Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Iggy pop goes the weasel (talk | contribs) at 06:40, 27 May 2009 (→‎Brianna Tatiana). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

    Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
    Shortcuts

    This page is for urgent incidents or chronic, intractable behavioral problems.

    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


    Report from ThuranX re: Joker "threat" emails

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

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

    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)[reply]

    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)[reply]

    It's trolling, ongoing. WP:BEANS and so on. Gwen Gale (talk) 02:43, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    Mostly to deny jollies to the troll.--Tznkai (talk) 02:48, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    Can you even abuse filter emails? rootology/equality 03:33, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Good question; I was more talking about the MO in general. –xeno talk 03:44, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    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)[reply]

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

    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) [reply]

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

    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)[reply]

    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)[reply]

    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    ...although "The Fascist Chicken" is a cool username LOL (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 14:27, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    My name is cooler. HalfShadow 16:58, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    "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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]

    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) [reply]

    And I, one from User:Malathion. Λυδαcιτγ 04:51, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    File another SPI, if possible, to root out the proxies. -Jeremy (v^_^v Cardmaker) 05:01, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I just got one from User:Poppypetty, aka The Joker. bibliomaniac15 06:29, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Mine came from User:Anthony S. Tsoumbris, the old username of User:E Pluribus Anthony. +Angr 07:44, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    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)[reply]

    <----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) [reply]

    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) [reply]

    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]

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

    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. [2] 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)[reply]

    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)[reply]

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

    Solution re: re-registering vacated accounts

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

    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]

    << 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)[reply]


    Multiple similar merged reports

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

    [[::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)[reply]

    He's now blocked. I'm quaking in my janitor's uniform. weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 10:30, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh, and #Apparent threat by permabanned user The Fascist Chicken has been linked to by AnonDiss below. weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 10:34, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    User:Джокер - Wierd email

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

    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)[reply]

    See #Apparent threat by permabanned user The Fascist Chicken. —Anonymous DissidentTalk 10:32, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I just recieved this email from "The Joker"

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

    Merged. –xenotalk 12:59, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks Dina (talk) 13:02, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I wonder when "midnight" is exactly. weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 13:01, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Just making it known, the last 30 or so blocks by AntiAbuseBot (talk · contribs) (the ones from 22nd May onwards), are all of this same clown--Jac16888Talk 14:07, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Just noting that I got the same e-mail from this same user yesterday. Davewild (talk) 06:46, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

    Er, what if someone is blocked and wants to contact the blocking admin in case of mistake? weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 11:13, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, they have the {{unblock}} template, and if — for whatever reason — they cannot edit their own talkpage, then they were probably abusive and don't have a good claim to be unblocked within a fortnight!
    Anyway, I'm sure it's possible to, say, allow blocked users to email below the age of two weeks, if that's likely to be a big issue for anyone. ╟─TreasuryTag►hemicycle─╢ 11:18, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I think this would create a big problem for newbies who are looking for help with our very confusing system. I've helped a lot of people through email. Besides, what's the big problem? I got one from El Guasón and my reaction was "ha ha, that's stupid." delldot ∇. 13:48, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    No big problem, which must be disappointing to the wannabe troll. It appears his scheme was to confuse someone into blocking the holders of established (but renamed) accounts. Not only is no one falling for it, it's a bit lulzy to watch him flail. Hamlet, Prince of Trollmarkbugs and goblins 16:44, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    List so far

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

    --Jac16888Talk 14:18, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

      • Also add The Joker, (note the oh-so-clever use of punctuation). --Ckatzchatspy 18:17, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • And Funnyjoker (talk · contribs) emailed me. Dougweller (talk) 21:18, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Ditto that. Just came back from wikibreak to see that... *sigh* –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 22:04, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Јокег (talk · contribs) (note the characters) just popped up in my inbox. Block away. ThemFromSpace 23:49, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Killed; Bongwarrior neglected to emailblock. About the only person he's joking is himself; the charade is up. I'm pretty certain this is another User:JarlaxleArtemis wildfire - note the infatution with a recent movie in the use of his usernames and behavior similar to the character they're attempting to emulate. In short, this Joker crap is simply Grawp wearing a fursuit. -Jeremy (v^_^v Cardmaker) 01:18, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Got one too. "You wanna know how I got these scars? ..." Seems like a kid who's obsessed with The Dark Knight. --wj32 t/c 06:46, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Me too. I guess I am well-enough known to get my first clown email. Wish there was a way to visit these folk for some good ol' fashioned biblical-style beat-downs. Oh well, adventures in middle-school. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 18:13, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    This may be the same editor discussed below at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Advice please also named El-Pabloski. Alanraywiki (talk) 01:37, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I just saw that as well, but I don't think(Gut instinct btw) that it is. This trolls MO is stealing old usernames, and this is what El-Pabloski wanted his name change to but hasn't been done yet. I think its more likely our little clown just saw it at UAA, might be a good idea to check the other requested names see if they've been registered too--Jac16888Talk 01:42, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    yup, see Rigaudon (talk · contribs), William S. Saturn (talk · contribs) and The Wine Dude (talk · contribs), all at UAA and blocked, BeeZeeEdit (talk · contribs), registered at at similar time to the others and not blocked yet, and probably not Miamallory (talk · contribs) as it was registered a few days ago and edited then (an attack page which co-incidentally I deleted)--Jac16888Talk 01:49, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • William S. Saturn (talk · contribs). He finally got through the H's. Blocked. — Huntster (t • @ • c) 01:27, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • You'd think that he should realize that it's rather pointless now that it's past midnight of the first day. It's obvious that nothing's going to happen. We may want to WP:DENY a bit more and just not even mention new socks unless the user who received the e-mail isn't able to block them. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 02:01, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Just got another one(by which i mean 25), think I must have pissed him off :-). Still not quite sure i get this though, as trolling goes its pretty tame, "ooh scary, an email with a movie based threat", which nobody visiting wikipedia can see meaning it therefore has no negative impact on the project. If this is grawp I almost feel bad for him, he really is running out of ideas, poor little fella--Jac16888Talk 02:13, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • Indeed. This seems to be the epitome of "too much time on your hands". Oh well, I have that problem too, most of the time. Drilnoth, you may be correct; I listed here because I wasn't certain if Checkuser ops (or anything else) were still in progress. — Huntster (t • @ • c) 02:19, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I just got one from 조커 (talk · contribs), who is already indef-blocked. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 05:43, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Where to forward this?

    talk to me 14:03, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
     – ignoring works for me, since others have reported this.--Fabrictramp

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

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

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

    Someone might want to merge this with the threads above. This is a known timewaster. Revert, Block, Ignore. -- zzuuzz (talk) 13:55, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Posting it here is fine; it's already well known though, as you arent' the first. It's an idle threat, nothing like the events described are going to happen, and those who would need to react if it were are already aware of what action they would need to take. So... don't worry, be happy. - Nunh-huh 13:57, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Ignoring and being happy works for me. (I looked through the last half of ANI to see if had been reported -- didn't look at the top. Off for that caffeine now.)--Fabrictramp | talk to me 14:03, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    One thing though, who was it? Are they already blocked?--Jac16888Talk 22:56, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    It was HaHaHaHaHaHaHa. Looks like they're blocked.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:34, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    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)[reply]

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

    (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)[reply]

    See further comment below. ╟─TreasuryTag►hemicycle─╢ 09:59, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    This may provide some needed background to this apparently intractable problem. //roux   09:53, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    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)[reply]

    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)[reply]

    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)[reply]
    "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)[reply]
    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)[reply]

    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)[reply]

    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)[reply]

    No request? How about my diff posted above? //roux   18:48, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • "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 [4], but this is very close.Biophys (talk) 14:52, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]

    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)[reply]

    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)[reply]

    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)[reply]

    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)[reply]

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

    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)[reply]

    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)[reply]

    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)[reply]

    • 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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    • 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 [5]. --Martintg (talk) 00:45, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • 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)[reply]
        • 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)[reply]
          • 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)[reply]
            • 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)[reply]
              • 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)[reply]
    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)[reply]

    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)[reply]

    This hardly should come before the ArbCom because this user was already banned by ArbCom, and a consensus about his behavior was reached at AE noticeboard [6]. Telling another user "If he continues his edits, he should make sure his true identity remains secret" and reminding about an "Agency" was clearly an attempt of intimidation, as noted by DGG at another board [7]. Biophys (talk) 17:33, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    What I get from the ArbCom case NewYorkBrad refers to are principles in that case concerning harassment and threats, which states: "The making of express or implied threats against another editor is a form of harassment and is prohibited. In particular, any suggestion of seeking to disrupt or harm an editor's off-Wikipedia life (including his or her employment) in retaliation for his or her editing on Wikipedia is unacceptable.", which links to Wikipedia:Harassment#Threats, stating "Legal threats are a special case of threat, with their own settled policy. Users who make legal threats will typically be blocked from editing indefinitely.". --Martintg (talk) 05:57, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support permaban From the evidence presented it is clear that this user has exhausted the community's patience. He has been banned before and still has not changed his ways. It is high time to eliminate his disruption from the editorial process. I also support removal of Arbcom review. Geoff Plourde (talk) 15:48, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    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)[reply]

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

    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)[reply]

    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 [8], and he is very capable of doing just that.Biophys (talk) 02:49, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    No problems with diffs. This user provided a valid point by point criticism of the article [9]. 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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
    • 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: [10]. 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: [11]. As to the nominator, I left her a warning as to her incivlity here, which she removed as "harassment": [12]. The editor was also left a message from user:Mosedschurte which she also deleted here: [13]. 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)[reply]
    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.[14]. When I pointed out that your edit didn't meet the requirements of our sourcing policy[15] you responded with "The lead section has thirteen cites, which were from the prior incaranation with changes in verbage, but not substance or citation."[16] 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.[17] 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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    Thank you for striking your comments. Please do so as you say, and prepare for disappointment.--Yachtsman1 (talk) 09:57, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    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)[18] These tags were previously added by Mosedschurte[19][20] 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.[21]
    • 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)[reply]

    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: [22].
    • 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. [23]
    • The basis of my comments should be obvious, and this matter closed. Thank you.--Yachtsman1 (talk) 08:01, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • 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)[reply]
    Making more than three edits in a 24 hour period certainly is: [24]. 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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    • 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:[[25]]; and here's the ensuing change of my good faith efforts to resolve the problem: ][26]]. I am in shock.--Yachtsman1 (talk) 11:38, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    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)[reply]

    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]

    << (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)[reply]

    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]

    << 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)[reply]

    I absolutely invite anyone to check for sockpuppetry. Thank you.--Yachtsman1 (talk) 09:48, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    No worries. I've struck out my comment above. Viriditas (talk) 09:39, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks. I'm sure it's for the best. ╟─TreasuryTag►hemicycle─╢ 09:42, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    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)[reply]

    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)[reply]
    The story is a content dispute. The only solution for you is to learn to communicate calmly and in appropriate venues with those who don't share your brilliant shining POV rather than to brand them sockpuppets, edit-warriors and POV-pushers and desperately try to win your war by getting them banned. Otherwise, this way or another, it is most probably you who is going to find himself in trouble, rather than Mosedschurte or anybody else. Colchicum (talk) 11:10, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    No matter how calm and civil you are about, civil POV pushing is still the underlying problem here. You've tried very hard to turn this incident report into a content dispute, which it never was. And now we see the same editors involved in this discussion, edit warring by proxy for Mossedchurte. So, this incident report is still a question of editorial conduct and does not concern a content dispute. Unilateral edit warring, content removals without consensus, and obstruction on the talk page is continuing and ongoing.[27][28] Mossedchurte is incapable of collaborating or working with other editors on this article, and I suggest that this incident report be kept open until further administrative action is taken. Viriditas (talk) 17:35, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Just saw the crazy baseless allegations in this ANI by Viriditas

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

    • This incident report is about your edit warring and civil POV pushing, not about your ignorance of navbox conventions used in the majority of human rights in x articles. You were recently blocked for edit warring and now that you have returned to the article, you have begun to edit war and remove content without consensus on the talk page, the same material you were edit warring with before.[29] This incident report should not be closed as Mosedschurte did not learn anything from his last block. Furthermore, there are at least three open discussions on the talk page (Racial, Katrina, Outline) where Mosedschurte has either ignored repeated queries about his edits or pretends the questions were never asked. The user has also removed content that is significant to the topic (the person who created the first human rights organization in the U.S. was deleted by Mosedschurte) and the user is also adding content to the article that does not use human rights related sources. There is a clear record of disruptive, civil POV pushing behavior here, and it needs to be stopped by administrative action. Viriditas (talk) 17:51, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Re: "This incident report is about your edit warring and civil POV pushing, not about your ignorance of navbox conventions used in the majority of human rights in x articles."
    --As noted by others above, you have shown ZERO POV pushing.
    --In fact, as others have pointed out, every sentence I've added -- which have been limited to 3 of the 35+ sections of this article -- has been well-sourced and NPOV-worded.
    --You have been WP:Uncivil nearly countless times on the Talk page, and I just noticed these outlandish accusations on ANI.Mosedschurte (talk) 18:05, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I've shown zero POV pushing? Here's your chance to prove me wrong: Show me one human rights-related source you've added to the article since you began editing here. Just one. Can you do that? No, of course you can't, because all of your edits have used sources that have nothing to do with the topic. Viriditas (talk) 00:46, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Re: "he moved the article against consensus (and human rights-related article naming conventions) to Human rights inside the United States in order to push a unique POV of exclusion." (Viriditas)

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

    What I said is true, and is currently being discussed at Talk:Human_rights_in_the_United_States#Objection_to_unilateral_editing. You are not engaging in the talk page other than to make disruptive comments, and your edits to the article have been disputed by many editors. You do not seem to understand that repeatedly edit warring your POV into the article is not the way forward. You did not learn anything from your last block and I request immediate administrative action to prevent you from engaging in the same disruptive behavior and to allow us to return to a collegial and collaborative editing environment. Viriditas (talk) 18:03, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, Viriditas is disruptive. He demanded me to comment at the article talk page, and I did just that. However, he repeatedly moved my comment to another place [30] and ignored my objections. How can one discuss an article content, if his comments are repeatedly moved or otherwise modified?Biophys (talk) 18:10, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • You opened a duplicate thread of an already existing and ongoing discussion, and your comments were moved there and replied to in the appropriate place. You then began to reboot the same discussion several times, ignoring the replies that were already made. This was pointed out to you with links to the discussion both on my talk page and on your talk page, yet you continued to pretend that it did not exist. This is classic, civil POV pushing behavior, and I propose that you receive sanctions as well as Mosedschurte, for disrupting the talk page. Frankly, neither of you have done anything to improve the article, and both of your behavior violates the core working principles of Wikipedia. If you can't follow appropriate talk page guidelines, NPOV, and good conduct guiding harmonious editing, you shouldn't be editing here. Viriditas (talk) 18:17, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Viriditas is incredibly disruptive, with comments that amount to little more than personal attacks, consistent reverts of even the most minor edits, threats on the talk page, and referral to policies that counter the editor's own arguments. Any change made is met with an accusation of "POV pushing", and any comment on the talk page is ignored. Hardly a recipe for "harmonious editing". The editor's own history of bans for edit warring hardly argues in her favor either: [[31]].--Yachtsman1 (talk) 18:27, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Here is a recent example of Yachtsman1 pushing a POV about Ray Nagin in the Human rights in the United States article. As it turns out, the source did not say what he said it did, and I removed it per BLP. This content had nothing to do with human rights, and the source itself said nothing about human rights. To conclude, Yachtsman1 attempted to push a POV about a living person, Ray Nagin, that did not appear in the source and did not have anything to do with this article. Viriditas (talk) 18:49, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Actually, the source 'did say what I said it did, and the source was the Washington Post, which documented how the City of New Orleans failed to follow its own evacuation plan by not evacuating city residents without cars. The source documented the failures by city, state and federal agencies and officials, including Ray Nagin, a "public figure" as an elected politician, to evacuate residents, and in their delay in responding to the disastor (BLP? Ridiculous). The present "spin" or POV advocated by Virititas is that they were not removed and provided timely assistance because of the race, which is absurd, given the volumes of sources on the subject that describe eladership failure as the leading cause of the response-;ag, coupled with the fact that the vast majority of those without automobiles were afircan-american. The UN Human Rights Council agreed, but this source was also removed with an explanation that it was a "primary" source, and of "cherry-picking" by including their conclusions, which examined the correlation between suffering and economic disadvantage. The matter of "race" being the source or motivating factor for a slow response to such a disastor was not part of the equation, except to the extent that most of the poorest residents of the city were African American. In other words, the motivation was to bring the section to a standard of "neutrality" by presenting two points of view. The POV of Viriditas was reaffirmed, however, when she removed the sources. As stated previously, Viriditas is a disruptive poster, and this is a prime example.--Yachtsman1 (talk) 19:34, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • Actually, the source doesn't say that at all, and you spun it to say that to push your POV about Nagin. There are also many other authors on the topic, such as Stephen Graham at Durham University, who see things differently than you and blame the Bush administration, not Nagin, for the failure to evacuate residents. But this has nothing to with the human rights article, and unless the source is about human rights, it should not be used. Capiche? Viriditas (talk) 19:40, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
            • Then include them. Welcome to a neutral point of view. I'm sorry if you favor one side of the argument over another, but that ha salways been the problem. Your own point of view takes precedent over others, and your manner in dealing with countering points of view are voluminous discussions on the talk page, threats, referral to proceedings like we have here, and harassing messages on the user talkj page. Any change is met with an instant revert, which translates to edit warring. As for your points, your wrong. See p. 4 of the cite. The busses set aside for evacuation were left in their parking lots, and the evacuation plan for the city was not followed.--Yachtsman1 (talk) 20:06, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
              • Please pay very close to attention: The source you cited does not say what you are claiming. You interpreted and twisted it in order to push a POV into the article. And, there is nothing about human rights in the source you used, so you are synthesizing the material. When a source is challenged like this, you need to prove a second one if you continue to make the same claim. If this isn't making sense to you, please have someone else explain it. And this holds true for all of the edits Mosedschurte has made to the article as well. All I see from you is incessant wikilawyering and filibustering on every level. Nothing gets done as long as you and the rest of the POV pushers are allowed to edit here. And, that is, precisely the goal, isn't it? To prevent editors from improving this article in any way. And you appear to be succeeding. So, what we need is for administrators to monitor the talk and article page, (especially the latest series of reverts by Mosedschurte, which were not only unjustified, but were completely ignored in his edit summary) and to block editors on sight when they pull this crap. Viriditas (talk) 00:43, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    RfC

    • Now user:viriditas is edit warring on an Rfc. [[32]]. This is amazing. --Yachtsman1 (talk) 20:15, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • RFC's are designed to solicit the opinions of uninvolved editors outside the dispute. This RFC was not designed to solicit your comments. If you want to condense your position into the RFC and present it in a neutral manner as the RFC recommends, then by all means do so. It is not surprising that the purpose of the RFC is being defeated by the same editors causing all of the problems in the article. The RFC is designed to invite outside editors to comment on the dispute. You are not an outside editor. Please follow the RFC framework and condense your position into the RFC. Viriditas (talk) 20:40, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • And by your own admission on the Rfc, I did just that. Your revert was outrageous, given your own admission. Further, the "framer" and "originator" of the Rfc asked for comments from "involved editors" which I provided, and you then reverted. This is simply unacceptable behavior.--Yachtsman1 (talk) 20:52, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • The comments are supposed to be merged into the neutral RFC. I think it is beyond obvious that you and Mosedschurte will not allow a neutral RFC to solicit outside opinions from uninvolved editors, opinions that could change the direction of the article. So, you never entertained the idea of an RFC in good faith. I think it is also obvious that any changes or attempts to improve this article will be prevented by the two of you, because your only purpose is to push a particular POV. Viriditas (talk) 21:01, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
            • Familiarize yourself with WP:AGF, WP:CIV, WP:OWN. Colchicum (talk) 21:04, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
              • As you have been repeatedly informed above, I have not contributed much to the article, so there is nothing to "own". I started off as a mediator, and when I saw the full scope of the revolving door of civil POV pushers who would seemingly congregate in flash mobs on the talk and article page, I began to get curious. Looking deeper, the editors currently editing the article do not seem capable of using sources correctly or adhering to NPOV. As for "good faith", was does not continue to assume it when it becomes obvious that good faith has been all but exhausted. You may not be familiar with that part, but I'm here to remind you. Viriditas (talk) 21:11, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • The comments were provided on the Rfc at the invitation of the originator, and they were made in good faith, though your assumption otherwise is duly noted. What appears obvious is that you are edit warring on an Rfc, reverting comments. Your own history of being banned indicates this is not the first time you have engaged in this course of conduct either. Please cease doing it.Yachtsman1 (talk) 21:10, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
            • No such thing has ever occurred, although I congratulate you on changing the subject again. The RFC is not about soliciting the opinions of involved editors. The civil POV pushing has to stop, one way or the other. Viriditas (talk) 21:12, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
              • No, it's about comments from all editors, even those who might disagree with your positions, which have been met to date by you with personal attacks. That's the subject of this thread, by the way. Your continued course of conduct has been and remains outrageous.--Yachtsman1 (talk) 21:34, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
                • All outside editors. Get it? What do you think the purpose of an RFC is for? You see, this is precisely what I am talking about. Wikilawyering every aspect of a process, from citing sources, to NPOV, to even a damn RFC. This has got to stop. Viriditas (talk) 00:36, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
                  • If the policy was all "outside editors" it would say "outside editors". As it does not say "outside editors" it does not mean "outside editors". It means what it says - all editors. See WP:RFC. It is a language of inclusion, not exclusion, and the "purpose" is stated as the the venue for the "comments" of "all editors" to reach some sort of consensus. It widens those editors to "outside editors" but does not restrict comments to those editors alone. Get it? You are creating a condition that does not exist, and your position is entirely unsupportable. You want this to stop? Then stop misquoting Wikipedia policy in defense of your positions when they counter your own arguments. You are free to comment on your position on the RFC and I urge you to do so. Thank you.--Yachtsman1 (talk) 01:33, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
                    • "Requests for comment (RfC) is an informal, lightweight process for requesting outside input..." Like I said, you are wikilawyering again. It's all you can do. Viriditas (talk) 01:48, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
                        • The part you missed - "All editors (including anonymous or IP users) are welcome to provide comment or opinion, and to assist in reaching agreements, by responding to requests for comment". As I also stated, you are free to comment on your position on the RFC and I urge you to do so. Thank you.--Yachtsman1 (talk) 01:54, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
                          • I don't recognize the RFC as legitimate as it doesn't include my position or the position of the other editors on the talk page. RFC's are intended to solicit outside opinions to solve disputes that cannot be resolved on the talk page from involved editors. The majority of the comments on the current RFC are connected to Mosedschurte, and seem to have been organized as another POV pushing flash mob. This type of strategy is classic civil POV pushing, and exploits Wikipedia's greatest weakness, namely, the lack of a DR system which allows for competing POV to comment in proportion and representation to the topic. To the best of my knowledge, almost nobody has responded from the Human rights WikiProject or from other related projects. Instead we see the same editors showing up, exploiting the RFC in every way they can. This is par for the course and to be expected. The purpose of the RFC has been defeated, the article has lost the opportunity for improvement. We have a group of editors only interested in promoting their POV, ignoring every and all human rights-related sources, and arguing not from the sources, but from their entrenched political positions. Wikipedia has once again, lost the battle. Congratulations, you should be proud of yourself. Mission accomplished. Viriditas (talk) 02:40, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Request

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

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

    Additional mischaracterizations by Viriditas

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

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

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

    Again, classic civil POV pushing. Your so-called "extensive discussion" rebooted previous discussions that you have still not replied to on the talk page. For example, questions about your unilateral edits to the racial section were asked three days ago here. To date, you have ignored these questions and you continue to plow ahead with your edits. Questions about your unilateral edits to the Katrina section were asked here and you continue to ignore them. That is just a sample of how you pretend to discuss a topic and then ignore the discussion, often returning to it again and again and claiming a false consensus, when in fact, you never discussed it in the first place. I also asked you in three separate instances to explain your ideas for an outline, since you seem to know what shouldn't appear in the article but won't explain what should. You ignored my first two requests, and when I made my third request for what an outline for this article would look like, you wrote, "This repetition of this point for probably the 10th time is needless. Numerous editors have already responded that the article should cover what the title states - Human rights issues "IN THE UNITED STATES"." Nevermind the fact that the question was never answered, and this "answer" does not address the question. But, it does contradict your position on Katrina, which you fail to recognize. So here we have a solid example of you moving the goalposts when an issue doesn't agree with your POV. This is a good example of the kind of disruptive editing from Mosedschurte on the talk page, and represents only one of many reasons why this incident report should remain open. Civil POV pushing is a huge problem on this article, and Mosedschurte has not responded to repeated questions about his edits nor has he edited the article in compliance with NPOV or with sources related to human rights, and he continues to edit war his changes into the article without engaging in actual discussion. Viriditas (talk) 19:01, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    This could not be more ridiculous. I, and a number of other editors, had already addressed the issues why an extended section no "Hurricane Katrina" should not be included in an artiel titled "Human rights in the United States", such as here, but all over the Talk page actually. This is yet another tactic -- to re-raise the exact same issues, and when others don't respond even one time to an issue that has already been addressed claiming that they will not "respond to my questions," followed with threats such as "Failure to answer them but continuing to make the same points will get you in trouble."
    Re: "So here we have a solid example of you moving the goalposts when an issue doesn't agree with your POV."
    This is so false and based in nothing -- again, part of an attacking pattern -- that it can't even effectively be addressed. There aren't even any relevant underlying facts with which to discuss, let alone back up such a statement.Mosedschurte (talk) 19:39, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm sorry, but you have not addressed any of the issues that you claim to have addressed. You just keep saying, "I have addressed the issues", but you haven't. This is classic POV pushing, and is a strategy used to push contested edits into the article. Again, here are two discussions Talk:Human_rights_in_the_United_States#Neutrality_in_the_racial_section and Talk:Human_rights_in_the_United_States#Katrina where you have not answered questions about your edits. Please stop claiming that you have when those two links show that you have not. For what it is worth, I just took a brief look at your contribution history, and this seems to be one of your more popular tactics to pull on the talk pages. In other words, this isn't the first time you've done this, and I can see that many editors have complained about you doing just this, and I have the diffs to prove it. This incident report needs to stay open until your behavior is examined in the full light of the sun and seen for what it really is. Viriditas (talk) 19:48, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

    • Add in the fact that user:Viriditas has personally attacked another editor, then personally attacked me for trying to get her to strike through the personal attack, or provide permission for me to do so. [[33]]. Yachtsman1 (talk) 02:27, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Continuing edit warring by Mosedschurte

    • 17:34, 25 May 2009
      • Continuing removal of disputed Abu Ghraib prison abuse scandal without discussion on talk. This is the same edit that got him blocked.
      • Removal of File:Liberty-statue-from-below.jpg without discussion or explanation
      • Removal of {{Politics of the United States}}. It is a general convention for the Politics of X navbox to appear in Human rights in Y articles.
      • Insertion of content regarding the Bill of rights from sources that have nothing to do with human rights or the relationship of the bill of rights to human rights. This is basically true for most of his edits to the article. In other words, he continues to add content from sources that does not discuss the topic. Viriditas (talk) 02:34, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    1--Re: "Continuing removal of disputed Abu Ghraib prison abuse scandal without discussion on talk."
    This is simply false (shocker, huh). Talk sections by me on the topic: here and here as just a few examples. Mosedschurte (talk) 02:42, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    And users have responded to say 'they do not agree with you. What part of this are you having trouble with? Viriditas (talk) 02:48, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    2--Re: "Removal of "Politics of the United States". It is a general convention for the Politics of X navbox to appear in Human rights in Y articles."
    How laughable that would would falsely dub this edit an WP:Edit War. And not out of character for the antics shown thus far in this ANI section. I noticed that the "Politics of the United States" navbox in the article did not even contain a link to this article and simply removed it, giving the comment: "Article not in the "politics and the United States nav box". If this is WP:Edit Warring, then every edit on Wikipedia would be such.Mosedschurte (talk) 02:49, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    3--Re: "Removal of File:Liberty-statue-from-below.jpg without discussion or explanation"
    Nice catch. I had accidentally deleted that. I just returned it: here. Not a single mention of this image removal was made by you until mentioning it on this ANI board. Not that I'm surprised. It took literally 20 seconds to fix.Mosedschurte (talk) 02:50, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    You blanket reverted my edits in full for no reason. It's hard to believe it was an accident. You intended to delete my changes, and that's what you did. You didn't care why or how. This illustrates the underlying problem. Now, when are you going to start using sources that discuss human rights? For your information, that's what the article is about. Viriditas (talk) 02:48, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for agreeing not to revert talk page comments for no reason on your talk page Viriditas after receiving a warning from admin. I would suggest we move on, and this matter be closed, and I would suggest you concede to this request given your own actions. Please also review WP:CIV so we can avoid another referral to this avenue in the near future. Your comments have not been civil by any stretch, but I can let that pass if you can agree to treat others with some modicum of respect in the future. --Yachtsman1 (talk) 04:55, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I suggest that this matter continue to stay open, as the wikilawyering and civil POV pushing on the talk page has not ended, and Yachtsman1 has now been taken to task by several different editors on the talk page as a result of his disruptive behavior. In other words, the problem is ongoing and requires administrative attention. Viriditas (talk) 05:29, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Move for Closure (Yachtsman1)

    The matter of the article is being discussed on an Rfc at this point. I would move that this matter be closed and archived, and the status quo maintained for now while this proceeds on the article talk page and in the Rfc. Thank you. Yachtsman1 (talk) 04:58, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I would request that the incident report remains open. Concerns have been raised on Talk:Human rights in the United States by other editors about Yachtsman1's disruptive behavior, and he is continue to wikilawyer over the meaning of the NPOV policy, ad nauseum. Serious writing and collaboration is being prevented by the barrage of wikilawyering and misinterpretation of policies and guidelines to promote his POV that no human rights-related sources about significant issues can be used in an article about human rights. It doesn't make sense to me, and I'm sure it doesn't make sense to most rational people. Viriditas (talk) 05:27, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    These personal attacks are getting rather old at this point. This editor has just been warned to stop edit warring after making changes to a talk page, eliminating editors comments without consent. [[34]] The "wikilawyering" the editor speaks of concerns the inclusion of materials presently being discussed on the Rfc referred to above on the article in question. The discussion is here under basic misundertanding: [[35]]. The POV advocated is neutrality, and that "the cites/sources you have provided are biased, they are not based upon fact, they are editorialized findings, they seek designation when none exists" per a designation of Hurricane katrina surviors as "Internally Displaced Persons" (IDP's), not the invention provided above. Rather than dealing with me in a rational manner, I have been consistently insulted, degraded with comments such as "I know you've only been here since September 2008, so your "rookie" arguments are understandable (biting the newcomer), or "Combine this with your inability to cite sources correctly (Re:The Washington Post and Ray Nagin) and your misunderstanding of basic guidelines and policies (No offense, some of them are esoteric), and a pattern emerges" (translation - I'm stupid) or "So, to set the record straight, you posted a red herring. Is such a thing intellectually dishonest" (ascribed motive, not in good faith). I leave this to an administrator to deal with, but Viriditas's conduct has been and continues to be outrageous.--Yachtsman1 (talk) 05:55, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    No personal attacks here. Your wikilawyering on the talk page is available for anyone to see. And it's getting even more exciting now. Your recent proposal to use consensus to override NPOV was a wonderful example. And per the above, you still haven't figured out how to use RS. If the source isn't about human rights, we can't use it. Viriditas (talk) 07:45, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    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:

    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:

    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)[reply]

    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    • Frankly, I think this is overly harsh. Eusebeus (talk) 17:58, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree. I'm not seeing anything qualitatively different between the edits by the person blocked and the people complaining about him. It seems odd to block one side, especially for 72 hours, with no action taken against the other side. DreamGuy (talk) 21:00, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • "people"?? Please elaborate and provide diffs. What did the "other side" do, and who are these people? Otto's history, recent actions and current attitude are clear, so the reason for a block is clear. Please clarify your own proposal. -- Noroton (talk) 01:48, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Alansohn has been blocked twice recently (probably due to disputes in cfd with Otto) whereas Otto4711 has not. I did protest about the blocking of A (to no avail) and shall now protest about the blocking of O. Both editors have strong views and express themselves trenchantly at times. (Otto has delivered fruit-related barbs in my direction, eg in this cfd discussion a banana wagon is introduced into cfd, possibly for the first time; so I am not 'on his side'.) Occuli (talk) 02:03, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Endorse block due to extensive history of incivility. Otto has indeed done some comendable work on GAs, but there has been much more incivility in his edit history than even his block log would suggest. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 00:32, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    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)[reply]

    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)[reply]


    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)[reply]

    You are within your rights to ignore comments made in talkspace, but unless they are made in bad faith (and we are encouraged to assume the opposite) they should not be removed. If there is some question of whether there is a bad faith intent behind the edits, then request the view of a neutral third party to make a determination and to try and deal with the issue. Talkspace and article space are different creatures (no pun intended, but I will accept the kudos) and while accuracy and sourcing is required for editing the subject, the only consideration in talkspace is the intent - if it is honest and well meaning then it stays; no matter how ludicrous the content. I trust this clarifies the "Wikipedia method" of creating content. LessHeard vanU (talk) 11:46, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I dropped in at the talk page (and some damaging edits made to the article) and BI, who I don't know from Adam, is perfectly right. For some reason people who spend 40 years learning everything they can about, say, the Peloponnesian War -- and indeed, advancing the body of human knowledge -- get all pissy when their contributions are edited away by Randy in Boise who heard somewhere that sword-wielding skeletons were involved. And they get downright irate when asked politely to engage in discourse with Randy until the sword-skeleton theory can be incorporated into the article without passing judgment. Peter Damian (talk) 11:38, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Indeed; but it is easy enough for any expert in the field to say, "These are my sources, please cite yours," LessHeard vanU (talk) 18:05, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    And it only takes Randy about three seconds to say "I see all of your sources are from tradionalist historians who believe that only things that are documented to have happened happened. I just so know Crackpot McJunkyscience, who, as you may know, is the foremost authority on turning Lead into Gold, wrote a paper on this recently, in the very reputable journal Frontiers of History in Kyrgistan. His paper was cited favorably by Loonytons Dementia the third in his well regarded book "Things I Thought About Whilst Crapping," published by very reputable publisher Eastern European Scientific. He says that Skeletons absolutly fought in the Peloponnesian War, and, since he's the most recent article published on the actual combatents in the war, it is very important that we have a section on his opinion of skeleton combattants. Hipocrite (talk) 18:14, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    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)[reply]

    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)[reply]
    The account has been blocked by another admin and the user can no longer send emails. The remarks in the email stem from the movie the Dark Knight, so maybe that makes it less creepy, and certainly unoriginal. If the joker decides to quote The Sisterhood of the Traveling Pants, then I'd be very concerned. Law type! snype? 11:02, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yeah, I got that too and deleted it as a random stupid joke. Probably worth mentioning to people that they should recreate their old account after a rename. Stifle (talk) 08:23, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    These were trivial edits, changing only "since" to "from", standardising all 42 Wikipedia maintenance categories involving dated categories. Making changes is not sensible. Why are you undoing another admins actions for no good reason? Debresser (talk) 11:37, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Arthur Rubin wrote Rich to his talk page here. But didn't await his reply or actions. And see my reply there that Arthur Rubin was non-specific and did not take the most logical course of action. Debresser (talk) 12:06, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    See also above and this diff, where Arthur Rubin admits he might have reverted some sensible changes. Debresser (talk) 12:24, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

    People should know better than to change a template/category pattern without discussing it in the relevant WikiProject or on TfD or CfD. As I pointed on in a smaller rename (about 38 decade names), we need to make sure that all the links are done correctly. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 14:42, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Since either "since" needed to be changed to "from" or "from" to "since", both causing a significant disruption, you should have discussed which it was to be before making the changes. I don't think I have the tools you constructed to reduce the auxilliary errors caused by the process. I suppose, at this point, the good of Wikipedia suggests I allow to continue as you wish, as I don't know how else to mitigate the damage you caused.
    For the most part, From is just wrong. I suppose I had better revert my corrections, as I can't figure out else to repair the damage. May I suggest that you rename all the generated categories to "since YYYY-MM", as that makes automated processing easier? — Arthur Rubin (talk) 14:48, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    See Wikipedia_talk:Categories_for_discussion#More_out_of_process_category_renames for linguistic arguments to choose "from" rather than "since". But that can be discussed and taken care of later. When we had 32 categories at "from" and only 9 at "since" (and 1 at "as of") the obvious choice was to go to "from". Debresser (talk) 15:21, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • The above demonstrate at least 30 changes in 1 day "since" to "from" — your count must be inaccurate. Perhaps you meant 32 at "since" and only 9 at "from".
      --William Allen Simpson (talk) 19:38, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, changing all categories to another format will be a lot easier after Rich finishes. His edits are well though through and take care of all loose ends. See Category:Articles with invalid date parameter in template which started geting crowded right after Arthur Rubin's actions and is now again depopulated. Debresser (talk) 15:33, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Points to Rich Farmbrough for being bold on this one, but since it's obvious that these changes have encountered opposition, he should stop his unilateral changes and submit them to CFD, which is the process established for exactly this purpose. I have no opinion on whether any of his changes are actually a good idea, but wholesale changes of this sort generally set somebody's nose out of joint. Best to send it through the process created for the purpose.--Aervanath (talk) 16:45, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Not convinced of the need of process as the 32 vs 9 argument goes well with WP:IAR in particular as the discussion is under discussion and a final resting place can easier be dug with those changes already in place. Agathoclea (talk) 17:27, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • The above demonstrate at least 30 changes in 1 day — "since" to "from" — your count must be inaccurate. WP:IAR is inapplicable, as Farmbrough's edits were not improving or maintaining anything. Indeed, as Arthur Rubin learned, Farmbrough actually made it difficult to revert, an essential maintenance function.
      --William Allen Simpson (talk) 19:38, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    1. I said 32 categories, not templates.
    2. As I said before, it will be easy to make changes after you let Rich finish. Debresser (talk) 19:52, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Who are "the folks at WT:CFD#CfD categories renamed"? Is that some Wikipedia subgroup with special rights somewhere? Trying to own part of Wikipedia? Or is that you and me and Rich and anybody else who wants to contribute to Wikipedia in good faith? Debresser (talk) 19:55, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Of course it means "everybody who wants to contribute to Wikipedia in good faith"...which means consulting other editors and being willing to seek consensus for your actions once objections have become known.--Aervanath (talk) 07:19, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    You and me know that, but do all editors involved in this discussion know that? I have a reasonable doubt as to that. Debresser (talk) 09:50, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    So if we agree on this, why don't we agree that Rich should stop and let his changes be discussed more thoroughly with all interested parties before he continues with the wholesale changes?--Aervanath (talk) 16:55, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    See e.g. Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2009_May_26#Category:Pages_for_deletion where William Allen Simpson uses language such as "Obviously, we decided by consensus" (without any reference to that discussion, btw). Debresser (talk) 13:59, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, in that discussion he does reference a discussion from 2006 in the nomination.--Aervanath (talk) 16:55, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you. My fault completely. You might be interested in Wikipedia:Wikiquette_alerts#User:William_Allen_Simpson. Debresser (talk) 19:12, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    User Edditer

    Resolved
     – user already blocked

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

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

    Report to WP:AIV, please. Thank you, MuZemike 14:51, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    User was already blocked indef by Jclemens (talk · contribs) after the last vandalism spree, well before this post was made. ~ mazca t|c 15:20, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, I did report it to WP:AIV but didn't see a notice of user being blocked, then I was advised by another editor that this may be the place to report the incident. magnius (talk) 21:43, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    No harm done. Special:Log/block may help for future reference. Stifle (talk) 08:24, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    KoshVorlon and rollback

    This has nothing to do with his sig. Earlier today I removed a link from Dead Sea Scrolls which has too many external links - I made my reasons clear in the edit summary. KoshVorlon (talk · contribs) reverted it using rollback (I'm told). I discovered he'd done the same thing to Acalamari [36] [37]. Looking at his history page, it looks like he's also done it to QuackGuru and just now [38] he's removed referenced text. As I could be considered involved (see my talk page where someone has commented on his removal of the link on Dead Sea Scrolls I'd appreciate it if another Admin could deal with this. He's using Lupin's tools it seems, if that's relevant. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 21:31, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    The edit to Dead Sea Scrolls which Dougweller made was this, and Kosh's rollback was here. Seems to me that would constitute a violation of the rollback guidelines (WP:RBK). I recall other cases previously where rollback-like edits of good-faith contributions were permissible (e.g., using WP:TW) provided a descriptive edit summary was used. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 22:02, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not really looking for drama here. However, Yes, I do use Lupin's tools, and have been doing so for quite some time.

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

    Consensus is that one should use rollback only for vandalism reversion. Were you not aware of that?--chaser (talk) 22:30, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Of course. The edits I described above are obvious vandalism. Giving some the nickname "The Lame" is vandalism, as is adding in non-rs sites. That's why I use the tools. Take a look at my contributions and you'll see that I have a history with those tools, and I've not encountered any issues (except for a few mistakes, like putting a test1 message on the wrong person's page, as would be normal) My use of this tools has always been in good faith.Naluboutes, Nalubotes Aeria gloris, Aeria gloris 22:35, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not sure what "the Lame" is about (diff?), but the latter example and the other diffs in this thread are not vandalism. See WP:NOTVAND generally. Vandalism is actually more narrowly defined around here than you might think.--chaser (talk) 22:50, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Why are we accusing Kosh of abusing rollback? According to this, he doesn't even have rollback! He must have been faking it, that's always possible. → Dylan620 (Toolbox Alpha, Beta) 22:38, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Wait a moment, can I get this straight please. KoshVorlon, you are saying you made this revert because the other editor was referring to Tamerlane, and you think that because that name incorporates the historic nickname "The Lame" it was vandalism? Can you please quickly say something that convinces me you are not on a trolling spree here? Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:51, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    ...and adding a non-reliable source is not necessarily vandalism if one follows WP:AGF to start. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 22:57, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm gonna suggest you WP:AGF on this one, FPaS. If I weren't familiar with the etymology of "Tamerlane" courtesy of Badass of the Week, I'd probably have made the same mistake as KV upon seeing him referred to as "Timur the Lame." It sure as hell sounds like something a vandal would add, since "lame" seems to be a favorite... rdfox 76 (talk) 23:49, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Even if Kosh isn't using the real Rollback, the reason using rollback for reverting good-faith edits is frowned upon is not because of the tool, but because of the lack of any reasonable edit summary. Using a rollback-style edit summary while reverting edits is tantamount to saying "rvv" in an edit summary. While I have no opinion of QG's edits, characterizing DougWeller's edits as vandalism without any obvious evidence of those edits being deliberately bad is just plain wrong. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 23:57, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with Mendaliv here. Undoing/reverting/rolling back edits with a generic edit summary (those edit summaries are the exact same native rollback uses) is basically saying to editors that you feel their edit was so worthless it didn't deserve a descriptive reason for your undoing it. This is not collegial. Use undo with an edit summary (or twinkle's rollback that allows you to enter an edit summary) except in cases of clear vandalism. –xenotalk 00:17, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    FPAS .. your'e correct. Timur the Lame appears to be vandalism, and so it was reverted. This was a good faith revert. Just for clarities sake, I don't have Rollback. I am and have been using Lupins tools which allow for a quick revert, in which I can see an edit summary window for 2 seconds (literally). Not enough time is available to enter in any type of edit summary (and I'm pretty quick typist, 80-85 WPM)! Check my contrbs and you'll note I've used this tool in past, in good faith. Especially take a look at the Dwight Lauderdale page and you'll see plenty of examples of me reverting in bad faith. You'll know it by the summaries (pretty incivil!).


    Naluboutes, Nalubotes Aeria gloris, Aeria gloris 01:08, 26 May 2009 (UTC) [reply]

    That's a bit more understandable, but even so Kosh, the use of automated tools, no matter how well or poorly designed, does not excuse their users from the behavioral expectations the community has of editors not using automated tools. All that's being asked here is that you not make rollback-type edits to revert things that don't meet Wikipedia's definition of vandalism. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 02:07, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    ..."appears to be vandalism"? KoshVorlon, are you actually still of the opinion it was vandalism? Have you taken the time to understand that the byname "the Lame" is a well-established historical name of this ruler? And, in addition, did you even read the diff carefully enough to understand that the edit you reverted wasn't even the one that introduced the phrase? "The Lame" had been part of that passage long before KansasBear's edit (and your revert didn't remove it either). What were you thinking? Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:09, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    << KV does seem to have a bit of a problem with assuming good faith; he notes above that, "...is vandalism, as is adding in non-rs sites. That's why I use the tools." In addition to being factually incorrect, it has a rather unappealing defensive tone. He still seems to be defending his reversion of "The Lame" (above), not as a mistake—which would be reasonable—but as perfectly proper.
    I don't think any action's warranted, but, KV, I urge you to be much more careful. If the automated tools you're using don't give you time to check that you're not making mistakes like the various ones above, then find some other ones or do it by hand. Twinkle is good, if you're looking, because it uses the normal diff system before giving one the oppurtunity to revert. ╟─TreasuryTag►hemicycle─╢ 07:34, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    No doubt, this excuse doesn't hold water. Popups has the ability to click "undo" (it's right next to revert), at which time you can enter a descriptive edit summary as to why you are reverting the edit. Further abuse may result in the removal of the privilege of semi-automated tools. –xenotalk 17:01, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    FPAS, step away from the horse carcass, please. Anyone with 1/2 a brain would look at an entry that shows a historical figure nicknamed "The Lame" and at least consider that it could be vandalism.
    AGF.
    I'm closing this now. This whole episode is imporper from the word go. The admin filing the report failed to follow WP:DR at all and it definetly not "involved". So....... stick a fork in it and call it done.< br/> KoshVorlon (talk)
    Please don't "close" threads dealing with yourself. As to the dead horse, well, perhaps it is one, but you still seem not to have understood the issue: perhaps anybody with half a brain would consider whether "The Lame" might be vandalism, but a wikipedian with a bit more than half a brain would be expected to actually check whether it is vandalism, before accusing other users of such. If you are now admitting you made a mistake, fine, we can call this finished, but your defiant tone is hardly fitting here. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:15, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Disruptive edits along Armenian-Azeri articles

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

    For example, see the contributions of the following newly-created accounts: [39], [40] (Fiegl's book was on "Armenian terrorism"), and [41]. Some action also seems to be warranted against Proger, who has a long history of disruption. Many of his disruptions won't be understood by admins because of their lack of knowledge on the content but here are some of the most outstanding offenders:

    We next encounter the following disruptive edits. There is a new user, InRe.Po, who might be ErkTGP, who might also be this user with a fake Armenian name , Անդրանիկ (Andranik), who failed to demonstrate any knowledge of Armenian or Russian [42]. It might be notable to read the contents of his conversation with Grandmaster here. While on the surface it appears that there are disagreements between the two, his main space edits on the March Days reflect no such dichotomy. This editor was inactive starting from October 2008, and didn't return until May 18, 2009 and right when one of the most controversial articles POV pushing, the neutrality tag even disappear in the process. His past editing pattern shows is interesting. He was activally involved in the articles History of the Kurdistan Workers Party, the template of Turkey-PKK conflict, Kurdistan Worker's Party, the template US War on Terrorism, in which he added the PKK (see here for the general basis of his edits). User ErkTGP, just like him, was interested primarily in Turkish matters until he jumped out of the blue to reinsert parts of Անդրանիկ additions, see [43]. There appears to be some similarities in Անդրանիկ's and InRe.Po's editing habits, as both appear to have intentions to serve as a strawpuppets.

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

    John once more stepped in during an edit war going on Erich Feigl's article and a ridiculous website on par with tallarmeniantale.com, whose sole purpose is devoted to the denial of the Armenian Genocide and the promotion of the fabricated Azerbaijani Genocide, see the click here here to see the site. And an Azerbaijani genocide is what is now being pushed from another series of new editors, one of them being Joebobby1985 ([44]). Just like InRe.Po, he started with the Kurdistan Workers' party, for his first edit was to the word terrorist. From then on edited the Genocides in history article by ruining the entry about the Genocides perpetrated in the Ottoman Empire and unsuccessfully tried to include mention of an Azerbaijani genocide.

    We now come to User:Abbatai (history) who, after being warned dozens of times to not edit war, has proceeded to do the exact same things. He created the Azeri genocide which was fortunately deleted. It is also worthy to read here this report [45]. What I once believed was merely a temporary nuisance seems to be a recurring problem. It is becoming increasingly difficult to continue editing in this atmosphere. And I am merely skimming over the material here. The passivity by admins here in unacceptable, given that Meowy was unjustly hounded and blocked on every given occasion outnumbered by editors who ignore what is being discussed and who don't even give a damn about improving the articles' quality.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 18:25, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    In my humble opinion, there are too few admins dealing with ArbCom enforcement in general, and in particular too few dealing with enforcing specific disputes, instead of just fielding reports at WP:AE. However, I don't agree with your assessment regarding Meowy, who was blocked more than once for 3RR, then placed on 1RR under an ArbCom editing restriction, and then repeatedly went over 1RR. PhilKnight (talk) 00:13, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm generally ready to act on complaints that ethno-nationalist POV-pushing disrupts Wikipedia, but this report by MarshallBagramyan is too long and superficial for me to feel to be able to usefully do anything here: it is aimed at what look like about a dozen accounts and appears not to distinguish content disagreements from what may be genuine conduct problems. My advice is to file individual WP:AE reports against individual users that display clear conduct problems.  Sandstein  05:36, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Please see the topic "Turkish genocide, again" below. Aramgar (talk) 03:40, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    In regards to the question on Talk:Erich Feigl, I have been working on an answer, and will finish that off shortly. John Vandenberg (chat) 07:21, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    User:194x144x90x118

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

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

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

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

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

    As far as I know, Julius Cesar talked in the 3rd person when he was referring to himself. Is this or such resemblance intended? Just wondering.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 01:48, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I was confused for a moment as well. 194x144x90x118 is printing the administrative reply he is hoping someone will give him. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 01:50, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    That is possible as it makes sense. Let's see if s/he'll comment on this.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 01:57, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Per The Magnificent Clean-keepers polite request, I stated "I'd like to start out by repeating a reply that I wish that someone else would have written on my talkpage but nobody did:" So in other words I am both displaying my disappointment that nobody took a look at the other side of the coin and writing a pseudo reply as if someone had. I was unaware that Julius Cesar talked in the 3rd person when referring to himself. Expect further replies from my behalf regarding more serious aspects of the issue that we were discussing.--194x144x90x118 (talk) 17:00, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The specific conversation that this user is referencing is here. Notice that I undid the block in question on April 30, which was nearly a full month ago. There does not seem to be any further action I can take regarding it, and it is not directly related to my concern regarding this user's current edits. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 01:44, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm a little worried by this editor's apparent interest in FisherQueen's work here; in particular, I see no reason why this edit occurred, beyond her input to that situation, and on the face of it, this is getting perilously close to WP:HOUND. On the other hand, if a reasonable justification is forthcoming... Rodhullandemu 01:52, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok man you want it you've got it I aint hounding anyone the edit you are referring to was actually a well motivated edit, after seeing all that discussion that he had been participating in I just thought I'd give the fellow a little pat on the shoulder, we all need one every now and then, my hope was that it would calm the fellow down and motivate him to use his time for something more productive.--194x144x90x118 (talk) 02:08, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    You told him that you were familiar with his accomplishments on the screen. Which particular role of his did you notice and remember him by name from? Was it 'bar patron,' or 'party guy?' -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 02:13, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    My dear, this is Not the place for casual chat or personal attacks. Do try to maintain the very high standard that you demand from other users.--194x144x90x118 (talk) 02:18, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Do try not to patronise other editors; it scores very low on the kudos scale. Rodhullandemu 02:21, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    (ec)Well, perhaps, but I didn't think "Don't be wasting too much of your valuable time and energy on these people, life is too short." was particularly helpful in the circumstances; it shows to me a lack of understanding of the policies and issues that led to the blocking, and a lack of good faith in the editors who had given quite enough advice to that editor before their patience was exhausted. Rodhullandemu 02:21, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think that you quite understood what I wanted to say, I didn't necessarily write my honest opinion there, the reason I wrote that was that I was concerned for the well being of the individual and my hope was that those remarks would ease its mind and make it feel less "alone in the world", I wrote those comments on the users talkpage not the proposed deletion thread so they were primarily intended for his eyes. The carrot and the stick, both are necessary you know what I mean?--194x144x90x118 (talk) 02:42, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    WP is not a forum and social network. Even so it is not against any rule, "...a little pat on the shoulder,..." is basically a nice thing to do, the way you phrased it wasn't helpful to the editor (nor to your résumé) as you should first familiarize yourself with rules and guidelines so you can give him/her some helpful advise how s/he can do better in the future. You chose not to do so. In fact, you gave this editor no real advise but instead clearly (very) bad advise. You have to make yourself familiar with policies, rules and guidelines before attempting to "help" others or you'll just draw them in the same or similar trouble you're in; Or you might just drive them away this way which would be even worse.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 02:42, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    My advice to the editor was to not waste too much of his time on these matters. The guy obviously wasn't on the right path and if he wants that article to someday acctually excist here on wikipedia then he'll have to get himself a little bit away from his computer and do something to justify its creation. My advice was good.--194x144x90x118 (talk) 02:58, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Well then, assuming good faith regarding your comment at this editors talk page, it wasn't good advise. Details are already pointed out at my comment above. Maybe "watch-and-learn" (as I did and still do) might help?
    BTW, regarding the small print above: Would you mind to enlighten us and clarify? --The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 03:11, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Another "BTW": Quote: "My advice was good". No it wasn't. Not in my opinion. Although you think so it is a common and human error that happened to you, me and everybody else. We always think we do or say the right thing and might see and regret our errors later, (or not...).--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 03:18, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Second that. The section in that edit was titled "Your article". That is leading him to believe that he owns the article. Nobody owns articles. MuZemike 05:47, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Strange editor, more disruption than contribution, seems very much to be a sock (why was the initial finding overturned)? Has recently taken interest in and edit warred on Obama-related matters on another editor's talk page.[46][47][48] Inappropriate and misleading talk page "disclaimer"[49] that would be disruptive if acted on, and it apparently is.[50] I tried to delete this as improper use of talk page but TMCK restored. More interest in drama than editing.[51][52] - Wikidemon (talk) 05:08, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    User:DreamGuy and User:174.0.39.30

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

    Uncivil comments directed at User:Colonel Warden

    Uncivil comments concerning User:Varbas:

    Uncivil comments directed at User:MichaelQSchmidt

    Uncivil comments directed at User:DGG

    Uncivil comments directed at User:Nacl11

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

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

    Examples of Uncivil edit comments:

    • 16:17, 25 May 2009 Richard von Krafft-Ebing ? (removed bad edit that interrupted flow of sentence (leaving a fragment) and falsely claims that another edition that clearly had the main name of Psychopathia Sexualis supposedly had a different name)
    • 16:14, 25 May 2009 Vampire ? (remove massive POV pushing with editor choosing cources that fundamentally change definition of vampire to cover unrelated creatures due to sloppy research by unreliable sources, per WP:UNDUE)
    • 01:46, 24 May 2009 Talk:Vince Orlando ? (Undid revision 291810342 by Ron Ritzman (talk) nonadmin trying to do a close but violated policy and can't count votes)
    • 15:19, 23 May 2009 Moll Dyer ? (some of the worst edits on Wikipedia are dedicated AFD Keep voters putting garbage info and unreliable sources/link on pages -- cleaning up)
    • 22:06, 22 May 2009 Steven Van Slyke ? (?Highly Cited Publications: really stupid to have a subsection called this)
    • 21:52, 22 May 2009 Pazuzu ? (Reverted 1 edit by 76.113.39.176; Who? and who cares?. (TW))
    • 16:13, 22 May 2009 Elizabeth Báthory in popular culture ? (this is about pop culture, don't need a WP:FORK of the main article discussing history -- and removing amazingly bad POV-pushing, point linkspam)
    • 15:55, 22 May 2009 Ivanhoe ? (?Plot Summary: plot tag - wayyyyyyy too long)
    • 19:11, 20 May 2009 User talk:DreamGuy ? (Undid revision 291129609 by Colonel Warden (talk) rv wikilawyering nonsense by problem editor) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.0.39.30 (talk)
    • Note: The same thing was posted twice, so I just removed the duplicate. Killiondude (talk) 02:44, 26 May 2009 (UTC) [reply]
    This looks like an issue for the Wikiquette board. - 2/0 (cont.) 03:36, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: I changed the section header and notified DreamGuy. - 2/0 (cont.) 03:40, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    This was the IP's first edit. Again, there is something not right here. MuZemike 05:41, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I agree that this simple cannot be the user's first edit in Wikipedia. Whether it is a indef blocked/banned user should be determined before assuming the worst seems a good route to go. Looking at the evidence provided, it would appear that DG has indeed failed to follow his civility parole as dictated by ArbCom Enforcement. Of course, I'm not neutral in this, as I've been subjected to DG's colorful behavior on a few occasions. I do note that his old chestnut "blind reverting" pops up here and there,which implies, like the rest of the diffs, that he is smarter than the rest of us. The identity of the anon aside, this might bear examination. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 15:36, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    You aren't neutral on this by any means as you have a long and documented history of filing false accusations against me. I see that even when I try to steer way clear of you that you still show up to make such accusations and are now engaged in the same behavior I pointed out years back with other editors. DreamGuy (talk) 16:30, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I actually said that I wasn't neutral, DG. perhaps you missed that in your rush to post. I am not making any false accusations. At all. I never have. I am simply saying that the diffs listed above seem more than a little familiar to someone who has had to interact with you before. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 16:57, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I saw you that you said that, but I was just pointing out the actual reason why you aren't neutral. DreamGuy (talk)
    Sigh. Anyhoo, John will address it as he sees fit. I just pointed out that the tone seemed familiar. Thanks for reinforcing my point, though. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 18:18, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    After reading through some of the above diffs, it looks like there are several multi-party edit wars in progress. From the diffs alone, it's hard to tell what the issues are. It doesn't seem to be a big enough issue for ArbCom. It will probably take an hour or so of work for someone (not me) to sort out the issues before taking action. --John Nagle (talk) 15:59, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    This anon IP account (who obviously is a regular user signed out) seems to want to portray catching bad edits to improve the articles in question as somehow a bad thing. Looks like yet the latest revenge filing by some disgruntled editor who can't get consensus to do what he/she wants to do and therefore lashes out at a target perceived as an enemy. Saying that I find an edit to be, for example, POV pushing is an explanation for my edit, nothing more. Certainly we can explain our reasons and that an edit violates policy. For example, this anon user compains about an edit I made to Elizabeth Báthory in popular culture where I said there was linkfarming and POV pushing via a FORK file, but any neutral admin who looks into it will see that that's exactly true. The main Bathory article has sources showing that, for example, the legends of Bathory bathing in blood of virgins in unsupported, whereas this FORK article was outright saying it was real and calling Bathory vile and other unencyclopedic language and side-taking; and there were many highly improper external links in the body. Why this anon user thinks there is anything wrong with that edit I don't know, but it's probably just that he thinks he can toss off a ton of supposed examples and get people to take ation without looking into anything.

    Similarly, I certainly have disagreements with editors, but I go above and beyond by following 1RR and back off in any case where a For a real consensus is established (instead of just some individual person or small minority edit warring to try get their way)and let consensus stand despite my beliefs. As always, I'm an editor who's not afraid to take on bad edits and clean things up, and of course the people who aren't following policies are going to be upset about it... it just gets tiring to see them running off and complaining and edit warring to try to force their way instead of actually following normal standards of consensus. Frankly, examination of the above edits in context (which reports of this kind never want anyone to do) will show a wide range of problem editor that I am doing my best to remain civil while trying to clean up after, including someone who is in all likelihood a sockpuppet of recently blocked editor User:Esasus/User:Azviz/etc. who was banned after using sockpuppets to harass me and disrupt AFDs (the sockpuppet report caught the user in question using multiple account but could only get a possible reading on the previously banned editor via checkuser, though the edits methods/wikihounding/AFD disruption/serial deprodding for no reason are EXACTLY the same). DreamGuy (talk) 16:30, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I notice that you are defending the edits you make, which are sometimes appropriate, but not the edit summaries and comments on edits which are the matter of complaint here. NPA applies to even the best editor. (I am reluctant to comment, as I admit I am not neutral about the general tendency of some of what you do here at AfD, but that is not the present issue either.) I do not like anonymous accusations, but the material posted makes clear why some people would be reluctant use their regular IDs in commenting on your contributions, and the edit summaries do sort of speak for themselves. DGG (talk) 00:10, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I'll make this short, I am annoyed that DreamGuy continually makes arbitrary changes to the outcomes of AFDs as seen above despite my message warning him that doing so is WP:DISRUPTION and will lead to blocks or worse, so he has been warned. I find it nothing but a slap in the face that he not only removed the warning with an editsummary to match his attitude [86] but also changed that AFD without leaving a note on my TP as I requested so we could discuss what he was thinking and why I would be prepared to topic ban him from AFD. His actions are not acceptable for a community project of any sort.   «l| Ψrometheăn ™|l»  (talk) 03:04, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    (ec) I think its unfortunate that it is getting to this point. I think the editor can be sharp and make some pretty concise edits, but his behavior is turning into a net negative for the project. There are a lot of otherwise easy-going editors who DG has accused of one thing or another, which has undoubtedly soured some on the Project. I realize the at the world is full of rude people who still have a part to play, but we should be able to limit this sort of negative personality trait in here. Being an encyclopedia anyone can edit means that they shouldn't be hit with a shovel for making a mistake or disagreeing. There must be a better way of interacting. I don't know if DG ever asks this of himself.
    Anyway, I support any and all limits on DG; we cannot parent DG; we can keep him from disrupting the editing of others, and we should, - Arcayne (cast a spell) 03:22, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Is the identity of the IP editor really a big deal? He provided proof positive of personal attacks towards multiple other users. Whether this is a banned editor or not, we need to take these diffs at face value, and not question the person bringing them to light.Drew Smith What I've done 03:26, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, it is, because if this is the same person that has been out harassing DG (who is not banned yet, by the way) for the past six months or so, then that needs to be known that an apparent agenda of one person against DG is continuing even after being indef-blocked for sockpuppetry. MuZemike 04:00, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    This thread is about DG, not the IP. If your concerned about who the IP is then that doesn't really belong here, take it to SPI. What we know for certain is that DG's actions need review hence this thread. Making adhomenium arguments that the IP may be a banned user (or something to that effect) does not weaken or address the actual issue of DG's actions, period.   «l| Ψrometheăn ™|l»  (talk) 04:09, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Azviz. I am starting to believe that this is a deliberate attempt to bait DreamGuy into another block. MuZemike 06:19, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    If the SPI comes out negative, then I'll shut up and let the community have carte blanche on what to do. MuZemike 06:21, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok, seriously, this isn't the place for it. Whether he's a sock or not, he has provided plenty of diffs to prove DreamGuys incivility, and we need to look at the evidence, not the person who presented it. Take your sock concerns and click the link you provided.Drew Smith What I've done 06:28, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • User:Dream Guy has made some terrific contributions to the project, and I wanted very much to stay away from this ANI, as I am listed above as someone to whom User:Dream Guy has been uncivil. But even after being notified of this ANI (03:37, 26 May 2009) concerning his behavior, he continues to involve himself in incivility and personal attack.
      1. Claims that I "rallied a bunch of people who vote Keep on every article they see" in order to "tagteam to show a false consensus", and that I "work with a team of sock accounts" to get my way.diff
      2. Demands I do not encourage User:Varbas to lie diff, when I had specifically done no such thing and actually counseled Varbas to remain cool under continued attack.diff
      3. Denigrates Varbas [87]
      4. Denigrates Varbas (boilerplate comment)diff
      5. Denigrates Varbas [88]
      6. Denegrates ME diff
      7. Denigrates Varbas (boilerplate comment) diff
      8. Repeted assumption of bad faith diff
      9. Removed reliable sources diff
      10. Accused me in his summary of "Clear Deception" diff
      11. Stating in a summary that I "know" I'm not supposed to post on his talk page and that I have been "harrassing him" diff
      12. Calls me abusive and states that I "never made a good edit" diff and tells another editor that in a posting on my talk page he told me not to post on his. He did not tell me that (see discussion), but claims it.
      All these after he was made aware of an ongoing ANI dicussion concerning his lack of civility. I acknowledge that User:Dream Guy has made excelent contributions to the project, but this a community built on and surviving through courtesy, civility, and good faith. He must please stop being so acerbic. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 04:52, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I believe this is the third complaint about DreamGuy this month. Something needs to be done.Drew Smith What I've done 05:45, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Turkish genocide, again

    Resolved
     – Indef blocked

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

    Turkish Genocide deleted, edits to Turkish genocide reverted and user warned. Next step is a temp block. --mav (talk) 03:53, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    he did it again, so it's time for that block. ThuranX (talk) 03:58, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Looks like a Wikipedia version of Serdar Argic. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 04:00, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    He's gone.--chaser (talk) 04:05, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Could you please let him know why? There's nothing about a block other than the block text available to him right now. We already got an appeal via info-en redirected to unblock-en-l...
    I don't believe there's any visible ground to unblock, but a uw-blocked3 notice explaining how they can leave an unblock request is the least we should do. Blocking someone without a note on their talk is not good form... I'll leave the notice template, but you owe them the note. Thanks. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 06:43, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Banned User:Pioneercourthouse resurfaces

    Resolved
     – for now, anyway. Admin has protected the pages.

    As noted in Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Pioneercourthouse/Archive, that guy has found three more articles connected with Pioneer Courthouse Square to attack, the main article having been protected for some time now. Why we need 3 articles on essentially one subject, I don't know. But I just wonder if it would be wise to also have the other two articles protected, or more to the point, whether anyone would object to it. The three latest targets of this abuser are Pioneer Courthouse, Pioneer Place, and Pioneer Square, Seattle. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 04:32, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    An admin has now protected Pioneer Courthouse, and meanwhile there is another sock currently attacking the still-unprotected Pioneer Place and Pioneer Square, Seattle. I'm assuming the admin will protect those too, so I'm just kind of getting this on the record for possible future reference. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 04:57, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Other pages now protected also. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 05:26, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I guess that message he sent us through the possible meat puppet that said he did not want to continue the pattern of disruptive editing was a fabrication. Even though that possible meatpuppet was blocked on sight, this report here will just give us more reason in the future to wave off such claims.— Dædαlus Contribs 06:17, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I raised this here because of the page protection question, which was quickly answered in the affirmative. The socks themselves can be turned in to WP:AIV for on-sight indef-blocking, as was that obvious sock from the other day who claimed to be a "friend" of the puppetmaster. It is grossly unfair for one jerk to be holding those pages hostage, but that's show biz. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 06:25, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Just a comment that I hope others will be adding these new targets to their watch lists. The vandal has demonstrated a willingness in the past to create multiple sleeper accounts and to make enough minor edits to get auto-confirmed in order to get around the semi-protection on the Pioneer Courthouse Square article, which has resulted in long-term full protection on that page. I see no reason to suspect he won't use similar strategies on these three new targets. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 14:12, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Yep, I don't expect this will be the end. To that effect, I'll be experimenting with a filter targeting the behavior itself so the articles can be unprotected. —EncMstr (talk) 14:36, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Those pages are now on my watchlist. I won't be online much in the next ten days, but I'll be happy to take out any ducks I happen to see pop out of the pond. OhNoitsJamie Talk 15:43, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Just a thought: It doesn't seem this blocking strategy is working. He is becoming more effective with each passing day. Perhaps if we sat down and talked to him, this could be worked out. Most people are not completely irrational and from what I've seen, there has been a wholesale assumption that this guy is a malicious vandal and has no ulterior motive except vandalism. Maybe this is so, but maybe a little discussion could do wonders - maybe he honestly believes in the homeless issue, for instance. And from what I've seen, he may want to reform, but his demands have just been deleted. Again, just a random thought from someone who has been observing from afar and decided to chime in. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Davisomalley (talk • contribs) 19:49, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    See talk:Pioneer Courthouse Square and the archive pages for it. Discussion has been attempted. Reasoning has been attempted. All have failed. The sock/vandal has a specific agenda they choose to push - and when others oppose that agenda, their standard practice is to either claim that they are being abused; or to claim to be a third party wanting to help negotiate a resolution, while actually manipulating the Wikipedia community, until such time that their true colors are shown and the additional sock is blocked. Both strategies have been used many times by the sock/vandal. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 20:19, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I understand this way of reasoning. However, if you read the archives carefully, it appears the vandal attempted to "reform" himself once but perhaps sincerely felt abused by others when he did so. I think we should offer him one more pathway to reforming and if he rejects it, it should be assumed he is truly a vandal. I disagree that he has attemptefd to manipulate the community "many times." In fact, it doesn't appear he has ever been given a good faith opportunity to reform. Rather than always assume the worst about vandals, perhaps we should, as a community, try and take a softer approach sometimes. Just banning, banning, banning, blocking, blocking, blocking really doesn't seem to be working very well. Again, just a point of view from afar. Take it or leave it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Davisomalley (talk • contribs) 20:25, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Yes, many times. See Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Pioneercourthouse and Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Pioneercourthouse/Archive. Yesterday's edit warring is direct evidence that he has no interest in changing his ways, his one and only interrest is to press his agenda any way he can. His tools are to edit-war, or to pretend to be engaging in reasonable discussion which has always fallen appart due to his non-willingness to accept overwhelming community concensus, or pretend to be a third party pretending to want to find a resolution - while actually only attempting a different means to waste the community's time in an alternate strategy to force his unsourced soapboxing into Wikipedia. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 20:46, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    You may be correct. However yesterday's edit war may also be a sign that he is seeking attention. Perhaps give him attention in a positive way. My point is our current strategy is not working at all. We need to find alternative strategies. What good is this current blocking strategy doing? None at all! I don't believe the soft approach has been adequately explored. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Davisomalley (talk • contribs) 20:56, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    The continuous block of the page is actually working quite well, in the sense that it's keeping your 3 1/2 year old nonsense edit out of the article. The downside is that by your behavior, you continue to hold the article hostage from legitimate editors. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 21:39, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Oops, already indef'd. Never mind. :) Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 21:49, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    If it is a sign that he's seeking attention, then R-B-I is the best approach. No attention is the proven only viable solution for these situations - not to feed his temper-tantrum request for attention. The soft approach has been more than adequately explored, multiple times and with the same repeated soapboxing being forced upon Wikipedia articles each time it has been attempted. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 21:12, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    He's accumulated a lot of R-B-I's already this year. He strikes out a lot, but he keeps trying to get a homeless run. Maybe you think I'm just being funny, but that's on the square. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 00:31, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I've started a page to try to explain this situation so we don't have to repeat it every month: Wikipedia:WikiProject Oregon/Pioneercourthouse sockpuppet saga. tedder (talk) 22:15, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Slow reverts and probable Ownership issues in Bukidnon State University part 2

    Resolved
     – Tomorts has been indef'd, recreated material has been deleted.— Dædαlus Contribs 06:59, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Tomorts (talk · contribs) is insists in adding unsourced materials in the Bukidnon State University. Failing that, he creates a content fork, Bukidnon State University Intramurals to house his material. The article was speedied before as The BSU Intramurals. I have reported the user back in January and recieved no admin assistance. I strongly suggest that the user be blocked due to repeated posting of materials and refusal to communicate.--Lenticel (talk) 06:12, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I have requested speedy deletion under G4, with a link pointing to the previously deleted article.— Dædαlus Contribs 06:22, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The account has now been indef'd. The page will likely soon be deleted and salted as well.— Dædαlus Contribs 06:52, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for your assistance.--Lenticel (talk) 08:01, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Note for future reference that CSD G4 is only for articles recreated that were previously deleted following an AFD discussion. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 13:53, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Userpages User:Nandiyanto and User:Cheaptubes

    Would someone please have a look at userpages User:Nandiyanto (a copy/paste of CV with no relation to wikipedia) and User:Cheaptubes (advertisement page - warned 15 May - no reaction). Materialscientist (talk) 07:09, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Are you certain that the User:Nandiyanto is a draft for mainspace and not just an overly "myspacey" userpage? Since he has some mainspace edits, maybe we should hold off slapping tags all over his userpage. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 14:04, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    My mistake, it seems it was userfied from mainspace but still, this report is a little premature. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 14:07, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Ratel / David Copperfield (illusionist)

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

    Short background and then on with the show - last week, an approach was made to the BLP board about the state of the David Copperfield article. Various people (including myself) became involved and material was removed because it was felt it was WP:UNDUE, not properly sourced etc etc etc - usual stuff.

    I check back on the talkpage a week later (this morning) and see this disturbing comment from Ratal, a user who has pushed quite hard for a unbalanced negative version of the article - My motivations are immaterial, but if you have to know, I delight in adding frank and full details of misbehaviours to pages on so-called "celebs", many of whom are absolute scoundrels or hypocrites, or worse, under the glossy veneer. a statement that worried me greatly.

    Here is the problem I want some admin advice (possible action?) on - I notice that he has started a page in his userspace where he is storing material rejected from the article and also adding links to low quality tabloids reports with comments like "another disturbing report about this character".

    I am concerned that the tone and low quality sourcing take this beyond a page used for the collection of sources for inclusion in an article and it is actually an attackpage trying to do an endrun around our BLP policies. Thoughts? --Cameron Scott (talk) 07:29, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm certainly concerned that any user would claim My motivations are immaterial, but if you have to know, I delight in adding frank and full details of misbehaviours to pages on so-called "celebs", many of whom are absolute scoundrels or hypocrites, or worse, under the glossy veneer. - that's completely unacceptable. Wikipedia is not a platform for attacking living people on which we have biographies. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, our mission, when it comes to BLPs, is to provide relevant, informative, neutral and above all, accurate, very well sourced biographies - there are allegations made against people all the time and it would be acceptable to mention this, but not at length, and only using the most reliable of reliable sources. When it comes to allegations of rape, deviancy etc, these sources, I would suggest, should be news gathering organisations, such as the BBC, that stand to make no financial gain from allegations; that really doesn't cover most newspapers that tend to run exposés, even if they can normally be considered reliable sources. Our biographies should focus, on the main part, on the career(s) that make the person notable, so David Copperfield, the majority of the text should be related to his career as a magician/illusionist, with the requisite section on purely factual, non news worthy details of his place of birth, age, education etc. Scandals and other material unrelated to their career(s) should be relatively small in comparison, they shouldn't readily mention, in the case of sexual assault, the name of the victim(s) and so on, and unless the subject was convicted, we need to be very, very clear if the allegations were dropped, if the subject or his lawyers released a statement claiming his innocence, if charges were dropped and so on. We never leave allegations floating, both sides need to be represented and everything about an alleged offence needs to be completely balanced, completely neutral and completely accurate and up to date. If someone is charged and then the charges dropped, that needs to be noted (and only if it's really relevant, if it's a trivial offence, like DUI, minor assault etc, that's really not relevant in the long term) and if reasons are given, that also needs to be noted. People make up bogus allegations, so if someone has been charged for wasting police time etc, that really needs to be noted too. When reporting on controversial or illegal activity, we must write in such a manner as to try our hardest to prevent people from jumping to conclusions, it needs to be completely unbiased, no emotive language can be used, it really just needs to say Joe Bloggs was arrested on suspicion of theft, but was later cleared on all charges - you need to make perfectly clear the arrest is purely on suspicion etc. You also can't make any inference that there were other motives for making an allegation or used some means to have the charges dropped, unless there is categoric proof that is the case, and again, it really needs to be relevant to the article, if someone paid a few $$$ as compensation for breaking a camera, that's not really going to be relevant to an article. Finally, historical relevance needs to be considered, did Isaac Newton ever punch someone because they got in his way ? We'll never really know, because it's something that really isn't relevant to his legacy in the long term, don't add irrelevant crap to articles that isn't going to be relevant to readers next year, in a decade or in a century. I would be inclined to consider blocking Ratal until they can confirm they're going to contribute to our BLPs in a manner that is compatible with policy, our mission and the mantra Do No Harm. Nick (talk) 08:26, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    • I concur with an indefinite (not infinite block) until the circumstances Nick describes are fulfilled. Stifle (talk) 08:30, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • And speedy the userspace stuff under CSD:G10. The National Enquirer is as unreliable a source as you can get. Stifle (talk) 08:32, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Done. Gwen Gale (talk) 11:56, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I've indef blocked Ratel with a note that the way towards an unblock is agreeing to abide by WP:BLP. Gwen Gale (talk) 11:14, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I have been watching Ratel for a while, ever since I let him off some 3RR vios a few months ago. He is very forthright, but he is an editor who delivers a net benefit to the project. His comments here are a product of his love for bombastic rhetoric and overwhelming sense of intellectual superiority, rather than I think I genuine stubborn determination to subvert BLP guidelines. He's annoyed that so many celeb pages are dominated by adoring fans adding worshipful material. And he is right to be annoyed, this is a problem, even if it isn't one with the serious consequences the opposite has. He should be allowed to remove cringe-inducing worship if he wants to, though I agree we that he needs to give a commitment to BLP spirit and word before resuming editing such articles. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 11:23, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    This is why I left the very broad hint about unblocking. Gwen Gale (talk) 11:28, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    He shows an interesting attitude -- on Bill Moyers he founght to keep out material he did not like. I would also like folks to be cognizant of his use of personal attack as a means of discussion (too many diffs to leave here). Collect (talk) 12:10, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Ratel is a superlative editor and one of Wikipedia's best. He was complaining about the dire state of Zoophilia long before I was even aware the article existed. An indefinite block is far too long, whatever his current crimes. Agree that BLP is a concern. Could there not be a topic ban or something?Peter Damian (talk) 13:18, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    This edit deserves a knighthood. Peter Damian (talk)
    Hopefully he'll swiftly acknowledge that gossip magazines and websites are not reliable sources (sometimes they're "right" and sometimes they're "wrong"), but entertainment. His statement that he "delights" in adding negative content to celeb BLPs shows a lack of neutrality which is highly worrisome. I do agree with him, however, that many celeb BLPs are a mess. Gwen Gale (talk) 13:29, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Ratel has not been a collegial participant at Talk:David Copperfield (illusionist). For a glimpse of his how he works with others, see the banner near the top of his user page, "Attempting to give a damn about your Wiki-whining.." Since Wikipedia is a group project, I don't see how he is going to come back and apply his talents to our work in a positive way. If one person drives away ten, what have we gained? Perhaps Ratel can make a proposal for how the future will be different from the past. EdJohnston (talk) 16:01, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I've unblocked Ratel because he has acknowledged WP:BLP to me and seems to understand that the sources aren't strong enough for what he wanted to add. If he is uncivil, please post to WP:WQA. If he edit wars, post to WP:AN3. If he stirs up more BLP worries think about posting at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:59, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Correct the arabic Language Place

    The arabic language has more than 100,000 articles; but still categorized in the (over 50,000). Please correct that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Goodmanjoon (talk • contribs) 09:21, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Which page are you referring to? Our list is up to date, as far as I'm aware. Are you referring to the categorizations you see when you go to http://www.wikipedia.org ? That site isn't controlled by the English Wikipedia (the site you're on now), but by MetaWiki. You can contact them with regards to that page by posting at meta:Talk:Www.wikipedia.org_template. Someguy1221 (talk) 09:40, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Sockpuppetry by banned user

    Resolved
     – Case is currently being handled at WP:SPI. Icestorm815 • Talk 18:10, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I have copy-pasted the following from my check-user complaint. I have been waiting for a response for over 10 days now, all in vain. Therefore, i request any interested administrator to please look into the matter and take some much need action.

    User:Persistent Organic Pollutants and User:Morningmistblue both behave very much the same as User:Mynameisstanley, disruptive editing on articles related to organized crime articles. A look at the contributions made by them bears some striking similarities to the edits previously made by Mynameisstanley. Both these accounts have made only a few edits and all to the Organized crime related articles which were previously vandalized by Mynameisstanley through his many sockpuppets (the articles being Stephen Grammauta, Mickey Cohen, Gaspare Mutolo, etc). They both seem to have a pre-occupation with deleting references, merging the "References" section with the "Further reading" section, minimizing image size, etc, all hall marks of Mynameisstanley. Above all, both identities were created this month within three days of one another. The first identity was created on 11th May, whereas the second was created on the 14th. Mynameisstanlry is a convicted sockpuppeteer who has been indefinitely blocked in the past for sockpuppetry by User:Malinaccier. See [89]. Even after getting banned, he has deliberately attempted to circumvent the ban many times by creating new accounts. See this and this for a list of confirmed and suspected sockpuppets of him. Joyson Noel (talk) 17:18, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I have just checked the John Gotti, Salvatore Gravano and many Jewish American gangster articles which were previously vandalised by Mynameisstanley. I found a few more accounts which i suspect to be his sockpuupets: User:Angeloja, User:You once you, User:Kong fishing villages, User:Italianjoemike, User:Peachicetea21, User:Sizzleman212, User:Anyothername, User:Thereistheoffer, User:Tylerson, User:Eastern central mountain, User:Pastros rock, User:Thefreezewarning, User:Wannabe gangters and User:Tubeporch1111.

    They have all been created during the past three months. They have made very few edits, mostly to the same articles and another striking co-incidence is that all have exclusively edited to Organized crime articles previously vandalised by Mynameisstanley. Many of the user pages have been deliberately created with no content or a sentence in order to make the red links appear blue. He isn't doing it for all, because that was how they were identified the last time. He is creating a lot of sockpuppets in a deliberate attempt to evade detection. Joyson Noel (talk) 20:09, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I have once again identified another one: User:Wearetheselfpreservationsociety, It vandalized this page and made personal attacks against me calling me "gay" (as if that is some kind of insult). See this. It was created yesterday. Please hurry up before he does more damage. This is taking unusually long. Joyson Noel (talk) 23:03, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Keep on delaying this. Bravo! I have completely lost faith on the ability of administrators to conduct quick and speedy action. I have been waiting 10 days without any response. This guy just created another sockpuppet today User:UR a Dope and started harrassing me by reverting all my productive edits. Fortunately, he was blocked by another administrator User:Gimmetrow. Are you all going to wait until he does more damage? Joyson Noel (talk) 06:24, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments by other users

    I agree there are some similarities. Mynameisstanley has a record of returning under other names, see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Mynameisstanley/Archive. Better check before he does more damage. - Mafia Expert (talk) 23:01, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Joyson, the edit summary "Hurry up, god dammit. Does anyone even give a damn?" on your SPI and your continuous accusations that volunteer administrators are not doing their job is not helping here. There happens to be vandalism all over Wikipedia. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:56, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I really apologize for being impolite. I'm sure you will understand if you realize the context in which i said it. At that time, one of his sockpuppets was harassing me at the same time. So, i was enraged and therefore not thinking straight. Look, it's not in my nature to start quarrels and make unwarranted accusations, but you must understand that i waited incredibly long for some action to be done. There is a certain point in which everybody's patience starts to wear thin. For me, it was after ten days. I would not have minded if it was delayed for two days or even four days, but ten. If i accused the administrators of ignoring and not taking any quick action, then that was justified. I'm aware that vandalism is a daily occurrance here in wikipedia, but that does not excuse slow action. Joyson Noel (talk) 11:09, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I would say, personally, I'd pass this in a second. You can't just say "a bunch of users are doing things like minimizing image size and merging sections" in the entire organized crime series of articles without a single diff. Is it a simple case of one guy-two guy-three guy playing at the same article? Are all three working together at the same time but on different articles? You make puzzles for volunteers and then go on the "hurry up" bit, nobody is going to help. Why? Especially when we get enough of the "everyone out there who disagrees with me is a sock puppet" game from vandals. Now, give me a single (one) article (again, listing a pile during which a dozen editors could all in theory be colluding will again not encourage assistance) where certain characters are doing this and we can start from there. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 11:31, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Trust me, pal. I know that these are sockpuppets for the reasons that i have stated above. I'm not being paranoid. I know the pattern in which he edits. In fact, i have caught him many times and he has been blocked repeatedly. I'm not picking on anyone. I suggest that you read my previous evidence carefully so that you don't have any misunderstanding. Even though i reverted the edits, this guy has no business being here. That banned sockpuppeteer User:Mynameisstanley has a track record of vandalizing organized crime articles, circumventing bans and returning under new identities.
    • User:Thereistheoffer is definitely a sockpuppet. His editing pattern such as removing links to blogs (although right) is very similar to Mynameisstanley. Moreover, i feel that it is vandalism because he removed the fact that "Spanish was involved in the Second Labor Sluggers War in 1919 during the intro and became involved in labor racketeering, holdups of saloons and other businesses, and murder before organizing his own gang. This is an undisputable fact for which he was well known and does not need to be sourced according to WP:CS. It would have been unfair to a newcomer, but i was sure that this is a sock. Furthermore, he did the exact same edits that was done by confirmed blocked sockpuppet User:Evenmoremotor before and reverted by another user later. Moreover, he has made a total of 8 edits, 7 of them to articles previously edited by the banned sockpuppeteer User:Mynameisstanley as well as Evenmoremotor. Furthermore, he has done all of them on the same day and has been inactive since that date (19th May). Check contributions. Furthermore, his userpage was created with the purpose of making his account appear blue, which is the main hallmark of Mynameisstanley's previous blocked sockpuppets. See mynameisstanley's talk page. Too much for a coincidence.
    • In the case of User:Sizzleman212, it is the same primary reason as above. The fact that John F. Kennedy International Airport) was in the territory of the Lucchese family and specifically the Paul Vario crew operated out of there including such mob stars as Henry Hill and Jimmy Conway is an "undisputable fact for which he was well known and does not need to be sourced according to WP:CS." Plus, he only made a total of one edit to the same article which was previously vandalized by the aforementioned two banned accounts. Furthermore, this account has remained inactive since that edit.
    • I beg to differ. Ganglandnews is a reliable source. Just because it is inactive does not make it unreliable. All right! The site's owner Jerry Capeci is a widely recognized authority in this field. It's unreliability has not been established or reached upon by consensus. I have disputed you on ikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard and offered some solutions. Also, i have no problem with the grammatical corection and that was never a point of contention with his edit. Plus, i repeat myself. Evenmoremotor was confirmed to be a sockpuppet and blocked indefinitely on March. See this. Joyson Noel (talk) 13:32, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Malcolm Schosha

    Malcolm Schosha (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    I have lengthened Malcom's block to indefinite for ongoing personal attacks whilst already blocked for edit warring and personal attacks. Posted here for input and review. Gwen Gale (talk) 12:27, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    • Good block. Attacking large numbers of volunteer editors who sacrifice their time to maintaining Wikipedia should never be tolerated and if someone continues to do so even while being blocked for exactly those reasons, they should be shown the door. I'd even suggest disabling talk page editing for this editor because it's unlikely to become better... Regards SoWhy 12:36, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support indefinite block. He's basically trolling to get blocked and then claimed victimhood. I think the month-long game at Talk:Self-hating_Jew#Any_constructive_suggestions.3F shows he isn't here to edit the encyclopedia, but just to argue for the sake of arguing. He'll be elsewhere complaining about the users here and his "mistreatment" soon enough. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 12:37, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • It is the previous section Talk:Self-hating_Jew#The problem with Finlay where he totally misrepresents Mick Finlay's record of published writings and calls that academic an apologist for Islam that got to me. I was on the verge of posting in another place something asking what Malcolm brings to Wikipedia apart from niggling comments that waste other editor's time. So that's a Support block from me. --Peter cohen (talk) 13:44, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Long overdue. Has a knack for juvenile condescension against users of different POVs...don't have diffs handy, but he got a kick out of addressing me as Tark for some reason. Plus he has been calling other editors antisemitic for quite awhile now, and was even tossed off an ArbCom case because of it. Tarc (talk) 12:45, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support Pretty nasty ongoing commentary, and obvious from his last few months of article space edits that he's only here to push what appears to be a pretty fringey POV, which is never helpful. Has been pretty much on a rampage of nastiness since people on the same political wavelength as himself were topic-banned from the Palestinian-Israeli topics in the recent RFAR. rootology/equality 13:30, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support I have been following this at a distance and I think indef is now merited. --John (talk) 13:37, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oh, I don't know him except one encounter at Talk:Porcelain#Lead image. Before reading this, I'd have suggested that his profound knowledge of fine art is too valuable, so just allow him to write such subjects only. However, the "Empty skulls" comment is way beyond any acceptable range of incivility, so I support.....Caspian blue 13:46, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support Though not necessarily for the precise reason stated in his block log. I think his general abuse of Wikipedia as a battleground is a more accurate summary of his problems.--Tznkai (talk) 14:54, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Good call. Malcom isn't willing to abide by Wikipedia's policies so this was inevitable. PhilKnight (talk) 15:49, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support It might have been less inflammatory to have requested another previously uninvolved admin review and act as appropriate - but I am certain the end result would have been the same/ LessHeard vanU (talk) 18:24, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Malcom's way was to strongly attack admins trying to deal with him, then claim they were "involved" and "harassing" or "out to get" him. Hence Malcom said I was involved, but I never was. I always hoped he'd settle down. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:31, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Indeed, which is why having yet another admin do the review and likely block does not feed into that culture of being accused of having prior bias - but ultimately, it was a good block for the right reasons. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:25, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • No objections, I generally support incivility blocks. It's somewhat amusing that he's blocked for displaying poor social skills by ranting about the supposed poor social skills of others.  Sandstein  19:27, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, it looks like he's amused with us. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 20:00, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support Good block. And by all means, let his amusement continue, indefinitely. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 21:09, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose - I think one should be able to blow off some steam on their talk page, and while his comment on 'empty skulls' was over the line it doesn't warrant an indef block in my opinion. Nableezy (talk) 21:16, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Maury Markowitz and redirect deletions

    I'm taking this here because this will likely need administrators to undelete pages. Maury Markowitz (talk · contribs) has for some time been deleting redirects for being unused or "polluting Google". He doesn't seem to understand that he's wrong, even after a successful deletion review; relevant threads are User talk:Maury Markowitz#VIA redirects and User talk:Maury Markowitz#Redirects. The next step would be to go through all the redirects he deleted and undelete those that should not have been deleted. I can help create the list, but for obvious reasons cannot help with the undeletions. --NE2 13:09, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    • I've left him a message to point out that there's more than just you thinking that the deletions are a bit off. Stifle (talk) 13:18, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh my god, this is still going on?! Undelete them all, with my blessings! I don't care one way or the other. But I do care about NE2's constant complaints and casting aspersions. So if undeleting all of these makes him leave me alone, great, full speed ahead! Maury Markowitz (talk) 14:12, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Fair enough; if someone sends me a list I'll work through it. Stifle (talk) 15:25, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    User:NE2/redirects includes all of them. There are likely a few non-redirects and a few valid redirect deletions in there. --NE2 17:32, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I've checked through #39 (PostScipt). --Carnildo (talk) 01:47, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    IP User 63.119.117.69

    Resolved
     – blocked for one year

    I think this IP should be blocked indefinitely. This IP hasn't made a single constructive edit and if you look at the talk page there are over 30 warnings about vandalism. It also shows that the IP has already been blocked 3 times and it's obviously not stopping the user. Continuing to warn this user and give short blocks isn't going to help Wikipedia in any way. I think something more permanent should be done to stop this user's vandalism.  Anonymous  Talk  14:49, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I agree, and he meets my criteria for a full year. —EncMstr (talk) 15:17, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Poor judgment and questionable timing on a speedy deletion

    I am posting this note because I believe that there was poor judgment shown in the speedy deletion of Stanislav Menshikov. Here is the chronology:

    • May 16: a dispute begins over whether commentary by Menshikov that is favorable to Lyndon LaRouche is sufficiently notable for inclusion in the lead of that article.
    • May 22: Will Beback posts a comment in which he says Menshikov is "not impartial."
    • May 22: Will speedy deletes Menshikov's bio.
    • May 23: TallNapoleon notes that Menshikov is "redlinked."
    • May 23: Cs32en deletes Menshikov quote on the grounds that Menshikov is redlinked.
    • May 24: Cs32en posts this: "If Menshikov is not notable enough to have his own article, why would his opinion about another person be so important that it would be in the lede?"
    • May 24: Will responds, "That's a good point."

    The reason given for speedy deletion was that the article was created by a banned user. Assuming that this is true, Will had several options:

    • He could have deleted the article over a year ago (he chose to edit the article instead)
    • He could have posted a notice on a relevant board, asking an uninvolved admin to take action
    • He could have invited community participation through a conventional AfD process

    Instead, Will chose the one course of action that was most likely to create the impression that he was using admin tools to shape the outcome of an article content dispute. --Leatherstocking (talk) 14:55, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    He edited the article only once and deleted it as having been created by a banned user. Any user in good standing can recreate it. Gwen Gale (talk) 15:46, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm with Leatherstocking on this one. Recreated. Maury Markowitz (talk) 16:49, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    That's ok! Gwen Gale (talk) 17:02, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, since the article creator MaplePorter (talk · contribs) does appear to be a sock of a banned user, Will Beback was technically correct (which is, as my idol Hermes Conrad would say, the best kind of "correct") to speedy delete it, prior edits notwithstanding, although the circumstances of the deletion as related by Leatherstocking do seem a bit odd. Worse, the recreation by Maury Markowitz might (also technically) be considered both proxying for a banned editor and the beginning of a wheel war. To avoid any unproductive nastiness, I suggest that we just submit the article to AfD to find out whether this (probably borderline notable) guy should have an article or not.  Sandstein  17:06, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Maury Markowitz didn't use the admin bit to recreate the article so I don't see much of a wheel war there (as I said, any editor in good standing could have done that). However, I do agree AfD would be the way to go if anyone is wondering about the notability of this topic. Gwen Gale (talk) 17:22, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, going by the Google cache, it looks like Maury recreated it without undeleting the history, a big no-no for reasons of attribution. --NE2 17:34, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    (ec) Well, I assume he used admin privileges to retrieve the deleted content (but, as I said, technically).  Sandstein  17:35, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The user in question was banned six months after the article was created. The policy is very clear that you SD material in violation of the ban, and only if there are no other major editors. Neither case applies. Maury Markowitz (talk) 17:29, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Given the very long and sad block log of the sockmaster before and after the time when the article was begun, I can't get too stirred up about the deletion of an article created by one of its socks. I think we can agree AfD is the way to deal with this now. Gwen Gale (talk) 17:38, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    However, Maury, it does look like you rs'd the text by copying from an edit window only an admin could have. This was not what I meant by "recreate." I think both of you have made a muddle of this and I have restored the article history, given the need for attribution under GFDL. Gwen Gale (talk) 17:47, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Now listed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stanislav Menshikov.  Sandstein  21:50, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Trotskyism bias

    The pages on Trotskyism read as if written by Trotskyists. They make scores of statements about the USSR and its history, usually without any verification, sometimes only with references to Trotsky or Trotskyist writers. When these are challenged, as by the present writer, threats of blocking are made (e.g by Roland - who says on his page that he is a supporter of Trotsky's 4th International.) Stevenjp (talk) 15:07, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Hi Stevenjp, I suggest you have a look at the dispute resolution page. PhilKnight (talk) 15:53, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I made no "threats of blocking"; but I warned this editor several times that if he persisted in adding unsourced factual claims, personal commentary and derogatory remarks, then he risked being blocked. My editing of the page is no less acceptable than is that of Stevenjp himself, since he is a supporter of the hostile CPB (M-L). RolandR 17:43, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Which, says CPB (M-L) "should not be confused with the Communist Party of Britain (941 members), the Revolutionary Communist Party of Britain (Marxist-Leninist) (30 members), nor with the Communist Party of Great Britain (Marxist-Leninist). ("one of the smaller remaining fragments") " See also Monty Python's Life of Brian re "Judean People's Front". There's still someone alive who wants to edit war over this? --John Nagle (talk) 21:53, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I remember "Leon the Lip", as they called the old twirler. He was a lefty, with plenty of heat but no control, and eventually the other team went gunning for him. His cousin Hal was far more successful. He was a first baseman and a heavy hitter. Being an Indian, he stayed neutral on political matters. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 00:24, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    wfalpha.com spam - please add to black list

    I removed this link from the Wolfram Alpha article and from the same article on a number of Wikipedias (not just en.wikipedia.org). It has now appeared back and has been removed again by another editor.

    The site is a fraud. The spammer pretends that is a "short link" to http://www.wolframalpha.com/. In fact, it shows the genuine Wolfram Alpha website in an iframe surrounded by advertising.

    Can the site please be added to the blacklist on this project and international sister projects? --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 16:49, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Update: I see there is an request page for such additions at MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist. Done it myself :) --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 17:02, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Prem Rawat enforcement action

    I'd like to draw the community's attention to my arbitration enforcement action at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Teachings of Prem Rawat. Because that action involves the block of an administrator (as well as a non-administrator editor), and because blocks of administrators have the potential to become controversial, I am bringing the matter here preemptively. I consent to any change to my enforcement action that might be necessary to bring it into accordance with community consensus (if any).  Sandstein  16:49, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Well done. These edits by User:Will_Beback so soon after the Arbcom decision show very poor judgement, unworthy of an administrator. Under these circumstances I would say a topic ban was in order. (Off2riorob (talk) 17:41, 26 May 2009 (UTC))[reply]
    Concur with block - if ArbCom Enforcement is to mean anything then it needs applying swiftly and without favour. LessHeard vanU (talk) 18:32, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Will Beback made a case that he wasn't in violation, in the 24 May portion of Talk:Teachings of Prem Rawat#FORMER FOLLOWERS section. When Newyorkbrad becomes available after holiday, I request that he examine Will's defense and offer an opinion as to its merit along with noting any gray areas. Newyorkbrad has the professional skills to parse a defense by detail of rules, and is widely considered fair in making such judgments. Milo 20:59, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I would like to thank Milo for his confidence in me. However, traditionally, sitting arbitrators generally do not participate in enforcement of decisions, because the cases may come back again them before a later date and they would then have an involvement in the actions being reviewed. Therefore, it would probably be best if discussion here continues for a consensus of uninvolved non-arb admins. (I also have three truly massive arb cases that I need to work through in the next 24 hours.) Thanks again for thinking of me, though. :) Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:11, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Will Beback is substantially in violation of the section provided at ArbCom Enforcement, in that he reverted to his earlier version within the 7 day period. If he wishes to argue that there may be other findings or directions that permitted him to do so then he should take that up with ArbCom in the Clarifications section - until then he was found to be in violation and thus blocked. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:35, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]


    Will Beback has posted the following request for block review on his talk page, copied below:
    "I believe that Sandstein has miscounted the reverts. I first added text in following a discussion on the talk page.[90] That was not a revert. Several days later another editor, Pergamino, made significant changes to the text without discussion. I reverted the changes.[91] That was the only revert. The RFAR editing restriction prohibits more than one revert per week. No user may revert any given changes to a subject article more than once within a seven day period...[92] Since I only reverted once I did not violate the prohibition. Further, I acted in good faith to avoid violating the prohibition, and if I did violate it then I did so unintentionally and with a misunderstanding of how the revert(s) are counted. I received no warning that I'd violated the prohibition, and I would have self-reverted if I had been warned. One revert per week is an unusual standard and I think that either Sandastein or I is not calculating it correctly. Will Beback " [22:28, 26 May 2009 courtesy repost from [93] by Milo 00:24, 27 May 2009 (UTC)][reply]

    That looks like legitimate grounds for lifting the block if it's true. DurovaCharge! 00:49, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I was having a look at that first edit, and I couldn't find any consensus to add it on the talk page, there was some discussion and then willbeback added it.

    Added by cirt,

    Reports obtained by Ted Patrick and several scholars after deprogramming of several of Rawat's former worshippers refer to the experience of Rawat's "meditation" techniques as self-hypnosis, and as diminishing the ability to think both during the practice and for an extended period of time after cessation. name=Patrick>Patrick, Ted with Tom Dulack, Let Our Children Go!: By the man who rescues brainwashed American youth from sinister 'religious' cults pp. 214-215 (1976) E.P. Dutton & Company, ISBN 0-525-14450-1 name=Conway>Conway, Flo and Siegelman, Jim, "Snapping: America's Epidemic of Sudden Personality Change Second Edition, Second printing: pp 159 f (2005) Stillpoint Press, ISBN 0-38528928-6</

    this was removed by Zanthorp

    then this was added by willbeback, it's basically a reinsertion of the same material with a small rewrite.

    Former premie (follower of Rawat) Marcia Carroll was deprogrammedfrom Rawat's cult in 1973 by Ted Patrick. Carroll describes each of the four techniques in detail within the context of her experience. She concludes: "the more meditation you do, the less able you are to reason. It becomes painful to think at all. So whatever they tell you, you do.... With more and more meditation, you experience a sort of ... self-hypnosis. It keeps you there." name=Patrick>Patrick, Ted with Tom Dulack, Let Our Children Go!: By the man who rescues brainwashed American youth from sinister 'religious' cults pp. 214-215 (1976)E.P. Dutton & Company, ISBN 0-525-14450-1. (Off2riorob (talk) 02:07, 27 May 2009 (UTC))[reply]

    Clause

    I think Will is misreading which clause of Remedy 3.1 of the RFAR applies...

    To quote the whole thing:

    Revert limitations
    3.1) The Prem Rawat article and all related articles are subject to an editing restriction for one year. No user may revert any given changes to a subject article more than once within a seven day period, except for undisputable vandalism and BLP violations. Furthermore, if a user makes any changes to a subject article, and those changes are reverted, they may not repeat the change again within a seven day period.
    Passed 11 to 1 to 1, 02:02, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

    I believe that the issue is the last sentence ( "Furthermore, if a user makes any changes to a subject article, and those changes are reverted, they may not repeat the change again within a seven day period." ). Will made a change, and it was reverted, he wasn't supposed to change it back until 8 days later (and did so in 5 days). I'm not sure I agree with this provision, but that's what they entered into the rule as it stands. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 02:30, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Agree. Because of this clause (and quite independently of this discussion) I reached the conclusion to deny the unblock request. I'm not truly aware of the depth of disruption on this article, and this may have been a good-faith misunderstanding by Will about the restrictions, but I felt that unblocking him would be somewhat disrespectful of the RFAR ruling, and also give an appearance of unfairness unless Pergamino is also unblocked. Mangojuicetalk 02:37, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Good point. Since this is a newly closed case and neither editor has been warned, perhaps unblocking both and extending a warning would be appropriate? It's an unusual clause in the case, and the wording isn't easy to parse. Had me confused too until I read it three times. DurovaCharge! 04:54, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, it is the second element of the restriction that Will Beback violated in this case. I would normally be reluctant to block a user for the violation of that unusual a remedy without a prior warning, but since he was a party to the RfAr and indeed was specifically admonished at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Prem Rawat 2#Users admonished for his conduct in articles related to Prem Rawat, I think he must be deemed adequately warned in this case.  Sandstein  05:43, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I have declined the unblock request by Will Beback on the grounds that it appeared he did violate the letter and spirit of the ArbCom decision as I have read it; however I also support Durova's proposed solution. Will Beback's comments since my decline have indicated that he made a good-faith mistake based on his reading of the sanctions, and he has clearly indicated that he will tread lighter in the future. Durova generally keeps a very clear head in tough times, and I trust her judgement on these issues. I think a provisional unblock, with perhaps a request to ArbCom for clarification and the understanding that these blocks serve as clear warnings to tread lightly in the affected articles. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 05:48, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    If an editor (Rumiton) can be banned for a year over Prem Rawat issues without a warning and with only one previous block, any diminishing of WillBeback or Pergamino's tiny 24 hour block would seem like gross hypocrisy. Mind you, ArbCom's decision to enshrine "up to one week in the event of repeated violations and After 5 blocks, the maximum block shall increase to one year" sends a clear message that bad editing at PR articles are now to be considered trivial. Sandstein, as usual, is right, WillBeback has had adequate warning.Momento (talk) 06:17, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Mytestid1980 is damaging an article

    See [94] and all contribs. He is putting hoaxes on 2008 attacks on North Indians in Maharashtra even when we warned him. All warnings are gone from his talk. Some more bad eits also ocurred. See history

    i hope its the right place (WP:AIV asks for recent disruption and I don't smell a 3RR violation.) Hometech (talk) 18:09, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Sam Blacketer resignation article at The Register

    I just saw that an article was published today on The Register about Sam Blacketer, and wanted to give you guys a heads-up. TotientDragooned (talk) 18:11, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Correct link ╟─TreasuryTag►hemicycle─╢ 18:12, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    It's a rather good article, actually, thanks for sharing. I particularly like the quote in the final paragraph! ╟─TreasuryTag►hemicycle─╢ 18:14, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Heh! That might explain this (reverted) edit, which had me scratching my head. Cheers, This flag once was redpropagandadeeds 18:19, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Its rather a bummer. Sam is a pretty good editor, but the aforementioned edit was clearly pov. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 03:32, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Advice please

    See this editor, El-Pabloski (talk · contribs), along with this, Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Barnstar copied from another editor and this strange edit which could be good or bad, [95]. Advice and thoughts would be helpful, thanks--Jac16888Talk 20:16, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    It seems that the 'good or bad' edit was bad. [96]. I had a look through this editor's contributions earlier and couldn't spot a good one. pablohablo. 22:32, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with Pablomismo. Last time I went through the users contribs, I couldn't spot a solidly constructive one. Killiondude (talk) 23:47, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I've tried pretty hard to get this person into good habits and useful contribs, but without success thus far. *sigh*  Chzz  ►  00:10, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    My impression is that this is a keen, but young editor, who wants to run before he can walk. Some of his edits seem to be well-intentioned, but naive. If he can be focussed into some area of interest, and accept mentorship (assuming anyone is prepared to take the time and effort to do that), his enthusiasm could be usefully channelled; meanwhile, he is unaware of this discussion, and I'll drop an {{ANI-notice}} for him. Rodhullandemu 00:20, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Vandalism of File:WPAbortion-logo.svg

    Resolved
     – fixed and protected.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:45, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm sorry, I don't know how to fix this, but I think it needs urgent attention - the Abortion "logo" that appears on all abortion related topics has been changed to read "Murder" by CGrapes429 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Thanks, Dawn Bard (talk) 20:36, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Hmm... I tried to fix it, but something seems to be working wrong. Any suggestions? –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 20:42, 26 May 2009 (UTC) Seems to be fixed. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 20:43, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Drilnoth uploaded a new version of it. What is weird for me is that the Murder still appears in the image at the top of the image page, but the update to read "Abortion" at the bottom by Drilnoth looks ok, and I clicked on the Abortion article to see that the sidebar does indeed say Abortion. I figure it's a thing with my computer. I refreshed the page 4 times but it still read as Murder...anyway, I fully protected the image page for 3 days. --Moni3 (talk) 20:44, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Huh. I protected it indef, and refreshed until the image cache caught up with Drilnoth's fix. In any case, one or more of us took care of it. :-)--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:45, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks, y'all. I warned the user who made the change; I hope that was appropriate. Dawn Bard (talk) 20:50, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Most probably. :-) I extended the protection to indef again, and deleted all the "Murder" versions so that someone couldn't just revert to an earlier version.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:51, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Only one edit since January, and it's a vandalism? Sounds like a compromised account. If it were me deciding, I would indef it and see if the user even notices. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 21:07, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Bugs, treating these folk with your fluffy kindness and indolent patience is surely going to backfire on you one of these days. Sometimes love and maple syrup isn't enough! LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:39, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    And that's why I'm not the one deciding, don'cha know. But as merely a lowly peon; just a simple farmer; one of the people of the land; part of the common clay of the new west; I can always make recommendations. 0:) Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 23:09, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Just be glad I didn't refer to that drive-by vandalism as the CGrapes429 of Wrath. Oops, too late. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 23:45, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Love and maple syrup are useless without pancakes and sex. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 23:20, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Mmmmmm maple syrup and sex... damn I wish I was young again! --WebHamster 23:40, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't recommend mixing lovin' and syrup. Things can get stuck together, and then you'll be subjected to the ridicule of the Rescue Squad. Or so I've heard. 0:) Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 23:41, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I think you misheard, that is super glue and sex. Not that I have first hand knowledge.... The Seeker 4 Talk 00:07, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, what they need is some kind of syrup with the consistency of K-Y. That would be ideal for keeping those pancakes lubricated. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 00:26, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Was that from that summer at band camp? Oh... MuZemike 03:54, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Brianna Tatiana

    Would this[97] be a legal threat? --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:47, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Yeah, I say so. Block away. MuZemike 22:51, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    OK, done. Article prodded two days ago in any case. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:59, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Sounds like "The Name Game":

    Brianna Tatiana, bo-biana
    Banana-fana fo-fiana
    Fee-fi-mo-miana
    Brianna Tatiana!
    :) Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 23:06, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    There some talk on the talk page about this not being about a real person. I was unable to find a single reliable source which is very strange given the article claims she was on MTV and has released an album. If this isn't an article about a fake person, it almost certainly fails to reach notability guidelines. The article should be deleted. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:07, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, as I was constructing that Name Game thing, it occurred to me that it would also work for Hannah Montana - which is maybe what inspired this apparent bit of fiction. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 23:10, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • OK, sorted. User talk:Indie-lauper has rescinded the legal threat (it wasn't a serious one apparently but nonetheless) and I have unblocked him. I checked the article out a couple of days ago when it came up on the BLP noticeboard and decided to prod it as I couldn't find reliable sources for it but there seems to be a wider problem than Wikipedia here, of someone's name and photo being taken and used elsewhere to create a fake identity. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 23:33, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I think I've found the problem. There was a press release on PR Newswire regarding Brianna Tatiana being signed by Global Village Records.[98]. According to an 2006 SEC litigation release [99], "Global Village Records" was part of a Ponzi scheme and had no actual business activities. "According to the complaint, even after the original defendants were enjoined from continuing to violate the federal securities laws, they continued their fraud by soliciting additional money into this scam. To circumvent the asset freeze, certain defendants created a new company, Global Village Records, and then used the bank accounts of companies owned by Daniel J. Merriman to forward money from investors." On April 15, 2009, a court ruled against the people behind the scam, with a $51 million final judgement.[100] A criminal prosecution is pending. One can see why someone might not wish to be in Wikipedia associated with Global Village Records. --John Nagle (talk) 03:58, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Crosscheck. Yes, it's the same "Global Village Records". The press release cited above was from a Dr. Henry Jones. The DOJ press release on the criminal case says "A third defendant involved in the plot, Henry Jones, 53, a record company executive, formerly of Marina Del Rey, is expected to be sentenced in early 2009. Jones has been incarcerated since being extradited from Hong Kong last December."[101] Brianna Tatiana is not mentioned in any of the Government press releases on the scam. --John Nagle (talk) 05:49, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Dr. Henry Jones, lol. Iggy pop goes the weasel (talk) 06:40, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I am being hounded

    An IP has been following around Wikipedia for about a month now and shows no sign of stopping. QuackGuru (talk) 03:05, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Blocked a month for disruptive editing based on a previous block that appears to not have been effective. Nakon 03:10, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Odd possible legal threat?

    What do you all make of this removed edit? Seen on RFPP here. rootology/equality 03:13, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Seems like they're violating the "court order" as well. Nakon 03:23, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Lol. Does anyone actually understand what Wikipedia is outside of Wikipedia? - Arcayne (cast a spell) 03:25, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Not really. That's why they all think it's unreliable. My wife thought it was a blog until I sat her down and showed her everything that goes on behind the scenes. Now she just thinks it's "White and Nerdy"Drew Smith What I've done 05:57, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think it's a legal threat, I think it's just that someone with the newspaper seems to think that they can include specific information about their newspaper here. The IP needs to be pointed to some guidelines regarding encyclopedic information. (I thought my copyedit of that article wasn't so bad when I removed that bit earlier...) Tony Fox (arf!) 04:26, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Agree. It's not intended to be a legal threat. Mishlai (talk) 04:34, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&oldid=292612314"