Misplaced Pages

A possible cause for concern

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

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

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

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

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

WP:DEADHORSE, anyone?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I would like to make something clear

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

User:Bali ultimate

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"As he doesn't respond to any comments I or others have made on the issue." That's a lie, User:Docu. Here's just one of my comments on the issue, addressed to you. . Please stop lying. It's unbecoming of an administrator. You seem to be trying to create a disupte where there is none. I would appreciate it, however, if you wouldn't lie about or otherwise misrepresent my actions in future.Bali ultimate (talk) 11:51, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Threat by User:Petri Krohn

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mosedschurte

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 Misplaced Pages. 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 Misplaced Pages is the right place for this content. They would be better served if transwikied to Conservatipedia (unless they originated from the said source). Mosedschurte's contributions have seriously disrupted the neutral point-of-view of Misplaced Pages. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 15:58, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

This is preposterous. It is your POV that Mosedschurte's contributions are extremist POVish. Misplaced Pages is hopefully not a mouthpiece of the extreme pro-Soviet left and SAFKA in particular. Mosedschurte's other contributions do not violate any Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages: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 , 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 . 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 Misplaced Pages: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 Misplaced Pages: neutral point-of.view. We cannot expect NPOV to arise from edit warring between different points-of-view. On Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages. 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 Misplaced Pages 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: . 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: . As to the nominator, I left her a warning as to her incivlity here, which she removed as "harassment": . The editor was also left a message from user:Mosedschurte which she also deleted here: . 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 "" into the text you added, making it clear that you were acknowledging your addition of unsourced material.. When I pointed out that your edit didn't meet the requirements of our sourcing policy you responded with "The lead section has thirteen cites, which were from the prior incaranation with changes in verbage, but not substance or citation." 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. 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 Misplaced Pages are using the article and talk pages as battlegrounds for their personal POV rather than adhering to NPOV and using appropriate sources to improve the article. This needs to stop now. Viriditas (talk) 07:08, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

Yachtsman1

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

Tag warring

• At 07:24, 24 May 2009 I removed two tags from the Katrina section, the {{off-topic}} and {{Synthesis}} tags, with the edit summary of Tags removed. Neither off-topic (all reliable sources discuss human rights in the U.S. directly) nor synthesis. Requests for clarificaiton on talk have gone unanswered) These tags were previously added by Mosedschurte 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.
• 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: .
• 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.
• 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: . 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:]; and here's the ensuing change of my good faith efforts to resolve the problem: ]]. I am in shock.--Yachtsman1 (talk) 11:38, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Blatant personal attacks by Viriditas

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Agreed, but do you find it a little bit strange that two disparate editors who have had similar disputes on the same articles, one of whom left Misplaced Pages 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)

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 Misplaced Pages 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)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

User:Jayy009 - serial image copyright offender

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

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

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

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

Is this a big deal?

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

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

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

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

Continued problems with unresponsive editor Indianwhite

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

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

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

Some diffs:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Indianwhite's Defence

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

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

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

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

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

User:Rcatholic, User talk:Rcatholic

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

When others suggest you write out your proposal , you refuse.

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

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

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

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

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

I welcome more eyes on the article, but I am not sure if he needs to post it here, at WP:BLPN#BLP concerns at Mohamed ElBaradei and at Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Israel#For those who are familiar with Mohamed Elbaradei. I feel WF may continue appealing and canvassing until he hears exactly what he wants to hear, as he hasn't shown much recognition for changing his argument based off of past or present discussion. The article has been through two previous dispute resolution processes, and the most current DR process of mediation broke down after WF expressed concerns that I didn't understand about our mediator. I have recently tried to remind WF that the talk page is a place for civility and discussing improvements to the article, but somehow the discussion always become off-topic. I also don't understand why Wikifan has asked others to stop attacking him when they are simply asking him to just discuss improvements to the article. As this has been occuring awhile, I definitely think it deserves attention one way or another. I have found it quite hard to solicit feedback to improve the article though.--68.248.155.2 (talk) 03:42, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

I have invited other users who were involved in the mediation to share their comment as well.--68.248.155.2 (talk) 13:52, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Accusations of socket puppetry and disruptive editing

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

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

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

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

They can be hard to dislodge. Sometimes they require a socket wrench. Baseball Bugs carrots 05:08, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

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

When we find multiple account abuse, we socket to 'em. Baseball Bugs carrots 05:40, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

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

disturbing new bots...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

More Obama drama anyone?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Date-linking despite warnings

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

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

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

this edit is not delinking or relinking as the date was incompletely linked. -- User:Docu 03:49, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Banned user User:USEDfan has returned

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

undocumented bots redux

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

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

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

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

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

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

Rollback feature

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