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)

Right. Because people regularly follow the rules of taxonomy rather than use the actual meaning of words and terms. Anti-semitic means "anti-Jewish" and non-Jews of semitic origin can and do use it. It certainly is technically correct for them to do so. Just like it's technically correct to call a certain fruit a "pineapple" despite it not growing on a pine or being an apple. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 16:27, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Ugh, wrong train of thought again. Here's a simple example: picture a spoon saying "I hate cutlery". Or a poodle saying "I hate dogs". Those that espouse racism are often the ones with the worst version of these similar bizarre arguments. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 18:41, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

What bizarre arguments? Arguing a term doesn't mean what a dictionary says it means because you insist on breaking it down? See: pineapple. "Anti-Semitic" does not mean "hatered of Semites". It means "hatered of Jews". That's what a dictionary will tell you. Your bizarre arguments about spoons and dogs notwithstanding. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 21:09, 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)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Report from ThuranX

Resolved

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

[11] (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)

Yeh, a lot of houses have those. That's the aquatic equivalent of an Ole and Lena "love seat" which is actually two adjacent recliners. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 15:02, 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)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Yeh, it looks like he's working his way through the list of users alphabetically - at least those that have e-mail enabled, which I don't. He's using old ID's to log in and create new ones. [12] So, in effect, he is conducting a social experiment. I'm assuming the admins are working behind the scenes to choke this character off before he gets too much farther along. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 09:13, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

Solution

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

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

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

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

A "Joker" sending "I'm gonna hack you" mails

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

User:Джокер - Wierd email

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

Just received this:

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

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

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

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

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

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 [13], thus I reiterated my question [14]. 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 [15] and here [16] and I also answered the question the first time he asked it. [17]. 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. [18]. 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 [19], but this is very close.Biophys (talk) 14:52, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Krohn has just issued another "friendly warning" on Digwuren's talk page, implying that this commission will take particular interest in Digwuren and ominously talks of Digwuren in the past tense [20]. --Martintg (talk) 00:45, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
  • That isn't a "friendly warning" in quotation marks–what Petri says is clearly a commendation for the article he himself had wanted to start and the tense is the grammatical feature of language known as the "future perfect"–but thank you for noting it. I should also note that Petri Krohn opposes the commission, if you're still fond of equivocally speaking of the subject. PasswordUsername (talk) 01:12, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
    • Simply not true. SAFKA endorses the law and hails it as "a victory for Safka". The connection between SAFKA members and one of the committee members Alexander Dyukov is well known. There are many editors involved in editing articles about the former Soviet Union, yet Digwuren has apparently been singled out for special attention by this committee, or so Krohn claims. The question remains who singled Digwuren out and how does Krohn know that Digwuren's activities figure so prominently in the formation of this committee? --Martintg (talk) 01:46, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
      • Sorry, you obviously haven't bothered to read what Petri Krohn has written here at ANI/Incidents, at the main administrators' noticeboard, or on other pages. Whatever organization he may or may not happen to be part of, the opinions he holds as an individual are his own personal thoughts–and he has clearly written online that he, too, "find[s] the law threatening." (See here.) I think you should stop throwing in people's real-life identities in these disputes–regardless of one's ideology, opinions, occupation, or activities in real life, the benchmark for judging the conduct of online contributors is simply their online conduct. PasswordUsername (talk) 01:56, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
        • Your initial claim was "Petri Krohn opposes the commission", this is a long way from "find[s] the law threatening". Evidently he was hoping Digwuren would find this law threatening too, enough to intimidate him from further contribution to Wikipedia. However this law has absolutely no jurisdiction anywhere outside Russia, except perhaps to those Russian citizens living abroad who may contribute to Wikipedia. Yet this "friendly warning" was not offered to any of these Russian editors, only to Digwuren. --Martintg (talk) 02:14, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
          • The commission is "the law" being referred to here–I think you're attacking the imprecise semantics, yet doing injustice to the concrete meaning (the proposition) being brought up here. (Perhaps the best way of gleaning this is to consult the informal fallacy trivial objections.) The application of the law is coordinated in conjunction with the work done by the Historical Truth Commission–and Petri's already clarified that his concern related to the law's not being limited in scope to Russia's territory. PasswordUsername (talk) 02:31, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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 [21], 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 [22]. 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: [23]. 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: [24]. As to the nominator, I left her a warning as to her incivlity here, which she removed as "harassment": [25]. The editor was also left a message from user:Mosedschurte which she also deleted here: [26]. 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.[27]. When I pointed out that your edit didn't meet the requirements of our sourcing policy[28] you responded with "The lead section has thirteen cites, which were from the prior incaranation with changes in verbage, but not substance or citation."[29] 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.[30] 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)[31] These tags were previously added by Mosedschurte[32][33] 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.[34]
• 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: [35].
• 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. [36]
• 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: [37]. 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:[[38]]; and here's the ensuing change of my good faith efforts to resolve the problem: ][39]]. I am in shock.--Yachtsman1 (talk) 11:38, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Blatant personal attacks by Viriditas

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Propose to close the discussion

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

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

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

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

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 ( [40], [41], [42], [43], [44]), 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)

Nope, the sources say it's his grandfather. Then, it is not trivial (and you have never edited the page, you just reverted it, removing all that information), and can be both in the lead and in the body, since Arash has been talking a lot about his Azeri roots, and it explains why he was invited, and accepted, to co-represent Azerbaijan. --Goldorack (talk) 17:17, 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)

First of, all should be happy that users know Wikipedia rules, and not complain about knowing them. Secondly, please checkuser everyone involved, as well as with any blocked/banner users - better, if done transparently and by a group of administrators. The violations of the trio of users above are well documented and presented, those editors should be warned, and the page semi-protected or protected on the correct version, not the one which is a result of the violation of Wikipedia policies and rules. thanks. --Goldorack (talk) 17:17, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

I have received an email from the office of one of the subjects whose biography this user has been edit warring on. I'll forward a copy of it to the Wikimedia Foundation.

Given the user's advanced familiarity with Wikipedia, and given the controversial topic area (Armenian-Azeri articles), I have blocked Goldorack (talk · contribs) indefinitely as an SPA and likely sockpuppet used for POV-pushing, edit warring and adding original research, mainly on biographies of living persons. Even if he is not a banned user, his behavior still violates WP:GHBH, considering that virtually all of Goldorack's edits consist of disruption. Khoikhoi 20:47, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

• Endorse the block Alex Bakharev (talk) 00:38, 25 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 [45], [46], [47] 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)

Now it is User:80.12.213.34 doing the blankings. I suggest an increased block on both accounts for blatant block evasion.

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

— Dædαlus ^Contribs 19:02, 24 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 - [48], [49], [50].

You accuse others of misunderstanding policy ([51], [52], [53], [54]) 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).

When others suggest you write out your proposal [55], you refuse.

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)

Extended discussion

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) 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) 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'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) 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. 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. 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) 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) What? the mediation broke down when Kevin resigned. Wikifan12345 (talk) 05:55, 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) I have invited other users who were involved in the mediation to share their comment as well.--68.248.155.2 (talk) 13:52, 24 May 2009 (UTC) I think it would be handy if more people with an interest could join the discussion, although it should be noted that with four or five people on one side and one person arguing in opposition adding new people is just a numbers game. The rest of the thread above, rehashing arguments in the dispute, should probably be collapsed if we hope to actually draw people to the talkpage. Nathan T 16:24, 24 May 2009 (UTC) The problem is that the discussion is going in a loop with the same argument being repeated ad infitum. I'm not sure how that should be dealt with. I agree a fair amount of the material above could be collapsed.--68.248.155.2 (talk) 16:52, 24 May 2009 (UTC) I do not intend to engage in discussion on this page, except for this note. I do not believe Wikifan has a legitimate complaint. If anything, the other editors have a legitimate complaint about Wikifan's confrontational behavior. He has wasted a lot of people's time. Simply look at the discussion page Talk:Mohamed ElBaradei and judge for yourself. NPguy (talk) 19:34, 24 May 2009 (UTC) Well, I responded to all the claims against me here. Feel free to directly respond when time is available. I do agree, please review the talk discussion page at ME. Wikifan12345 (talk) 19:58, 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 [56]. 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. [57]

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)

In other words, they're screwed. MuZemike 17:39, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Don't be a smartass. //roux   02:04, 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)

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

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

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)

This is the wrong venue. You should post this at Wikipedia talk:Bot policy, Wikipedia talk:Bot Approvals Group, or Wikipedia:Bot owners' noticeboard. Also, you should include specific examples of your concerns as its hard to work from such generalities. -- JLaTondre (talk) 13:16, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

And getting the bots reviewed without any thought given to clear and transparent documentation stopped before they have finished doing all their very had to revert damage? Geo Swan (talk) 14:18, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you are asking as that sentence is hard to parse. This is not an issue that requires administrator intervention. Bots are not going to get blocked simply because their documentation is not up to snuff. The bot pages are the best place for this concern. If there is a specific bot (or bots) you have concern with, you should consider asking the bot operator to improve their description.

The bottom line is that everyone is going to agree that bots should have a "clear and meaningful" description of the work being done. The problem is that not everyone is going to agree whether a given description is "clear and meaningful". That is why specifics of your concerns are going to be more useful over generalities. -- JLaTondre (talk) 16:09, 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)

Holocaust denier from Canada

Resolved

 – IP blocked 48h for disruptive editing. Icestorm815 • Talk 19:49, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

142.46.214.106 (talk · contribs) is pulling no punches when it comes to claim that the Holocaust is one big hoax, lie, fraud etc. Could this - sorry - freak be prevented from editing any further, on the simple ground that he is being offensive, disruptive etc. etc.? Or am i being too sensitive here? (i admit i could be)? Thank you, --RCS (talk) 14:32, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Oddly enough, I've heard the same thing about Canada. :) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 16:12, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

There user has also been disruptive in the 9/11 venue, where I sometimes edit. This is a hard core soapboxer who persistently violates WP:NOT.[58][59][60] I recommend blocking the IP for 3 months. Hopefully that will be long enough to convince them to take their activities to some other website that is more in line with their objectives. Jehochman ^Talk 14:42, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

The user is writing about this in talk space, not article space. He's brief and writes in complete sentences. He may be annoying, but he's not damaging Wikipedia. --John Nagle (talk) 16:27, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

It's clear he has absolutely no interest in improving articles, so why allow blatant talk page trolls to waste volunteer time? He's been warned, endorse block per Jehochman if it continues, would've done it myself if he had not left one of his diatribes on an article I've written. WilliamH (talk) 17:12, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Agreed that the editor in question is moderately annoying. So are many other editors. That's not grounds for blocking. As long as he stays in talk space, he's not, strictly speaking, violating WP:NOT. So just ignore him. Either he'll go away, or do something that actually requires administrator intervention. Wikipedia:Vandals versus Trolls seems to be relevant here. --John Nagle (talk) 17:42, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Actually, he is violating WP:NOT, specifically, WP:NOTFORUM. RBI already.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 18:55, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Is now insulting other editors. WilliamH (talk) 19:01, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

IP socks

Hello! I've recently blocked

• 86.45.217.99
• 86.45.214.46
• 86.40.108.54
• 86.40.192.168

via AIV and vandalism on my talk page. They are claiming to be part of the The Wikipedian Reform Trust, whatever that is. I think a range block would probably be helpful, but have no idea how to do one. Could someone have a look please? Ta. GedUK  17:19, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, for range blocks I use this tool here. From the IPs listed, it doesn't look like a range block would be feasible because there would be too much collateral damage. Icestorm815 • Talk 17:45, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

The mention of user:Schuminweb here and here rang a bell. This is, I think, banned editor User:Johnjoecavanagh, who has been harassing user:Schuminweb for a considerable time, over a year; see. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 17:57, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

See also Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive527#Long-term_harrassment.3F. A range block is not really an option in my opinion. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 18:31, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Certainly does seem to be the same person. RBI then. GedUK  19:26, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

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

Resolved

 – 72 hour block

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

User:BatteryIncluded on Talk:Life

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

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

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

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

Brent Harding

Could an administrator please ban 75.59.177.1 as soon as possible?

He (or she) continues to vandalize the Brent Harding by removing the paragraph about him appearing on the next Social Distortion album and resuses to stop doing that. He thinks that paragraph is not notable enough to be on the page and thinks that my sources are not proof. IT IS a fact that he will appear on the new album and the band members themselves also confirmed that he will be in it as well, which means that it is notable being in the article and that there's no sense in not being in the article. Next time 75.59.177.1 or someone else keeps removing the paragraph about him being on the next Social D album, a page protection will be filed. This edit war should stop, because I'm already getting tired of reverting back.

So, please block 75.59.177.1 or just protect the page, so that the argument could stop for good. Alex (talk) 21:47, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Ultimate Guitar does not seem like a reliable source. I see a link to submit articles, does that mean anyone can write an article and then submit it? If so, it cannot be used as a source. -- Darth Mike ^(talk) 22:30, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Reports on UG are the only sources I know that say that Brent will be on the next Social D record. Alex (talk) 22:46, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Doesn't it strike you as odd that there is only one source for this? Perhaps you should omit that section until better sources come along. It appears you and the IP have been edit warring over this information, which is a blockable offense. I would suggest WP:3O and form a consensus on whether or not to include the information. -- Darth Mike ^(talk) 23:06, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

The IP user is the one who continues this edit war, he won't stop removing what appears to be accurate and does belong in its article. Alex (talk) 23:44, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

It takes two people to edit war. If the source is in question, find a better one--Jac16888^Talk 23:49, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

User:BGC

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

Sensitive information reported and undone. Please help delete edit history

Resolved

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

...actually this wasn't a bad joke or vandalism, it seems as though the user "leaked" to Wikipedia. Jay Bennett passed away this weekend, and this user who appears to be connected to Wilco through acquaintance posted the news of his death before it was announced by his record label. It's now being carried in the Chicago Sun-Times[61]. So this wasn't a BLP or vandalism issue. Keegan^talk 03:51, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

User:LOTRrules evading blocks

As the two IP socks below:

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

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

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

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

User:SchmuckyTheCat

• SchmuckyTheCat (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - Re-instate the same red link "[[China, Hong Kong]]" for three times within six hours. [62] Baksando 00:22, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

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

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

• The fourth time in slightly more than 6 hours. [63] Baksando 00:37, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

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

• Similarly vandalised pages: [64] [65] Baksando 00:42, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Anyone who wants to break out the popcorn can do a little history [66], running to admins to bitch about me is part of the sockpuppet pattern. SchmuckyTheCat (talk) 01:11, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

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

This is obvious vandalism, given that he is an experienced editor [67] who edited extensively in Hong Kong- and China-related topics. For the other two entries (Talk:Mainland China and Wikipedia:Requests for comment/hist/manual), the act of vandalism is even more apparent. Baksando 01:15, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

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

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

Rude series of edits

Resolved.

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

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

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

Sock needs a block

Resolved

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

User:Nunamiut

This editor is being quite disruptive of late. He apparently has repeatedly recreated The Money Masters after it was deleted in an AfD, under both that name and some others. They have repeatedly been CSDed, per policy, but he continues recreating. Tonight, he also began broadcasting messages all over the place, including editing the closed AfD, (Ctrl-click)">[68] adding a talk page to it, repeatedly trying to post a nearly unintelligible message at the Films notability page (Ctrl-click)">[69], and repeating a version on my talk page (Ctrl-click)">[70], and recreating a talk page for one of his earlier creations (Ctrl-click)">[71]. Looking at his other edits, I'm not seeing that he is doing much value here. Most are just his posting forum-like messages to other article pages. There is currently an RPP/Creation for the article itself, but though an admin might want to look further into this as his continued attempts are getting annoying.-- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 05:12, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

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

User:United Statesman

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

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

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

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

Boron!

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

Talk:Boron

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

See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gamma boron discovery controversy. Mathsci (talk) 09:19, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

More out of process category renames

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

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

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

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

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

User talk:Eseverance

Resolved

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

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

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

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