hand, it is not the sole arbiter of what another nation may refer to itself as. As with many of the current international disputes, if the solution was obvious we wouldn't be here arguing. A case by case approach seems appropriate here. henrik•talk 20:26, 2 April 2009 (UTC) I tend to agree with Henrik above. The name FYROM is not POV, as it is the name that the government recognized at least once. However, to use it today as the primary name by which to refer to the country is less than optimum. The evidence that I've seen indicates that the citizens there refer to it as the ROM. That seems to me, on that basis, to be the most commonly used and recognized form of the name, and the one we should use according to WP:NAME. Yes, I know that internally Macedonia (Greece) refers to itself as Macedonia as well. But I have real trouble seeing how anyone would think that that area calls itself "Republic of Macedonia" or ever has. So, on that basis, I can't see how there is much confusion resulting from using the ROM name for the country. Yes, I know several other countries have the title of their main article as something other than the country's official name. That's fine, because they don't generally use that name themselves internally, and we tend to use the name that is most frequently used by natives and outsiders to refer to that country. I know externally the FYROM name is used a lot for disambiguation purposes. I guess the example that strikes me as most relevant is the article Roman Catholic Church. I know of nowhere where that body officially uses that specific name to describe itself when dealing with internal matters. It is however the unofficial name by which the organization is most frequently recognized, and there are other uses of the name CC, as can be seen at Catholic Church (disambiguation). In that instance, the wikipedia community decided adding the unofficial "Roman" to the name was sufficient to prevent ambiguity. In this case, the name ROM seems to be to be sufficiently unambiguous on its own. John Carter (talk) 21:40, 2 April 2009 (UTC) I know many Roman Catholics (or just Catholics) and I've never heard any of them complain about either of those terms. "Roman" is used to distinguish from the Eastern Catholic Churches, such as Byzantine Catholic. The RCC, naturally, considers itself to be simply "The Church". RCC is commonly used in English, and wikipedia didn't "decide" that, it was decided by conventional usage over many generations. Reliable sources are what count, not the personal opinions of wikipedians. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 14:02, 4 April 2009 (UTC) I've already addressed this particular question several times on other pages, so I won't repeat myself at length here, but "FYROM" is not a name and is not used as such by either Greece or the RoM - see my fuller explanation here. It's merely the diplomatic equivalent of a placeholder or asterisk. The only official name of the country and the only name by which it identifies itself is "Republic of Macedonia". The question we have is whether we follow Wikipedia policy and call a country what it calls itself, or not? Though of course there should be no question about that; the only reason why this is even an issue in the first place is the determination of many of our Greek editors to promote their government's POV rather than following wikipolicy. -- ChrisO (talk) 23:32, 2 April 2009 (UTC) And you've got your answers to that little detail also: [47],[48],[49]. As for applying policy as you simply put it, it has been stressed out clearly, WP:NC talks about the most common unambiguous name which in our case is "(the) former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia", you yourself helped to show exactly that. Your approach is to construct "Republic of Macedonia" (which is by far the least used of the three names) from "Macedonia" using one of many ways to interpret the naming conflict guideline, which by the way is still a guideline, not a policy. In other words, you're applying a qualifier ("Republic of") to the most common term ("Macedonia"), you're not selecting "RoM" because it's the most common term without ambiguity, you're creating a hybrid by contentiously combining "Macedonia"'s higher frequency of use and "RoM"'s unambiguity. WP:NC prohibits us from constructing or prescribing names and your methodology is, to say the least, disputable, even when applying the "self-identifying term" sauce to cover it, which you have incorporated into the guideline anyway. This does not fully summarize the problem of course, a lot more arguments were posed from both sides, but in my view it demonstrates the simplest approach to a seemingly never ending issue. Every time someone tried to focus on this and other valid points the other side usually held the "Greek POV" tag above his head. A continuing game of messing things up and hope your "opponents" would look more disruptive or ridiculous to outside viewers. --Δρακόλακκος (talk) 03:51, 3 April 2009 (UTC) The preceding is an example of the logic applied by the proponents of the Greek POV ("Greek" as in "of Greece"): "Since 'Macedonia' is ambiguous, then we must use the non-name placeholder found in international documents rather than the formal self-identification of the country itself." This is not the solution that Wikipedia has used in other places. To distinguish the two Congos, Wikipedia reverts to the formal self-identifications "Republic of Congo" and "Democratic Republic of Congo". To distinguish the two Chinas, Wikipedia reverts to the formal self-identifications "Republic of China" and "People's Republic of China". To distinguish independent Ireland from the island as a whole and from the English dominion in the north, we revert to the self-identification "Republic of Ireland". But to the Greek nationalist position, Wikipedia practice is unacceptable and the only option for them is the Greek POV. They argue that since international organizations have been forced to use the provisional reference by Athens, that should be the preferred disambiguating option rather than the self-identification of "Republic of Macedonia". They resort to circular logic to accomplish this--a) "Macedonia" is ambiguous, therefore b) Greece forced international organizations to use "the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia", therefore c) "FYROM" is common in international discourse, therefore d) it's not Greek POV to insist on "the most common option besides 'Macedonia'--FYROM" in Wikipedia rather than the shorter NPOV self-identification that Wikipedia uses in most other cases of disambiguation (and which is just as unambiguous)--"Republic of Macedonia". (Taivo (talk) 05:34, 3 April 2009 (UTC)) And the preceding is a perfect example of what the other side is facing. We're advocating Wikipedia policy WP:NCON, while you clearly prescribe that Wikipedia should act differently because "international organizations have been forced to use fYRoM". That is as POV as it can get. And enough with the "Greek nationalist" stuff. Really. Stop it.--Avg (talk) 08:28, 3 April 2009 (UTC) Taivo is spot on. There is a close parallel with this situation in the Middle East over Azerbaijan, a geographical region split between the Republic of Azerbaijan and Iranian Azerbaijan (in fact more Azeris live in Iranian Azerbaijan than in the republic). Yet nobody has any problem with the Wikipedia article on the Republic of Azerbaijan being at Azerbaijan because this is its common English name. "Republic of Macedonia" is unambiguous enough for anybody but the most rabid nationalist.--Folantin (talk) 08:59, 3 April 2009 (UTC) There are various nations where this issue comes up. A continual hot-button has been Burma, which begins with the sentence, "Burma, officially the Union of Myanmar..." because its rulers call it one thing and the world wants to call it something else. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 08:55, 3 April 2009 (UTC) In fact, hitting really close to home, the article on Greece begins "Greece... officially the Hellenic Republic..." "Greece" is not "Greece" to its own people, just to us outsiders. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 08:57, 3 April 2009 (UTC) Yes, but Greece is called "Greece" in English, the Republic of Macedonia is not called FYROM except mostly in official documents and those in my opinion don't count as "current English usage", in normal English: press, books, atlases, encyclopedias it's called "Macedonia". man with one red shoe 13:38, 3 April 2009 (UTC) That's what I'm getting at. This is the English wikipedia, so it behooves us to use what the reliable sources tell us is the most common name (or names) used in English, not the most common names used in Greece necessarily. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 17:13, 3 April 2009 (UTC) The argument for "FYROM" has always been made on the basis of its widespread use internationally and in English. If we were advocating common Greek usage, that would be "Skopje", not "FYROM". ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 17:51, 3 April 2009 (UTC) Once again, Kekrops is ill-informed. "FYROM" does 'not' enjoy "widespread use" in English except in documents that are discussing the Macedonia naming dispute including things that are required to use UN or EU terms for the sake of accuracy. It is virtually absent from English maps and atlases. (Taivo (talk) 05:34, 4 April 2009 (UTC)) Folantin you're not getting it, Taivo is using his political/ideological bias to evaluate the situation, i was talking about common English usage and policy, not any UN documents or diplomatic unfairness. We don't care why "former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia" is common in English, this is a simple fact. Evaluating the reasons why that happens according to our own POV is prescribing. The analogy with Azerbaijan follows Taivo's reasoning, there's no widely used disambiguating name in English for Azerbaijan (not even sure if there's an alternative name in any other language to that matter), and the reasons for that are again irrelevant. --Δρακόλακκος (talk) 13:24, 3 April 2009 (UTC) Sorry, but "Macedonia" or the "Republic of Macedonia" is common English. There are no other "Republics of Macedonia" the state needs to be distinguished from. "Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia" generally only turns up in the documents of organisations scared the Greek government will throw a hissy fit. --Folantin (talk) 13:34, 3 April 2009 (UTC) Nope, all indicators presented in the discussions, even the research by ChrisO of mainstream encyclopedias, showed that "former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia" is a lot more common than "Republic of Macedonia" with plain "Macedonia" ranking first. What we're talking here is which is the most appropriate disambiguating term, which excludes "Macedonia".--Δρακόλακκος (talk) 13:52, 3 April 2009 (UTC) Let me quote from WP:NAMECON guideline: "A city, country, people or person by contrast, is a self-identifying entity: it has a preferred name for itself. The city formerly called Danzig now calls itself Gdańsk; the man formerly known as Cassius Clay now calls himself Muhammad Ali. These names are not simply arbitrary terms but are key statements of an entity's own identity. This should always be borne in mind when dealing with controversies involving self-identifying names." man with one red shoe 13:45, 3 April 2009 (UTC)\ (ec)Actually, Folantin gets it very well. The reason that "Macedonia" is unacceptable to Athens really has nothing to do with disambiguation, that's why those who advocate the Greek POV are not interested in "Republic of Macedonia" which is a good self-identification and is as NPOV as "Republic of China". Indeed, in international organizations, like Macedonia, the Republic of China must be called something else because of a naming dispute that is not too dissimilar from the Macedonia dispute. Indeed, if you look here you will see that "Republic of China" (which, like "Republic of Macedonia" is also not used by the UN) is used in the article on People's Republic of China. In the end, the Greek POV is that Macedonia must be treated differently than every other country in the world in terms of naming. According to them, Wikipedia must not be allowed to give Macedonia its self-identification at all costs and they will trot out every UN and EU document they can find on-line in order to justify that demand. They ignore Wikipedia precedent (China, Congo, Azerbaijan, etc.) and every Wikipedia preference for self-identifications. (Taivo (talk) 13:50, 3 April 2009 (UTC)) Yep. This is why there was nothing "shocking" about Husond's statistics at all. I could guess what the ethnicity of 95%+ of one side of the vote would be before that poll had even taken place. The only people in the world who care about the designation "FYROM" are Greeks. Unfortunately, English Wikipedia has a duty to see things from a more global perspective. --Folantin (talk) 14:03, 3 April 2009 (UTC) Yet even from the global perspective, the majority of countries in the world call it "Republic of Macedonia" in their bilateral relations and official documents. (Taivo (talk) 14:16, 3 April 2009 (UTC)) Yeah, I meant "Unfortunately for the Greek nationalist perspective". In everyday parlance in the anglophone world modern Macedonia isn't "FYROM".--Folantin (talk) 14:19, 3 April 2009 (UTC) Maybe so, but it isn't "Republic of Macedonia" either. Who says that in their "everyday parlance"? ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 18:03, 3 April 2009 (UTC) Istanbul was Constantinople. Now it's Istanbul, not Constantinople. Why did Constantinople get "the works"? It's nobody's business but the Turks. SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 14:25, 3 April 2009 (UTC) This is mostly "relevant" by what you are trying to imply about the "Greek POV" again, anyway, take a look at Tenedos, Imbros and their talk pages, it was concluded that the traditional names were more common in English than the official Turkish names.--Δρακόλακκος (talk) 14:53, 3 April 2009 (UTC) I think it will be easier to have a constructive debate if editors make an effort not to make assumptions about what other editors might be "trying to imply". SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 17:47, 3 April 2009 (UTC) What were you trying to imply, then? "Istanbul" is not ambiguous; "Macedonia" is. ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 18:07, 3 April 2009 (UTC) Apologies, but you can't blame me for underestimating you, since the obvious point you made could be as obviously addressed with the example i gave, i thought you were probably aiming on something else and since you had chosen to highlight an issue that involves Greek history again, my mind went in that direction. Although now that i think of it, how many people know anything about Imbros and Tenedos ? my answer was not as obvious to others as it was to me afterall. Anyway, Istanbul (the local official name), Imbros and Tenedos (both traditional names of Greek origin that have no official use in Turkey for about 8 decades) are the common English names, and that's why they were chosen.--Δρακόλακκος (talk) 18:13, 3 April 2009 (UTC) To sum up, the dispute is over which formal long name to choose, given that the short form is ambiguous. Both "the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia" and "Republic of Macedonia" are in official use, by different parties. It has been demonstrated rather convincingly that the former is the more common of the two, but some editors feel that the self-identifying term should take precedence over the more common English term, arguing that the country has the "right" to decide its own name. Is that a correct appraisal of Wikipedia policy, or a value judgment that should not be influencing the editorial decision-making process? That is the question. ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 15:32, 3 April 2009 (UTC) Actually, Kekrops' "demonstrated rather convincingly" is not an objective measurement, but only from the POV of a person who openly opposes any usage other than "FYROM". The "hard evidence" is totally ambiguous and inconclusive and depends on one's POV approaching it. He likes to cite a Google search, for example. I won't even bother to respond to the invalidity of a Google search for anything scientific except finding the latest YouTube video. I conducted my own unscientific poll on the issue as well. I asked in Yahoo! Answers, "What countries border Bulgaria?" Of the five answers, one included "Republic of Macedonia", three included "Macedonia", and one (named Hephaestus) had "former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia". Thus the two terms were tied. (As an aside, I included in the survey instructions, "DO NOT give a thumbs down to any other answers", everyone followed that instruction except for Hephaestus, who gave a thumbs down to every one else's answer.) (Taivo (talk) 16:03, 3 April 2009 (UTC)) It was demonstrated rather convincingly, as the other side's focus on the self-identification argument has shown. Nobody seriously questioned these findings, the search methods used were described in your beloved guideline.--Δρακόλακκος (talk) 16:38, 3 April 2009 (UTC) Actually, Drakolakkos, there was no "convincing demonstration" at all except in the eyes of those whose viewpoint is Greek. None of the others bothered to even address the "proof" simply because the evidence was 1) so poor, and 2) irrelevant in the face of the self-identification issue. It doesn't matter how "common" or "rare" FYROM is if FYROM itself is irrelevant because it is not a self-identification. Actually, in dealing with the issue of what actually occurs on maps in atlases, I demonstrated conclusively that FYROM is virtually nonexistent in an actual examination of maps and not just doing a worthless Google search. But since the issue of the primacy of self-identification for disambiguation is more important, counting noses is irrelevant. It's like this--you have to disambiguate between two Congos. If counting noses of references were more important than self-identification, then the Democratic Republic of Congo should still be called "Zaire" since that name is far more common on maps and in texts than the new name is. The Greek POV is insisting on unique treatment for the Republic of Macedonia. Wikipedia should treat the disambiguation of Macedonia just as it treats every other case of disambiguation (Congo, China, Ireland, America, Azerbaijan, etc.) and use the full form of the self-identification and not some name imposed on an unwilling population by its southern neighbor. (Taivo (talk) 20:07, 3 April 2009 (UTC)) Wow, a lot can happen while the devil scratches his eye. Am I right to assume that the lengthy discussion above didn't produce any practical effects? Now that both me and Future Perfect seem to have escaped punishment for our purported gross misdemeanor, I would expect some actual decisions to finally put a halt to what's happening at Greece, and at once resolve this whole FYROM/Republic of Macedonia imbroglio. Few seem to dispute that we have a serious case of block voting and walled garden here, and yet this is set to be another topic to be forsaken as soon as it reaches the top of this page and plunges into the netherworld of the archives. Are we hamsters in a wheel, or how many more threads like this will it take for some results start to appear? Like Future Perfect reiterates, this will inevitably reach the Arbcom unless the admins who could straightforwardly identify the real problem put hands to work and do something to fix it. The Arbcom is at the risk of being slayed by their worst nemesis Macedonia, and this may well be the last chance before we go through a process that everybody should try to avoid for the sake of the reliability of our encyclopedia and for the sake of our sanity. Húsönd 18:39, 3 April 2009 (UTC) I wonder why there is this whole thread discussing the content question here on this board again? People just can't restrain themselves, it seems. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:55, 3 April 2009 (UTC) Sorry for straying into content. But what is frustrating to see is that the inhabitants of the Greek walled garden feel compelled to place their POV not just within their own garden, but within the next garden over as well. They are imperialist walled gardeners. (Taivo (talk) 20:14, 3 April 2009 (UTC)) Husond, your comment is perfectly placed exactly where it should be. The reason I inserted a content section in here is precisely to demonstrate that your assertions of "block voting", "walled garden", "unreliability" can (and should) be accepted if, well, there is actually some POV pushing happening in the article. There can only be POV pushing if the abovementioned name is actually POV. If it is not, and I do not think there has been a decision on this, then I'm afraid all your accusations are moot and you're simply using them to make your POV prevail. So thanks for your comment and I really hope what has been happening is a bit more clear now.--Avg (talk) 21:29, 3 April 2009 (UTC) Please don't start repeating those arguments all over again. I stress, no more hamster wheel please. Húsönd 21:31, 3 April 2009 (UTC) On the contrary, I've focused on your apparently biased representation of facts. Your third time in only a week, after your straw poll description and your ethnic profiling.--Avg (talk) 21:38, 3 April 2009 (UTC) Yes, you and your party focused on that a zillion times now. Time to stop. Húsönd 21:57, 3 April 2009 (UTC) Again with the smokescreen complaints, this time about "ethnic profiling". Husond alleges there is bias in the voting. The ones accused of bias keep changing the subject. Imagine that. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 22:03, 3 April 2009 (UTC) Honestly, what more do you want? If someone accuses a whole ethnic group of being biased and it is specifically demonstrated that the accusation is in very shaky grounds (which is precisely that fYRoM is supposedly POV), plus it is demonstrated that the accuser himself is strongly biased, where is the changing of the subject? I'll leave it at that.--Avg (talk) 22:27, 3 April 2009 (UTC) You err and persist with your assumptions. The whole issued was ignited when I requested the article Greece to comply to Wikipedia:MOS#Internal_consistency. The main premise was never addressed, quickly warped to accusations of racial profiling, censorship, bias, etc.. You cannot be expected to be taken seriously with this kind of response, especially when this kind of response comes from a group sharing a common background, a common stronghold of pride. Húsönd 23:43, 3 April 2009 (UTC) When you present evidence that a diverse group says "support" and a solid wall of one group says "oppose", that's not an "accusation", that's FACT. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 13:19, 4 April 2009 (UTC) There is a simple fact when it comes to the issue of "FYROM"--there are no self-identified persons who are Greek, no self-identified persons who are of Greek descent, no self-identified persons whose native language is Greek, no persons whose username is written in Greek letters who voted "support" in that poll, while at least 90% or more of the persons who voted "oppose" in that poll were. That's just the simple fact and we didn't need Husond's flag poll to see that and understand that clearly. The phrase "Greek POV" is often used in that discussion for "the attitude of the government in Greece", but that phraseology was twisted to be something racial. It's very easy to use the term "racist" when it is convenient and will help to galvanize a position on the opposite side from the person using a given, otherwise neutral, term. Had a proponent of "FYROM" used "Greek POV" there would have been not a single peep of "racist" as an accusation. While Husond might have been ill-advised in listing the information by flag, it was a simple fact that everyone knew (and still knows) is true (on both sides of the issue), but just weren't saying quite so obviously. (Taivo (talk) 13:35, 4 April 2009 (UTC)) Actually, the casual observer wouldn't know that at all, which is why that lineup was so useful - and the non-denial denial or smokescreen reaction to it, by some users, unintentionally reinforces its premise. As a parallel example, the recently-banished Axmann8 was griping about how wikipedia was dominated by liberals. Maybe yes, maybe no. But if he had gone through the list of users who "support" or "oppose" his indefinite block, and tagged each of them with their apparent political affiliation, that would have been just fine. Except it wouldn't have worked, because there were liberals and conservatives in both lists. He made an accusation and failed to cite any facts to support it. By contrast, Husong starkly presented the facts, and the opponents are furious because they got "shown up". So rather than address that issue, they try to cloud it by making false claims of "racism" or "ethnic profiling". Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 13:56, 4 April 2009 (UTC) I don't know about that parallel, but parallel examples are not exactly hard to find. Just look at Talk:Battle of Vilnius (1655), where editors who happen to come from Poland (coincidence I'm sure) wish to change the spelling of the Lithuanian capital Vilnius to the obscure Polish spelling "Wilno", and will probably win just because of numbers. Likewise, there is a big move to rename Ireland Ireland (island) because of similar concentrations of users of similar mindsets in similar topics. It happens all the time. Wikipedia needs a broader mechanism for dealing with the kind of thing, and until we get it we'll just have to put up with it and all the drama created by impotent attempts to address it. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 16:04, 4 April 2009 (UTC) Not sure this is quite the same thing. Historical names for towns can be a tricky matter. It's more like Constantinople/Istanbul or Reval/Tallinn. --Folantin (talk) 18:10, 4 April 2009 (UTC) While we're at it, let's get a Dutch voting bloc together and change NYC back to New Amsterdam. Then we can call them the "New Amsterdam Yankees". That has kind of a nice poetic sound to it. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 18:46, 4 April 2009 (UTC) Well it's the voting patterns that make them the same. The particular arguments for and against obviously differ. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 19:14, 4 April 2009 (UTC) How amusingly one-sided, Deacon. Evil Poles voting bloc, sure, and no mention of the Lithuanian bloc, nor of how you stumbled upon this article to revert my move... --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 05:07, 5 April 2009 (UTC) Piotrus, partizan campaigning with personal attacks and straw men on AN/I is not likely to produce any results for you. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 15:36, 5 April 2009 (UTC) What "partizan campaignin"? What "personal attacks"? What "straw men"? Please explain, or apologize. Further, I asked you how did you stumble upon the orphaned but not so new battle of Wilno (1655) article, where your first action was to revert my move? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 00:09, 6 April 2009 (UTC) [50]. Try to find me or anyone else talking of "Evil Poles" please. I honestly can't see any useful purpose to your participation in this thread except as partizan campaigning; unless that is stacking up Polish votes to to Polonise the name of the Lithuanian capital has nothing to do with nationalism. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 00:18, 6 April 2009 (UTC) "where editors who happen to come from Poland (coincidence I'm sure) ... and will probably win just because of numbers" - correct me if I am wrong, but what else is this describing as a bad faithed voting block? Partizan campaigning? It was not me who linked this discussion from here (hence how am I campaigning??), and it was not me who described the sides with a language that describes ethnic groups as victims and the victimizers. Once again, I would like to ask you to apologize, refactor your posts and assume more good faith in the future. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 01:14, 6 April 2009 (UTC) Not necessarily "bad faith" block voting, but definitely a clear nationalistic voting trend. I don't think a reasonable person would disipute this. BTW guys, this indignation is, ironically enough, coming from the guy who only yesterday said of his multi-national opposers "remember that no amount of logic and evidence will change the opinion of a nationalist true believer. For some, Vilnius was forever 100% pure Lithuanian Vilnius, likely created that way when the universe begun.". ;) Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 01:22, 6 April 2009 (UTC) I have no idea what this quote has to do with anything. Please check the definition of nationalism. Are you saying that I and other Polish editors there are nationalists? And if so, are we the only group with such a POV there? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 01:25, 6 April 2009 (UTC) Well I suppose that explains why you don't apparently get the irony here. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 01:27, 6 April 2009 (UTC) Baseball Bugs, a certain ethnic group (the Greeks) may or may not agree on this issue. However, if you fail to see the implications of someone claiming that since people (are assumed to) belong to an ethnic group their opinion has less value and the result of the poll is "a fraud"(sic from Husond) I really, really cannot help you. Also how about you commenting on non Greeks also voting "oppose"? I failed to see this part.--Avg (talk) 18:44, 4 April 2009 (UTC) Until you recognize and directly address the stark facts of the voting, instead of raising false claims about racism and ethnic profiling, I really, really cannot help you. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 18:49, 4 April 2009 (UTC) The only thing I recognize is the level of abuse Greek editors get. This has to be addressed in a very clear and decisive way. --Avg (talk) 18:55, 4 April 2009 (UTC) Diffs, please? Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 19:05, 4 April 2009 (UTC) I have stored plenty of diffs from the usual rogues for the upcoming arbitration, but as a general comment the witch hunt going on is rather unhealthy wouldn't you think?--Avg (talk) 19:11, 4 April 2009 (UTC) What witch hunt? It's a solid Greek voting bloc. You're just angry because you have nothing to refute it. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 19:14, 4 April 2009 (UTC) (ri)So now it's a conspiracy with ethnic overtones? On the Greek article[51] it is indeed Πρώην Γιουγκοσλαβική Δημοκρατία της Μακεδονίας, and that's fine fo their nationalist and ethnic sensibilities, but on this article fYROM is simply not appropriate. In Macedonian, it is Република Македонија. •Jim62sch•dissera! 19:28, 4 April 2009 (UTC) (ec)"Greek" editors (whether "an editor living in Greece" or "an editor who claims Greek nationality or descent") are not abused per se. I would welcome Avg's input at Greek language on issues of grammar. I would welcome Avg at any article where he is professionally competent to have his professional input. But when a bloc of editors who are clearly self-identified with an ethnic group or, as in this case, a government, act in concert opposite of Wikipedia policy then that is a different matter. The "oppose" bloc at Talk:Greece is not "international" in character except for a vanishingly small number of individuals. The "support" bloc, on the other hand, is very international in character and it is impossible to identify them with a particular region or political group. I am not interested in Avg's claims to an "international" character to the Athenian POV faction because it is really not true. However, I would be very interested if there were any self-identified Greeks (however one wants to define "Greek") in the "support" bloc. There just aren't any. That complete absence of mixing in the composition of the two voting groups at Talk:Greece is very strong evidence that this is a clearly-defined "walled garden". And, Avg, the "abuse" at Talk:Greece has gone in both directions. There are just as many unnecessary attacks thrown in the other direction (for example, this, this, this, this, and this. Here is an example of a supporter of the Athenian POV calling the other position "racist": here. And here is an example of a supporter of the Athenian view using "Greek POV" himself: here. The "Greeks" (as in supporters of the Athenian political position) are not the poor, abused bloc that Avg is claiming they are. (Taivo (talk) 19:59, 4 April 2009 (UTC)) Mankind has learned nothing from his foibles as the backround "philosophical" catalysts in this discussion are precisely those which have lead to so many wars. (and I'm not talking about our ephemeral and inconsequential "edit-wars".) Sad. •Jim62sch•dissera! 21:03, 4 April 2009 (UTC) Disruption of Wikipedia continues This is appalling [52]. Mass changing article names without consensus and exactly when there is a poll discussing this very issue. Also look at his edit summary where he threatens to edit war another administrator until one gets banned. Someone please enforce WP:ARBMAC on him.--Avg (talk) 17:42, 4 April 2009 (UTC) Some diff's, please, on the renaming of articles? And until you face up to the POV-pushing of your fellow Greeks, you are in no position to complain. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 18:50, 4 April 2009 (UTC) There are so many I simply linked to his contributions. I'll shortly edit this with diffs. Oh and if you think there is POV pushing going on, provide your diffs please and drop the empty and offensive accusations of which I've had enough already. Thank you.--Avg (talk) 18:59, 4 April 2009 (UTC) The solid Greek voting bloc is not an accusation, it's a demonstrated reality, so drop the empty and offensive accusations, of racism and ethnic profiling, of which I've had enough already. Thank you. :) Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 19:05, 4 April 2009 (UTC) Kekrops, whose user name is actually written in the Greek alphabet, himself called this voting bloc the "Greek POV" on several occasions. (See the link at the end of the previous subsection for just one example.) He also identified "Greek expatriates" as a solid voting bloc in another post. (Taivo (talk) 20:09, 4 April 2009 (UTC)) It would be excellent if you could provide those diff's, as it would nail this one down. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 20:22, 4 April 2009 (UTC) Yeah, nail this one down! Drutasgub (talk) 21:10, 4 April 2009 (UTC) Speaking of "nailed", the above sock was nailed to the wall 8 minutes after creation. Some editors have mighty enemies. My enemies are more like... well, like that guy: Mosquitoes to be swatted. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 21:24, 4 April 2009 (UTC) Please find below a detailed list of User:Future Perfect at Sunrise disruptive editing in the last few days. This has been going for quite some time. Let me note (you can check yourselves) that all the articles below were stable and free of edit wars, until he decided to create controversy. Crystal clear WP:POINT, which, he has after all admitted himself just at the top of this thread. Graecoanatolica macedonica 07:58, 4 April 2009, substituting FYROM for ROM, falsely claiming ROM is the "standard" name. 18:11, 4 April 2009, revert warring, admitting WP:BATTLEGROUND by "challenging" fellow editors and simultaneously insulting User:Dr.K by calling him "these people" List of Greek roads 06:17, 31 March 2009 , substituting FYROM for ROM, falsely claiming it is the "standard" naming, and even better, violating the consensus he had himself set up from October 2007 "as per guidelines"! 16:04, 2 April 2009, revert warring. 16:19, 2 April 2009, revert warring. 20:33, 2 April 2009, revert warring. 16:22, 4 April 2009, revert warring and threatening admin Yannismarou of more disruption "until one of us gets banned" 17:29, 4 April 2009, revert warring. International Bank Account Number 06:00, 31 March 2009, substituting FYROM for ROM, falsely claiming it is the "standard" naming. This is especially obvious here, since the European Committee for Banking Standards itself refers to FYROM, well, as FYROM [53] Geography of Greece 06:03, 31 March 2009, substituting FYROM for ROM, falsely claiming it is the "standard" naming. 06:04, 31 March 2009, more of the same. 09:24, 4 April 2009 , revert warring. Prefectures of Greece 06:07, 31 March 2009, sneakily substituting FYROM for ROM by not even mentioning the change in the edit summary, simply claiming "over-linking". Modern Greek 06:12, 31 March 2009, removed a reference to FYROM altogether stating "still no convincing documentation of any significant numbers here". Having a look at the article history and talk page he seems to frequent the article. He has never expressed such concern, nor the reference to the country has ever been reverted. This edit of his was simply to stir even more controversy. Greek language 06:13, 31 March 2009, substituting FYROM for ROM, falsely claiming it is the "standard" naming. 09:12, 1 April 2009, revert warring stating "rv banned user". Let's note here that Future banned this anonymous user himself. I have to check this further, but from a cursory look at the user's only two contributions, he didn't seem to commit any offense at all. He simply changed back ROM to FYROM. If this is the case then we have a clearcut abuse of admin tools to win an argument by Future Perfect of Sunrise. Unless he's kind enough to explain exactly what he did and why he did it. National Bank of Greece 11:46, 31 March 2009, substituting FYROM for ROM, falsely claiming it is the "standard" naming. 11:46, 31 March 2009, more of the same Vinča culture 11:50, 31 March 2009, substituting FYROM for ROM, falsely claiming it is the "standard" naming. Staffordshire University 11:50, 31 March 2009, substituting FYROM for ROM, falsely claiming it is the "standard" naming. 2008 civil unrest in Greece 11:43, 26 March 2009, reverting FYROM to ROM, falsely claiming it is the "standard" naming. 14:05, 26 March 2009, revert warring and accusing User:NikoSilver of "near-vandalism" (!) 07:05, 27 March 2009. revert warring and falsely adding "rv banned user". However the user was not banned. 12:21, 27 March 2009, revert warring. 14:04, 1 April 2009, revert warring, falsely claiming that ROM is "standard practice" and additionally claiming that "incidentally ROM was the stable version from the beginning of the article" (which, incidentally, didn't seem to entertain his thoughts when changing the stable versions in all the other articles). In any case, his "incidental" claim was, again, false [54]. 14:21, 1 April 2009, revert warring. 05:28, 2 April 2009, revert warring and explicitly claiming that there is no consensus (hence that himself is making POV edits). Greece 09:27, 2 April 2009, revert warring, again claiming lack of consensus (forgetting to mention of course that Editors are strongly discouraged from editing for the sole purpose of changing one controversial name to another. If an article name has been stable for a long time, and there is no good reason to change it, it should remain.) 09:31, 2 April 2009, revert warring. 10:45, 2 April 2009, revert warring, and basically the primary culprit that Greece is now a fully protected page. Minorities in Greece 07:36, 4 April 2009, again sneakily substituting FYROM with ROM under the misleading title "reduce overlinking and reduncancies". This one is extremely interesting because he substitutes "Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia" with "neighboring Republic of Macedonia", basically admitting that "Republic of Macedonia" is not enough a disambiguation when Greek Macedonia is in the same context. European Union Monitoring Mission 07:54, 4 April 2009, reverting FYROM to ROM, falsely claiming it is the "standard" naming. Additionally, the EU, of course, recognizes FYROM as FYROM. Humanitarian Overseas Service Medal 07:56, 4 April 2009, reverting FYROM to ROM, falsely claiming it is the "standard" naming and of course ignoring that Australia refers to FYROM as FYROM and the organization delivering the medal itself refers solely to FYROM [55] Mediterranean Cosmos 08:02, 4 April 2009, reverting FYROM to ROM, falsely claiming it is the "standard" naming. Since the mall is in Thessaloniki, this is another one of the extremely interesting ones: He again substitutes "Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia" with "neighboring Republic of Macedonia", basically admitting that "Republic of Macedonia" is not enough a disambiguation when Greek Macedonia is in the same context. Drosato (Kilkis), Greece 08:05, 4 April 2009, reverting FYROM to ROM, falsely claiming it is the "standard" naming. Marija Šerifović 08:06, 4 April 2009, reverting FYROM to ROM, falsely claiming it is the "standard" naming. Moreover, this paragraph is clearly referring to the Eurovision Song Contest, on which FYROM is mentioned exclusively as FYROM. 67th Academy Awards nominees and winners 08:07, 4 April 2009, reverting FYROM to ROM, falsely claiming it is the "standard" naming. 2007 Fort Dix attack plot 08:08, 4 April 2009, reverting FYROM to ROM, falsely claiming it is the "standard" naming. Kostas Novakis 08:11, 4 April 2009, reverting FYROM to ROM, falsely claiming it is the "standard" naming. Outline of Greece 08:13, 4 April 2009, reverting FYROM to ROM, falsely claiming it is the "standard" naming. Kratero 08:25, 4 April 2009, reverting FYROM to ROM, under the sneaky title "restructuring". Istituto Superiore Internazionale di Scienze Criminali 08:27, 4 April 2009, reverting FYROM to ROM, falsely claiming it is the "standard" naming. The Istituto itself, of course refers to FYROM as FYROM [56], but that wouldn't stop Future. Traian Stoianovich 08:29, 4 April 2009, reverting FYROM to ROM, falsely claiming it is the "standard" naming. Again, let me stress that these changes were made in the past few days, when the community was debating these very issues. He didn't even have the courtesy to wait for the outcome of this debate and any possible consensus or suggestions from uninvolved administrators or editors. It is obvious User:Future Perfect at Sunrise shows zero respect for the Wikipedia process. --Avg (talk) 23:50, 4 April 2009 (UTC) Commendable performance by Future Perfect, making more articles comply with WP:MOS#Internal consistency despite the tediousness of the task. Let's hope that Greece will appear on that list soon enough. Húsönd 00:31, 5 April 2009 (UTC) 'Greece is the time, is the place, is the motion; Greece is the way we are feeling...' HalfShadow 00:50, 5 April 2009 (UTC) I don't know if you need a spelling dictionary, a movie guide or just my sympathy. Dr.K. logos 04:22, 5 April 2009 (UTC) What does the "Fort Dix Attack Plot" have anything at all to do with Greece and its POV? Not a single thing. The problem with Avg's list is that it is not a critical list, it is just a general witchhunt of everything that Future Perfect has done over the last few days. It uncritically combines changes to articles that have a legitimate Greek relevance with articles that have nothing whatsoever Greek about them and where FYROM should be changed to Wikipedia-standard ROM. And Traian Stoianovich was Macedonian and not even Greek! The criteria for using FYROM are (with consensus) 1) articles on international organizations that use FYROM internally and (without consensus) 2) articles specifically on Greece. The Fort Dix Attack Plot is neither and Traian Stoianovich is even Macedonian! So Avg's list is flawed from the beginning and illustrates that he is not interested in an objective examination of Future Perfect's editing with relation to Greek-related articles, but in a witchhunt. (Taivo (talk) 04:04, 5 April 2009 (UTC)) ec Greece (the country) has a POV? Talking about POV gone wild. Dr.K. logos 04:22, 5 April 2009 (UTC) And just to show to what extent the Greek POV is being pushed beyond the borders of Greece, we have Future Perfect's edit to Marija Šerifović being put forward by Avg as an example. The use of FYROM (if it should be used at all) should not extend beyond the borders of Greece. I find Avg's list to be POV-pushing to the extreme. (Taivo (talk) 04:13, 5 April 2009 (UTC)) Of course Greece (the country, the government) has a POV. That POV is that ROM is unacceptable as a name and that FYROM is a compromise for international purposes. Kekrops, for example, has used the phrase "Greek POV" on several occasions to describe the position of Greece on this issue. Is he wrong? (Taivo (talk) 04:33, 5 April 2009 (UTC)) A country doesn't have POV. It has foreign policy. WP:POV refers to individuals. I don't know what Kekrops meant by his statement but I am sure he wouldn't mistake foreign policy with POV. Dr.K. logos 04:45, 5 April 2009 (UTC) Then I will use the phrase "Greek POV" to refer to the POV of the individuals in this discussion who espouse the "foreign policy" position of Greece. Otherwise, my comments on the "Greek POV gone wild" are still relevant--Avg's list includes many entries that have nothing to do with Greece--it is just a case of someone with a Greek POV trying to infuse FYROM in places where it is not relevant. And unless you've examined each of Kekrops' statements, I wouldn't be so sure of his intent. I've looked at most of them within the last few hours and my impression of his intent is not the same as yours. (Taivo (talk) 05:32, 5 April 2009 (UTC)) I agree with the corrected terminology but I disagree with the quotes around "foreign policy". I also don't agree with the notion that Avg tries to infuse FYROM in some places where it does not belong. This is too against WP:AGF. This can equally well be attributed to his lack of knowledge of the finer NC policy points. After all we are all editors in an open wiki. It would be naive to think that he would try to underhandedly infuse things into articles without knowing that he would be scrutinised and corrected by his peers. I didn't check Avg's contribs but the charge of infusion entails that he edit warred trying to infuse FYROM in these articles. Did he do that? Or did he just list the articles, which is just a passive reaction and not related to infusion? I really believe in WP:AGF because it also has the added advantage that it lowers the temperature of a debate. It is beneficial to the wiki and to the discourse when the temperature remains as low as possible, especially in an overheated topic such as this. As far as Kekrops I have not examined his edits and I won't because it is something that I just find too boring to do. But I still believe that the difference between POV and foreign policy is not really hard to understand, therefore maybe he was just being careless, if what you suggest about him is valid. Dr.K. logos 06:34, 5 April 2009 (UTC) If this were just a discussion on an article Talk page, I could assume good faith. But this is a formal accusation of misconduct against Future Perfect. If you are going to accuse someone you better do an extra careful job of getting your evidence accurate. Given the blanket accusation and the total lack of any restraint on Avg's part in publishing the above list, I can only assume one of two things: 1) Avg is so bent on "nailing" Future Perfect that he doesn't care whether what he posts is relevant or not and is on a witchhunt, or 2) he is ignorant of what he is posting and shouldn't be posting anything if he doesn't know what it is. Either way, he has shown an utter lack of veracity and seriousness in posting totally irrelevant information in this accusation. (Taivo (talk) 09:33, 5 April 2009 (UTC)) I don't know how else to put it but Taivo it seems you either do not understand the issue or you're trying to divert from it. For all these articles above, you will not see me "infusing" FYROM in any of them (although of course I'm considering helping in tackling Fut.Perf. disruption - but only when the community has decided). I only did a single test revert of Fut.Perf. to explain to him he'sacting against consensus, he simply reverted me back immediately. It was of no use. So what I am doing is flagging someone else mass-reverting stable articles and revert warring to push their POV, without consensus, explicitly stating WP:POINT and offending a whole ethnic group at the process. It is unacceptable and I urge Wikipedia to deal with it.--Avg (talk) 11:44, 5 April 2009 (UTC) It is evidently useless to even try to debate Avg on the merits of these edits at this point. Avg can only be dealt with on the behavior dimension, which needs admin intervention. Unfortunately, Wikipedia's NPA policy prevents me from effectively talking about Avg's behaviour and its causes. Can somebody please, please now intervene here and get this person off our backs? Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:52, 5 April 2009 (UTC) I wish it was just Avg that was the problem. Let me point out one example of the sheer absurdity of what's going on here. A Greek editor reverted Fut. Perf. on Graecoanatolica macedonica - an article about an extinct snail. What's the argument here? - that because the snail used to live in Greece, it has to conform to the Greek POV on the naming issue? This is turning into an outbreak of mass insanity. -- ChrisO (talk) 09:26, 5 April 2009 (UTC) Before you go on a rampage I inform you that Future issued what I thought was a friendly challenge on Yannis' talk page as in here:[57]. Unfortunately I took, in good humour, the bait and I became collateral damage. My full reply to Yannis on this incident is here. Your should moderate your tone and your near ad-hominem attacks. Dr.K. logos 11:39, 5 April 2009 (UTC) (add) And in case you wonder where the insanity is coming from, edits like this one and this one are occurring daily on articles across Wikipedia - not just those relating to Greece. Unfortunately we seem to have an endemic and systematic problem with disruptive Greek nationalism. -- ChrisO (talk) 09:39, 5 April 2009 (UTC) Just for the record, the snail one was supposed to be a joke on Tassos' part. I had sort of provoked that by a semi-jocular message on User talk:Yannismarou. No further problems about this one. Let's let the poor little snail rest in peace now. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:41, 5 April 2009 (UTC) That's the old, chivalrous, Future talking again. I will take the snail and bury it in the garden. The garden happens to be walled. What a coincidence. On second thought I might go fishing with it. It's a great bait, though extinct. Danke Future. Dr.K. logos 11:39, 5 April 2009 (UTC) The snail was prized as an aphrodisiac, and was shelled out in great numbers by those Greek philosophers during their thought-provoking orgies. So, ironically, the snail was extinguished by mass hedonia. :( Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 10:01, 5 April 2009 (UTC) In the same semi-jocular way, I'm sure Future wants the snail to rest in peace, as do all of us. However there is a small difference. He's prepared to edit war for it to rest in peace in "ROM" and not "FYROM".--Avg (talk) 11:59, 5 April 2009 (UTC) Here is mass insanity, the creation of this article. Not only does it have a ridiculous title, which is far more lengthier then need be. But has basically reached the point surpreme political correctness. This page not only represents a major factor of the strong Greek POV here, but also goes as far as calling the Macedonian language, "the Slavic one". AVG is so interested in keeping FYROM, he does not realise that the majority of the English speaking world uses the term "Republic of Macedonia". In the real world 2 of 3 countries recognised ROM and uses that term. Future Perfect, was right in his decisions to revert the names. A concerted effort has been made on behalf of the Greek team, here on wikipedia, to toe "country policy". 100%. Whether or not this is what is recognised in the English speaking world. See here, here and here where an unacceptable POV is represented. PMK1 (talk) 09:38, 5 April 2009 (UTC) Let's please not mix up the country naming issue with the question of that language article, where quite serious reasons for that naming choice existed. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:53, 5 April 2009 (UTC) Actually, according to Ethnologue, the Macedonian speakers in Greece call their language "Slavic", so there is no POV at all present in these references. It may seem that way to a casual observer, but according to a reliable (and non-Greek) source, it is not. (Taivo (talk) 11:58, 5 April 2009 (UTC)) Yeah well, User:PMK1 is not a "casual observer", he's the very person who created a POV fork calling all the Slavophones in Macedonia Aegean Macedonians, with very clear irredentist connotations. Probably you could take it from there.--Avg (talk) 13:00, 5 April 2009 (UTC) It is simple what Future did. He has set himself up to delete any reference of FYROM from anywhere in Wikipedia and change it to ROM. It is so clear, it doesn't need explaining. But the scale of disruption had to be explicitly demonstrated. After all, he's still doing it [58]. Note that this AN/I thread was not initiated by me. Note that the straw poll where consensus was seeked was not initiated by me. Yet, exactly at the same time that the community was deciding on the issue and exactly when he had been reported, he simply continues to act irresponsibly and provocatively (to show the disdain he has for consensus? to prove to everybody he's untouchable?), And of course, he occasionally refers to his favourite "ban" thing. If this is not major disruption, then what is.--Avg (talk) 11:33, 5 April 2009 (UTC) Avg, you need to refer back to that straw poll--it only related to Greece, not to Wikipedia as a whole: [59]. Your list above showed a blatant disregard for discriminating between those articles where FYROM might have been appropriate and those articles where it was absolutely not appropriate. Your complaint about his changing FYROM to Macedonia in articles that have to do with Macedonians and Serbians and not Greeks showed a serious lack of restraint on your part. (Taivo (talk) 12:04, 5 April 2009 (UTC)) Taivo, you are wrong. I suggest you might want to revisit the whole debate. Future unilaterally pronounced the long-term status quo, also catered for in WP:MOSMAC, namely that FYROM can be used in Greece-related articles as "dead". A discussion has started on this, which still has not reached any consensus. The discussion, in case you also missed it, has been expanded to which is the most common English name, ROM or FYROM, per straightforward WP:NCON. So the debate has gone further than Greece-related articles now. He then completely ignored the discussion and started mass reverting. In the process, I've explicitly flagged reverts of his where Wikipedia explicitly mentions we should use FYROM and NOT ROM (see above).--Avg (talk) 12:13, 5 April 2009 (UTC) Sorry, Avg, but the straw poll specifically stated that it related only to Greece--very plainly and clearly. That was never changed. Sure, the discussion ranged beyond Greece, but the straw poll was set up for Greece and nothing more. And you have flagged nothing above. You still include the Fort Dix attack which has absolutely nothing to do with Greece. You still include one article on a Macedonian national that has nothing to do with Greece. You still include one article on a Serbian that has absolutely nothing to do with Greece. Either clean up that list or admit your real motives in listing everything whether it relates to Greece or not. If an article doesn't have Greek content, then it should be changed. And your justification for complaining about the article on the Serbian is particularly silly (sorry, but that's the right word)--she sang in a contest that was sponsored by an organization that has sometimes used FYROM. Get real. And Dr. K has specifically explained how the snail "war" was a misunderstood joke. (Taivo (talk) 12:25, 5 April 2009 (UTC)) Once more, you divert from the subject. From the edits it is clear that Future did a Wikisearch on articles that included FYROM and reverted them all to ROM. Irrespective of content. This is a vigilante approach. You explicitly mention Fort Dix, yes it has nothing to do with Greece, it has everything to do with FPaS reverting and falsely claiming this is the "standard" naming - he put this reason in dozens of reverts - but it is simply not true. With regards to the "particularly silly" edit, it is a well known consensus that in articles referring to organizations that use solely FYROM, as is the Eurovision Song Contest, FYROM will be the name. As a last comment, because I see this happens continuously now, please make up your mind on the basis of the discussion. When behaviors are flagged, you reply with content arguments. When content is flagged, you respond with behavioral arguments. This is a clearcut case of WP:POINT and disrespect of the Wikipedia process and community. As per content, there is a section just above that.--Avg (talk) 12:35, 5 April 2009 (UTC) Actually, your subject is Future Perfect's reverting FYROM where you think it is not appropriate. But as long as you include cases where his reverts were absolutely appropriate, your case is nothing more than a witchhunt. Refer to [60] and you will see that the only place where FYROM is definitely appropriate is in articles on international organizations that use FYROM--not on articles that only mention those organizations. The article on the Serbian singer mentions Macedonia in a sentence that says "She toured these countries". That is not a direct reference to the organization so using Republic of Macedonia in that sentence is absolutely appropriate. The article wasn't about the international organization, it was about a singer. The article on the Macedonian doesn't mention Greece, doesn't mention anything about Greece, doesn't refer to an international organization. Reverting FYROM to ROM is perfectly appropriate there and it is, as Future labelled it, standard usage. And using a search to find FYROM is not "against the rules". It's an appropriate use of Wikipedia's tools to improve Wikipedia. We allow bots to automatically roam Wikipedia at will making automatic changes. Would you rather Future write a bot to change FYROM to ROM everywhere? According to [61] using FYROM in Greece-related articles reached no consensus so your implication that changing it in those articles was "against the rules" is overstated. That is what other admins will decide, but your continued insistence that changing FYROM to ROM in articles that have nothing to do with Greece seriously weakens your position. I can't take any of your accusations seriously as long as you think that changing FYROM to ROM in the Fort Dix bombing article is relevant. (Taivo (talk) 13:00, 5 April 2009 (UTC)) Perfect. This is what I say. Why did FPaS embark in a mass renaming frenzy before the community decides and at the height of this controversy? And he did violate a rule, WP:POINT. This is not an uncontroversial rename or a formatting change, it is a controversial rename and one of the most controversial in Wikipedia today. You cannot simply go about changing one controversial name to another. And for the last time, my position is mainly about behavior. After all, this is why he's been reported at AN/I.--Avg (talk) 13:07, 5 April 2009 (UTC) How many more policies are you going to throw in, hoping that one will stick? FP's actions not only are perfectly valid, as they should also be necessary as per WP:MOS#Internal consistency. Húsönd 17:49, 5 April 2009 (UTC) Funny you mention consistency. That would be correct if he was consistent. But he isn't. He has always accepted that fYRoM is to be used in the international organization cases (see his recent edits at George Panandreou (junior), Greece - United States relations, European Security and Defence policy,White Tower of Thessaloniki among others). And he has continuously been on the side of Macedonia vs Republic of Macedonia in many articles. So he is not consistent. This behavior of his goes far beyond policy. He's leading a war (hell, he has expressly stated it - "until someone gets banned"!). His behavior has to be checked and the sooner the better.--Avg (talk) 18:02, 5 April 2009 (UTC) The behaviour of a few editors on that article needs to be checked. •Jim62sch•dissera! 18:10, 5 April 2009 (UTC) The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Likely vandal at Tupac Shakur

An editor named User:Johnnymurda is causing some disruption in the article over the rapper's past sex offenses. See Johnnymurda's contributions and Talk:Tupac Shakur#Tupac Hater Sesshomaru. (S)he asked for a source, I provided two reliable ones, and yet this user is still acting quite uncivil and is reverting my edits (for no reason really). I am now thinking that this isn't a good faith editor anymore, but purely a disrupter. Some administrative action would make a difference here. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 00:59, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Gave them a first warning on npa and civil editing and agf... Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 01:16, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks man. May you add Tupac Shakur to your watchlist if you haven't already? An extra set of eyes might be fruitful. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 01:22, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Try [62] NYT "Tupac Shakur, the wounded rap performer who was convicted of felony sex-abuse charges last week." which rather seems to state that he was convicted of a felony sex crime. Dozens more cites for the NYT on this. [63] "He served nine months on a sexual-abuse conviction, accused of raping a fan in Manhattan. " He was on bail pending appeal of the felony when he died. Collect (talk) 12:04, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Yeah they're edit warring over a content dispute, see section immediately below this one, "Vandalism by Sesshomaru". KillerChihuahua^?!? 12:53, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Vandalism by Sesshomaru

An editor who goes by the name Sesshomaru has been making falsehood claims about rapper Tupac Shakur of being a sex offender. he/she has not shown any solid proof that the rapper is a sex offender, no documents, no web sites,no nothing. the so called source that Sesshomaru provided were not reliable Enough to Categorized Tupac has a sex offender. Sesshomaru didn't even get this so called source from any web site, it was fake. It's funny how Sesshomaru had a talk with other editor named Wakamusha who has since retired had a discussion back in August 2008 about Tupac being Categorized has a sex offender.see Talk:Tupac_Shakur#Category:American_sex_offenders. Wakamusha and Sesshomaru agreed that tupac should be in the Category:American criminals instead of Category:American sex offenders. now for some reason he/she had a change of heart and decided to put tupac back in the Category:American sex offenders list for whatever reason I don't know. this person is WAY TO OBSESSED CATEGORIZED TUPAC HAS A SEX OFFENDER and it is getting very annoying.Johnnymurda (talk) 01:16, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

You are both guilty of edit warring over a content dispute. Article edit protected for 3 days; I'm not blocking either of you for your WP:3RR violations, but be aware next time it might be different, depending on circumstances and which admin takes a look. You two need to discuss this ont eh article talk page and work things out. KillerChihuahua^?!? 05:23, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't understand Johnnymurda's issue. How do those two links fail WP:RELY and how are they "fake"? The reason (I believe) why Shakur wasn't categorized as a convicted sex offender before was that there was no source explicitly stating it. Now that a few have been added, Johnnymurda is still against the cited facts and reverts for inexplicable reasons. Could someone solve this madness? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 22:59, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

This is what im talking about, Sesshomaru believe's that a person who commits a sexual crime are automatically a registered sex offender.each case is different form the other and Sesshomaru doesn't seem to get that. there are many articals on 2pac that says he was he was convicted of sexual abuse (forcibly touching the buttocks). i'm 100% sure that none of these articals say anything about 2pac being a sex offender..Johnnymurda (talk) 09:17, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

But there are two sites that support my theory. Johnnymurda, if you really think that Rollingstone.com and Streetgangs.com are "unofficial" or "false", you have to back up your claims with very reliable references (and no, your own logic does not count). Inclusively, you still have not explained why Category:Freestyle rappers should be listed on his page twice. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 21:48, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

If you only rely on Rollingstone.com and Streetgangs.com than your not really doing a good job. about the Category:Freestyle rappers i never put that on the tupac artical, so I don't know were you got that from. if you check my Johnnymurda Contributions it will clearly show that I have never put that there, so what are you taking about? Johnnymurda (talk) 12:00, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Still not a valid excuse to disregard those citations. And don't think lying will help your case, you put the category there twice just to annoy me. See this and this. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 23:12, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Your source are so weak it's not even funny. Lying to me is not gonna help your case my friend so don't make an ass out of yourself. I will proof to you that I didn't put the Category:Freestyle rappers on tupac's artical for the last time. I did my investigation on the person who added the Category on tupacs artical. An editor who goes by the name of Therainbow (See:Therainbow Edit) was the frist person to put the Category on there. I didn't even notice that unit you mention it. The Category:Freestyle rappers has been on tupacs artical for close to 2 years now and no one has remove it. you're like an annoying house fly that just won't go away stop it. Johnnymurda (talk) 11:25, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Read WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA. Guess we should continue this nonsense at Talk:Tupac Shakur, and a third opinion might help. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 13:07, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Psb777 telling new editors to game the system/incivility

Psb777 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I would suggest that everyone read this particular diff, where the editor in question, as stated, tells a new editor to game the system.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 22:32, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

You seem to have already made all the correct responses. Prodego ^talk 21:20, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Psb is now personally attacking me, claiming that I have broken several policies without backing up the accusations with diffs or any sort of evidence. He is also now out right denying that he did what was cited in the last diff. In my opinion, it looks as if he's trying to piss me off or frustrate me, and that in itself is disruptive. Can an admin please warn him?— Dædαlus ^Contribs 09:36, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

It seems to me Daedalus ought to start another thread, as the topic of this thread seems to be about something else entirely. I note Daedalus is rather quick to assert he is being personally attacked (and did so recently when a newbie called him a hypocrite), but this is not the thread for it. I ask Daedalus to make his mind up. Does he want to discuss this here, in a new thread, or on my Talk page. I will do one or the other. He has initiated a discussion on my Talk page and has contributed to it there very recently again and again and again. If here, in a new thread, then I suggest we copy all that discussion to that new thread. But I think better not here, as this would be an abuse of process at this stage. Paul Beardsell (talk) 10:12, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

For the record, I deny that I have advised anybody to game the system, and understanding that I have done so requires a lack of a sense of humour, or at least of irony. Also, I abhor the way Daedalus and others treated a newbie, but my comments were not personal, and should not have been understood to have been so. Please, I say this only for the record, claiming merely a right of response, and would very strongly prefer not to continue here. Thank you. Paul Beardsell (talk) 10:12, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

I do have to say though, that humour aside (and I did find it rather amusing), that the assessment given is pretty damn accurate which is probably why it ended up here... after all ANI does tend to be a large calibre! --WebHamster 10:32, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

(Aside from a completely neutral party) A quick scan of the aforementioned editor's history, is illuminating. There appears to be few actual contributions other than verbal parries and thrusts with other editors; is it a case of someone who dotes on confrontations? FWiW Bzuk (talk) 10:06, 4 April 2009 (UTC).

For the avoidance of doubt, to whom do you refer? If you are refering to Daedalus you need to know that far less than that is taken by him to be a persoanl attack. Paul Beardsell (talk) 10:14, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

For clarity's sake, the reference was not to Daedalus969. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 12:01, 4 April 2009 (UTC).

I can be prickly but I think that is undeserved, if not confrontational in itself. Paul Beardsell (talk) 12:48, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

For clarity's sake I was referring to the 'guide to gaming' as being accurate as well as humorous. As far as Daedalus969's threshold for assessment of personal attack, well I have no personal experience so can't comment, but the very nature of WP:NPA and its interpretive nature (not to mention political correctness quotient) is a gift to the naturally thin-skinned and emotionally sensitive... oh, and gamers too ;) --WebHamster 12:40, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

PSB is the guy who came here a week or two ago and griped about how Axmann8 was handled, while at the same time agreeing with his indef-block, so it's hard to figure exactly where he's coming from. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 13:04, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

I fail to see that my lack of transparency (or otherwise - I do at least post under my real name) is a matter to discuss here. One can still applaud the execution of a murderer, or the fining of a litterer, while being concerned about due process. The execution of a litterer? I voted against the banning of Axmann8. If you would like to continue on my home page, or yours, would be a better venue than here. Of if here, please start a new thread. Paul Beardsell (talk) 13:26, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Or, I might just continue to do things my way. As do you. :) And FYI, I voted against Axmann's indef-block, and once it became clear that the socks were fake, I would have voted against the ban also, if it were re-voted. However, his departure was clearly no loss to wikipedia. The mystery over your complaint was just what admin action you expected to be taken. Likewise with your mysterious complaints on that other page, which started this thread. What triggered that? Was it the Axmann case? Was it other things? Was it all the above? What exactly is it that you want to happen or to have done? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 13:45, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Given that Paul didn't actually start this ANI whine-a-thon, your question re what he wants done is pretty much a non sequitur. Wouldn't it be more appropriate that the thread instigator be asked that question? --WebHamster 15:41, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

As noted above, Psb accused several people of breaking several policies, and as seen Psb has refused to back up said claims, hence, as per WP:NPA, they are personal attacks.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 22:07, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

This whole discussion seems childish to me. The initial substance of the complaint seems to be that a humorous note about how to speak unpleasant truths in a civil manner offended someone - mainly because the words 'gaming the system' were spoken. I would assert that the note in question doesn't encourage gaming the system at all. What it really does is suggest using civil language and refraining from personal attacks when making a complaint about someone else's behavior. What real crime has been committed here? Brain Rodeo (talk) 23:31, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

←Moreover, what action is necessary here? Paul does not seem to have deliberately broken any rules, if he has at all. I understand that he has some thoughts about social issues on Wikipedia, but for the most part those thoughts probably belong off ANI at this time. Taking umbrage is generally not a good reason to escalate a disagreement to ANI, and I would suggest that WP:DR has not been adequately followed. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 23:53, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Daedalus969, by having the initiative, however inappropriate, of bringing this action here, and despite his complaint not being upheld (so far), has nevertheless obtained a first mover's advantage. What has escaped being remarked on here is the series of events which led me to advise a new user how to point out hypocrisy without breaking WP etiquette. The giving of that advice is what, purportedly, led D969 to raise this ANI thread. That all seem agreed (thank you) that it is legitimate to pass on such advice has meant that I have not been asked to explain why I did so. Maybe that's because everyone has read the interchange at TPTanque's talk page and at D969's talk page and already knows what happened, and how the accusation of hypocrisy became apposite. A quick summary: TPT, a very new user, attempting in good faith to provide material for the encyclopedia but failing to do so correctly, is curtly and abruptly admonished by more than one administratoruser. It would not be correct to say that the admins users were civil to TPT, and they quickly lost any semblance of assuming good faith. TPT reacted in a way that broke WP etiquette conventions. He was threatened with a block for marking edits "minor"! He was threatened with a block for breaking WP:CIVIL. At which point TPT called an admin D969 a hypocrite. I believe that was fair, but it was no surprise to me that D969 then threatened TPT with a block for breaking WP:NPA. The whole process seemed like two teenage thugs slapping a toddler about. It is that behaviour that is worthy of attention here. Paul Beardsell (talk) 19:48, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

PSB, your interpretations are your own, but you should at least get your facts straight. Up until the apology by Henrik, no admin has been involved except me and I gave two warnings, neither of which "slapped" him about. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 23:44, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Just to be clear, your (Jauerback's) comments show very clearly, but still cordially and civilly, that a certain behavior is problematic and needs to stop. I have no problems with that; the main problem was earlier interactions by others, which in my humble opinion, needlessly escalated the situation. Those were however not done by admins. henrik•talk 05:28, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, it seems I may have misunderstood Daedalus969's use of "another admin" here to be a claim by him to be an admin. I've made corrections which might satisfy Jauerback. Now that my account is more accurate, Jauerback, what do you think of the behaviour which I describe? Paul Beardsell (talk) 07:13, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

I honestly hadn't read through the entire interaction between all the editors involved prior to yesterday, but I would say the above assessments are accurate. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 10:47, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

I wonder if Daedalus969 would like to acknowledge the consensus which has emerged here. Paul Beardsell (talk) 23:07, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Paul, your attitude strikes me as smugly self-satisfied. Brain Rodeo (talk) 01:08, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Montanabw: Disruptive Behavior (?)

Resolved

 – Major "Plaxico" - Complainant found to be operating sock farm

I am facing some difficult behavior from Monatanbw regarding the progress I am trying to make on Rodeo and Rodeo in the United States. She has insulted me several times, descends on the talk pages with an abrupt, bullying stance that I am not accustomed to, and has nominated one article for AfD only to have community consensus approve keeping the article. I have invited her to contribute to the articles but she has refused. She protests that she doesn't have the time to contribute but she daily drops unsettling messages on personal talk pages and article talk pages that essentially rehash her protests that she knows better than everyone else and everyone else is wrong. I'm finding her behavior disruptive. I cite high grade reliable secondary sources from university press publications, major news publications, and materials from respected publishers. Apparently, her personal observations and experiences with rodeo trump such high grade sources. I am afraid to access WP. I am afraid to contribute. My teacher and friends at school agree that she is "making life difficult". We are stymied. What can I do to relieve the fear I feel approaching WP and how can I make progress on these articles? What am I doing wrong? Thanks! Buttermilk1950 (talk) 12:33, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

This archived section of this page appears to relate to this entry. Tonywalton ^Talk 13:14, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Buttermilk has been impossible to work with and any attempts by others to improve those articles are quickly reverted. This editor appears to have an agenda and while going though the motions of asking for help and consensus, has not listened and continues to revert, move or change those articles at whim. - Josette (talk) 16:15, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

If anyone wants to see who the real bully is, see my talk page. - Josette (talk) 16:54, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

That was one sad, sorry incident. I admitted my error, apologized and asked your forgivenss. I hope that one sorry incident won't be held against me forever. The issue here, however, is the ongoing situations created by Montanabw, the posts to article and user talk pages. This is the issue. I am afraid other editors wanting to contribute to the rodeo articles will read her posts and be "scared off". She has been invited time and again to contribute but she refuses. Instead, she explicably chooses to drop bitter posts our way. ItsLassieTime (talk) 18:03, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Who is ItsLassieTime?????? - Josette (talk) 18:06, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

This is the first time I have seen this user. What is up with this? - Josette (talk) 18:25, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

I am Angela's mother and I really don't like what you're doing to her. She wrote the above after I logged on. I'm going to supervise this business from now on. Her father died six months ago and she has found some little pleasure in writing her articles. She is depressed and not herself after being buffeted about by the likes of you. Someone on YOUR talk page told her to "shut the fuck up". I don't like that. Read my lips: I. Don't. Like. That. IMVHO, it reflects very poorly on you that you'd let anyone rant at a child in such a filthy manner on your talk page. I don't like having others threaten Angela with such filth. She apologized to you. Can't you forgive her? What do you need? Is it too much to hope an "experienced editor" will forgive a 16 child who made a mistake? Or is that too generous for you? I have followed Angela's course here and she is doing fine. And others think so, too. So. Knock. It. Off. You owe her an apology. Especially for that filth on your talk page. Don't come back at me with something like, "If you can'r run with the big dogs, stay on the porch." Your behavior as an "experienced editor" is absolutely disgraceful. You should be ashamed of yourself. Now, run to the admins completely outraged that a mother would dare to defend her child from the likes of you and the filthy mouthed crowd you run with. ItsLassieTime (talk) 19:19, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

ItsLassieTime, outing someone's real name and age, particularly regarding a minor, is probably not the best thing you could do here. Regarding the "filth" on the talkpage, could you please provide a diff? Tonywalton ^Talk 19:31, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

No, because I don't know a diff is. The FILTH was somewhere near the bottom of the page the last I looked. ItsLassieTime (talk) 20:33, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

A "diff" is the "difference" between two edits; see Help:diff. It can be used to substantiate accusations made on here, such as the one you're making. What I'm asking for is basically (at least) the name of the page you're referring to and who made the edit. Is this on User talk:ItsLassieTime, User talk:Buttermilk1950 or what? Tonywalton ^Talk 20:56, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Oddness. LassieTime appears to understand a host of wikipedia policies (AfD, talk space, GA, etc), yet claims to not know what a DIFF is. Dayewalker (talk) 21:05, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

I'll say the same thing I did to your daughter - "In my years of editing on WP (since 2006), no one has ever spoken to me in the tone you have chosen to use. My good faith edits to these articles and to you have been appropriate, civil and beneficial to the encyclopedia. I am sorry if you can not see that." - Josette (talk) 19:34, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry but for "experienced editor" you should be setting an example. Rather than slashing sectyions from article and changing article names, as an experienced editor you should be taking your concerns to the talk page. First. I must be crazy for having to explain this to a high falutin' "experienced editor". For you to allow anyone to bash a child with FILTH like the FILTH are your talk page is disgusting! Someone you run with bash my child with FILTH on your talk page and you should be ashamed of yourself. ItsLassieTime (talk) 20:33, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

ItsLassieTime, every editor is responsible for their own actions and edits. Therefore, I would ask that each person use their own account, to avoid confusing others. Additionally, if there are any other accounts you want to tell us about, now would be a good time. This responsibility also means that anyone editing Wikipedia will have to expect conflicts with others, and be able to handle them maturely. Disagreements happen, and if users can't work together with others, then their potential to a collaborative project such as Wikipedia is in question. Failure to collaberate seems to be a common complaint against both of your accounts. Additionally, your comments above could certainly be construed as an attack, and I would ask you please consider how your comments will be taken. Additionally, Josette did not make the comment that you are offended by, that was Giano. You can't blame people for things they didn't do. Josette hasn't done anything wrong, so far as I can tell. If there is something you are saying she did wrong, please let us know. Prodego ^talk 19:47, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

No accounts that I know of. Neighbors gave the computer to me after my husband died six months ago and they moved to San Jose. I am not really computer savvy so I don't know what's on this thing. I understand Josette slashed whole sections and title changed Rodeo articles without consensus. My daughter overreacted. But with everything she has suffered from others on the Rodeo articles I'm not surprised she reacted the way she did. Angela apologized for her error, but Josette has not found it in her hard little heart to forgive a child. Pathetic. ItsLassieTime (talk) 20:33, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

An editor is an editor. Period. Age doesn't matter. If someone makes an edit, and you disagree with it, talk to that editor. If someone disagrees with that edit, they comment on it. That is the way it works. Please tone down your comments, you don't want people think you are attacking others. Prodego ^talk 20:53, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

For me, the best way forward would be to concentrate on the content. Both Montana and Buttermilk clearly care deeply about the article and they're both knowledgeable, committed, energetic editors. They got off on the wrong foot, and they're coming at the article from somewhat different angles, but I don't feel their positions are irreconcilable.

I'd encourage them to put aside all discussion related to personalities and past events, and to start to talk about where they'd like to see the rodeo articles going. Perhaps the balance between Rodeo and Rodeo in the United States could be addressed first, followed by discussion about the content and structure of each article. I'm sure there's common ground to be found, and I'd urge everyone to concentrate on finding it. --MoreThings (talk) 17:31, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Could a checkuser compare ItsLassieTime with Buttermilk1950, please? Someone seems to have made a classic error above. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 19:09, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

You're right. >:) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 19:30, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps MoreThings also wouldn't mind being checked. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 19:11, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm not entirely sure what a checkuser is/does. As I understand it, it's basically an ip check and you want to verify whether or not I'm Buttermilk1950/ItsLassieTime. If that's the case, please go ahead. If there's more to it than an ip check, please let me know before proceeding. --MoreThings (talk) 19:34, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

An IP check's basicallly what it is. See Wikipedia:CheckUser. Tonywalton ^Talk 19:41, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm happy to have a checkuser run against me. I'd like to point out that SlimVirgin's request was based on a misreading of the chronology of the postings. I'd also like to ask one of the admins to reformat this page to make the chronology more readily apparent. Please see my reply at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/ItsLassieTime for details. --MoreThings (talk) 20:26, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

• I've posted a CU request — Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Buttermilk1950. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 19:29, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

 Confirmed that Buttermilk1950 and ItsLassieTime are related; Checkuser investigation is continuing. Risker (talk) 19:55, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

• Wow! Super-sleuth! I admitted an hour ago my daughter and I use the same computer. ItsLassieTime (talk) 20:07, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Having run into ItsLassieTime multiple times before, the ownership issues are seriously dead on. She did the same crap with all the Lassie articles, driving of every editor who actually wanted to improve them. So would not be suprised at all if both are the same people. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 19:36, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

• Yes, there were two editors on the "Lassie" article. You and me. What distressed me was the way you pushed for AfD regarding Ruth Martin (Lassie). Under my "pen", that article attained GA status. No thanks to you. You were only to willing to see it and several other Lassie related articles deleted. Community consensus thought otherwise. ItsLassieTime (talk) 20:33, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

There were more than two, until you kept refusing to let anyone do anything you didn't like. But yeah, you got it to GA...and oh, wait, it was GARed almost immediately and to be cleaned up by many others to survive that. And please don't go around trying to claim you know anything about what I was "willing" to see or wanted to do. From all your responses here, I see your attitude hasn't changed at all. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 20:48, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

From the histories, [64] [65] someone with a suspicious mind might think that the one simply forgot which signon they were using. Notice that the same mistake was made in the Rodeo article: [66] It's worth pointing out that Buttermilk1950 was created on March 11th. The third user, MoreThings, was created on March 25, and has crossover on the same subject, as one would expect. [67] The first two are going to show as the same IP, most likely, since they've already pre-empted that point with an explanation, both here and on the inquiring admin's page. [68] The third one is going to be the interesting one, given the inquiry by that third user above, along with the attempt by ItsLassieTime to get them to drop the checkuser - because who knows what it might uncover. >:) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 19:54, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Curiouser and curiouser... Kafka Liz (talk) 20:09, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

• PLEASE! Don't waste you time! I've already admitted that my daughter and I use the SAME COMPUTER! Stop the investigation! We. Use. The. Same. Com. Pu. Ter. I logged on and after discussing the situation for twenty minutes with Angela, she used my account. Neither one of us paid any attention to whose account was up. Yes, GUILTY as charged! ItsLassieTime (talk) 20:07, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

• I can't stay. The timer went off on the dryer and the clothes need to be folded. This issue is about Montanabw so get your thinking caps on and tackle that problem. Leave my daughter alone, stop bashing her, and stop the filthy language. ItsLassieTime (talk) 20:33, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

• You could ask Buttermilk to fold the clothes for you, given that you've been so helpful to him here. :-D SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 20:36, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

• You posted as Buttermilk using the word "I," the classic sock error. [69] In addition, it's been clear from the writing that Buttermilk is probably not 16 as claimed. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 20:12, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

• The user's begging for the investigation to stop suggests that the investigation should continue. There's no harm or time wasted to the user to have the investigation continue - unless it might uncover additional evidence. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 20:19, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

There's been an admission that the same IP is used - I can't see that the CU brings anything to the discussion. If not sockpuppetry though it looks a lot like (to be PC) WP:TEAMWORK. Tonywalton ^Talk 20:56, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Keep in mind that those Axman socks from last weekend all "admitted" to being his socks, when they were fake. Similarly, admitting to something that's true, too readily, could be an attempt to distract from other facts. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 21:27, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

One thing that makes things easier is that MoreThings gave away his IP address 81.86.40.39 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) posting on the SPI page a little bit ago: [70] That's a U.K. address, which squares with his identifying 17:31 as 6:31 his time (UTC minus 12 plus 1 for summer-time). Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 21:10, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

• Joe Friday star of "Dragnet". ItsLassieTime (talk) 21:19, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Yes, and what type of car did he drive? P.S. How's the laundry coming? All the socks put away yet? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 21:26, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
    • And it's true that I've got a nose just like a bloodhound. >:) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 21:28, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
      • As for the Angela thing... let's see... Angela Cartwright... played June Lockhart's daughter in Lost in Space... June Lockhart played Timmy's mother in Lassie... Shazam! Kevin Bacon's ears are burning. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 21:31, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

• So fire me. Like I'm PAID to write GA articles for WP. ItsLassieTime (talk) 21:53, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Let's stop the Agatha Christie stuff for the moment

OK people, this seems like it's turning into a game of Cluedo. Let's get back to the basics, ignoring (for the moment) interesting issues of timezones, socks (puppet type), socks (in the dryer) and all the rest. We have an accusation of disruptive editing by Montanabw by Buttermilk1950 which perhaps should be addressed first, before we turn to the much more interesting issues of whether Buttermilk is ItsLassieTime, whether MoreThings is involved, and all the other nonsense above. Tonywalton ^Talk 21:28, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

That issue was covered previously as well. Prodego ^talk 21:33, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

When stuff is brought to AN/I, the entire circumstance should get examined, not just the initial allegation made. I think this thread is pretty clearly showing where the problem lies here with respect to interactions between Montanabw and ItsLassieTime/Buttermilk1950/etc. (I have to wonder if there are more accounts this user is willing to acknowledge... now that they have admitted the ILT and B accounts are linked, perhaps they will acknowledge others as well?)... Buttermilk1950's history of contributions since the Buttermilk 1950 account started editing has had some good stuff, but far far more of it has been wholesale change of articles with little or no consensus to do so, and other non collegial actions, including doing all the things that they accuse Montanabw of doing, and a far less cooperative (almost wholly uncooperative?) approach to working with other editors than we accept. Montanabw (and many others) have tried to work with this editor, unsuccessfully. As review of the talk pages will show. ++Lar: t/c 21:43, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, which is why I said "for the moment". We have an allegation which is being lost in "interesting" stuff about washing in the dryer, what timezone users are in... It's possible, even probable, that those are a deliberate attempt at obfuscating the issue and should, I agree, be investigated. The comment below by ItsLassieTime is a case in point. However, Prodego, it seems that the issue has not been covered. Had it been, this lot wouldn't be happening. I have two alternative suggestions (without prejudice to further action against Buttermilk and/or ItsLassieTime for disruption here).

1. A 7 day topic ban on Buttermilk950 on editing anything equestrian
2. A similar 7 day topic ban on both Buttermilk950 and Montanabw, who does seem to show signs of wishing to own articles.

Personally my view would be "block the flaming lot of them except Montanabw, who seems to have been targetted unfairly", but consensus is always a better idea than blusher. Tonywalton ^Talk 22:13, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

I think you forgot to number that third one. :) It's my choice as well... ++Lar: t/c 22:16, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

• And I'll thank you to quit hassling my daughter! She's 16. You and your wife should be ashamed of yourselves. ItsLassieTime (talk) 21:53, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
  • A few points... 1) there has been no "hassling" of Buttermilk1950, or this ItsLassieTime account, or any of your other accounts (whatever they may be), by me or my wife. The hassle has flown the other way. Pointing out behavioural or POV issues is not hassling anyone, although what you did on my wife's page, was, as MBisanz rightly pointed out to you. 2) If you have an issue with Giano II, the editor who admonished Buttermilk1950 for their unacceptable behaviour, you should take it up with that editor on their talk page. Do not hold anyone else accountable. 3) Wikipedia welcomes all editors who wish to calmly abide by the norms, rules, and policies of the site, regardless of age. However, it does not make special allowances for age. Everyone is expected to abide by the same policies, regardless of their age, and if they cannot act in an adult manner, they will be asked to discontinue editing. It comes down to this: Stop the personal attacks, and begin editing collegially, or you may find this account asked to discontinue editing as well. ++Lar: t/c 22:08, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

I would go further than that, Lar. I will not ask ItsLassieTime to discontinue editing disruptively, I will tell her. ItsLassieTime, please cease your disruptive editing in this thread. Refrain from issuing personal attacks in the form of accusations which you are not prepared or able to substantiate. Refrain from disrupting the formation of consensus by the introduction of irrelevant material. If you have germane, substantiated additions to make please do so. If you disrupt this thread further I will block you. Tonywalton ^Talk 22:38, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

• I have no idea what's on this computer. It belonged to neighbors and the kids used to play on it. So who knows what's on it. ItsLassieTime (talk) 22:05, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
  • What was the date of the supposed transfer? ++Lar: t/c 22:13, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

• So fire me. Like I'm PAID to write GA articles for WP. And my investigation of the talk pages reveals Montanabw is a ... well, I'm not going to say it because I'm a Christan woman. ItsLassieTime (talk) 22:05, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
  • At the very least, aside from resorting to the various classic copouts used by sockpuppeteers, you've actually admitted to having compromised accounts, which typically would result in indef-blocks. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 22:17, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
  • "Montanabw is a ..." ... saint???? ... for putting up with someone coming in and playing havoc with the articles she's worked hard on for many years, (doing things like leading compromises in wording where there was contention, sourcing unsourced material, reverting vandalism and the like), and for offering, repeatedly, to work with other editors, including this one... there are repeated offers in the history to work with Buttermilk1950, to incorporate new material and new ideas, but Buttermilk1950 spurned this, POV forked things, made large numbers of somewhat disruptive edits and then asserted ownership of their own, and in general has been a rather disagreeable editor to try to work with. Many have tried, and I have in the past done things to try to help, but my patience is rather exhausted. Montanabw is not perfect, none of us are, and perhaps has a bit too much pride of authorship sometimes, but Montanabw is not the problem editor here. This initial claim (the one that started the thread) should be dismissed. ++Lar: t/c 22:30, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
    • If Lassie (who biologically is a... well, never mind) comes out and confesses to being Auntie Em, it's time to shut this down and block some socks. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 22:37, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Proposal

I propose a ban on Buttermilk1950 editing any equestrian-related article for 14 days (expiry 18-19 April; I'm not getting snarky about timezones). This ban not to include article talkpage edits or edits on user talkpages regarding such subjects, as long as overriding policy is followed. During this period I would ask Buttermilk1950 and Montanabw to engage in discussion rather than conflict about edits and the rationale behind them.

I would urge Buttermilk1950 and Montanabw to take any further disputes to mediation immediately they occur, rather than allowing them to become out of control.

I would note that any further sockpuppetry, disruptive editing, harassment and/or WP:TEAMWORK from User:ItsLassieTime will lead to revocation of editing privileges. Tonywalton ^Talk 23:29, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

• Do you think I'd come back after a 14 day ban? I don't need WP. Bye! Buttermilk1950 (talk) 23:43, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

• This is the song that never ends... MuZemike 00:52, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

• (non-admin) Support - behave or begone, a simple rule a parent should comprehend. //roux   7:38 pm, Today (UTC−4) I posted this over an hour ago, not sure when or how it was removed. //roux   00:59, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Checkuser results found 4 other socks. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 15:01, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

So that must mean that CheckUser confirms that the user is a socker mom. MuZemike 18:58, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

WOW! If there was a barnstar for puns, I'd be pinning it on you right now! :) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 19:13, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

WHAAAT?? I never thought of you as a barnstar affixionado. *slap* MuZemike 19:43, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

The affix is in. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 23:02, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Statement by MoreThings

For the record, I'd like to lay out the details of this fun-filled evening as seen from my point of view.

• user:Buttermilk1950 opens a thread regarding her relationship with user:Montanabw. She notes this at the rodeo articles, where I have been participating.

• I post to the thread when it contains exactly 3 posts, none of them by user:ItsLassieTime. This is how the page looked after my post:

• user:ItsLassieTime now posts—after me but above me—making it look as though my reply came after hers. This is how the board looks now, with my post below hers.

• In her post, ItsLassieTime has spoken as though she were Buttermilk1950 raising suspicion that she is a sockpuppet.

• user:Josette sees what has happened and makes a couple of posts raising the alarm.

• user:SlimVirgin now misreads the thread and assumes that I posted after ItsLassieTime. As my post made no mention of the sockpupet allegations (which were not there when I posted it), she appears to conclude that I was attempting to muddy the waters and cover ItsLassieTime's tracks. She files a CU request: "I've posted a CU request..." and "Perhaps MoreThings also wouldn't mind being checked" [71] and raises a checkuser request naming me and ItsLassieTime as suspected sockpuppets. [72]. In the request the implication is that ItsLassieTime made a mistake, and I came along shortly afterwards to make an obfuscatory post. As described above, my post was made before ItsLassieTime's. I respond to the request pointing out that SlimVirgin is mistaken about the chronology.

• On the incident board, I respond to Slimvirgin asking for clarification of exactly what a checkuser entails [73]

• Back on the checkuser board, this causes to user:Baseball Bugs to observe "MoreThings is an intersting angle" and speculate that I might be asking for clarification because I'm worried. [74]

• Having read WP:checkuser, I confirm that I'm happy to have a checkuser run against me.

• Baseball bugs makes a reference [75], which I find incomprehensible, to something he claims I have said - "that was MoreThing words". I can make neither head nor tail of his reference.

• I post asking him for clarification.[76]

• 11. That's it.

The checkuser on me has come back negative. That result has been posted on the checkuser board, but not here. I have had no contact with any of the admins involved. My questions on the checkuser board are unanswered.

So, good fun guys. I can see why it looked suspicious at first glance. But surely you could take a couple of minutes to check the facts before diving into filing reports and asking for checkusers. And it's not particularly cool of you to carry on conversations about me on the checkuser board, which I was obviously reading, and totally ignore my input and requests for clarification.

Cheers, --MoreThings (talk) 01:29, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Apologies, MoreThings, that I did not repeat here that the checkuser came back as "unrelated". Having looked at the SPI page, I believe that your questions were directed to BaseballBugs, and hope that he will respond to you there. Risker (talk) 01:59, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

I'd like to endorse MoreThings statement of the order of events, and apologise if I caused any of the confusion. ++Lar: t/c 02:09, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

No worries, guys. I'm going to get some kip :)--MoreThings (talk) 02:18, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

I meant Lassie was worried, not MoreThings. Lassie seemed desparate to stop the investigation. And MoreThings made reference to sockpuppets as if it were a given, which sounded odd. That's what that was about. Meanwhile, I see Buttermilk has been indef-blocked, so hopefully dat's dat. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 02:21, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

• Mom, get you and your daughter off the computer now and find a new hobbie. My I suggest collecting stamps? Good luck. Tom (talk) 02:25, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Perhaps you noticed that with "Daughter" indeffed, "Mom" has now picked up in the rodeo article where the "Daughter" left off. "Mom" should count her lucky stars she wasn't indeffed also. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 02:33, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
    • That appears to be incorrect, unless something was permanently scrubbed. As of now ItsLassieTime's last edit is before Buttermilk's. [77] [78] PSWG1920 (talk) 03:45, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
      • You're right. I was getting time zones mixed up. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 04:56, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

User:ItsLassieTime

She's requesting relief from the autoblock associated with User:Buttermilk1950's block. I've read back through this discussion, but I'm not seeing consensus on whether we think that she is the other user's mother, or the same person. Can we get a few voices on whether Lassie should get to continue editing? -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 20:43, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

• I'd vote no, given that the CU came back with four accounts, not just the two. //roux   21:11, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Five. Per Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/ItsLassieTime we're talking

•  Confirmed that Buttermilk1950 =
• ItsLassieTime (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• ReverendLogos (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• IndianCaverns (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• ShaShaJackson (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• EatNoPig (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki).

I too would vote no. As for blocking these sox, has anyone any thoughts? The only one that I've seen causing disruption (above) is ItsLassieTime, though I've not looked at any of the others in any detail. I see that ItsLassieTime has now been blocked for a month; it's worth keeping an eye on the others, at least. Tonywalton ^Talk 21:23, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

I see they have all now been indef blocked, except ItsLassieTime (seemingly the puppetmaster, as the oldest account), who has been blocked for 1 month. Tonywalton ^Talk 21:27, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

It's looking like "nothing to see here, please move on". Buttermilk blocked indef as a disruptive sock, the other four blocked as sox, and ItsLassieTime blocked 1 month for puppetry. Any objection to me marking this as resolved and archiving it, anyone? Tonywalton ^Talk 21:50, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm still curious to know if there's any connection between these and TimmyTruck (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Overjoyed (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Presumably the checkuser would have found it, if there were?? Otherwise, yes, it seems to be over. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 22:59, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

I can't see the link, or any mention of those in the discussion above. I agree those two seem to be linked to each other but Overjoyed seems to make contributions exclusively to Superman-type things and TimmyTruck to the same things plus a few edits on protective sports clothing. If you have evidence I'd say add them to the checkuser. Tonywalton ^Talk 23:15, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

I went into it in a little more detail on the SPI page, but it was ignored and it was reviewed after I did it right. :) The strongest topic interconnection from those two seemed to be with ReverendLogos (jockstrap, Andy Griffith); IndianCaverns (Gidget); and ItsLassieTime (Lassie series). There's other crossover as well. The jockstrap thing is what caught my attention, sandwiched amongst the kiddie stuff. That, and the imaginative autobiographies of the various users. May all be coincidental, but may be worth keeping in mind. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 23:51, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

A "Timmy Truck" is a classic children's toy (picture). MuZemike 00:44, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Tonka! Meanwhile, user TimmyTruck confirmed sock of ItsLassieTime. [79] Overjoyed rejected as stale, but it was indef-blocked over a year ago. I always figured they were the same user, but it doesn't much matter at this point. Other than an admin deciding what to do with Timmy, I'm good with the results now. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 01:50, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Um, hi (?) Been busy this weekend. Sorry to miss out on the discussion. Is this over now? Anyone need anything from me at this point? If so, let me know, otherwise I will consider the matter over before I ever got here. Montanabw^(talk) 02:11, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Other than the admins decided whether to also indef Timmy, it's pretty much over. Let's put it this way: This was one major "Plaxico". Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 02:19, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

It's interesting to note that Timmy actually preceded Lassie by quite a few months. Timmy then basically stopped about a year ago, except for a few entries early this year. So it's a little hard to say who's the puppet and who's the master - but as a practical matter, Lassie could probably be characterized as the master at this point. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 02:25, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Timmy now indef-blocked by an admin. And dat's de end! Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 02:47, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

The only loose end is how a 99-going-on-100 man happens to have a 16-year-old daughter. Some things are just miraculous. :) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 02:50, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

These other socks have been confirmed due to the common link of the IP address to the Lassie accounts:

• Overjoyed (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• LaSylphide (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 209.244.189.88 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

That pretty well wraps it up. We hope. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 17:56, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Er, there is one last loose thread here: could someone provide a brief timeline explaining what happened when? As an uninvolved nosy person, it appears that ItsLassieTime responded here after she/he/it was blocked for a month! (ILT either has been twiddling with the signature times, or posting at the bottom of pages without concern to which thread the response should go to.) Just the Cliff Notes version of a timeline -- or even briefer if possible. (In other words, no need to include details about the health of elderly neighbors.) -- llywrch (talk) 23:51, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Lassie was blocked at 20:16 on the 5th, and from that point on its only edits have been on its talk page. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 00:03, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Consequences of block on other project

Lassie was the main reviewer working with us at Talk:Nancy Drew/GA1. Now that this editor is blocked, how does that effect that GA review? Is it on hold now, do we need someone else to come in and review the article? Thanks! Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 18:05, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Is there no one else capable of that work? If not, I have a thought: Lassie could post ideas on his talk page, and you or another interested party could judge those ideas on their merit. I don't think that violates any rules. Blocked users can post pretty much anything on their talk pages as long as it doesn't personally attack, or violate other rules. In fact, that would give Lassie a chance to demonstrate some good faith, which has been fairly much shattered by this situation. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 18:12, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

The block on ItsLassieTime was for 1 month, not indef, though obviously that may change.

I suppose the key question is: "which will cause the least damage to WP - putting the GA on hold or allowing ILT to edit". Putting it on hold may also include recruiting someone(s) to continue where ILT left off; is ILT really the only person available? Bugs' "editing by proxy" suggestion also seems good, though possibly cumbersome.

Blocks not being punitive, there's a case to be made to unblock ILT immediately given that (s)he's swearing blind on hir talkpage that "lessons have been learnt". There's also a case to be made that since this behaviour appears to go back some time, with no lessons learnt despite several blocks on the socks and a 6-month IP block for sockpuppetry an indef block is appropriate. I would tend to the latter viewpoint.

Is there any way ILT could be unblocked with restrictions on editing and creating accounts? Tonywalton ^Talk 18:48, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

I am the person working on the Nancy Drew article. It's been under review (not on hold) for over 2 weeks now. I would really appreciate having a new reviewer take over. Ricardiana (talk) 18:52, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm probably a little bias because of our previous clashes, but if she/he (since that seems unclear now) is really repentant, wouldn't she have shown it by first admitting, oh yeah: here are some more of my socks? I also notice that while claiming she is "repentant" she's yet to actually apologize directly to the people she used the double accounts to attack (though in her last note she at least apologized to Tony and the "community at large." Considering it isn't her first time doing this kind of thing, though, I say let the current block stand, same as anyone else. Ricardiana, I've posted at GA asking for someone to pick up the review.-- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 19:11, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks very much, Collectonian. I appreciate it. Best, Ricardiana (talk) 19:15, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

The vibe I get is that it's male. Its early edits in this guise and others centered on the "Lassie" TV series, as well as "Gidget", "Andy Griffith", "Leave It to Beaver", and other 50s/60s TV, as well as "Superman" (where I first ran into one of its original socks over a year ago). Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 00:10, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

User:RighteousPlague

Resolved

 – Sock puppet blocked, well spotted Daedalus. — R² 20:27, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

RighteousPlague (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This user is cause for concern. He or she is a brand-new account, and already seems to know about stuff like the {{cite}} template, and RFPP. Did I mention the user name? Things don't add up in my opinion.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 03:31, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

• Obviously not a new user, just a new ID. Requesting page protection on the third edit is certainly odd. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 03:43, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
  • WP:AGF. No need to run to ANI simply because the user is intelligent. The edits do not show any sign of disruption yet. ^LeaveSleaves 03:44, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
    • I don't AGF on users who show fishy signs in behavior. And BB, the RFPP was the first edit, not the third. It worries me that this user shows more than normal knowledge of how wikipedia works than true new users. Did I mention his username? You know what this reminds me of? This reminds of me of the righteous plague that is User:DavidYork71. In my experience, righteous plagues are never a good thing.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 03:52, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
      • Could you (Daedalus) please provide diffs showing disruptive behaviour? If not, please archive this yourself. //roux   03:53, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
        • The user only has three contribs, you can go view them yourself. The first edit of the account is a request for page protection on an article the account has never contributed. It is obviously a sock puppet, we just have to find out who's.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 03:56, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
          • And those are disruptive how? //roux   03:58, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
            • In fact, this really does smell like a DY71 sock, especially since it was one of the articles his socks frequented.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 03:59, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
              • I have filed an SPI, anyone familar with the DY71 case, please, you are welcome to contribute to the discussion at WP:Sockpuppet investigations/DavidYork71.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 04:17, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
                • His statement, "Issues of last December now resolved and unprotection desired by consensus for purpose of updating recent events", are hardly those of a brand-new user. A new user ID, but not a new user. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 04:28, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
• "diff diff Quack!", surely? Uncle G (talk) 15:58, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Surely. You may swing your vorpal sword. :) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 16:31, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

•  Confirmed the following as DavidYork71:

1. Theveet (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
2. RighteousPlague (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
3. GrosFalse (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
4. PoweredByApathy (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

I'm glad we can close this now.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 23:29, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Harassment

I signed up less than a week ago to edit an article that I felt needed improving: Oliver DeMille. I found there a caretaker editor with a long history of warnings for violations who has tried to silence me with two administrative actions--a baseless sockpuppetry allegation, and now an investigation into whether I am Oliver DeMille (I am not). He refuses to address the question of whether my edits are appropriate--only that I am not. I note that he was given a "final warning" for editing violations in September 2008, which was repeated again this week. The communications between him and me (you may see on my talk page) and involving DGG, and in defense of the allegations of sockpuppetry which were made against me, will demonstrate that I have been peaceful and tried to address the issues of neutrality, form and content of the article. I have only resorted to this request for intervention after TrustTruth's second administrative action against me. I hope you will consider not just my interactions with him over the past week, but his fitness as an editor in general, as I think he has demonstrated either a lack of understanding or a lack of regard for the purpose and policies of Wikipedia.

I have a serious concern for my own security. Within two days TrustTruth has made two distinct requests (the sockpuppetry and on the talk page for GoodOlfactory) that an IP check be run on me. Will he have access to that information? If so, I object in the strongest fashion to this threat to my privacy and safety. He's starting to really freak me out.--Ibinthinkin (talk) 12:48, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

The details of checkuser results are not made known to the masses here. All that's made public is whether the checkuser result came back positive or negative. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 14:20, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

There was one warning for me in September 2008 made by DGG. Ibinthinkin is running interference for himself here. --TrustTruth (talk) 18:02, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

I responded to a request by TrustTruth to ask Ibinthinkin if he is in fact Oliver DeMille, since some of Ibinthinkin's edits to Oliver DeMille appeared to TrustTruth to suggest that he was. I agreed with TrustTruth's assessment of these edits--that some gave that appearance, since Ibinthinkin had access to very obscure sources about DeMille's school days and knew where to find a scan of an academic transcript on-line, for example.

Ibinthinkin has made a clear declaration that he or she is not Oliver DeMille. I am willing to believe Ibinthinkin and assume good faith on this matter. We have to assume that other editors are honest about things like this. I suggest that all parties drop the issue of Ibinthinkin's identity and return to a focus on content rather than users. Of course, any material that violates WP:NPOV or WP:OR can and should be removed from Oliver DeMille. (If there is ever any future evidence that Ibinthinkin has been less than candid with us, then we can deal with it then, but I don't anticipate that that will be the case.)

The sockpuppetry case is a different matter, and I agree that the CU should be performed so we can put that issue to bed one way or the other. No invasion of privacy will resulted from the check-user, just a positive or negative match will be returned. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:23, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

The check-user was performed, and it confirmed that User:Arationalguy was a sock of User:4by40. Those two accounts have been blocked indefinitely. User:Ibinthinkin came back as "unlikely". So I hope we can put at least this issue to rest and try to begin to work together without the suspicion between the parties that has existed thus far. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 12:17, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Foreign name of living people

Some users keep on adding unsourced foreign name to biography of living people, such as Hakan Yakin, Murat Yakin, Armend Dallku and Mehmet Dragusha, does it notable that all people related to Turkey need İ to I, and for those Kosovar Albanian, need a unsourced Serbo-Croats Latin form for the Albanian name?? The name conversion of the article has been discussed in Footy, but not yet for inside the article. Matthew_hk tc 15:04, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

The Yakins were born in Switzerland, which doesn't legally discern the two I letters in people's names. However, Kosovo is an entirely different story as it's independence is disputed by Serbia and it was just an autonomous province of Serbia or a part of SR Serbia in Yugoslavia at the time Dallku and Dragusha were born. I'm not sure that ANI is the correct venue for this discussion as, as far as I could find out, no consensus has been established about this. My suggestion is to start a discussion at WT:FOOTY or at WP:KOSOVO. —Admiral Norton ^(talk) 19:29, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

A rather inappropriate dressing down on an AfD discussion

Resolved

 – Resolved for ANI, per Oliver's last comment on this thread. Xavexgoem (talk) 11:37, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

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

I have never complained before, but I just experienced a complete and unprecedented verbal tirade calling me every kind of moron under the sun, in very wonderful precise English, containing no vulgarity at all, but making me feel like a dumb school child. If it had appeared on my talk page, as a training tool (in a much more diplomatic way) I could understand, but I mean really... [80]. How can 3 words in a discussion (Delete: Original Research) provoke such a flood of didactic vitriol, that I'm tempted to grab a tissue. (just a bit of levity here) If this AfD discussion is archived, and this article were to be re-listed, this would be visible again, for all the world to see, perhaps even over and over. A wonderful tribute to the community. If the goal was to correct a mistake I made, the more appropriate place would have been my talk page. If the goal was to humiliate me, it succeeded. If the goal was to create a soapbox for a larger audience, I suggest Oprah. --OliverTwisted ^(Talk) (Stuff) 15:53, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

• Just as a note, the relevant discussion can be found here. I'll also inform Uncle G of this thread. TNXMan 15:59, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
  • UncleG does appear to have gone a little too far, especially as much of his point is an assumption of bad faith that people said to delete because of Harvard referencing (really?) --Der Wohltempierte Fuchs ^(talk) 16:07, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
    • Uncle G was wrong to make those assumptions about how the delete voters came to their conclusion. But it wasn't an assumption of bad faith. WP:AAGF. 160.39.213.97 (talk) 18:52, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
      • Quite right. I didn't assume that they were acting in bad faith. Indeed, I've already explained that I neither assumed that they were sheep voting nor assumed that they were ignorant of policy. I have no reason to believe that they have anything but the interests of the encyclopaedia at heart. But I have, in long experience, seen exactly this happen before, at AFD and at Proposed Deletion, time and again. People see an article that is badly structured, in whatever manner, whether it doesn't have summary style, or has Harvard referencing, is unwikified, and immediately say "essay". In many cases, all it takes is some cleanup, and then it's obviously a stub, not an essay at all. It never really was. It was merely an article in need of some cleanup, like this, for example.

        Ask yourselves a question: If you had first seen that cleaned up version of the article, properly wikified, with <ref> references, and the excessively repeated references consolidated, would you have concluded that it was an essay, or a simple stub in need of some stub tags, clarification, and expansion?

        Then ask yourselves another question: Why does Harvard referencing and bad structure make people think of essays? It clearly does, in my experience. The very ironic answer lies, in part, in this very subject at hand, a topic in social psychology known as source credibility, and its closely related topics of source values and source attractiveness. People do go by looks when presented with exactly the same information.

        Want to know more? Read the sources handily cited by the original creator in the article, the sources cited in the AFD discussion, chapter 11 (pp 180–183) of ISBN 9780761922537, and the works of Carl Hovland and others from as far back as 1953. Uncle G (talk) 19:54, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

    • Why don't people realize that acting like that will get people to disregard your arguments? Do people really think that being nasty is going to change people's minds in a debate? Chillum 16:17, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
      • Except that I was not nasty in the way that the start of this discussion would make one think. I said no such things. I said nothing about morons, schoolchildren, or even surrender-eating cheese monkeys. I didn't address the editor at all, but the argument, the rationale, and the application, and misapplication, of policy. Uncle G (talk) 19:54, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
      • Comment There seems to be a tendency to misunderstand that discussions regarding policy consensus are not supposed to be terse invocations of WP:TAGS. They are, I believe, supposed to be forums where the applicability of said policies are argued for. I can fully sympathize with what I understand as UncleGs frustration. It is unfortunate that you understood his (somewhat brusque) explanation of why your WP:OR tag invocation was incorrect as a personal affront. When you then seem to change the argument to be about notability and frame yourself as having been accused of sinning, he points out what he understands to be errors in your argument. If you fail to explain your argument and just invoke TAGS then clearly people will either interpret what your argument could be or choose to ignore them; UncleG didn't ignore you. To avoid such misunderstandings in the future it would probably be a good idea to fully articulate your arguments. Unomi (talk) 16:58, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
        • There is no word count guideline on AfD discussions. I felt it was a clear cut case, with nothing more than a template needed for clarification of my position on the article in question. The only one advocating a keep on this is the admin who attacked me. The 2nd response he made to me was what went out of bounds. "Cardinal sin" was a euphemism, I didn't ask to be psycho-analyzed about my deep-seated insecurities and shortcomings. There were 10 words in that diatribe that were honestly related to the discussion at hand. It was the 2nd response that was completely out of bounds. Even someone who is an admin should not have the right to "credibly" tell people what their motivations for thinking are. Is he psychic? I have a right to defend myself (to the extent I tried) when someone is being unreasonable. Also, I was kind of hoping from some Admin input here. The above user has been on Wikipedia for 30 days, and has already been accused of being a sockpuppet. Amazing how he has grasped the subtle intricacies of Wikipedia guideline theory so throrougly and closely to Uncle G, that they are virtually identical in structure and content. You two should consider a collaboration. --OliverTwisted ^(Talk) (Stuff) 17:13, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
          • Are you seriously now alluding to the possibility that I am a sock of UncleG? There may not be a word count guideline, probably because it should not need one for it to be understood that per discussion guidelines of the deletion policy that tag invocation is inappropriate. If you had read the policy regarding WP:OR and how it applies to reasons for deletion, and lived up to your responsibility to refer to the sources you would have understood that it was just plain wrong. I don't know how long you have been here, but that you have failed to read and/or internalize these policies is not a reflection on me. Considering your willingness to paint me in a negative light with the conjuration of 'sock puppetry' I also think that some Admin action is warranted here. That I may agree with UncleG in his interpretation of policy could just possibly be because it is the correct one. Unomi (talk) 19:31, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
            • While Uncle G's comments were definitely incivil and inconcise Oliver, there's really nothing to do here other than be the bigger man and let it slide. If he persists in incivility, WP:WQA might be an option. Otherwise this definitely isn't in need of immediate administrative intervention. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 17:27, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
              • I should not have to install etiquette templates on the user talk page of an admin. I'm not asking for him to be stoned in the public square, I just want whoever it is out there in the Wikipedia ether who evaluates Admins to have this information. I've already cracked a joke or two on Uncle G's user page to show there are no lasting hard feelings. Elvis will now leave the building on this topic. --OliverTwisted ^(Talk) (Stuff) 17:44, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
    • Perhaps somebody more subtle than I could nudge Uncle G in the right direction with a post on his talk page? Chillum 17:36, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Having also recently had a somewhat fraught interaction with Uncle G, I'm not too surprised to see this. A look over his contribs shows an admin with an idiosyncratic attitude toward sourcing rules, who tries to enforce it by giving condescending lectures to highly experienced editors. I foresee WQA or other measures in the not-too-distant future if this continues. Looie496 (talk) 17:43, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

• Actually, what his contribs show to me is that he isn't really an admin but something much better: A content contributor (latest example). This takes a lot of work and dedication and offers a lot less instant entertainment and gratification than certain types of adminning, or arguing at AfD. And I think it's absolutely natural that when he sees a doomed article that he decides (or at least contemplates) to rewrite so it fits into the encyclopedia, with a lot of personal effort, he gets a bit angry with those who argue for deletion without at least giving a rationale that clearly makes sense. He shouldn't, but it's human. Both sides were wrong in this case. --Hans Adler (talk) 18:36, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
  • The article seems to be a fork of Public speaking. Is there any need to comment on the merits or demerits of particular editors or administrators? Mathsci (talk) 18:56, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
    • Having looked again, I think that User:Uncle G has made a valid point about the subject matter, despite the poor state of the article. He does argue forcefully, but so what? Mathsci (talk) 20:05, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Actually, I'm not angry at all. I keep pointing out that someone else is saying the things that are being asserted here, saying them about xyrself no less, and that I never wrote anything along those lines. It's someone else that is angry, too. If I were angry, I'd just go and do something else. I still have that food to buy, as a matter of fact. ☺ Uncle G (talk) 19:54, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

• No Wikipedian's arguments are presented more cogently, forcefully, and, yes, didactically, than Uncle G's. I suggest to Oliver, Looie, and whoever else takes offense at Uncle G's manner, to learn from what he has to say, or if you disagree with him, simply engage him in the substance of whatever the dispute is. If you feel condescended-to, it's probably because your stance is indefensible. 160.39.213.97 (talk) 18:45, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Everyone is free to their opinion, but Gs forceful and condescending tone are inappropriate, whatever his motivations. It is also self-defeating. Whatever the merits of either argument, Gs tone and argumentative edits are not helpful or of benefit to the project. Verbal chat 18:53, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
    • The didactic style obviously fails to persuade editors like Oliver in the short run. Maybe, eventually, after Oliver's and others' feelings recover from whatever injuries they sustained in what their psyches perceived to be G's verbal thrashing, they will emerge with a deeper understanding of the ideas G tried to impart. Or maybe not. 160.39.213.97 (talk) 19:15, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
      • I'm glad you agree there was a "verbal thrashing" (although not directed at me, at least not the first one, and I don't think that's what you meant...), and such behaviour is against our guidelines. Sometimes G is right, sometimes wrong, but his actions are harming his argument. My feelings weren't hurt, and I don't think many will be hurt by my getting a thrashing. Is there a reason you don't use an account? Verbal chat 19:31, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
        • No reason in particular. Can you say which guideline/s G has violated? 160.39.213.97 (talk) 19:47, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Uncle G's arguments there are thought out, but thoughtless. He writes to defend, and does so well, (I voted keep after reading the deletion arguments), but he does write with either no regard, or deliberate disregard, for how his arguments will be received. He needs to learn to re-read his comments to be sure they not only say what he wants them to, but do so in a less derogatory and arrogant manner. that or learn to say 'and fuck you', at the end so we know he knows what he's doing. ThuranX (talk) 19:50, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

• There wasn't anything derogatory in them. All of these derogatory ideas and names have come from OliverTwisted's own edits. I actually wrote nothing derogatory at all. Uncle G (talk) 19:54, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Yet they were uncivil, they were rude, lacked tact, and were thoughtless. Verbal chat 19:58, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
    • Did you read what I said? clearly not. You have an attitude that is apparent to many others, which comes through your writing, or worse, you write with it completely oblivious to it. Your writings come off as arrogant and condescending to others. that you not only aren't listening to anyone in this thread, but actively behaving in an obtuse manner about this matter shows me that you may be doing it intentionally. You need to stop thinking you are 'right' about things, and listen to what a lot of other editors are tellign you they take away from what you say here. ThuranX (talk) 20:51, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
      • Err, who are you talking to? :) I'll take it on board anyway! I think this has run its useful course. Verbal chat 20:55, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Give me a break. He didn't call anyone names, behave coarsely toward anyone or act in a particularly cruel manner. As thuran said, thoughtless, perhaps, but so it goes. I get a little frustrated when I see this magical barrier being erected between AfD and other discussion pages, where somehow it is inappropriate to discuss other stated reasons for deletion on an AfD page. I find that interesting little interpretation invoked mostly when someone is upset at having their opinion questioned. AfDs are the kind of discussions where if no one had said what UncleG said, we would have gone five days with "delete per above" and "delete per nom". Comments are added and generated serially. If no one steps in to correct a particularly inaccurate nomination statement or deletion rationale, then it will go unanswered. If, instead, I came to your talk page and said "your reasoning in this AfD is flawed because of A, B and C", you might go back and modify it, assuming you agreed with me. Or you might not, and after 5 days of perfunctory responses, the article would likely be deleted. I see no problem with letting you know that you were wrong and why you were wrong. Retreating behind the veil of the user talk page doesn't further the overall discussion and frankly after a comment has already been made demanding that it be made in a different venue doesn't help matters. Protonk (talk) 20:05, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

• Also, will I get in trouble for telling Oliver that his complaint is baseless here, rather than on his talk page? Protonk (talk) 20:07, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
• The complainant seems quite unfamiliar with our processes. Apart from his excessive response to proper debate at AFD, the matter of which he complains is not appropriate for this venue, being handled at WP:WQA per the rubric at the head of this page. No admin action is indicated or called for here and so the discussion should be closed. Colonel Warden (talk) 20:18, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
• Please Close: This conversation has taken on a life of its own, even in my absence. I have resolved my differences with Unomi, Uncle G, and have thanked those who gave me appropriate feedback. I have no desire to continue distracting anyone from the serious work that needs to be done here. If I posted my concerns on the wrong forum, I apologize. Letting me know earlier in the discussion might have avoided some unnecesarry typing on the part of several editors. Again, my apologies. --OliverTwisted ^(Talk) (Stuff) 02:40, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict) Moreover, as Oliver has stated that he no longer cares about the matter, is there any point to further dramatizing this situation? As other editors and myself have suggested above, WP:WQA may be more appropriate for this. Uncle G hasn't abused the mop in this situation, so Oliver's request that his conduct as an administrator be reviewed is unnecessary. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 02:41, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Repeated reversion of legitimate page move followed by profanity-filled outburst on talk page

I've been trying to keep C.A. Monarcas Morelia at that location, given the locations of articles about clubs with similar names (C.D. Guadalajara, C.F. América, C.D.S.C. Cruz Azul, etc.), but have run into resistance from Black N Red (talk · contribs). This is annoying, as I've tried to justify my move several times based on the fact that this is undisputedly the correct name of the article given the name of the club and article naming conventions for football clubs on WP, but it isn't the end of the world. I even left a comment on their talk page asking them not to revert without a legitimate justification. What followed was this, this, and this. I'm not a teatotaller or anything, but this is not discussion, and it is clearly rude and disrespectful. I've advanced legitimate reasons for my move, and they've been answered in this way, which is unacceptable. -- Grant.Alpaugh 21:19, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

It looks like you are trying to reverse a move that was made in Dec 2007 as a result of consensus. Why didn't you discuss this on the talk page before you did it? Looie496 (talk) 22:42, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm concerned more with the outburst afterwords. There is no justification whatsoever for that behavior. -- Grant.Alpaugh 22:58, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Also, two people constitutes a pretty weak consensus. -- Grant.Alpaugh 23:00, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

He's at it again, in case anybody cares. -- Grant.Alpaugh 04:54, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Warned. Xavexgoem (talk) 09:59, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

...and to think that I responded to the WQA filing on the same subject a couple of hours ago. Grant - please note that once filed at one location (WP:WQA was the correct one in this case) then please do not re-file elsewhere, as it's considered to be "forum-shopping", and uses a lot of additional volunteer editing time. (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 11:01, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

2008 Greek riots

The name of the article was changed without consensus being formed. The claim made on the summary is clearly false. Maziotis (talk) 21:34, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

(shrugs) Does it really matter whether it's "civil unrest in Greece" or "Greek riots"? What do people think it is, fraternity hazing? — Rickyrab | Talk 23:10, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

I started caring when I understood the guy who wanted to change this to "greek riots" was a right-wing activist who wanted to make the government appear clean on this one. The fact is that, contrary with what both anarchists and greek conservatives were saying, the event isn't exclusively about crazy youths throwing rocks over a "dead comrade". All sources like to sell paper by talking specifically about the riots, but all of them are naming the overall event "civil unrest". If you want I can give you a list. Maziotis (talk) 23:20, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, ignoring your personal attack, it seems like the majority of users at Talk:2008_Greek_riots support a rename back to riots. In fact, it doesn't look like anyone other than yourself wants to call it a civil unrest. Perhaps work on finding reliable sources (probably more likely from scholars over sensationalist newspapers) and come back in a few weeks or a month? Create a user subpage and work on it there. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 10:22, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Could you please point out where have I made a personal attack? That was certainly not my intention. I do have a list of sources. And for a long time we were several arguing against just one editor. The problem is that those arguments were systematically ignored, and what took place just now was basically a head-count vote, with no respect for due process. Maziotis (talk) 13:37, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

←This really doesn't seem to be an ANI issue or particularly need immediate admin intervention. And considering the editor who performed the move and subject area in which the move was conducted, I'm reasonably sure this is just an attempt to resurrect the collapsed thread further up. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 16:32, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Heh. Your guess is understandable, but I can assure you this is wholly independent. In fact I suddenly found myself in full agreement with just those users I clashed with most strongly in the other case :-) This is a Greece-internal issue and the ideological frontlines are quite different. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:35, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, I stand corrected. :-) —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 19:23, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

User:TruHeir

It seems a bit odd to me that this shiny new account, TruHeir (talk · contribs), would go through and be randomly adding {{fact}} tags to some 500+ articles, all today, including things that don't need citations or are already cited. The article selection is extremely random, from fist guest...everything from films and media series to country/city articles to biography. Seems like someone should take a closer look at this, though maybe I'm just suspicious natured. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 23:35, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

• That user doesn't seem to be doing anything seriously wrong. It might be useful to encourage them to actually find references, rather than merely generating work for others. They seem to be picking articles more or less at random, and they're finding ones that predate Wikipedia's modern "must be cited to death" standards. --John Nagle (talk) 04:45, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
  • I beg to differ with you, but it is editors who add unsourced material to Wikipedia that create work for others. Placing a tag on unsourced material merely points out where there is a problem, and is perfectly acceptable if the editor doesn't know where to find reliable sources for the material. I am also not aware of any exemption for older material from the verification policy. Having said that, I do think that an editor's choice to add {{fact}} tags appears a lot more creditable if that editor also adds sources for new and/or existing material in other articles. -- Donald Albury 13:00, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
    • That is a true statement, but it fails to address the question of how a brand new user gets into this kind of work immediately. It suggests that the new user could be a sockpuppet. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 13:05, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
      • ...or it may constitute a "valid" use of an alternate account. Nevertheless, it's seems fairly obvious that the user has been on Wikipedia before. That, or it's like handing a bunch of manuscripts and a red pen to a University prof for the first time - they will definately find a lot of things to circle. (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 13:28, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
    • It also appears more credible if he doesn't add fact tags to things that do NOT need an inline citation: film/series plot summaries and the lead where the statement is cited within the article proper, per WP:LEAD. The sheer quantity of it, the random nature of it, and it seeming to be the only purpose of the account also just seems odd to me...random editor see something and wants a source, yeah, fact tag. One on an apparent crusade of some description to tag it all? Almost wonder if its another one of those school assignments or something.-- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 13:34, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Wikipedia's little "citation needed" note is not a secret known only to those that have graduated to the inner mysteries, nowadays. It's quite reasonable to suppose that someone new to Wikipedia itself may have heard of it elsewhere. Here in The Globe and Mail, for example. So it's not the simple use of the tags that should raise suspicion, but how they are used.

    I agree with John Nagle. A quick sampling of several of the edits shows nothing actually disruptive, and this is barely 2 days' worth of edits, so far. Not even the randomness is of particular concern. People pick random pages and work on them all of the time here. It's a widespread practice. Just ask any stub patroller, recent changes patroller, new pages patroller, or AFD patroller. Indeed, there is even such a thing as random page patrol. I'm sure that the fact that I have edited Jewish mother stereotype and Digger slang in the past week appears random, too.

    We were all new, once, and we all, at one time, needed to learn that we could boldly make improvements ourselves, editing the encyclopaedia without mercy in order to make it better, instead of timidly tagging areas of attention for other people. Uncle G (talk) 14:43, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi there, Collectonian, 500+ articles in one day WOW isn't that a bit much? I don't even think I've cracked 100 within the past 4 days. To Baseball Bugs I am not a sock puppet. This is my 1st account but I’m not “new” to Wikipedia. I use to make edits before I decided to create an account. You guys have clearly analyzed my edits and you can obviously see that it’s more towards geography and history. They aren’t as “random” as you think, history and geography are some of the things that interest me and there are several articles that’s I’ve come across with zero to little citations and references. That’s why I placed the tags. I’ve noticed that if you add or remove something from articles you can be blocked for vandalizing. I didn’t think that placing a tag that an article need references or proper citations was a problems. I really don’t think I have done anything wrong but please feel free to leave me a message on my talk page.

Take care TruHeir (talk) 19:15, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Woops...talk about a typo (that no one noticed until now :-P; you're at around 200 or so now). I was just concerned at the sheer number and that seemed to be the only activity on the account. There really isn't a need to stick in specific tag on so many articles that already already tagged as needing more citations. Also, the plot summaries in television, book, film, manga/anime, etc articles do not need citations at all - the series is the citation.[81] - nor does the lead of an article need a citation if the statement is cited in the article proper. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 19:45, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Collectonian, I disagree with you. I find it hard to believe that the "plot summaries in television, book, film, manga/anime, etc articles do not need citations at all - the series is the citation". What if a person has never read the book or has seen the film? How will he or she know the information presented is correct? The reason I placed the fact tag on the Vampire knight’s plot was because everything from the characters, to the different versions, to the video game had references. And that was the only section that didn't have one. Same thing goes for the tag I placed in Dragon Ball. (one that you reverted) Looking at our edits I see that you are interested in anime and films etc. Maybe the edit I made upset you or something lol, either way please free to leave me a message on my talk page if you would like to discuss. Have a good day TruHeir (talk) 20:23, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

It is long standing consensus that a plot summary does not need a reference. See any FL/FA list/article, etc and you will see this is so. The source IS the book, film, etc. Adding an explicit in-line citation has long been seen as pointless and silly. It doesn't matter if a reader has read the book or seen the film. Other editors can easily view the medium if they question something added. And no, it didn't upset me, just screamed "new editor" at me and was reverted, then I noticed you were seemingly randomly doing this on many articles and was concerned about a sock being pointy or the like (has happened before). -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 20:27, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Maybe they seem random to you, I can't change that and no I really don't care about someone thinking that I'm a sock puppet. I only responded to Baseball Bugs because he said something like I was two new to know who to place a tag. TruHeir (talk) 20:34, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Collectonian, I think I misread what you wrote, were you saying that you were worried of a sock? I thought I you meant I was worried of being called one. Either way it doesn't matter, but I still disagree about plots not needing references. How about this, Since your the seasoned editor if I'm about to make an edit that I'm "unsure" of I'll leave you a note. Take careTruHeir (talk)

That doesn't really work, I'm afraid. You seem to be in no doubt that plot sections should be tagged as needing sources, when the established consensus is that they do not. If you persistently make that sort of edit, when it's been pointed out to you that it goes against consensus, then you're likely to be blocked for tendentious editing, causing disruption, or vandalism, or something similar. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 21:21, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Not just plots, etc. Take a look at this edit to Askelon [82] -- given a choice of a lot of unsourced possibly controversial stuff, TruHeir decides what really needs citing is whether a hospital was opened in a certain year. Something isn't right here Dougweller (talk) 21:41, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Gut feeling is that you guys are overreacting here. I'm guessing that he's a good faith editor. Of course, I could be wrong, so feel free to keep an eye on him, but I'm not sure how much more discussion is warranted on here verses a talk page. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 21:46, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Again you all have clearly analyzed my edits you see that it focus mainly geography and history. I only made two edits to plots and I doubt that one edit to dragon ball and another to vampire knights constitutes as persistent tendentious editing. However thank you very much for the link, You are correct, I was in doubt about the plot sections. Collectonian didn't show me a link for the consensus he was talking about and I searched for it but could not find it, it’s funny to see this whole thing could have been solved with just a link. Thank you very much. It’s much appreciated like I said before no one should hesitate to leave me a message on my talk page, it's been a long chat and you all have a great dayTruHeir (talk) 21:47, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Dougweller, I placed the fact tag on this entire statement"- "Ashkelon was soon rebuilt. It was an important Hellenistic seaport. In the period of the Hasmonean Kingdom, Rabbi Simeon ben Shetach - Pharisee scholar and Nasi of the Sanhedrin in the First Century BCE - is reported to have on a single day sentenced to death eighty Ashkelon women who had been charged with witchcraft. Later, the women's relatives took revenge by bringing false witnesses against Simeon's son and causing him to be executed in turn" - claims that it was an important seaports and other claim but yet there were no refs to show . the tag was not for when a "hospital" was open, why the lies? Also that wasn't even the only part of article I placed a citation tag on. I'm really not going to do this back and fourth thing its like I'm pleading a case and people are trying to find something aganist me and I haven't even done anything wrong so I'm done TruHeir (talk) 22:03, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Lester Coleman help please

Nobody intervened on my last attempt to get administrators involved. Now there appears to be a possible threat of legal action (see talk page). I'd appriciate it if admin's intervene. Thank you.Nrswanson (talk) 23:56, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

What do you think an admin would be able to do? An implausible legal threat by an IP is not really actionable, except by blocking the IP, which isn't all that useful. Looie496 (talk) 00:36, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Word of advice: provide diffs if you want faster results. "See talk page" isn't helpful and people passing by aren't going to help if you don't put in the slightest effort. Now, I'm going to archive the inappropriate sections as a violation of WP:TALK. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 02:46, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Also, note the fact that the IP address is located in California for a man supposedly in Lebanon with counsel in New York, to an IP address whose talk page has a long history of shenanigans makes me doubtful about its voracity. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 02:56, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Just ignore it. -Senseless!... says you, says me 19:32, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Illegal immigration to the United States

There seems to be some serious gaming and meat and/or sockpuppetry going on at Illegal immigration to the United States in the past few weeks and especially today. Several IPs (presumibly the same individual) have edited the article in a rather POV matter, and several more have argued the cause on the talk page.

NetRange 166.128.0.0 - 166.255.255.255; OrgName

Service Provider Corporation, Bedminister, NJ

• 166.196.217.71 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 166.196.104.47 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 166.199.196.253 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 166.196.235.104 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 166.196.174.163 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 166.196.240.67 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 166.196.149.151 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 165.123.122.121 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 166.196.30.217 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 166.196.211.111 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 166.196.231.254 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 166.196.121.14 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 166.199.234.190 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 166.196.235.104 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Net Range 32.0.0.0 - 32.255.255.255; OrgName

AT&T Global Network Services, Lake Mary, FL

• 32.165.73.42 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 32.165.47.202 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 32.165.230.112 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 32.166.135.133 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 32.164.141.83 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Not one of the IPs has made more than one edit, and the IP is different five minutes later. I'm not up on the technical aspects of the issue, but I think it needs looked into. The IP has easily and multiple times broken 3RR and has continued disruptive and POV editing. Grsz¹¹ 00:19, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

There are two issues here. Let me discuss the most obvious one first. As you said, my IP changes sometimes in a five minute span. That's a feature of my computer network which is outside my control. I can't rely on when it will happen. I've never used it to avoid the 3RR or vote more than once. In short, I've never used it to sock puppet As for the second issue -"pushing pov". I tried to engage in consensus building in the talk page. When that fell through, I thought we were going to get a third party to help us reach consensus - then the other editor I was working on the article with suddenly was no longer interested in getting a third party involved. Immediately after that, Grsz11 comes in, shuts down all discussion (without ever having participated in the discussion himself, reverts my edit, and reports me here. I tried to engage him in dialogue on his talk page, but he didn't reply. As a general rule of thumb, the guy interested in npov is the guy trying to keep the dialogue going and trying to build consensus.-32.165.41.17 (talk) 01:17, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

All I hope to happen is that the IP ends his attacks and accusations on the talk page, and not use his changing address to game 3RR. If that much can be assured, there isn't much more of an issue. Grsz¹¹ 01:24, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

I would encourage the anon involved to register for a Wikipedia account. Usually, once one gets involved in Wikipedia deeply enough to discuss things on AN/I or use the dispute resolution mechanisms, one registers for an account and establishes an identity here. Thanks. --John Nagle (talk) 04:33, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

CharlesRKiss again

CharlesRKiss was just brought up here and banned for 24 hours for insults on userpages, unconstructive discussion, WP:NOTFORUM, and WP:SOAP. Now that he's unblocked, he just added a new section to talk:Global warming in which he insults other editors with some nasty, nasty language - exciting stuff. What should be done? Awickert (talk) 01:33, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Plenty of warning to justify an indef, with option to unblock if user promises to stop the nonsense. Anyone who doubts the appropriateness should read his user page. Looie496 (talk) 02:16, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Indefinitely blocked

I've blocked User:CharlesRKiss indefinitely. However, since I am also the person who denied his unblock request a day ago, outside review if needed. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 02:41, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. He has a second account, User:Charlesrkiss, which seems to have been somewhat more productive than his new one, but I'm guessing you'll want to block it too - unless the goal is to send a message by blocking the offending account, not sure how these things work. Awickert (talk) 02:57, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

AIV Backlog

Resolved

 – Back down to normal now. — neuro^{(talk)(review)} 10:54, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

If an admin or two could take a look, it would be much appreciated. - NeutralHomer • Talk • April 6, 2009 @ 02:00

Seems to be over. — neuro^{(talk)(review)} 10:54, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Bot getting it wrong

Resolved

 – Bot operator has acknowledged the problem and agreed to fix it. No admin action necessary. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 16:24, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

User:Mr.Z-bot has been approved (I found the page but can't find it again) to replace {{unref}} on living persons articles by {{BLP unsourced}} - BUT it is also moving that template to appear above any hatnotes on the page, as here, in contravention of WP:HNP which says "Hatnotes are placed at the very top of the article, before any other items such as images, navigational templates and maintenance templates (like the "cleanup", "unreferenced", and "POV" templates)". This move doesn't seem to be in the Bot approval. I've left a note on the editor's talk page, but the bot is rampaging on. Can it be (a) stopped from doing this and (b) made to correct the ones it's got wrong? PamD (talk) 10:33, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Found the bot approval: Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Mr.Z-bot 5. PamD (talk) 11:00, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

And at least one of the 100 examples in the trial makes this mistake: [83]

Why are you bringing this to AN/I? Just continue your discussion with the bot operator on his talk page. - Rjd0060 (talk) 14:02, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Because the operator appeared not to be online, the bot was still running and I hoped it could be stopped from making further mistaken edits. Was that not the thing to do? Discussion is now ongoing on his talk page, and he's stopped it. Thanks. PamD (talk) 16:52, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Iran2 failing to respond to copyvio notices, still continuing after last AN/I thread

Resolved

 – Blocked 1wk by Xavexgoem (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) — neuro^{(talk)(review)} 10:53, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Iran2 (talk · contribs) has persisted in uploading copyvios, even after the last thread on him, which was only from a few days ago. He is still failing to respond to copyvio notices, or engage in discussion about the images. I suggest a longer block. — neuro^{(talk)(review)} 10:44, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

blocked 1 week, with blocknote. He can contest on his talkpage. Xavexgoem (talk) 10:52, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. :) — neuro^{(talk)(review)} 10:54, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

I hope you don't mind me steamrollering over this like that, but I've upped to indef. He was an obvious block-evading sock of a previously blocked user anyway. Let's delete all his images without waiting for the PUI process, I'd say. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:52, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Glowsticking

Resolved

 – Resolved for now, continuations of this should go to AIV. — neuro^{(talk)(review)} 16:49, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

An anonymous editor, possibly Melvenorc121 (talk · contribs) keeps spamming a link to an online glowsticking community to the page, ignoring WP:ELNO points 4 and 10 (see [84], [85] and the page history). I'm at the 3rr limit today but I wouldn't mind some outside opinions. IP has been warned [86]. Refuses to review the external links guidelines ([87]). WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 16:38, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Reverted again and gave final warning. AIV is appropriate if it happens again. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 16:42, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

...and now blocked. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 18:06, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

I'll see your block and raise you one semi-protection. Cheers, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 19:47, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Apparently rightly so; here's the off-wiki canvassing. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 20:17, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Nice catch. I've posted a note on talk:glowsticking. Hopefully it gets someone's attention and they'll stop. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 22:51, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Urgent vandalism problem at Stormwater

Resolved

 – Template:Precision now fixed. — neuro^{(talk)(review)} 17:44, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

I have no idea what happened, but the article Stormwater has recently been massively (and disgustingly) vandalised with a picture of faeces. I can't see how this has been done, as it doesn't even show up in the history! Could an admin please work out what has happened here, and revert it as soon as possible? Thanks. Robofish (talk) 17:14, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Template vandalism? The article seems OK now; I'd guess that a template used somewhere in the article was vandalised, and then fixed. Try checking the article again - and if it's still apparently vandalised clear your cache (Control-F5 on Firefox, I think) and check again. I saw a comment on WP:AIV about faeces pictures being used to vandalise a template - by the time I looked it seemed to have been fixed as well, so I'm guessing you may just need to clear your cache. Cheers, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 17:21, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

I still see it, even after pressing F5. It says 'Blame LOLiver' at the top, followed by text such as 'MURDER ALL GEORGIANS', 'THEODOR EICKE MASTURBATED TO THIS ARTICLE', and a large picture of shit-stained daipers. I can't see the 'edit' or 'history' tabs. Help! Robofish (talk) 17:25, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

OK, it's gone now. And I still don't know what happened - must have been template vandalism, I guess. Robofish (talk) 17:29, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

I think so - "THEODOR EICKE" was referenced on WP:AIV. Glad it's sorted out - that kind of thing is weird. Cheers, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 17:30, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

"Blame LOLiver"

Resolved

 – Template vandalism reverted, AbuseFilter filter added. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 22:47, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Someone have done serious vandalism to Elbe class replenishment ship and possibly elsewhere. I have tried to revert it myself but it is not evident in the source what's wrong (the proper page is behind a box filling the page with disgusting pictures). My best guess is that the vandalism is done in some template. Good luck to whomever tries out to solve it. Steinberger (talk) 17:41, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Fixed now. — neuro^{(talk)(review)} 17:43, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

No, It have not been fixed. F5 did not take it away, so I have looked at it from a separate computer. It is still there, the Theodor Eicke/feaces vandalism. Steinberger (talk) 17:59, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

If F5 doesn't work, try adding "?action=purge" (without the quotes) to the end of the url on the page. --Onorem♠Dil 18:03, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

It's gone now. Thanks. Steinberger (talk) 18:07, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

The article Mu (lost continent) has been vandalized in a way that I cannot fix. Apparently the hack is in some template included by the page, but I could not figure out which one (<ref> or {{rp}}, perhaps?) or who did it. --Jorge Stolfi (talk) 18:02, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Seems to be the same "Theodor Eicke" hack as above.--Jorge Stolfi (talk) 18:12, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

It's worth noting that there's a very useful script available, User:Splarka/temused.js that can be installed in your monobook.js file; this script adds a tab labelled "Templates used" to the top of each page, clicking on this shows every template transcluded onto the page together with details of when the template was last edited and by whom. I would recommend any administrators without the script, and those who routinely report such vandalism install the script. Nick (talk) 18:27, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Removed the resolved tag

This has just occurred again, this time to the People's Republic of China - seriously looking terrible. The whole page was red and the only part that was scrollable was the part at the left (i.e. the column that starts with the Wikipedia logo. It also removed the edit/last etc buttons from the top of the page. Also, I can't remember the exact wording, but it said something like "Nikolai has a 5 lightyear long dick".

I had a look at the history of the page and it didn't show the hack within the history previews, so I reverted the last edit, hoping it was that. It seemed to fix the problem, but I reverted my revert just to double check, and strangely enough, the hack was still gone. So now we're back on the version it was at before I touched it, yet it shows no sign of the hack.

I have since purged and the hack is definitely no longer present. This has only JUST happened so if someone has a bit of know-how, then seriously look into it. I'll watch this page.

Control-alt-delete ★ user◾talk◾favs 22:35, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Original research (rants) in Yahoo! and Criticism of Yahoo!

Can a neutral 3rd party please review the recent edits at Yahoo! and Criticism of Yahoo! by Optfx (talk · contribs), 79.226.56.248 (talk · contribs) and 79.226.57.76 (talk · contribs). I've been trying to keep out unsourced original research (rants) regarding the closing of Yahoo Briefase, and don't want to get into a 3RR violation. Thanks. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 20:00, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Optfx (talk · contribs) is edit warring again, and responding to anyone who tells him his paragraph is original research by blowing them off with a line about "March 30, 2009 was NOT Tuesday." [88] [89] He seems to be wholeheartedly avoiding discussion and edit warring now. Admin attention seems to be necessary at this point, thanks in advance. Dayewalker (talk) 00:14, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Sock puppet

Resolved

 – indefblocked. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 23:44, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

User:AlanjohnsTheReturn is a sock puppet of User:Alanjohns (per user names and love of Eminem). Admin Spellcast marked Alanjohns as a disruptive sock puppet. — R² 20:10, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

1. indef blocked. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 23:44, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

What do we do about suicide threats?

If anyone wants to be a big brother (in either sense ) here ya go. --NE2 20:17, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

IP appears to be an exit node for Illinois Wesleyan University. This probably should be sent in to their Dean of Students just in case. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 20:23, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Where's the Good Mice Brigade when you need them?

Could some good mice perhaps keep an eye on Slavic-speakers of Greek Macedonia? Edit-war in full swing, and I'm tired of handling it. Thanks all you groovy guys and groovy gals, Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:30, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

I had a look through the last 20 or so edits and while there were a few reverts it seems that productive editing outweighs warring. I'll watch the page, for what it's worth. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 21:40, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Actually it's all settled now - see the talkpage. --Laveol ^T 21:57, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Since the other thread about Future was closed as no consensus, perhaps some good mice could also see what he has written in Talk:Greece/Naming_poll#Results_summary and weigh on whether this kind of categorization is conformant to Wikipedia policy and ethos? In the meantime, you can also look at him mass-reverting articles claiming that there is clear consensus.--Avg (talk) 22:01, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Fictional TOV

I've deleted Enrico Fermi High School, which contained a detailed account of a school shooting that supposedly occurred in 2005. Obviously, there was no such incident, but I've gone ahead and reported it to the Enfield, CT police and forwarded information to the school resource officer so they can look into it. No further action needed, AFAIK. Acroterion _(talk) 21:32, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Can or should anything be done about 666ismoney.com?

Background

A couple of weeks ago Raquel Baranow was reported on here for soapboxing, POV-pushing, introducing inappropriate external links to her own website (http://www.666ismoney.com) and so on, mainly on articles concerning 9/11. Several editors, notably Georgewilliamherbert (to whom kudos for his patience), tried hard to explain WP:POV, WP:RS, WP:V and all the rest to her. Raquel's response was that she was "learning", and, eventually, to withdraw for a short period, citing ill-health. When she returned she resumed the contentious editing mainly on talkpages. Eveutually an Arbitration Enforcement was filed, citing WP:ARB911. After some less-then-productive input there she was today indef blocked. So much for the background.

Currently

Raquel, having copied pretty much all of the original AN/I discussion and the AE discussion to her talkpage, is linking from her website to that talkpage under the title "Wikipedia Censors Raquel Baranow: Orwellian Thought Control (April 2009)".

My question

1. While I realise that the talkpage she's linking to does contain a complete record of the block discussion (as far as I can see she's not redacted it to distort what happened, and it's all followed WP processes) the context of the link, and the possible readership of her site, are likely to combine to bring WP into disrepute as a "censor" (especially as many casual readers won't be familiar with WP processes).
2. Currently her talkpage is not protected; would protecting it so she can't edit it further be a good idea so she can't, in future, edit it to make herself look like an innocent victim of "Orwellian Thought Control"?In fact strike that, I've just full-protected it. Please feel free to remove protection if protection wasn't appropriate.
3. Is there any general policy for people setting up incoming links, particularly POV links, to WP?

Tonywalton ^Talk 21:48, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Glad to see that hate-mongering troll has been blocked. As for incoming links? I don't think there's anything wikipedia could or should do about it. If there's objectionable content here, we delete it. There are tons of people ranting all over the internet about the leftist/rightist/fascist/communist/ etc... wikipedia. And that's fine. She's just another marginal voice among them.Bali ultimate (talk) 21:55, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Most of what is on her talk page is copied from elsewhere on WP, e.g. WP:AE, WP:ANI and Talk:Holocaust denial. It was an odd thing to do. Her website has a lot of quite vile things on it which contradict what she wrote on wikipedia, e.g. she unequivocally self-identifies as a holocaust denier there. However, the website is very badly set up, largely unreadable because of superimposed text. I don't think the link is problematic. Mathsci (talk) 22:10, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

• I don't think any website can have a binding policy over incoming links (except one that evinces a desire to make mischief with those who hotlink images). that said, the user is blocked and will eventually tire of this particular avenue of protest. It is in our best interest to just ignore them. Protonk (talk) 22:12, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Can't see us doing anything about it coming in; I'd have just left it alone, personally, until she started soapboxing, then blank and protect. Good block, though, she wasn't showing any indication of Getting It anytime soon. (And anyone who uses 'U' for "you" makes me grind my teeth painfully, so...) Tony Fox (arf!) 22:32, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

• Personally, I think this is a bad case of the soapboxes that should be blanked. We are not here to offer a platform for grievances from effectively banned users, and a talkpage is not meant to be a diatribe. They have their own website, let them host their own rants. — Coren ^(talk) 22:34, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Inflamatory comment in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Truth in Numbers

Resolved

 – Attack refactored.

Note this !vote and comment in the AfD. Since I voted to keep, and it's a delete vote, there is the appearance of COI. Will an uninvolved admin look and decide if it should be removed as inflammatory and/or WP:NPA violating? Thank you. — Becksguy (talk) 22:33, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

• It's definitely violating NPA and a host of other provisions we keep around to ensure that this remains a nice place to be. I'm less convinced it needs to be removed. Have you had a chat w/ the editor and informed him that his comment is being discussed here? Protonk (talk) 22:38, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

  I've refactored the attack out. — Coren ^(talk) 22:40, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

  No I didn't leave a message, since he/she retired. There was an MfD on his/her talk page also: Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Alkivar. — Becksguy (talk) 22:46, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

  PS - I just left a message in case the editor un-retires, or checks in. Also tagged resolved here. — Becksguy (talk) 23:19, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Pietru

Pietru il-Boqli's editing [90] spicked with his edit summary pearls before swine. Is this alowed? Pietru think it is on grounds it being a perfectly respectable Hebrew idiom. In the previous link he accused me of being pointedly racist. What should I do? Advise me, please. These are not the only transgressions of Pietru against me, and I have come forward now.

He labeled other editors as racist [91] and described why this is not an offence but as he put it User talk:Pietru/Archive 1#Blocked, or, Why Wikipeda is full of Sycophants. For that he received 1 week block.

Imbris (talk) 22:41, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

• Interesting he should say pearls before swine is a Hebrew idiom. This is from the Gospel of Matthew Chapter 7, verse vi: "Give not that which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast ye your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet", meaning (basically) "some people don't understand how good what they're being told really is". It's a marginally uncivil edit summary and I'm warning him about it. Tonywalton ^Talk 23:00, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

• • What about he accusing me as being pointedly racist [92]. He has labeled one editor before as being racist. -- Imbris (talk) 23:09, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
    • Your use of the word "spicked" in that diff appears to be a typo or mis-spelling, though from context I'm not sure what was intended. You may not be aware that the word "spick" or "spic" is a derogatory term for a person of Latino origin. As read, your post could indeed be seen as racist (though assuming good faith I'm sure it wasn't intended that way. I suggest you contact Pietru and explain this was a misunderstanding. 81.151.110.150 (talk) 23:19, 6 April 2009 (UTC) well who needs a CU? That was me, that was, not logged in on the secure server) Tonywalton ^Talk 23:22, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
      • Obviously I meant spiced. What about his accusatory methods. -- Imbris (talk) 23:26, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Jesus Christ (a Jew, hence Hebrew) used the idiom, in a gently chiding and generally wise manner. Apologies if anybody here feels 'swine' is somehow derogatory. I referenced Imbris' racism in that he asked for details on my ethnicity, after using the argument that my edits were ethnically biased. He persisted along this line until things got to a head. I am still unclear as to why his revisions are not being looked at critically in hopes of consensus: I've listed many of my objections and points on the Maltese dog talkpage.

His blanket reverts of my work or simply removing what he doesn't take the time to understand (eg. the position of maleth v malat in Phoenician, a Semitic language).... I have never, since the page got cleaned up, tampered with his good work in the history section, for example. But tolerating random changes and insidious wording (possibly due to Imbris' lack of technical skill when it comes to English) flies in the face of making the encyclopedia truly useful. Pietru (talk) 23:30, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

On the pearls before swine part

"Swine" is by no means a "gentle" insult, then or now. Hogs were and are considered "unclean" animals in Jewish law (and Islamic law also). "Casting pearls before swine" is an expression I have been known to use, and I assure you I do not intend it to be "gentle". Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 23:54, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

So calling somebody a ham is rude now? What's up with that. Pietru (talk) 23:59, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

At least hams can be cured. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 00:06, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Cute. "Ham" in this context is slang for "amateur", and has nothing to do with swine, generally speaking. Ham radio = amateur radio, as opposed to commercial radio. Hamming it up = amateurish acting, i.e. overplaying, mugging, etc. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 00:44, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

And sows make great silk purses. What's yer point? Pietru (talk) 00:42, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Actually not. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 00:44, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Pietru - Please stop poking people like this. Our policy on civil and constructive editing and our policy against making personal attacks apply to everyone here. We ask that you assume good faith about other editors and not turn around and attack them when they criticize you.

Even if your initial transgressions were innocent mistakes of not understanding common usage in English, your responses now once you've been notified are not ok.

Please stop this. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 00:48, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

The phrase "Pearls before swine" is also attributed to Dorothy Parker, who was famous for her retorts, and sparkling and caustic wit in the literary world. In a supposed exchange with Clare Boothe Luce, when arriving together at a door, Luce said: "Age before beauty", to which Parker retorted "Pearls before swine" and swept through the door first.[93] The phrase is also the title of a comic strip Pearls Before Swine (comic strip) and other things, including a game and two bands, see the DAB Pearls Before Swine. So it's meaning and intention depends on the context. — Becksguy (talk) 01:07, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

In the context of the edit summary, it was condescending and insulting. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 01:13, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

File:Meister_von_San_Vitale_in_Ravenna_004.jpg

Resolved

 – Local copy created and protected. Mfield (Oi!) 01:08, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

The above file is currently on the main page... I suspect the point of the upload was to make it known that that particular image was not protected...

Someone protect it? :( --Izno (talk) 00:28, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

It's a commons image... I don't know that we can do that here, other than uploading a local copy to en.wp and then protecting that... Anyone else know how?

It was fixed, but I don't know if there's a permanent fix available other than temporary local download and protect. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 00:43, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

IIRC, that's what we normally do in these circumstances. Certainly makes sense so to do. --Rodhullandemu 00:54, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Yep, that's what I did. Mfield (Oi!) 01:08, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

User:Cla68 and deliberate canvassing

User:Cla68 is engaging in apparent deliberate canvassing off wiki to influence deletion debates. He did so here where he links to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Scott Waddle and says explicitly "And yes, I am canvassing off-wiki for support for the deletion." When I asked him about this he remained apparently unrepentant.[94] This is in direct violation of WP:CANVASS in the most blatant fashion possible. Whether or not one agrees with Cla68 that deletion of marginally notable BLPs is correct and whether or not one agrees with him that this is a marginally notable BLP in question, this is a clear attempt to violate basic policy and interfere with basic consensus forming mechanisms. This needs dealing with. JoshuaZ (talk) 00:50, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

feels like joshuaz is stalking/trolling cla68 to me. Even if cla was incorrect in canvassing for the afd. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 00:54, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

That has nothing to do with it. Canvassing is still wrong, and Cla is wrong. Grsz¹¹ 00:56, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

but what does posting a drama note here gain? they had a conversation on cla's talk page where each position is made clear. Is cla going to get blocked over this? A quick read of the afd indicates that it's not going to be deleted. So the canvassing was to no effect anyway. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 01:03, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Cla68 warned to stop the canvassing and that this was intentionally disruptive.

Yes, this is a blockable offense. To my knowledge Cla68 hasn't been disruptive or otherwise abusive in any way recently, so block on first offense would be excessive, but it's a blockable offense. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 01:06, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Calling this a "drama note" is completely underselling the offense. Looks like Cla68 is not only canvassing, but doing so to prove a point, and inviting people from a place that's not pretty much anti-wikipedia at all costs. Dayewalker (talk) 01:10, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Let's not have another "Bash WR" thread - there are wikipedians in good standing who participate there, honest and constructive external critics, as well as some less constructive critics. Painting the whole site as hostile is not helpful.

There was no unanimous support for Cla68's position there in the thread, once posted, so it wasn't a knee-jerk response on "their communities" part either. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 01:14, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

[95] [96]. Cla68 (talk) 01:18, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

User:Mattisse

Can I ask, given how much trouble User:Malleus Fatuorum has been given for occasional losses of temper, why User:Mattisse gets to spread slander like He is not a very pleasant character. on the pages of third users with impunity? Spreading slurs and making personal attacks about users to third parties, even when you have a bad relationship with them, is surely unacceptable. It can do nothing but escalate ill-feeling, spread [whatever is] the dispute, and, if not dealt with, give the victim little choice but to "retaliate".Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 01:17, 7 April 2009 (UTC)