Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

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

User:Born2cycle and Lane splitting

I'm requesting assistance withan ongoing problem with a disruptive editor, User:Born2cycle who has been preventing consensus and making bizarre demands to refute his theories in Lane splitting and Filtering forward. This person has been carrying on endless, unproductive arguments on Talk pages and has been inserting unsupported opinions into the articles, reverting them when removed, and then demanding that other editors must provide sources to disprove these fringe theories. I went to great effort to answer some of his objections here and this only served to keep the argument going and bring on more challenges for more sources to counter his ideas.

The immediate problem can seen at Talk:Lane splitting#Legal Status Edit War. Born2cycle keeps reverting an edit, here and here which is intended to support a novel legal theory. The discussion shows that this person feels the burden is on other editors to find sources to disprove this claim.

This is part of a larger pattern of ongoing disruption, which I believe is due to the Born2cycle's passionate support of a cause called Vehicular cycling. He has stated that that "Vehicular cycling is not a social-political movement, it's the law." When sources are cited from police, transport authorities and judges that contradict this belief, he argues that "the issue appears to be a lack of awareness about the existence of the law, even by police and judges, not a different interpretation of the law." Thus, he wants to use Wikipedia to correct what he sees as systemic bias.

This has caused him to disrupt efforts to merge the two different articles Lane splitting and Filtering forward and to demand that bicycles and motorcycles must be written about on Wikipedia together, rather than in separate articles or sections of articles, because to discuss them separately constitutes an attack on the rights of bicyclists. Giving in to these demands makes reading the articles confusing and writing them awkward. When offered compromise, Born2cycle has returned with more demands, and more pointy arguments and objections. On topics that Born2cycle does not feel so strongly about, he or she has made very valuable contributions. There seem to be several possible routes available to try to address this problem, and I'm starting here with ANI.--Dbratland (talk) 22:47, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

First, Dbratland has made no attempt to contact me on my talk page before starting this ANI. I consider this ANI to be a disruptive attempt to get out of discussing the controversial issues involved.

Second, I understand Dbratland's frustration, but he or she is confusing a lot of issues, and we have different opinions on several of them. For example, what my opinions may or may not be about vehicular cycling have nothing to do with our latest discussion, which was cited above. But, for the record, yes, vehicular cycling, is, by definition, simply riding a bicycle in accordance with the rules of the road. Why pointing this out frustrates Dbratland so much, I don't know, and he or she can't explain.

Third, I did not revert twice as Dbratland claims I did above (not that there is anything wrong with that if I did). I added a statement to the article here, which Dbratland deleted, and then I reverted here, once. Dbratland characterizes that as "Born2cycle keeps reverting and edit", which is an excellent example of how unreasonable and outlandish his or her perspective is.

Finally, editors are supposed to reach consensus through discussion on Wikipedia, and that's all I've been trying to do. My posts speak for themselves, including the entire current discussion. The statement in question, that I added to the article, Whether such a citation will hold up to a challenge in court depends on the particular situation, simply says that something is unknown. Dbratland wants me to cite a source for that. Well, if something is known (in this case whether such citations will hold up in court), there should be a source for it, not the other way around. My position is that as long we don't have much evidence about the issue one way or the other, it's reasonable to say it's not known. That's all this is about. Dbratland notes that he has gone to great effort to explain his position. So have I. The difference is that I've addressed and refuted all of his points, and he's ignored many of mine, and he's frustrated by that. Again, I understand, but if I disagree with what he's saying, and explain the reasons I disagree, is it my fault that he gets frustrated? I think not. --Born2cycle (talk) 23:31, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

User:Born2cycle is relentless in his efforts to make Wikipedia say that lane splitting by motorcycles might be legal in other states besides California. After having his previous attempt reverted by another editor, his new edit tries to argue that "opinions differ" on the question, using weasel words and a single blog entry by an author who has not spent much time researching lane splitting to suggest it might be legal in some "other" unspecified states. If it is legal in any other state, name the state and provide evidence of for that. The burden of proof is on the editor who inserts the information into Wikipedia.

To an extent, this is a serious issue. If a naive reader takes this Wikipedia article as the truth, he or she could attempt to lane split on a motorcycle in a state other than California and be cited for a serious traffic infraction, as well as risk a deadly accident. All because some radical skeptic wished to argue a fine point beyond reason. I think it would be best to refrain from this type of insinuation and not use Wikipedia in a way that calls into question what motorcyclists are told to do in their state riders' manual. At the very least, hold off until more solid evidence is found.--Dbratland (talk) 05:47, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Sounds like a WP:V problem. --John Nagle (talk) 20:17, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

I was checking to see if "vehicular cycling" might be a neologism, per WP:NEO. A Google news search brings up "Los Angeles Times - May 22, 2006. One of the best and safest approaches to riding around town is "vehicular cycling" (VC), which Wikipedia defines as "the practice of driving bicycles on ... ". Does that circular reference count as a reference from a reliable source? --John Nagle (talk) 20:28, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Google often returns the Wikipedia entry for a given search term at the top of the list, and Wikipedia is getting referenced more and more often by the mainstream press. I get 60,000 ghits for "vehicular cycling" (in quotes). Perhaps it was a neologism back in the 70s when it was first coined by John Forester, but no longer. And the concept to which it refers - that bicyclists riding on roadways are to abide by the rules of the road for drivers (e.g., riding with traffic rather than against like pedestrians) - goes back to the 19th century. --Born2cycle (talk) 19:49, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

By the way, in contrast, note that "lane splitting" in quotes nets less than 40,000 ghits. --Born2cycle (talk) 20:25, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

• Results 1 - 10 of about 59,700 for "vehicular cycling".
• Results 1 - 10 of about 38,100 for "lane splitting".

If vehicular cycling might be a neologism, then the topic at issue here, lane splitting, is one for sure. --Born2cycle (talk) 20:25, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, John, this is a verifiability issue. For states in which lane splitting is not explicitly illegal, it is difficult to verify whether it is legal or not. Dbratland is way out of line when he states, "User:Born2cycle is relentless in his efforts to make Wikipedia say that lane splitting by motorcycles might be legal in other states besides California". I would be perfectly happy to have the article state that it is illegal in all other states, if we had verifiable and reliable sources to substantiate such a statement. Perhaps those sources exist. Great, bring them on. But until we have them, it's irresponsible and misleading to say anything other than the matter is unresolved - nobody really knows whether lane splitting is legal in those states or not. --Born2cycle (talk) 19:41, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

• Here is one [1] Top of last paragraph on the page: "Lane splitting is not recognized as a legal maneuver in any state except California."
  Born2cycle's insistence that the burden of proof lies on others to disprove vague, weasly innuendo that it might be legal, based on an unsupported legal theory, is why I think this is not merely WP:V, it is WP:DISRUPT. And what is the justification for the rush to insert weasel words like "opinions differ" when there is nothing to gain by it? What if some poor motorcyclist takes it seriously and gets a ticket or gets injured? We can confidently say it is legal in California if done safely, but we have no business suggesting you try it in any other state until we have reliable sources.--Dbratland (talk) 20:29, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

• I never said, much less insisted, that the burden of proof lies on others to disprove vague, weasly innuendo! What are you talking about?

• The very same source you cite goes on to state, "In most states [lane splitting] is not explicitly prohibited but is regularly interpreted by police and courts as unlawful." The words "most" (but not all) and "regularly interpreted" leaves room for reasonable exceptions. In fact, the implication is that the standard for what determines when lane splitting is safe is simply a bit higher in those states than in California. None of this supports claiming in a Wikipedia article that lane splitting is flat-out illegal in all states but California. --Born2cycle (talk) 15:50, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

....and so it goes: on and on and on and on endlessly between these two. Can an administrator please step in and sort this out one way or another. --Biker Biker (talk) 21:21, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

The difficulty is that there's no clear demonstration of actionable activity. An ongoing edit war could be stopped, but it can be hard for outsiders to tell the difference between good faith failures to communicate effectively and actual disruptive editing. Our assume good faith guideline makes good faith miscommunication the default assumption. The way to sort things out is to head to dispute resolution. A content request for comment on one or more disputed articles would be the first and quickest solution, followed possibly by mediation or a conduct request for comment. We don't mean to be overly bureaucratic: if a couple of honest attempts to sort things out that way fail, then it's easier for passersby to see where the cause of the failure is. With any luck this will clear itself out amicably. Even if that looks unlikely, go ahead and give it a fair try anyway. You might get pleasantly surprised, and if not the attempt at dispute resolution will clarify matters for the admin corps and make it easier to get intervention. Best wishes, Durova^Charge! 03:23, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

If Dbratland simply abided by WP:AGF and focused exclusively on the issues, there would be no conflict between us. These issues are important, and we agree it's important to get the article right, and my posts speak for themselves. How that amounts to disruption is beyond me. --Born2cycle (talk) 15:50, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

No independent third party is pointing fingers at anyone. The purpose of formal dispute resolution is to get a structure that makes it easier to focus on the issues and assume good faith. This board is for administrative intervention, which is different. Recommend you give dispute resolution a try, starting with a content request for comment. Durova^Charge! 21:23, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Perhaps it might be helpful for an admin to encourage Dbratland to abide by WP:AGF. --Born2cycle (talk) 23:38, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Not an admin, but AGF is good advice generally. Best wishes to you both; here's hoping there won't be a need for you to return to ANI. Durova^Charge! 05:31, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Report from ThuranX re: Joker "threat" emails

Resolved

 – CUs/AF engaged to mitigate impact. –xeno ^talk 04:01, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

[2] (Resolved). –xeno ^talk 02:35, 22 May 2009 (UTC)]

Why blanking? Shouldn't this at least get archived? And it didn't appear to be resolved either.Drew Smith What I've done 02:40, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Definitely not over; I just got another one at Semper discipulus (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) rootology (C)(T) 02:42, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

It's trolling, ongoing. WP:BEANS and so on. Gwen Gale (talk) 02:43, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, just sweep it under the rug, don't talk about it. Instead of addressing it and getting it sorted out, getting out ahead of it so the community is aware, just keep hiding it. ThuranX (talk) 02:45, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, it appears it isn't resolved, but my original question still stands, why blanking and not just archiving?Drew Smith What I've done 02:47, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Mostly to deny jollies to the troll.--Tznkai (talk) 02:48, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

I got the same e-mail. Its just a troll looking to get a response, which Thuranx seems to be helping. I deleted it right away. Ignore is best.--Jojhutton (talk) 02:50, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

The only thing that can be done about it is block-on-sight, an activity which is already under way. Anything more is recognition granting. Someone may wish to pen an abuse filter if this lad is going to stick around for a while. –xeno ^talk 03:31, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Can you even abuse filter emails? rootology/equality 03:33, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Good question; I was more talking about the MO in general. –xeno ^talk 03:44, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Anyone who may be interested. Please go [here]. Sock farm and perhaps worse on this guy. This may be more difficult to get rid of. Same guy was vandalising last night--Jojhutton (talk) 03:34, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Checkusers are aware of the issue, and are doing their best to handle it.--Tznkai (talk) 03:41, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Did anyone besides me notice that these were all sent by fairly established editors? One of them, Facist chicken, has been around since 06. Whats going on here?Drew Smith What I've done 02:04, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

WP:RBI is the best response to this vandal. Nakon 02:07, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Let's all remember the most important thing though: Batman (1989) is better than The Dark Knight by a Bob. But yeah, RBI. Sceptre ^(talk) 02:09, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

But we can't ignore the fact that they are all longtime users. Did something go wrong, or did someone actually hack their accounts?Drew Smith What I've done 02:11, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Vandals usually create long-term accounts that are then aged. Any more expansion on this would be against WP:BEANS. Please just drop it as you are giving the vandal all the attention he wants. Nakon 02:14, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

This happens from time to time. And whether they're hacked or the original users, either way they get the hammer. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 04:50, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm worried. How come I don't get things like this? All I get is spam for Cialis. That worries me even more. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 02:13, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

It's a little scary, but it's good to have a reference for a backup plan... for when the time is right. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 04:46, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

According to the ads, the only time that the time is right is when you and your partner are sitting in adjoining bathtubs. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 17:26, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Apparent threat by permabanned user The Fascist Chicken

Last night I received a somewhat disturbing e-mail through the "E-mail this user" feature from someone claiming to be "The Fascist Chicken". (I checked and the username in question is permabanned as a sockpuppet of another permabanned user.) Here is the text of the e-mail, which was dated 1 a.m. on 22 May 2009:

Tonight, you’re all gonna be a part of a social experiment. Through the magic of hacking skills and steward powers, I’m ready right now to blow your minds sky high. Anyone attempts to block me or revert, you all get desysopped.

Each of you has a button to block another editor. At midnight, I desysop and block you all. If, however, one of you indefinitely blocks as many constructive editors as you can, I’ll let that admin keep their admin powers. So, who’s it gonna be? Wikipedia’s most-wanted scumbag collection or the sweet and innocent contributors? You choose. Oh, and you might wanna decide quickly because the other administrators may not be quite so noble. — The Joker

It's probably some guy just blowing smoke but is there any way of shutting down the "e-mail this feature" ability for banned users? And if in the unlikely event this guy does follow through with his threat (if he meant midnight last night then he failed), what is the process for being re-sysopped? Did anyone else receive this e-mail? I personally don't remember ever dealing with this guy, myself. I'm generally not one for bothering to feed the trolls, but it does get annoying when I get e-mails of this nature. Personally I consider myself semi-retired from the project anyway - too much else happening in "real life" - but this is just annoying. 23skidoo (talk) 13:18, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

The same (self-described) joker has been uttering the same fantasy under a variety of usernames. We are all, like, so scared by this. -- Hoary (talk) 13:32, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

This is a known user. Revert block ignore. Since he's already blocked, simply ignore.Theresa Knott | token threats 13:33, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Seems to me that he's just another user obsessed with The Dark Knight (film).As for the threat, you guys smell that? I smell bull crap. --SKATER ^Speak. 13:45, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

...although "The Fascist Chicken" is a cool username LOL (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 14:27, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

My name is cooler. HalfShadow 16:58, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

"FascistChicken" is right, and his just fell into the stock pot. If they think they can frighten us into willing submission, they haven't been around very long or are thick. -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Cardmaker)} 17:35, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

I really don't think this is a serious attempt at intimidating Wikipedia's body of editors. :-) It's probably just a bored teenager who's quite into The Dark Knight. … (Note: I also received a message from "The Joker.") AGK 20:36, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

I wasn't at all worried when I received this message. Why? Because it's obviously a script kiddie. You see, Real Hackers don't warn their targets beforehand unless they are making extortion on them. --Enric Naval (talk) 10:59, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

It does not seem to be resolved. I just got an email from User:Semper discipulus saying the same thing. Drew Smith What I've done 21:45, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

And I, one from User:Malathion. Λυδαcιτγ 04:51, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it seems he reached the A's as I received one from that account as well. Blocked. --auburnpilot talk 04:58, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

File another SPI, if possible, to root out the proxies. -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Cardmaker)} 05:01, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

I just got one from User:Poppypetty, aka The Joker. bibliomaniac15 06:29, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Mine came from User:Anthony S. Tsoumbris, the old username of User:E Pluribus Anthony. +Angr 07:44, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

I also got one this morning from User:Anthony S. Tsoumbris. It was a lovely thing to wake up to. AnemoneProjectors (talk) 07:53, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

<----Poppypetty is a sysop on french wikipedia. I seriously doubt we have this many established editors in on this.Drew Smith What I've done 08:00, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

What I'm noticing is that these messages are coming from usernames that have been changed. User:The Fascist Chicken was renamed User:Private Butcher. User:Semper discipulus was renamed User:Semper discens, who is not blocked. User:Malathion was moved to User:Ryan Delaney, who is a currently active admin. User:Poppypetty was moved to User:Poppy, who is not blocked and is an admin at French Wikipedia. And User:Anthony S. Tsoumbris was moved to User:E Pluribus Anthony, who is not blocked. Does this mean all these users are also sockpuppets? Even Ryan Delaney and Poppy, who are both users in good standing and admins either here or at fr-wp? +Angr 08:03, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

It's my understanding that when an account is renamed, the old username becomes fair game for anyone who wants to re-register it. So no, I don't think that the established accounts have any role in this. --Bongwarrior (talk) 08:27, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

That is correct. This is also why anyone who requests a rename should re-register the old name after being renamed, and redir the upage/utalk to the right place. //roux   08:29, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

So the pattern is that this character is looking for users who renamed themselves, and is latching onto the old name, right? I wonder how many of those there are? Hundreds? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 08:46, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Just for the record, I've also received one from 'Poppypetty'. Bettia (bring on the trumpets!) 09:04, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Yeh, it looks like he's working his way through the list of users alphabetically - at least those that have e-mail enabled, which I don't. He's using old ID's to log in and create new ones. [3] So, in effect, he is conducting a social experiment. I'm assuming the admins are working behind the scenes to choke this character off before he gets too much farther along. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 09:13, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

It's from a known user. Just ignore. All this discussion simply feeds the troll. Theresa Knott | token threats 09:12, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

One problem with you guys' theory. Poppypetty had a redirect from his old userpage. Poppypetty did re-register his old account, and redirected it.75.93.119.255 (talk) 09:43, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

The old user page redirected to the new one, but that doesn't mean the account itself was re-registered. Anyone can replace the content of a user page with a redirect to a new user page. +Angr 10:20, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

• Rx StrangeLove (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) needs to be blocked, with email disabled.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 06:49, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Aw, I received a rather cute e-mail. Why so serious? - Caribbean~H.Q. 20:49, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Solution re: re-registering vacated accounts

It may be a sound idea to have the "ghosts" of all renamed accounts automatically re-registered through the software. I'm not sure about the technical implications of this, but I can't think of any cons logistically. It extinguishes this joker, anyway. —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 11:54, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

I suggested this a year and a half ago; the usuals have been doing this for a long time. Cheers, Jack Merridew 12:18, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Mine was reregistered earlier this year after Johnny the Vandal got ahold of it and SUL'd it. I have it again, and I don't think the asylum inmate can guess its pass. As an aside, are we making sure that these accounts' SULs are nullified as soon as they are blocked? -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Cardmaker)} 21:39, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

<< I'd suggest that on being renamed, a 'crat leaves a user a standard message advising them to re-register their account. Then it's in people's own hands. ╟─TreasuryTag►hemicycle─╢ 10:37, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Multiple similar merged reports

moved from its own section. --Enric Naval (talk) 10:50, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

[[::User:جوكر|جوكر]] (talk · contribs) sent me a funny email through wikipedia's email system about how he is going to hack and desysop me. A truly amazing hacking feat, since I'm not even an admin in the first place:

"Tonight, you’re all gonna be a part of a social experiment. Through the magic of hacking skills and steward powers, I’m ready right now to blow your minds sky high. Anyone attempts to block me or revert, you all get desysopped."

"Each of you has a button to block another editor. At midnight, I desysop and block you all. If, however, one of you indefinitely blocks as many constructive editors as you can, I’ll let that admin keep their admin powers. So, who’s it gonna be? Wikipedia’s most-wanted scumbag collection or the sweet and innocent contributors? You choose. Oh, and you might wanna decide quickly because the other administrators may not be quite so noble. — The Joker"

Please indef-block the wannabe script kiddie and someone check the email system for similar messages. --Enric Naval (talk) 10:28, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

He's now blocked. I'm quaking in my janitor's uniform. weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 10:30, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Oh, and #Apparent threat by permabanned user The Fascist Chicken has been linked to by AnonDiss below. weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 10:34, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

User:Джокер - Wierd email

moved from its own section. --Enric Naval (talk) 10:50, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Just received this:

Tonight, you’re all gonna be a part of a social experiment. Through the magic of hacking skills and steward powers, I’m ready right now to blow your minds sky high. Anyone attempts to block me or revert, you all get desysopped.

Each of you has a button to block another editor. At midnight, I desysop and block you all. If, however, one of you indefinitely blocks as many constructive editors as you can, I’ll let that admin keep their admin powers. So, who’s it gonna be? Wikipedia’s most-wanted scumbag collection or the sweet and innocent contributors? You choose. Oh, and you might wanna decide quickly because the other administrators may not be quite so noble. — The Joker
--
This e-mail was sent by user "Джокер" on the English Wikipedia to user "DYKadminBot". It has been automatically delivered and the Wikimedia Foundation cannot be held responsible for its contents.

The sender has not been given any information about your e-mail account and you are not required to reply to this e-mail. For further information on privacy, security, and replying, as well as abuse and removal from emailing, see <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Email>.

~ Ameliorate! 10:31, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

See #Apparent threat by permabanned user The Fascist Chicken. —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 10:32, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

I just recieved this email from "The Joker"

[redacted email] Not sure what to do (besides obviously not give in to these somewhat confusing demands.) Not sure if this person is serious, but reporting it anyway. Oh, and if he is serious I guess I request unblock and resysopping in advance. Dina (talk) 12:58, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Merged. –xeno^talk 12:59, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Dina (talk) 13:02, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

I wonder when "midnight" is exactly. weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 13:01, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Might I recommend some admins to this joker? :) Debresser (talk) 13:19, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Just making it known, the last 30 or so blocks by AntiAbuseBot (talk · contribs) (the ones from 22nd May onwards), are all of this same clown--Jac16888^Talk 14:07, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Stupid "Joker" emails > time to restrict email-sending?

Would this problem be alleviated if the send-email function was disabled for all users younger than, say, 2 weeks? Because I doubt it'd be much of a difficulty for such newbies, certainly, and if it solved the issue, it's a Good Thing... ╟─TreasuryTag►hemicycle─╢ 11:07, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Er, what if someone is blocked and wants to contact the blocking admin in case of mistake? weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 11:13, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, they have the {{unblock}} template, and if — for whatever reason — they cannot edit their own talkpage, then they were probably abusive and don't have a good claim to be unblocked within a fortnight!

Anyway, I'm sure it's possible to, say, allow blocked users to email below the age of two weeks, if that's likely to be a big issue for anyone. ╟─TreasuryTag►hemicycle─╢ 11:18, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

I think this would create a big problem for newbies who are looking for help with our very confusing system. I've helped a lot of people through email. Besides, what's the big problem? I got one from El Guasón and my reaction was "ha ha, that's stupid." delldot ∇. 13:48, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

No big problem, which must be disappointing to the wannabe troll. It appears his scheme was to confuse someone into blocking the holders of established (but renamed) accounts. Not only is no one falling for it, it's a bit lulzy to watch him flail. _Hamlet, Prince of Trollmark^{bugs and goblins} 16:44, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

List so far

Just to make things a bit clearer, since this whole discussion is a mess, I figured it would be a good idea to compile a list of the blocked ones so far, for CU purposes etc. Go ahead and remove this if you think its not appropriate

• Джокер (talk · contribs)
• جوكر (talk · contribs)
• Rx StrangeLove (talk · contribs)
• The Fascist Chicken (talk · contribs)
• Malathion (talk · contribs)
• Anthony S. Tsoumbris (talk · contribs)
• Poppypetty (talk · contribs)
• OkerJay (talk · contribs)
• Suit (talk · contribs)
• Fire Truck on Fire (talk · contribs)
• Afghana (talk · contribs)
• JCutter (talk · contribs)
• HaHaHaHaHaHaHa (talk · contribs)
• Funnymanhahaha (talk · contribs)
• Afghana (talk · contribs) uttered a cry for help--"You wanna know how I got these scars? My father was a drinker and a fiend. And one night, he goes off craaazier than usual. Mommy gets the kitchen knife to defend herself. He doesn’t like that. Not. One. Bit." Etc. --The Joker. Drmies (talk) 18:54, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
• Plus the ones from here [4]
• Plus the last 30 or so blocks by AntiAbuseBot (talk · contribs) (the ones from 22nd May onwards)

--Jac16888^Talk 14:18, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

• • Add Funnymanhahaha (talk · contribs) to that list. either way (talk) 14:25, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
    • The general formula is the old usernames of people who have renamed but not registered their old name again. weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 14:26, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

• • Also add The Joker, (note the oh-so-clever use of punctuation). --Ckatz^chat_spy 18:17, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
  • And Funnyjoker (talk · contribs) emailed me. Dougweller (talk) 21:18, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
    • Ditto that. Just came back from wikibreak to see that... *sigh* –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 22:04, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Јокег (talk · contribs) (note the characters) just popped up in my inbox. Block away. ThemFromSpace 23:49, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
    • Killed; Bongwarrior neglected to emailblock. About the only person he's joking is himself; the charade is up. I'm pretty certain this is another User:JarlaxleArtemis wildfire - note the infatution with a recent movie in the use of his usernames and behavior similar to the character they're attempting to emulate. In short, this Joker crap is simply Grawp wearing a fursuit. -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Cardmaker)} 01:18, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Where to forward this?

talk to me 14:03, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

 – ignoring works for me, since others have reported this.--Fabrictramp

I haven't had enough caffeine yet to figure this out on my own. :)

Some bored vandal sent me an email saying they'd hacked in to a bunch of admin accounts and was going to block all admins who didn't start blocking other editors. I doubt they've hacked into an admin account, but I want to forward the email to the appropriate people. Except I can't remember who handles that.

Thanks!--Fabrictramp | talk to me 13:44, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Someone might want to merge this with the threads above. This is a known timewaster. Revert, Block, Ignore. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 13:55, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Posting it here is fine; it's already well known though, as you arent' the first. It's an idle threat, nothing like the events described are going to happen, and those who would need to react if it were are already aware of what action they would need to take. So... don't worry, be happy. - Nunh-huh 13:57, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Ignoring and being happy works for me. (I looked through the last half of ANI to see if had been reported -- didn't look at the top. Off for that caffeine now.)--Fabrictramp | talk to me 14:03, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

One thing though, who was it? Are they already blocked?--Jac16888^Talk 22:56, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

It was HaHaHaHaHaHaHa. Looks like they're blocked.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:34, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Threat by User:Petri Krohn

Petri Krohn (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) made a fairly unambiguous threat against User:Digwuren here. I urged him to remove it; he has edited since then and not done so. I think he should be blocked, and I move for an immediate and permanent community ban. He's been given enough chances. //roux   09:41, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

User notified. //roux   09:46, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) To be fair, it doesn't look like an actual threat, more like "MY DADZ A POLICEMAN AND HE'L GET U" — extremely childish, but not a genuine menace (though I'm not familiar with the case, and might have misunderstood it). Therefore, I think that a permanent ban is a bit of an overreaction, and "horrifying" a bit of an exagguration. However, allowing such abuse, absurd as it is, shouldn't happen, so I suggest a block of a week, to be added to any block that might come separately out of the discussion in which the thread was made. ╟─TreasuryTag►hemicycle─╢ 09:49, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

See further comment below. ╟─TreasuryTag►hemicycle─╢ 09:59, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

This may provide some needed background to this apparently intractable problem. //roux   09:53, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Ah, OK, horse of a different colour. Permaban seems much more palatable now, sorry for the ignorance... ╟─TreasuryTag►hemicycle─╢ 09:59, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Personally, I really did not read the statement as a threat, but (as he himself said) as a friendly piece of advice. I don't know what he was talking about, but perhaps he meant this "agency." At least give him a change to explain himself before jumping into conclusions. Offliner (talk) 10:15, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Given Krohn's past on Wikipedia, I read it more like "Nice place you got here, shame if anything happened to it, know what I mean?" than actual friendly advice. //roux   10:20, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

"You may get yourself into trouble because of agency X, you should be careful" is taken for "Nice place you got here, shame if anything happened to it"–with the threat of a permanent ban for the user? (What?) PasswordUsername (talk) 11:55, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

The absurdity of thinking that someone would intitiate a threat against another user at ANI is beyond me. PasswordUsername (talk) 14:44, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Looking at the actual edit, it doesn't read like a threat. Petri Krohn is not threatening to take or initiate or cause any action. Warning editors of possible real-world consequences that could follow independently, from the warned editor's actions, isn't a threat. It's wasn't "my Dad's a policeman," which would be a threat to tell Dad. Whether or not it was advisable to say would depend on many factors, but PK's post is primarily a recounting of his history with Digwuren, and to sanction such reports would be chilling. And to propose it here disruptive. That post, to AN, would probably have been seen by many administrators, and if it called for immediate action, surely they would have noticed it. Complaining here is spreading discussion. --Abd (talk) 13:53, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

I see no request to User talk:Petri Krohn to remove the comment. The request cited above is to AN. AN is very difficult to follow and I often remove it from my watchlist even when I've posted there. No presumption can be made that an editor has read it. Some of the editors commenting here seem highly involved in disputes with PK, that should be considered as well. --Abd (talk) 14:08, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

No request? How about my diff posted above? //roux   18:48, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

• "If he continues his edits, he should make sure his true identity remains secret", plus telling that a Russian Agency will take care of him. Not a threat? Of course he did not tell: "you will be killed for making too much noise" as was said by another user in my case [5], but this is very close.Biophys (talk) 14:52, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

There is a threat, yes, but not coming from Petri Krohn, if he is correct. If he's not correct, then, of course, blow it off. I see no sign that Petri Krohn himself is threatening. Now, if it could be shown that he's connected with this "agency," then, of course, he should be out of here in a flash. But that's not the story here, at least not yet. More below. --Abd (talk) 16:02, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

I am sorry if I have offend someone. I did not intend to threaten anyone. I have removed my offending comment.

As for the "Russian Agency", the story is true – and it will have profound effects on Wikipedia. It remains to be seen what those are. Looks like the time of free speech is over. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 15:43, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

No, Petri, it has always been true, and remains true, that if you exercise your rights to free speech, in a way that offends someone with power, you can be harassed, prosecuted, murdered. Wikipedia hasn't changed the world in this respect. In fact, sometimes you can offend someone with apparently no power, and the end is the same. Basically, human beings have power and sometimes use it, make them angry enough. Some of us will do anything given sufficient provocation, and there are a few who will be provoked simply by their own imaginations. The world is a dangerous place, still. Welcome to it, it's also quite a nice place and usually safe if you don't go around pissing people off. Unfortunately, some of us find it necessary to speak up, on occasion. I'd probably be high on a list if certain people or organizations were to gain more power, or if I were considered more of a danger, and one of my old friends is seriously dead, for exactly the crime of speaking what he believed, there is an article here about him, you could probably figure it out from my edit history. He lived in Tucson, Arizona. Safe place? Not if you become well-known for something that some really don't want to hear. {He was wrong, by the way, but that doesn't make a difference here, he's still dead.) --Abd (talk) 16:02, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm not seeing any activity at Joseph Stalin which seems related to this. If the "Russian Agency" was getting involved in Wikipedia, we'd probably see some efforts to rehabilitate Stalin's image. So far, no. --John Nagle (talk) 16:05, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

I have clarified my statement in the original thread. What I have now said explicitly is that activity similar to what we have seen on Wikipedia may become a criminal offense in Russia, and by extension in Estonia. I was too vague originally. I took efforts to avoid linking anyone to criminal activity, especially as this activity is not criminalized in the United States. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 17:03, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

P.S. I now see that User:Digwuren had already started an article on the newly created Russian Historical Truth Commission. The associated Law on countermeasures against the rehabilitation of Nazism, Nazi criminals and their associates in former republics of the Soviet Union threatens imprisoned for up to five years. I too find this threatening. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 00:09, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

P.P.S. Please note that whatever I wrote on ANI was not addressed to Digwuren but to administrators in general and User:Offliner in particular. I have presested my {{WikiThanks}} to Digwuren here. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 04:58, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, you also implied that Digwuren has apparently been singled out for special attention by this committee, hence your original "friendly warning" when you said: "If he continues his edits, he should make sure his true identity remains secret. Things said on Wikipedia do have effects in the real world. If I am not totally mistaken, Digwuren's edits on Wikipedia may have had a small role to play in the creation of the Agency" The question remains who singled Digwuren out and how do you know that Digwuren's activities figure so prominently in the formation of this committee that you felt compelled to give him this additional "friendly thankyou" on his talk page? --Martintg (talk) 05:20, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Permban, I am not sure, but a few month may be helpful. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 17:41, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Support a permaban. Krohn was already banned for a year for this kind of anti-estonian polemic. Krohn's remarks read as a threat that this Russian agency would be notified of Digwuren's identity should it ever be revealed, implying that Krohn would report Digwuren to the agency if he continued participating in editing Wikipedia. This is intimidatory. Wikipedia doesn't need editors with extremist agendas threatening people for the sole reason of belonging to a particular ethnic group. There should be zero tolerance for this kind of intimidation. --Martintg (talk) 22:28, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

What you are in fact reading from my comment, is that I would be willing to provide evidence to law enforcement agencies investigating and prosecuting criminal offenses. This is not what I am saying. Even if I did, I do not think this could be considered a threat. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 00:47, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Support permaban or very long block. Petri Krohn 's warnings are directed only to people who disagree with him, especially user:Digwuren. Someone who says that dire things will happen to people who dare to disagree with him is not giving "friendly advice"; he is using intimidation to attempt to give himself an advantage. This is an utterly unacceptable debating tactic on Wikipedia. Abd's argument that no-one has actually proved that Petri Kohn is "connected with this ‘agency’ " is utterly irrelevant; we don't have a rule that people get a free pass on making threats until someone proves that they are able to carry them out.

Petri has made two "clarifications". They are oddly different from each other, and neither of them is very clear. One is that “As for the "Russian Agency", the story is true – and it will have profound effects on Wikipedia. It remains to be seen what those are. Looks like the time of free speech is over.” The other clarification possibly means that, when Russian law extends to Estonia, Estonians who have disagreed with him are likely to face criminal prosecution. So, possibly this second clarification is "only" a legal threat. Whatever these statements may mean (and I expect there will be more clarifications to these clarifications), in both of them the threatening tone comes through loud and clear. Also, that the threat has now been repeated, and in more than one version, proves that it was not a fluke. Petri Krohn has already served a 1 year block for misbehavior related to his disagreements with Estonian editors; apparently it was not enough. Cardamon (talk) 04:39, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

• I support permaban. This user's list of misdeeds is enormous. He is known for advocating inflammatory 'points of view' that he apparently is fighting for in real life, too. Wikipedia is not a soapbox, nor should it be battlefield. Petri Krohn's hint that his 'opponent' Digwuren might get Russian secret service's attention in real life был последней каплей for me. --Miacek (t) 08:52, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose permaban > 6 months? I've actually just had quite a civil chat with this user on their talkpage, and they don't seem to be the complete crank that they come over to be here. I think that they deserve a long cooling-off period, and then another chance, so I'm suggesting 6 months. Sorry to keep chopping and changing my opinion on this subject, but I hope this will be my final word! ╟─TreasuryTag►hemicycle─╢ 08:54, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Except that what Krohn regards as Digwuren's POV on Estonian history corresponds to the view of eminent historians such as David J. Smith (who is a Reader in Baltic Studies at the Department of Central and East European Studies, University of Glasgow, and Editor of the Journal of Baltic Studies). This is what Smith writes in his book "Estonia: Independence and European integration". Krohn on the other hand is an apparent member of SAFKA (This has been previously reported to the COI), an activist group that believes the Soviet occupation of the Baltic states is a myth. The activities of the SAFKA have been investigated by the Estonian security police who have discovered some members have links with certain elements within Russia and this has widely reported in the Estonian press. Hence Krohn's "friendly warning" to Digwuren had a chilling effect that was certainly intimidatory. --Martintg (talk) 12:40, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

• Support permaban - Digwuren and Petri Krohn were both banned for a year, in part for clashing with each other. Since their return, Digwuren has shown good conduct, but Petri Krohn has proven unable to do so. Implying that the Russian government is going to go after you if you don't change your ways is bound to have a chilling effect, especially on someone from tiny next-door Estonia. We don't want that kind of editing environment, and so I propose Petri Krohn should be excluded from the project. - Biruitorul ^Talk 15:20, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Note to admins–As said before, I find it ridiculous that a particular number of editors who have written above, largely the same group of user who always seek to justify Digwuren's latest pattern of behavior by slinging mud at his opponents, is now seeking to make the claim that Petri Krohn's warning to Digwuren about the latest development on a contested historical issue from the perspective of the Russian government's commission, which he has already amply clarified, is taken for a threat when he posted it on ANI–publicly and under his own name!
Laughable is the assertion of the editor above, claiming that "since their return, Digwuren has shown good conduct, but Petri Krohn has proven unable to do so." As Offliner has clearly demonstrated here (I strongly recommend reading this thread in full detail–Offliner's post, among other things, features a whole compendium of personal attacks and crass incivility against a number of users, including myself), Digwuren has not shown good faith–rather, the bulk of his edits have been constituted by disrupting and making personal attacks against other editors, including against myself. (This new diversion from Digwuren's behavior–a transformation of the issue into an attack on Petri Krohn for supposed "threats" is interesting of itself.) Digwuren is now proceeding to stalk my edits: compare the good work done by Digwuren as far as these unmistakable instances–plainly obvious from the most recent histories of articles such as 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6.

Moreover, as Digwuren himself wrote on May 11, the day on which within 24 hours of encountering me he laughably accused me of being a sockpuppet of Anonimu or Jacob Peters (he never actually made up his mind as to which editor I was)

"Today, PasswordUsername asking Petri Krohn for help regarding the Neo-Stalinism categories. It is unlikely to help him -- Mr. Krohn has been behaving rather well in the recent months -- but since this is his very first edit on Krohn's talkpage, and they do not seem to have had previous contacts regarding Stalinism -- neo or otherwise -- it raises a question of why he'd pick Petri Krohn out of the thousands of editors." 7.

My explanation for "picking Petri Krohn out of the thousands of editors," of course, is explained fully at the same link provided. What is funny is that even Digwuren himelf (in fact, a SPA, unlike Petri Krohn) has publicly acknowledged the good nature of Petri's contributions (again, oddly enough, this being in the context of an obscene attack against myself), but, having now given a history of his rather difficult co-existence with Digwuren's belligerent editing patterns, Petri is accused of some great malice by Digwuren's loyal crew. Frankly, I interpret this as nothing but the bad-faith insults of a lynch-mob threatening to conduct "punishment" against a user whose productive, if not exactly quite passive, editing history stands in sharp juxtaposition against their own. Between Digwuren and Petri Krohn, I can say in all good conscience that if anybody deserves to be permabanned, it is not Petri Krohn–although given the administrators' reluctance to intervene in the dispute against Digwuren by taking measures more stringent than simply asking both Offliner and Digwuren to "walk away and behave," I strongly suggest that the accusations here simply be dismissed as equally frivolous. (And what has been said about Petri is much more frivolous than the substantial cases made against Digwuren many a time in the past.) I encourage all administrators to examine this issue seriously–claims against Petri Krohn are partisan and blatant character assasssinations which should be observed and analyzed just for what they are. PasswordUsername (talk) 19:52, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

• Krohn has just issued another "friendly warning" on Digwuren's talk page, implying that this commission will take particular interest in Digwuren and ominously talks of Digwuren in the past tense [6]. --Martintg (talk) 00:45, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
  • That isn't a "friendly warning" in quotation marks–what Petri says is clearly a commendation for the article he himself had wanted to start and the tense is the grammatical feature of language known as the "future perfect"–but thank you for noting it. I should also note that Petri Krohn opposes the commission, if you're still fond of equivocally speaking of the subject. PasswordUsername (talk) 01:12, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
    • Simply not true. SAFKA endorses the law and hails it as "a victory for Safka". The connection between SAFKA members and one of the committee members Alexander Dyukov is well known. There are many editors involved in editing articles about the former Soviet Union, yet Digwuren has apparently been singled out for special attention by this committee, or so Krohn claims. The question remains who singled Digwuren out and how does Krohn know that Digwuren's activities figure so prominently in the formation of this committee? --Martintg (talk) 01:46, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
      • Sorry, you obviously haven't bothered to read what Petri Krohn has written here at ANI/Incidents, at the main administrators' noticeboard, or on other pages. Whatever organization he may or may not happen to be part of, the opinions he holds as an individual are his own personal thoughts–and he has clearly written online that he, too, "find[s] the law threatening." (See here.) I think you should stop throwing in people's real-life identities in these disputes–regardless of one's ideology, opinions, occupation, or activities in real life, the benchmark for judging the conduct of online contributors is simply their online conduct. PasswordUsername (talk) 01:56, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
        • Your initial claim was "Petri Krohn opposes the commission", this is a long way from "find[s] the law threatening". Evidently he was hoping Digwuren would find this law threatening too, enough to intimidate him from further contribution to Wikipedia. However this law has absolutely no jurisdiction anywhere outside Russia, except perhaps to those Russian citizens living abroad who may contribute to Wikipedia. Yet this "friendly warning" was not offered to any of these Russian editors, only to Digwuren. --Martintg (talk) 02:14, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
          • The commission is "the law" being referred to here–I think you're attacking the imprecise semantics, yet doing injustice to the concrete meaning (the proposition) being brought up here. (Perhaps the best way of gleaning this is to consult the informal fallacy trivial objections.) The application of the law is coordinated in conjunction with the work done by the Historical Truth Commission–and Petri's already clarified that his concern related to the law's not being limited in scope to Russia's territory. PasswordUsername (talk) 02:31, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

P.S.: I even misquoted Petri Krohn's remarks–rather than speaking of "the law," he specifically made clear:

"P.S. I now see that User:Digwuren had already started an article on the newly created Russian Historical Truth Commission. The associated Law on countermeasures against the rehabilitation of Nazism, Nazi criminals and their associates in former republics of the Soviet Union threatens imprisoned for up to five years. I too find this threatening. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 00:09, 24 May 2009 (UTC)" (1)

Whatever else was said by Petri Krohn, it was all in the same vein: nowhere does he endorse the commission (you might want to try asking his own opinion of the commission or gleaning it from what he's written about it before you jump to conclusions). Here's to hoping that this has now clarified everything up for you, Martintg. PasswordUsername (talk) 05:33, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm not commenting on the specifics here, because they may come before the Arbitration Committee, but I strongly urge everyone interested in this situation to carefully review and abide by the principles outlined in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Jim62sch. Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:00, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

This hardly should come before the ArbCom because this user was already banned by ArbCom, and a consensus about his behavior was reached at AE noticeboard [7]. Telling another user "If he continues his edits, he should make sure his true identity remains secret" and reminding about an "Agency" was clearly an attempt of intimidation, as noted by DGG at another board [8]. Biophys (talk) 17:33, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Mosedschurte

See also: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive539 § Civil_POV_pushing, and Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard § Human_rights_in_the_United_States

Mosedschurte (talk · contribs) spent the last 24 hours practicing WP:IAR and engaging in civil POV pushing on Human rights in the United States and acting unilaterally in every aspect of the article, refusing to collaborate with editors on the talk page or in the article itself except to insist on his way or the highway. In the process, he moved the article against consensus (and human rights-related article naming conventions) to Human rights inside the United States in order to push a unique POV of exclusion. To my knowledge, there is no other human rights article with this type of name. We need an administrator to undo this move and restore it to its previous title (Human rights in the United States). Mosedschurte also made a total of six reverts in less than six hours, and reverted four different editors (Soxwon, 91.63.151.181, Larkusix, and SlimVirgin). I have filed a AN3 report and I would like an administrator to review it asap. I would also like to discuss continuing problems with this article, and as I previously requested in the "Civil POV pushing" thread, I would like more eyes on the article and talk page. Recently, MastCell and Sceptre offered some help, and that was appreciated, but we need more editors and admins to monitor this page on a daily basis as there is also tag-teaming going on as well. In addition to edit warring, page move warring, and undiscussed content deletions, there is a lot of wikilawyering occurring on the talk page and we need rational heads to prevail. Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 11:45, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Blocked via ANI. Will look at move William M. Connolley (talk) 13:30, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

In the last few months Mosedschurte has contributed a number of high quality but extremist POVish articles to Wikipedia. Many of them are listed in his template {{Eastern Bloc}}. His original contributions include Eastern Bloc politics and Eastern Bloc economies. I do not think Wikipedia is the right place for this content. They would be better served if transwikied to Conservatipedia (unless they originated from the said source). Mosedschurte's contributions have seriously disrupted the neutral point-of-view of Wikipedia. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 15:58, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

This is preposterous. It is your POV that Mosedschurte's contributions are extremist POVish. Wikipedia is hopefully not a mouthpiece of the extreme pro-Soviet left and SAFKA in particular. Mosedschurte's other contributions do not violate any Wikipedia rule and are not what is discussed here. You are not forbidden to follow WP:SOFIXIT, by the way. Colchicum (talk) 19:28, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

I am not familiar with the specific issues that Petri Krohn is referring to here, but I am familiar with NPOV violations and false claims made by Mosedschurte about the content contained within the human rights in the United States article. I am concerned about Mosedschurte's failure to address questions about his edits on the talk page, while he plows ahead with changes against consensus. His position seems to be paternalistic: Mosedschurte knows what is best for the article; other opinions don't matter to him. I raised some serious questions about his neutrality here and my concerns were ignored. In fact, all of my concerns about his edits on the talk page have been ignored. Regardless of what Petri Krohn's issue is with Mosedschurte on another page, this issue is not "preposterous" nor is it really Petri Krohn's POV that this is a continuing problem. We've seen this type of editor before, with User:Raggz and User:TDC coming to mind as only two of many examples. Raggz supposedly left on his own accord, but it took more than three years to get TDC blocked, even though there was ample evidence of his disruption. Hopefully, administrators are more proactive now than they were in the past and this kind of behavior will not be allowed to continue. Viriditas (talk) 22:22, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

No, it is Petri Krohn's POV that this problem is present elsewhere, and it is preposterous. As to the other things, users don't have to be neutral, in fact they cannot. It is the content they write that should be neutral. Well, I've looked at your article, and apparently you also know what is best for it, don't you? Who are you to tell people to "walk away from this article"? The article is indeed far from perfect, there are some problems with WP:NPOV and WP:UNDUE, though I am not sure that Mosedschurte means the same. And I certainly don't see anything even remotely similar to a consensus there. Colchicum (talk) 22:46, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

No, the evidence so far, shows the problem is widespread, and appears in multiple articles. We are currently collecting diffs to test that hypothesis. FYI.. the article in question is not "mine"; I have contributed very little to it in the way of content, and I have spent the vast majority of my time mediating disputes before I recently got involved in the content side of it. Nevertheless, your concerns are misplaced. This incident report is about the conduct of an editor, not about content. Please take your concerns about content to the talk page. Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 02:58, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Now could you please explain where a consensus is on Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard#Human rights in the United States and Talk:Human rights in the United States? Colchicum (talk) 22:55, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

The main problem I see there is that despite there are many different theories of what human rights are the article deals with human rights in the sense of the UDHR. This goes against WP:NPOV. E.g. it is disputable whether minimum wage or healthcare have anything to do with human rights; on the other hand in the article there is nothing about property rights, which are seen by many as crucial, and so on. Colchicum (talk) 23:08, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

That "content dispute" is not under discussion here. Please use the talk page to raise those questions. This incident report revolves around the conduct and behavior of an editor, behavior I would characterize as disruptive. Viriditas (talk) 02:59, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

As far as I see it, there are grounds for a content ban for Mosed on the human rights in US article, and a 3rr block assuming he was warned previously, but there are no grounds for any other ban. As far as I know this user has created a ton of quality articles on the Eastern Bloc, and he should be encouraged to keep up this productive avenue of his work. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 22:40, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

That's an ordinary content dispute (and apparently also 3RR violation). Bringing this issue also to ANI is a typical WP:Battle action. I encouraged Mosedschurte to contribute positively to the subject [9], and he is very capable of doing just that.Biophys (talk) 02:49, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Biophys, I must strongly disagree with your assessment. The only person who has raised a discussion of a "content dispute" is User:Colchicum above, and it is my opinion that he did so to distract away from this incident report. He is welcome to bring his concerns to the talk page, but this is not the place for it. This incident report is not about content but about behavioral conduct involving a host of issues that boil down to disruptive editing. Furthermore, I would ask Petri Krohn at this time to try and find diffs for his allegations of non-neutral editing, and I will do the same. (Actually, I already have the diffs, but they will have to wait as I am somewhat busy at the moment.) Viriditas (talk) 03:03, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

The content dispute is also my assessment. It is also my assessment that Mosedschurte is one of the most knowledgeable editors on the Eastern European subjects who created many high quality articles. Unfair treatment of this editor will be resisted.Biophys (talk) 03:10, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

No offense, friend, but you are on the wrong page. To discuss a content dispute, please go to the talk page of the article. Humans have a highly evolved sense of fairness. If Mosedschurte was treated unfairly, the diffs would be raining down on us like confetti on New Year's. The fact that they aren't disproves your presumption of unfair treatment. Viriditas (talk) 04:08, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

No problems with diffs. This user provided a valid point by point criticism of the article [10]. After failing to address his points, you accused him of tag-teaming which he never did; your accused him later of "personal attacks" here and here, and you finally said : "There are currently two open ANI reports on your disruptive behavior, and I expect to open three more in the next 24 hours."here. That is what I call WP:Battle. If there are any ANI issues here, they are not on the part of Mosedschurte.Biophys (talk) 04:43, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Those diffs show that Mosedschurte avoided addressing any and all discussion of his points/edits and instead, ignored my questions. This is the disruptive, tactical strategy he and others (including yourself) are engaging in on the talk page and is spelled out in detail on the civil POV pushing page. It goes like this: An editor makes a disputed edit or uses the talk page to make a criticism about some content. When asked to explain their edit or their criticism and give a valid reason for implementing their proposal, none is provided, but claims of "incivility" and "personal attacks" are handed to the person attempting to engage in discussion. Then, the civil POV pusher edit wars over the content they never had consensus to make, and continues to repeat themselves on the talk page, pretending that the issue was never discussed. You are engaging in this same behavior on the talk page. For example, about the Katrina section, you recently wrote, "This is classic Wikipedia:Coatrack and undue weight." Nevermind the fact that the Katrina section has been discussed on the page in detail and on the NPOV board linked above, you are now returning to the same dispute and wikilawyering over "coatracking", a term that in no way applies to the Katrina section in any shape or form. It's the same disruptive strategy: Ignore past discussions, plow on through with criticisms that lack reasons (Why is it coatracking? No explanation...) and then remove the material based on your own "discussion", a discussion that never took place. This is disruptive editing at its best and it needs to stop. Viriditas (talk) 06:46, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

If we are on the wrong page, then the issue has probably already been resolved, no? What else do you want? Colchicum (talk) 08:35, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Nothing has been resolved, the problem appears to have occurred in multiple pages, and Mosedschurte appears to have some help. I want to solicit more comments as this problem is ongoing on the talk page with User:Yachtsman1 contributing to the disruption as a tag-team player. Viriditas (talk) 08:53, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Which multiple pages? Diffs, please. Not everyone who disagrees with you is disruptive. And you are not immune, by the way. Colchicum (talk) 10:38, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

That is what I'm trying to find out, so I'm glad you asked. We can see at least three articles mentioned in this thread. I have been told that there is at least one more, so we are talking about at least four. Obviously, I need more information - and diffs. So we are in agreement. Viriditas (talk) 10:44, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

• Comment. FWIW, this editor's name popped out at me for the months of disruptive POV pushing at Harvey Milk nearly derailing the path to featured article that we ultimately had to take to mediation. They had simultaneous injected some troubling People's Temple content on numerous politicians articles (some BLP) and seemed to enjoy contentious prolonged discussions. I would suggest a revert sanction as part of any remedy and not just in practice but in spirit. They had some real issues understanding due weight and sourcing policies. If they are indeed created neutral and well sourced articles then great but given the extent of their work and brazen unwillingness to see any issues with their editing accross multiple admin boards at the time I would caution taking this latest round as just an isolated incident. -- Banjeboi 02:43, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

• Comment What is clear from Mosedschurte's contributions is that he sees the world from a narrow cold-warrior point-of-view. The extremely high quality of his contributions / propaganda makes one think that he is not a individual unpaid editor but a collective account of some conservative think-tank. I believe he has failed to understand or embrace the central policy of Wikipedia: neutral point-of.view. We cannot expect NPOV to arise from edit warring between different points-of-view. On Wikipedia everyone must aim forward neutrality and be prepared to write for the enemy. However I do not think these points alone warrant a ban by an administrator. Maybe this should go to WP:RfC, unless there are other signs of disruption. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 03:47, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

• Comment I have read the items posted on this thread, and I take extreme exception with the departure from normal policy that one must assume good faith on Wikipedia. Instead, I have seen such items posted such as we have above in the form of "cold-warrior point-of-view" or "contributions/propaganda makes one think that he is not a individual unpaid editor but a collective account of some conservative think-tank" which I find are themselves a violation of Wikipedia policy and guidelines. The issue raised concerns the article Human rights in the United States, an article I have been working on for some time, trying to gain consensus to obtain some semblance of neutrality. The subject is, unfortunately, quite contentious. Changes are met with hostility, and any move to change a single word is met with an army of reverts from anonymous IP's, comments on the talk page, and hostile defiance. The reason for this is that the POV of the editors involved has taken the form of ownership, and any countering point of view dealt with by frank disdain. Indeed, my own commentary was met with the words to the effect "this is not Fox News", an obvious attempt to provide a ready-made motive and objectification of a dissenting point of view. Consensus has been reached with numerous editors on the talk page as to what is required to improve the article, yet the hostility and ownership of the article remains active. The individual editor who has most pushed their own point of point and engaged in the most outrageous acts of incivility is User:Viriditas, who started this thread. The incident that gave rise to the editor's complaint can be seen in the history here: [11]. However, the action in user:soxwon making the change which was reverted by user:Mosedschurte was made without first attempting to reach a consensus, and the matter was under discussion on the talk thread here: [12]. As to the nominator, I left her a warning as to her incivlity here, which she removed as "harassment": [13]. The editor was also left a message from user:Mosedschurte which she also deleted here: [14]. In conclusion, I think the revert was made in good faith, and was in response to the fact that the change was made without consensus having been reached as required. The other changes were made after dozens of comments from various editors on the talk page, and in the vast majority of cases, the changes were made after consensus had been reached that the article required significant work for the purposes of neutrality. Notwithsnatding, each and vevery change was reverted without any attempt to reach consensus. In conclusion, I think an assumption of good faith can easily be reached in this case. I must also take this time to point out that the vein of this thread, that an editor's "motives" are being judged because he might be "conservative" to be extremely dangerous as a precedent. I have not missed the extreme irony of the fact that "freedom of speech" and "freedom of expression" are viewed as fundamental human rights, and we are being asked to look at this case through the prism of whether a differing point of view is "acceptable" because it might counter the views of people who dislike "conservatives". A frightening Orwellian thought comes to mind, that all animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others. On this basis, I move that this thread be closed with no adverse action taken against user:Mosedschurte for the reasons I have stated above. Thank you.--Yachtsman1 (talk) 05:15, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Mosedschurte was blocked for edit warring and breaking the 3RR. I was not involved in this dispute, so I find it interesting that you blame me for his bad behavior. Furthermore, you have been engaging in the exact same behavior as Mosedschurte and actually, much worse. You will not answer questions about your proposals or your criticism of the content, nor do you seem to understand that the sources used must discuss the topic, i.e. human rights. As one example of many illustrating your disruptive behavior, you recently removed a sourced lead section and added unsourced material, without consensus. Not understanding how the {{fact}} tag works, you hardcoded "[citation needed]" into the text you added, making it clear that you were acknowledging your addition of unsourced material.[15]. When I pointed out that your edit didn't meet the requirements of our sourcing policy[16] you responded with "The lead section has thirteen cites, which were from the prior incaranation with changes in verbage, but not substance or citation."[17] And yet, you yourself added "citation needed" to your own edit, after you deleted the previously sourced material. This is, indeed, a "change in citation", and reasonable people will agree on this point. And so, I pointed your error out to you saying, "We have diffs which show you adding unsourced material and even adding "citation needed" and I provided you with the diff.[18] Furthermore, I have dozens of diffs showing you avoiding answering questions about your edits. This thread should not be closed. On the contrary, it should be expanded to include an analysis of your bad behavior. You are using the same strategy as Mosedschurte, making disputed edits without consensus, replacing sourced content with either unsourced material or sources that have nothing to do with human rights. When this is pointed out to you, you make false accusations of "incivility" and "personal attacks" and forge ahead with trivial objections. We have a situation here where editors who are not aligned with the purpose of Wikipedia are using the article and talk pages as battlegrounds for their personal POV rather than adhering to NPOV and using appropriate sources to improve the article. This needs to stop now. Viriditas (talk) 07:08, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

You misread me. I blame you for your bad behavior. There is no one else to blame. I find your rabid responses to anyone who disagrees with your POV stands on its own, and leave it to others to judge the merits (or lack thereof) of your argument. Good day.--Yachtsman1 (talk) 07:43, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

I have never discussed my POV, on the other hand, the entire talk page is filled with your personal POV pushing. Writing for the enemy entails representing POV other than your own. Please show me where you have used sources in the article and composed material that does push your personal POV. One diff will do. That will be enough to convince me of your neutrality. It should be easy, right? You seem to forget that our first interaction came about because I saw you deleting material about Katrina. This is material I originally had nothing to do with. So, I restored the material you removed without any rational justfication other than your POV, and did some research on the topic, expanding it to represent the POV as accurately as I could from reliable sources. For some reason you seem to think that representing a POV is not neutral. Contrary to your mistaken belief, this is the very definition of NPOV. Do you understand? I'm assuming you don't understand, which is the problem. You've been here since Raggz left, from September 2008, and you've been editing with a number of erroneous beliefs about how this place works. Take this incident report as an opportunity to learn and move forward. To recap, we do not delete content because we personally disagree with it. What we do, is we do research based on reliable sources and best represent significant POV other than our own. Do you understand? If not, ask someone to explain it to you. Viriditas (talk) 08:15, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Your point of view has been precisely stated, and I think that not a single cogent editor on this page or the talk page, can miss it. Contrary to your opinion, and demeaning commentary, I am well aware of the neutrality requirements, and the failure of this article to live up to Mikipedia guidelines in that area. We take "sources" and present them in a "neutral" and objective manner without interjecting our own personal POV. Therein lies the problem. As for your other comments, I have no idea who "Raggz" is. Thank you.--Yachtsman1 (talk) 08:24, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm almost convinced you are Raggz now. I'm going to prepare a RFCU. Your latest disruptive editing at Talk:Human_rights_in_the_United_States#Maintenance_tags_have_been_readded, where you took a discussion out of context and pretended that my reply to the discussion does not exist is the most bizarre thing I have ever witnessed. Either you are blatantly trolling or like Raggz, you are suffering from some kind of disorder. It doesn't matter, I'm going to escalate this to the highest levels. Viriditas (talk) 08:34, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for striking your comments. Please do so as you say, and prepare for disappointment.--Yachtsman1 (talk) 09:57, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Yachtsman1

I am adding a subsection here about Yachtsman1 due to his continuing disruption on Human rights in the United States. Examples of continuing disruption related to this case follow:

Tag warring

• At 07:24, 24 May 2009 I removed two tags from the Katrina section, the {{off-topic}} and {{Synthesis}} tags, with the edit summary of Tags removed. Neither off-topic (all reliable sources discuss human rights in the U.S. directly) nor synthesis. Requests for clarificaiton on talk have gone unanswered)[19] These tags were previously added by Mosedschurte[20][21] with no justification. Nobody has been able to demonstrate that this material is either off-topic or a synthesis of sources. In fact, the sources themselves are devoted to human rights in the U.S. and address the issue directly.
• Approximately two minutes later at 07:26, 24 May 2009, Yachtsman1 reverted my edit, with the edit summary, Tages restored. Stop edit warring. These tages have been repeatedly addressed on the talk page.[22]
• I would like to take the opportunity to point out that 1) I had never removed these tags before so I don't see how this one edit could be considered "edit warring", and 2) The use of these tags has never been addressed on the talk page. In other words, nobody has ever given a reason on the talk page how and why this material is both off-topic and synthesized. I am posting this here as an example of how Yachtsman1 engages in disruptive editing. He has accused me of "edit warring" while reverting me, and falsely claiming that there is a reason for this tag on the talk page. I don't think it is appropriate for an editor to edit war over tags while accusing someone else of edit warring, and at the same time, claiming that a non-existent rationale exists. It is the responsibility of the editor adding the tag to provide a good reason. None has been provided. Could someone review this please? Viriditas (talk) 07:51, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Close

• The maintenance tags are an issue of ongoing discussion on the talk page. The fact that this article is not neutral, and the reasons provided for that position, have been clearly stated by numerous editors. I let the talk page stand on its own: [23].
• I made note of my change on the talk page, and the editor has asked for an explanation. I will now try to reach a consensus.
• Since May 20, 2009,User:Viriditas has made, by my count, 26 separate edits to the page in question in a four day period while the article has been under discussion. If this is not edit warring, I don't know what is. [24]
• The basis of my comments should be obvious, and this matter closed. Thank you.--Yachtsman1 (talk) 08:01, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Er, making edits to an article is not edit warring, nor is it considered edit warring by anyone. On the other hand, reverting my edit, as you did, is considered edit warring. Please read up on the concept or have someone you trust explain it to you. And you have not provided one single diff showing where you have justified the use of the tags you have added. Please do so now. As far as I can tell from the above, you edit warred maintenance tags into the article and failed to provide a justification for them. Viriditas (talk) 08:07, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Making more than three edits in a 24 hour period certainly is: [25]. Ignoring editors comments on the talk page and any consensus being reached is also edit warring. I have addressed your concerns on the talk page by, among other things, cutting and pasting the comments of another editor on this subject for your review. In short, this should have been addressed in the talk page, and that is precisely where it will be addressed. Thank you.--Yachtsman1 (talk) 08:16, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Making three reverts in a 24 hours period is edit warring. Not edits. Please read for comprehension. I have not engaged in any edit warring. As for "ignoring comments on the talk page", the evidence I present below directly contradicts your claim, as does the evidence above which shows you edit warring while accusing others of your bad behavior. Viriditas (talk) 08:56, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

• After all of this, and a tedious discussion on the talk page, believe it or not, we reached enough of a consensus that I could make some rather simple edits and eliminate one tag for lack of synthesis, clarifying this section as I went. As stated, it's best to deal with this on the talk page, though I still maintain for the reasons I have provided that the section on Hurricane Katrina on the article should not be included. As stated supra, this matter should be closed. --Yachtsman1 (talk) 11:15, 24 May 2009 (UTC
• I spoke too soon. Anyone want to see what I am dealing with? Here are the uncivil remarks:[[26]]; and here's the ensuing change of my good faith efforts to resolve the problem: ][27]]. I am in shock.--Yachtsman1 (talk) 11:38, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Blatant personal attacks by Viriditas

Could anybody please address his/her appalling behavior on Talk:Human rights in the United States and here right above (or like Raggz, you are suffering from some kind of disorder)? In my opinion, this is unacceptable. Colchicum (talk) 08:53, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Abolutely correct. The user's comments have been outrageously offensive towards not just me, but anyone who comments on the talk page.Yachtsman1 (talk) 08:59, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't think that "personal attacks" plural applies, and the one above isn't that bad, but it's something that Viriditas could usefully withdraw. ╟─TreasuryTag►hemicycle─╢ 09:00, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't know how else to explain this discussion and the above discussion accusing me of edit warring because I have made more than three edits a day. Raggz had the same problem with reading discussions and policies and guidelines and he claimed to have a TBI. Is there another way for me to describe this kind of bizarre discussion? Is making more than three edits a day edit warring? Is asking for a response to my comments too much to ask, only to discover that the user has responded to another comment made an hour before I made the comment, and then when this problem is explained, the user tells me they already replied? I don't know how else to describe this bizarre behavior. Is describing it as a reading comprehension disorder out of the question? If so, I withdraw and apologize. Viriditas (talk) 09:02, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

<< (edit conflict) If you meant a reading comprehension disorder, that's perhaps more acceptable, but to be fair, you didn't say that. You just said "some kind of disorder" which is not dissimilar in broad meaning to "spaz" (say). But I think we can put this one down to misunderstanding and move back to the main issue here. ╟─TreasuryTag►hemicycle─╢ 09:05, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Take a look at this discussion. The user is responding to a comment made an hour before I replied to it and ignoring my reply. How would you explain this kind of behavior? The user is also convinced that anyone who makes three edits, not reverts, but edits, is edit warring. Are you seeing a pattern here? If so, what is it? The user does nothing on the talk page but confuse people and distract the discussion away from making any progress. It's either a deliberate form of disruption or something more serious. Viriditas (talk) 09:15, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, all I'm saying is that making an open-ended comment suggesting that another user has a disorder is a borderline personal attack. If you meant a reading disorder specifically relating to their actions or non-actions in a discussion, you should have said so. You now have, we know what you meant, tht's fine, and that should be an end to it. ╟─TreasuryTag►hemicycle─╢ 09:19, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, but do you find it a little bit strange that two disparate editors who have had similar disputes on the same articles, one of whom left Wikipedia in September 2008, and the other who first arrived in September 2008, should both share the same reading problem? Isn't that a bit odd? Viriditas (talk) 09:24, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

<< I don't really want to get involved in the squabble, to be honest. I've not got time to examine editing patterns, but your description does suggest sockpuppetry (on the other hand, you're presumably not the most impartial commentator). ╟─TreasuryTag►hemicycle─╢ 09:38, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

I absolutely invite anyone to check for sockpuppetry. Thank you.--Yachtsman1 (talk) 09:48, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

No worries. I've struck out my comment above. Viriditas (talk) 09:39, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm sure it's for the best. ╟─TreasuryTag►hemicycle─╢ 09:42, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Propose to close the discussion

The AN/I noticeboards is designed to attract administrative attention to the issues that either require urgent administrative response or to the issues there the consensus is clear that a specific administrative action is warranted. It is not a universal substitution to wikipedia mechanism of dispute resolution. The section discusses two issues:

1. Endemic content conflict on the Human_rights_in_the_United_States particular whether and in what extent add the information on the effects of Katrina Hurricane.
2. Sometimes uncooperative behaviour of Mossedchurte.

I do not think AN/I could help with either of these problems. Regarding the first problems. The content conflicts are specifically outside the realm of the administrative actions. We need to get some sort of consensus first, then admins could enforce it. I think an article WP:RFC could be the best method as almost any wikipedian has their own view whether Katrina was a human rights issue. Regarding the second problem. I have my own experience with Mossedchurte. He is a brilliant editor with wealth of knowledge and good writing skills. Still his communicative skills somehow fails him and often small genuine editorial disagreements tend to blow into conflicts requiring some sort of mediation. Still it is possible to deal with him and his brilliant contributions more than compensate the additional efforts on solving the editorial conflicts. This is my opinion on Mossed, someone else's opinions might be different. Still one thing is clear, he is a very valuable asset to Wikipedia and we cannot apply a long ban to him based on a short AN/I discussion. If somebody feels frustrated with Mossed they could open a User RFC on him and get some consensus on his behaviour. We can do nothing without such a consensus. Thus, I propose to close the AN/I discussion for now and to recommend participants to start some WP:DR process Alex Bakharev (talk) 14:37, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Please take a moment to review all of the edits made by Mossedchurte to Human rights in the United States. I'm seeing original research, synthesis, and very few if any sources that have anything to do with human rights. This is brilliant editing? On the other hand the topic of human rights and Hurricaine Katrina has been covered by newspapers, scholarly journals, human rights-related books published by academic press, UN research reports, and Brookings-funded studies. Perhaps you can convince me of his "brilliant" editing here? He has edited the article by adding material that doesn't have anything to do with human rights, and at the same time, he is preventing sources that are devoted to human rights from being used? I'm not following this "brilliance" in any way. And now, his proponents in this thread (Biophys) are edit warring by proxy for him in the same article. Why should this be closed? We have reports from two other users reporting the same problems in two other articles, and I have received notice that this has occurred in other articles. Since his behavior has not changed, and continues to be disruptive, I would like to see someone actually take the time to look at his edits to the article and his arguments on the talk page. All I see are off-topic sources used to push his POV, unilateral editing and edit warring to preserve his POV, and disruptive wikilawyering on the talk page to distract the discussion away from the topic of human rights. Please show me otherwise. How about actually taking a moment to look at the page history? Show me a source that he has used that is relevant to human rights. I'm sorry, but I fail to find the "brilliance" in an editor who has ignored virtually every policy and guideline in order to push a POV. These type of editors don't belong here. Viriditas (talk) 02:43, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

The story is a content dispute. The only solution for you is to learn to communicate calmly and in appropriate venues with those who don't share your brilliant shining POV rather than to brand them sockpuppets, edit-warriors and POV-pushers and desperately try to win your war by getting them banned. Otherwise, this way or another, it is most probably you who is going to find himself in trouble, rather than Mosedschurte or anybody else. Colchicum (talk) 11:10, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

No matter how calm and civil you are about, civil POV pushing is still the underlying problem here. You've tried very hard to turn this incident report into a content dispute, which it never was. And now we see the same editors involved in this discussion, edit warring by proxy for Mossedchurte. So, this incident report is still a question of editorial conduct and does not concern a content dispute. Unilateral edit warring, content removals without consensus, and obstruction on the talk page is continuing and ongoing.[28][29] Mossedchurte is incapable of collaborating or working with other editors on this article, and I suggest that this incident report be kept open until further administrative action is taken. Viriditas (talk) 17:35, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Just saw the crazy baseless allegations in this ANI by Viriditas

Wow. I just noticed this ANI. Simply incredible. Viriditas has conducted virtually countless Wikipedia policy violations such as threats on the talk page and WP:Uncivil. He just attempted to add the navbox "politics in the United States" to the article -- BUT THE ARTICLE ISN'T LISTED IN THAT NAVBOX. I simply deleted the navbox and explained that "Article not in the "politics and the United States nav box". This will no doubt be followed by more threats on the Talk page from Viriditas, who as explained above, is a highly disruptive user.Mosedschurte (talk) 17:39, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

• This incident report is about your edit warring and civil POV pushing, not about your ignorance of navbox conventions used in the majority of human rights in x articles. You were recently blocked for edit warring and now that you have returned to the article, you have begun to edit war and remove content without consensus on the talk page, the same material you were edit warring with before.[30] This incident report should not be closed as Mosedschurte did not learn anything from his last block. Furthermore, there are at least three open discussions on the talk page (Racial, Katrina, Outline) where Mosedschurte has either ignored repeated queries about his edits or pretends the questions were never asked. The user has also removed content that is significant to the topic (the person who created the first human rights organization in the U.S. was deleted by Mosedschurte) and the user is also adding content to the article that does not use human rights related sources. There is a clear record of disruptive, civil POV pushing behavior here, and it needs to be stopped by administrative action. Viriditas (talk) 17:51, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Re: "This incident report is about your edit warring and civil POV pushing, not about your ignorance of navbox conventions used in the majority of human rights in x articles."

--As noted by others above, you have shown ZERO POV pushing.

--In fact, as others have pointed out, every sentence I've added -- which have been limited to 3 of the 35+ sections of this article -- has been well-sourced and NPOV-worded.

--You have been WP:Uncivil nearly countless times on the Talk page, and I just noticed these outlandish accusations on ANI.Mosedschurte (talk) 18:05, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

I've shown zero POV pushing? Here's your chance to prove me wrong: Show me one human rights-related source you've added to the article since you began editing here. Just one. Can you do that? No, of course you can't, because all of your edits have used sources that have nothing to do with the topic. Viriditas (talk) 00:46, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Re: "he moved the article against consensus (and human rights-related article naming conventions) to Human rights inside the United States in order to push a unique POV of exclusion." (Viriditas)

This is a flat out falsehood, and its statement as such is in line with Viriditas's usual behavior. In fact, another editor, Soxwon, suggested a changing of the scope of the article to include outside the United Stats. Other opposed him. Soxwon, with not only zero support but only opposition at the time, then "unilaterally moved the article to "Humand rights AND the United States" preceding a mass expansion of the article. I opposed all moves of the article. Because I could not move the article back to revert the unilateral change (can't move back over the redirect), the only thing I did then was move the article to "Human Rights inside the United States" to retain its ORIGINAL scope. I didn't want the article moved at all in the first place, and had never requested any such move. I completely agreed with the admin's changing of the article back to "Human rights in the United States" -- the original title.Mosedschurte (talk) 17:51, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

What I said is true, and is currently being discussed at Talk:Human_rights_in_the_United_States#Objection_to_unilateral_editing. You are not engaging in the talk page other than to make disruptive comments, and your edits to the article have been disputed by many editors. You do not seem to understand that repeatedly edit warring your POV into the article is not the way forward. You did not learn anything from your last block and I request immediate administrative action to prevent you from engaging in the same disruptive behavior and to allow us to return to a collegial and collaborative editing environment. Viriditas (talk) 18:03, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

• Yes, Viriditas is disruptive. He demanded me to comment at the article talk page, and I did just that. However, he repeatedly moved my comment to another place [31] and ignored my objections. How can one discuss an article content, if his comments are repeatedly moved or otherwise modified?Biophys (talk) 18:10, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
  • You opened a duplicate thread of an already existing and ongoing discussion, and your comments were moved there and replied to in the appropriate place. You then began to reboot the same discussion several times, ignoring the replies that were already made. This was pointed out to you with links to the discussion both on my talk page and on your talk page, yet you continued to pretend that it did not exist. This is classic, civil POV pushing behavior, and I propose that you receive sanctions as well as Mosedschurte, for disrupting the talk page. Frankly, neither of you have done anything to improve the article, and both of your behavior violates the core working principles of Wikipedia. If you can't follow appropriate talk page guidelines, NPOV, and good conduct guiding harmonious editing, you shouldn't be editing here. Viriditas (talk) 18:17, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
• Viriditas is incredibly disruptive, with comments that amount to little more than personal attacks, consistent reverts of even the most minor edits, threats on the talk page, and referral to policies that counter the editor's own arguments. Any change made is met with an accusation of "POV pushing", and any comment on the talk page is ignored. Hardly a recipe for "harmonious editing". The editor's own history of bans for edit warring hardly argues in her favor either: [[32]].--Yachtsman1 (talk) 18:27, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Here is a recent example of Yachtsman1 pushing a POV about Ray Nagin in the Human rights in the United States article. As it turns out, the source did not say what he said it did, and I removed it per BLP. This content had nothing to do with human rights, and the source itself said nothing about human rights. To conclude, Yachtsman1 attempted to push a POV about a living person, Ray Nagin, that did not appear in the source and did not have anything to do with this article. Viriditas (talk) 18:49, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
    • Actually, the source 'did say what I said it did, and the source was the Washington Post, which documented how the City of New Orleans failed to follow its own evacuation plan by not evacuating city residents without cars. The source documented the failures by city, state and federal agencies and officials, including Ray Nagin, a "public figure" as an elected politician, to evacuate residents, and in their delay in responding to the disastor (BLP? Ridiculous). The present "spin" or POV advocated by Virititas is that they were not removed and provided timely assistance because of the race, which is absurd, given the volumes of sources on the subject that describe eladership failure as the leading cause of the response-;ag, coupled with the fact that the vast majority of those without automobiles were afircan-american. The UN Human Rights Council agreed, but this source was also removed with an explanation that it was a "primary" source, and of "cherry-picking" by including their conclusions, which examined the correlation between suffering and economic disadvantage. The matter of "race" being the source or motivating factor for a slow response to such a disastor was not part of the equation, except to the extent that most of the poorest residents of the city were African American. In other words, the motivation was to bring the section to a standard of "neutrality" by presenting two points of view. The POV of Viriditas was reaffirmed, however, when she removed the sources. As stated previously, Viriditas is a disruptive poster, and this is a prime example.--Yachtsman1 (talk) 19:34, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
      • Actually, the source doesn't say that at all, and you spun it to say that to push your POV about Nagin. There are also many other authors on the topic, such as Stephen Graham at Durham University, who see things differently than you and blame the Bush administration, not Nagin, for the failure to evacuate residents. But this has nothing to with the human rights article, and unless the source is about human rights, it should not be used. Capiche? Viriditas (talk) 19:40, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
        • Then include them. Welcome to a neutral point of view. I'm sorry if you favor one side of the argument over another, but that ha salways been the problem. Your own point of view takes precedent over others, and your manner in dealing with countering points of view are voluminous discussions on the talk page, threats, referral to proceedings like we have here, and harassing messages on the user talkj page. Any change is met with an instant revert, which translates to edit warring. As for your points, your wrong. See p. 4 of the cite. The busses set aside for evacuation were left in their parking lots, and the evacuation plan for the city was not followed.--Yachtsman1 (talk) 20:06, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
          • Please pay very close to attention: The source you cited does not say what you are claiming. You interpreted and twisted it in order to push a POV into the article. And, there is nothing about human rights in the source you used, so you are synthesizing the material. When a source is challenged like this, you need to prove a second one if you continue to make the same claim. If this isn't making sense to you, please have someone else explain it. And this holds true for all of the edits Mosedschurte has made to the article as well. All I see from you is incessant wikilawyering and filibustering on every level. Nothing gets done as long as you and the rest of the POV pushers are allowed to edit here. And, that is, precisely the goal, isn't it? To prevent editors from improving this article in any way. And you appear to be succeeding. So, what we need is for administrators to monitor the talk and article page, (especially the latest series of reverts by Mosedschurte, which were not only unjustified, but were completely ignored in his edit summary) and to block editors on sight when they pull this crap. Viriditas (talk) 00:43, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

RfC

• Now user:viriditas is edit warring on an Rfc. [[33]]. This is amazing. --Yachtsman1 (talk) 20:15, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
  • RFC's are designed to solicit the opinions of uninvolved editors outside the dispute. This RFC was not designed to solicit your comments. If you want to condense your position into the RFC and present it in a neutral manner as the RFC recommends, then by all means do so. It is not surprising that the purpose of the RFC is being defeated by the same editors causing all of the problems in the article. The RFC is designed to invite outside editors to comment on the dispute. You are not an outside editor. Please follow the RFC framework and condense your position into the RFC. Viriditas (talk) 20:40, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
    • And by your own admission on the Rfc, I did just that. Your revert was outrageous, given your own admission. Further, the "framer" and "originator" of the Rfc asked for comments from "involved editors" which I provided, and you then reverted. This is simply unacceptable behavior.--Yachtsman1 (talk) 20:52, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
      • The comments are supposed to be merged into the neutral RFC. I think it is beyond obvious that you and Mosedschurte will not allow a neutral RFC to solicit outside opinions from uninvolved editors, opinions that could change the direction of the article. So, you never entertained the idea of an RFC in good faith. I think it is also obvious that any changes or attempts to improve this article will be prevented by the two of you, because your only purpose is to push a particular POV. Viriditas (talk) 21:01, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
        • Familiarize yourself with WP:AGF, WP:CIV, WP:OWN. Colchicum (talk) 21:04, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
          • As you have been repeatedly informed above, I have not contributed much to the article, so there is nothing to "own". I started off as a mediator, and when I saw the full scope of the revolving door of civil POV pushers who would seemingly congregate in flash mobs on the talk and article page, I began to get curious. Looking deeper, the editors currently editing the article do not seem capable of using sources correctly or adhering to NPOV. As for "good faith", was does not continue to assume it when it becomes obvious that good faith has been all but exhausted. You may not be familiar with that part, but I'm here to remind you. Viriditas (talk) 21:11, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
      • The comments were provided on the Rfc at the invitation of the originator, and they were made in good faith, though your assumption otherwise is duly noted. What appears obvious is that you are edit warring on an Rfc, reverting comments. Your own history of being banned indicates this is not the first time you have engaged in this course of conduct either. Please cease doing it.Yachtsman1 (talk) 21:10, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
        • No such thing has ever occurred, although I congratulate you on changing the subject again. The RFC is not about soliciting the opinions of involved editors. The civil POV pushing has to stop, one way or the other. Viriditas (talk) 21:12, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
          • No, it's about comments from all editors, even those who might disagree with your positions, which have been met to date by you with personal attacks. That's the subject of this thread, by the way. Your continued course of conduct has been and remains outrageous.--Yachtsman1 (talk) 21:34, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
            • All outside editors. Get it? What do you think the purpose of an RFC is for? You see, this is precisely what I am talking about. Wikilawyering every aspect of a process, from citing sources, to NPOV, to even a damn RFC. This has got to stop. Viriditas (talk) 00:36, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
              • If the policy was all "outside editors" it would say "outside editors". As it does not say "outside editors" it does not mean "outside editors". It means what it says - all editors. See WP:RFC. It is a language of inclusion, not exclusion, and the "purpose" is stated as the the venue for the "comments" of "all editors" to reach some sort of consensus. It widens those editors to "outside editors" but does not restrict comments to those editors alone. Get it? You are creating a condition that does not exist, and your position is entirely unsupportable. You want this to stop? Then stop misquoting Wikipedia policy in defense of your positions when they counter your own arguments. You are free to comment on your position on the RFC and I urge you to do so. Thank you.--Yachtsman1 (talk) 01:33, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
                • "Requests for comment (RfC) is an informal, lightweight process for requesting outside input..." Like I said, you are wikilawyering again. It's all you can do. Viriditas (talk) 01:48, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
                  • • The part you missed - "All editors (including anonymous or IP users) are welcome to provide comment or opinion, and to assist in reaching agreements, by responding to requests for comment". As I also stated, you are free to comment on your position on the RFC and I urge you to do so. Thank you.--Yachtsman1 (talk) 01:54, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
                      • I don't recognize the RFC as legitimate as it doesn't include my position or the position of the other editors on the talk page. RFC's are intended to solicit outside opinions to solve disputes that cannot be resolved on the talk page from involved editors. The majority of the comments on the current RFC are connected to Mosedschurte, and seem to have been organized as another POV pushing flash mob. This type of strategy is classic civil POV pushing, and exploits Wikipedia's greatest weakness, namely, the lack of a DR system which allows for competing POV to comment in proportion and representation to the topic. To the best of my knowledge, almost nobody has responded from the Human rights WikiProject or from other related projects. Instead we see the same editors showing up, exploiting the RFC in every way they can. This is par for the course and to be expected. The purpose of the RFC has been defeated, the article has lost the opportunity for improvement. We have a group of editors only interested in promoting their POV, ignoring every and all human rights-related sources, and arguing not from the sources, but from their entrenched political positions. Wikipedia has once again, lost the battle. Congratulations, you should be proud of yourself. Mission accomplished. Viriditas (talk) 02:40, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Request

I need several administrators to help monitor the talk and article pages and to make recommendations as needed. Viriditas (talk) 18:27, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

I think the request for Rfc on the talk page by user:JN466 was a good one, and takes this matter to where it belongs. Thank youYachtsman1 (talk) 18:31, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Additional mischaracterizations by Viriditas

Sorry for more information, but his mischaracterizations in this section, which I didn't realize had been continued after the first edits days ago, are ridiculous and should not go unaddressed.

Re: "Mosedschurte's failure to address questions about his edits on the talk page, while he plows ahead with changes against consensus. His position seems to be paternalistic: Mosedschurte knows what is best for the article; other opinions don't matter to him. I raised some serious questions about his neutrality here and my concerns were ignored. In fact, all of my concerns about his edits on the talk page have been ignored."

Yet another falsehood by Viriditas in what is becoming a troubling trend from this editor. This can plainly be seen even a casual perusal of the Talk page as I provided extensive discussions regarding various problems with the article -- very few of which I've even addresssed with article edits -- and here, and here, etc.
--Viriditas has demanded others answer his questions regarding creating an "Outline" for him, and then actually threatened "Please stop ignoring my questions per talk page guidelines. Failure to answer them but continuing to make the same points will get you in trouble." (Viriditas)
-- Viriditas also overtly revealed his own POV motivations for editing in the article after I added section simply noting the advanced made by the U.S. Constitution and Civil Rights Act (with sources of course), he criticized them being overly positive, proclaiming: "Mosedschurte, do you understand that the positive advancement of human rights in the U.S. has come out of the criticism of negative incidents?" (Viriditas)
--As an aside, for anyone wanting to know the "question" Viriditas continues to ask, followed by threats when no one answers him, this is it (actually combative rhetoric he himself humorously answers) : " Thankfully, I can easily prove my point in few words. I'll do it now: If you were to rewrite this article, and as your first step. you were to create an outline, what subtopics would the outline contain? Please note, your entire outline would have a single theme: the positive advancement of human rights in the U.S. arising out of the criticism of negative incidents" (Viriditas)
--Such rhetorical silliness (answering his own rhetorical question was an especially odd choice) is one of many tactics employed by this editor that HAVE NOT advanced the article or helped with its problems.Mosedschurte (talk) 18:28, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Again, classic civil POV pushing. Your so-called "extensive discussion" rebooted previous discussions that you have still not replied to on the talk page. For example, questions about your unilateral edits to the racial section were asked three days ago here. To date, you have ignored these questions and you continue to plow ahead with your edits. Questions about your unilateral edits to the Katrina section were asked here and you continue to ignore them. That is just a sample of how you pretend to discuss a topic and then ignore the discussion, often returning to it again and again and claiming a false consensus, when in fact, you never discussed it in the first place. I also asked you in three separate instances to explain your ideas for an outline, since you seem to know what shouldn't appear in the article but won't explain what should. You ignored my first two requests, and when I made my third request for what an outline for this article would look like, you wrote, "This repetition of this point for probably the 10th time is needless. Numerous editors have already responded that the article should cover what the title states - Human rights issues "IN THE UNITED STATES"." Nevermind the fact that the question was never answered, and this "answer" does not address the question. But, it does contradict your position on Katrina, which you fail to recognize. So here we have a solid example of you moving the goalposts when an issue doesn't agree with your POV. This is a good example of the kind of disruptive editing from Mosedschurte on the talk page, and represents only one of many reasons why this incident report should remain open. Civil POV pushing is a huge problem on this article, and Mosedschurte has not responded to repeated questions about his edits nor has he edited the article in compliance with NPOV or with sources related to human rights, and he continues to edit war his changes into the article without engaging in actual discussion. Viriditas (talk) 19:01, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

This could not be more ridiculous. I, and a number of other editors, had already addressed the issues why an extended section no "Hurricane Katrina" should not be included in an artiel titled "Human rights in the United States", such as here, but all over the Talk page actually. This is yet another tactic -- to re-raise the exact same issues, and when others don't respond even one time to an issue that has already been addressed claiming that they will not "respond to my questions," followed with threats such as "Failure to answer them but continuing to make the same points will get you in trouble."

Re: "So here we have a solid example of you moving the goalposts when an issue doesn't agree with your POV."

This is so false and based in nothing -- again, part of an attacking pattern -- that it can't even effectively be addressed. There aren't even any relevant underlying facts with which to discuss, let alone back up such a statement.Mosedschurte (talk) 19:39, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but you have not addressed any of the issues that you claim to have addressed. You just keep saying, "I have addressed the issues", but you haven't. This is classic POV pushing, and is a strategy used to push contested edits into the article. Again, here are two discussions Talk:Human_rights_in_the_United_States#Neutrality_in_the_racial_section and Talk:Human_rights_in_the_United_States#Katrina where you have not answered questions about your edits. Please stop claiming that you have when those two links show that you have not. For what it is worth, I just took a brief look at your contribution history, and this seems to be one of your more popular tactics to pull on the talk pages. In other words, this isn't the first time you've done this, and I can see that many editors have complained about you doing just this, and I have the diffs to prove it. This incident report needs to stay open until your behavior is examined in the full light of the sun and seen for what it really is. Viriditas (talk) 19:48, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

3RR section for Viriditas's latest deletion of Talk Page comments

Viriditas's latest antics today have risen to even greater levels, involving the flat out deletion of several Talk Page comments by at least three other editors -- me, User:Biophys and User:Yachtsman1 -- in violation of WP:TPO, which explicitly states "The basic rule is: Do not strike out or delete the comments of other editors without their permission. (bold emphasis in original Wikipedia guidelines).

Moreover, they involved at least six different reverts (actually more) in a five hour time period. Thus, the 3RR board section on them.Mosedschurte (talk) 02:05, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

• Add in the fact that user:Viriditas has personally attacked another editor, then personally attacked me for trying to get her to strike through the personal attack, or provide permission for me to do so. [[34]]. Yachtsman1 (talk) 02:27, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Continuing edit warring by Mosedschurte

• 17:34, 25 May 2009
  • Continuing removal of disputed Abu Ghraib prison abuse scandal without discussion on talk. This is the same edit that got him blocked.
  • Removal of File:Liberty-statue-from-below.jpg without discussion or explanation
  • Removal of {{Politics of the United States}}. It is a general convention for the Politics of X navbox to appear in Human rights in Y articles.
  • Insertion of content regarding the Bill of rights from sources that have nothing to do with human rights or the relationship of the bill of rights to human rights. This is basically true for most of his edits to the article. In other words, he continues to add content from sources that does not discuss the topic. Viriditas (talk) 02:34, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

1--Re: "Continuing removal of disputed Abu Ghraib prison abuse scandal without discussion on talk."

This is simply false (shocker, huh). Talk sections by me on the topic: here and here as just a few examples. Mosedschurte (talk) 02:42, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

And users have responded to say 'they do not agree with you. What part of this are you having trouble with? Viriditas (talk) 02:48, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

2--Re: "Removal of "Politics of the United States". It is a general convention for the Politics of X navbox to appear in Human rights in Y articles."

How laughable that would would falsely dub this edit an WP:Edit War. And not out of character for the antics shown thus far in this ANI section. I noticed that the "Politics of the United States" navbox in the article did not even contain a link to this article and simply removed it, giving the comment: "Article not in the "politics and the United States nav box". If this is WP:Edit Warring, then every edit on Wikipedia would be such.Mosedschurte (talk) 02:49, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

3--Re: "Removal of File:Liberty-statue-from-below.jpg without discussion or explanation"

Nice catch. I had accidentally deleted that. I just returned it: here. Not a single mention of this image removal was made by you until mentioning it on this ANI board. Not that I'm surprised. It took literally 20 seconds to fix.Mosedschurte (talk) 02:50, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

You blanket reverted my edits in full for no reason. It's hard to believe it was an accident. You intended to delete my changes, and that's what you did. You didn't care why or how. This illustrates the underlying problem. Now, when are you going to start using sources that discuss human rights? For your information, that's what the article is about. Viriditas (talk) 02:48, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Banned user User:USEDfan has returned

Seicer dealt with this user in the past, and his never ending sock puppets, but since Seicer retired I am requesting help here. I am hoping this user can be blocked per WP:DUCK. Landon1980 (talk) 05:40, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

USEDfan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) hasn't contributed in almost a year, so you'll need to be more specific. Which user is quacking? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 05:55, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Felix 12 22 (talk · contribs), apparently. --auburnpilot talk 06:03, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Well damn, I thought I listed his new account. Sorry about that. Landon1980 (talk) 06:05, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

If you know the history of USEDfan it is very easy to tell without a doubt this is him, everything fits. Raul uncovered his last 3 or 4 socks and blocked them after running a checkuser. I suppose I could ask him if he would care to take a look again. Landon1980 (talk) 06:14, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Definitely a problem. Can an admin think about full protection on The Used for a short term, perhaps a few days? (and hi to bugs) tedder (talk) 06:28, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

A full protection wouldn't really solve anything. I'll not revert him any more. I'll just wait for the checkuser to come back. I couldn't care less what "version" the article is currently. I was just attempting to stop a banned user. If you know the history of USEDfan, and have seen his edits it is blatantly obvious, and that is why I was reverting. Landon1980 (talk) 06:35, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Short term full protection doesn't solve anything, except stop the edit war from escalating while a checkuser is going on: ("Full protection is used to stop edit warring between multiple users"). tedder (talk) 06:37, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Yeah but now that I have stopped who is left other than him? If he continues to edit war with multiple users (meaning multiple users all reverting him and not one another) he can be blocked for 3RR while awaiting the results. Landon1980 (talk) 06:47, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

This is one of the articles that I keep an eye on. I didn't realize that Felix was a problem, his edits seemed generally helpful, though now I see that things have escalated overnight.--Wehwalt (talk) 07:31, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

USEDfan's edits never were all that bad, he was banned for edit warring, ownership issues, etc, etc, etc. If someone would take the time to look at USEDfan, and his listed sock puppets (which is only a fraction of them) they would see they are one and the same. Everything is the same i.e. his editing style, the edits themselves, how he reacts when called a sock, the username is even similar to the ones he chooses. I have asked Raul to take a look, so hopefully he will. I would bet my life (well a whole lot of money) on this, it's that obvious. Landon1980 (talk) 07:39, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

I've issued a 24-hour block for edit-warring while someone more familiar with this user's edits takes a look to determine whether it's the same person. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 10:56, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Definitely quacks like a duck, all the same articles, same MO. We tried a course of rehabilitation once, which made things a bit better. When that didn't work there used to be an IP which could be hardblocked, but it will be worth getting a checkuser to check that. Btw the original account for this user is Xotheusedguyox (talk · contribs · block log). -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 20:52, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

There have been multiple IP's hard-blocked in attempt to stop this guy. Raul most recently blocked an entire range trying to stop him. I am 15 for 15 with this guy, I have never been wrong about an account being a sock of his in the past. I really don't understand why WP:DUCK even exists if such an obvious block evading sock cannot blocked in the name of it. The MO is the same, all the articles are the same, the edits themselves are very similar, the editing style is the same, the reaction when called a sock is exactly the same. The username is even similar to some of his most recent socks. One thing that worries me is USEDfan (according to him) used to edit from school, and now that it's near summer I'm wondering if he may be back home, and home be in a completely different area. Rauls blocks seem to have stopped him for a while, so he obviously is no longer using that same range, as it's still blocked. Landon1980 (talk) 22:32, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) Despite your winning percentage, if we can't prove it is him, we have to let him edit, keeping a close eye on him. You've blocked him once. Escalating blocks for 3RR could ruin his whole summer in a hurry. Don't sweat it too much. I'm sure you are right, his editing pattern is very unusual for a new editor. But we have to prove it. Did Raul get back with the checkuser?--Wehwalt (talk) 13:01, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't have asked if several of his socks were not blocked per wp duck in the past. They were later confirmed by a checkuser though. I would have already requested a SPI, though based on my experience they will say "obvious socks do not warrant a checkuser." Have you looked at the edits of some of his most recent sock puppets? I don't see how a person can look at this and not feel confident this is in fact USEDfan. I asked Raul to help out, but the last time I checked he hasn't been editing any. Landon1980 (talk) 18:27, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Chronic WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA violations by User:Otto4711

Resolved

 – 72 hour block

User:Otto4711 is an individual who has made a number of productive edits in a variety of subjects. He has participated actively at WP:CFD, where he has far too often crossed the line in using bullying, profanity and other abuse of individuals who have disagreed with his positions, in clear violation of WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA. Most recently, this manifested itself at a CFD where an individual argued for the retention of categories Otto wanted deleted, only to be told that as "an apparent newcomer to CFD you may be ignorant of the history here" see here, and then told that this individual should "know better than to bust out shit like 'deletionist kick', noob" see here.

This is not a new problem. Otto has had chronic problems with incivility, profanity, abuse and personal attacks, a small sampling of which is provided below, and I would be able to provide dozens more if space permitted:

• This diff 14:29 18 April 2009 - "The LGBT related TV episodes category has been renominated so why not shut up about it in unrelated CFDs and hash it out there if you're so incensed about it?"
• This exchange at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2008_April_22#Category:Cedar_Hill_noteables, for which User:Ward3001 left an "only warning" on incivility here, citing the personal attack bolded below:

And again, the notability of the people buried in the cemetery and even the number of them is not relevant, because the notability of those buried there is in no way connected to the cemetery. Otto4711 (talk) 21:01, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

And again, Otto, your opinion carries no more weight than other opinions, no matter how many times you repeat it. Believe it or not, Wikipedians are smart enough to understand what you said the first time you said it, and smart enough to know that your saying it over and over doesn't make it true. Ward3001 (talk) 22:18, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, I can think of at least one Wikpidean who isn't smart enough to understand, despite the repeats. Your "argument" in favor of this category basically amounts to nuh uh, which is about the level of a four year-old. Shock the world, offer up some substantial support of your opinion. Otto4711 (talk) 02:04, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

You're skating on thin ice, Otto. Read WP:NPA. Consider this a warning. Ward3001 (talk) 03:07, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Oooh, a warning. If I were wearing boots, I'd be shaking in them. Otto4711 (talk) 08:28, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

I responded on your Talk page. Please leave any future personal comments on user talk pages rather than this discussion page. Ward3001 (talk) 15:30, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Insisting that others who disagree with his positions are ignorant is also not new: A frequent theme is a repeated accusation that those who disagree with him have some fundamental misunderstanding of Wikipedia policy. No documentation is provided to support the claim, but the accusation is made regardless:

• This diff "Except of course that without independent reliable sources the items on this list are not notable, something that you are either unable to understand or that you understand but in your zeal to keep everything you choose to ignore"
• This diff "Talk about having no grasp of basic understanding of WP policies and guidelines. WP:CLN in no way obviates WP:NOT and a collection of every beverage that exists within every fictional setting that lacks reliable sources that discuss the concept of fictional beverages is trivial garbage."

Otto insists that he is entitled to spew profanity-laden abuse based on the fact that Wikipedia is not censored. Unfortunately that policy only applies where necessary and in direct quotations in articles. One need only look at his utterly failed attempt at adminship provides multiple examples of profanity, used as part of his uncivil behavior.

While this may be viewed as an isolated incident, there have been many prior issues raised regarding Otto's behavior, including several issues of incivility, profanity and personal attacks:

• Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive327#User:Otto4711 Article ownership issues
• Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive281#User:Otto4711_deleting_requests_to_follow_civility_policies_from_his_talk_page - August 2007 Incivility
• Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive355#Incivility_in_AfD_renomination - January 2008 incivility in AfD nominations. This response is typical.

Otto is clearly capable of productive work, especially when interaction with other editors is minimized. A brief block, with warnings that further violations of WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA will result in blocks of increasing severity may have the effect of eliminating this rather unfortunate and abusive behavior. Eliminating Otto's participation at CfD through a content ban, where he has demonstrated the lion's share of his abuse, may also be an effective means to allow Otto to focus on where he can be productive without being disruptive. Alansohn (talk) 20:23, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

After reviewing the diffs and prior discussions provided, I agree with Alansohn's assessment and would support either or both of the remedies he proposes, except maybe if Otto4711 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) chooses to react to this thread, of which he has been notified, in a particularly constructive manner. His block log is also worth taking into account.  Sandstein  21:13, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

• Without going into each and every example that Alansohn has cherry-picked out of my past history, I will simply comment that it is interesting how he condemns some things (use of the word "ignorant") when he himself engages in them when it suits his purposes. Given that his lead example is a behaviour that he himself engages in...
• Alansohn has a history of declaring that people who oppose his opinions are "uncivil" (sorry, I have no special list saved up of the examples).
• Addressing some specific examples: One was closed by the opener as "all a big misunderstanding, another came to nothing in large measure because one of the editors involved held a grudge much like Alansohn's and one is best summarized as "Meh". Alansohn and I have frequently engaged in spirited discussions at CFD and I fear that he has internalized some of that opposition, resulting in oversensitivity to comments (whether in response to him or not) that he has deemed "uncivil" or that he personally takes umbrage to. As for my nomination for adminship, first, my only interest in adminship was to do behind-the-scenes work and second, it has been characterized as surprisingly negative, even spiteful at times, and containing numerous WP:KETTLEs.
• In conclusion, much smoke, no fire, an editor doesn't like my style, sound and fury signifying nothing. Otto4711 (talk) 21:43, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

• Note that Alansohn has no problem using words like "foolish" and "nonsensical" when it serves his purposes. Otto4711 (talk) 21:56, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

1. Alansohn has proven that Otto's been rude on a continuing basis right up until just recently, with clear violations of WP:CIVIL; 2. Otto just has a nasty attitude, and I think many, many editors who participate in deletion discussions have seen many, many examples of it -- this isn't even the tip of the tip of the iceberg. 3. Otto shows no signs of stopping, and his attitude is on display in his comment here, now. Sandstein just left a pretty broad hint suggestion as to what Otto's proper response should be, and it's been ignored. That's telling. 4. I still remember being stung by Otto's comments in '06 or '07 -- he really makes an impression on editors and sets a terrible example for new ones, or editors who are new to deletion discussions, as I was then. If this were just old news, it'd be something to forget about, but it appears that it's just continuing. 5. Unless the block or topic ban is done now, or admins decide to watch him carefully, this behavior will just continue -- disturbing more editors and just kicking the can forward until it stops on another day at AN/I. 6. WP:KETTLE is no defense. 7. I'd support either both of Alansohn's suggested remedies. Really, it's hard not to. Editors who participate in deletion discussions shouldn't have to put up with this. -- Noroton (talk) 01:56, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

72 hour block for Otto4711, agree with Noroton. Also noting Alansohn really needs to avoid terms like "foolish" and "nonsensical". — Rlevse • Talk • 02:21, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

• Frankly, I think this is overly harsh. Eusebeus (talk) 17:58, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
• I agree. I'm not seeing anything qualitatively different between the edits by the person blocked and the people complaining about him. It seems odd to block one side, especially for 72 hours, with no action taken against the other side. DreamGuy (talk) 21:00, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

• "people"?? Please elaborate and provide diffs. What did the "other side" do, and who are these people? Otto's history, recent actions and current attitude are clear, so the reason for a block is clear. Please clarify your own proposal. -- Noroton (talk) 01:48, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

• Alansohn has been blocked twice recently (probably due to disputes in cfd with Otto) whereas Otto4711 has not. I did protest about the blocking of A (to no avail) and shall now protest about the blocking of O. Both editors have strong views and express themselves trenchantly at times. (Otto has delivered fruit-related barbs in my direction, eg in this cfd discussion a banana wagon is introduced into cfd, possibly for the first time; so I am not 'on his side'.) Occuli (talk) 02:03, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

User:BatteryIncluded on Talk:Life

User BatteryIncluded (BI) has twice now removed a large comment block (mine) from Talk:Life: See today's delete diff and yesterday's delete diff. I have pointed him to WP:TALK for basic guidance, but he did not acknowledge and now repeats his violation. Seeking some assistance. Regards, -Stevertigo 21:07, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you Baseball Bugs for chiming in on the talk page. I went ahead and restored my comments to that page, and in the event that BatteryIncluded removes them again (violating WP:TPOC), I humbly request that an admin here takes action. Regards, Stevertigo 23:15, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

I will keep ignoring Steve's attempt to debate the meaning of "meaning" and miscelaneous words. I am sure there are forums to do that. If the administrators want to preserve in there Steve's personal beliefs on the worthiness of biological sciences, that will be fine. As a molecular biologist I will keep to labor for the article's scientific accuracy, so his inclusion of pseudo-scientific terms and original research in the article will be deleted again. You can have the talk page and write a novel if you wish. However, no drama Steve can make in the talk page will change scientific methods, terms, international conventions or biological facts.

Cheers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 03:19, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

You are within your rights to ignore comments made in talkspace, but unless they are made in bad faith (and we are encouraged to assume the opposite) they should not be removed. If there is some question of whether there is a bad faith intent behind the edits, then request the view of a neutral third party to make a determination and to try and deal with the issue. Talkspace and article space are different creatures (no pun intended, but I will accept the kudos) and while accuracy and sourcing is required for editing the subject, the only consideration in talkspace is the intent - if it is honest and well meaning then it stays; no matter how ludicrous the content. I trust this clarifies the "Wikipedia method" of creating content. LessHeard vanU (talk) 11:46, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

User:BGC

It appears this user is choosing to ignore reminders, warnings, etc. that do not please him, and simply erases them from his talk page, while he continues to do the same things he was reminded and warned about (e.g. edit summaries, naming/citing sources, etc.). His edit history dates back to 2005, so he really ought to know the rules and guidelines by now. Would someone please look into the matter? Thanks. Zephyrad (talk) 21:55, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

I have blocked indefinitely, pending explanation/resolution, for disruption. I am watching the page, and will unblock just as soon as a good reason is provided. Are there any article talkpage discussions, or project pages, where these issues are being/were discussed? LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:05, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Not that I have come across, but you might want to check his talk page's history, and the articles referenced in the entries he has deleted. (Mine was not the only reminder deleted; there were several others, including a preceding one about The Cure, saying much the same thing – "Where are you getting your information? Where are your edit summaries?" etc.) I noticed a pattern of selective deletions from his talk page, going back some time. (Kinda like ignoring parking tickets, 'til suddenly your car's towed away.) With an edit history going back about four years, I'm surprised he's slipped by for so long... it's not like anyone's asking for the extraordinary, from him. Thanks for checking this out. Zephyrad (talk) 15:39, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Sensitive information reported and undone. Please help delete edit history

Resolved

No harm intended, and none was done. Law _{type! snype?} 04:36, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Jay Bennett (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Hello. I need help editing a page 'history'. I regretfully edited a page and it has come to light that this hurt many people and may damage the reputation of another. I undid my edits on the page, but for the sake of all parties involved I need to go a couple of steps further and delete the 'edit history' for my account 'maehem' before it can cause further damage. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maehem (talk • contribs)

I've gone ahead and done so. I know you realize your mistake, but I cannot stress enough that WP:BLP is very important, especially for the reason you mentioned. Law _{type! snype?} 00:51, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure how the oversight works, but did you remove it from the page's history, and his contributions?Drew Smith What I've done 00:55, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

I didn't oversight it - I don't have that function. I deleted the edits. In theory, an administrator can still see them. The edits were more of a bad joke; not anything that needed to be obliterated from Wikipedia. Law _{type! snype?} 00:59, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

I think this is resolved. I don't know if "bad joke" is the best description (was anyone trying to be funny?), I'd just call it vandalism. As the vandalism edits are no longer evident in the user's edit history, I've left them a warning against vandalizing. -- Infrogmation (talk) 03:05, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

I would ask given the circumstances that you remove the warning. This wasn't vandalism at all. In fact, the user apparently did not want to be the first to report that the individual was deceased. This is a very odd situation. Law _{type! snype?} 03:47, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Eeep, I see now. I mistakenly thought this was another example of vandalism false death report. I'll remove the warning. Curious stuff... -- Infrogmation (talk) 04:15, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

...actually this wasn't a bad joke or vandalism, it seems as though the user "leaked" to Wikipedia. Jay Bennett passed away this weekend, and this user who appears to be connected to Wilco through acquaintance posted the news of his death before it was announced by his record label. It's now being carried in the Chicago Sun-Times[35]. So this wasn't a BLP or vandalism issue. Keegan^talk 03:51, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Very odd. And before I read that it was Jay Bennett, I though we were talking about the sean connery thing.Drew Smith What I've done 03:55, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Well Drew, thanks for bringing that to my attention. I protected Sir Connery. Law _{type! snype?} 04:03, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Wait, you mean you guys didn't know about that? I saw the edit immediatly after it happened, using huggle, but AdGF, and simply sent a message asking for sources. Afterwards I looked it up and found a blog saying that somebody's screwing with wikipedia again.Drew Smith What I've done 07:35, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

User:LOTRrules evading blocks

As the two IP socks below:

• 78.150.208.71 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 78.144.107.76 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

Please block/rv.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 00:47, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Blocked the second one for 31 hours. The first hasn't edited since May 9. --auburnpilot talk 01:12, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Would anyone be willing to do a rangeblock? It was decided against because of the different locations he was using, but more than half of the IPs the user has edited under are from the 78.148.0.0 - 78.151.255.255 range, which i'm guessing is their place of residence. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/LOTRrules/Archive.--Otterathome (talk) 10:26, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

User:SchmuckyTheCat

• SchmuckyTheCat (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - Re-instate the same red link "[[China, Hong Kong]]" for three times within six hours. [36] Baksando 00:22, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

This noticeboard is for obvious vandals and spammers only. Consider taking this report to Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring. Tonywalton ^Talk 00:24, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

• This is obviously not edit warring but simple vandalism. Where would be the suitable venue? Baksando 00:28, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

• The fourth time in slightly more than 6 hours. [37] Baksando 00:37, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

You both need to take this to the talk page of the article before the 3RR blocks get handed down. Law _{type! snype?} 00:40, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

• Similarly vandalised pages: [38] [39] Baksando 00:42, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

• Baksando is the latest incarnation of permanently and irrevocably banned User:Instantnood. His whining can be ignored, but it would be bad form of me to remove his complaint here. Also, Wikipedia:BAN#Enforcement_by_reverting_edits are not vandalism. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

Note The above has been moved here from AIV, in case that helps with the context. Law _{type! snype?} 00:52, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you so much. Baksando 00:54, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't know what's going on here, but I changed "China, Hong Kong" to "Hong Kong", because it's clear to me that the former is incorrect. If there's another form that's better, please fix it. --NE2 01:00, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Reading the complaint, I saw the typo. This is really about his long term history of returning to the same articles as Instantnood and doing POV re-orgs, not about a single typo. SchmuckyTheCat (talk) 01:08, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Wait... is "Hong Kong, China" really correct for the location column, when the country column is just "Hong Kong"? --NE2 01:15, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

It should be corrected to be Hong Kong, China, so that HK does not appear as an independent country in the same article as the PRC. The inconsistency is a sideshow compared to the classic IN behaviors of reverting templates and re-org'ing lists which is what got him banned by Arbcom to begin with.

Part of the point, is that banned users should be reverted, even to bad revisions. If it was a valid edit that needed fixing, someone else will do it. SchmuckyTheCat (talk) 01:26, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Then, in your edit, why does the country column read "Hong Kong"? Actually, if we're not supposed to show Hong Kong as an independent country, why does {{HKG}} exist? --NE2 01:39, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Anyone who wants to break out the popcorn can do a little history [40], running to admins to bitch about me is part of the sockpuppet pattern. SchmuckyTheCat (talk) 01:11, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

It was not just about China, Hong Kong (for the List of largest cable-stayed bridges article). Two of the three Hong Kong bridges are listed to be in Hong Kong with the {{HKG}} template. For the other one, the {{PRC}} template is applied. SchmuckyTheCat keeps putting back the inconsistency.

This is obvious vandalism, given that he is an experienced editor [41] who edited extensively in Hong Kong- and China-related topics. For the other two entries (Talk:Mainland China and Wikipedia:Requests for comment/hist/manual), the act of vandalism is even more apparent. Baksando 01:15, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

"Anyone is free to revert any edits made in defiance of a ban. By banning a user, the community has decided that their edits are prima facie unwanted and may be reverted without any further reason." This includes talk pages and RFC. Your edits are unwanted, removing them is not vandalism, and I'm always going to know it's you. SchmuckyTheCat (talk) 01:26, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

My third opinion: I notice that SchmuckyTheCat had a series of edit-wars with user:Instantnood. I also had an edit-war with user:Instantnood long time ago, and I agree that he was a troublemaker. No body likes him. But I am afraid it is a little bit too sensitive to suspect that every account on Wikipedia is a sockpuppet of user:Instantnood. I can see that user:Baksando is actually making quite a lot of constructive contributions to Hong Kong-related articles. He is probably not user:Instantnood. User:Instantnood would never be that constructive. :-p I think SchmuckyTheCat should relax. It's not cool to revert every edit that user:Baksando made. Let's all work together. :-) - Alan (talk) 04:59, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

My fourth opinion It sounds like SchmuckyTheCat is assuming user:Baksando is a sock puppet based on a difference of opinion as to whether HK should be listed in a country column as "Hong Kong, China" or just "Hong Kong", and based on user:Baksando bringing the edit war to the attention of the admins. I think we need more evidence. "Country" doesn't always imply independent country. Some editors seem to have an obsession with trying to classify every location by sovereignty no matter what the subject matter. This causes problems like this where editors have arguments about how to explain the issue of Hong Kong's sovereignty in an article about theme parks! The fact that more than one editor is arguing for a position similar to that argued for by Baksando is not surprising and does very little to argue for sockpuppetry. The second argument, that Basksando reacted in a similar manner to Instantnood by immediately running to the admins is certainly damaging to Baksando's case, but I don't think it is conclusive. Many new editors do that. And given that SchmuckyTheCat was reverting so much of Baksando's work, it is hardly surprising. I'm in agreement with Alan that Baksando should be given more time to show who he is and what he's about. Readin (talk) 17:38, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Baksando has been editing since 1 September 2007, about 5 months after Instantnood stopped. The timing is a bit suspicious, but it has been 20 months now since Baksando started. How often during that time has SchmuckyTheCat seen Baksando exhibiting Instantnood-like behavior? Readin (talk) 17:44, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps this is a matter for WP:SPI? Durova^Charge! 17:52, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

I've been keeping eye on Baksando for more than a year. This edit made me watch, [42]. This edit made me pretty sure [43]. Then all was quiet and nnocent, but this revisit confirmed it [44] and since then I followed closer.

There have also been a small number of IPs in use as well, which I haven't made a huge deal out of. [45], for instance would probably CU as Baksando, unless he uses Baksando over Tor, which he used to do.

Instantnood is a serial sockpuppeteer, who is well aware of the log timeouts of checkuser. He makes handfuls of accounts, uses them innocently, then goes on a bender. When one gets used up, he lies low for a few months (to clear CheckUser) on a new one making minor edits to build a little history. He uncovers himself when he revisits old revert wars because my watchlist suddenly lists changes to several dozen old articles at a time. He has several styles, both editing, and grammatical, that are easy to identify once you've noticed it.

It's not just a difference of opinion. You've seen me disagree with plenty of editors, even belligerent ones, on Chinese topics without saying "OMG, sockpuppet." I've rooted out at least a dozen of these accounts, almost all eventually being confirmed with CU or other meta log data. I've never made a claim that an account was a sock of IN and been wrong. You might also notice I'm not the only one reverting him, but I'm willing to engage him and call him out. SchmuckyTheCat (talk) 18:21, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't see any problem with [46]. What he said is 100% correct and in the right place.

The other diffs you provide do seem strange. Some just appear to be non-sense.

I do give you the benefit of the doubt Schmucky. That's why I didn't immediately revert your revert of comments made by Baksando on a talk page. Normally I don't tolerate reversion of talk page comments unless they are clearly vandalism. You've been around a while and are one of the very few long time editors on the pages I frequent for whom I've never been able to identify a strong bias and I can't recall every seeing you make a frivolous edit.

I guess I've said my piece. Readin (talk) 19:42, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

There is nothing wrong with that edit, I'll show you why it confirms for me when I can spend a few more minutes. SchmuckyTheCat (talk) 01:46, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Rude series of edits

Resolved.

I had been gone for the majority of the day today, and the first edit I saw today was this edit by TAway (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). I knew that I was no longer going to have administrative rights, but I felt that it was extremely rude for some random user to remove the item from my user page without any permission. I subsequently undid the edit and under my own name. An hour later, I received this message from TAway. I had already been in contact with DragonflySixtyseven and Versageek for their input on the situation as I took care of other matters, leading to this revert and these two messages. This led TAway to place these two messages on each user's talk page and then place this on his/her user page. A cursory glance into this user's edits shows this !vote at a recent RFA and the subsequent explanation of the change in opinion.

I don't know what to say of the user's article edits (less than 100 in ~6 months editing), but certainly civility and general courtesy could use some work.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 04:00, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

TAway's behavior was inappropriate. It looks as though DragonflySixtyseven and Versageek have already left notes on TAway's talk page. That seems sufficient unless there are further issues. Marking this as resolved. --MZMcBride (talk) 07:54, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Might want to check page again looks like he has an inappropriate post about Ryulong. KoshVorlon (talk) 14:25, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Wow, that has got to be the most intrusive signature I've seen yet. --64.85.220.141 (talk) 16:15, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it's absurd. I'll remove it and message the creator. ╟─TreasuryTag►hemicycle─╢ 16:25, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Sock needs a block

Resolved

 – sock blocked.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 04:30, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

• Justme89 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Thewiki289 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

The second noted user has been confirmed as a sock of the first, does anyone mind blocking it while I revert their edits?— Dædαlus ^Contribs 04:16, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

You know there is a whole other forum for this type of stuff--Jojhutton (talk) 04:21, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

I certainly don't mind blocking, but you're going to have to show me where this confirmation occurred. AniMate^draw 04:22, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

They were just confirmed as one in the same at the SPI case, yet no blocks have been handed out. Where would you suggest I ask for a block on a confirmed account, then? Is there some AIV like noticeboard for that?— Dædαlus ^Contribs 04:25, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Done. Please see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Justme89.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 04:26, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Nevermind, looks like the checking CU beat you to the punch.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 04:30, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

User:Nunamiut

This editor is being quite disruptive of late. He apparently has repeatedly recreated The Money Masters after it was deleted in an AfD, under both that name and some others. They have repeatedly been CSDed, per policy, but he continues recreating. Tonight, he also began broadcasting messages all over the place, including editing the closed AfD, (Ctrl-click)">[47] adding a talk page to it, repeatedly trying to post a nearly unintelligible message at the Films notability page (Ctrl-click)">[48], and repeating a version on my talk page (Ctrl-click)">[49], and recreating a talk page for one of his earlier creations (Ctrl-click)">[50]. Looking at his other edits, I'm not seeing that he is doing much value here. Most are just his posting forum-like messages to other article pages. There is currently an RPP/Creation for the article itself, but though an admin might want to look further into this as his continued attempts are getting annoying.-- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 05:12, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

I have salted the article and am leaving the editor a message about community consensus and other relevant topics to serve as a warning against further disruption. Mfield (Oi!) 05:26, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Probably just blowing off some steam, but he's not too pleased about the deletes - see User:Nunamiut#Unacceptable_behaviour. FYI - I marked one of the articles for speedy, based on previous version being deleted. He has, however, finally taken this to deletion review, so hopefully that will resolve matters. Ravensfire2002 (talk) 19:22, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

User:United Statesman

Little problem here. Someone has been sending e-mail messages to other Wikipedia members (whom they do not know) using my former username. Not only that, the e-mails are repulsive. A member sent me the contents of the message he got:

You wanna know how I got these scars? My father was a drinker and a fiend. And one night, he goes off craaazier than usual. Mommy gets the kitchen knife to defend herself. He doesn't like that. Not. One. Bit. So, me watching, he takes the knife to her, laughing while he does it. He turns to me, and he says, "Why so serious?" He comes at me with the knife: "Why so serious?" Sticks the blade in my mouth: "Let's put a smile on that face." Aaand.why so serious? - The Joker

My username was United Statesman until a couple of weeks ago, when I changed it to Brunswickian. And now, someone is playing a sick joke, as the current United Statesman has no edits and re-directs to my userpage. B R U N S W I C K I A N^[talk] 07:56, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Looks like the Joker vandal. This issue has been raised at WP:BN under the section heading "Renames and the Joker" --t'shael mindmeld 08:38, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

The account has been blocked by another admin and the user can no longer send emails. The remarks in the email stem from the movie the Dark Knight, so maybe that makes it less creepy, and certainly unoriginal. If the joker decides to quote The Sisterhood of the Traveling Pants, then I'd be very concerned. Law _{type! snype?} 11:02, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Boron!

See also: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive537 § request for a correction, Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/GFZLab, and User talk:Uncle G § Re: request_for_correction

We have a wonderful edit war on our hands with users that are not Wikipedians, but are internationally published physicists.

Talk:Boron

If any kind expert at dispute resolution could take a gander and try to sort this mess out, it'd be great. Keegan^talk 08:34, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

• See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gamma boron discovery controversy. Mathsci (talk) 09:19, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
  • … and the prior ANI discussions. Uncle G (talk) 23:00, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

More out of process category renames

Rich Farmbrough (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) is still at it, changing categories out-of-process without consensus. He not only should know better, he's already participated in the earlier complaints. What can be done?

Probably missing some, where he fails to provide an edit summary:

1. 2009-05-24T00:03:00 Template:Failed verification (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (top)
2. 2009-05-24T00:08:47 Template:Original research (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (since=>from and simplify) (top)
3. 2009-05-24T00:13:13 Template:Or (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (top)
4. 2009-05-24T20:44:21 Template:Expand-section (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
5. 2009-05-24T21:09:55 Template:Article issues (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (since => from)
6. 2009-05-24T22:15:51 Template:Mergefrom (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (since=> from) (top)
7. 2009-05-24T22:18:34 Template:Mergeto (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (since=> from : rmeover the category parameter: not likely to be used in article space.) (top)
8. 2009-05-24T22:24:33 Template:Mergefrom-multiple (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (clean up using AWB) (top)
9. 2009-05-24T22:25:04 Template:Merge JRRT (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (Since => from using AWB) (top)
10. 2009-05-24T22:25:42 Template:Merge FJC (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (Since => from, Replaced: since → from, using AWB) (top)
11. 2009-05-24T22:26:38 Template:Merge-school (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (Since => from or other cleanup using AWB) (top)
12. 2009-05-24T22:27:07 Template:Portalmerge (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (Since => from or other cleanup using AWB) (top)
13. 2009-05-24T22:27:23 Template:NorthAmMergeto (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (Since => from or other cleanup using AWB) (top)
14. 2009-05-24T22:27:40 Template:Multiplemergefrom (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (Since => from or other cleanup using AWB) (top)
15. 2009-05-24T22:28:56 Template:Merging (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (Since => from or other cleanup using AWB) (top)
16. 2009-05-24T22:29:15 Template:Mergetomultiple-with (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (Since => from or other cleanup using AWB) (top)
17. 2009-05-24T22:30:32 Template:Mergeto2 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (Since => from or other cleanup using AWB) (top)
18. 2009-05-24T22:30:41 Template:Mergeto-multiple (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (Since => from or other cleanup, Replaced: since → from, using AWB) (top)
19. 2009-05-24T22:30:55 Template:Mergesections (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (Since => from or other cleanup, Replaced: since → from, using AWB) (top)
20. 2009-05-24T22:31:05 Template:Mergesection (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (Since => from or other cleanup, Replaced: since → from, using AWB) (top)
21. 2009-05-24T22:32:35 Template:Mergefrom-category (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (Since => from or other cleanup, Replaced: since → from, using AWB) (top)
22. 2009-05-24T22:32:55 Template:Merge-multiple-to (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (Since => from or other cleanup, Replaced: since → from, using AWB) (top)
23. 2009-05-24T22:33:00 Template:Merge-multiple (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (Since => from or other cleanup, Replaced: since → from, using AWB) (top)
24. 2009-05-24T22:33:06 Template:Merge (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (Since => from or other cleanup, Replaced: since → from, using AWB) (top)
25. 2009-05-24T22:33:19 Template:Afd-mergeto (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (Since => from or other cleanup, Replaced: since → from, using AWB) (top)
26. 2009-05-24T22:33:25 Template:Afd-mergefrom (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (Since => from or other cleanup, Replaced: since → from, using AWB) (top)
27. 2009-05-24T22:34:57 Template:Expert-verify (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
28. 2009-05-24T22:35:22 Template:Expert-verify (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (top)
29. 2009-05-24T22:36:25 Template:Expert-subject (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (top)
30. 2009-05-24T22:48:35 Template:Tdeprecated (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (since=> from. Stop self include.)
31. 2009-05-24T22:49:52 Template:Tdeprecated (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (top)

--William Allen Simpson (talk) 08:56, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

I reverted all of those edits (and probably a few more related edits in sequence, which may have been sensible.) — Arthur Rubin (talk) 10:03, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

These were trivial edits, changing only "since" to "from", standardising all 42 Wikipedia maintenance categories involving dated categories. Making changes is not sensible. Why are you undoing another admins actions for no good reason? Debresser (talk) 11:37, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Arthur Rubin wrote Rich to his talk page here. But didn't await his reply or actions. And see my reply there that Arthur Rubin was non-specific and did not take the most logical course of action. Debresser (talk) 12:06, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

See also above and this diff, where Arthur Rubin admits he might have reverted some sensible changes. Debresser (talk) 12:24, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

People should know better than to respond to these sort of trollings. The reversion breaks maybe a zillion articles, maybe two zillion. Rich Farmbrough, 13:36 25 May 2009 (UTC).

People should know better than to change a template/category pattern without discussing it in the relevant WikiProject or on TfD or CfD. As I pointed on in a smaller rename (about 38 decade names), we need to make sure that all the links are done correctly. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 14:42, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Since either "since" needed to be changed to "from" or "from" to "since", both causing a significant disruption, you should have discussed which it was to be before making the changes. I don't think I have the tools you constructed to reduce the auxilliary errors caused by the process. I suppose, at this point, the good of Wikipedia suggests I allow to continue as you wish, as I don't know how else to mitigate the damage you caused.

For the most part, From is just wrong. I suppose I had better revert my corrections, as I can't figure out else to repair the damage. May I suggest that you rename all the generated categories to "since YYYY-MM", as that makes automated processing easier? — Arthur Rubin (talk) 14:48, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

See Wikipedia_talk:Categories_for_discussion#More_out_of_process_category_renames for linguistic arguments to choose "from" rather than "since". But that can be discussed and taken care of later. When we had 32 categories at "from" and only 9 at "since" (and 1 at "as of") the obvious choice was to go to "from". Debresser (talk) 15:21, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Actually, changing all categories to another format will be a lot easier after Rich finishes. His edits are well though through and take care of all loose ends. See Category:Articles with invalid date parameter in template which started geting crowded right after Arthur Rubin's actions and is now again depopulated. Debresser (talk) 15:33, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

• Points to Rich Farmbrough for being bold on this one, but since it's obvious that these changes have encountered opposition, he should stop his unilateral changes and submit them to CFD, which is the process established for exactly this purpose. I have no opinion on whether any of his changes are actually a good idea, but wholesale changes of this sort generally set somebody's nose out of joint. Best to send it through the process created for the purpose.--Aervanath (talk) 16:45, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Not convinced of the need of process as the 32 vs 9 argument goes well with WP:IAR in particular as the discussion is under discussion and a final resting place can easier be dug with those changes already in place. Agathoclea (talk) 17:27, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Farmbrough deliberately defied the folks at WT:CFD#CfD categories renamed, where similarly bad edits were previously discussed.
--William Allen Simpson (talk) 19:38, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

The above demonstrate at least 30 changes in 1 day — "since" to "from" — your count must be inaccurate. WP:IAR is inapplicable, as Farmbrough's edits were not improving or maintaining anything. Indeed, as Arthur Rubin learned, Farmbrough actually made it difficult to revert, an essential maintenance function.
--William Allen Simpson (talk) 19:38, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

1. I said 32 categories, not templates.
2. As I said before, it will be easy to make changes after you let Rich finish. Debresser (talk) 19:52, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Who are "the folks at WT:CFD#CfD categories renamed"? Is that some Wikipedia subgroup with special rights somewhere? Trying to own part of Wikipedia? Or is that you and me and Rich and anybody else who wants to contribute to Wikipedia in good faith? Debresser (talk) 19:55, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

User talk:Eseverance

Resolved

Could we please get an admin over there? Eseverance (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is trying to start a "petition" against the CSD criterion G11 (blatant advertising) on his/her talk page, calling it a "wiki law." This is after s/he attempted to repeatedly spam Wikipedia with something called "Wonder Lilly Inc." Some of the pages s/he created were Wonder Lilly Inc., www.wonderlilly.scriptmania.com (which was recreated so many times that Dank (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) had to salt it), and even his/her own userpage. According to a previous revision of the userpage, a subject of the spamming is Jack Russell Terrier; one should probably take a look at his/her contributions to the article. Now I really regret approving his/her request for an account.

Seriously, enough is enough; COI, spamming, switching to plain disruption after a final warning from Backslash Forwardslash (talk · contribs) – I recommend slapping a nice block on Eseverance (want a quick link?). → Dylan620 (Toolbox Alpha, Beta) 09:40, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Update: Moved from AN for greater visibility. → Dylan620 (Toolbox Alpha, Beta) 09:40, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

They appear to have no productive contributions whatsoever. There was disruption after the final warning, so I have blocked them. Jehochman ^Talk 10:16, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

User Razzinator

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

User has been repeatedly warned, and blocked twice, for repeated behavior pattern of disruptive edits with zero discussion, often in the form of unsourced changes and addition of unsourced content to multiple articles. Most recent block for this pattern of disruptive editing was for duration of one week. A longer block is in order here.

I have repeatedly warned the user myself, and the user disrupted an article I later successfully took to Featured List quality status, so I would appreciate it if a previously uninvolved administrator could take action here. Thank you for your time, Cirt (talk) 11:08, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Posted one last warning, hopefully will get the message. I left the option open for someone to block immediately if they know the facts better than me. GDonato (talk) 11:43, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Okay, thank you. Cirt (talk) 11:45, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

YTCracker

User:Ytcracker editing article YTCracker, making personal attacks, and recruiting meatpuppets to block the afd

Please see edits such as [[51]] and the sockpuppetry on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/YTCracker_(3rd_nomination), recruited by him, on his website www.digitalgangster.com Theserialcomma (talk) 11:29, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

YT has been indeffed by User:Toddst1. Now if that pathetic 'AfD' could only face the same fate. Law _{type! snype?} 11:57, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Comment: The sockpuppets at the AfD should also be blocked. Cirt (talk) 11:58, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

It's obvious from his website that he has meatpuppets, but wouldn't it take a checkuser to find TY's socks? I'd be all for it. Law _{type! snype?} 12:00, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

WP:DUCK? Cirt (talk) 12:03, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

When the AfD gets closed as delete, state "If it had not been for the preponderance of Sock- and meat-puppets, the arguments to keep may have been strong enough to keep. However, winners never cheat, and cheaters never win" (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:12, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

The same users that are voting delete have been making destructive edits and vandalizing the page, forcing fans like myself and others to come to the defense. How users defend a page has nothing to do with the notability of the page, the content of the page SHOULD determine the notability, and that's hard to do when its being purposefully degraded. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.121.47.216 (talk) 12:26, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

User:Theserialcomma editing article YTCracker, making personal attacks and false accusations.

This user has removed my additions and clean-up of the said article. All additions are cited and show no bias, regardless of the "meatpuppet" accusations. I find these attempts pathetic and assinine. Theredspecial (talk) 12:18, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure whether this user is a sockpuppet or a meatpuppet, but as it's clearly one or the other, I hope no one minds that I took the liberty of blocking it. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 12:20, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Nope. Law _{type! snype?} 12:22, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Can you block the other socks at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/YTCracker (3rd nomination)? Cirt (talk) 12:25, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

The ironic thing is that the article itself is kind of in the gray area, on the borderline- it had a much better chance of passing before you created all the accounts (or sent all your friends). In a decision this close, though, a bunch of obvious puppet accounts disrupting the AfD makes experienced editors more likely to vote 'delete.' -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 12:34, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) x2 I sure don't mind, go right ahead. And while you're at it, would you care to block these guys, please? Thank you! → Dylan620 (Toolbox Alpha, Beta) 12:36, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Took care of user:chozo_ninpo, who is a self-admitted meatpuppet/sled dog of YT. Law _{type! snype?} 12:53, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Heads up

I'm currently using another tab to file an SPI; Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Ytcracker should be bluelinked shortly. → Dylan620 (Toolbox Alpha, Beta) 12:52, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Inappropriate blocks

I did some checking myself when all the "!votes" started happening and these seem to be fans of YTCracker and not "sockpuppets". Considering his fanbase I'm honestly not surprised at all but I wish they'd make better arguments in the AfD. That said however, I feel both of these two blocks are inappropriate and premature: [52] [53]
--Tothwolf (talk) 13:43, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Chozo's unblocked and another admin is working with YT. Law _{type! snype?} 13:45, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

I have no intention of undoing the blocking admin's block- I strongly support an unblock of YT after the AfD closes, but whether it would be more useful to leave it in place until then or to unblock YT is a matter on which I'm happy to yield to User:Toddst1's judgement. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 14:00, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Two others I noticed (due to their ranting on their forums after the blocks occured) are: User:Theredspecial [54] and User:Edwardwoltin [55], both with the reason "Abusing multiple accounts". The first was done before Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Ytcracker was even created and the second was done just as the SPI page was being created. Tothwolf (talk) 14:10, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Without reviewing, if all these accounts only started to edit to participate in the afd then they are meatpuppets by definition and are thus treated as sockpuppets per WP:SOCK - and all the worse if they were canvassed off-Wiki to attempt to sway the debate. LessHeard vanU (talk) 14:12, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

What I'm feeling is that, right now, the meatpuppets are very disruptive. But that any of them who would like to stay and become Wikipedia editors should be unblocked at their request- after the AfD is over. I used the 'multiple accounts' key when i blocked because WP:MEAT applied to them; I can't tell if any of them even want to edit the encyclopedia outside of this area. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 14:13, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

I won't disagree that some of the "!voters" seem to be disruptive, although in my mind they are well within their right to discuss and vent their outrage over the AfD on their own forum. I wouldn't mind their participation in the AfD itself if more of it was actually constructive. Some of the earlier fan participants seem to have had their accounts awhile and appear to have previous editing experience. That said, I still believe AfD nomination itself was also disruptive; the nom didn't check the refs and he either did not notice or did not care that the article had been gutted by another editor. The turnout of YTCracker's fans really is not an entirely unexpected event. Tothwolf (talk) 14:35, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

The point being - as made previously - that the obvious use of puppets chilled the other participants to the legitimate point that there were problems with the nom (per reading above, no opinion on unread afd). If a DRV were to be opened on the result, both the absence of puppets from that discussion and their unfortunate effect on the delete debate would certainly be very strong points to make. LessHeard vanU (talk) 14:41, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

guh, I read the whole AfD and my brain liquefied from some of the hipspeak thrown around. If it's a problem for the closing admin, restarting it with semiprotection to allow editors who aren't being waved in off message boards to discuss it rationally might be an option. Tony Fox (arf!) 16:08, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

(ec) FWIW, there is no consensus right now considering only arguments from more established users. I would not oppose simply closing it as no consensus and leaving it there. However, this Reichstag climbing and personal attacks need to stop and now. MuZemike 16:46, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

The AFD could probably close now, given the references I've since embedded. Individually and in summation, he pretty clearly passes WP:N. Closing the AFD would shut the meatpuppets up. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 16:50, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Done. Did you add those sources? Please tell me if I mis-stated that in my closing.--chaser (talk) 17:49, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Undent. Which sources? I took the ones that were reliable from here and embedded them as inline citations. The remainder I put on the talk page (after removing the unreliable). I can't see anyone disputing reliability now, he's got whole articles about him in The Gazette (Colorado Springs) and Wired (magazine), there's no way to argue he doesn't pass WP:N. Your closing looks fine to me, I'd say that this is an ignore all procedures moment. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 18:20, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Continuing disruption and threats

See User talk:Ytcracker for the aftermath of the indef blocking. I think some further action need be taken, like talk page deletion and/or taking away ability to edit own talk page. MuZemike 01:12, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you're looking at. He was pretty angry when the article about him was nominated for deletion, behaved badly, we had a nice conversation, he calmed down a lot, and he hasn't edited in hours. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 01:15, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

As someone who's actually had words with him, he chilled out and admitted his mistake. He hasn't edited in over 10 hours, and the blocking admin has agreed to unblock him. Law _{type! snype?} 01:20, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

User Edditer

Resolved

 – user already blocked

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

User has persistently vandalised pages such as Cradle of Filth. Despite receiving a final warning for vandalism on Days of Thunder, user continued to vandalise pages such as Rihanna and Nemifitide as well as leaving offensive messages on the user page of User:Erik9 and User talk:Magnius. magnius (talk) 14:47, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Report to WP:AIV, please. Thank you, MuZemike 14:51, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

User was already blocked indef by Jclemens (talk · contribs) after the last vandalism spree, well before this post was made. ~ mazca ^t|c 15:20, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I did report it to WP:AIV but didn't see a notice of user being blocked, then I was advised by another editor that this may be the place to report the incident. magnius (talk) 21:43, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

KoshVorlon and rollback

This has nothing to do with his sig. Earlier today I removed a link from Dead Sea Scrolls which has too many external links - I made my reasons clear in the edit summary. KoshVorlon (talk · contribs) reverted it using rollback (I'm told). I discovered he'd done the same thing to Acalamari [56] [57]. Looking at his history page, it looks like he's also done it to QuackGuru and just now [58] he's removed referenced text. As I could be considered involved (see my talk page where someone has commented on his removal of the link on Dead Sea Scrolls I'd appreciate it if another Admin could deal with this. He's using Lupin's tools it seems, if that's relevant. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 21:31, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

The edit to Dead Sea Scrolls which Dougweller made was this, and Kosh's rollback was here. Seems to me that would constitute a violation of the rollback guidelines (WP:RBK). I recall other cases previously where rollback-like edits of good-faith contributions were permissible (e.g., using WP:TW) provided a descriptive edit summary was used. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 22:02, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm not really looking for drama here. However, Yes, I do use Lupin's tools, and have been doing so for quite some time.

First, let me point out that Dougweller made no attempt to ask me about these rollbacks. Had he, we might not be on this board. The rollbacks were all done in good faith. I have no agenda on the Dead Sea Scroll pages, in fact, my only edit was the removal of a blog from that page. (In Lupin's tools, it highlighted a blogsite and I used the rollback function to take it out, per our policy). As far as QuackGuru, yes, I've been reverted him a lot today, for his usual "Jimbo Wales is the CO-Founder" of Wikipedia " edits. The particular edit that Dougweller is talking about is a different page where a Sultan had a highlighted nickname of "The Lame", which was obviously not supposed to be there. I would prefer to continue this discussion with DougWeller directly , as it should be ( disupte resolution ? ) instead of bringing more drama here. I would move that this section be closed and I will continue discussions with Dougweller. (However, I , as before, will yield to consensus)_{Naluboutes, Nalubotes} ^{Aeria gloris, Aeria gloris} 22:15, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Consensus is that one should use rollback only for vandalism reversion. Were you not aware of that?--chaser (talk) 22:30, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Of course. The edits I described above are obvious vandalism. Giving some the nickname "The Lame" is vandalism, as is adding in non-rs sites. That's why I use the tools. Take a look at my contributions and you'll see that I have a history with those tools, and I've not encountered any issues (except for a few mistakes, like putting a test1 message on the wrong person's page, as would be normal) My use of this tools has always been in good faith._{Naluboutes, Nalubotes} ^{Aeria gloris, Aeria gloris} 22:35, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure what "the Lame" is about (diff?), but the latter example and the other diffs in this thread are not vandalism. See WP:NOTVAND generally. Vandalism is actually more narrowly defined around here than you might think.--chaser (talk) 22:50, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Why are we accusing Kosh of abusing rollback? According to this, he doesn't even have rollback! He must have been faking it, that's always possible. → Dylan620 (Toolbox Alpha, Beta) 22:38, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Wait a moment, can I get this straight please. KoshVorlon, you are saying you made this revert because the other editor was referring to Tamerlane, and you think that because that name incorporates the historic nickname "The Lame" it was vandalism? Can you please quickly say something that convinces me you are not on a trolling spree here? Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:51, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

...and adding a non-reliable source is not necessarily vandalism if one follows WP:AGF to start. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 22:57, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm gonna suggest you WP:AGF on this one, FPaS. If I weren't familiar with the etymology of "Tamerlane" courtesy of Badass of the Week, I'd probably have made the same mistake as KV upon seeing him referred to as "Timur the Lame." It sure as hell sounds like something a vandal would add, since "lame" seems to be a favorite... rdfox 76 (talk) 23:49, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Even if Kosh isn't using the real Rollback, the reason using rollback for reverting good-faith edits is frowned upon is not because of the tool, but because of the lack of any reasonable edit summary. Using a rollback-style edit summary while reverting edits is tantamount to saying "rvv" in an edit summary. While I have no opinion of QG's edits, characterizing DougWeller's edits as vandalism without any obvious evidence of those edits being deliberately bad is just plain wrong. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 23:57, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Mendaliv here. Undoing/reverting/rolling back edits with a generic edit summary (those edit summaries are the exact same native rollback uses) is basically saying to editors that you feel their edit was so worthless it didn't deserve a descriptive reason for your undoing it. This is not collegial. Use undo with an edit summary (or twinkle's rollback that allows you to enter an edit summary) except in cases of clear vandalism. –xeno^talk 00:17, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

FPAS .. your'e correct. Timur the Lame appears to be vandalism, and so it was reverted. This was a good faith revert. Just for clarities sake, I don't have Rollback. I am and have been using Lupins tools which allow for a quick revert, in which I can see an edit summary window for 2 seconds (literally). Not enough time is available to enter in any type of edit summary (and I'm pretty quick typist, 80-85 WPM)! Check my contrbs and you'll note I've used this tool in past, in good faith. Especially take a look at the Dwight Lauderdale page and you'll see plenty of examples of me reverting in bad faith. You'll know it by the summaries (pretty incivil!).

_{Naluboutes, Nalubotes} ^{Aeria gloris, Aeria gloris} 01:08, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

That's a bit more understandable, but even so Kosh, the use of automated tools, no matter how well or poorly designed, does not excuse their users from the behavioral expectations the community has of editors not using automated tools. All that's being asked here is that you not make rollback-type edits to revert things that don't meet Wikipedia's definition of vandalism. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 02:07, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Disruptive edits along Armenian-Azeri articles

I feel that this is the most appropriate medium to express my concerns following the activities on Wikipedia over the past month and I ask that the admins here take some form of action. Unfortunately, VartanM left Wikipedia in April, as he was disgusted against the questionable block placed against Meowy in the face of disruptions. Eupator is away and Meowy was placed on a 2-week block just recently and unfortunately I and very few editors are keeping an eye out on the sprawling vandalism of the past few weeks. Many new users are jumping out of the blue, being fixed on articles on "Armenian terrorism", Armenian genocide denial and the "Azerbaijani genocide." It is quite probable that some off-Wiki coordination is being done.

For example, see the contributions of the following newly-created accounts: [59], [60] (Fiegl's book was on "Armenian terrorism"), and [61]. Some action also seems to be warranted against Proger, who has a long history of disruption. Many of his disruptions won't be understood by admins because of their lack of knowledge on the content but here are some of the most outstanding offenders:

• from Iranian redirect to Azeri, *removal of the historic name of Iranian Azerbaijan,
• addition of the Azeri language in the lead on the Mannaeans
• moving Iran to the last in the list
• the removal of Armenia and replacement with Georgia
• says, very doubiously, that Azerbaijan won the war
• Removal of the Iranian in the name
• The tripling of the casualty figures
• the removal of Russian from the languages section
• The replacement of Iranian Azerbaijan (in Iran) with South Azerbaijan

We next encounter the following disruptive edits. There is a new user, InRe.Po, who might be ErkTGP, who might also be this user with a fake Armenian name , Անդրանիկ (Andranik), who failed to demonstrate any knowledge of Armenian or Russian [62]. It might be notable to read the contents of his conversation with Grandmaster here. While on the surface it appears that there are disagreements between the two, his main space edits on the March Days reflect no such dichotomy. This editor was inactive starting from October 2008, and didn't return until May 18, 2009 and right when one of the most controversial articles POV pushing, the neutrality tag even disappear in the process. His past editing pattern shows is interesting. He was activally involved in the articles History of the Kurdistan Workers Party, the template of Turkey-PKK conflict, Kurdistan Worker's Party, the template US War on Terrorism, in which he added the PKK (see here for the general basis of his edits). User ErkTGP, just like him, was interested primarily in Turkish matters until he jumped out of the blue to reinsert parts of Անդրանիկ additions, see [63]. There appears to be some similarities in Անդրանիկ's and InRe.Po's editing habits, as both appear to have intentions to serve as a strawpuppets.

If users wish to edit, then this should be done transparently, but it appears that a group of veteran editors as well as new ones are cooperating off wiki to work on specific articles. Recently it was "Armenian terrorism," this includes Grandmaster and Atabek. On two occasions, even John Vandenberg engaged in provocative actions. During the heated debate on the Movses Khorenatsi page, John Vandenberg out of the blue, loaded on wikisource Auguste Carrière's work on Movses Khorenatsi, which regurgitated much of Grandmaster's arguments and then created his article on Wikipedia. John then went on to create a section under the title of "Development notes" and left not any comment but a link to the Turkish foreign policy institute official website of the booklet: The Armenian Issue in Nine Questions and Answers which is the backbone of the denial of the Armenian genocide and the Armenian people (it can be compared to the "66 Questions and Answers about the Holocaust", which appeared in the Revue d’histoire de la Shoah, no 177-178, January-August 2003, where a similar comparison was made). Another user expressed his outrage over the material but there has been no comments left by John on Carrière's talk page.

John once more stepped in during an edit war going on Erich Feigl's article and a ridiculous website on par with tallarmeniantale.com, whose sole purpose is devoted to the denial of the Armenian Genocide and the promotion of the fabricated Azerbaijani Genocide, see the click here here to see the site. And an Azerbaijani genocide is what is now being pushed from another series of new editors, one of them being Joebobby1985 ([64]). Just like InRe.Po, he started with the Kurdistan Workers' party, for his first edit was to the word terrorist. From then on edited the Genocides in history article by ruining the entry about the Genocides perpetrated in the Ottoman Empire and unsuccessfully tried to include mention of an Azerbaijani genocide.

We now come to User:Abbatai (history) who, after being warned dozens of times to not edit war, has proceeded to do the exact same things. He created the Azeri genocide which was fortunately deleted. It is also worthy to read here this report [65]. What I once believed was merely a temporary nuisance seems to be a recurring problem. It is becoming increasingly difficult to continue editing in this atmosphere. And I am merely skimming over the material here. The passivity by admins here in unacceptable, given that Meowy was unjustly hounded and blocked on every given occasion outnumbered by editors who ignore what is being discussed and who don't even give a damn about improving the articles' quality.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 18:25, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

In my humble opinion, there are too few admins dealing with ArbCom enforcement in general, and in particular too few dealing with enforcing specific disputes, instead of just fielding reports at WP:AE. However, I don't agree with your assessment regarding Meowy, who was blocked more than once for 3RR, then placed on 1RR under an ArbCom editing restriction, and then repeatedly went over 1RR. PhilKnight (talk) 00:13, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Outing on Boron related talk pages

See also: User_talk:Uncle_G#Re:_request_for_correction, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gamma boron discovery controversy, & Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive537#request_for_a_correction

Aoganov (talk · contribs) appears to have outed the supposed email address of Materialscientist (talk · contribs) at Talk:Boron (history) and suspected real world name of the same user at Talk:Gamma boron discovery controversy (history). Aoganov is a new user and is using his real name. So I suspect this violation of policy is due to frustration and not knowing our policies. I already deleted the offending versions and will create an oversight request if Materialscientist wants one. I don't think Aoganov will do this again but part of the dispute is being fueled by Aoganov's suspicions over the real world ID of Materialscientist (claim of bias editing due to a COI). So, I mainly need advice on how to deal with a situation like this since I don't want to lose either editor. --mav (talk) 22:59, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

After more reading, the email part seems OK due to the fact that Materialscientist confirmed the email and didn't seem to be bothered by the outing of that fact. --mav (talk) 23:36, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

User:194x144x90x118

I am concerned that, while this user is making some useful edits, they are outweighed by his general incivility to other editors. It isn't hard to understand why he dislikes me, since I blocked him, incorrectly supposing him to be a sockpuppet, about a month ago, when he was a relatively new user. But his incivility and refusal to assume good faith has been directed at many more people than myself. In general, I've avoided contact with him except when he's definitely breaking the rules, but I couldn't help noticing that the problem does not appear to be going away. A few examples of edits that I found problematic include the 'no one is allowed to talk to me' message on his talk page, his repeated undoing of another user's edits, this charming personal attack- and that's just the last two days. Because he is so convinced of my incompetence, I am hoping that an uninvolved editor would be willing to read through his talk page and express an opinion on what, if any, action might be called for. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 01:09, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Second FisherQueen's request, since I'm apparently too incompetent and insane to deal with this user...--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 01:14, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

My good friends SarekOfVulcan and FisherQueen that like writing on my talkpage so very much, well I am glad that we are now able to discuss our matters with more of our friends. I'd like to start out by repeating a reply that I wish that someone else would have written on my talkpage but nobody did:

I just viewed the talk page of the dreamhost article and I can see that 194x makes some valid points regarding alleged strange behavior of the admin Sarekofvulcan, like 194x says the dreamhost talk page is rather clouted with personal attack from the user he mentions and I for one find it strange that the admin finally chose to block both 194x and the other user at the same time as if they were somehow equally guilty especially seeing as 194x had mainly been reacting to the other users personal attacks and nothing had previously been done about them whatsoever.

I also took a look at the block by Fisherqueeen that 194x mentions and I have to say that the only things that I can think of that could possibly have led Fisherqueen to come to that conclusion are A. the fact that 194x stated an opinion, something not strictly prohibited by wikipedias rules and B. Wishful thinking. It also seems as if another editor warned Fisherqueen that she was indeed mistaken but she decided to ignore his words. Also these "if you were wise" and "right to expect" remarks that she made on his talkpage are hardly appropriate seeing that she is a wikipedia admin so perhaps it would be best if Fisherqueen left matters relating to this user for someone else to deal with in the future. --194x144x90x118 (talk) 01:32, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

As far as I know, Julius Cesar talked in the 3rd person when he was referring to himself. Is this or such resemblance intended? Just wondering.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 01:48, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

I was confused for a moment as well. 194x144x90x118 is printing the administrative reply he is hoping someone will give him. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 01:50, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

That is possible as it makes sense. Let's see if s/he'll comment on this.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 01:57, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

The specific conversation that this user is referencing is here. Notice that I undid the block in question on April 30, which was nearly a full month ago. There does not seem to be any further action I can take regarding it, and it is not directly related to my concern regarding this user's current edits. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 01:44, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm a little worried by this editor's apparent interest in FisherQueen's work here; in particular, I see no reason why this edit occurred, beyond her input to that situation, and on the face of it, this is getting perilously close to WP:HOUND. On the other hand, if a reasonable justification is forthcoming... Rodhullandemu 01:52, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Ok man you want it you've got it I aint hounding anyone the edit you are referring to was actually a well motivated edit, after seeing all that discussion that he had been participating in I just thought I'd give the fellow a little pat on the shoulder, we all need one every now and then, my hope was that it would calm the fellow down and motivate him to use his time for something more productive.--194x144x90x118 (talk) 02:08, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

You told him that you were familiar with his accomplishments on the screen. Which particular role of his did you notice and remember him by name from? Was it 'bar patron,' or 'party guy?' -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 02:13, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

My dear, this is Not the place for casual chat or personal attacks. Do try to maintain the very high standard that you demand from other users.--194x144x90x118 (talk) 02:18, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Do try not to patronise other editors; it scores very low on the kudos scale. Rodhullandemu 02:21, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

(ec)Well, perhaps, but I didn't think "Don't be wasting too much of your valuable time and energy on these people, life is too short." was particularly helpful in the circumstances; it shows to me a lack of understanding of the policies and issues that led to the blocking, and a lack of good faith in the editors who had given quite enough advice to that editor before their patience was exhausted. Rodhullandemu 02:21, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't think that you quite understood what I wanted to say, I didn't necessarily write my honest opinion there, the reason I wrote that was that I was concerned for the well being of the individual and my hope was that those remarks would ease its mind and make it feel less "alone in the world", I wrote those comments on the users talkpage not the proposed deletion thread so they were primarily intended for his eyes. The carrot and the stick, both are necessary you know what I mean?--194x144x90x118 (talk) 02:42, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

WP is not a forum and social network. Even so it is not against any rule, "...a little pat on the shoulder,..." is basically a nice thing to do, the way you phrased it wasn't helpful to the editor (nor to your résumé) as you should first familiarize yourself with rules and guidelines so you can give him/her some helpful advise how s/he can do better in the future. You chose not to do so. In fact, you gave this editor no real advise but instead clearly (very) bad advise. You have to make yourself familiar with policies, rules and guidelines before attempting to "help" others or you'll just draw them in the same or similar trouble you're in; Or you might just drive them away this way which would be even worse.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 02:42, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

My advice to the editor was to not waste too much of his time on these matters. The guy obviously wasn't on the right path and if he wants that article to someday acctually excist here on wikipedia then he'll have to get himself a little bit away from his computer and do something to justify its creation. My advice was good.--194x144x90x118 (talk) 02:58, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Well then, assuming good faith regarding your comment at this editors talk page, it wasn't good advise. Details are already pointed out at my comment above. Maybe "watch-and-learn" (as I did and still do) might help?

BTW, regarding the small print above: Would you mind to enlighten us and clarify? --The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 03:11, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Another "BTW": Quote: "My advice was good". No it wasn't. Not in my opinion. Although you think so it is a common and human error that happened to you, me and everybody else. We always think we do or say the right thing and might see and regret our errors later, (or not...).--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 03:18, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

• Getting to much off topic. Admins input needed and preferred. That was the indicial intend.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 03:28, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

User:DreamGuy and User:174.0.39.30

User:DreamGuy is out of control and must be stopped for the sake of the Wikipedia project. He has been sanctioned (see Wikipedia:Editing restrictions), but to no effect. He continues to be uncivil, makes personal attacks, and makes assumptions of bad faith of all who do not share his POV. This longtime editor has a very long and documented history as a bully editor who harasses and demeans anyone who has a different point of view from his own. He stalks the edits of users, edit wars, refuses to accept AfD consensus if it does not meet his own POV, is argumentative in discussions and on talk pages, assumes bad faith in all who disagree with him, and trolls to bait otherwise well-intentioned editors to violate policy by retaliating to his uncivil behavior. He is a known abuser of multiple accounts. He has frequently been blocked from editing, but somehow he has been able to weasel his way to having the block rescinded or shortened. Why he has not been blocked for life I do not know (some admins look at his positive contributions, but his negative contributions are too numerous and severe to continue to ignore). Other editors are afraid of him because of his aggressive revenge tactics of complaints, trolling, staling, edit warring, ect. He has been allowed to continue his tactics for much too long. It is an understatement to assert that dozens of well intentioned editors have been hounded and bullied by User:DreamGuy to the point that they have abandoned the Wikipedia project because they do not want to continue to experience DreamGuy's negative confrontations; or worse, they have been so dismayed by their wiki-experience that they participate in a non-constructive way. The following are just some examples of his negativity from just the past few days. It is time to stop DreamGuy. he is out of control, and it is negatively affecting how other editors contribute in editing and discussions.

Uncivil comments directed at User:Colonel Warden

• [66]
• [67]
• [68]
• [69]
• [70]

Uncivil comments concerning User:Varbas:

• [71]
• [72]
• [73]
• [74]
• [75]
• [76]
• [77]
• [78]
• [79]
• [80]

Uncivil comments directed at User:MichaelQSchmidt

• [81]

Uncivil comments directed at User:DGG

• [82]

Uncivil comments directed at User:Nacl11

• [83]

General Uncivil comments and trolling in various AfD's and discusion pages:

• [84]
• [85]
• [86]
• [87]
• [88]
• [89]
• [90]
• [91]
• [92]
• [93]
• [94]
• [95]
• [96]

Examples of DreamGuy not accepting consensus of AfD and continuing to edit war on articles:

• [97]
• [98]

Examples of Uncivil edit comments:

• 16:17, 25 May 2009 Richard von Krafft-Ebing ? (removed bad edit that interrupted flow of sentence (leaving a fragment) and falsely claims that another edition that clearly had the main name of Psychopathia Sexualis supposedly had a different name)
• 16:14, 25 May 2009 Vampire ? (remove massive POV pushing with editor choosing cources that fundamentally change definition of vampire to cover unrelated creatures due to sloppy research by unreliable sources, per WP:UNDUE)
• 01:46, 24 May 2009 Talk:Vince Orlando ? (Undid revision 291810342 by Ron Ritzman (talk) nonadmin trying to do a close but violated policy and can't count votes)
• 15:19, 23 May 2009 Moll Dyer ? (some of the worst edits on Wikipedia are dedicated AFD Keep voters putting garbage info and unreliable sources/link on pages -- cleaning up)
• 22:06, 22 May 2009 Steven Van Slyke ? (?Highly Cited Publications: really stupid to have a subsection called this)
• 21:52, 22 May 2009 Pazuzu ? (Reverted 1 edit by 76.113.39.176; Who? and who cares?. (TW))
• 16:13, 22 May 2009 Elizabeth Báthory in popular culture ? (this is about pop culture, don't need a WP:FORK of the main article discussing history -- and removing amazingly bad POV-pushing, point linkspam)
• 15:55, 22 May 2009 Ivanhoe ? (?Plot Summary: plot tag - wayyyyyyy too long)
• 19:11, 20 May 2009 User talk:DreamGuy ? (Undid revision 291129609 by Colonel Warden (talk) rv wikilawyering nonsense by problem editor) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.0.39.30 (talk)
• Note: The same thing was posted twice, so I just removed the duplicate. Killiondude (talk) 02:44, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

This looks like an issue for the Wikiquette board. - 2/0 (cont.) 03:36, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Turkish genocide, again

User:Devanizmo has created a page Turkish Genocide which lists as its only source the ultra-nationalist website tallarmeniantale.com. The same user has also repurposed the dab page Turkish genocide (note the capitalization). Could someone with tools look into what is quite obviously tendentious POV axe grinding? I would post this at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Geopolitical ethnic and religious conflicts, but few respond to matters listed there. Aramgar (talk) 03:38, 26 May 2009 (UTC)