Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

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

Cryptonio

Cryptonio (talk · contribs) has been leaving some odd messages on talk pages recently.[1] Some of them tell editors to go away or that they are expendable and/or unintelligible. I'm not sure what's going on with this editor and, to be frank, I'm concerned for them.

• Samples:
  • "BTW, check my contribs really quick, the last 10 or so could make your day better. lol",[2]
  • "i must tell you, that the space you and others want to use to tell the world how great Israel is, has been confiscated in order to let the world know, something the world already knows. Beatles kick ass. Well, I guess that just makes you expendable here in Wiki, don't let the door hit you on your way out! Some people are tools, some are weapons. Care to guess which one are you?",[3]
  • "dude, seriously, you need a vacation, i am worried about your health. Lately, you have not been making any sense in talk pages, you are reading things wrong, and you seem to have a major problem with NPOV. Seriously dude, take a vacation. A long vacation.",[4]
  • "well you are a tool my friend. A tool fan that is. I am glad that you enter and exit certain articles, like the baseline does in Tool songs. You must be a drummer. Well, let me tell you my friend, that Wiki does not need you at all in project like I/P conflict. But, we have great opportunities for growth, in areas like Star Trek Oral Sex Child Support and all types of offshoots that you can imagine. Please, feel free to investigate around and leave I/P for ever. Thank you, have a terrible time at the poker tables.",[5]
  • "Well, welcome to Wiki .. Hope you don't stay for too long!",[6]
  • "push these crazy ideas that make you and others like you, look like Satan compare to Arab fundamentalists(really, take it from an experience observer). I can really honestly say, you should drop Wikipedia, and take the others with you.",[7]
  • "In due time, your suspicion that all will go to hell when it comes to I/P articles in Wiki, will come to be, and we will have to score it as a Mossad victory."[8]

I'm thinking this should be reviewed by a couple people. -- Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 19:00, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Additional note: I was a bit concerned for Cryptonio but, considering their response below, I'm now more concerned for the project. Creating a collaborative atmosphere in these sensitive topics is hard enough without people asking those whom they disagree with to leave the project adding that they "look like Satan".[9] I personally do not find the entire list above "humorous" or "lol" worthy. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 21:17, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Comments

These are quite troubling. A block is certainly in order, with subsequent mentorship when the block expires. IronDuke 19:13, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

They are quite funny. And the way this dude has posted them, is taken totally out of context(and provides evidence of of certain editor's style of work here in Wiki). The subjects here are renowned pro-Israeli editors(except a few of them) of the kind that pushes Israel's POV blindly at the cost of Wiki. This, editor, that has brought this concern of me to this board, has a history of his own of "you have not been making any sense in talk pages, you are reading things wrong, and you seem to have a major problem with NPOV." Exactly what I let him know, but of course, in a humorous way that allows him to clearly understand the point. He's concern for me? they are only words and no threat was giving. I actually, recommend for everyone in here to go to the edits themselves and get a quick laugh. Some of these editors don't care about Wiki, all they care about is to represent the rights of others except Wiki. They see Wiki as a tool for their 'war mentality, instead of seeing it as a tool for knowledge.

The reason at large, why articles concerning I/Ps are the way that they are, is because a 'standard' was semi-established, when certain editors, in good faith or not, started to 'produce'(instead of creating) articles that were a carbon copy of already written articles from CIA's Factbook and the US's State Department. Through wikilawyering(and other practices) then, undermining the same rules that was brought to standard, in order to revert that activity, that presented a major danger to Wiki's independence, many of these articles remain intact.

The process, that has been on going, to make these articles 100% Wikipedian, has been an arduous to many editors. Recently, three very pro-Palestinian editors, but at the same time, ACADEMICIANS with pride of their Wiki-work, were recently dismissed in favor of giving certain editors a voice that goes against the load thinking of Wiki. These editors, that would under normal circumstances address a conflict with their best tools from the beginning, had to rather rely on their wits and anger in order to bring down the stonewalling that these 'cliques' present all over these articles.

Wiki has faltered in this matter. Wiki has taken the side of Anti-Wikipedia in order to forcefully give statue to a practice that is very much Anti-Wikipedia. The practice is Anti-knowledge, Anti-Reasoning, rewarding instead "group mentality" and "point-fixing"(the practice of sourcing one's beliefs and POV). We should not be afraid of quarrels in articles like Star Trek Oral sex and Child support, they are of a different kind, and even though the subject matter at hand is one of many, it provides precedent and will be looked at when considering other matters throughout Wiki.

Wiki is not a democracy, and the first victim of democracy is common sense, and so, Wiki is not under no obligation to give voice to the voiceless, or promote empirical ideals. Wiki has a self-inflicted responsibility to always improve itself, that just because there is an article that covers a subject, under no circumstances means that the subject is already covered, and thus we should move on to the next. Relevant information is a by-product of necessary information and it should be given the least amount of space when space itself, through rationale, dictates so. The judge in all of this, cannot be time, and it cannot be a judge itself. The judge of thought questions and preposition, should be the ability to comprehend an argument through the eyes of Wiki, and not through the eyes set on NPOV. There is a POV that matters and shouldn't be ignored, and that is Wiki's POV.

It wouldn't be difficult to bring examples, where even the least capable of administrators would have little difficult siding with Wiki's side. Administrators cannot continue to act as if they are solving dispute when in all reality they are admonishing editors at the expense of ignoring the question and argument that is brought to them. Was not, the same dispute that editors were told to solve on their own, what brought these editors to these boards in the first place? Why think, that editors started arguing and insulting one another, and never tried to actually solve the dispute? Wiki will not flourish under the current atmosphere. Wiki is not rewarding education and dedication, Wiki seems to be rewarding fanaticism and a sense of undermining Wiki itself.

If, argument and heated debate, insults and the rest, provides better results, the result expected by administrators, Wiki must stand aside or set the rules of engagement, so that Wiki would have the last word. This means, that as long as Wiki continues to give voice to those seeking their own, without regards of the platform, Wiki will continue to view dispute as children behaving badly, instead of reasoning that one must be right and the other must be opposing, not the fact or the truth, but process.

Allow Wiki to be Wiki. If solution is found to certain problems, do not get involve, simply because someone has ask you to.

Thank you, and read those links please. They are quite troubling! Aghast! I would mentor Jok! Cryptonio (talk) 20:34, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Hey jeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeewd. I'm with Crypt on this one. Those pro-Israel editors are nothing but trouble and destroy the very fabric that makes wikipedia so neutral, objective, and tolerant. In fact, let's just rename wikipedia. We'll call it...Cryptopedia. Wikifan12345 (talk) 21:37, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

"so neutral, objective, and tolerant". You need to understand these concepts in order to use them. You see Wiki is not neutral in the sense that there is no dispute, is neutral because it allows discussion. The act of tilting an article to one way over the other(over that discussion), is not being neutral, but engaging in POV-pushing. So thus, discussion shouldn't be used or needed in order to fix POV.

Objective is not getting every single detail about a subject matter down on paper. Objective is to be able to "judge thought, questions and preposition, by comprehending an argument through the eyes of Wiki, and not through the eyes set on NPOV." In other words, that you bring a source, that in your opinion is adequate for the article, does not merits opposition, but rather consensus that indeed is necessary material. Now here is the magic of Wiki, when you are asked to present your view on inclusion, you must be aware, that you cannot use your 'opinion' in order to reach consensus, you must rather state your case from Wiki's POV. This does not mean, that you feel, think, or reckon, that the reader needs that information, but rather that the reader's experience would be enhance by the addition of said information. When Wiki is held to these standards, there is nothing like it. Trouble is, that one marginal bit of information, for the most part, will invite terrible information in order to balance it. The editor, must be aware, that the objection of other editors, to add or remove information, is not solely based on their view, but also based on their view of Wiki.

Why doesn't Dispute Resolution work? Simple. It doesn't work because we don't accept judgment on a matter we feel so positive about, and thus, through arguing, if feel we could delay a ruling for eternity. The solution is never to stifled discussion, but to stifled ignorance(and ignorance is not the absence of knowledge) but rather "the rejection of acceptance to a contradictory logistical value". In other words, every argument must be brought to the table etc, and it is expected that consensus rises out of that, and if it doesn't, then consensus would be neither remove, modify or add said information.

Finally, tolerant. This is actually a very grave mistake on your part, to think that Wiki is tolerant. It isn't. It does not give you the right, any right, because it doesn't have constitution. Because reality is tilted towards "Westernrism" we equate a free man to democracy and other ideals that does not enter the realm of Wiki. To be tolerant, only extends to being neutral(allows discussion) but it doesn't mean that it needs to give you time to state your claim, or your bias. It doesn't need to respect your bias. If you don't think of Wiki as being a source of knowledge, you will view Wiki as a source of expression. You are going to feel as if you are entitled to a platform for your views. The rules of Wiki, are binding only in Wiki, thus, your ideas and beliefs of what a fair system should be, only extends to your immediate territory. Yes, you may very well think Wiki is tolerant, but when it comes to the job of Wiki, Wiki is, should be unstoppable. Wiki, on this subject matter, has not been tolerant, it has been fooled into thinking it needs to respect all editors(again, a westernerism). not all editors are created equal. Equal weight covers the information, not the editors. Wiki allows equal footing at the start of discussion, but does not require for all to finish at the same time, doesn't even help for all racers to finish the race. Cryptonio (talk) 22:05, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Are you for real? Wikifan12345 (talk) 22:17, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

You enjoy my jokes more. I'll give this example in good faith. Say that there are two opposing views on a matter. Listen, this is the world wide world, this is not uncommon at all, people deal with this kind of stuff everyday without major fuzz, but only if both people are reasonable. Wiki would love to have those opposing views presented, but first, it must make a note that there are two opposing view. That we make that small mention, is worth a lot of trouble. Then, we must put those two views in perspective, paying close attention to the interaction between them. If the conflict arises out sheer POV, as a last resort, consensus should be the inclusion of both opposing views, in relation to the represented capacity of both views. If one view, is being presented as a replacement, it must be looked at very closely, because change is a human trait that doesn't allow us to actually practice it. If the view is being presented, as a substitute, on grounds that it should be looked at as standard here on Wiki, consensus must arise from accepting, that the view is relevant without the mention of the opposite view. Thus a reader will always benefit from consensus that was reached, by a process. If the view that has been presented as the standard in Wiki, is now viewed as having a challenge, that is, that it no longer can stand on it's own, the immediate remedial is not to add the opposite view, but to make mention in the article that such view could be notable(immediately). Then consensus should concentrate, in the addition of the opposing view, but only as a mention, that is notable. All of this is reached through the understanding of current Wiki-policies. Cryptonio (talk) 22:25, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

You take a long time to explain nothing. Your comments are very uncivil. I don't think a block is in order, yet, but continuing to make those remarks would most likely result in one. -- Darth Mike ^(talk) 22:55, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't need to attack you to defend myself. I can simply ignore you. Cryptonio (talk) 22:58, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

And besides, I was brought here. I didn't know you even existed till a few minutes ago. As far as I'm concerned, I can extend myself worthy, to the silliness, if I so choose to entertain. I'm already looking forward to sending you my good night wishes. word. Cryptonio (talk) 23:14, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

{out)WP:DFTT Ed Fitzgerald _{t / c} 04:49, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

After reading through some recent edits of Cryptonio (talk · contribs), I'm not clear on what he's trying to say, or what he's trying to do. But it doesn't seem to be helping Wikipedia. Can anyone else summarize, concisely, what the issue is? --John Nagle (talk) 05:10, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

John, I think the issue in a nutshell is simply that

• working in the I/P conflict area for an extended period produces a form of battle fatique
• Cryptonio has decided that he would prefer to stay away from this area of Wikipedia from now on
• these are his parting messages which for the most part express the kind of frustration many people seem to experience at some point

I think raising the issue here was probably counterproductive. I would advocate just letting it go as more pragmatic. Sean.hoyland - talk 05:36, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Many users, including myself, have received blocks for far less during I/P "battles." Crypt has been hostile and abrasive in previous discussions, so this really isn't that surprising. I'm all for jokes and laughs, but telling people to basically g.t.f.o through thinly-veiled "humor" is hardly an excusable product of "battle fatigue". I do not endorse a block however. I'm just saying the bar seems to apply to some but not all. Wikifan12345 (talk) 06:16, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

There is a bar, but its not a cool kids type thing, sometimes, when all the stars align and god slowly whispers your name in a seductive tone, and you happen to lose your cool right when the community feels a subconscious yearning for drama, larger powers come into play and to diffuse the whole thing the adults tell everybody the equivalent of mom yelling at the misbehaving children to get out of the house and go away so every can just relax instead of spanking them. It's a decent outcome. Think of it like a defensive penalty in football. It's like the play never happened. --M^ask? 10:02, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Without going into details, my reply to John Nagle's question, from a perspective of an Israeli-POV editor. Working on Gaza War article is extremely hard, the issue is very loaded, both in emotions and information. From my side, knowing that many others will disagree, I try as much as I can (though I am far from perfect myself), to discuss things first. Now if you look at current talk page and article edits from last, say, 10 days - you might see (turns out I am not the only one who got that feeling) that comrade Cryptonio has become totally uncooperative. This is the issue - lack of cooperation, of good will, of some respect to others. Most of us are cynical, its OK. But I see others who are cynical, but still able to cooperate. --Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 12:28, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

"uncooperative" = unwilling to accept your POV-pushing. Cryptonio (talk) 15:16, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

You're a nuisance. But you have a point, because the there are serious racists running around causing mayhem. Have a look at Islam: What the West Needs to Know and who is editing it. anyone contributing to an article attacking Judaism in that fashion would be instantly barred. 81.156.223.72 (talk) 16:38, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't know what point you think I have made, since I didn't say anything about racism, Islam or Judaism. You must be a recent Muslim convert. Cryptonio (talk) 18:12, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

<- (Unindent)

Okay. That comment right above by Crypto is over the line. What now? — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 20:07, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Oh boy, 'recent Muslim converts' was an observation that was not critical of his beliefs, but rather exemplify a common trait by recent converts of the Islam faith. In their view, they have found a reason to live their lives by, and they see that Islam is being attacked, and thus they feel as if they are being attacked as well, so they overreact against anything that might be at odds with their faiths(in this case, a stupid movie). Of course, this is not prevalent of female converts and not all male converts feel threatened by a normal 'critical' comment of their faith. Of course, being as religious as I am, knowing Islam the way I do, it was not meant as an insult to his faith, but just a simple observation, that I may have gotten wrong, but I think not. You guys jump the gun on every single comment that may comb your hair in a different way than the usual. How can some of you make judgment decisions when you seem like you can't read or understand what's in front of you. Anyways, when can I get my topic-ban so that I can move on. Cryptonio (talk) 21:58, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

So, your personal opinions excuse the personal attack of assuming the user is biased by his/her religious beliefs? And your final sentence kinda seals that you're trolling us. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:43, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

It was a tactless observation. I've been blocked for implying certain users harbored antisemitic feelings that reflected their editing habits. I cannot help but believe comments such as "anyone contributing to an article attacking Judaism in that fashion would be instantly barred" are inherently antisemitic. Suggesting a wikipedia-double standard by virtue of being Judaism-related opposed to Islamic could be considered slander and perhaps even racist. Rationalizations cannot change what has been said. Wikifan12345 (talk) 07:48, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Wikifan is trolling us. Who are you kidding Wikifan? you've been blocked because you don't know what to do in here, or even how to type a coherent sentence. You ain't kidding me though, acting here as if you got some sense to sell.

That was no personal attack, you are putting words on the dude's mouth. Assuming anything is not a personal attack. This is being anti-reasoning, adding that in your case, you also engaged in wasting my time. Cryptonio (talk) 16:03, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Wikifan might want to read the definition of Semitic, as it's fairly racially inclusive of a group that includes middle-eastern persons of the Jewish faith and middle-eastern persons who practice Islam as well. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 17:50, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Semantics. Antisemitism (also spelled anti-semitism or anti-Semitism; also known as Judeophobia) is a term used to describe prejudice against or hostility towards Jews. Wikifan12345 (talk) 06:10, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Bwilkins might want to read the definition and history of anti-semitic, as it's a fairly specific term coined to mean "anti-Jewish". No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 21:52, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Like, um, really </sarcasm> ? I was pointing out that anti-Semitic is used to mean "anti-Jewish", but by basic taxonomy, it's not. The term cannot technically and taxonomically be used by Middle-Eastern non-Jews as it would directly be referring to themselves as well. So, to use "anti-Semitic" and "recent Islam convert" ... well, that's not taxonomically valid. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:07, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

<< Agree that the "you must be a recent Muslim conert" comment is ludicrously out of order. The general behaviour of the user, combined with this, and including the "you don't know how to type a coherent sentence" abuse just above, makes a case for a general disruptive editing block, for maybe 48 hours? ╟─TreasuryTag►hemicycle─╢ 09:29, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Blah, Bleh, Mebleh? Cryptonio (talk) 21:22, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

What would 48 hours do? That's just 2 free days for him to plan his next move!!! :D If we are seeking punishment, yeah it makes sense. But it certainly isn't a solution and will likely just exacerbate whatever perceived problem exists. I think editing violations are more important then civility issues anyways, plus I/P zones are vulnerable to hostility. It is likely everyone involved in the Gaza War deserves a block for violating civil policy. Wikifan12345 (talk) 06:14, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Bishonen using status as admin to control others while violating our civility policy

Resolved

 – Blocked 3 hours by Jimbo

{{unresolved|Not blockable without warnings. This belongs at WP:WQA. Please take it there.}} Gwen Gale (talk) 01:53, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Unresolving - what and get accused of forum shopping? No thanks - discussion is ongoing, archiving this thread is completely inappropriate and gives the impression admins are trying to bury the issue or shunt it onto another lower profile/traffic board. Exxolon (talk) 02:03, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

It's not forum shopping if the thread has been closed with a note to take it to WP:WQA, where this belongs. Gwen Gale (talk) 02:07, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

WP:WQA is in it's own words "non-binding". Also this forum is appropiate for "...incidents that may require administrator intervention" - which is what is required here. Exxolon (talk) 02:14, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

• Bishonen (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

Please see this diff, and I quote: Yes, I do, you little shit. Don't interfere with Giano's page. Now get lost. Shoo! Last time I checked, Retired tags are given to those users who have self-identified as retired. So Giano might come back? The user is still retired, and that tag is not any means of insult to them, it is a notice to others that weren't involved in the matter that the user is gone for the time being. Last time I checked, admin status is to prevent disruption in matters you are not involved with, and further, in matters that are seriously disruptive, it isn't some steel toe you can stick in a matter you're personally involved with a use to push around and be rude to others.

True, wikipedia is a private website, but what goes on here, not mentioning matters of oversight of course, is anyone's business. If the matter is private, then make it private, instead of putting it on an open noticeboard. Last time I checked, no one but Bish appointed themselves to be the controller of Giano's user and user talk page, as also noted when they removed an arbcom notice, seen here.

What admin action do I want? Not much, if anything, I would like someone to remind Bish that they can't use their admin status to push those they don't like around, and be uncivil to them without consequence. I may not not been deeply involved in this matter like everyone here, mainly because I chose to stay away from it, but I am not going to sit here and let someone treat me like shit over such a small matter like a retired tag.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 21:43, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

<cough> Where would you like the steel toe? Bishonen | talk 22:08, 21 May 2009 (UTC).>

• Completely unacceptable. Any normal editor would have been blocked immediately for that. Any bets on Bish being blocked? I didn't think so. //roux   21:57, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm sure I'm just missing it, but can you point me to where admin status came into play? Nathan ^T 21:57, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, when Bish told me what to do, in regards to the template. Yes I do control something, don't do it again? It may not be visible, but if you take the time to look, you will see the or else threat.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 22:11, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

It's nothing to do with admin status, it's just plain rude. Nothing will happen though. Admins are generally excempt from policies. Majorly talk 22:00, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Would you stop saying this? It's clearly not true. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 02:30, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

It clearly is true, to anyone with eyes to see it. --Malleus Fatuorum 02:40, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Bishonen was just blocked, by Jimbo himself. Both sides in the spat got warnings from several arbcom members. I am sure that had they continued and Jimbo not stepped in, someone else would have.

I am reluctant to say "nobody is above the rules" - because we have people who have abused Wikipedia in attempts to fight personal or ideological battles and are just absolutely sure that Administrator XYZ broke the rules in taking policy enforcement action against them, and every time someone says "...will all be treated equally" we get dozens of people protesting what horrid people us admins all are for letting XYZ get away with it.

But the last couple of administrator cliques that were big enough to possibly cause problems of letting people get away with stuff have dissolved in the face of abuse issues, several people who have been strident critics of earlier environments have passed Survivor:Mop Bucket and now have the bit themselves, and most of the administrators who habitually were overly snappy with annoying people have calmed down or semiretired.

Just in the last week, I have seen dozens of administrators confront each other when they felt there was problematic behavior on one's part. I don't think that the bulk of admins are interested in or think it's appropriate - but there are plenty of us who have stood up and said "No, wrong", and gotten stuff changed or stopped.

Do I personally spend every waking moment lurking on all the noticeboards, primed and ready to go off on any other administrator who strays into a grey area? No. That would violate AGF, be rude and disrespectful to the rest of us mop-bearers, and frankly I have a life and a day job.

Will I or others stand up when people do stuff wrong? Damn straight.

Can our doing stuff preventively block any sorts of problem situations from developing in the first place? Hell no.

I'm tempted to nominate a few loud complainers for the mop. I'm not sure everyone I am thinking of nominating meets the usual not-currently-controversial criterion, but I AGF and think some of you would do well looking at things from the other side. I'm afraid you'd decline, Malleus, but if you won't I'll go nominate you now. Majorly too. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 03:10, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Damn right I'd decline. My views on the RfA bear pit ought to be well-known; I get poked and prodded enough without sending out free invitations to everyone who's ever disagreed with me. The result would inevitably be that I'd fail for a third time, and in the worst case scenario I'd be so discouraged I'd pack my bags and leave. Hardly productive, although I don't doubt there are many who would see that outcome as a good result. Probably about time that Majorly got his tools back though. --Malleus Fatuorum 11:58, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Please, not more nonsensical behaviour - you shouldn't have put the retired tag on the page, I'm sure you can see how that would be considered, by many, to be a highly contentious thing to do at the moment, and of course, Bish shouldn't have spoken to you in that manner. You both should be hit about the head with a trout (and perhaps not one that is fully defrosted). Nick (talk) 22:02, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Apparently, Bish is now threatening me. More use of status to push others around, when will someone put a stop to it?— Dædαlus ^Contribs 22:09, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

I see no evidence of Bish using her status to push you around, I see a comment than any editor, indeed, even an anon IP could have made. You've reported the incident, now please stop pushing the matter, it's harmful to the project. I don't know what you want, and I honestly don't think there's anything actionable about the second comment anyway. I do agree that the first comment was out of line, but I believe you adding the retired tag to Giano's talk page was equally inappropriate and that there's no pressing need to take action against either of you. Nick (talk) 22:17, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

See Maxypoda pair of theses on User talk:Bishonen. Little 'poda think it good solution here. maxypoda tik-tik-tik! 22:35, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Someone who sets out to be petty and juvenile as part of a longstanding grudge of severe incivility against another editor shouldn't expect some tonguelashing for it. This whole concept that disruptive and uncivil behavior is somehow fine but less than civil comments are not (especially as a response to the bad behavior) is completely backwards. DreamGuy (talk) 23:21, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a battleground. Bish knows better, and will either be suitably ashamed of herself in the morning, or continue this behavior until she finds herself with our other high-profile, well-loved, and sorely missed forced retirees. As for Daedadelus, you've made your complaint, there is no serious threat Bishonen can do anything to you or your wiki-career, and if you continue pursuing this, you will lose whatever sympathy you've gained.--Tznkai (talk) 23:40, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Oh noes, he'll lose all that? You're a cruel man, Tznkai. Bishonen | talk 23:52, 21 May 2009 (UTC).

Looks to me like you ran out in your Sunday finest and big grin to dance on a well-known person's grave, and got kicked to the mud for it. Which is the primary incivility? Should Bishonen have responded in that manner? No. But then, odds are good you were hoping a certain other person would have, so you could bring them here instead. Now your'e here crying that someone ruined your fun. Walking away would be best. ThuranX (talk) 23:46, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Please. I did what I thought was necessary. A retired tag on a retired user's page. I was then told what to do with a unspoken threat, and was told I'm a little shit. I could really care less about the retired tag, what I care about is how I was treated. I wasn't hoping that anyone would have responded that way, so please stop with the assumptions.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 00:00, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Surprise, surprise, once again the solution to everyone's problems is leave Giano alone. If he's retired, then let's actually make something of his disappearance--namely, not to create more drama to compensate in his absence! Is a tag on a user page really important enough for an ANI report? Motion to close, plz. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 00:13, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

If you actually took the time to read this report, it is not about the tag, but the way I was treated over it.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 00:17, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm thoroughly outraged that you've been described as a 'little shit', and 'little man', daedalus. How could Bishonen possibly know your size? I think maybe we should ban her for stalking. Privatemusings (talk) 00:26, 22 May 2009 (UTC)in other words, you're being a silly person, dude - please consider wandering off to an area of the project where you can help, not hinder - I'm teasing you with the intent of raising a smile, and encouraging you to relax a notch or two.....

WP:WQA if anything. Let sleeping dogs lie? –xeno ^talk 00:32, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

When an administrator uses abusive and uncivil language with another user in an attempt to "shoo" them or otherwise subdue them it makes it look like Wikipedia is being ran by a bunch of children. I don't give a flying whit(a whit is a very small amount) about the circumstances surrounding this. Administrators who refer to other users as "little shit" or insist that they do decide what is and what is not the business of others should not be admins. All to often we come flying to the idea if desysoping someone, but when an admin really acts shamefully we just seem to let it go. This garbage really makes us look unprofessional. How can we enforce civility when administrators blissfully ignore it. Chillum 00:36, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Archiving this discussion is a perfect example of what I am talking about. The behavior of our administrators is an administrative matter, yet we are so quick to dismiss it. "Let sleeping dogs lie"... This happened just a couple hours ago, when exactly did this dog go to sleep? Chillum 00:37, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

I sympathize with what you're saying Chillum, but as a pragmatic matter, I don't think we're going to get anywhere pursuing this tonight.--Tznkai (talk) 00:40, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

"When an administrator uses abusive and uncivil language with another user in an attempt to "shoo" them or otherwise subdue them it makes it look like Wikipedia is being ran by a bunch of children." It is run by a bunch of children though, isn't it? --Malleus Fatuorum 00:39, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Bishonen was mean to Daedalus, >>>WQA is that way>>>. Gwen Gale (talk) 00:41, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

(Just a note that I've unarchived after Chillum's comment). @Chillum when I said "sleeping dogs" I meant the "retired" tag: 'twas unnecessary. –xeno ^talk 00:45, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Wanted. An admin with integrity and the balls (or ovaries, I'm not sexist) to block Bishonen for gross violation of civility, personal attacks and threats of violence - anything less makes a mockery of our policies applying equally to all editors. Exxolon (talk) 01:16, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Admin are not above civility blocking. Any other editor would have been blocked way before now. A block is in order.--Jojhutton (talk) 01:40, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

I feel this is serious enough to be brought to Jimbo's attention and I have done so on his talkpage. To put this into perspective this is only the second time in my entire career here that I've notified him about something (the last time was the Publicgirl issue). If admins are incapable of policing themselves then we by necessity must appeal to higher authority. Exxolon (talk) 01:44, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

User:Bishonen's comments to Daedalus are appalling and unacceptable! AND because he is a sysop, every other sysop backs him and tells Daedalus to sit down and shut up! Unreal.... If Daedalus was the sysop and Bishonen was not, Bishonen would now be blocked and every other sysop would be backing Daedalus! This project needs to start treating all users as equals. Anyway, to put plainly, I think this matter should not be dropped until either Bishonen is blocked, or he apologises to Daedalus! John Sloan @ 01:45, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

And yet, Daedelus was not blocked. It's going to have to be a both or neither situation. Daedalus was provocative in a predictably disruptive manner, and got the predictable reaction. Bishonen should have found another way to handle it, but as I said, it wasn't an unprovoked reaction. So unless we block both, it's neither. Finally, it's been a bit of time, so we risk the 'punitive, not preventive' conflict. ThuranX (talk) 01:54, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, is it now a blockable offence to put a retired tag on a user's talk page, especially one who has retired and actually did it himself when he retired? --WebHamster 02:18, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

And now we have an attempt to prematurely archive the discussion and a statement that its "Not blockable without warnings." - we can and do block for gross violations of our core policies without stepping through warning levels - any attempt to suggest this as a way of trying to avoid having to take action looks like a transparent attempt for admins collectively to avoid taking responsiblity for misconduct by one of their number - is this really the impression you want to give? Exxolon (talk) 02:09, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Sort of puts one in mind of the Catholic Church's response to the Fathers and the Alter Boys quandary. Same sort of response really, the admins are spending so much time sweeping these things under the carpet that they don't have time to change the bag in the Hoover (so many analogies, so little time!) --WebHamster 02:15, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

As ever, introducing the nail to the hammer. Hammer, this is Nail. Nail, Hammer is going to hit you forcefully on the head. Nothing personal you understand, just the way it's gotta be. The self-deception and hypocrisy on this site is quite mind-numbing. --Malleus Fatuorum 02:38, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

I gotta use an exclamation point too! -- Hoary (talk) 02:32, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

I have blocked Bishonen for 3 hours. I trust that's enough to cause a bit of relaxation here and there, as well as (unfortunately) a bit of stress here and there, as well. This all seems sadly unbecoming to me, and a direct consequence of our having been too tolerant, for too long, of toxic personalities.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 02:20, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Hm. I thought cool-down blocks were discouraged by WP:BLOCK. --Akhilleus (talk) 02:25, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Actually, they are, and Bishonen (being European) is offline and sleeping at the moment I believe. rootology (C)(T) 02:26, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Jimbo would never pass RfA! Mike R (talk) 02:28, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

And nor would he deserve to. About time the project grew up and left its pornographic roots behind. --Malleus Fatuorum 02:55, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

"Toxic personalities..." If not a personal attack, what is it? --Ghirla^-трёп- 11:44, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

He's the Great PumpkinFounder, he does what he likes :) I wouldn't care, but then again this will probably feed the cycle of Giano and co. drama that should be drying up with his departure, yet is at full flood. I guess it is true, nature abhors a vacuum... --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 02:30, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Though as for me I've never found Bishonen remotely toxic. (She did call me one or two names once, as I vaguely remember. If that did indeed happen, it didn't worry me. Bishonen, you're welcome on my talk page any time.) -- Hoary (talk) 02:32, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Ok, one you dont bring up policy to Jimbo, he knows the rules, and he is above them. two, he got blocked, so leave it alone. This thing is over.Drew Smith What I've done 02:34, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Just a point of order, Jimmy isn't above the rules. He technically be blocked the same as anyone, if he violates some policy that merits it. rootology (C)(T) 02:36, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't have blocked any editor for a one-off snark like that. This belonged at WP:WQA, where it should have spun up a polite warning. Gwen Gale (talk) 02:38, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, calling someone "you little shit" goes way beyond snark - this is a gross violation of our civility and personal attack polices. We're Wikipedia, not 4chan. Exxolon (talk) 02:43, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

A warning would have been enough. Likewise, an admin should know that leaving posts like that can stir up lots of needless kerfluffle, this one happened to do that, Bishonen got blocked for a few hours by Jimbo himself. I don't agree with the block but I understand why he made it, as Jimbo. I hope it's over now. Gwen Gale (talk) 02:48, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

A "gross violation"? How old are you Exxolon? Do you ever leave your mother's basement and, you know, speak to real people in the real world? If you had, I'm sure you wouldn't be at all upset at being called a "little shit". --Malleus Fatuorum 02:52, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Please remain civil when contributing to discussions, your tone and implications are needlessly provacative and unpleasant. I'm going to assume good faith and answer your questions. I'm 37. Since my mother died some years ago I could hardly be living in her basement. I have a career and personal life that suprisingly enough means I talk to many people in a variety of situations on a daily basis in the 'real world' as you put it. And also suprisingly enough I would not tolerate being called "a little shit" in real life, and such remarks have a corrosive effect on Wikipedia. Basic respect and civility towards other editors even when you disagree with them does much to benefit the project. Conversely a lack of them damages it. I'm surprised that you feel remarks of this kind are acceptable. Exxolon (talk) 03:07, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Malleus, that crossed the line.--Tznkai (talk) 03:07, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Bishonen is female. --MZMcBride (talk) 02:41, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Also while off site posts are not actionable here, if this [10] is also typical of your attitude I'm sorely disappointed. I requested Jimbo's involvement not as a "childish appeal to the boss" as you colourfully put it, but because I could see a clear failure of the admins to clearly step up to the plate and deal with a highly inappropiate set of edits from one of their own and I certainly didn't do it lightly (as I've previously mentioned I've only once before requested his intervention.) As you appear to support the concept of Wikipedia:AdminWatch I'd say it's a tad hypocritical to attack another editor for attempting to resolve poor admin conduct even if you disagreed with the method. Exxolon (talk) 03:22, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Appeals to Jimbo are, in my opinion, an end-run around community consensus. Admins are entrusted to determine consensus. If no admin was willing to block Bishonen, it was because none of them saw consensus to do so. Getting an answer you don't like from the community and running to Jimbo is the very model of "running to the other parent" behavior, and the fact that it so often breeds the desired results is a travesty in my opinion. The community should be handling it's own problems; after this many years we should not need Jimbo to do this anymore.--Dycedarg ж 03:44, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps we have a different definition of community. From my point of view (and many others I suspect) there was a consensus amongst ordinary editors that something needed to be done. (Block - my view, an "official" warning perhaps, etc - but something) and a failure of any other admin to apply the rules to one of their own and a lot of "let it go", "archive it since nothing will happen" "no-one will block another admin for this" kind of responses to the issue. Since the community of ordinary editors lacks, for better or worse, any real ability to deal with out of line admins (ARBCOM while great at dealing with ongoing and problematic long term issues is simply not set up to deal with this kind of thing) our only recourse is Jimbo - in effect he is our final safeguard against abuses of power by those that have had power invested in them. I stand by my decision to ask his opinion. Exxolon (talk) 04:00, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

It is no surprise that you do not value civility Malleus Fatuorum when you write comments like "Sandstein's obviously lost the map that shows him where his brain is located, probably still trying to find his arse." (on WR). --Apoc2400 (talk) 10:03, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

It beggars belief that people honeslty think 'shoo, go away you little shit' is even remotely acceptable. If you are likely to be slapped for saying it to someone in the real world, then that's a pretty big clue it's not acceptable here. MickMacNee (talk) 07:19, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

oh I dunno, Mick - there was this little man I came across once, who was being a little shit, and I wanted him to go away - so I said 'shoo, you little shit' - and actually I think he realised that he was, in fact, being a little shit, because he sort of squirmed away with his tail between his legs.... jus' sayin... Privatemusings (talk) 09:56, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

What are you trying to say? --Apoc2400 (talk) 10:03, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Although ordinarily I would recommend WQA, I wouldn't in this case. Fortunately, the filing party brought it here directly, and saved a lot of unnecessary drama and grief at WQA, for no matter whom ended up responding to it. Hopefully, this is now resolved before it can go any further. Ncmvocalist (talk) 10:00, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

IMHO, a RETIREMENT tag, should have been added only by an Administrator or the retiring editor-in-question. As for Bishonen? perhaps it's best other Administrators watch Giano's page. GoodDay (talk) 14:15, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

TL;DR. Yawn, teh dramahz. Isn't there an encyclopedia to write? Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 17:36, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Let's see if Bishonen has the guts to do the in fashion thing and stand for reconfiramtion. This Rfa is currently failing due to the applicant having called someone a little shit. MickMacNee (talk) 11:37, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Apparent threats ("We know who you are, by the way")

I'm disturbed by the last line of this edit on a user talk page; "We know who you are, by the way." I don't think this kind of editing is appropriate and feel that it requires quick admin intervention. A quick review of this users edits (Smith research (talk · contribs)) suggests there may be other problems, and there may be username issues, meatpuppetry/account problems ("we"). I brought it here to request admin intervention as I would find such an edit on my own talk page highly offensive and it can only be intended to have a chilling effect. Thanks, Verbal chat 22:25, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

I do not know whether to regard it as a threat to reveal the identity of an editor or a threat of external harassment. In either case, they should be advised of our policies. Some of their edits seem useful, and others clearly POV-pushing. I'd suggest a level-4 warning. DGG (talk) 22:37, 21 May 2009 (UTC) based on what was posted later, that would clearly be inadequate DGG (talk) 00:56, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

The (related) comment that disturbs me the most is the direct accusation of "condone[ing] this form of child abuse". WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:54, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

I missed that in my reading as the last line stood out. I now feel a block is fully appropriate. Verbal chat 23:00, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

(ec with others )Thanks Verbal, I was dithering about whether to come here or to WP:SPI for this issue, but you have helped make the decision for me.

Short version; several editors User:Smith research, User:S_MorrisVP and User:JaniceMT and many IP addresses based in Toronto (see this listing at the Spam blacklist[11]) have been adding POV material and links to copyrighted material hosted Canadian Children's Rights Council to articles on WP against consensus.

All of the named editors have admitted to being linked to the CCRC with "us"-type edits.[12][13][14]. User:S-MorrisVP was blocked for edit warring, and three days later User:JaniceMT was created and has now been blocked in turn. User:Smith research has now restarted editing, adding "warnings" to userpages, including the threat-like statement above and accusations that editors disagreeing with their edits must support child abusers and child abuse in general eg.[15]; see also this one by Janice [16] and this one by one of the IPs[17] There are other signs that the editors are sockpuppets: one of the editors uses exactly the same phrases as a post by another of the editors: cf the second half of this very recent post edit by Smith Research with this one by JaniceMT], who is supposedly currently blocked for editwarring. In addition, User:S-MorrisVP, who hasn't edited since her block, has a year old sockpuppet listing here; a conflict of interest posting here; and I mentioned her activities [18]on ANI just over a week ago, here. I wonder if checkuser is not required here, but sockpuppets or not, these are some very disruptive, COI editors.--Slp1 (talk) 23:09, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

So are you more inclined to take the problems to WP:SOCK, or to deal with the individual incidents piecemeal (here)? WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:34, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Why not decide here at ANI what admin action is reasonable, and then list the complete set of accounts in a posting over at WP:SPI to keep the records tidy. The improper edits by people who say they are associated with the Canadian Children's Rights Council have been going on for more than a year. All our efforts to coax them to behave have failed dismally. It is fair (I think) to consider them all meat puppets, and to indef block all of them but one. Leave the one remaining account free to edit, with appropriate warnings. EdJohnston (talk) 23:48, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

That seems very appropriate to me, but then, I would say that!!!--Slp1 (talk) 00:38, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

The name rings a bell. Didn't we have a rather messy dispute over the trademark and who the real CCRC was?Geni

Not sure about on WP, but this [19] suggests you might be onto something.--Slp1 (talk) 00:38, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm frankly not too worried, these people aren't exactly geniuses (WP policy isn't rocket science but somehow it doesn't penetrate). The only issue is if they did somehow find out about my RL identity, and post it somewhere, I'd be pissed, inconvenienced and mad at myself for not being sufficiently careful. Any admins who do notice this, if the edit could be removed and oversighted, I would be happy. I'm not paranoid about my identity (various admins and trusted users have my real name and e-mail address), but I do find the comfort in anonymity. Naturally, this could all be bluff.

I wonder if there is any appreciation of the time and energy that is wasted due to spurious research and advocacy when children could be better helped by directing it toward good parenting, volunteering, research and funding community agencies. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 00:50, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

This is fucking bullshit. This is the deliberate silencing of dissent, there is no merit to these contributors in my mind. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 00:56, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Based on an escalating pattern of disruption, I've blocked the Smith research (talk · contribs) account for 72 hours. If this behavior continues, I'll be willing to extend it to indefinite. MastCell ^Talk 03:17, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Here we are otrs #2008063010023045 amoung others.Geni 01:01, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Note the contribution history of new anon. Can we get page protection for the CCRC page at least? Also removing valid work from 2009 swine flu outbreak WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 18:25, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Support lengthening this block and advise you open a checkuser case to get a complete list of these POV-pushing meatpuppets/sockpuppets. Then, as EdJohnston says, indef block all but one. Tim Vickers (talk) 18:39, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

I have semiprotected Canadian Children's Rights Council based on edit-warring by two different IPs who appear to have a COI. Here is a recent section removal by one of the IPs. EdJohnston (talk) 18:44, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm filing a SSI per Tim's request, I'll post a notice once I'm done and would love any feedback or adjustments as I've never handled one quite like this. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 18:47, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

I've created the page, but it's always hard to keep track of changes to policies and stuff. If anyone has any suggestions or better ways of presenting evidence, have at thee. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 19:08, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Also note, COIN posting. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 20:10, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Another one, I'll add it to the SSI page. Anyone good at sniffing out a meatpuppet request for input on external web pages? WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 00:53, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

outdent.. And in fact here we have a report that the president is promising meatpuppet admins and editors are coming our way to help out me and my girlfriend WLU!!.[20]--Slp1 (talk) 01:25, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Given this note, which asserts that the organization is planning a meatpuppet assault on these articles, I'd be happy to see the related articles semi-protected for more than just a few days. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:34, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

So can an admin invoke WP:UCS, admit that following procedures is just slowing down the inevitable, and block/lock the editors and pages? I'm getting sick of having to revert my talk page and undo the blathering of a bunch of POV-pushers who just can't be bothered to read. My profanity count is steadily climbing, and soon I'll lose my temper sufficiently that I'll be well over the bounds of civility. I don't think we can expect anyone to AGF at this point. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 02:41, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm blocking indef the accounts named in this thread and extending the prot on the CCRC article to indefinite. Any other articles in dispute, tell me now so I can prot them. If an SPI hasn't been filed yet, do it so that we can block the underlying IP. -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Cardmaker)} 04:47, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Parental alienation and parental alienation syndrome were the two other main points of dispute, but those need at best limited-duration semiprotection from the IPs as the named accounts are probably blocked. The sockpuppet investigation can be found here and it has been endorsed but not processed. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 12:21, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

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 [21] 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)

....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)

Report from ThuranX

Resolved

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

[22] (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)

Advice for dispute of article

I was wondering if I could get some advice regarding the dispute between user:Verbal and myself at the article of Electromagnetic therapy (alternative medicine). I just started an informal mediation process. Left a message for user to please consider Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2009-05-22/Electromagnetic therapy (alternative medicine). I'm now waiting, just as I've been waiting throughout the articles talk page for a response. Is there anything else I should consider? --CyclePat (talk) 05:32, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

I've just let user know that we are talking about him. (Unlike his talking about me on the Admin. Protect Board mentioning or more specifically threatening and asking someone to block me. I think that lacks a little WP:WIKILOVE and again, I'm offended by user:Verbal conduct, as discussed on the article talk page of talk:Electromagnetic therapy (alternative medicine) --CyclePat (talk) 05:50, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

WTF. Okay. Now a revert of my redirect.. EMFT... This is ridiculous. [[23]] Everyone knows that the acronym EMFT refers to Electromagnetic Field Therapy and that it should redirect to the article that is appropriately linked to it, that is electromagnetic therapy... NOT electro shock therapy. WTF. This plain annoying... and he knows it. He's doing it on purpose to piss me off and has been pretend to be mister innocent since the start. It's a cummulation of his edits. as I've told user:Verbal on his talk page, and on the EMFT articles talk page (alluded to in the above paragraph), simply said... This is non-productive disruptiveness and taking wikipedia "revert" and ask questions to far. Escuse the words but bloody ridiculous. Please help before he makes me go into some psychotic reverse psychology and I start playing the same games on his annoying editing habits and or removing all things he does asking for a comment! --CyclePat (talk) 06:01, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

If you've started mediation then why are you also filling at ANI? The talk page consensus seems to be against you. I reverted your edit on EMFT as I was under the impression it was an acronym for a real (not alternative) therapy, but say pls rvt with justification on talk if I was wrong. I welcome further input on the talk page, but I feel it is clear that this is confusing for some - hence we should keep alt med and med separate in this sphere. Verbal chat 10:20, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

This is the danger of thought terminating cliches, just because a random guy says a joke along the lines 'what do you call alternative medicine that works? Medicine!' does not automatically make the work rearrange itself along those lines. an example from the page you 2 are arguing about would be hyperthermia therapy. Basically it seems that as much as Verbal on the talk page denied wanting to create a content fork that is exactly what has happened. This is the text which is now featured at the top of the article : This article is about use of electromagnetic radiation in alternative medicine.

This is verbals edit summary when moving: (moved Electromagnetic therapy to Electromagnetic therapy (alternative medicine): To better delineate article and limit scope to that of the current and past revisions). So from what I can see, rather than accommodating sources that may discuss electromagnetic therapy, whatever form it may take, in a less than withering tone is disallowed. While the old version had many faults the scientific evidence section had a number of sources (I must admit I have not verified them) and the article dealt with some of the general concepts involved. The talk page clearly shows that verbal and cyclepat are the main participants and consists mostly of verbal ignoring or deflecting cyclepats attempts at engaging in discussion. Verbal has had a couple of incidents that I am aware of where he displays ownership characteristics and seems to use 'discussion' as a means to frustrate and distract those with whom he does not agree. Soliciting help immediately after renaming article, there by framing the issue since it already has (alternative medicine) and was kept in a state that kept out non 'CAM' information here. Constructive ES and again. Generally considers mediation inappropriate for undisclosed reasons. This one is a bit weird, removes information which is sourced, considering it unsourced, apparently over style issues or failure to read the one source accepted on the article. Ignores existing consensus and established procedure. There are many more examples but that will probably be for later. Unomi (talk) 13:45, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Many of the sources were marketing pieces and patents - not RS. This is all discussed on the talk page. Policy arguments were in favour of the rename, as was the initial, small, consensus. The strong consensus since established also confirms the rename. I have responded to all of CPs policy arguments and tried to explain his confusion to him (as has 2/0), while attempting to ignore his personal attacks and unfounded accusations. CyclePat himself asked for a rename from the current name to the previous version, and consensus opposes this change. Despite the implication, I posted on the relevant noticeboard and specifically asked people to correct me if I was wrong. CyclePat did the same, but has also attempted to discount the opinions of other editors on the talk page. Unomi seems to have a problem with me as we have disagreed in the past, and he above makes unfounded accusations of ownership etc. against me. What seems to be lacking is WP:AGF, and I thought we'd patched this up. I see no problem with any of the edit summaries or edits Unomi quotes, they are rather tame for wikipedia and giving advise in edit summaries is useful in forums such as AN3 and here, and is meant to be constructive, rather than just saying "revert". Perhaps this is because I once waned Unomi about his use of edit summaries? Regards CP, I have tried to engage with him but when I and others disagree with him, perhaps by saying CFORK isn't relevant, he takes this as a personal attack and talks past us, while we are talking directly to him and ask for specific things from him. This article, and electrotherapy, both need work to improve them, and the distinction here is clear - I'd rather work on the articles, following consensus. Verbal chat 16:55, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

As this is a discussion about content, which is already under mediation, what admin action are you requesting? Tim Vickers (talk) 16:38, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

I dunno, Arbcom deals with stuborn people all the time. Maybe someone can urged Verbal to avoid needlessly prolonging disputes by excessive or repetitive pursuit of unproductive methods of dispute resolution? ie.: Always request a talk on the talk page and not putting any comment on the talk page to talk about? Does any one here not think that is just annoying and perhaps disruptive... Maybe somone could urge him to talk this in the proper venu before it escalates to a formal dispute resolution process. --CyclePat (talk) 17:27, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Really... I guess the Mayo clinic is not realiable source for Verbal. And I guess a blanc page of my meandering soliloquy is his version of talking. Where he doesn't answer any bloody question. NO there was no initial concencsus. We just stood there and waited to see what would happen and sure enough after looking at the article you decided to change it. The only reason I decide to ask for the change is because I needed an admin to do it. And he did do it the first time, for the first move request. But then you reverted it right back. You must mean your edit and encounter with Umoni are rather tam compare to some other edits you've done... such as this sneaky move the page and prevent any other material from entering into the article started. Exactly... it's meant to be constructive. So why do you keep reverting/putting back in material which is not referenced? Your idea of concensus is clear... you revert any addition... and you revert any deletion. And once you remove, you say... bring to talk page. This is disruptive because you should take material you have removed, since you are doing this, you should put it on the talk page. WP:BRD is crap... it doesn't work... and it's plain rude at this point between user:Verbal and myself. I think if we have two or more editors we can decide to do some RFC or something? Hence, my question. Is an RfC appropriate at this point if we are not getting any response in regards to the mediation reguest? Or are there other steps I should look into? OOh! Like what have you specifically asked me to do... Oh yah! You asked me to type everything I want on the talk page before putting it in the article? Hummm... NO... Ridiculous. It's not going to happen. If you disagree with something... yes revert it... but at least start the talk page up like it says in WP:BRD so that way the other guy doesn't hate your F'n guts. and then you end up calling him a WP:DICK on his talk page. --CyclePat (talk) 05:13, 24 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)

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. [24] 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)

Template:Defunct national football teams

I protected this template a couple of days ago beacause of edit warring and unprotected when the parties seemed to agree on the talk page. I promised blocks if the edit warring continued. It seem to have started again today. I don't have the time for this right now. Could another admin investigate and take appropriate measures. No parties are notified of this report. Rettetast (talk) 21:59, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

I have notified Fasach Nua (talk · contribs) and chandler (talk · contribs) ([25], [26]). — Aitias // discussion 22:22, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Nothing was done while I was away. The edit war continued. I have blocked Fasach Nua (talk · contribs) for one week, and chandler (talk · contribs) for 24 hours. MusicInTheHouse (talk · contribs) has been warned, but I was near a block there too. Fasach Nua gets a longer block because of the history of disruption. Comments? Rettetast (talk) 10:48, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

User:Infonerd2216

Resolved

 – Indef-blocked by AuburnPilot (talk · contribs) — Aitias // discussion 00:31, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

I am very concerned about this user's behavior. He just threatened me on my talk page, telling me to "better watch it, or something bad will happen to you." [27] I was involved with this user earlier regarding his insertion of pov statement in NBA articles. That is not the issue I am reporting here. His threat to harm me is what is serious. I personally think he should be blocked.—Chris! _ct 00:04, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Sounds like a bluff, but it still can't be tolerated.Drew Smith What I've done 00:06, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

I realized that it is a bluff, but that kind of behavior is totally against the spirit of Wikipedia.—Chris! _ct 00:10, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Indef blocked and left a note on the user's talk page. No threat of violence is every acceptable, even if it is a bluff. See also this and this for other reasons for the block. --auburnpilot talk 00:21, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

I've also now blocked Xmaster72 (talk · contribs) as a block evading sock. --auburnpilot talk 20:50, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

A possible cause for concern

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

---

Resolved

 – Non-issue. Jehochman ^Talk 22:54, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

• Maxypoda (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Bishrhea (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Bishapod (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Maxypoda claims to be a bureaucrat, bug given that anyone could link to, and say something like that, not to mention that 40% of this account's contribs are to the user talk space, tends to make me think otherwise. When investigating this user's edits, I came across the other two noted accounts, both of which have 75% and 84%(in same order as list above) of total contribs to the user talk space. Bishapod has zero mainspace contribs, the other 25% exist in the user space. On top of that, this doesn't make much sense to me. Am I missing some kind of inside joke where wikipedia is allowed to be used like myspace/whatever you want to call this behavior? As said above, the link of a user changing rights doesn't prove anything. Anyone can bring up a log of someone else changing rights. I'm thoroughly confused here, does someone mind telling me what the hell is going on?— Dædαlus ^Contribs 05:14, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Look up Bishzilla (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) for more info. //roux   05:20, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm sure everything is okay, just some antics. The Bishies provide good stress relief, though I do wish their talk pages would indicate that they are valid socks. — Huntster (t • @ • c) 05:28, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

WP:DEADHORSE, anyone?

Mebbe you need to let this go? Jack Merridew 08:15, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

I have no idea what you're talking about. Mebbe you should stop assuming things of others.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 19:14, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Daedalus, it is an open secret that these are socks of Bishonen. It's also not a secret that she called you "a little shit" -- which is offensive & wrong, & for which she was blocked for 3 hours. It appears many readers of WP:AN/I share my opinion of the matter, which is this thread is an attempt to "get" Bishonen for how she treated you.

Bishonen is allowed these socks because they are (1) entertaining, & (2) not hurting anything. (I'm not sure their impact on the servers is greater than the likely error in measurement.) She'd be permitted them even if she weren't an Admin, a woman, or living in Europe. Making an issue of them is eroding the sympathy people have for you. Let the matter go, forget about her, & work on something here in Wikipedia that needs to be done. -- llywrch (talk) 20:06, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Please do me a favor and stop assuming things of me when you have no idea how I think or work. I had no idea any of these were related to her, as, if you bothered to read my starting post, I didn't reference her once. This isn't about her, do me a favor and read the starting post before you make any further posts, as it outlines my concerns quite well.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 22:22, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Shrug. Mistake. User:Maxypoda no relation of mine. Likely is bureaucrat on Wikispecies as claimed; please Assume Good Faith, or, as second choice, inquire of CheckUser. Huntster, note: all alternative Bish accounts have indication of valid sockness on userpages (not talkpages). bishzilla _ROARR!! 21:15, 23 May 2009 (UTC).

...besides, they aren't socks, they're Alternate Accounts. They're only socks if used to evade Wikipolicy (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 20:43, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Forgive me, your Bishiness, I somehow missed that and was looking for {{User Alternate Acct}}. Please don't charbroil me. — Huntster (t • @ • c) 22:00, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

User:Daedalus969, you seem to be experiencing stress. I recommend you forget about all things Bish* and go find something else to do on this project. Thanksabunch. Jehochman ^Talk 22:43, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

If you bothered to read my posts, you would see that originally, and still, this has nothing to do with that user.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 22:45, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Avoid any user who's name starts with Bish, okay? Jehochman ^Talk 22:47, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

This isn't about that. The only reason I included the other accounts is because Maxypoda edited their userpages and vice versa.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 22:48, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Can we just declare that there's nothing here that needs immediate administrator action and move along, please? - Philippe 22:52, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Daed, please. We understand that you found WP:SOCK, we know you've found a home at WP:SPI. I ask you to recall your mistake here, and remember that I did not call you out on your broken promise from your WP:ER, nor did I make a big deal of your refactoring dozens of other users comments (a big no-no by the way). Wikipedian to Wikipedian, I ask you to drop this. This path leads nowhere good, I promise you.

Ched ask 'Zilla's forgiveness for stepping in, Ched not want squishyed. Ched like to get wiki-old enough to have Chedzilla some day. Ched think it good idea for admin to close thread now. Best to all. — Ched :  ?  22:59, 23 May 2009 (UTC) dag-gumit, this thread was still open when I "started" typing ... honest. — Ched :  ?  23:01, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Not once have I ever refactored anyone's post, not to mention your post is condescending in tone, so please take back your baseless accustation, which, by definition, is a personal attack. I know full well the rules of wikipedia, so whoever the hell you're thinking of, it isn't me.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 23:06, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Can you please just drop this and move on. This is getting tiresome and is becoming disruptive. AniMate^draw 23:19, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Seconded. Daedalus - it seems to others that you're acting defensive or angry about it still. Please step back and move on. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 23:37, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

I would like to make something clear

I've just become aware, by reading a certain post that most you possibly think this thread was of the single purpose at getting back at Bish.

It was not, as many of you may know, I frequent SPI. I do not tie together accounts with similar sounding names if the behavior is different. As far as I saw, these accounts were unrelated to Bish. In my mind, they looked like some odd accounts I've run into before, such as User:Neomewga, who seemed to be using WP as a social network or somesuch. So please, this never had anything to do with Bish, and everything to do with what I quite clearly explained in the lead.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 23:38, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, your explanation is noted. Can we please, for the love of the flying spaghetti monster, move on?! - Philippe 23:41, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, I will block Daedalus969 for wikihounding if they continue to harass Bishonen like they are doing here. Just...walk...away. Go do something else that does not match the regular expression Bish*. Jehochman ^Talk 23:46, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Just as a meta-note ... People who do a lot of SPI (and I've been there and still do that) sometimes find odd patterns and connect dots like this. That you spot a pattern and connect a dot, and it turns out to be harmless or a known account you just didn't know about yourself, is not news or a problem or an issue. If you are going to survive for a long period interested in SPI you have to get used to the idea that you just let it go when it turns out to be a nonissue. Otherwise you end up pingponging back and forth between J'accuse and OMGKSORRYNORLY.

The appropriate response is "Ok, thanks for letting me know." and then walking away. Any elaboration only makes people worried about you. Especially when you elaborate defensively adn repeatedly past the point people said "It's over, enough"...

We all know anyone doing SPI finds things. It's ok. This is expected.

You didn't do anything wrong until you started being defensive about possibly having done something wrong. You started digging the hole then. Stop digging. Go have a cup of tea. If it will make you feel better, I can dig up a trout somewhere, but really just move on 8-)... Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 00:42, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

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

User:Bali ultimate

Resolved

 – Re-resolved. Content dispute, please discuss at the relevant article talkpages. //roux   06:56, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Would some take the time to remind to the above that if he/she doesn't bother to explain his edit on Estonia–Luxembourg relations, he/she should refrain from doing so. The user added identical tags to several pages and reversed detailed questions from his user page without answering them. -- User:Docu 05:46, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

I've asked you to take any discussion to the talk page of that article. I won't engage with you on my talk page. I think your insistence that this content disagreement be discussed on my talk page, rathter than on the article discussion page, will not gain much support here. And while we're at it (and with an audience) please don't post on my talk page anymore, about anything.Bali ultimate (talk) 05:50, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Please add your detailed response to whatever forum is convenient for you. Thanks. -- User:Docu 06:17, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

I removed the "resolved" as he didn't in fact answer any questions yet. Besides, he started adding {{unreferenced}} to articles I created while refusing any comments on his talk page. -- User:Docu

He started the discussion here, and I'm guessing is waiting for you to engage in it. The best place to discuss article issues is on the talkpage for the article, and not his talk or yours, because you will gain the audience that watches the article by discussing on article talk. This is essentially a content dispute, and as such does not belong at AN/I. Please discuss sourcing issues here, which is where these discussions belong. As for adding {{unreferenced}}, I have left a note for Bali discussing the issue. Further, he did make very clear to you why he added {{primarysources}} to the E-L relations article. So again: please go discuss content issues at the relevant article talkpages, as such discussions do not belong here. Re-marking as resolved. //roux   06:56, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your intervention about the articles I created (or split off from elsewhere).

In regards to E-L, Bali ultimate did supply an answer quoting "RS, V, N", but it's not entirely clear how this relates to the series of articles he tagged. I left a detailed question on his talk page which he removed unanswered. As there was no explanation, I removed the tag from the article. He replaced it and offered to discuss it [28], thus I reiterated my question [29]. This was without success.

It's only on ANI that he brings up which talk page he wants to use, even though he added the same tag to a series articles. He still hasn't supplied a detailed explanation.

Personally, I don't care which talk page is being used, but I think this is problematic, as, essentially, most of his edits in the last twenty-four hours were adding such tags. -- User:Docu 07:38, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

I won't engage him on content here, or on my talk page. I will engage him on the relevant talk page. I have told him that explicity about 5 timers now. If he doesn't care which talk page to use, i suggest he use the talk page of the article in question. The adding of such tags is not problematic -- it is what sould be done with unsourced information of unassessable veracity (since it's unsourced). Dumping in an external link into an article doesn't make an article "referenced." I think what should be concerning is that an administrator since 2003 has no grasp on the need for sourcing articles, even on BLPs like Massimo_Cenci, which he created in March. The placing of such tags, at minimum warns readers to think twice before trusting what they see here, and also categorizes stuff as, well, unsourced, which may lead to someone making it minimally acceptable (preferably the person who put the unsourced, unverifiable information here in the first place). That anyone would agree that the placing such tags on unsourced articles is unhelpful worries me.Bali ultimate (talk) 12:15, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

One more thing for this thread, the silliest one i've ever been involved with ("please stop the meanie bali ultimate from tagging unsourced articles as unsourced, and articles that rely entirely on primary sources as primarily sourced.") This statement "It's only on ANI that he brings up which talk page he wants to use" is a flat untruth. I asked him here [30] and here [31] and I also answered the question the first time he asked it. [32]. And you know what? Shouldn't he know that article talk pages are the appropriate venue to discuss article content? The fact that he might not i find troubling.Bali ultimate (talk) 12:30, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

The detailed question is now here: WT:WikiProject International relations#Adding .7B.7Bprimarysources.7D.7D to various articles, including Estonia–Luxembourg relations (supposedly "the relevant talk page"). If my question isn't clear, please say so there and I will try to re-phrase it.

As Bali ultimate seems to have thought quite a lot about this issue, tagged and possibly re-tagged many articles, brought it up on multiple talk pages, I think everyone would benefit if he would share his understanding of the issue and address it in-depth. As he doesn't respond to any comments I or others have made on the issue, just re-tagging articles without accepting to discuss is problematic. -- User:Docu 09:43, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

"As he doesn't respond to any comments I or others have made on the issue." That's a lie, User:Docu. Here's just one of my comments on the issue, addressed to you. [33]. Please stop lying. It's unbecoming of an administrator. You seem to be trying to create a disupte where there is none. I would appreciate it, however, if you wouldn't lie about or otherwise misrepresent my actions in future.Bali ultimate (talk) 11:51, 24 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 [34], 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)

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)

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 [35], 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 [36]. 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: [37]. 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: [38]. As to the nominator, I left her a warning as to her incivlity here, which she removed as "harassment": [39]. The editor was also left a message from user:Mosedschurte which she also deleted here: [40]. 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.[41]. When I pointed out that your edit didn't meet the requirements of our sourcing policy[42] you responded with "The lead section has thirteen cites, which were from the prior incaranation with changes in verbage, but not substance or citation."[43] 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.[44] 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)[45] These tags were previously added by Mosedschurte[46][47] 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.[48]
• 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: [49].
• 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. [50]
• 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: [51]. 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:[[52]]; and here's the ensuing change of my good faith efforts to resolve the problem: ][53]]. 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)

Disruptive editing, edit warring and potential vandalism in Arash (entertainer) article by a trio of editors

• Raayen (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Iroony (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• St._Hubert (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

The following users User:Iroony, User:Raayen and St._Hubert have become a very disruptive and repeatedly over the past several days engaged in edit warring and reverts of multiple authoritative sources in the Arash (entertainer) article. They remove, sometimes with no explanation at all, other times with hard to read and comprehend "rational" that since only Arash's grandfather is Azeri, thus the Azeri ethnic roots of Arash should be completely supressed from everywhere in the article, even though:

• There are at least half-dozen authoritative sources mentioning the Azeri roots of Arash
• Arash himself has proudly declared it numerous times, as is reported per above
• Being 1/4 (25%) Azeri is definitely worth mentioning
• In Iran, like in Azerbaijan and Sweden, nationality of the child is passed/determined by the male line, hence having a grandFATHER is an important and major detail
• Arash accepted the offer from Azerbaijan to sing in a duet with another Azerbaijani singer, and his ethnic roots are key to explain his decision, according to his own interviews in which he touts his ethnic Azeri roots and says he is very proud of it.

All these users have been warned in Edit Summary and in the Talk Page numerous times by many editors ( [54], [55], [56], [57], [58]), but continue to engage in such unfortunate disruptions. I've been trying to reason with them, but they seem uninterested in listening and understanding. Please make the page semi-protected and explain to those users to stop removing sourced information and be so disruptive, edit warring and vandal-like. Here are the diffs:

• Revision as of 07:10, 19 May 2009 against Goldorack by an anon 92.2.207.180

• Revision as of 15:51, 19 May 2009 by Raayen against Proger

• Revision as of 16:15, 19 May 2009 by Iroony against Proger

• Revision as of 17:13, 19 May 2009 by anon 92.5.31.246 against Proger

• Revision as of 17:42, 19 May 2009 by Raayen against Proger

• Revision as of 17:48, 19 May 2009 by Raayen against Proger

• Revision as of 18:55, 19 May 2009 by Iroony against Goldorack

• Revision as of 23:03, 19 May 2009 by St Hubert against Proger

• Revision as of 14:55, 22 May 2009 by St Hubert against Goldorack

• Revision as of 10:46, 23 May 2009 by Iroony against Goldorack

Thank you. --Goldorack (talk) 12:04, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

First of all, sources and what Arash has said in an interview imply that one of Arash's great-grand fathers was Azeri not his grand father. The origin of someone's great-grand father is trivial, doesn't belong in the lead. I removed this information to a sub-section about the artist early life. I should add that this user is using poor sources on the biography of a living person and I ask admins to warn him for violation of WP:BLP.--St. Hubert (talk) 01:21, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

• Protected due to it being a content dispute for now. I'm willing to bet there's some weird socking/meating going on somewhere in there, and Goldorack (talk · contribs) seems to be quacking with his adept use and knowledge of wikipedia policies and processes as a new user. Combined with his similar edits to a recently-blocked user, Xaghan (talk · contribs), on Erich Feigl, I'm suspicious— especially since three other editors oppose his edits, the ips involved are from the same ISP (turktelecom) as in Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Azturkk/Archive, and a bunch of other weird things, there's nothing really definite without a checkuser, and I don't even know if it's definite enough for that. For now, it's protected, and please attempt to gain consensus on the talk page. --slakr^\ talk / 04:39, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

User:Jayy009 - serial image copyright offender

Resolved

 – ...at least for now. Stifle is da' man

Could an available admin please keep an eye on/advise Jayy009 (talk · contribs) about his disregard for copyright. He/she's been uploading a string of copyrighted images and is ignoring all warnings on their talk page. Cheers. --WebHamster 12:53, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

• Advise a block - repeated warnings, and yet no interest in changing his ways? Block to prevent more damage and move on. Ironholds (talk) 14:13, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

  Final warning given. Stifle (talk) 15:54, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

  Strike that; he's had two final warnings already. Blocked 48h. Stifle (talk) 15:55, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Is this a big deal?

Special:contributions/90.43.116.96 is nothing but blanking of spam notices on IP pages. See [59], [60], [61] etc. If I'm making mountains out of mole hills, please ignore. Thanks. Tiderolls 18:58, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

It is significant, and he's been blocked for 3 hours by an admin. I would expect that if it continues, the block will be extended. These seem to be out of Paris, and presumably all related in some way. If you see it happening again, recommend you take it to WP:AIV, as it appears there's some kind of evasion attempt here. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 19:08, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

And since this activity is continuing, from other IP's on the list, I think some broader admin intervention is needed here - a range block or something. These IP's are all related, and they don't like that fact posted on their pages. But unlike registered users, IP's cannot take quasi-ownership of their talk pages. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 19:41, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

If it continues, from another similar ip possibly, it would be best to make an SPI report with a request for a CU to determine if a rangeblock would quell the problem without too much collateral damage. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:38, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Continued problems with unresponsive editor Indianwhite

This was brought up here [62] but the situation continues with Indianwhite (talk · contribs). Every comment/warning on his talk page is simply deleted, I'm wondering if he ever even sees edit summaries - he never makes any himself. Some of his edits are constructive, others are more of a problem, especially when if reverted he simply puts it back.

I spent some time today wondering why we had two duplicate articles Servian Wall and Servian Walls until I realised that Servian Walls had been created as a redirect only, but Indianwhite evidently decided that the plural form of the name was correct and turned it into a copy of the existing Servian Wall, where he then changed all instances of 'wall' to 'walls'. Again, this was done with no discussion anywhere and no edit summaries.

He's also made a series of edits adding 'Christian' to the list of winners/losers in various battled and in one instance changing the word 'men' in an info box to 'Arabs'.

Some diffs:

• For the "Christian" thing:
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9
  • 10
  • 11
  • 12
  • 13
• For the "Arabs" thing (as opposed to "men"?):
  • 1

Not a dramatic problem, but still a problem. When an editor won't engage in discussion it can be difficult. Eg,, he/she adds external links that are inappropriate/duplicate existing links. I revert with an explanation of why, which probably isn't read, and he/she just puts them back. Maybe someone who hasn't been involved with this editor might have more luck. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 19:13, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Indianwhite (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is indeed a problem; there is quite a consistent pattern, that I believe amounts to a form of vandalism: persistent introduction of unsourced facts or unrealiable sources (namely in a huge number of "battle" articles), addition of reduntant words (like "men" after a number of troops, or "killed" after a number of casualties, or "Christian" after the identity of a non Muslim beligerant, and usage of "Arabs" instead of "men" when refering to Islamic tropps, etc.), non-usage of edit summaries, refusal to communicate, almost immediate removal of talk page warnings (trying to appear with a "clean slate"?), most probably using IPs to avoid 3RR, etc. It is true he also appear to have some legit edits, although this and this makes one wonder... The Ogre (talk) 19:36, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

God only knows what Indianwhite (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is doing any of this for. He/she seems to have a penchant for making pointless changes to articles involving battles and the NBA. I think this IP address is the same person: 119.95.176.131. Several of the Greco-Persian war articles have a pointless edit by this address at ~ midnight on 19th May, followed by a reversion by another user, and then several edits by Indianwhite at ~ 3am; see [63], [64], [65], [66]. Most of these edits are just pointless, without being incorrect; but some are introducing unsourced (and frankly wrong) information in the text. Whilst not vandalism, its not helping anyone, is it? And therefore is just as bad (even more so for being incipient rather than obvious). MinisterForBadTimes (talk) 20:54, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

The editor in question was briefly engaged in an editwar on the F-22 Raptor article but did not respond to a message addressed in the edit commentary or on his talk page. Not a big deal, but not much anyone can do about an unresponsive editor. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 21:10, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Block them if they become tendentious or use IPs to avoid 3RR. 119.95.184.242 (talk · contribs) has only made 2 edits but they match Indianwhite's and are from the Philippine Long Distance Telephone Company, the same as that used by 119.95.176.131 (talk · contribs). Dougweller (talk) 21:17, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

I've been dealing with this user in basketball articles too, mostly List of career achievements by Dirk Nowitzki, Dirk Nowitzki, and Steve Nash. I noticed that just today, the user reverted an edit that I made correcting style and POV issues. It's the same stuff - I'm sure the intention is good, but the user refuses to use the preview button, doesn't engage in discussion and keeps introducing POVy and WP:PEACOCKy edits. Also, I have noticed that some of this user's dodgier edits are done through IPs like 119.95.180.16 (talk · contribs) and 119.95.176.131 (talk · contribs). --Mosmof (talk) 00:01, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Oh, and it looks like the user got himself a sockpuppet: FreeSay (talk · contribs). Edited to add: I've started Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Indianwhite. --Mosmof (talk) 00:03, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

I've indef blocked his confirmed sock User:FreeSay , and blocked Indianwhite for 72hrs. --Versageek 00:49, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Indianwhite's Defence

If I have really offended some in Wikipedia like Mosmof, and Ogre, then I'M VERY SORRY. I'm really stomped at the same time how a small change can cause an uproar. I just spotted a vandal post in the Nowitzki section the other day and I fixed it. I'm not being vandal or disruptive, I'm just an ENTHUSIAST who enjoys surfing around Wikipedia. Wikipedia says it's FREE and ANYONE CAN EDIT, be BOLD and creative. I know EDUCATED guesses may mean nothing to you but, where is the fun without it?

I really enjoy being in Wikipedia, member or not, at least it helps give me fun in the pursuit of knowledge, whether it's sports, entertainment, or history. I don't mean any harm to anybody, I think my behavior is just being misunderstood. I any you guys of have favorite spots then, I will not touch them, but please, give me some freedom to as I please. The changes I'm doing are hardly noticeable, If any of you don't like such a small change, then I find it odd to believe that Wikipedia is FREE for anyone to edit, I guess it's full of restrictions, no FREEDOM whatsoever.

I try providing external links to back up my edits as much as possible. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Indianwhite (talk • contribs) 00:17, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

(Non-admin response) Wikipedia is free in the sense that there is no monetary cost. What you are doing is trying to influence the point of view of the readers by making small, seeming "unnoticeable" changes. In my opinion this sort of quiet injection of bias is more harmful then outright claims such as "so and so is the best" because it only subconsciously registers. Your edits are inappropriate and biased, and you have not made an attempt to communicate with other editors legitimate concerns. Did you expect to be able to continue your current style of editing or something? Matty (talk) 00:39, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

The free does not mean free as in no cost, it means free as in free culture. In fact, part of our being free is expressly granting the right to reusers of our content to charge for it as long as our license terms are met. No comment on the larger issue, but wanted to step in and correct you on that point. It's number 3 on the list of our five pillars. --M^ask? 03:04, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

User:Rcatholic, User talk:Rcatholic

Is copyright protected information allowed on user and user talk pages? If not, someone should check out Rcatholic (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - there's information directly pasted from [67] and [68] on this person's user and user talk pages. Dawn Bard (talk) 19:45, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

it is not allowed, and the User page is a clear violation of WP:SOAPBOX. I've seen the survey referred to, and that's one hell of a cherry-picked interpretation of the entire findings. ThuranX (talk) 19:55, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

I've deleted the user page and taken out some of the revisions of the talk page, as well as leaving a note for the user in question, if they continue to post copyright material, report back here as it's getting rather late where I am, so I might not be best placed to take further action in a timely manner. Nick (talk) 20:50, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

On-going dispute at ME. Various violations by editors, etc..

I posted something at BLP noticeboard but the post was hijacked by an IP involved in the mediation. There has been great difficulty facilitating an amicable resolve to the dispute. The article was locked for excessive edit warring and request for resolution, which began some 4 weeks ago. I disputed the level of unreliable sources and dependency on IAEA promotion sites to support events. I believe sources such as Tehran Times, Xinhua News Agency, and Press TV are totally unacceptable references and could not believe why they were allowed to be in the article. I've been trying to create an outline according to available information and strict BLP-policy, but some users have disagreed uncompromisingly. This might take awhile to read: 1, 2, 3, 4. I had a discussion with the mediator where I listed (briefly) the complaints made by some users and why they were not valid according to BLP here. I'm now being accused of assuming "bad faith" and not "understanding" other user's perspectives, and most recently been told to "put up or shut up" (exact words). I don't want to canvass for friendly admins and our mediator has resigned. I really don't know what else to do. If we could get some eyes on this that would be great. BLP violations have occurred without recognition but at this point I doubt there is little any one could do about it. Thanks for any help! Also, for the users involved in the mediation who will likely attack this, please keep it to a minimum. I just want to get a couple uninvolved people to see what's going on. Wikifan12345 (talk) 20:02, 23 May 2009

Seeing as there is not a single editor among the several at Talk:Mohamed_ElBaradei who you agree with, have you considered the possibility that they are in fact correct? And that it is you who are behaving disruptively, editing tendentiously and generally being difficult to get along with? Others have expressed a similar view - [69], [70], [71].

• I'm really surprised you took the time to cherry-pick all those diff's to convey a POV that was never demonstrated in the discussion when you were a supposedly impartial mediator. As we all know, this isn't a yes or no discuss. Therefore, your "no one agrees with you" is hardly a fitting representation of what is going on. The first dispute is whether or not BLP violations have occurred during the editing process. Yeah, R2 reverted the article to a month-old state because of BLP wild abuses by the IP. The 15+ propaganda references in the article are also a BLP violation. Then there is discussion over whether or not mediation suggestions did not qualify under BLP policies, which according the discussion, yeah they did. The second dispute is about an Israel/ME connection. That was at first dismissed as not-notable by the collective and endorsed by you. Then when I posted references (which can be found here it was determined to be only regionally-based and therefore not relevant. Then when I posted unique references from various continents, it was dubiously accused of being supported by a biased editorials. Then when that wasn't the case, it was said that the idea violated criticism and undue weight policy. Then, when that wasn't the case...I was hindering the mediation process and "compromise." This was followed by a nice lengthy observation of my personality, which can be found in the opinions that Kevin linked. NPguy posted inconsistently and tended to leave disputes he started, such as the charge that the Israel/ME relationship was somehow being propagated by only Israeli-based media. Much of NPguys posts were editor reflective and didn't necessarily follow the posts he was responding to. I encourage admins to click on the links Kevin included and review my post above it. I really don't have the time to fish for dozens of unsummarized diff's in a sea of 200+ like some users here but for those who are curious the information is there. Wikifan12345 (talk) 05:55, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

You accuse others of misunderstanding policy ([72], [73], [74], [75]) when you also have some issues in that regard ("Your insistence that we have to "convince" each other is completely backwards" is pretty much the opposite of consensus, "BLP policies are subject to interpretation by editors. Wrong" misunderstands the implementation of policy, "phony Iranian doctors" calling a doctor a "phony" is a textbook breach of the BLP policy).

• I didn't simply accuse others of misunderstanding policy. I accused editors of habitually violating and then misrepresentation policy to illustrate a point. Get your facts right. : ) IP dubiously cited a bizarre criticism and undue weight guideline, which was debunked and dropped here. Scroll 4 or 5 paragraphs down. :D I really don't appreciate your quoting edits out of context. That is extremely bad faith and downright malicious: There is no consensus, and you haven't even read the references posted or else you wouldn't continue to refer to them as criticism (your entire bizarre dispute) and editorials. Discussion is not a debate. Your insistence that we have to "convince" each other is completely backwards, though I suppose if you wear a user down with rhetoric and libel they'll eventually leave. As I stated explicitly in the discussion page, the "consensus" (if you want to call it that) requires a mutual understanding of what consensus actually means. Simply saying "I disagree, you are a horrible editor, here is why" does not mean we are roadblocked and I have to spend more time trying to convince you. That is what happened. And that is what I meant. I provided reasons, accompanied with policies (outlined, specifics, etc..) then included dozens of certified-reliable sources which were denied outright. I'm really surprised you missed that. Wikifan12345 (talk) 05:55, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

When others suggest you write out your proposal [76], you refuse.

Scroll down to the last 2 paragraphs of mediation 2. No, I didn't refuse. I was overjoyed in fact, under the pretense that it logically be included in the outline. No response was given. NPguy, out of nowhere, suggested I put up or shutup after he ignored the references I posted. I told the IP it isn't logistically possible to write a draft-section in such a complicated BLP without a full-rough-outline and a general understanding of the proceeding and succeeding sections. I guess Kevin failed to mention that diff. :D Wikifan12345 (talk) 05:55, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

I think you need to take a serious look at your own editing, and realise that you are a good part of the problem there. Kevin (talk) 03:25, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Probably. I'm not perfect, certainly not righteous, but all my suggestions were sourced by available information. Not "I think," not "My opinion," and not POV. I try not to evaluate the motives and characterize editors as disruptive, volatile, and abusive because that is name-calling. I do however know the difference between Tehran Times and the Jerusalem Post, which some users believe are equal in terms of reliability. If I remember correctly, the IP had a fond admiration for Chinese propaganda. I could probably find the diff if I had 4 hours to spare. :D I left a nice, concise, and shortened version of out 15 page dispute at your talk page. You decided to "ignore" (your words) it. I encourage every editor to review it. Wikifan12345 (talk) 05:55, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

I welcome more eyes on the article, but I am not sure if he needs to post it here, at WP:BLPN#BLP concerns at Mohamed ElBaradei and at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Israel#For those who are familiar with Mohamed Elbaradei. I feel WF may continue appealing and canvassing until he hears exactly what he wants to hear, as he hasn't shown much recognition for changing his argument based off of past or present discussion.

• No one was active in the discussion aside from the IP and myself. NPguy dropped in and left so that made it very difficult to finish disputes (though I ultimately responded to all of his "challenges.) The WP Israel had nothing to do with the BLP violations, and was solely about the Israel/ME notability disagreement. I don't think that is considered canvassing. Your feeling is extreme bad faith. You yourself said in our latest dispute that you knew nothing about the Israel/ME dispute. And based off the luke-warm beliefs from NPguy and Kevin, who didn't even compute the dozens of referenced I cited that showed broad coverage and extreme notability, I didn't think they know anything either. Or didn't want to know. Or care to know. I don't know, that's not my issue. Wikifan12345 (talk) 05:55, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

The article has been through two previous dispute resolution processes, and the most current DR process of mediation broke down after WF expressed concerns that I didn't understand about our mediator.

• What? the mediation broke down when Kevin resigned. Wikifan12345 (talk) 05:55, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

I have recently tried to remind WF that the talk page is a place for civility and discussing improvements to the article, but somehow the discussion always become off-topic. I also don't understand why Wikifan has asked others to stop attacking him when they are simply asking him to just discuss improvements to the article.

As this has been occuring awhile, I definitely think it deserves attention one way or another. I have found it quite hard to solicit feedback to improve the article though.--68.248.155.2 (talk) 03:42, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Uh? Provide a diff please? Everyone one of my posts has either been in response to a dispute from you (i.e, you are a disruptive editor WF, or your reliable articles are editorials, you are inflexible, etc..) or posting a suggestion with policy-endorsed references. I had one nice tangent on the importance of BLP standards when Kevin claimed BLP-policies (NPOV, OR, VER) were subject to "interpretation" by editors. That is just utterly bizarre, after we agreed the mediation would be proceeded with strict-BLP policies. Wikifan12345 (talk) 05:55, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

I am not sure if past issues should be relevant or not, but I just thought that Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Arbitration_enforcement/Archive33#User:Wikifan12345_and_User:Brewcrewer and Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive534#User:Wikifan12345 might be relevant as well. I will point out that I filed the second instance.--68.248.155.2 (talk) 03:53, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Definitely relevant. You filed the second one after it was agreed upon that we would drop past disputes. I was about to file an incident against you for ownership, revert warring, and dependence on propaganda references and reverting those who remove them in spite of discussion. Wikifan12345 (talk) 05:55, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Hmmmm. What are you guys disputing? We had these same discussions at the talk page which I gladly wasted time continuing. It is extreme bad faith to misrepresent disputes. IP filed a civility charge following a mediation agreement where past actions would be annulled. Of course, I threatened to submit a notice against the IP for gross BLP violations (using propaganda and unreliable sources to support the article, and reverting those who try to remove them) and incivility. This is nothing less than a disgusting foil and I will be crafting a nice response in a second. Thanks guys, really. Wikifan12345 (talk) 05:06, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

For much more accurate picture, it would be best to actually read the talk discussion instead of the textbites posted here. This wasn't supposed to be a battle. All I wanted was for a uninvolved admins/editors to see what's going on. Maybe I am totally wrong and this whole ME/Israel relationship is one big conspiracy. :D Wikifan12345 (talk) 05:55, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Accusations of socket puppetry and disruptive editing

Not long ago, user Moshe-paz vandalized the article Salvador Allende adding an ironic remark in a somewhat controversial graph [77]. I reverted his edit and went to his talk page to explain why I did so. As it might be seen from the edit history, and the talk page, the article about Allende is sometimes polemic and people usually use it to push their political viewpoints.

User Moshe-paz now thinks I'm several other users and is using the summary description box to accuse me of socket puppetry. [78]

I don't know under what grounds he's basing his accusations, but I believe he should be warned (at least by an administrator) that the edit description field should be used only to summarize one's edits, and no to make spurious personal attacks. Likeminas (talk) 00:22, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

In my defense, there are many terms in wikipedia, many more which I might not know about. What is socket puppetry?— Dædαlus ^Contribs 02:01, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

They can be hard to dislodge. Sometimes they require a socket wrench. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 05:08, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

It might not take a craftsman to snap on to the meaning here. PhGustaf (talk) 05:29, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

When we find multiple account abuse, we socket to 'em. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 05:40, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Don't be a smartass. //roux   02:04, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

disturbing new bots...

Resolved

 – Approved bot working as intended.

It seems to me that bot authors have recently unleashed a rash of disturbing new bots on the wikipedia. Let me describe the most recent one I have encountered.

Today I saw on my watchlist a bot that offered the edit summary: "WikiProject:Check Wikipedia cleanup (title linked in text) and general fixes; sort key per guidelines".

What this bot is doing is unlinking wikilinks to author's names.

Perhaps this bot's actions are justified by policy or consensus. But the edit summary certainly doesn't support that. The second link is to a section entitled "Using sort keys". How is that helpful? This is not what the bot is actually doing. The first link is to a large, and opaque page, with sixty subheadings.

If there was a specific discussion authorizing the action of this bot I would like to read it, because I think its actions are ill advised and very damaging. If we have an article about the author(s) of a reference why in the name of heck wouldn't we link to that article.

I have been prolific, and I have added well over ten thousand references that wikilink to the author's article. Is this bot going to unlink all of them?

Perhpas this bot's action are justified by policy or consensus. If so I believe it is essential that the edit summary offers a clear link to an explanation of its mandate.

Candidly Geo Swan (talk) 01:59, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Can we have some links to these bot's contributions? rootology/equality 02:03, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Without commenting on the specific issue, it would be helpful if you could give an example diff (you haven't even told us a page), the name of the bot, and the owner of the bot here. Also, have you tried talking this over with the bot's owner? Oren0 (talk) 02:04, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

It's not a bot. The Check Wikipedia project is done by people using AWB. //roux   02:07, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

User:DrilBot is my bot and it does use the CHECKWIKI lists to find articles with errors so that it can fix them. Now, I am assuming that the above concern (based on the edit summary mentioned) relates to the bot removing links in an article. It is designed to do this when the link just links back to the current article, which produces bold text rather than a link... see the articles listed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Check Wikipedia#Title linked in text (AWB, AutoEd, BOT). This is almost always an error... an author's name should not be linked in the article already about the author, as that produces bold text rather than a link, and having bold text randomly inserted in an article is usually bad. E.g., [[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents]] produces Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents so, for example, on the article Jimmy Wales and text [[Jimmy Wales]] produces Jimmy Wales, which is almost always undesirable. If you could provide some diffs it would be much appreciated so that I can deal with the issue specifically; you could have also just contacted me with your concerns so that it could be discussed rather than bringing it to ANI right away... I don't mind. Anyway, I will not run my bot until this is resolved. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 02:15, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Anyway, since I'm here let me explain the edit summary: The first link is to the page where I get the lists of articles from for the bot to fix. The text in parenthases indicates which specific subheading I am working on... so when it says "title linked in text", just find the "title linked in text" section on the CHECKWIKI page; that should provide a brief description of the reason for the fix. DrilBot also often adds DEFAULTSORTs to articles so that they are sorted correctly with capitalization; this can look kind of odd or counter intuitive, so I added a link to the guideline that describes the reasons for that. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 02:17, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

(I need to get some shut-eye now so I won't be able to respond to any further questions/comments until tomorrow; my apologies if this is any inconvenience) –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 02:20, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

DrilBot's task was approved by the Bot Approvals Group at Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/DrilBot, after community discussion that was largely supportive. I have just reviewed many of DrilBot's recent contributions, and I believe these tasks are helpful and in accordance with style guidelines. – Quadell ^(talk) 02:25, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

As I wrote above the actions of this bot, and a couple of other new bots, my be authorized by policy or consensus. But I am afraid I have not found these bot's edit summaries providing a helpful link to the bot's mandate.

The Bot Approval Group didn't ask, and the bot author didn't state, what edit summary the bot would use. I don't want to pick on this bot's author, because I gather the bot approval group never expects bot authors to state what explanations bots will offer in their edit summaries.

I realize that, like everyone else here, those who write bots do so in their spare time. Nevertheless I suggest on a large project like this meeting the same professional standards we'd try to meet if if we were doing the work for pay is important. Documentation is important. Explaining what the bot is doing, to those unfamiliar with the background of the bot is important. This bot, like many bots, provides a totally inadequate explanation of what it was doing.

Why isn't supplying a clear, meaningful, specific explanation of what the bot is doing a part of the bot approval process? Why isn't reviewing that clear, meaningful, specific explanation a part of the process?

WRT to this particular bot, the bot's author has clarified, above, that it removes links to the author only within the author's own article -- not generally. That is a relief and absolutely not clear from the links provided in the edit summary.

The bot's author has said that links, within an article, are almost always undesirable. Maybe a discussion reached a consensus about this. If so I would like to know where.

References are useful. Fully populated references are the most useful. Now a fully populated reference has a half-dozen or more fields, and it can take several minutes to pupulate them. I suggest that when an author has a wikipedia article about them, and one wants to re-use a reference that has already been populated, the most obvious place to look for the already fully reference would be in the article about that author.

So, no, I do not agree that removing links to an author, from within references, is a good idea. It means that every single time a reference is cut and paste from the author's article, to be re-used somewhere else, the author wikilink has to be recreated. That the current version of our software renders this in bold I see as a very minor inconvenience more than balanced by the times-saving of not having to worry about the time consuming relinked.

I am going to repeat that I think a much greater effort has to be made by bot authors, and those who use robot editing tools to explain the justifications behind their work, as these tools can make massive changes that are very hard to undo. Geo Swan (talk) 06:57, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

More Obama drama anyone?

Resolved

 – Speedy deleted. Sceptre ^(talk) 04:20, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Barack Obama substance abuse controversy ought to elicit attention. Is this a CSD under attack page? -- Banjeboi 02:23, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

No. But it might be a POV fork. I seem to remember this being discussed in detail in one of the other myriad other Obama articles but I can't find it at a quick glance. Since this was a matter of actual controversy, deleting it as an attack page seems like not a great idea. Maybe should to go AfD? JoshuaZ (talk) 03:18, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

It was created by a "new user" after nominating George W. Bush substance abuse controversy for deletion (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/George W. Bush substance abuse controversy). The initial edit summary may give some clue as to the intent: "To be fair and balanced". But hey, I wouldn't dare assume bad faith... --auburnpilot talk 03:21, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Oh. Hmm, maybe a helpful pointer to WP:POINT and WP:OTHERSTUFF might be in order? JoshuaZ (talk) 03:26, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Or a pointer that FOX News have now added "Accurate" too. Sceptre ^(talk) 04:10, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

POV/POINT indeed. And add BLP violating as well per the homosexual oral sex content. Should be CSD'ed. - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here @} 03:36, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

I removed these non-credible accusations per WP:BLP --ThaddeusB (talk) 03:43, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

I would like to point out that the creator's motivations aren't really relevant to whether the article exists or not. (They are, of course, relevant to a discussion of his actions though.) Evaluate the article's content on their own merits and edit it for tone or nominate it for AfD if you don't think it belongs at all. --ThaddeusB (talk) 03:40, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

The creator's intent may give an indication as to their POV, which in turn can give editors the chance to scrutinize the article for BLP violations, etc. I agree that it does not have weight on the article's existence. I would like to see this go bye bye at AfD. Law _{type! snype?} 03:47, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

I'll disagree of course. Creating an article to make a point, aka his motivation, is widely regarded as disruptive and unacceptable editing. - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here @} 03:49, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

No disagreement on that point. However that would speak to the editor's behavior, not the article directly. --ThaddeusB (talk) 04:09, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Allstar. It looks like a CSD attack page to me. I agree that the edit summaries, as well as the editor's name, suggest a serious bias issue here. The Bush page consists of two dozen sources, with numerous non-inflammatory claims, whereas more than half the Obama page consists of a single unfounded rumor that he'll suck dick for crack. CSD it and done. ThuranX (talk) 03:52, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

And now we've got a sock.. only edit to WP is removing the PROD tag. - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here @} 04:01, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Should we get an SPI on that, or jsut an 'obvious sock indef' block? Leave the main account open with warnings not to push his agenda that way, this is obviously an inexperienced editor. ThuranX (talk) 04:04, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Anyone, including the author can remove a prod so there is no need for a sock to do so. In other words, I'd wait until that account actually did something that matters before moving to block it... and it just made an attack so now theer is a reason to warn/block independent of being/not being a sock--ThaddeusB (talk) 04:09, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, and be sure to add the sock's edit summary he just did calling me an asshole. - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here @} 04:06, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Actually, he said, "look at my IP asshole". Unfortunately, it's too late to say, "My, what an ugly IP asshole." PhGustaf (talk) 04:23, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

It appears User:Special friendly is a sock as well, his first and only edit was to User talk:SaddleBoy diff Matty (talk) 04:11, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

I wish this was BJOADNable. The delete tags outweighing the content five-to-one was hilarious. Sceptre ^(talk) 04:10, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

It looks to me that the speedy delete is just POV protection. There is no real balance with this project anymore.--Jojhutton (talk) 04:13, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

There's no controversy, hence no need for a controversy article. It might be good for one or two lines in the main article - I wouldn't remove a properly-sourced inclusion there. Splitting it out to its own article, though, makes it an attack page, so I speedied it.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 04:18, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

How, exactly, do you find 'A crazy guy with a long arrest record once said that Obama sucks dick for crack' to be legitimate, or the speedy deletion thereof to be 'POV protection'??? ThuranX (talk) 04:18, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Far be it from me to argue with the POV Protectors who are never wrong and always argue in force.--Jojhutton (talk) 04:21, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Your cries of censorship are totally drowned out by the fact the Obama's past drug use is already covered on his bio article. --guyzero | talk 08:28, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

It's code for "Obama is black, therefore he must take drugs." And yes, I did just pull the race card. Sceptre ^(talk) 04:20, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, You see that, I see that... but others do not, apparently. Plus, the old "psst, he's a gay' zinger is popular on the right, cause pink is almost red. ThuranX (talk) 04:22, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, they do have a point. Obama is more socialist and liberal than the UK's Labour Party. But then again, so is John McCain. Sceptre ^(talk) 04:24, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't feel speedy deletion as a "blatant attack page" was justified, but I'm not going to make a big deal out of it either, as the article clearly had no chance in its current form. I would advice the article creator to look into creating a proper article (if possible) in his user space before even thinking of bringing this material back to the mainspace. --ThaddeusB (talk) 04:22, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Thaddeus: with no speedy we'd have WP:SNOW by now. Obama's admission of drug use is already on the right pages. PhGustaf (talk) 04:31, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Date-linking despite warnings

Resolved

 – not a case of massive delinking

According to this extract from MOS, since 13 Jan.'09 there's been an injunction against linking or delinking dates.

This injunction has been flagrantly violated by User:203.97.255.42, as you can see by most of his/her contributions. I and other editors have repeatedly warned him of his violation, and also his lack of any Edit Summaries. We have asked him to desist and discuss his editing, as you can see from their Talk page. They have declined to talk, and continue their date-linking (without summaries) unabated, despite our very explicit warnings that they will be reported if they continue. The most recent example, as at 04:24 on 24 May'09, is this edit that they made 14 minutes ago.

As non-admins, we have taken all reasonable steps to educate this user, but with neither effect nor any discussion back from the user. What would admins now consider appropriate in such a case? Thanks in advance for your advice &/or intervention. Trafford09 (talk) 03:43, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

this edit is not delinking or relinking as the date was incompletely linked. -- User:Docu 03:49, 24 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)

undocumented bots redux

I started a thread on a poorly documented bot. Someone marked that thread as "resolved" before I had a chance to reply to the comments of those who assert that everything is under control.

Sorry, I don't agree. There are a bunch of new bots, which may have been authorized, and may be doing what the authors said they would do. But they are not doing so in a clear or transparent manner.

As I noted in the other thread, I checked the approval discussion for the last bot that troubled me, there was absolutely no mention of what kind of explanation the bot author would supply for the rest of community.

I regard a clear and meaningful document that explains the bot's activity as an essential component of every bot or robot editing tool. I regard it as essential that those charged with approving bots review that explanation document, and make sure it is clear for even those unfamiliar with whatever problem the bot is meant to address. I regard it as very unfortunate that the approval process so far has skipped this step. Geo Swan (talk) 07:15, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Rollback feature

Resolved

An admin, David Levy, revoked my rollback rights a few hours ago, for no reason other than the fact that I removed a complaint from a vandal from my talk page. He claims that I am refusing to answer any complaints even though there were two other complaints addressed above and below his post. Furthermore rights are not usually taken without a warning, whether admin, rollback, or simply the ability to edit. However, I recieved no warning. Am I to lose rollback rights (which I have used responsibly, with a minimum of mistakes) over not answering a complaint?Drew Smith What I've done 08:48, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

I can't find the specific instances that David Levy has a problem with, but it certainly seems that you should be a bit more careful when using Huggle. ╟─TreasuryTag►hemicycle─╢ 08:51, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. I was unaware that huggle used rollback. The button said revert. Anyway, he appears to be online, and we are talking it out, so I'm marking this resolved.Drew Smith What I've done 08:53, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

By the way, about the above edit. I saw that it reverted to another version of vandalism, so I used the edit feature to simply remove it. I moved on, and noticed something curious later. Two users appeared to be using that article as a chat room. I then asked for a full protection of the article, and I believe the users may have been blocked as well.Drew Smith What I've done 08:55, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm sure it was an accident, yeah. But Huggle is actually very difficult to use without making such mistakes. You get really pressured to go quickly, and it's an extremely confusing interface. That's why I gave it up. But it does use rollback, and you need to exercise as much care, therefore, as you would do if just rolling back manually. ╟─TreasuryTag►hemicycle─╢ 08:57, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

For the record, I must note that Drew's initial summary was highly inaccurate. (I assume that this stemmed from an honest misunderstading on his/her part.) I revoked the rollback permission because of his/her repeated use of rollback in content disputes and statements that he/she would neither alter his/her behavior nor address legitimate complaints stemming from mistaken rollbacks. At the time, I indicated that I would reinstate the rollback permission if Drew agreed to use it responsibly.

Fortunately, I'm pleased to report that Drew appears to have recognized the problem and has promised to take greater care in the future and properly address any issues that arise. So I've reinstated the rollback permission. —David Levy 09:42, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Many thanks david, and for the record, I only posted here because it seemed you were offline, and I was just getting back on, hoping to go vandal hunting, ony to find my "vandal gun" replaced with a pea shooter.Drew Smith What I've done 11:26, 24 May 2009 (UTC)