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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thanks. I apologize for being part of something that wasted your time. --Born2cycle (talk) 04:42, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

As the two IP socks below:

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

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

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

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

According to the rangeblock calculator, up to 524288 users would be blocked, so I don't see that being an option.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 06:09, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

I mistakenly AfD'd Nick Louvel twice. Could an admin kindly nix the 2nd AfD, please? Thanks. Jim Ward ^{(talk·stalk)} 04:34, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

 Done Icestorm815 • Talk 04:44, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Looks like we both had the same idea. Damn closing script created the page right after you deleted it. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 04:48, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

No problem, I just re-deleted it. :) Icestorm815 • Talk 04:50, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you both and I'm sorry for the mistake. Jim Ward ^{(talk·stalk)} 05:28, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

After updating Kristen Stewart´s biography with information from reliable news sources ( not blogs ) the item was deleted and prior any discussion I received the following threat:

---

May 2009

This is your only warning. The next time you violate Wikipedia's biographies of living persons policy by inserting unsourced defamatory content into an article or any other Wikipedia page, as you did to Kristen Stewart, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Ward3001 (talk) 02:58, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

---

I sent the following message

Your editing and threat

Hello Ward3001 I know that in demand celebrity bios are constantly defaced. If you check my history you might see the battles I endured within the Wiki organization trying to enforce the guidelines for it. The item I posted was relevant due to the graphic and NEWS reports about the issue. Agreed, I didn´t reference them at the time. But to threat me to be banned is a long call. I think this should be included. Reliable sources:

Huffington Post TMZ (photos and videos) and most recently Ciak and ANSA (Italian News Agencies)

If you think this is not relevant for a public figure we might discuss it.

Worldnewsjunkie (talk) 04:30, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

---

Probably that article is a headache to control, but just because someone has the "editorial control" shouldn´t be granted the right to threaten proven collaborators. Worldnewsjunkie (talk) 04:43, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Matty has replied on the above editor's talk page explaining that his unsourced edit was indeed a BLP violation and expressing wishes that now that he understands why he/she was reverted it won't happen again. Hopefully the editor will acknowledge their error and this can be marked resolved when that happens. Dougweller (talk) 05:30, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

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

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

In the last few months Mosedschurte has contributed a number of high quality but extremist POVish articles to Wikipedia. Many of them are listed in his template {{Eastern Bloc}}. His original contributions include Eastern Bloc politics and Eastern Bloc economies. I do not think Wikipedia is the right place for this content. They would be better served if transwikied to 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)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

That's an ordinary content dispute (and apparently also 3RR violation). Bringing this issue also to ANI is a typical WP:Battle action. I encouraged Mosedschurte to contribute positively to the subject [2], and he is very capable of doing just that.Biophys (talk) 02:49, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

No problems with diffs. This user provided a valid point by point criticism of the article [3]. After failing to address his points, you accused him of tag-teaming which he never did; your accused him later of "personal attacks" here and here, and you finally said : "There are currently two open ANI reports on your disruptive behavior, and I expect to open three more in the next 24 hours."here. That is what I call WP:Battle. If there are any ANI issues here, they are not on the part of Mosedschurte.Biophys (talk) 04:43, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Comment I have read the items posted on this thread, and I take extreme exception with the departure from normal policy that one must assume good faith on Wikipedia. Instead, I have seen such items posted such as we have above in the form of "cold-warrior point-of-view" or "contributions/propaganda makes one think that he is not a individual unpaid editor but a collective account of some conservative think-tank" which I find are themselves a violation of Wikipedia policy and guidelines. The issue raised concerns the article Human rights in the United States, an article I have been working on for some time, trying to gain consensus to obtain some semblance of neutrality. The subject is, unfortunately, quite contentious. Changes are met with hostility, and any move to change a single word is met with an army of reverts from anonymous IP's, comments on the talk page, and hostile defiance. The reason for this is that the POV of the editors involved has taken the form of ownership, and any countering point of view dealt with by frank disdain. Indeed, my own commentary was met with the words to the effect "this is not Fox News", an obvious attempt to provide a ready-made motive and objectification of a dissenting point of view. Consensus has been reached with numerous editors on the talk page as to what is required to improve the article, yet the hostility and ownership of the article remains active. The individual editor who has most pushed their own point of point and engaged in the most outrageous acts of incivility is User:Viriditas, who started this thread. The incident that gave rise to the editor's complaint can be seen in the history here: [4]. 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: [5]. As to the nominator, I left her a warning as to her incivlity here, which she removed as "harassment": [6]. The editor was also left a message from user:Mosedschurte which she also deleted here: [7]. In conclusion, I think the revert was made in good faith, and was in response to the fact that the change was made without consensus having been reached as required. The other changes were made after dozens of comments from various editors on the talk page, and in the vast majority of cases, the changes were made after consensus had been reached that the article required significant work for the purposes of neutrality. Notwithsnatding, each and vevery change was reverted without any attempt to reach consensus. In conclusion, I think an assumption of good faith can easily be reached in this case. I must also take this time to point out that the vein of this thread, that an editor's "motives" are being judged because he might be "conservative" to be extremely dangerous as a precedent. I have not missed the extreme irony of the fact that "freedom of speech" and "freedom of expression" are viewed as fundamental human rights, and we are being asked to look at this case through the prism of whether a differing point of view is "acceptable" because it might counter the views of people who dislike "conservatives". A frightening Orwellian thought comes to mind, that all animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others. On this basis, I move that this thread be closed with no adverse action taken against user:Mosedschurte for the reasons I have stated above. Thank you.--Yachtsman1 (talk) 05:15, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Mosedschurte was blocked for edit warring and breaking the 3RR. I was not involved in this dispute, so I find it interesting that you blame me for his bad behavior. Furthermore, you have been engaging in the exact same behavior as Mosedschurte and actually, much worse. You will not answer questions about your proposals or your criticism of the content, nor do you seem to understand that the sources used must discuss the topic, i.e. human rights. As one example of many illustrating your disruptive behavior, you recently removed a sourced lead section and added unsourced material, without consensus. Not understanding how the {{fact}} tag works, you hardcoded "[citation needed]" into the text you added, making it clear that you were acknowledging your addition of unsourced material.[8]. When I pointed out that your edit didn't meet the requirements of our sourcing policy[9] you responded with "The lead section has thirteen cites, which were from the prior incaranation with changes in verbage, but not substance or citation."[10] 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.[11] Furthermore, I have dozens of diffs showing you avoiding answering questions about your edits. This thread should not be closed. On the contrary, it should be expanded to include an analysis of your bad behavior. You are using the same strategy as Mosedschurte, making disputed edits without consensus, replacing sourced content with either unsourced material or sources that have nothing to do with human rights. When this is pointed out to you, you make false accusations of "incivility" and "personal attacks" and forge ahead with trivial objections. We have a situation here where editors who are not aligned with the purpose of Wikipedia are using the article and talk pages as battlegrounds for their personal POV rather than adhering to NPOV and using appropriate sources to improve the article. This needs to stop now. Viriditas (talk) 07:08, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

Yachtsman1[edit]

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[edit]

• 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)[12] These tags were previously added by Mosedschurte[13][14] 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.[15]
• I would like to take the opportunity to point out that 1) I had never removed these tags before so I don't see how this one edit could be considered "edit warring", and 2) The use of these tags has never been addressed on the talk page. In other words, nobody has ever given a reason on the talk page how and why this material is both off-topic and synthesized. I am posting this here as an example of how Yachtsman1 engages in disruptive editing. He has accused me of "edit warring" while reverting me, and falsely claiming that there is a reason for this tag on the talk page. I don't think it is appropriate for an editor to edit war over tags while accusing someone else of edit warring, and at the same time, claiming that a non-existent rationale exists. It is the responsibility of the editor adding the tag to provide a good reason. None has been provided. Could someone review this please? Viriditas (talk) 07:51, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Close

• The maintenance tags are an issue of ongoing discussion on the talk page. The fact that this article is not neutral, and the reasons provided for that position, have been clearly stated by numerous editors. I let the talk page stand on its own: [16].
• 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. [17]
• The basis of my comments should be obvious, and this matter closed. Thank you.--Yachtsman1 (talk) 08:01, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Er, making edits to an article is not edit warring, nor is it considered edit warring by anyone. On the other hand, reverting my edit, as you did, is considered edit warring. Please read up on the concept or have someone you trust explain it to you. And you have not provided one single diff showing where you have justified the use of the tags you have added. Please do so now. As far as I can tell from the above, you edit warred maintenance tags into the article and failed to provide a justification for them. Viriditas (talk) 08:07, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Making more than three edits in a 24 hour period certainly is: [18]. Ignoring editors comments on the talk page and any consensus being reached is also edit warring. I have addressed your concerns on the talk page by, among other things, cutting and pasting the comments of another editor on this subject for your review. In short, this should have been addressed in the talk page, and that is precisely where it will be addressed. Thank you.--Yachtsman1 (talk) 08:16, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

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

• After all of this, and a tedious discussion on the talk page, believe it or not, we reached enough of a consensus that I could make some rather simple edits and eliminate one tag for lack of synthesis, clarifying this section as I went. As stated, it's best to deal with this on the talk page, though I still maintain for the reasons I have provided that the section on Hurricane Katrina on the article should not be included. As stated supra, this matter should be closed. --Yachtsman1 (talk) 11:15, 24 May 2009 (UTC
• I spoke too soon. Anyone want to see what I am dealing with? Here are the uncivil remarks:[[19]]; and here's the ensuing change of my good faith efforts to resolve the problem: ][20]]. I am in shock.--Yachtsman1 (talk) 11:38, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Blatant personal attacks by Viriditas[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Propose to close the discussion[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

No matter how calm and civil you are about, civil POV pushing is still the underlying problem here. You've tried very hard to turn this incident report into a content dispute, which it never was. And now we see the same editors involved in this discussion, edit warring by proxy for Mossedchurte. So, this incident report is still a question of editorial conduct and does not concern a content dispute. Unilateral edit warring, content removals without consensus, and obstruction on the talk page is continuing and ongoing.[21][22] Mossedchurte is incapable of collaborating or working with other editors on this article, and I suggest that this incident report be kept open until further administrative action is taken. Viriditas (talk) 17:35, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Just saw the crazy baseless allegations in this ANI by Viriditas[edit]

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

• This incident report is about your edit warring and civil POV pushing, not about your ignorance of navbox conventions used in the majority of human rights in x articles. You were recently blocked for edit warring and now that you have returned to the article, you have begun to edit war and remove content without consensus on the talk page, the same material you were edit warring with before.[23] This incident report should not be closed as Mosedschurte did not learn anything from his last block. Furthermore, there are at least three open discussions on the talk page (Racial, Katrina, Outline) where Mosedschurte has either ignored repeated queries about his edits or pretends the questions were never asked. The user has also removed content that is significant to the topic (the person who created the first human rights organization in the U.S. was deleted by Mosedschurte) and the user is also adding content to the article that does not use human rights related sources. There is a clear record of disruptive, civil POV pushing behavior here, and it needs to be stopped by administrative action. Viriditas (talk) 17:51, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Yes, Viriditas is disruptive. He demanded me to comment at the article talk page, and I did just that. However, he repeatedly moved my comment to another place [24] and ignored my objections. How can one discuss an article content, if his comments are repeatedly moved or otherwise modified?Biophys (talk) 18:10, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
  • You opened a duplicate thread of an already existing and ongoing discussion, and your comments were moved there and replied to in the appropriate place. You then began to reboot the same discussion several times, ignoring the replies that were already made. This was pointed out to you with links to the discussion both on my talk page and on your talk page, yet you continued to pretend that it did not exist. This is classic, civil POV pushing behavior, and I propose that you receive sanctions as well as Mosedschurte, for disrupting the talk page. Frankly, neither of you have done anything to improve the article, and both of your behavior violates the core working principles of Wikipedia. If you can't follow appropriate talk page guidelines, NPOV, and good conduct guiding harmonious editing, you shouldn't be editing here. Viriditas (talk) 18:17, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
• Viriditas is incredibly disruptive, with comments that amount to little more than personal attacks, consistent reverts of even the most minor edits, threats on the talk page, and referral to policies that counter the editor's own arguments. Any change made is met with an accusation of "POV pushing", and any comment on the talk page is ignored. Hardly a recipe for "harmonious editing". The editor's own history of bans for edit warring hardly argues in her favor either: [[25]].--Yachtsman1 (talk) 18:27, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Here is a recent example of Yachtsman1 pushing a POV about Ray Nagin in the Human rights in the United States article. As it turns out, the source did not say what he said it did, and I removed it per BLP. This content had nothing to do with human rights, and the source itself said nothing about human rights. To conclude, Yachtsman1 attempted to push a POV about a living person, Ray Nagin, that did not appear in the source and did not have anything to do with this article. Viriditas (talk) 18:49, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
    • Actually, the source 'did say what I said it did, and the source was the Washington Post, which documented how the City of New Orleans failed to follow its own evacuation plan by not evacuating city residents without cars. The source documented the failures by city, state and federal agencies and officials, including Ray Nagin, a "public figure" as an elected politician, to evacuate residents, and in their delay in responding to the disastor (BLP? Ridiculous). The present "spin" or POV advocated by Virititas is that they were not removed and provided timely assistance because of the race, which is absurd, given the volumes of sources on the subject that describe eladership failure as the leading cause of the response-;ag, coupled with the fact that the vast majority of those without automobiles were afircan-american. The UN Human Rights Council agreed, but this source was also removed with an explanation that it was a "primary" source, and of "cherry-picking" by including their conclusions, which examined the correlation between suffering and economic disadvantage. The matter of "race" being the source or motivating factor for a slow response to such a disastor was not part of the equation, except to the extent that most of the poorest residents of the city were African American. In other words, the motivation was to bring the section to a standard of "neutrality" by presenting two points of view. The POV of Viriditas was reaffirmed, however, when she removed the sources. As stated previously, Viriditas is a disruptive poster, and this is a prime example.--Yachtsman1 (talk) 19:34, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
      • Actually, the source doesn't say that at all, and you spun it to say that to push your POV about Nagin. There are also many other authors on the topic, such as Stephen Graham at Durham University, who see things differently than you and blame the Bush administration, not Nagin, for the failure to evacuate residents. But this has nothing to with the human rights article, and unless the source is about human rights, it should not be used. Capiche? Viriditas (talk) 19:40, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
        • Then include them. Welcome to a neutral point of view. I'm sorry if you favor one side of the argument over another, but that ha salways been the problem. Your own point of view takes precedent over others, and your manner in dealing with countering points of view are voluminous discussions on the talk page, threats, referral to proceedings like we have here, and harassing messages on the user talkj page. Any change is met with an instant revert, which translates to edit warring. As for your points, your wrong. See p. 4 of the cite. The busses set aside for evacuation were left in their parking lots, and the evacuation plan for the city was not followed.--Yachtsman1 (talk) 20:06, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
          • Please pay very close to attention: The source you cited does not say what you are claiming. You interpreted and twisted it in order to push a POV into the article. And, there is nothing about human rights in the source you used, so you are synthesizing the material. When a source is challenged like this, you need to prove a second one if you continue to make the same claim. If this isn't making sense to you, please have someone else explain it. And this holds true for all of the edits Mosedschurte has made to the article as well. All I see from you is incessant wikilawyering and filibustering on every level. Nothing gets done as long as you and the rest of the POV pushers are allowed to edit here. And, that is, precisely the goal, isn't it? To prevent editors from improving this article in any way. And you appear to be succeeding. So, what we need is for administrators to monitor the talk and article page, (especially the latest series of reverts by Mosedschurte, which were not only unjustified, but were completely ignored in his edit summary) and to block editors on sight when they pull this crap. Viriditas (talk) 00:43, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

RfC[edit]

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

Request[edit]

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

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

Additional mischaracterizations by Viriditas[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Continuing edit warring by Mosedschurte[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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)

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)

Move for Closure (Yachtsman1)[edit]

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)

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)

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. [[28]] 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: [[29]]. 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)

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)

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

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

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

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

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

No harm done. Special:Log/block may help for future reference. Stifle (talk) 08:24, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

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: [30], [31] (Fiegl's book was on "Armenian terrorism"), and [32]. Some action also seems to be warranted against Proger, who has a long history of disruption. Many of his disruptions won't be understood by admins because of their lack of knowledge on the content but here are some of the most outstanding offenders:

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

We next encounter the following disruptive edits. There is a new user, InRe.Po, who might be ErkTGP, who might also be this user with a fake Armenian name , Անդրանիկ (Andranik), who failed to demonstrate any knowledge of Armenian or Russian [33]. 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 [34]. 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 ([35]). 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 [36]. What I once believed was merely a temporary nuisance seems to be a recurring problem. It is becoming increasingly difficult to continue editing in this atmosphere. And I am merely skimming over the material here. The passivity by admins here in unacceptable, given that Meowy was unjustly hounded and blocked on every given occasion outnumbered by editors who ignore what is being discussed and who don't even give a damn about improving the articles' quality.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 18:25, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

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

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

he did it again, so it's time for that block. ThuranX (talk) 03:58, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

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

He's gone.--chaser (talk) 04:05, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

I have requested speedy deletion under G4, with a link pointing to the previously deleted article.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 06:22, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

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)

Thank you for your assistance.--Lenticel ^(talk) 08:01, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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

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

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

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

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)

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)

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)

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 [37] [38]. Looking at his history page, it looks like he's also done it to QuackGuru and just now [39] he's removed referenced text. As I could be considered involved (see my talk page where someone has commented on his removal of the link on Dead Sea Scrolls I'd appreciate it if another Admin could deal with this. He's using Lupin's tools it seems, if that's relevant. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 21:31, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

..."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)

<< 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)

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. –xeno^talk 17:01, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

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)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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)

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

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.[40][41][42] Inappropriate and misleading talk page "disclaimer"[43] that would be disruptive if acted on, and it apparently is.[44] I tried to delete this as improper use of talk page but TMCK restored. More interest in drama than editing.[45][46] - Wikidemon (talk) 05:08, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

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)

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)

• I concur with an indefinite (not infinite block) until the circumstances Nick describes are fulfilled. Stifle (talk) 08:30, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
• 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)

Done. Gwen Gale (talk) 11:56, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

• • Indef block, as obviously not here to contribute properly. But for being honest, subtract one day from that indefinite block. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 09:48, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

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)

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)

This is why I left the very broad hint about unblocking. Gwen Gale (talk) 11:28, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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 [47]. 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

• Picking at random User:Thereistheoffer, reviewing the edits at Johnny Spanish here, removing some unsourced details and a link to a tripod site seems fine to me. This wasn't vandalism, it's a content dispute and you won't get points from me if you are treating all content disputes as vandalism. Especially since WP:AGF is definitely not seen at User talk:Thereistheoffer. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 11:36, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
• Ok, what's the problem with User:Sizzleman212's one edit here? That seems to be the opposite of what you claim the vandal was doing. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 11:44, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
• User:Persistent Organic Pollutants's edits at Stephen Grammauta here seem fine. The grammar point is accurate and Ganglandnews doesn't look like a reliable source (a pay-per-view website by a single author, online only). And on a WP:BLP too. Eeh. Is it really appropriate for you to revert User:Evenmoremotor (who you accuse of being a sock) and reinsert links to three blogs? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 11:44, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Alansohn has been blocked twice recently (probably due to disputes in cfd with Otto) whereas Otto4711 has not. I did protest about the blocking of A (to no avail) and shall now protest about the blocking of O. Both editors have strong views and express themselves trenchantly at times. (Otto has delivered fruit-related barbs in my direction, eg in this cfd discussion a banana wagon is introduced into cfd, possibly for the first time; so I am not 'on his side'.) Occuli (talk) 02:03, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
• 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 Nobody^{My talk} 00:32, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• 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)

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

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

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

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)

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

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

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

Actually, in that discussion he does reference a discussion from 2006 in the nomination.--Aervanath (talk) 16:55, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

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)

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, [48]. Advice and thoughts would be helpful, thanks--Jac16888^Talk 20:16, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

It seems that the 'good or bad' edit was bad. [49]. I had a look through this editor's contributions earlier and couldn't spot a good one. pablo_hablo. 22:32, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Hi Stevenjp, I suggest you have a look at the dispute resolution page. PhilKnight (talk) 15:53, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

Ah, Trotsky. IIRC he once addressed a political meeting in the US with the immortal line, "Workers and peasants of the Bronx!" Always had his finger on the pulse that one. --Folantin (talk) 08:14, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Was that the one at Yankee Stadium? With his cousin playing first base for the visitors? After Leon the Lip was given the Bronx cheer, he sadly remarked that on that day, he considered himself the unluckiest man on the face of the earth. For one thing, they refused to retire his number. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 08:43, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Anticipating Mike Dukakis by several decades, Leon posed in a military vehicle, and sang the Bob Hope song, "Tanks for de memories." At that point they awarded him a prize - a free vacation trip to Mexico. Turned out to be a one-way ticket. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 08:45, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

One user seems to be involved in some serious edit warring. [86]--The Legendary Sky Attacker 06:51, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

With a name like User:Justthefacts 101, how could there be a problem with his edits? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 09:38, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

They've been indef'd as a sock. Thanks for catching the last revert. Pinkadelica ^{Say it...} 09:40, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

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)

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)

Other pages now protected also. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 05:26, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Oops, already indef'd. Never mind. :) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 21:49, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

FYI: I spotted a fourth target for the sockpuppet's vandalism: Pioneer Court in Chicago, by Obleaop (talk · contribs). --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 17:05, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

And another sock on this article: Dinkiebrains (talk · contribs) ... me thinks this article also requires protection. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 17:51, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

These are both blocked and a nice abuse filter has been made - by EncMstr (talk · contribs) - and turned on. We can wrap this up here and handle as things progress. Wknight94 ^talk 18:05, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

See [87] 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)

Looking at Mytestid's edits, this is a political/ethnic issue, and that user is clearly pushing an agenda. This is best served at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Geopolitical ethnic and religious conflicts, which is set up specifically for this type of situation. Be sure to read the intro at the top of that page and provide diffs so you receive the proper attention. Mytestid should probably be blocked if s/he makes one more such edit (after being warned, of course). --64.85.214.21 (talk) 14:22, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Would this[88] be a legal threat? --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:47, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I say so. Block away. MuZemike 22:51, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

OK, done. Article prodded two days ago in any case. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:59, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

• 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)

I think I've found the problem. There was a press release on PR Newswire regarding Brianna Tatiana being signed by Global Village Records.[89]. According to an 2006 SEC litigation release [90], "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.[91] 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)

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."[92] Brianna Tatiana is not mentioned in any of the Government press releases on the scam. --John Nagle (talk) 05:49, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Dr. Henry Jones, lol. Iggy pop goes the weasel (talk) 06:40, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Great. Times must be tough in the archeaology business. One link says, "Brianna has performed for thousands of fans at sporting events." Is there actually a Brianna? I was thinking I could make this claim myself, for every time I sing the national anthem at a ballpark. I guess I draw attention, because everyone's singing off-key except me. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 08:39, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

• I'll mark this resolved now as the problematic article has been deleted. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 18:13, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

I'd appreciate it if an admin would deal with this user in regards to the threat to post my picture "somewhere". And a checkuser who isn't busy may want to also deal with the same user at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Scottydog77. Nice defense there by the user. - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here @} 10:50, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

*tap tap* Is this thing on? i can haz admnz? - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here @} 11:06, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Blocked indef. Someone who's more awake can review.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 11:29, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here @} 11:35, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

So, you've got your own picture, on a publicly-visible and high-traffic website, and he's threatening to "post it somewhere"? Next thing, he'll be threatening to "out" you. He'll stop at nothing to expose what you've already exposed. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 13:10, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Regardless, threats of off-wiki harassment are unacceptable. - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here @} 13:57, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Why, exactly was the user blocked? WP:OUTING says "Posting another person's personal information (legal name, date of birth, identification numbers, home or workplace address, job title and work organisation, telephone number, email address, or other contact information, regardless of whether or not the information is actually correct) is harassment, unless that editor voluntarily posts this information, or links to this information, on Wikipedia themselvesItalic text. " NoCal100 (talk) 13:52, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Regardless, threats of off-wiki harassment are unacceptable. - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here @} 13:57, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

What threats are you referring to? WP:outing is clear that reposting your picture is not harassment, if you voluntarily posted it yourself to Wikipedia. NoCal100 (talk) 14:01, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

WP:OUTING refers to outing on Wikipedia. It doesn't address harassment off wiki. Maybe he shouldn't have been blocked because of WP:OUTING but he should have been blocked period. - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here @} 14:06, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

what should he have been blocked for? He threatened to do something you've agreed to, which is to republish a file you uploaded to Wikipedia undder Creative Commons ShareAlike. NoCal100 (talk) 14:16, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

It's not just the picture itself necessarily, it could be invasive. For example, it might get posted on the RNC bulletin board: "For a good time, call..." plus his home phone. Then he would start getting calls at all hours, begging for donations. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 14:22, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Where would the home phone # come from? If it was also made public, then again, WP:OUTING excludes this from being harrassment. NoCal100 (talk) 14:27, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

From thorough detective work. For example, anyone who knows me really, really well and were to happen to read all my posts could possibly connect the dots and figure out who's writing it. If they post it, that would be outing, since I haven't explicitly given out my real life identity, they've just inferred it, which could happen to anyone here, in theory. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 14:44, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

User talk:Allstarecho has given Scottydog77 (and anyone else) the irrevocable right to publish his pictures anywhere for any purpose. His only condition was that derivative works (i.e.: photoshoppings) should be equally licensed. What's the matter here? Scottydog77 hasn't threatened to do anything wrong. And if you disagree with me, I promise I'll make all your articles in a book and sell it! Mwahahaha.... --Damiens.rf 14:08, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

The threat to post an already-publicly-visible photo somewhere, reminds me of the time a plane bound for Warsaw was hijacked, and the hijacker demanded the plane be taken to Poland. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 14:12, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Apparently you all have missed the issue here. I have not once questioned the licensing or how my photo is used. What I did question is the threat of off-wiki harassment. Thanks for playing. - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here @} 14:20, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

The block was appropriate. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 14:24, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

How so? Which policy ? NoCal100 (talk) 14:27, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

The problem is that we don't know what else he might do. If all he does is post the picture and say "here's a picture of this guy from wikipedia", that's one thing. But he might have done some research and figured out his real identity. As with legal threats, maybe we can't stop them from doing things off-wiki, but that automatically disqualifies them from editing on-wiki. If the guy were to rescind the threat/promise/whatever, then maybe he could be reinstated. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 14:39, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Aside from the off-wiki harassment threat, they've all been blocked now for socking. - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here @} 14:48, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Bingo. The trump card, as it were. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 14:51, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

I was going to post earlier to say "perhaps the correct course would be to unblock this editor for threatening to out another editor, then re-block them for threatening to harass another editor (then if they appealed we could unblock them, then if the SPI comes back they could be re-blocked as a sock), but I can't be bothered" but I couldn't be bothered. I think this now really is resolved. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 15:41, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

A user seems to have posted a comment at Wikipedia:Abuse reports/90.202.151.82 rather than a more suitable location, copy/pasted from the page, and I shall delete the original shortly. Not really too sure where to put this discussion though...

90.202.151.82 (talk · contribs)

Requester Comments Hi - this IP is continually reverting edits that are not being agreed in discussion on a UK town article. Despite several attempts to engage them I have not managed to resolve the situation which has left them undoing any good faith edits I make. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Regshaw (talk • contribs)

Notes

• It would appear from Bradley Stoke that this user is
  • conducting personal attacks on the requester ("you are an insult to the people of Bradley Stoke" [93], "i can tell you know nothing about web development"[94], [95],[96])
  • blanking ([97][98][99][100][101][102][103][104][105][106])
• Possible connection with new account bennyrand (talk · contribs) whose only edits have been making a reference to an off-wiki attack on requester ([107]) and making his own home page.

Ian¹³/t 12:46, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

This looks like a content dispute that's got a couple of temperatures raised. No warnings have been given out yet, so I've remedied that (IP and Bennyrand have been informed of 3RR+NPA & NPA respectively); I'll keep the page on my watchlist; if the disruption continues in any shape or form and I don't appear to have noticed, feel free to give me a nudge (or post back here). EyeSerene^talk 14:36, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

That's cool thanks, tagged as resolved. Ian¹³/t 16:11, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

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)

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))

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)

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)

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)

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)

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.[108] That was not a revert. Several days later another editor, Pergamino, made significant changes to the text without discussion. I reverted the changes.[109] 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...[110] 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 [111] by Milo 00:24, 27 May 2009 (UTC)]

That looks like legitimate grounds for lifting the block if it's true. Durova^Charge! 00:49, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

• 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))

Clause[edit]

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)

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. Mangojuice^talk 02:37, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

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. Durova^Charge! 04:54, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

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)

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)

I would be uneasy in commencing the practice of allowing one mistake over interpretation of ArbCom decisions; I saw immediately how Will Beback had violated the word of the restriction as provided at AE. As well as being the responsibility of the restricted party to understand and abide by the sanctions imposed at ArbCom, it is likely to severely discourage the few admins that work the AE page if properly arrived at blocks, topic bans are then lifted because it was the first time. The ArbCom case should have provided sufficient warning and notice that sanctions for violations would be enforced - otherwise would be to diminish this avenue of final resolution also. If Will Beback and the other editor (who I note is not being discussed) are to receive a warning, let it be in the form of this 24 hour block. LessHeard vanU (talk) 17:05, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

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)

• Entirely reasonable. Stifle (talk) 10:13, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

We could go either way with this: Pergamino was not named at the case. But consensus leans in the other direction and is internally consistent, so deferring. Durova^Charge! 17:10, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

It's unfortunate that Sandstein didn't specify which part of the remedy he thought we'd violated, as this might have been cleared up sooner. However to prevent future problems I've asked the arbCom to clarify the remedy so that there won't be any more misunderstandings, whether on the part of editors or enforcers.   Will Beback  talk  23:33, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

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

Seems like they're violating the "court order" as well. Nakon 03:23, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Lol. Does anyone actually understand what Wikipedia is outside of Wikipedia? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 03:25, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

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)

No, that's why they think it's reliable, which it isn't. --NE2 07:32, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

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)

Agree. It's not intended to be a legal threat. Mishlai (talk) 04:34, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

They reinserted it. I've gotten politely snippy with the IP. Tony Fox (arf!) 15:43, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

And inserted again - I'd appreciate if someone else could explain to this fellow, who I suspect is affiliated with the newspaper in question, why it's inappropriate? Tony Fox (arf!) 22:46, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Wadester16 (talk · contribs) took a half-completed post I had made, but then deleted, fixed formatting so that it displayed (most of it did not in the version I had saved), added a reply criticising me for having posted it, and changed the context.

This is in gross violation of WP:TALK, both letter (it forbids editing other people's posts) and spirit.

Diffs: My text had been up for less than a minute when I thought better and deleted it

Wadester "restores" something similar to the text I had removed. It's claimed as a simple Undo, but see below: It isn't.

Never claimed undo. In fact, by telling you I fixed your misspelling, I implied that an Undo never happened. wadester16 | Talk→ 20:42, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

The edit summary is "(Undid revision 292722654 by Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) no, please let everyone read this)". However, you did not, in fact, merely undo revision 292722654; you modified my text at the same time. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 21:28, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Text I deleted vs. Wadester's "Undoing" of my near-immediate removal of it. Note the cquote tag is removed. This prevented 90% of my post from displaying.

Note that, in the version I had briefly put up, the cquote box is broken, only showing a tiny bit of the thread.

Wadester changes the context. Note that this further gives the impression that I decided to post this, and that this was what I had posted. Neither is true.

Wadester restores it again, after I complained.

Look, I'm about to go to bed, but had I done so a few minutes earlier, I'd have missed that he had restored and edited my message, and would have woken up to find that an incomplete statement I had removed seconds later had been edited into a semblance of completeness, and was being presented as my final statement on the matter. This really isn't on. People have been blocked in the past for stunts like this, but Wadester, even when I pointed him to the policy he was violating, remained unrepentant. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 20:20, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

I admit I didn't think about how it would show itself after removing the quotes, which didn't compile correctly (80% of the text was missing). So I added two lines (----) to separate the text from the current discussion. It even had a "title" line above it, which said "Also pasted from his talk. The background to this was him leaving a somewhat rude message on my talk page [3], criticising me for not putting through the provisional promotions, and saying I should have done them fully." At the moment, it is still there.

The background behind this is a disagreement between Shoemaker's Holiday and myself over at WP:FPC. He and Durova have been openly arguing with me there. I believe that this text that he added, then redacted, should be listed, as I believe it shows I'm in the right. Maybe he realized this and removed it because of that, maybe not. This is an overreaction to a minor edit that was done in good faith (the formatting fix, I mean). As for reposting what SH posted, he must be aware by now that you better well be sure about what you want to post when you press the "Save page" button. All text added to a page on WP is GFDL and I have every right to repost what may have been removed. For that matter, this all came from my talk page; I could have easily just recopied+pasted the content and said "This is what Shoemaker's Holiday added, then redacted. I believe it's important to leave here if he felt it was important to initially post." I never edited anything that he wrote (save for helping him by fixing his typo in spelling "for"), only readded the discussion we had previously, text that I have every right to bring over here (especially since he did it first). Hopefully this can be closed quickly... wadester16 | Talk→ 20:40, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Wadester, if you're going to restore a post that had been up for seconds, before being removed by the author, it is your responsibility to make it damn clear that this is the case. You did not. The context of what we're arguing about doesn't matter. However much you feel you're in the right in the text I quoted doesn't matter. You edited an unfinished post into a semblance of a finished post, and presented it as my finished thoughts. That is a blockable offense, and you seem unable to see that there's a real problem here. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 20:57, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

(ec)Just an outside opinion here, but there have been quite a few additions and alterations that you have made to your own posts since you posted this thread. You refer to unfinished posts. Edit conflicts aside, you might want to consider typing out your responses in a text editor first, then posting them when you believe they are complete. You've already added text to your original post that could have been a reply, and split up one large paragraph into two, without noting that you have done so. HAZardousMATT^toxic 21:02, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but this needs no admin action that I can think of. I'm fairly sure we can just assume good faith and let it side. weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 20:43, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Garden, he continues to state that he has every right to do this, and will do it again if it ever suits him. Assume good faith cannot apply, given that. I was misrepresented. My post was edited to make my unfinished thoughts appear to be my final views. Wadester refuses to see anything wrong with that, so admin action is the only way to make sure he doesn't do it again. He's been on Wikipedia for years, that's far too long not to know basic Wikipedia policy. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 20:46, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

No, I didn't do it to be malicious. I apologized for misrepresenting you, but it was presented in a clearer form (with the lines) than the way Durova did it. And she did that herself. I'm sorry for the misrepresentation, but I still feel it's a good thing to post. Maybe it will make other users think of reasons why I may be so bad at closing FPCs. Or maybe it will show that I'm not so bad. I'd like users to see as much info as possible. wadester16 | Talk→ 21:00, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm fairly sure Wadester didn't know these weren't your final thoughts. Maybe indicate this in the edit summary next time? weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 21:03, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

This whole matter is touchy enough already; I was hoping we could keep it off the admin boards. Durova^Charge! 21:07, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

As far as I'm concerned, we shouldn't even be here to begin with. wadester16 | Talk→ 21:16, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

At any other process it would have progressed to user conduct RfC, but we're in agreement on this much: administrative intervention is unnecessary. Respectfully requesting thread closure. Please, let's get FPC back on track. Durova^Charge! 21:19, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

The above file still lacks copyright information, and was tagged as such 12 days ago (making deletion five days overdue). Could an admin please delete the file? → Dylan620 (Toolbox Alpha, Beta) 22:43, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Poof... — Edokter • Talk • 23:50, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

71.119.123.23 (talk · contribs) only contributions have been about 8 or 9 additions of various external links related to www.helpguide.org to articles. Now I'm not sure if this is spam vandalism or a legit source. Could I have an admin's view on this? Ta. --WebHamster 23:07, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Seems to be legitimate at first glance. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 23:08, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

The website seems legit and a good external link for the articles. However, Viagra may also give me an erection, but that does not mean that mass emails adveritising such are not spam. That is to say, the website looks legit and useful, but the behavior of adding external links to a wide spectrum of articles without doing anything else could be seen as spamming regardless of the merits of the site. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 23:47, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Now a new account, User talk:Helpguide, was apparently created specifically to add those helpguide.org links to articles, including ones they were just removed on. Clearly not someone being helpful in general and just accidentally starting with links to the same site on different articles but a role account created for spamming. DreamGuy (talk) 00:12, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

spamusername blocked. Mfield (Oi!) 00:15, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

That was fast. Thanks! DreamGuy (talk) 00:26, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Making a right mess of José_Mourinho, moving it to \_Special_1 and then to The_Special_1, as well as replacing all instances of Mourinho's name in the article text. User's contribs show previous destructive/vandalistic edits and user has been previously blocked for same. Codeine (talk) 23:59, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Blocked like Lego. If he returns after his one-week block with the same shenanigans, let us know. He can be indeffed... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 00:26, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Many thanks. It's tough being an admin on another wiki. On the occasions I do edit here, I feel so... impotent. ;) -- Codeine (talk) 00:28, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

I've reversed all the moves. I think we're done here, but he's in my diary for 168 hours time. Rodhullandemu 00:29, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

This jackass just left a very detailed and very personal attack page threatening some family. I'm going to report this at CU since I think that this should be reported to local authorities. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 00:05, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Looks like you already took care of him. Feel free to follow up with IRL authorities as you see fit. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 00:27, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

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)

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)

I'm with Leatherstocking on this one. Recreated. Maury Markowitz (talk) 16:49, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

That's ok! Gwen Gale (talk) 17:02, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

(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)

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)

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)

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)

Now listed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stanislav Menshikov.  Sandstein  21:50, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

• To correct an error by Leatherstocking: when I edited the article (only a minor edit), Mapleporter had not yet been identified as a sock of a banned user. Leatherstocking has a history of complaining about enforcement activities regarding HK's socks. Regarding Maury Markowitz's issue about whether Mapleporter was banned at the time: we ban people, not accounts. The person behind Mapleporter was the banned editor Herschelkrustofsky, who has used dozens of sock accounts. HK also has a history of creating articles solely to improve the reputation of Lyndon LaRouche, of whom he is a follower. In the year since it was created it was not linked to any other article.   Will Beback  talk  19:36, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Under the circumstances, then, the appropriate time to delete would be at the time the sock was identified. Also, please refrain from attributing motives to other editors -- I don't have "a history of complaining about enforcement activities regarding HK's socks." I have a "history" of calling attention to enforcement actions, by you, that have the effect of influencing content disputes to which you you are a party. You can avoid my calling attention to such actions, by not taking them. That is why we have this board: call in an uninvolved admin. --Leatherstocking (talk) 01:01, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

I didn't attribute a motive - I identified a behavior. You're welcome to call attention to anything you like. But I've been following policy. Any help dealing with the banned user is appreciated. Even better would be if the banned editor would stay away, as the community has repeatedly decided.   Will Beback  talk  05:14, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

If an admin or two could take a look at the backlog on AIV, it would be appreciated. Thanks! - NeutralHomer • Talk • 03:15, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Love and maple syrup are useless without pancakes and sex. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 23:20, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Mmmmmm maple syrup and sex... damn I wish I was young again! --WebHamster 23:40, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

Was that from that summer at band camp? Oh... MuZemike 03:54, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Good grief I go to Disney World for a week and THIS happens in AN/I? Wildthing61476 (talk) 12:55, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Standards keep heading down the ladder as we try to wring the last ounce of humor. By now we must be down to the last wrung. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 13:14, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

So the "logo" for abortion is the word "Abortion" with a drop shadow? I guess it's better than a picture of a coat hanger, but really, why do we have this image at all? rspεεr (talk) 04:06, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

If someone attaches a registered trade mark symbol to it, then we'll have some real cause to worry. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 08:20, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

I was surprised how many articles use it. It's being used for a project logo, so that stands to reason. A coat-hanger? How about an illustration of a 13-year-old being raped by her stepfather? Not neutral either? Then the word itself is probably the thing. Maybe a bit too fancy for its own good, though. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 08:27, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Recently, I asked for some feedback on this user's pattern of uncivil behavior, and what response to it might be appropriate. Only a few people responded, and no one directly replied to the question of whether his behavior rose to the level of needing administrative attention or not. The archived discussion is here. The user has replied to the archiving of the discussion in this section of his talk page, entitled "Still here haters." He says there that he very much wants to open an ANI thread regarding myself and User:SarekOfVulcan, in order to ask that we be disciplined for our 'immature behavior,' and presumably to address the problem that we are both incompetent and insane, but he is unable to open the thread himself because he doesn't feel his English skills are strong enough. I therefore open the discussion on his behalf; if anyone feels that I should be reprimanded, or Sarek should, for my behavior to this user, I welcome your comments. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 20:10, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Second that, again. I'm pretty sure I haven't gone over the line, but I am an involved editor on DreamHost, where most (all?) of our interactions have taken place.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:16, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

I can't deny it, my english and my wikipeda linking skills and all that are somewhat lacking but I wasn't asking anyone to open such a thread for me, the fact that Fisherqueen did is a clear cut example of immature behavior but yeah I'll try to get busy and make all them links, text and all that stuff and post up an ANI thread.--194x144x90x118 (talk) 20:22, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Would you like me to withdraw the thread? I would be happy to do so. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 20:25, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Posting the thread was an immature thing to do which will be mentioned in an ANI thread appearing in the future. Withdrawing the thread is an obvious thing to do.--194x144x90x118 (talk) 20:35, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, if there's a thread coming later anyway, might as well leave this one open for now.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:40, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

My first interaction with 194 was reverting his third addition of a lengthy statement that the DreamHost article had scared him away from using their services. I later removed a similar comment attacking another editor and criticizing Dreamhost (again, after multiple other editors had removed the comment).--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:03, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Could you folks take this to WP:WQA? I don't see any of this leading to a block. Jehochman ^Talk 21:19, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

I have no problem with it being here, because I sense it's a prelude to (and hopefully heading off) RfC. We have few members who would comment in WQA, and a significant number here (one would think). Usually, so few of responses means "it's not a big deal" or "not urgent? no need to look". I would suggest that FisherQueen has seen something that her colleagues might want to look at...and sometimes it's more polite to not say exactly what it is, in case she was reading it wrong...and of course, 194's own comments in this thread give hint that incivility abounds - they can't even be polite in ANI! (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 21:46, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

I too saw their uncivil comments and almost commented on them, but don't forget to assume good faith, it's possible that they are bad at English, and don't realise that their comments are on the line of civility. Cheers - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 21:58, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

It is possible, but unlikely. 194x's contributions tend to be written in fairly idiomatic English with a varied vocabulary; their grammar is sometimes slightly shaky, but their grasp of English phrasing and idioms seems to be good enough. The fact that they copied the talk page "rules" from User:Anonimu, who has been banned for a year and a half for edit warring, personal attacks and harrassing other editors, is also interesting under the circumstances. --bonadea contributions talk 10:19, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

FisherQueen and Sarek are neither immature nor insane, and the insinuation that they are is problematic. I recommend that FQ and Sarek avoid antagonizing 194x etc. in the future, but that also 194x avoids any interaction with FQ and Sarek. If he doesn't like working with them, he should not. And he should avoid playing games with WP:NPA. Strong english skills or not, insults are clear in any language. I don't speak French all that well, but I know when someone is throwing around inappropriate comments in French... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 23:54, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

H.F.F.H (talk · contribs), a self-identified member of the Highwaymen Motorcycle Club, posted a legal threat here. The issue is the phrasing "one-percenter" which to my uninitiated eyes appears to be appropriate (judging from the sources, that is). In any case, a very explicit legal threat. --bonadea contributions talk 07:34, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

I'll transfer this to WP:AIV. C.U.T.K.D ^{T | C} 07:43, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Again, brilliant work CUTKD. WP:AIV is for vandalism, not legal threats.Drew Smith What I've done 09:59, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) That was un-necessarily sarcastic. What you should say is, "Actually, AIV is only for simple vandalism, this is the right place to deal with legal threats." ╟─TreasuryTag►hemicycle─╢ 10:16, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Then Wikipedia:LEGAL should be updated to stop sending people to the wrong board :-) Thanks, CUTKD! --bonadea contributions talk 10:15, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

To be fair, WP:NLT does clearly say at the top, Legal threats should be reported to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. ╟─TreasuryTag►hemicycle─╢ 10:26, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, yes it does. My post above was an error (and I tried to revert it but was apparently edit conflicted). I misread Drew's post as saying that legal threats should not be reported to ANI, so thought it was criticism of my posting here. Sorry about the confusion. --bonadea contributions talk 10:35, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

<< Fair enough, don't worry! ╟─TreasuryTag►hemicycle─╢ 10:37, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

My apologies for causing confusion.Drew Smith What I've done 10:38, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

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)

• 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)

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)

Fair enough; if someone sends me a list I'll work through it. Stifle (talk) 15:25, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

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)

I've checked through #39 (PostScipt). --Carnildo (talk) 01:47, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

And done. About half of the redirects have been restored. --Carnildo (talk) 01:13, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. --NE2 16:04, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

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)

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)

If I may add a note here, there is another user, SqueakBox (talk · contribs), who may be worth investigating as well. Looking at his contrib history shows a similar pattern to the now-blocked IP's of reverting QuackGuru's edits. In a 7-minute spree on 26 May, 2009, he reverted QG 15 times, all of which were soon reverted by admin, Jennavecia. Tarc (talk) 16:36, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Is it possible that this user did not know there was a consensus against removing co-founder? Or possibly thought that guackguru was trying to hide vandalism by implying he was correcting a typo, even though anyone familiar with the situation understood the sarcasm there? A cursory search would suggest the IP user was not told about the consensus, so the IP users unblock request might actually be valid. This still does not really explain why the IP user is editing in that area, possibly following guackguru. David D. (Talk) 05:52, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Plausible, as the reversions occurred before the IP's involvement in Talk:Jimmy Wales. But it seems to be a hounding issue nonetheless, as this anon has been involved in revert wars with this user in the recent past, [123], down in the April 15-17 range. And their first edit to Jimmy Wales was to revert the accusation against him. Maybe a block reduction, then. Tarc (talk) 16:25, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

QuackGuru would have been knowingly trolling if he were implying that I am hounding him, as he knows full well my interest in this subject as we have debated it many times over the last years. Tarc, how is me reverting someone with whom I have been involved in a dispute with for years hounding him? Perhaps he is hounding me by making such knowingly provocative edits? If you really think I am not interested in this subject you might care to read User:SqueakBox/wikipedia founder. And for the record there has never been any consensus that the co-founder dispute should be added to every article which mentions Wales. On the other hand if the ip was reverting QuackGuru because of his involvement with other issues there may be a case there. Thanks, SqueakBox talk 02:55, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robert I. Sherman
• Related discussion: Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Robert I.Sherman - Balanced or CSD G10.3F

As of this posting, the deletion discussion has seven votes for deletion (including nom) and only one keep (that of the author). Note also that the subject of the article has expressed strong objection to the content of the article, which had been stubbed as a borderline attack piece on a living person. The author persists in restoring the content. There is no biographical information on the subject's life or career outside of these two incidents. As the admin who began the stubbing and opened the AFD, and having already restubbed it once, I feel it inappropriate for me to take any further action here. I do, however, believe the article should be restubbed and protected until the AFD concludes. Further opinions requested. لennavecia 06:39, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Since my comment on the BLP noticeboard is rather elaborate, let me give a short version here. I am not so much opposing this afd on the basis that I consider Sherman notable as person. I count roughly 1000 hits with search engines for "Robert I. Sherman". What I am strongly opposing is the presumption that the material is ""bordering on an attack page" or that it "it may actually qualify for [CSD] G10." For previous discussions see here and here.

All I did was clean up (and later move) an article called Historical persecution by Christians. The old version included a section "20th century" and a subsection "United States", and there was a single sentence: "In the 1988 U.S. presidential campaign, Republican presidential candidate George H. W. Bush said, "I don't know that atheists should be regarded as citizens, nor should they be regarded as patriotic. This is one nation under God." The remainder of that section was a piece of junk and I could delete it, diff but that sentence appeared to be relevant for Wikipedia, only not for this article. So I merged it and later expanded the material, since it turned out to be a difficult issue. And I have been battling about this ever since.No one attempted to show that it simply isn't notable, everybody simply bashed against it on the grounds of wp:blp or wp:verifiability. If this material was unverifiable or a blp violation, I would not have kept it. If it turns out the Sherman is not notable, then I suppose that I will have to merge the material into Freedom of Religion in the United States, unless someone can convincingly argue that it would not be "one of the most famous quotes about atheists in American society". And if we have to go through the arguments based on wp:blp or wp:verifiability, so be it. But then, let us do it only once, and properly. Zara1709 (talk) 07:13, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

The AfD will clearly conclude with deletion. Meanwhile, I think it's not worth the bother to stub and protect; the content is not a clear BLP violation.  Sandstein  12:06, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

The subject of the article disagrees, viewing the article as an attack piece. He has approached the situation respectfully and, considering all commenting editors agree that the content should be deleted, it seems to me that it would be prudent to remove the offensive material, which I contend is a violation of our BLP policy. لennavecia 15:47, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Possible early closure? There is only one keep. KillerChihuahua^?!? 16:08, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Could some kind admin delete this defamatory accusation from a SPA IP 92.14.248.193 (talk · contribs) currently in melt down on the Death of Baby P article? --WebHamster 12:43, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

No matter, already sorted. --WebHamster 12:45, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Spoke too soon. Could someone please block the above mentioned IP editor, and delete the defamatory comments in his contrib history. This person's a real cuddly customer! --WebHamster 13:05, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Indef'd. 31 hours didn't strike me as sufficient, given those edit summaries. Cleaning up talk page diffs, too.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 13:15, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

There's a high likelihood that JohnRedwood (talk · contribs) is the IP risen from the dead... worth keeping an eye upon methinks. --WebHamster 13:19, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Blocked 92.15.9.8 over threats of violence. This is certainly a charming corner of WP I've stumbled onto....--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 13:25, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree, but have changed the duration to a finite one per Wikipedia:Blocking IP addresses#Block lengths.  Sandstein  13:57, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

31 hours is more than sufficient for this dynamic IP. You'll notice that it was no longer being used by this user after only a few minutes. Please reduce the block length to avoid excessive collateral. Thanks. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 14:11, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

I would agree - the ISP in question (TalkTalk) does not offer static IPs and I doubt a block of anything longer than a week or so will achieve anything other than collateral damage. ~ mazca ^t|c 17:23, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Done, lowered to 24h.  Sandstein  18:07, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

You idiots, unblock the talk page so people can discuss this important case! —Preceding unsigned comment added by JohnRedwood (talk • contribs) 13:28, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

That would seem to answer WebHamster's question. JohnRedwood (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) now also indefblocked.  Sandstein  13:36, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

I also blocked three of JohnRedwood's IP socks yesterday for harassing User:Mw-wsh. We'll likely be dealing with this one for a bit, so any watchlist help on Death of Baby P would be greatly appreciated. — Satori Son 14:45, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Historičar and his likely sockpuppet User:Journalist 007 have been edit-warring on the abovementioned article, by simply removing content they feel like is added by "Croat and Serb nationalist", despite being abundantly sourced, and at the same time ignoring the talkpage discussions altogether, where everyone can see that he ("them") has no case at all, by either deliberately milsleading and lying (e.g. claiming that the English version of the B&H constitution which contains the disputed phrasing Bosniac language is "translated from Croatian" despite the fact that there are several cited places where it is claimed otherwise, the Bosnian/Serbian/Croatian versions of the constitution being translated from the English original which was voted on) or engaging in ad hominems against his fellow Wikipedians. He even called "nationalist" users such as DIREKTOR and myself, even though both of us have a pretty strong record of being anti-nationalist (both Croat and Serb, and even Bosnian Muslim) on numerous other issues. Can someone with sysop buttons please warn Historičar to act politely, discuss the things that he doesn't like on the talkpage first, and stop acting as a censor for the information everyone but him is comfortable with? --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 14:07, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

I've blocked Historičar for 24 hours for edit-warring, notified Journalist 007 of WP:ARBMAC and warned them about reverting etc, and reminded DIREKTOR of WP:3RR. I've also fully-protected the article for one week to prevent further edit-warring and encourage all editors to engage on the talk-page. If you want to file a sock report, WP:SSP is thataway ;) Sanctions recorded at ARBMAC. EyeSerene^talk 16:51, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

New user User:Who killed bambi seems to have set up his account just for the purpose of reverting my edits [124]. I suspect this is User:64.19.148.90 who got angry at me for trying to include a NPOV in the article of his pet organization (see Talk:Oorah (organization). Can anything be done to stop him? Jms2000 (talk) 15:04, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

I think this report is rather premature. The best solution, when someone reverts an edit of yours, is to use a Talk page to discuss the matter (the talk page of the article, or of the other user), remembering to assume good faith and remain polite. The associated content dispute seems perfectly straightforward. The addition of the phrase "antisemitic hate group" is disputed; the solution is to provide a reliable source. Policy is quite clear that the burden of proof is on the editor wishing to add or retain information. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 15:37, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Isn't "bambi" one of those words frequently used in sock names by a long-time puppeteer? Ed Fitzgerald _{t / c} 17:33, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Bambifan 101Ed Fitzgerald _{t / c} 17:36, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Maybe not. Although User:HBC NameWatcherBot is programmed to look for "bambi" in usernames for potential association with Bambifan 101, the list of socks doesn't actually include any of that type that I can see. This could be a coincidence. Ed Fitzgerald _{t / c} 17:40, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Could one of you perhaps be persuaded to put your deletion goggles on and resolve the mystery at Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style#Archives_of_this_page? Vielen Dank,  Skomorokh  15:15, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Found 66 & 67, they weren't capitalized correctly: Wikipedia talk:Manual of style/Archive 67, Wikipedia talk:Manual of style/Archive 66. --64.85.220.164 (talk) 15:41, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Also found Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Archive 0 which isn't linked to in the archive box at all. Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Archive (jguk's changes) might be Archive 8 or 9, but so could Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Alpha Archive 1, Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Alpha Archive 2, Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Alpha Archive 3, Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Alpha Archive 4, or Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Alpha Archive 5; none of those seem to be archived properly. --64.85.211.233 (talk) 16:22, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

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)

Correct link ╟─TreasuryTag►hemicycle─╢ 18:12, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

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)

Heh! That might explain this (reverted) edit, which had me scratching my head. Cheers, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 18:19, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

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)

I think you are misreading the situation. All that Sam Blacketer did was revert vandalism in Cameron's article: New Canadian (talk · contribs) inserts a picture designed to mock Cameron: [125]. It is a picture that shows Cameron, making a stupid face, in front of something in the background that makes him look as though he has a halo. Sam Blacketer then reverted that edit, restoring the normal picture, showing Cameron smiling in his suit: [126], with the edit summary "(Undid revision 290191421 by New Canadian (talk): Revert choice of picture to one not carrying saintly overtones.)" His crime was to have a sense of humour. Two days later, Sam Blacketer reverted another vandal: [127]. Metz makes it sound as though Sam Blacketer had inserted a less flattering picture of Cameron, to score a popularity point against Cameron. The exact opposite is the truth. Thus I conclude Cade Metz is a journalist whose writings should not be given much credence, and that is putting it politely. ;) JN466 11:31, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

No, I get that, Jayen466 - I do - but there is a reason we avoid those articles with which we have conflict of interest issues. It's incredibly poor judgment. It isn't like editing Hitler and Ghandi's page to keep junk nd out (when you hate one and love the other); the editor had a real connection to the subject. Hmm, we should have a policy or guideline about this... - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 12:54, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Speaking as a Brit, Sam Blacketer's handling of the image seemed impartial, balanced and fair-minded. No need for a witch hunt here. Mathsci (talk) 22:01, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree that the edit was ok, but a politician should know better (as Brit and a Reg reader). "Sam" did ok, and the big mistake he made was editing under his real name. I also think that Cade Metz is an ok guy, having spoken to him in real life, and that their coverage of wikipedia is rather tongue-in-cheek and funny (it's quite a british thing, though I don't think he's a brit). He's written some good pieces, and this is just a gossipy piece which happens to be correct. Also, WP:BLP applies to comments about Sam and Reg writers, I'd have thought, so lets keep it nice (not directed at MathSci - he's a nice guy too). Verbal chat 22:14, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

I have to say I am rather surprised at all this furore. Among those of us who edit UK politics pages, its well known that Sam Blacketer was David Boothryd. As someone from a different party to David I can say his conduct has been excellent and impartial in all his dealings with both users and articles throughout his editing here. Its a real shame that he has felt that he needed to step down from ArbCom over this. Perhaps this ill informed IT journalist thought he had a scoop, not realising that he was telling the online political community what we knew anyway. I just hope that David carries on contributing to Wikipedia as both his in-depth historical knowledge and his eye for detail have raised the quality of our politics articles. - Galloglass 22:46, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Ill informed? He seems to have been correct, and Sam resigned because of it. I hope he keeps editing too, and I hope attacks on living, identifiable, people stop. I didn't know sam had other accounts. I suggest this section is closed. Verbal chat 07:57, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Not until "The Register" explains exactly what they meant by calling him a "Labour solider". That seems to be a typo for "solder", but I'm having a difficult time picturing how anyone could be a material used to join metal. Or is this another example of "The Register"'s penchant for erroneous reporting? -- llywrch (talk) 17:04, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

• Real world journalists have an annoying tendency to call the ArbCom Wikipedia's highest "court" that makes me cringe; this article seems no different. :) AGK 20:15, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

David Boothroyd article[edit]

Someone may want to take a closer look at this article and the drama quickly emerging behind this. I think this is going to get ugly. MuZemike 08:04, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

That is, it has been rapidly recreated, and another user has a copy of the article on his userpage, which is now up for MFD. MuZemike 08:06, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Never mind. Deleted again and salted. MuZemike 08:07, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

See WP:DRV. No need for drama. Jehochman ^Talk 08:42, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

The article is now posted on the user page of TAway (talk · contribs). Mathsci (talk) 08:45, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

I've resolved that. Jehochman ^Talk 09:02, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

• Jeneral28 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 147.188.244.61 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Neptune123456 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Earlier this week, this user was blocked for 31 hours due to violation of the 3RR (see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#Jeneral28 reported by Aoi (Result: 31 hours for Jeneral28+ip). Since then, the user has evaded their block several times. A helpful administrator, Amalthea, blocked two IPs that were used to evade the block per WP:DUCK, including 147.188.244.60 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and 147.188.244.59 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Since then, the user has evaded the block at least two more times, under the IP 147.188.244.61 and Neptune123456. In the former case, the IP address is very similar to the IP addresses Amalthea blocked earlier today; in the latter case, the user is editing at all the same articles Jeneral28 frequented, and is putting words into discussions where Jeneral28 frequented. For example, see these two diffs: [128] and [129]. User is also on talk pages simply agreeing with whatever Jeneral28 wrote in the past; see [130], [131], [132], and [133]. Finally, I'm not sure exactly what this is, but this template seems to have been automatically added to the user's talk page: [134] 青い(Aoi) (talk) 16:54, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Neptune123456 indefblocked per WP:DUCK; block on Jeneral28 reset. You may well be right about the IP, but with only two recent contributions I don't think there's enough there to go on yet. If they resume though, please re-report. EyeSerene^talk 17:22, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Checkuser on Neptune123456 shows him editing the same IP that Jeneral28 was using, and one other. Fred Talk 19:46, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

.61 was autoblocked already anyway.
He isn't disruptive enough yet to rangeblock the whole University of Birmingham, from where he's editing (147.188.0.0/16). However, if he continues with his disruptive behaviour a mail to their network admin might be a first step. Amalthea 17:30, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Heh, a rangeblock would be extreme at the moment ;) Incidentally, Neptune123456 has an unblock request up. EyeSerene^talk 17:33, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

• 74.78.20.70 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) began to vandalise articles like Guns N' Roses in March, mostly by changing dates. They got blocked two times for doing so.
• 72.231.253.33 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) followed in April, making the very same type of edits and got blocked four times since. They continue to vandalise articles like Tracii Guns and Iron Maiden up to this day. They do not talk and do not make any edit summaries. Any ideas? --Avant-garde a clue-hexaChord² 21:38, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Resolved

 – pages smoked, editors could be socking but no real disruptive sock editing to block for that reason alone. Watching. Mfield (Oi!) 04:33, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Mfield (Oi!) 20:23, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

I wonder what could be construed from the contribs of Smoker2000 (talk · contribs) and Marijuanasmoke (talk · contribs). Could it perhaps be something portentous of things to come? --WebHamster 22:20, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

I took the liberty of blanking Smoker2000's user page. It's an apparently nonsense article, but it included an illustration of an identified person. This may be a novel interpretation of WP:BLP, so others feel free to correct. // Chris ^{(complaints)•(contribs)} 23:27, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

I blanked the other, and believe it could,m and should, be G3'd as well. Interesting that Smoker2000 contrib'd to Marijuanasmoke, whose ONLY contribs are to his faked biography. 'The Golden Ear-rings'? c'mon. It's a farce. ThuranX (talk) 23:36, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

I have deleted them both. Mfield (Oi!) 23:41, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Smoker2000 has reposted his page - [135]. // Chris ^{(complaints)•(contribs)} 17:40, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

The user has blanked it again, since he posted an attack directed at me[136], I am not going to rise to it by deleting it again or blocking him personally, someone else can do that if he continues. Mfield (Oi!) 20:23, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Spoke too soon, now he's adding to it again despite the final warning. Mfield (Oi!) 20:51, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

I have G3 CSD'ed the page, because he has again reinstated it. ThuranX (talk) 20:51, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

The same page has now been recreated under a different username: User:Smoker1999. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 22:41, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Looks like smoking dope makes you go back in time. I wonder if I can afford enough to go back to when my back didn't ache when it rains? --WebHamster 22:47, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

I'd support all three accounts Smoker1999 (talk · contribs), Smoker2000 (talk · contribs) and Marijuanasmoke (talk · contribs) now be indefed for abusing multiple accounts. I have to run off but I'll do it when I get back later if no one else has already done it or objected. Seems like the users have actually been smoking quack. Mfield (Oi!) 01:32, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Emely1219 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Doesn't seem like Ratel, probably a sock from the looks of it. Soxwon (talk) 00:37, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

I doubt it -- seems not to like Ratel particularly, in fact. Seems to be a new user who happened to alight on Copperfield from the looks of things. Collect (talk) 00:51, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Obviously not me, I don't "do" socks. Checkuser will find it's either TheMagicOfDC (talk · contribs · count) or Karelin7 (talk · contribs · count) I would guess. ► RATEL ◄ 02:13, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

I doubt it is a sock, at least not worth a checkuser. Wikipedia:Don't_be_quick_to_assume_that_someone_is_a_sockpuppet may apply here. We can wait a bit on this one, IMHO. Collect (talk) 02:20, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Let's annihilate this SPA/COI/sockpuppet before he/she has a chance to do any real damage -- or good -- to this project. Ten edits should be enough to tell. Flowanda | Talk 03:26, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

I've only just seen this section - looks like a sock of Karelin7 (talk · contribs · count) to me and I've reported it as such. --Cameron Scott (talk) 09:18, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't see how this edit could be considered vandalism or evidence of a Ratel sock. I'm not objecting to the CU or COI concerns, but I am genuinely confused...is there a conversation somewhere else that I am missing? Flowanda | Talk 01:46, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

I am concerned about an editor implying that I am a "fascist" or "fascist friend" on the Talk:Human rights in the United States page. Here is the diff. Pexise (talk) 22:19, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I'm not sure if the user is calling other users as "fascists", but, looking at the user contribs, there is definitely some axe-grinding and soapboxing going on. MuZemike 22:43, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Related note, that page is monstrously huge[edit]

I left a note on the talk that for technical reasons something has to be done. It seriously is huge--approximately 30 printed pages. rootology/equality 22:40, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Time to trade in that IBM AT 286 it would seem. --WebHamster 22:49, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, when my dual-core P4s 3.00GHz and 3GB of RAM visibly chug a little on loading a page, and all I've got running is Outlook, Trillian, and one instance of Firefox with only a couple of tabs... like I said, I feel bad for everyone else. That page is too big. rootology/equality 22:58, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm, strange. It loaded and rendered in less than 4 secs for me in FF3. --WebHamster 23:06, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I've had no problems loading it in FF3 even on my slightly aged laptop. That said, I'm sure if I were to access it on my awful IE7 PC at work it would die a screaming death at the prospect... the page certainly is inadvisably large. ~ mazca ^t|c 23:09, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

• And the latest IE8 isn't helping either... --Dave1185 (talk) 23:13, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

IE never helps. That's not what it's designed for. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:43, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

62.6.250.109 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

User has recently been released from a block for repeated vandalism of both Ashes to Ashes (TV series) and List of Ashes to Ashes episodes, however the user has immediately returned to vandalising said pages with unsourced information and fake episode titles despite previous warnings. magnius (talk) 23:11, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

AIV again. They'll block him again, but longer the next time. MuZemike 23:21, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

{{resolved|Blocked indefinitely as spam-only accounts. rspεεr (talk) 04:13, 28 May 2009 (UTC)}}

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

Twice, this user has rewritten Eagle Brand Medicated Oil as a blatant advertisement. After a level-4 warning, they did this. Obviously replacing referenced info with that rubbish won't fly, but should something be done about the account? --Sable232 (talk) 02:17, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

I say block away. I'm guessing AIV could more expediently handled this in the future. MuZemike 03:42, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Should be blocked for using multiple accounts: as User:Bordenwiki and as User:Micheliachempaka. --64.85.210.19 (talk) 03:46, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Whoa, whoa. Slow down. It is not the whole truth to say "after a level-4 warning", because you gave micheliachempaka two warnings. The first was a level 2, then a level 4 before they were blocked. Same with the Bordenwiki account. You started off with a level-2 warning. Sure, the accounts were rewriting the article to sound more advertisement-like, but you could have attempted to discuss with them before giving one account two (out of sequence) warnings, the other one (out of sequence) warning, and bringing it here. You didn't even leave a note for micheliachempaka, telling them about this thread. The user came into the IRC help room at about 02:30 May 26 (UTC) and for the limited time they were on IRC, I tried to actually talk to them about Wikipedia and its policies. Unfortunately the user had to leave before much was discussed, but I went to leave them a note on their talk page right now and I find they've been blocked after 2 warnings and nothing but templates on their page. Surely this must be reviewed? The user didn't seem to be malicious, and was obviously a newb. I'm unresolving this in hopes of further discussion. Killiondude (talk) 05:54, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi. I would like to request the restoration of an article that was deleted (see below):

02:39, 19 April 2007 Alison (talk | contribs) deleted "Maude Storey" ‎(WP:CSD#G5 - Article created by banned user while banned).

Now that I am qualified again to edit (have been since February), I would like to request that the 1st version of that page (as above) be restored or userfied for me as I would like to update and improve it so it will be wiki-worthy. Rather than start from scratch and create a fourth version of the same page, I felt this is the most expeditious way. Thanks. Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 00:40, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

• Contact one or more admins on the Category:Wikipedia_administrators_who_will_provide_copies_of_deleted_articles page. Exxolon (talk) 01:11, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
• I've just informed the administrator who fulfiled this request, Graeme Bartlett, that xe has just undeleted a copyright violation (as was noted in the deletion log), with a suggestion that xe undo that restoration right away. Uncle G (talk) 01:39, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

• Don't restore as all versions are copyright violations of the obituary. I deleted the thing I restored. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 03:21, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

An ip user User:66.41.56.19 is blanking sections [137] and adding unsourced material [138]. I've kindly asked them to stop their behavior, but they aren't responding to their talk page. I've reverted them several times, and don't wish to get in a war over this. Can an admin take a look see for me? Heironymous Rowe (talk) 02:43, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

User was warned and seems to have stopped. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 03:23, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, they stopped about the time I brought this here. Not sure if they got fed up with my reverting them or because I brought it here. Thanks for the look see tho, appreciate it, hopefully they behave from now on. Heironymous Rowe (talk) 03:29, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Not sure if this is the right place. ip 86.15.54.147 (talk) appears to be on a crusade to remove templates without any edit summary or going to the talk pages. I attempted to give him a warning for it but couldn't figure out which warning template to use. He/she has already had a number of warnings and a block for the same thing. Thanks. Jack forbes (talk) 16:32, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

The second variety of vandalism warnings ({{subst:uw-delete1|PageName}}) covers deletion of templates; I've just rolled back a few of their edits (I left one - an "incomplete" tag where the article did look pretty complete to my amateur's eyes) and given them a level 2 warning. They've had a metric shed-load of warnings in May alone, and a block.

Cheers, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 16:46, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for that. Jack forbes (talk) 16:49, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

This user is continuously adding unsourced fancruft and trivia to the "Paparazzi (Lady Gaga song)" page as is evident from his contributions and is repeatedly doing so after giving warnings and telling not to do so. He was also previously engaged in such a war on the Lady Gaga page for adding a non-free image. Please help. I think me being a non-admin, the user is not paying any attention and I myself donot want to commit a 3RR. The things he's adding are complete no original research and using sources like youtube leading to copyright violations. Reliable sources will come, but we have to wait for a few days but this user is hell bent on adding his fancruft. --Legolas ^(talk2me) 16:56, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

I have indef'ed the editor. I don't think it would make much difference whether it was an admin or not advising them, they were not paying attention to anyone since there are no edits to talkpages - just writing the article as they wanted it. Regarding that, it wouldn't matter if the song and video was officially released either; Wikipedia is not a music video review website, and the detailed account of the video - with explanations for actions, etc. - is not encyclopedic. I doubt if such considerations would have effected Ndw2009, so I have reluctantly concluded that an indef block was the only way to diminish the disruption. As ever, my actions are open to review and lifting if deemed appropriate. LessHeard vanU (talk) 18:55, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm not really sure how to go about this without outing a user.. there's a particular user going around changing a source link on many articles from a dead link (as he says in the edit summary - most of them are dead but I have found a couple that really weren't) to another related link. Via WHOIS information for the new link that's being put in, I've found that this web site is most likely owned by the user that is doing this. So far, he's hit about 175 articles and still going. So, what's the best way of identifying this user and WHOIS information to admin(s) without saying the name and outting? - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here @} 13:13, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't think that showing Special:Contributions/Mikevegas40 is outing, but I ain't delicate. Enter CambridgeBayWeather, waits for audience applause, not a sausage 13:37, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, considering the WHOIS information is tied to him by name, yeah, that's outting. But since you did it, that at least leaves me off of the hook. At any rate, the site he's been adding is most likely owned by him according to the WHOIS. He had the right idea.. 99% of those links are dead so they do need replacing. But they need replacing with a reliable/notable source, not his own web site that could eventually be covered in god knows what. I only caught this when he changed the link at Jackson, Mississippi which uses a weather.com source and which wasn't a dead link. If anything, all of those dead links he's been replacing with his own site, should be replaced with the weather.com source. - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here @} 13:43, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Pardon my intrusion but going by his edit history, it looked to have been done with the best of intentions.. Perhaps a gentle reminder on WP:RS is what the doctor ordered? That Thing There (talk) 13:48, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, like I said, he had the right idea that the dead links needed replacing.. just not with his own web site. I guess the next issue is.. will someone revert those 175 estimated edits back to the dead link, or let them stand? - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here @} 13:50, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

If no other more reliable source can be found (Which is unlikely), then I'd say let them stay. Otherwise, a more notable link is appropriate, at least to me. Don't we have like a gajillion bots that can replace them if the need be? :P That Thing There (talk) 13:52, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

As I also said above, weather.com is a more reliable source and should be used.. especially in light of the fact that I just looked at his web site in Internet Explorer (ie: not in FireFox with Adblock plugin running) and see Google ads all over the page. No doubt he's using this site as part of the Google pay-per-click advertising scheme. So, they should all be reverted. - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here @} 13:54, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Looking at the site, it appears to be mainly observations, be they original research or a collection of other notable sources, but nothing is cited. It's not a question of malicious intent, but reliability and verification. I'm torn, because the content looks to be factual, but for all I know it could be balmy and 90 today at the Arctic Circle. :) If he's pimping his personal site for ad revenue then by all means, replace with links that aren't placed for profit. That Thing There (talk) 13:56, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

It looks like the original source at ustravelweather.com has reorganized their website ... the data is still there, but at a different URL. For example, the Marquette, Michigan article orginally had the source http://www.ustravelweather.com/weather-michigan/marquette-weather.asp ... this data is now at http://www.ustravelweather.com/michigan/marquette/ ... but the user in question is instead changing the source to be http://www.weatherbyday.com/michigan/marquette/

So, I think the real question is if it's more appropriate to let whoever updates the link first to use whichever site they choose ... or if it's more appropriate to update the link to the original source using the current URL for the data. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 14:44, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

An observation here.. the "dead link" he is replacing, at the root looks just like the site he is replacing it with. Look at the "dead link" at http://www.ustravelweather.com/ and look at his site at http://www.weatherbyday.com. I say the links should be replaced with the weather.com link. weather.com, owned by The Weather Channel, is no doubt reliable. Just use this link: http://www.weather.com/weather/wxclimatology/monthly/graph/39211 and just change the zip code on the end of it. - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here @} 14:48, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

The appearance is very similar - except the ustravelweather.com doesn't appear to use Google ads when I switch to IE, while his site does have them. My guess is that he designed his site to have a similar format, then added Google ads for revenue. Interrestingly ... of the three, ustravelweather.com, weatherbyday.com, and weather.com ... the only one of the three to not appear to have any ads is ustravelweather.com. Yet, I agree that weather.com would be a more reliable source, so should likely be used before either of the other two mentioned sites. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 14:56, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi, I am MikeVegas40. I am the person who put up the original weather charts and linked them to USTravelweather.com, and then corrected them to weatherbyday.com. I used to own USTravelweather and now own weatherbyday, I lost USTravelweather by not renewing my domain registration. If you think I am spamming then please take the links off, but shouldn't you also take the tables down as well? Or if you think they have a value then keep them up with proper attribution? Giving credit to weather.com makes no sense. As has been noted, the links pass no value, and the traffic won't generate a dollar a day in adsense revenue, but isn't it proper to give credit? Again, if they have no value then take the tables off, but if they do then a source would seem proper.--Mikevegas40 (talk) 15:15, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Weather.com also contains tables with factual climate data, and is a more reliable source for that data. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 15:34, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Then take the tables down and let weather.com replace them. --Mikevegas40 (talk) 15:38, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

All I gotta say is feel free to remove them. Remember though that by contributing to Wikipedia, You irrevocably agree to release your contributions under the GFDL. Which basically means, we don't have to source you since you, on your on accord, put them into Wikipedia articles. - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here @} 15:42, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Why not use the original source of the data rather than any commercial service, including weather.com? The NOAA/National Weather Service produce the material and have it online, such as this, that could be used in Colorado. Enter CambridgeBayWeather, waits for audience applause, not a sausage 15:44, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Nothing wrong with that. That report only goes up to the year 2000. Weather.com seems to be more up to date. I guess it's just a matter of which one any given user prefers and chooses to use on any given article.. as long as it's not spam like what happened today. - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here @} 15:46, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

The discussion here is to determine if there's consensus to change to another source or not. Please remain focused on the appropriateness of each source as a reliable source - providing evidence of the reliability of the data on your site could help support their being used, although there's no guarantee of what the community may decide.

Your post suggests that you believe that because you added the tables, that you therefore own the rights to their existing on Wikipedia. That is not the case. By editing Wikipedia, you release your edits under the GNU Free Documentation License. Tables are merely a means to present factual data. The community can choose to use whichever source for factual data within those tables it chooses to use. If the community reaches consensus that weather.com, accuweather, weatherbyday, or even weatherbug or some other source are to be used, then the community can make that change. While adding the updated links, the community simply needs to validate that the revised source still agrees with the existing data - or make the minor updates to that data if needed. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 15:54, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Why would you choose another commercial site over the NOAA, which is the ultimate source of all weather data anyways? --Mikevegas40 (talk) 15:59, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry to jump in here with no history of editing weather data apart from reverting vandalism, but it is my personal opinion that weather.com is not an accurate source of climate or weather information and should not be used anywhere on Wikipedia. I can show the reasons why I believe this if anyone is interested. I've noticed before that Wikipedia seems to source much of its information to that site and it's always disturbed me somewhat, because I can see clearly false data in some instances, but the amount of effort that would be needed to change the information is so large that it would take more than just one person's effort to get it changed. I really would not want to do even a small part of that unless there was clear approval for me to do it, since it would be a lot of hard work for no gain if my edits were undone. I would be interested in helping in any way possible, however ... again, if anyone wants to hear me explain why I don't trust weather.com and why I think my opinion should be valued, I'll be happy to (but that doesn't seem to be the central issue here, so I'll hold back.) Soap ^Talk/_{Contributions} 20:26, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

• I don't see an issue here that needs administrative action. The user has disclosed their relationship. It is a content decision whether to link to their sites or not. The user seems willing to discuss, and does not appear to be disruptive. Could some of you guide this content issue to an appropriate forum for discussion? Jehochman ^Talk 16:04, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

For continuing the discussion, I suppose that WT:USCITY would be the most appropriate, although WT:CITY may get more visibility to other interrested parties. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 16:50, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

I started a discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Cities#Climate_Table_Links. ZabMilenko 00:56, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Could someone have a look at user:Raimundo255's most recent contribution [139] and their talk page, and perhaps their contribution history. I apologize if AIV or some other locale would be a better spot to report this. If so please let me know for next time. Regardless, I think appropriate action needs to be taken. ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:56, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Vandalism only account, support indefinite block. -- Darth Mike ^(talk) 18:05, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

(e/c) I've issued a 31 hour block. Normally I don't like to bite the newbies, but this one's response to a polite request not to vandalise was to do just that to the editor issuing the warning, and all other contribs are either vandalism or borderline. A short block may be enough; let's see. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 18:08, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Not to sound like a jerk, but nothing in the contributions shows that this is a editor here for more than anything but the lulz. Indef's not biting the newbie it's simply making things a bit more tidy. Wildthing61476 (talk) 18:58, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Newbie?! He started this crap in November 2 years ago! That is nowhere near newbie; he should know the rules by now. I'm putting Da Rules there right now! Rory (reply on my page!) (talk) 21:18, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and indeffed. This is easy for me. One strike should have been enough. But two? Forget it. Those edits are pathetic. Law _{type! snype?} 00:31, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

(Reply to edit summary) Technically, you can indef block for one such edit without ever dropping the assumption of good faith. An indef block would be the correct way to handle someone who, in good faith, is clueless enough to think such edits are good. Just sayin'. -GTBacchus^(talk) 00:46, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't apply AGF categorically. I'm actually not fond of the way the guideline is so liberally applied. While Sheffield issued a 31 hour block, it seemed he was doing his best to AGF. In my edit summary, I was making it clear that my actions we a result of me ignoring AGF altogether when it came to this editor. Law _{type! snype?} 01:56, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

I am concerned by what I consider a rogue bot. It is working its way through the biographical articles, adding a {{DEFAULTSORT}} parameter to each one.

Various other people have told the bot owner that they have concerns over this bot. Maybe the bot owner paused their bot. But, if they did they didn't leave a note informing those with a concern that the bot was stopped.

What this bot was doing was an enormous mistake, for every individual who does not have a name that fits into the European naming scheme of inheritable surnames as the last component of the name. Chinese people use inherited surnames -- but it is the first component of their name. People with Arabic names don't use inherited surnames at all. That is billions of individuals.

This bot has generated a considerable burden of extra work to clean up after it.

If it has not been disabled, could an administrator stop it? If it has been stopped could someone leave a note to that effect on the bot's talk page?

For what it is worth I think there is no mechanical way that a bot can determine whether an individual's name should be put into a defaultsort template, and this bot, nor its brothers, should not be restarted. Geo Swan (talk) 07:26, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

I believe the bot being refered to is DefaultsortBot. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 07:30, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

DefaultuserBot's owner, Mikaey, has been notified of this thread. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 07:43, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

<sigh>. I don't know how many times I try to explain this to everyone. The bot isn't deciding on its own how to arrange the name, it's pulling the listas parameter of the {{WPBiography}} on the talk page. I agree that it's extra work to clean up mistakes, but a) I think it's doing more good than harm in the long run, and b) we need to focus more on editors who are getting the listas wrong in the first place. Anywho, I've turned the bot off for the time being so that hopefully we can get this cleared up. P.S. -- the bot's RfA is here. Matt (talk) 07:50, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

To err is human, to really screw things up requires a computer.

Well meaning, but ill-advised volunteers have assumed the European style of inherited surnames was applicable to all names -- when it demonstrably does not apply. Over the last N years they have added ill-advised, unreliable, templates and parameters, to an enormous number of articles where they do not belong. Bots written by well-meaning but ill-advised bot-authors, which rely on the already unreliable data, are compounding an already serious problem.

At this point more than half of our articles about individuals with Arabic names have had someone add an ill-advised, unreliable guess at what their inherited surname would be. This data is so unreliable no bot should rely on it. Geo Swan (talk) 08:08, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Why don't we come up with a good way of fixing the problem? Geo Swan, what should the defaultsort/listas be? I or other can try to generate a list, then go through purging/just plain removing the offending defaultsorts/listas. - Jarry1250 ^{(t, c)} 08:49, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

It's really unfair to call it a "rogue bot", when it was approved by the Bot Approvals Group after positive input from the community. The bot takes sorting information from WPBio and puts it into DEFAULTSORT. The vast majority of the time, the sorting information is correct. When it's not correct, the bot can't know that, and it puts it into DEFAULTSORT anyway. The incorrect information would be there with or without this bot. The correct response is to fix it when it's incorrect, not blame the bot operator. This is similar to a bot that changes malformed links like [[http://www.example.com/]] to [http://www.example.com/], but isn't aware that occasionally http://www.example.com/ is an irrelevant link. I don't think this is an issue for the Admin Noticeboard.

So as a solution, it would be great if we could find editors familiar with the Arabic and Persian naming conventions, who can say with a good degree of certainty whether Mohammed Mosaddeq should be sorted under Mohammed or Mosaddeq. Does anyone here have to expertise, and where can I ask? Is there, perhaps, a reference work that lists this? – Quadell ^(talk) 13:31, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. I posted something on my talk page about to that same effect -- that if the data is incorrect, there's just as much work involved in fixing the bot's edits as there would be if the bot hadn't touched the page in the first place. Like I said earlier, I think we need to focus on teaching people what the right way is. Can we mark this resolved? Matt (talk) 22:07, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

I noticed myself that the bot was adding DEFAULTSORT even if it was needed (for example in single-word terms). IMO this bot was approved very fast, in only four days discussion without enough feedback from the community. BAG must be more careful. For the rest we have to reach a consensus as a community. I always though that adding DEFAULTSORT in all articles could not be a bot's job. Only in small approved lists maybe. -- Magioladitis (talk) 16:55, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

It's causing a similar problem with Ethiopian names: Ethiopians do not have family names. The surname is their father's name, e.g. in the case of Mengistu Haile Maryam, his name is "Mengistu", & "Haile Maryam" is his father's name. I've been deleting DEFAULTSORT in these bios as I encountered them -- which means in the rare cases where an expatriate Ethiopian does use his father's name as a family name, I'm introducing an error. (And I won't go into the problems of compound names like "Zara Yaqob" or "Haile Selassie".) -- llywrch (talk) 17:14, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

The solution here is to draft the bots in to help. I used AWB to add the Listas parameter to several hundred talk pages, a few months back, but limited the pages under consideration to those consisting of specific patterns such "John" followed by an initial followed by an un-hyphenated capitalised name. Wherever a rule can be laid down you will find a bot editor willing to apply it for you. On other point, don't delete the DEFAULTSORT rather replace it. This makes it clear that the sort order has been deliberately set. Rich Farmbrough, 17:38, 28 May 2009 (UTC).

Rich -- this is exactly what happened here. I wrote this bot because I was approached by Carcharoth with the request that, in the end, all biography articles have DEFAULTSORTs on them. The rule we decided upon was that "all biography articles fall into either Category:Biography articles with listas parameter or Category:Biography articles without listas parameter, let's take the ones that are in Category:Biography articles with listas parameter and copy their listas parameters into a DEFAULTSORT for the article". Matt (talk) 18:21, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

The problems are the following:

• Not all articles need a DEFAULTSORT
  • Single word title articles
  • Article where DEFAULTSORT = Articlename (Chinese, Arabic names, musical groups etc.)
• Sometimes the DEFAULTSORT is different than listas for a good reason i.e. YOB/YOD categories listing is not the same with most categories
• Some articles are for duos, groups of more people and the categories should be piped but no DEFAULTSORT

-- Magioladitis (talk) 19:55, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Ok, we can make exceptions for the "articles where DEFAULTSORT = Articlename" situation pretty easily (which, when you think about it, would also cover "single word title article" most of the time, but not always). I'd argue against not having DEFAULTSORTs for single word titles by default because the name may not match WP:MCSTJR.

As far as category sort tags, the bot only removes them if they are identical to what the new DEFAULTSORT is going to be. We realized at the BRfA that some categories may want to be sorted differently, and we made a conscious effort to make sure they were left alone.

Why would you not want a DEFAULTSORT for duos/groups? Matt (talk) 20:35, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

To Magioladitis (or should I address this to Matt?) -- So if you start opting out Chinese & Arabic names, could you also opt out Ethiopian ones? (We can take this specific conversation elsewhere if that works better for all.) -- llywrch (talk) 20:43, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, we're talking about opting out cases where the listas/DEFAULTSORT would be the same as the page title. Distinguishing Chinese/Arabic/Ethiopian names from everything else gets VERY tricky, especially for a bot. Matt (talk) 21:17, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Why not use the value of the article's Category? If the bot edits an article without any categories -- or is missing one of these when it should have it -- well, that's not the bot's problem. (And if this can't be done, no need for an explanation why -- just respond "it can't be done.") -- llywrch (talk) 18:09, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

As has been stated many, many times before by me and others in many, many places and was restated by Rich a few hours ago, the placing of a DEFAULTSORT value on a page makes it clear that the sort order has been deliberately set. This is especially true where DEFAULTSORT=PAGENAME. (I have found a few of the latter where the article has indications that the pagename is wrong, however. Sometimes the indications are in the wording of the article and sometimes the indications are in the pipe values for the Categories.)

It is also a good idea to put a DEFAULTSORT value on a page where the proper value would not be obvious or acceptable to the average user, a person who would not be well-versed in the various naming conventions employed throughout the world, with a non-viewable comment that the value is correct and a short explanation of the reason it is correct.

I am not certain what what is meant by the DEFAULTSORT is different than the listas for a good reason and even less certain why it applies to the issue of not applying a DEFAULTSORT value to the article. In cases where a page should be sorted in more than one way the alternative sort value would be a pipe in the category assignment. (The Icelanders seem to do things that way.) The categories that have been moved from the article page to the talk page (for what I consider to be specious reasons -- the first one to be moved was approved because of the precedents) will need pipes because the DEFAULTSORT is not to be used on the Talk page.

This is yet another reason to get groups out of WP Biog. A biography is the story of a person's life as told by another person or persons. However, if separate members of a group have to be put into separate categories and they are not sufficiently notable to have separate articles (a condition that I have seen so often that I have stopped wondering about the notability of the group), that is when pipes would be used. Although doing such may may confuse more than it clarifies.

I agree that one of the answers to the problem is to find a way to teach each of the editors how to construct a DEFAULTSORT value from the information that is in a biographical article. Another part of the answer, and the one that should be applied while we are contacting all the hundreds of thousands of editors.

Those who have experience and expertise at creating DEFAULTSORT values do so. It is not possible to locate directly the articles that lack this value so it will have to be through either of the categories regarding the listas parameter. There are currently 44,750 items in Category:Biography articles without listas parameter. That should keep manual editors busy for quite some time because, being responsible people, they will also take care of such things as completing the living parameter, ensuring that the blp banner, if present, is on top, ensuring that the DEFAULTSORT is above the categories to which it should be applied and pipes are used if necessary.

There are other reasons to correct rather than delete wrong values. There are pages that must be sorted on a value other than the PAGENAME. Until all the other pages are removed from Category:Biography articles without listas parameter it will be almost impossible to locate the ones that must be addressed. (This could be an issue for blp as well.) As an imperfect example look at Category:Pages with DEFAULTSORT conflicts. The pages that are there are permanent residents and will always be there but are causing no harm because no one will see them. When a new page is placed in the category by a careless or unsuspecting editor I resolve the conflict as soo as I see it, generally twice per day, because there the conflict occurs on the page there is a sentence in red on the page describing the nature of the conflict, alerting the viewer to the sloppiness of some of the editors.

When Category:Biography articles without listas parameter is down to a dozen or so pages that are waiting for editors with special expertise to take care of them, it will be easy to notice the new pages.

Unfortunately, what all this means is that editors will have to take responsibility for all aspects of the articles on their watchlists, even the way the pages are sorted, and that editors with special knowledge may be taxed with a little more work for a while. This is not work in the truest sense as minimal amounts of force will be moved over very short distances. Much less true work than would be involved in getting another beer out of the refrigerator, for example.

It also means that the work will go much more slowly than is has over the past couple of months. As I said above Category:Biography articles without listas parameter has 44,750 pages in it. When I joined the others who were trying to do things manually there were 375,812 pages in it. A month later when listasbot started there were 334,000 pages in it. The manual workers had managed to do a little over 30,000 pages in a month. In the two months that listasbot has been working the number of pages has been reduced by nearly 290,000.

JimCubb (talk) 21:54, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm failing to see any arguments here that tell me that the bot's behavior is inappropriate. So, with that, and also at JimCubb's request (see here), I'm going to let the bot resume its work. Matt (talk) 04:27, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

ATTENTION The bot, after resuming, is keep adding DEFAULTSORT even if its values its equal to the pagename. Check [140], [141] and [142]. There is no consensus for something like that. -- Magioladitis (talk) 07:31, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

The bot owner replied to its talk page. This is going to be resolved by discussion there. -- Magioladitis (talk) 07:32, 30 May 2009 (UTC)