Misplaced Pages

The guy certainly seems to have a bit of an issue regarding civility, judging from his talk page. Admin or no, editors should treat each other (and the community) with a little more respect than that. The guy's been here long enough now without the need to have WP:CIVIL spelled out for him - Alison 02:47, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I was under the impression that WP:CIVIL didn't apply to admins. DuncanHill (talk) 02:49, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Ah. My mistake, sorry. Carry on ... - Alison 02:54, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

There was also the matter of this controversial revert war on a similar article, Kevin Barry, which resulted in R. fiend reverting to his version and immediately fully protecting the article. As I recall, this went to ANI and another admin stepped in to review and ultimately unprotect the page - Alison 02:54, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Alison I knew had used his admin rights before whilst involved in edit disputes.--Padraig (talk) 03:06, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

• As far as Duncan's question: Is an admin going to do something? I don't know that there is anything to be done. Unprotect the article, possibly? Revert the edit? Its an invitation to wheel war. The method of review for administrator actions if an admin refuses to participate in good faith is ArbCom. Perhaps an RfC would be a better first step, but it doesn't require an admin. 03:15, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

• Especially since now it looks like R. fiend is refusing to discuss his actions, I think it's time for a RfC (my choice) or ArbCom. I would think ArbCom would want an RfC first, but the fact that R. fiend is refusing to discuss such "inanities" as possible misuse of his administrator rights probably would satisfy the "Attempt to resolve dispute beforehand", especially since we have been here before! SirFozzie (talk) 03:27, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I think as well it may be time for an RfC. This guy is refusing to comment on his discussions, and I think referring to this as "inanities" is simply unacceptable.   jj137 03:34, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

That is, indeed, a questionable use of admin powers. I will certify such an RfC if it starts; but I'm definitely not in favor of bringing this to the AC unless that has been attempted. — Coren  03:37, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm certainly ready to get involved in an RfC regarding this administrator. It's this kind of behaviour that gives us all a bad name - Alison 05:12, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

You're right, Alison; this is why people have problems with admins. I think an RFC is the best way to go from here, and I'll be there. - Rjd0060 (talk) 05:14, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Ah, but it is inane, very much so. Someone pointed out a typo and an improperly formatted inline citation (please, if there is a word "sprit" that is not preceded by "bow" or suffixed by "sail" or an historian named "RTEPrincess Grace Irish Library (Monaco) Eoin Neeson" do let me know). No one objected to fixing them (for very obvious reasons), but (surprise surprise) no one actually fixed them either. So I did. And, as one of Misplaced Pages's sensible editors, WODUP, pointed out, I did not change the contentious part (though I would certainly be in favor of that edit). Sure, I could have gone around to a bunch of talk pages and tried to get someone else to do it, but, really, why bother? I could do something myself in 3 seconds or spend minutes trying to get someone else to do it for me. As for my edit summary, which someone had an issue with, well, it was done automatically so if you have an issue, it's with the software. And now people are wasting a hell of a lot of time discussing two of the most trivial edits ever made. Did someone say a potential course of action would be to revert the edits, reinserting a typo? I'm sorry if it strikes people as incivil, but that's inane, if not downright stupid, and the very worst from of wikilawyering. Oh, and making the edit myself had another advantage, it let me know whether people were interesting in correcting mistakes in an article or whining. I guess I got my answer. -R. fiend (talk) 03:50, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

The edit summary we were referring to was not that one, but this.   jj137 03:54, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, the edits were rather minor, but the point was that you were involved in the article and edited it while it was full protected for edit warring (using your admin rights to do so). Any regular user wouldn't have been able to do that.   jj137 03:57, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Y'know, you're being rude, arrogant and dismissive all over again here, just like earlier. This isn't about fixing typos, it's about your repeated misuse of your admin tools on articles with which you are in dispute. When told this was on ANI, you brush it off with a smart comment. Only when people start making RfC noises, do you bother to even show up here, thus showing huge disrespect for the community. I saw the Kevin Barry stuff going down last month, but I kinda let it slide - see this thread in my talk page archives for all the details. Now, I'm not so sure. I do know this; It's exactly this kind of attitude that other editors so often complain about when it comes to admins. And this looks like an exemplary case. If this happens to go to RfC, I'll certainly weigh in on the matter - Alison 04:17, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

And not only that, there was yet another example of this behaviour from last July in which you shut out an anon editor from yet another "Troubles" article (I'm beginning to see a common theme here) in which you were editing. I only discovered this on my WP:RPP patrolling. Rather than undo your prot, I brought it to your talk page first & as did another RPP admin at the time. One of your revert comments, "revert deletions by anon editor - have the deceny to get an account and identify yourself", speaks volumes, I feel. That's three times in a short period - Alison 04:22, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Do your homework. That comment wasn't even from me. -R. fiend (talk) 04:32, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

My apologies - you're right and I've struck that comment. However, the protect; as the log shows, User:Steel359 ended up reverting the protect with "Inappropriate use of semi-protection" as you chose to ignore both our questions on your talk page. Steel commented at the time, " it would still be inappropriate for you to protect it yourself given you are in that dispute". Care to discuss this now, seeing as you have an established, regular habit of misusing your admin tools on articles you're in a dispute on? - Alison 05:05, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Honestly? Not really, as I don't remember the details and don't have the desire to go back reading old diffs, but I sort of recall this basic scenario: an anon with an axe to grind who has clearly not read the talk page or looked over the article history decides unilaterally to make a bunch of edits of the sort that have been gone over a whole bunch of times before, probably about how there's no way Pearse could have possibly been gay therefore even addressing it in the article (even if only to largely dismiss it) is the most horrible thing ever. A mini-edit war ensues and I semi-protect the article to put a stop to consistent reversions and force the anon to actually try to discuss changes on the talk page if they want to make significant controversial alterations to the article (while still allowing normal editing of the article to proceed as usual). I think after that the person went away and everything was solved. As I said, I don't remember the details. -R. fiend (talk) 05:42, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Also, apology accepted for misquoting me. There is little quite as annoying as having words you never said attributed to you, knowing full well others would believe the accusations without checking for themselves. I was understandably a bit irritated by that. I realize it was unintentional on your part, so I don't hold it against you. -R. fiend (talk) 05:47, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

BTW, You blocked User:Ed Poor for no reason last October, with absolutely no edit summary. When you were asked by a number of admins to explain, you said Hmmm. Looks like a mistake. Oh well. No harm done" - and that was all you said. When User:WJBscribe suggested you apologise ... well, you didn't bother. User:Jeffrey O. Gustafson ended up unblocking with, "until blocking admin can give reason for original block" - which was never forthcoming. And on it goes ... - Alison 04:37, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

As an aside, (as I have not investigated the thread of conflict and edits) I would like to point out that completely non-controversial, janitorial-type edits made by admins on protected articles are allowed. Even if the admin is involved, if the edit is a maintenance-type edit (not adding new information, even if uncontroversial) that is not considered an abuse of privileges, as one of the responsibilities of sysops is to perform these janitorial functions on protected articles. Yes, regular users cannot edit protected articles, so admins should not add information to an article (outside of responding to a reasonable {{editprotected}} request that has consensus on the talk page). But fixing the article (gross mispelling, broken link, etc.) is something sysops are supposed to do to protected articles. It does behoove the admin, any admin, to use a very clear edit summary stating that the edit was a maintenance-type, though. -- Avi (talk) 04:03, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

It's late here and I need to go. If this issue has not been resolved by tomorrow and if someone else has not already filed an RfC, I intend to file one myself - Alison 05:41, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I already suggested R. fiend exercise extreme care in this area. I'm disappointed he doesn't seem to have gone for my suggestion elsewhere of letting a neutral admin make any edits to the article while it was protected. Having said that, I do think that R. fiend's actual edit was fairly harmless; whether his behaviour taken as a whole merits further action would be for the community to decide. I would personally characterise R. fiend's intervention here as having been well-intentioned, and its conclusion here as being a result of his continually failing to communicate civilly with those he is in dispute with or to properly separate admin from non-admin roles (always a tricky one to call, that one; I should know, I later reverted a change I thought unhelpful and then added a citation tag to it, though not while it was protected...), combined with the highly-charged atmosphere regrettably ever-present on Ireland-related articles these days. I suggest R. fiend learn from the criticism here, indicate such learning has taken place, and we can all get on with life. There is work to be done and I don't think Misplaced Pages will benefit from further magnifying this drama, if all are agreeable to such a conclusion. --John (talk) 05:46, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

John's analysis seems moderate and appropriate. I would only add the rider that R. fiend might well have been frustrated that some of the editors on that article have such a pronounced point of view that they wish to advance that no amount of rational argument would have persuaded them that one amateur writer's original research was not enough to overturn the combined weight of prvious historical analysis.

I think it might be wise to form a cadre of obviously uninvolved admins for these nationally and religiously controversial articles in future. Perhaps Hong Kong and Thai admins can patrol Irish articles and Irish and British editors can patrol Singapore and Thai articles? Alice 08:01, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Further to the above, I want to apologise for the revert on the article; I hadn't studied the history or I would have seen there was an edit-war going on. At the time I was just being BRD about it, and working from the talk page discussion. I now see there seems to have been a lot of edit-warring back and forth on the article; maybe some of the remedies from the recent Arbcom need to be invoked on some of the edit-warriors? --John (talk) 05:54, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I think an RFC is in order here. Looking over this section I'd say R. fiend's behavior and attitude, even in this thread, leaves something to be desired. More discussion and less snark would be good for starters. RxS (talk) 05:57, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree, as I'm sure several others do as well. RfC seems to be the best way to go from this point. - Rjd0060 (talk) 06:00, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

User talk:Voxveritatis

Can an adminstrator please review this user and his defamatory comments about me, continous accusations of libeling him. His comments on the discussion pages, including another wikipeia user User talk:Slp1 are becoming almost harassment. No one has reprimanded him or given him any warnings for continued rule breaking. He claims to be the subject in question (Greg Felton) and is only using wikipedia to edit the page according to his pleasing. I really need help with this user as his actions are becoming disturbing.

--Eternalsleeper (talk) 01:10, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Dear Administrator: Eternalsleeper is a troublemaker whose hypocrisy is beyond description. His claims against me are groundless and deliberately provocative. His talk page reads like a rap sheet of reprimands and warnings against rule-breaking.

This whole issue began when he repeated a second-hand libel about me and complained when other editors and I took action. SLP1, for example, is an excellent editor who is well aware of eternalsleeper's misconduct. The claim of harassment is preposterous and inflamatory, and designed to make the accuser appear to be a victim. I ask that you give no notice to this vexatious individual, who is not worth your time.

Thank you. Voxveritatis (talk) 03:45, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

• As you can see from his above posting, you will see what I am referring to.

--Eternalsleeper (talk) 03:52, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Speaking of seeing for yourself, please note the following time index from the the history page of "Greg Felton": "21:52, 3 January 2008 Eternalsleeper (Talk | contribs) m (14,359 bytes)" What eternalsleeper calls a minor edit was in fact a wholesale gutting of several paragraphs of hyperionsteel's contibutions. Eternalsleeper has a history of unethical conduct (see his talk page), and so I ask that you take this latest act as typical of his behaviour. Voxveritatis (talk) 01:42, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Repeated removal of tags at Holodomor denial

Since the creation of this page, supporters of the article have repeatedly removed every disputed tag placed on it, in spite of the fact that a substantial minority has questioned whether the article meets encyclopedic standards.

• 9:36, 25 December: User:Horlo creates the page.
• 16:27, 25 December: User:Irpen tags the page with POV and OR templates.
• 8:05, 27 December: User:Horlo removes the tags with the edit summary removed tags - no reason given for their being here.
• 6:57, 28 December: Irpen tries to rewrite the intro to conform to NPOV.
• 7:01: Horlo reverts Irpen with the comment Irpen, this is not a soap box. This is an article about Holodomor denial. The lead paragraph must explain that.
• 7:04: Irpen reverts to his version with the summary I clearly explained at talk.
• 7:28:Horlo reverts Irpen again, with the summary Please do not make any changes without a discussion on the talk page, not just a statement on the talk page.
• 7:39: Irpen adds a totallydisputed tag with the summary: totallydisputed per persistent insertion of factually false info.
• 8:50: Horlo removes the tag with the summary: Removed numbers and tag. (Note that at this stage, Irpen seems to have gone on wikibreak, along with a number of other editors who were expressing concerns over the page).
• 4:39 30 December: Having arrived at the page from DYK, and noting several POV problems that will take time to fix, I add a POV tag to the Duranty section,, and add a comment to the talk page to explain some of my reasons for doing so.
• 5:00: Having read through the article more carefully and seen what I regard as major problems, I move the tag to the top of the article, and leave another note on the talk page explaining my reasons.
• 18:03: Horlo removes the tag without comment.
• 18:07 I restore the tag with the comment Please don't remove disputed templates when there is obviously a dispute going on.
• 18:46: User:Bandurist removes the tag without comment.
• 19:18: I restore the tag, with the comment Please do not remove disputed templates when there is clearly a dispute. See Misplaced Pages:NPOV dispute.
• 18:20, 31 December: Horlo removes the tag without comment.
• 6:58: Frustrated at the tag-team tag removal and the stonewalling on the talk page, I add an AFD template in hopes of at least getting more eyes on the page. (This is the first AFD I have initiated in almost two years at the project BTW).
• 14:40, 2 January: Having realized that I am in fact not alone in my concerns about the page and that many other editors have expressed the same or similar concerns, and also having realized what a singularly inappropriate forum AFD is to try and promote debate about content, I withdraw the AFD and restore the totallydisputed tag instead.
• 21:23: User:Vecrumba removes the tag, with the summary withdraw your AFD and instead immediately tag the article? after your ethnic insult, this is nothing but WP:IDONTLIKEIT, tag removed. (I must add that this is prototypical of the kind of response my attempts to get a discussion on content going at the article's talk page have been met with).
• 6:53, 3 January: I restore the tag, with the summary: Replace tag. Multiple editors have expressed the view that this article has serious issues.
• 7:32: User:Termer removes the tag with the summary: the tag "Totallydisputed" not justified for well referenced article, please do not misuse tagging.
• 12:27: I restore the tag with the comment: Well referenced when you don't even have a reference for the article's major premise? I don't think so. Please stop removing tags when you know perfectly well there is a dispute here.
• 13:46: Bandurist removes the tag without comment.
• 23:55: I restore the tag with the comment: For the last time, please stop removing the tag. If it's done again I will have no choice but to take the matter up with AN/I.
• 00:03, 4 January: Bandurist removes the tag without comment.

To summarize the situation, a total of about 18 editors have commented on this article at the talk page or at the AFD. Of those, six, or roughly one third of editors including me, have expressed serious reservations about the page's title and/or premise and/or content.

• User:Irpen opened the talk page discussion with the comment The article is a soapbox and should be deleted. I would welcome serious contributors to help in covering this topic on wikipedia but that kind of soapboxing is totally out of question...
• User:Hillock65 concurs with the comment I have to agree. The title itself is an attempt to mimic the Holocaust denial, which is troubling. There is no basis for that. All of that can be mentioned at the Holodomor article, it doesn't warrant a separate article. If there is a vote, I support redirect to the main article.
• Kuban Cossack made a number of comments, including There is argument over keeping the article...knee-deep in nonsense...This article needs a lot of work!
• User:Molobo (a user who appears to support the article) poses one of the same questions I have: Isn't Holodomor denial also a term for denying that it was a genocide?
• User:Jo0doe accuses the article's supporters of tr to exploit WP as a soapbox".
• In addtion, at the AFD, User: Lankiveil recommended a rename (now my own preferred option) commenting that the name was inherently POV and that the article Definitely has the look of a POV fork.
• User:Bogdan, at the AFD, also expressed the view, which I thoroughly endorse, that the accusation that 'Holodomor Denial' is an original research statement must be disproven in the very first sentence of the article (i.e., which published works cite the term)...it should be explained where such terminology originates (hopefully, not the Ukrainian government).

My point in posting this is not to try and demonstrate that "I am right" in my concerns. It's simply to show that there is substantial dissent about the suitability of this page's title and content, surely more than enough to justify a POV tag.

I regard the removal of a POV tag to be a highly questionable action at any time, but to repeatedly remove a tag when there are clearly major concerns from multiple editors is I believe completely unjustified. POV tags are often the only method that users in the minority have for expressing their concerns about a page and for encouraging debate about content at the talk page.

The users who support this particular page have shown almost no interest in discussion of the article content or in resolving disputes, instead contenting themselves with an endless stream of bad faith accusations or at best red herring obfuscations. If the POV tag is removed, what incentive will they have for entering into debate at all? They will just ignore any concerns raised and ensure by sheer weight of numbers that they get their way on the mainpage. Gatoclass (talk) 03:24, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Response by User:Vecrumba -- I came to this late and have been met only with comments about Eastern European editor "axe-grinding". Gatoclass fails to mention that his AfD nomination went nowhere (all keep with one rename as I recall), and once he withdrew his AfD since it was obviously failing he then immediately retagged the article. Most recently, I invited Gatoclass to apologize for his uncivil and insulting comments, he asked when we would get back to discussing the article, I asked for specifics, and his response was to open the above, choosing not to respond to my request for his specific top three problems so the discussion could move forward. Gatoclass' blanket assumption of bad faith on the part of Eastern European editors and, for example, myself insisting I am participating only to shed light on the past being proof of his charges of Eastern European axe-grinding ("hoist(ed) by my own petard") is unfortunate at best. Then there is Gatoclass' statement he owes no apology (re: axe-grinding et al.) for "stating the obvious." One only has to read the current Holodomor denial article talk page. I'm sorry, but if Gatoclass is looking to identify recalcitrant parties, he only need look as far as himself. —PētersV (talk) 04:29, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but this incident report wasn't made "in response" to your supposed generous offer, you made that post while I was busy preparing the above post, and I didn't see it until I had posted here.

But in response to your purported offer to bury the hatchet, I invite users to take a closer look at the post of PetersV to which he refers, and ask themselves just how conciliatory it actually is:

...(Totallydisputed) tagging does not connote assumption of good faith on your part, I expect the tag to stay off. Let's deal with any specific factual problems first. If you apologize for your uncivil conduct and are prepared to abide by the consensus of editors once factual errors are corrected, we can make progress. If you think the editorial community here is a axe-grinding cabal out to get any opposition (you), I'm just as happy to go to arbitration enforcement over your conduct. Everyone here has better ways to spend their time than indulge spleen venting.

Note that after his threat to take it to arbitration, to which I reminded him that all users conduct is put under the spotlight in an arbcom case, he responded thus:

I'm sorry, but I am also tired of "reminders" about what ArbCom is going to do to me. I have asked you to deal with any issues of fact specifically one by one and you have obviously made up your mind already. I suppose this means you're not apologizing either. This would appear to conclude our dialog here.

Note how his threat to take me to arbcom is parlayed into my alleged threat to take him there. I'm afraid this is a classic example of PetersV's modus operandi, which is to say his apparent inability to take responsibility for his own attitude and conduct. Gatoclass (talk) 08:13, 4 January 2008 (UTC)]]

Oh please. You threaten AN/I and indicate the conduct of *all* (your asterisks) editors will be under scrutiny should things go to Arbcom. I react to your threat saying I tire of those tactics and say fine, take this wherever you want to go with it officially, and that's now me attacking you? You can't see past your bad-faith blinders. I'm sorry that you've had editorial battles that have caused you to carry a bucket of tar and bag of feathers wherever you go to apply to axe-grinding (your perception, your words, sorry you'll keep seeing them) editors. —PētersV (talk) 16:17, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

And where have I even dealt with you that you, Gatoclass, know anything about my "modus operandi"? I've managed to reach consensus on content with paid (and now banned) propaganda pushers. Perhaps the lack of consensus here isn't all my doing. I have no conduct to be ashamed of or any responsibility to shirk for any actions I've taken. Frankly, I don't think I've ever seen anyone assume as much bad faith on the part of other editors as you. —PētersV (talk) 16:27, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

And on conciliation, yes, I do expect a {{totallydisputed}} tag to not be used as a tool of intimidation while editors work toward a consensus. 10, 100, 1,000 {{fact}} tags? Have at it! After an editor denigrates their editorial opposition, I would expect an act of conciliation on their part. No, just more diatribe here on how I've unfairly set upon Gatoclass in keeping with my M.O.. —PētersV (talk) 16:49, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I did tell Gatoclass I expected him to assume good faith and not re-tag the article and instead come up with specific items. His response was to post the above instead. His characterization of my removing his immediate tagging upon abject failure of his AfD as "prototypical" of editorial behavior he has encountered is little more than acting as sheriff, judge, and jury. From my perspective, his immediate lumping me into his cabal of prototypical Eaastern European axe-grinders is proof that Gatoclass is all about preconceived stereotypes, in fact, seeking battle (when did you last read of an editor invoking petard hoisting?) against an editorial enemy he has already convicted--and not about reaching consensus on content. —PētersV (talk) 05:06, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

A typical content dispute... I personally believe that User:Gatoclass is fighting against a consensus of several good users who worked hard to create and improve this interesting article.Biophys (talk) 05:22, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I read through the links above, the talk page, and so on. Horlo's intro para, the first one, is bbetter than Irpen's. Irpen's second para ought to be incorporated into the lead as it now stands, which is solid and neutral. The talk page is Gatoclass VS a stack of editors who have provided sources, and tried to engage him. maybe I'm missing something ,but it reads to me like

• 'get me sources, cause i don't like or believe this'
• "well, here's these books, these speeches, and this stuff that supports us"
• 'no no, get me the sources I want'
• "Like what?"
• 'Well, like those books and sppeches and stuff, but saying hwat I want them to say'
• "Which is?"
• 'What I believed at the very beginning, stop challenging my preconcieved notions and agree with them.'
• "what can we do to change your mind?"
• 'get me sources, cause i don't like or believe this'

GOSUB line 20.

This is a content dispute that one person refuses to let go of, despite sources and consensus. Why? Don't know. b ut the race-baiting might be a clue. Gatoclass needs to find other articles to work on. ThuranX (talk) 05:33, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

In 1932-33 the Ukrainian ethnographic territory was divided up primarilly between Poland and the USSR. The Holodomor is the term that Ukrainian people use for the Great Famine of 1932-33 which took place on the Soviet side of Ukrainian Ethnic territory. Many Ukrainians who lived on the Soviet side of Ukrainian ethnographic territory died. Some say up to a quarter of the population. It was initially denied by Soviet authorities. Various journalist also made reports denying the Famine. Visiting dignitaries also made reports denying it. In 1983 the Ukrainian community in the diaspora made a concerted effort to bring public attention on this act. As a result the first secretary of the Communist Party in Ukraine acknowleged that the Famine happened in 1987. In circa 1991 the term Holodomor was introduced by a Ukrainian writer from Ukraine to specifically describe the great Famine of 1932-33 in Ukraine. In 2006 the Ukrainian parliament passed a law stating that the Holodomor was an act of Genocide and made it a criminal offence to publically deny its existence. many countries have also joined in labeling it an act of Genocide

The Holodomor and aspects related to it have been the subject of heated debate since 1932-33. During the course of history numerous people have denied that it took place. This article gives a concise list and references to the people, companies and organizations that made statements of denial of the Famine. Despite the Holodomor having been acknowleged by the Ukrainian government and many other governments, Books and materials written specifically to deny the existence of the Holodomor have continued to be published by organizations (up until 2002) and despite some being withdrawn from sale are available to download without explanation that they were withdrawn from sale or to the inaccuracies within them. These writings continue to be quoted in various disgusion groups. Early scholarship on this topic has been quite poor, with examples of incorrectly labeled photographs and poor access to source materials which initially hampered the subject and which continues to cause problems. There exist a small group of editors who are vehemently opposed to this topic for reasons that are not clearly explained, who continually obstruct the work of the editors of this article by the continuous placement of various labels, discussions not related to the topic and general rudeness. Bandurist (talk) 05:37, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

For 5 or 6 days now, Gatoclass has done nothing but attack the recently started article on Holodomor denial, which by the way was proposed for a DYK, before this relentless campaign against the article, and its editors was started by Gatoclass. (See here for more comments about the DYK nomination.) After all sorts of claims about the article, including that clearly sourced statements by Walter Duranty were only "alleged", and that using "denial" to refer to what Duranty, Fischer, and others did with respect to the Holodomor was "odious", Gatoclass took the article to AfD, where his nomination was soundly rejected by a vast majority (I'd say, near-unanimity). In the process, Gatoclass harassed many of the editors expressing opinions contrary to his, implying that their opposition to deletion was based on their supposed ethnic origin, stating:

"Did I ever stop to ponder why so many disagreed with me? Sure I did. And in that regard I couldn't help but notice that all of the editors of the page apart from me appear to be of East European origin, with potential axes to grind against their former Soviet overlords. Just as this AFD is currently accumulating a host of "Keep" votes from Latvians, Lithuanians, Ukrainians, Hungarians and so on."

I personally was outraged by this. Several other editors expressed their dismay: ,. Gatoclass never apologized for these remarks, but only continued his campaign of tagging and random accusations, despite repeated attempts to come to an understanding, clear the air, and move to a more productive, dignified discussion -- most recently by PētersV. How much longer do we have to put up with this kind of attitude? Turgidson (talk) 06:14, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Turgidson purports to be "outraged" by the fact that an editor should suggest that someone's national or political loyalties might possibly influence their political viewpoint. That he should seek to twist such a banal and everyday observation into some kind of insult only demonstrates how desperate he is to find a weapon with which to attack me. For the record, I did not volunteer this comment - I am not normally in the habit of commenting on users at all, as it obviously isn't conducive to a co-operative atmosphere. The comment was made in response to Turgidson's own question regarding what I thought might be motivating my opponents, in which case I gave him a frank reply. (If someone solicits my opinion about an aspect of their behaviour and I oblige, am I to blame if they don't like the answer?). But if I'd realized then what a meal he would try to make of this passing comment, I might nevertheless have been more cautious in my response.

I can't help but wonder now whether his question was merely a means of setting me up in order to denounce me for my "prejudice". Either that, or he must be about the only editor left on Misplaced Pages who is yet to acknowledge the problems that nationalist POVs present to this project. And I suppose I may have been put somewhat offguard by my participation at the Arab-Israeli pages, where editors are openly referred to as "nationalists" and even "ultranationalists" with barely a murmur of protest. If I'd realized what a bunch of shrinking violets our East European editors were by comparison, I'm sure I would have been more circumspect. Gatoclass (talk) 07:37, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

My dear Gatoclass. You obviously have not stopped to consider that Baltic/Eastern European editors are well aware of what misperceptions still linger after 50 years behind the Iron Curtain. That means said editors make absolutely sure they have reputable sources before even starting on an edit because they know they will be challenged by those who hold onto misconceptions. You, however, see heritage merely as an affliction which apparently is so well-known to induce bias that to make note of it is "banal." And then "wonder" (accuse) whether Turgidson, among the most reputable editors I know, made you a victim of a setup? You need to work on adjuting your perspective of the Gatoclass-centric universe. Any other conspiracies you'd like to propose? —PētersV (talk) 17:30, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I note that some of my opponents have described this as a "content dispute" and I quite agree. That's why I tagged the article. These users are trying to present this article to the readership as issue-free when multiple users have raised serious questions about this article.

WP:NPOVD states the following:

Sometimes people have edit wars over the NPOV dispute tag, or have an extended debate about whether there is a NPOV dispute or not. In general, if you find yourself having an ongoing dispute about whether a dispute exists, there's a good chance one does, and you should therefore leave the NPOV tag up until there is a consensus that it should be removed...the tag should be removed only when there is a consensus among the editors that the NPOV disputes have indeed been resolved.

Just because the other editors who made the same complaints about the article as I did currently appear to be taking a Wikibreak, does not mean that "disputes have indeed been resolved" - clearly, they haven't. I am simply asking for some support from the community for what I regard as a fundamental policy - the right to tag an article which is in dispute. If there is no community support for even such a basic principle as this, what is to prevent a majority of likeminded users from totally controlling an article by sheer weight of numbers?

One more point - as usual there have been multiple attacks on my character in the responses above, falsely accusing me of "bad faith" (when a look at the talk page will reveal that it is I who have been subjected to a relentless stream of bad faith accusations), of "general rudeness" (when I have bent over backwards to remain civil), of having some sort of vendetta against East Europeans (I haven't made a substantial edit to a page involving Eastern Europe for eighteen months - take a look at my adversaries' contributions by way of comparison), and even, ludicrously, of "race-baiting" (Eastern Europeans are a race?). I'm afraid this has been the general tenor of "debate" on the article talk page from the outset. So when reading about my alleged breaches of good conduct, please take note of these ad hominem attacks and ask yourself which party is bent on personalizing this dispute. Gatoclass (talk) 06:50, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Like already pointed out to you several times, Gatoclass. Please feel free to follow WP:NPOV by adding any alternative takes in to the article according to any published sources of your liking. Misuse of tagging such as adding "totallydisputed" to the well referenced article is not going to be tolerated. Thanks for your understanding.--Termer (talk) 08:04, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

RE: Gatoclass And in that regard I couldn't help but notice that all of the editors of the page apart from me appear to be of East European origin, with potential axes to grind against their former Soviet overlords. Just as this AFD is currently accumulating a host of "Keep" votes from Latvians, Lithuanians, Ukrainians, Hungarians and so on."

Whoa, even if it was the case, which is not, everybody who has bothered to check out the userpages who have voted at the AFD can see that the alleged "East European origin" is a speculation at best and in fact there were editors involved who have clearly identified themselves as not of East European descent. But the point would be arguments like this shouldn't be used really on WP to support your opinions as far as I'm concerned. Regarding grind against their former Soviet overlords, that must be a joke since Soviet Union collapsed about 20 years ago if I'm not mistaken.--Termer (talk) 08:21, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Good work Termer, you guys just keep beating me over the head with the same comment I made several days ago after solicitation of my opinion by one of your own number. Don't forget to alternate it now and again with the "Hoist by your own petard" comment or people might get bored.

Update: User:TableManners restores the tag,, User:Biophys deletes it.. Gatoclass (talk) 08:37, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Update: User:TableManners has not participated in article discussion, did not post a notice of their tag insertion, and so far have not responded to what, specifically, needs to be corrected. Total and complete contribution = reinsert tag with a "please" don't remove comment. Exactly how is this a constructive step toward consensus-building? Tagging with no further input? Whether or not it was what the editor intended, for all functional purposes, that's no better than WP:IDONTLIKEIT. —PētersV (talk) 17:10, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Update: User:Crotalus horridus retags and adds WP:OR tag instead of responding to where I indicated his conclusions were mistaken (for example, apparently one can't call Duranty a "Holodomor denier" even if he's a "famine denier" before the word Holodomor was widely adopted to refer to the famine). More tagging and pushing editorial viewpoints by editors who have apparently said all they have to say. Don't agree with them? Here come two tags. —PētersV (talk) 18:33, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Gatoclass. And sure, unless I have missed something and you have apologized for supporting your opinions with commenting the possible ethnic background of your opponents instead of the content or referring to any published sources, always ready to help to remind you your mistake. that keeps at last you from repeating it I hope.--Termer (talk) 08:47, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
PS. How about my suggestion feel free to follow WP:NPOV by adding any alternative takes in to the article according to any published sources of your liking. you keep ignoring for some reason?--Termer (talk) 09:02, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm not going to apologize for giving an opinion that I was asked to contribute. An opinion moreover that ought to be self-evident to anyone with a lick of sense. And I am certainly not going to apologize to people who in my opinion have been roughly an order of magnitude more uncivil than me.

I'm not asking for an apology and I don't need one, but if you want an apology from me, you folks will first have to apologize for the way you have pilloried me these last few days for happening to hold a contrary opinion. Gatoclass (talk) 09:22, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Since you keep ignoring my request for any alternative published sources that would be in conflict with the denial of the famine called holodomor ; to back your opinions or the tagging, please let me remind you that the rules are simple. Any material that is challenged and for which no source is provided may be removed by any editor according to Misplaced Pages:Citing sources. therefore feel free to ignore the request for alternative published sources and tag the article, until no source is provided to back up the opinionated tag, it's going to be removed by any editor. Thanks--Termer (talk) 09:29, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I forgot to add a comment about that. My response as always is that this is not in my opinion a dispute that can be resolved with the addition of a few extra sources. It's a dispute about (a) the name, about whether or not "Holodomor denial" is an encyclopedic topic, and (b) if it is encyclopedic, where are the scholarly sources to validate that, and (c) if (a) and (b) are satisfied, is the current content truly reflective of the article name and if not, should we be adopting a different name that reflects the article content, or should we keep the name and dump the content? So you see it's not something that can be fixed just by adding more info to the article, it's a structural problem that really needs some planning on the talk page first IMO. Gatoclass (talk) 09:44, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

It is strange that you bring up issues over here that have been addressed on the talk page several times. whether or not "Holodomor denial" is an encyclopedic topic is pretty straight forward in case you have looked up one of the primary sources, it's an encyclopedia. But just in case, I'll just cite it once more: the famine is called holodomor ...Denial of the famine declined after the Communist Party lost power.... So in case you have any alternative encyclopedic perspectives on the subject, please do not hesitate to provide some published sources to back up your opinions. thanks!--Termer (talk) 09:55, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Hello, in reading over the debates and discussion, I see two separate issues: first, one of content; second, one of procedure. If I may, I would like to deal with them in order.

First, the issue of content. Very early in the existence of the article, a POV tag was added, with no appropriate discussion on the talk page. Therefore, I removed the tag. User:Irpen added another tag, stating that there were some questionable numbers in the lead. . I removed the numbers, re-wrote the lead, and removed the tag. There has been no issue with user:Irpen since that time. Every effort has been made to cite only verifiable - and non-offensive - sources, including changing citations, such as here: .

The second issue is one of procedure. An editor appears and applies tags without any discussion on the talk page or any attempt to improve the article. As discussed above, issues are dealt with in good faith. User:Gatoclass's issues are repeatedly addressed, for example here: and here: and here: .

One editor does not agree with a consensus. An AfD is initiated. This is understandable, especially considering user:Gatoclass's closing comments: it was an attempt to bring more people to the discussion, and that is a good thing. Unfortunately, even though that AfD seems to have ended on a positive note, a POV tag was added to the article immediately after the AfD was closed. This seems to have become personal to user:Gatoclass, and that is a bad thing. To me, this AnI appears to be arena-hunting.

What really offends me is dismissive statements such as "editors of the page apart from me appear to be of East European origin, with potential axes to grind against their former Soviet overlords". User:Gatoclass has no idea where I am from. I understand that such things may be written with no subliminal intent, but they do highlight the difficulties in writing articles about Eastern Europe, and possible biases towards the articles and editors.

Hopefully, now, a larger number of editors has been reached. Again, thank you to user:Gatoclass for bringing wider attention to this topic, and I look forward to any help in developing this article, Horlo (talk) 09:30, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

What really offends me is dismissive statements such as "editors of the page apart from me appear to be of East European origin, with potential axes to grind against their former Soviet overlords".

Good, thank you for reminding readers of my sole purported transgression once again, it's only two minutes ago since Termer reposted it and they may have forgotten already.

There has been no issue with user:Irpen since that time.

Irpen has been on Wikibreak since 28 December, along IIRC with some of the other editors who expressed objections.

An editor appears and applies tags without any discussion on the talk page

I have commented exhaustively on the talk page about my concerns. It is just extraordinary for you guys to keep making this absurd claim that I have not tried to initiate "discussion on the talk page". Unfortunately though, I have had next to no response to my requests for a genuine good faith discussion. Except, that is, for a barrage of bad faith assumptions and trumped up charges in regards to my character.

In any case, I don't think this is the place to discuss the parameters of the content dispute itself. I opened this discussion solely to try and establish the principle that a minority of good faith users in good standing has the right to expect that they can tag a page with a dispute template without having that template continually removed when it's clear that consensus is yet to be achieved. That's all, it's nothing complicated really. Gatoclass (talk) 10:04, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Surely "the minority" has the right to have their POV attached to any article as long as it's based on a published source. Since you have failed to provide any...I hope that I don't need to keep repeating it. Good night from LA--Termer (talk) 10:10, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

No Termer, it's not me who has failed to provide a scholarly source, it's you who has failed - to provide a scholarly source which proves that the very topic of your article, holodomor denial, is a precise concept that really has some recognition and a discernible meaning beyond the assumption you have made about what it must mean because you think it's self-evident. Or which proves that it isn't just a political slogan used to promote a particular version of history, ie that the holodomor was a genocide. And so on.

I don't have to provide a source Termer. The onus is on you to provide a scholarly source to prove that your topic is genuinely encyclopedic in some way and not just another political epithet designed to attack someone. Gatoclass (talk) 10:44, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

you don't have to provide a source? Then you shouldn't be surprised that your opinions are going to be ignored as you have ignored the sources provided in the article. --Termer (talk) 17:24, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I have to admit some confusion. Gatoclass is maintaining that Stalin suppressing news of the famine, denying the famine where the outside world was concerned, how that campaign was conducted, who assisted (Duranty), what the impact is on current perspectives is not a topic worth encyclopedic attention?
  As I just mentioned on the article talk page, it's silly for editors to contend Duranty hasn't been called a "Holodomor denier"--Holodomor has not been in popular use for that long. There are plenty of sources that discuss suppreession and denial. We can call it "Suppression of news of the Ukrainian famine and denial of its existence". Gatoclass doesn't like the topic, the title, or anything about it. Perhaps it's not the most constructive place to be contributing.
  I haven't "threatened" Gatoclass over anything, in fact it takes little effort to read the talk page to see where I suggest not invoking the "Digwuren" ruling, to give Gatoclass an opportunity to be more constructive. As for Gatoclass' calumnies over threats and personal attacks, no one has threatened or attacked him. I'm sorry for whatever editorial battles he has had elsewhere, but frankly I don't care. I have never dealt with Gatoclass before and I expect better than jumping to petard hoisting conclusions proving conspiracy and axe-grinding theories that exist only in his brain.
  I have no problem with negotiating through content disputes and have reach compromises with editors whom I agree not one whit, as long as we stick to sources. Therefore this is not a "content dispute". Gatoclass has attacked me but has not negotiated with me over one shred of content. (Except to note my alternate title using "suppression" not "denial" was "accusatory".) This is an editor, Gatoclass, deciding to conduct his activities along battle lines that are only in his mind and, in keeping with that plan, attacks reputable editors as adversaries instead of resources with whom he should be working to build consensus. —PētersV (talk) 17:59, 4 January 2008 (UTC) <- sometime earlier, accidentally deleted signature

Exit death spiral?

To Gatoclass: if you can admit that your (to you "banal", to your targets, "offensive") stereotyping of editors was a mistake, perhaps we might resume more constructive uses of our time and get back to article specifics on the talk page. A friendly word of advice--don't think that those who tag or otherwise disapprove of articles in the Baltic/Eastern European space are acting 100% in the defense of "NPOV" and not their own POV. I can't speak for the other editors, but since you appear to have come in on something that started before you and have not dealt with a number of the editors here before and have obviously acted based on misperceptions--I certainly haven't dealt with you before this, a small act of contrition on your part might allow us all to put this to bed and move on. —PētersV (talk) 17:56, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Meaning whether or not your opinion was solicited, that it stereotyped editors was a problem, not that you don't apologize for your opinion (whether or not it was solicited is immaterial). You're entitled to whatever opinion you like, but the rules are different if it's regarding editors with whom you are attempting to engage in discourse. —PētersV (talk) 18:05, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but I can't apologize for something I haven't done. I never accused anyone, specifically or even generally, of "axe grinding" in relation to this page. I merely noted - in response to the question put to me - that one could hardly fail to observe that editors from former Eastern bloc had potential "axes to grind" in relation to the USSR. Which is to say, I don't know whether or to what extent this apparent COI might be effecting someone's judgement, but that the potential is there for it to do so. Would anyone seriously want to dispute such a self-evident statement?

So hopefully now that I have offered this clarification, we can move on. Gatoclass (talk) 04:53, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

So whats wrong with these now democratic nations telling their stories on WP, according to the published sources of their imprisonment by the totalitarian regime that was no different from Nazi Germany? Again, in case you do have any alternative POV-s you might support, like the conservative-communist-stalinist revisionism would fit well the pattern of ideas you have been representing, why don't you just add the POV to the article? Or doesn't the "denial of the Holodomor denial", the stalinist-soviet sympathizer ideology allow any room for alternative viewpoints like it was common practice also for the totalitarian regime, suppress the liberal and free thought and ideas? I'm not getting it, what exactly do you think you're going to accomplish here? Even though the article is currently about the denial of the famine, not about the denial of the famine as a genocide, sooner or later there are going to be more and more countries added to these 15 who have recognized holodomor as a genocide. The soviet union is in the histories garbage bin and there are free nations emerged who are free to express their POV on WP like any other party, including the conservative-communists who might hold, in your words "axe-grinding" against Easter Europe because they helped to end the prison state -communist-Soviet-empire. The WP:NPOV requires, in case there are conflicting perspectives, each should be presented fairly. So why do you hesitate adding the POV you support to the article instead keep trying to put the subject away by any means possible including listing it for deletion and bringing it here at the notice board?--Termer (talk) 06:30, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, at LEAST we've got Gatoclass' objection down. He doesn't believe there IS such a thign as the PHRASE 'holomodor denial'. are there any sources out there which use it? Link them here, and we can bring them to the article, and then we can address Gatoclass' bigoted 'you're all a cabal' racist attitudes. ThuranX (talk) 06:57, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

The question has been addressed several times including at this notice board One of the primary sources in the article, the Encyclopedia of Genocide and Crimes Against Humanity has the following take on the subject the famine is called holodomor ...Denial of the famine declined after the Communist Party lost power... So incase the article needs to be renamed exactly according to the encyclopedia Denial of the famine called Holodomor , that would be fine by me in case Holodomor denial by itself would be too Easter European POV-ish. just that also the suggestion to rename according to the encyclopedia has been ignored and rejected--Termer (talk) 07:12, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Good enough for me, we don't need a ridiculously cumbersome title like that, one which plays foolish grammar games to appease Gatoclass' POV issues. Now we can get onto his bigoted statements. ThuranX (talk) 07:19, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

I take exception to being referred to as a "bigot". You would be well advised to withdraw that fatuous remark. Editors have been banned from wikipedia for such breaches of WP:CIV. Gatoclass (talk) 07:54, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

As far as I can tell nobody has called you Gatoclass a "bigot" here. However I have to admit that I agree with ThuranX regarding your opinions and statements that you haven't even bothered to back up with any references or sources have been bigoted indeed.--Termer (talk) 08:45, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Gatoclass, you have not yet apologized for your skewed (kinder--one which you have not earned--version of bigoted) view of Eastern European editors, nor for acting on the basis of your gross assumptions of bad faith of that entire group of editors. Yet you get on your high horse and notify Termer you expect an apology. Sorry, your behavior here continues to be one of your demonstrated self-perceived superiority over editors of Eastern European heritage, your demand for an apology clearly indicating that you don't treat editors of Eastern European heritage with the same level of respect with which you expect them to treat you. You are clearly clueless as to how egregious your behavior has been. Despite your return to the article's talk page, perhaps you're not ready to exit the death spiral after all. Termer is a motivated, reputable editor, but someone who will not stand for insults. You might want to consider the basis in your behavior for Termer's words above and alter your conduct instead of continuing to escalate along the same line of self-righteous assumptions of bad faith on the part of other editors and now accusations of incivility. —PētersV (talk) 16:30, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

For all it's worth, here is the latest sourced added to the article: Lubomyr Luciuk, Searching for place: Ukrainian displaced persons, Canada, and the migration of memory, Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2000, p. 413. ISBN 0802042457. Here is a quote from the book: "For a particularly base example of famine-denial literature, see Tottle, Fraud, famine, and fascism: the Ukrainian genocide myth from Hitler to Harvard." And this is just one of the many examples in the article, but it sort of gives the gist of it. I mean, when you have a guy publishing a book with a title like this, and various other authors quoting him approvingly (including at least one academic, and a bunch of guys at the Stalin Society), well, that pretty much establishes that the phenomenon of denying the Holodomor is still alive and kicking (of course, it was very significant and widespread in the 1930s). This, plus all the (denial-of-famine-related) Pulitzer Prize controversy around Duranty and the NYT, and the current intense debate (and legislative action) in Ukraine establishes the notability of the subject, and the validity of the title (in whatever variation it will settle on), pretty much beyond a doubt, I submit. Turgidson (talk) 07:41, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Raggz

Can someone please keep an eye on User:Raggz? For several months, he's been adding false information to articles and systematically deleting anything critical of the United States government — often for patently false reasons. He's received countless warnings, and several editors have gone to great lengths to explain how he's been violating Misplaced Pages's core policies. He either ignores the warnings or apologises and carries on exactly as before.

For example, he's just added a brazen lie into an article about the Iraq war. In response to a Human Rights Watch claim that the human rights situation in Iraq before the invasion was "not of the exceptional nature that would justify such intervention", Raggz states that "the International Criminal Court refuted this claim after an extensive investigation". However, the source he cites (PDF) makes absolutely no mention of the human rights situation in Iraq before the invasion. In fact, the International Criminal Court has never examined this, as it's clearly outside the court's jurisdiction. This is just one example of how Raggz systematically invents stuff and distorts his sources to advance his POV. I've included a few more examples in the collapsible box below. Regards, Sideshow Bob Roberts (talk) 05:45, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

When I first began editing WP, controversial topics unfortunately drew my attention because they so clearly violated the WP NPOV and OR policies. The ICC articles drew my interest early, they might have been my first editing projects. I did sometimes and still do violate WP policies, but by error and not intent. When this was correctly brought to my attention by Sideshow Bob Roberts I apologized and changed. When this was incorrectly brought to my attention by Sideshow Bob Roberts I did not apologize and persisted. Sometimes I later discovered that he was correct, sometimes not. Sideshow Bob Roberts is not easy to work with, particularly when his pov-based agenda is denied expression. He knows international law and WP policy better than I do and does not collaberate or help, but uses this as an advantage to advance his pov. I've asked for insight six months back from other editors on a WP page for this, and got one comment and none from him. I suggest reading my comment to Sideshow Bob Roberts on his page last week. More than anything else it will explain my collaberative attitude with Sideshow Bob Roberts.

He cites errors of six months or more back, but not my many useful edits. I could debate his collapsable box material, but why? I should be judged by how I edit now. As for the "brazen lie", he could have simply added his concerns to TALK, and if he was correct (as he too often is) I would have changed it if necessary. I don't know how to source his abusive posts and am not inclined to play his game anyway.

On page 7 (footnotes) of the source cited is the information referenced in regard to Human Rights Watch. On page 3? it states that 250+ claims of human rights violations were recieved and no evidence was found to support these. The ICC does have jurisdiction over ICC members in Iraq, and did investigate the human rights issues with this jurisdiction. It is all in the citation. The US and the UK have conducted joint operations, and if widespread violations of human rights were ocurring, the UK would be involved with these and these would be in the report. You may judge if the inclusion of the UN and ICC sections involve "brazen lies".

I stand by my edits generally. I also stand by my unintended errors, and also my corrections and retractions that were sometimes necessary. Sideshow Bob Roberts is a pov warrior, but a smart one that plays within the rules. As I get experience, as I become a better editor, my participation with controversial articles threatens the few pov warriors camped in a few controversial articles. I knew that editing controversial articles where the pov warriors are camped out would eventually require your review. Human rights and the United States is a better and far more recent editing project, I suggest visiting it to get a sense of my style, strengths, and weaknesses as an editor.

Sideshow Bob Roberts is incorrect to say "adding false information to articles and systematically deleting anything "critical of the United States government". I make errors, and admit to these when corrected. I systematically edit OR and NPOV, sometimes aggressively. The articles that I edit are usually heavily in violation of NPOV guidelines, so I often delete material "critical of the United States government", but only when it is OR or in violation of NPOV. I recently deleted dozens of citations where the citation did not support the text. Most material "critical of the United States government" is of course retained if it meets WP guidelines (in my opinion). A review of the articles I edit will prove this, they are filled with such material "critical of the United States government". The United States government has much that should properly be criticised, but this should be accurate, referenced, and need sustain the NPOV policy. I delete or edit that which is (in my opinion) innaccurate, unreferenced, and does not sustain the NPOV policy. Raggz (talk) 07:36, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

A few quick points:

1. Raggz has repeatedly made false claims about me. His assertion that I'm "on a POV campaign" is flatly untrue, and I encourage other editors to examine my edit history for any evidence of POV-pushing. I've addressed this claim before but he ignored my response and continues to make this claim.

2. I made a specific accusation that Raggz told a "brazen lie" today. He responded, as usual, by citing a source that has nothing to do with his claim.

3. It's true that I'm mostly citing examples from a few months ago, but a glance at his recent contributions reveals that his behaviour hasn't changed. Of course any admin action should be based on his current behaviour, not past mistakes.

4. "I've asked for insight six months back from other editors on a WP page for this, and got one comment and none from him." - I have no idea what this means.

5. With respect to his most recent message on my talk page, Raggz pretends he wants to collaborate with other users but he conistently ignores editors who disagree with him. On countless occasions, I've written lengthy posts explaining to Raggz how one of his theories is wrong and asking him to cite a source for his claim, only for him to completely ignore me and continue making the false claim. There's just no point trying to engage him in a rational discussion. Sideshow Bob Roberts (talk) 08:58, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

From International Criminal Court This is a typical example of me making an error and admitting to this. I suggest visiting Talk, and note the lack of collaberative effort by Sideshow Bob Roberts. He claims that I am incapable of engaging in a "rational discussion". Judge below if this is actually true. Raggz (talk) 09:08, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

"Dozens of reliable, published sources explicitly state that judicial authorisation is not required where a situation has been referred by a State Party or the Security Council. See, for example: Christopher Keith Hall: "The Powers and Role of the Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court in the Global Fight against Impunity". Leiden Journal of International Law (2004), 17: 121-139; Michela Miraglia: "The First Decision of the ICC Pre-Trial Chamber". J Int Criminal Justice 2006; 4: 188-195; or Annie Wartanian: "The ICC Prosecutor's Battlefield: Combating Atrocities While Fighting for States' Cooperation. Lessons from the U.N. Tribunals Applied to the Case of Uganda". Georgetown Journal of International Law 36 no4 1289-316 Summ 2005 (which is free to read here). Does anyone object to changing this? Sideshow Bob Roberts 03:45, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Not I. Your legal expertise when engaged, rarely fails to illuminate. Thank you for correcting my error. I didn't follow your explanation fully, but as long as you are certain that the ICC Prosecutor may investigate the Iraq War without referral from a State Party, I'm fine. Raggz 03:50, 19 September 2007 (UTC) "

=================================

"Hello, you became so heated last time we worked together that I took a break to give you the opportunity to calm down. I've been working on some articles today and expect that you will have comments. This time may we work together collegially and productively? Our past collaborations have improved several articles and we may continue to do this together. So, let me know which, if any edits may be issues for you. Raggz (talk) 06:13, 24 December 2007 (UTC)" .

Would it help you both to ask for outside assistance, i.e. mediation or RFC? Nomen Nescio 10:32, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

To be honest, I don't see what that could possibly achieve. I have no doubt that Raggz would just ignore the outcome, just as he ignores our core policies, ignores user warnings ( ), ignores consensus, and ignores detailed explanations of how his claims are incorrect. I have no doubt that he'll continue to do this until an administrator intervenes. If he's allowed to continue inserting blatantly false claims into articles, our core policies are pretty meaningless. Sideshow Bob Roberts (talk) 12:48, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Actions of User:DrVonDre

This user has constantly been violating he rules of Misplaced Pages and the Dragon Ball project. All his contributions are towards an article speculating a sequel to Dragon Ball GT, called Dragon Ball FO. The article is up for deletion and he has been warned many times, but he still is editing DBZ related articles and giving misleading info. I suggest putting a temporary ban on him to refrain him from vandalizing. Thank you. UzEE (Talk • Contribs) 11:52, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Could we not wait a few days first so that the AFD debate can complete? He's not that high volume. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 12:09, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

The debate is obviously going in one direction, and besides. All he is doing is spreading false information and speculation. And this is against Misplaced Pages policy. UzEE (Talk • Contribs) 12:57, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

But why rush? He may well be speculating but we don't know if the information is false, perhasps someone will come up with a source then the deletion debate may reverse. I don't think is very likely but I don't see any urgency needed to block him yet either. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 14:41, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

He also vandalized the AfD, removing multiple remarks and replacing them with his own. Collectonian (talk) 16:59, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Why do you hate me? Dont be racists, everyone are humans. And I like Dragonball, so I share my knowledge. -DrVonDre

Please assume good faith. Attributing this to hate or racism is completely inappropriate. Misplaced Pages:Verifiability is a policy. You appear to be repeatedly ignoring it by adding unverified information to multiple articles. We don't need to be the first website to report anything. The information can be added when we have reliable sources to use as sources for the additions. --Onorem♠Dil 13:42, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

His source "Yamada Tarou" is the Japanese equivalent of John Doe. So this is officially a hoax. JuJube (talk) 21:34, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

• I went ahead and blocked this user indefinitely as a vandal only account. All of his edits have been to expound upon the Dragon Ball FO show that was determined in the AFD to be a Hoax. Everything cited above appears to be true. He did vandalize the AfD by replacing delete votes with keep votes. Yamada Taro is the Japanese equivalent to Jon Doe. He claims to be the victim of racism, but that's just silly. He failed to provide any solid reason to be accepted---and tons of reason not to.Balloonman (talk) 07:59, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Council for Refractive Surgery Quality Assurance

There seems to be more drama at this article, with cross-allegations of defamation and possible violations of WP:3RR. I got a message on my talk page at . Could a neutral sysop look at this please? Bearian (talk) 16:51, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Question about having personal contact information on user page

A new user placed a lot of personal contact information on their user page, mainly home and mobile phone numbers. I've blanked that from their page, but I'm wondering if the history should be deleted, too? I'd rather not place the diff here, in case I'm just being overly paranoid, but if an admin agrees, just drop me a note on my talk page and I'll give you the diff. Thanks. Yngvarr 12:34, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

If the user is a minor, delete and explain to them why it's a bad idea, if they are major just blank and tell them, in my opinion. The user might wish not to be anonymous. -- lucasbfr 12:52, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

An admin took care of it, under WP:NOT#WEBHOST. Yngvarr 12:53, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Mark Speight

I'll be offline for most of the weekend as usual. I've been keeping an eye on Mark Speight which may become the target for a spate (sorry, couldn't help myself) of vandalism, as he's just become the subject of some lurid and unfortunate news in the UK. As a kids' TV presenter, and a BBC man to boot, this will no doubt attract the Red Tops, so I suspect this will become a very big story.

I've slapped on a current tag but for now there's nothing like enough activity to need protection... but the news is still very fresh. Please can some other admins keep an eye on it for the next couple of days at least. Ta. --Dweller (talk) 12:50, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

PS The redlink Natasha Collins may well turn blue and require similar watching, although sadly there's no BLP issues there. --Dweller (talk) 12:51, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Informed of possible sockpuppet

I appreciate that I should be doing this on the sockpuppet reporting page, but I do not know enough about the case to be able to fill it in. Earlier today, I posted a warning on User:82.83.130.148 about assuming good faith. I got the following reply on my talk page:

Thank you for your advice. I did first assume good faith, but the edits of User:Polysynaptic have only the purpose to falsify facts. He not only deletes scholastic sources and ignores them (for example in the articles al-Farabi and Seljuq dynasty), he even creates alternative articles to already existing ones. That's what he did here. Although the article al-Biruni exists and has a very good shape, he created a second one only for the pupose of claiming him Turk. He also falsified the article Ulugh Beg, again claiming that he was a Turk (while Britannica 1911 says something different: ). Simply calling Ulugh Beg a "Timurid" (that was the name of his dynasty) is the best and most neutral solution. User:Polysynaptic registered on December 30th, but he is no new user. His edits are extremely biased toward and based Pan-Turkism, he is deleting sources, ignoring scholastic sources, and he falsifies sources. I believe that he is a sockpuppet of some other (banned) user. Maybe of User:Moorudd whose IP was blocked last week because of racist insults against Iranians: . And he is again at it: . Checkuser has confirmed that the IPs are those of User:Moorudd: . The edits of Moorudd and Polysynaptic are very similar: Moorudd vs. Polysynaptic Some admin should help out.

I then (on the anon user's page) posted a request for them to report it to the sockpuppet report page, along with a suggestion that they register. On my page, I received the following response.

Thank you for your comment. Yes, I will probably register. But I would appreciate it, if you report him this time so I can learn how to do it. I will be off Misplaced Pages for a few days, then I will (maybe) register. Thank you very much for your help.

To be honest, I don't know a great deal about sockpuppetry, and so would be useless in investigating the case. Could someone please investigate it? StephenBuxton (talk) 13:37, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Keeps posting nonsense editing

82.29.5.197 keeps posting non factual and is being rude. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thevardonrushes (talk • contribs) 14:36, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Well he's posting unsouced, that's not the same as unfactual although it is getting to the stage of being a slow burning edit war. Can you provide diffs of him being rude please? Theresa Knott | The otter sank 14:45, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

here are the only things he's said on this IP, which I think are a long way from being actionable beyond WP:CIVIL advice. He's a new editor, so I've left him a "welcome" so he can familiarise himself with our policies. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 14:51, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

List of attacks by ASALA

I am growing tired of this. The article documents list of attacks by ASALA. I have worked on it in peace for the past 1 year in a rather slow pace.

Very recently User:VartanM showed up to remove sources. This so far had been his entire contribution. User:Andranikpasha, the person VartanM mentors, had showed up roughly the same time Penwhale placed VartanM on A-A 2's restriction which he later explained as "this". Andranikpasha was placed under a 6 month revert parole by Thatcher.

User:Folantin and User:Meowy also very recently appeared out of nowhere on the talk page to support the removal of these sources. They do not appear to be outside parties based on their other contribution.

These 4 people mentioned here are insisting that I cannot use Turkish Governmental sources to cover the content in the article - yet they are refusing to cite a single source to the contrary nor are they disputing any of the actual content. They seem to be complaining for the purpose of complaining which constitutes as a WP:POINT violation. People seem to be trying to game the system from time to time as well. For example these diffs imply that these people try to drag people under Armenia-Azerbaijan restrictions by gaming the system.

Issue has been to /Arbitration enforcement before. But they seem to be unable to address the issue as their maneuverability is quite limited with the two arbcom hearings. Also any discussion there at /Arbitration enforcement on this matter almost instantly turns into an irrelevant flame war. This also seems to be a method to game the system.

-- Cat 16:26, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I certainly did not "appear out of nowhere" on that page. I had it watchlisted from March 2007 when I and other editors struggled to make you comply with Misplaced Pages's policies on WP:RS and WP:EL. You were quite happy to source material from a well-known hate site TallArmenianTale as the talk page archive shows (the very archive which you yourself created only a few days ago). --Folantin (talk) 16:39, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

White Cat's talking bollocks. His behaviour on this article has been most unsatisfactory - he will not accept that some anti-Armenian bile-filled websites are not reliable sources and should ergo not be linked to. It's time to ban him from all articles relating to Armenia, loosely defined. He's got a long history of POV-pushing in this area: see Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Coolcat, Davenbelle and Stereotek and in particular this finding. Moreschi 17:08, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Are you saying I am pov pushing for listing attacks commited by ASALA? No one is disputing these attacks had happened. The source is well within WP:RS. It is a governmental source for crying out loud.

The quoted arbcom case has expired some 1.5 years ago and has no bearing whatsoever on the case here. If I cannot even use governmental sources on ASALAs attacks no one is disputing, what can I use?

Ban me? For WHAT? What have I done constituting a ban? Had I added propoganda? No. Not by a long shot. Had I removed other peoples comments on talk pages? Not at all. Had I revert wared on multiple articles for the purpose of revert waring? No. That is the behaviour committed by some parties involved who only received a warning. Some did not even receive such a warning. I had not had any real edits to Armenia related articles for the past 1.5 years (or more). Even this article isn't Armenia related. It is merely the list of attacks by ASALA no soul is disputing.

User:Andranikpasha and User:VartanMs entire contribution to the article is revert warring and the removal of sources.

-- Cat 17:16, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Even when the "sources" are part of highly offensive, genocide-denying hate sites? Come off it. Your contributions to anything Armenia-related have been consistently awful. Moreschi 17:52, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

How is the Armenian Genocide thing even relevant to ASALA attacks which had taken place well over 5 decades later? Sorry, I do not see a connection. -- Cat 19:02, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

"Even this list isn't Armenia related"? A list of attacks by the Armenian Secret Army for the Liberation of Armenia? --Folantin (talk) 17:32, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Moreschi, once when I was a newbie I added a problem to ANI and ArbEnforcement pages at the same time. You deleted my double adding and blocked me indef. for "nationalist editwarring". Are you going to do the same thing with White cat now? Sorry but see all my answers at ArbEnforcement. Andranikpasha (talk) 17:33, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Except you weren't a real newbie, I think. The past is now irrelevant, anyway. Moreschi 17:52, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Again double standards? what you mean by "you weren't a real newbie"?? and if cat is surely not a real (?) newbie so what's the reason you dont stop him? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Andranikpasha (talk • contribs) 18:07, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Honestly, what do you think I'm trying to do? Have you not read my comments above? As regards the rest, see . Moreschi 18:24, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the link on "rest":) It seems to be a different case. i dont know if anyone says I wasnt a newbie at English Wiki... so lets be more civil while sharing our personal opinion, ok? thanks in advance! Andranikpasha (talk) 18:54, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

White Cat's gone forum-shopping and is now trying to start Armenia-Azerbaijan ArbCom 3 - and all because he can't be bothered to go down the library and find some reliable, scholarly sources. --Folantin (talk) 17:54, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Imagine that! Going to arbitrators, our most trusted users, to "forum shop" aka violate policy... This is gaming the system. Really. -- Cat 20:55, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, you are gaming the system. You couldn't get consensus to use a dubious source so you went forum-shopping. You did exactly the same back in March when editors wouldn't let you use a racist hate site as a "reliable source" for the very same page . --Folantin (talk) 08:09, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Proposed topic-ban

White Cat has a long history of vexatious editing on Armenia-related articles, usually pushing an Armenian Genocide denying agenda. See the lengthy tales of this at Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Coolcat, Davenbelle and Stereotek. Recently he went back to Talk:Armenian Genocide with more tendentious time-wasting, before the thread was moved to Talk:Armenian-Turkish relations. On this list in question he's edit-warred against consensus, and comments from User:Picaroon and myself, to keep links to sites that include bile-filled material (see here, the current talk page threads, and for a specimen of the material in question, see...well...any of the links from here). White Cat has deliberately tried to stir up trouble: he's gone back and forth from ANI to AE (and IRC) canvassing for his viewpoint purely to piss off the Armenian users involved (even without his attempts at aggravation, said links are not reliable sources). His disruptive editing on articles relating to Armenia has gone on for too long. A topic-ban is necessary. Moreschi 18:35, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Strongly endorsed given White Cat's long and tendentious history of edit-warring over Armenian topics. --Folantin (talk) 18:43, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

How can you be endorsing something when you are an involved party? Over what edits am I banned for? For using governmental sources? This has gone beyond ridiculous. -- Cat 18:59, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Well here is a thought. Perhaps we could permit editing with certain restrictions on what can be linked, perhaps a mentor could vet links, and maybe civility parole or something of that nature. Something a step down from a topic ban. Can mentorship as a community placed remedy be useful here? Thoughts? M-ercury at 18:49, January 4, 2008 —Preceding comment was added at 18:49, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Restrictions are over which edits? -- Cat 18:59, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

White Cat didn't know who to turn to since VartanM hadn't told him that he was Andranikpasha's mentor and the mentorship wasn't logged anywhere for White Cat to see. How exactly are people supposed to react when they discover that the mentor was the person edit warring right next to Andranikpasha? I think White Cat's concerns about unfair play here are somewhat warranted. EconomicsGuy (talk) 19:21, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

No, EconomicsGuy, VartanM ended to be my mentor earlier, in November 22, 2007, after an admin removed my name from the list of users "placed under supervised editing" . The other info about me represented by White Cat is also not correct, for example I wasnt placed under revert parole by Thatcher, its not true! Andranikpasha (talk) 20:20, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

My understanding from your block log is that mentorship was the condition for your unblock. Your initial block was for being a disruptive SPA. The community (not ArbCom) agreed to an unblock conditional on this mentorship. VartanM confirmed on WP:AE that he was your mentor when he was confronted with this just a few days ago. He subsequently noted that the mentorship had ended then on the list of imposed restrictions (VartanM deserves credit for doing that). Also, it still doesn't explain how mentorship can possibly have worked when the mentor and the person being mentored edit wars side by side. I think White Cat has a valid point about that, regardless of the content dispute. EconomicsGuy (talk) 20:37, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I dont know what means "your understanding" (sorry, I prefer Wiki rules) but I know better what means "be removed from the list of users placed under supervised editing". So lets to not change the topic which is not related to my "mentorship" but radical POV-pushing by Cat. Andranikpasha (talk) 21:11, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

sorry, I prefer Wiki rules So do I. Rule number 1: Do not edit war and then complain about another editor's alleged POV pushing. Read WP:KETTLE, you might learn why I have a hard time taking a complaint about POV pushing from an edit warrior seriously. EconomicsGuy (talk) 21:16, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

"alleged POV pushing." Its not alleged but confirmed even by admin Picaroon and many other users included me at the talk. A deletion of extremal hate-site on Armenian Genocide denial propagand is not a editwarring. And please, lets discuss anything related to me not here (this chapter is dedicated to Cat), but here . I think I already answered to your questions there. Thanks in advance, Andranikpasha (talk) 21:53, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

There is no need to. Your rethoric and the fact that you are hiding behind an admin comment in what you claim to be a content dispute illustrates perfectly what the problem here is and why it is a good thing that ArbCom plans to review all these cases. Good luck when the time comes for that, I'm sure you'll need plenty of it by then. EconomicsGuy (talk) 22:05, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I know evidence from 2005 is irrelevant, but its interesting that after 3 years White Cat is still pushing the same POV. Only this time around his not a newbie anymore. VartanM (talk) 01:05, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Content dispute, is it really?

Here I am using Turkish government as a source for attacks on Turkish government employees (diplomatic personnel) by ASALA. The information provided is not disputed by anyone involved. Because of the age of the attacks linking to Newspapers of the era and such is very difficult. For that I am been proposed a topic ban.

Imagine using US sources (media, government, non-profit organizations such as MIPT Terrorism Knowledge Base) to cover the activity of Al-Quida or other organizations US sees as "terrorist". Now "terrorist" is a word to avoid on Misplaced Pages but not on the sources we use. US is of course very biased towards Al-Quida but that does not disqualify them as a source.

I really think Turkish government is more than an acceptable, reliable, and verifiable source. If the validity of the information is in dispute, that should be complimented by reliable sources. No one has done this.

-- Cat 21:07, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

The Turkish government is not, to put it gently, considered a reliable source on matters of Armenian history. --Orange Mike | Talk 21:34, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Why is that? Under WP:NPOV that is. How is this not systematic bias? -- Cat 21:54, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Don't be so disingenuous, White Cat. Some of us weren't born yesterday. --Folantin (talk) 08:07, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

That's a synonym for "White Cat, shut up". It's getting tedious. Moreschi 12:40, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

How about using KGB as a source for Soviet Union?Igor Berger (talk) 13:54, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Or quoting Hitler as a reliable source on the Jewish Question. --Jack Merridew 14:31, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Nice to see Goodwin's law being proven again here. Could an uninvolved admin please close this as it is being dealt with elsewhere and is clearly generating more heat than light now? EconomicsGuy (talk) 14:35, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for that link. In this case, however, I think the parallel is valid. Hitler did refer to the Armenians as a precedent; American Indians, too. --Jack Merridew 15:01, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

"Who, after all, speaks today of the annihilation of the Armenians?" --Jack Merridew 15:07, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

The text above is the English version of the German document handed to Louis P. Lochner in Berlin. It first appeared in Lochner's What About Germany? (New York: Dodd, Mead & Co., 1942), pp. 1-4. The Nuremberg Tribunal later identified the document as L-3 or Exhibit USA-28. Two other versions of the same document appear in Appendices II and III. For the German original cf. Akten zur Deutschen Auswartigen Politik 1918-1945, Serie D, Band VII, (Baden-Baden, 1956), pp. 171-172. --Jack Merridew 15:56, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

So, we are going to quote Hitler to justify that a Turkish website anno 2008 isn't a reliable source for things that already appear in undisputed sources? And we are going to do this using a pro-Armenian website? How can you not see how that just generates more heat? EconomicsGuy (talk) 15:17, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Site may be Pro-Armenian, but the source they give isn't (I added it above). I have not followed the specific sources and overall dispute. Here's a suggestion: if you have neutral sources for stuff, use them instead of non-neutral ones. And keep biased editors at a good distance. Isn't that the real issue here? --Jack Merridew 15:56, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, because the Armenian Genocide and the Jewish Holocaust clearly have absolutely nothing in common. --Folantin (talk) 14:47, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Like I said - more heat than light. As for your sarcastic comment I don't think you want to go down that road. The Holocaust has absolutely nothing to do with this and bringing it in to this discussion serves no purpose whatsoever other than to inflame the discussion. EconomicsGuy (talk) 14:54, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Folantin, I could care less when you were born.

Moreschi you can't shut me up. No one can. You do not run this show unlike what you claimed on IRC. This isn't your dictatorship and HELL if I submit to your threats. You'll bring in Elagirl? Go right ahead! You will sanction me? Be my guest. See how well any of such actions sticks. You are not a fraction as uninvolved as you claim to be.

Igorberger, imagine using official KGB documents on Soviet Union article. Last thing we want is official sources for data. You imply as if the CIA is any more reliable on the Soviet Union. Really, CIA agents were wild goose chasing half of the time. But hey, this isn't even a dispute on the cold war!

Why the heck are you here Jack Merridew? This isn't an episode article dispute. Lets not have a rehash of Ned Scott RfC. I CAN'T believe people are allowed to compare Turkish government to the Nazi Germany government. Inflammatory posts are supposed to be discouraged, no they must be out-right banned. Not encouraged. This is at least the third time I see this.

You know this thread demonstrates why arbitration enforcement can't work.

-- Cat 14:58, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

The last few months I've gotten in the habit of reading the AN/I and RfAr pages. Damned interesting reading, too. --Jack Merridew 15:12, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

see also: http://www.umd.umich.edu/dept/armenian/facts/answers.html --Jack Merridew 15:21, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

That explains why you are reading this, not why you are joining it. Seems like you will support anything against me. That site really is irrelevant here. -- Cat 15:43, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

See WP:AGF; the link is relevant to comments I made a bit above here. --Jack Merridew 15:56, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

One of White Cat's stated reasons for using these dodgy extra sources is that the main, fairly reliable source MIPT "is rather incomplete for 1975 and prior" . Hmm, could it possibly be because the ASALA didn't exist before 1975? Might explain why the list is a little spartan in that period. And this comment comes from the very same editor who was recently warring to have the statement that the "ASALA were founded on January 20, 1975" included on the page . Although he previously fought to include attacks from 1968 . Hilarious, but an utter waste of everybody's time. Misplaced Pages may be "the encylopaedia anybody can edit" but aren't you at least supposed to know a bare minimum about the subject in hand? And possibly have mastered the elements of chronology, i.e. time goes forwards not backwards...--Folantin (talk) 14:46, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

I am glad you are amused, I certainly am not. THIS IS SPARTAAAAA!!!! -- Cat 14:58, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

How old are you? Five? That would explain a lot of things. --Folantin (talk) 15:14, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Your personal insults won't hurt me. Now sticks and stones or perhaps a Katana might. -- Cat 15:40, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

You know you bring up an interesting point. I stated that ASALA was founded in 20 January 1975. Which you removed stating that ASALA must have been founded prior. Now you are saying it was founded in 1975. Aren't you actually gaming the system? MIPT database on anything in 1975 and prior is incomplete. There is a very simple logical reason for that. 1975 was the date the personal computers started being popular and affordable. It is much easier for MIPT to process digital data than stuff written on paper. Even then only two of the attacks are not shown on MIPT. Which does not mean they did not happen. Which is why I was using the other sources. -- Cat 15:08, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

I said the ASALA must have been founded prior to January 20, 1975. You were adamant that it was founded on that very date. Hence it's very odd to find you looking for ASALA attacks before then. --Folantin (talk) 15:23, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

When was the time I was adding attacks prior to January 20th 1975? -- Cat 15:40, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

I've already given a link for when you were insisting we started the page at 1968 (back in March 2007, when you were "peacefully" editing the list). Here's my reply to you: "I can't believe I actually have to explain this to anyone, but let's see. The statement I removed read: 'Since 1968, a total of 84 incidents have been recorded and as a result 299 people were injured and 46 people killed'. The source you give for this says the ASALA was not founded until 1975. In other words, this is like having a "List of World War One Battles" which starts in 1907. Further investigation revealed the source of this absurdity. The site you used as a reference has a incident template which reads "1968-Present". As far as I can see, it does this for every terrorist group regardless of its inception date or whether it is long defunct. Take the Abu Sayyaf Group for example. Same template 'Incidents 1968-Present' - yet the group itself was not founded until 1991. Why this source has an obsession with the year 1968, I have no idea, but we are under no obligation to follow them. This is basic common sense". --Folantin (talk) 15:50, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Not quite. The scope of the article changed. . It used to be a mere "Turkish Diplomats Assassinated by Armenian Terrorists". Had the scope of this article did not change, that wouldn't be an issue. The page was AFDed the day I started editing it. Guess who were voting on it? Oh look you, Fadix, VartanM. Not really strangers... Certainly not random uninvolved parties. -- Cat 16:01, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

(to White Cat)For heaven's sake, Armenian Secret Army for the Liberation of Armenia is very clear about this: organisation begins operating in 1975. Do you not get the difference between begins operating and is founded? Or are you just after another reason to use your Armenian-bashing sources via original synthesis? Moreschi 15:28, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh not at all. Many organizations unofficially start existing and only after lots of preparations do they start existing officially. This applies to both legal and illegal organizations. I have no say on when ASALA was founded as an editor. But do get a say based on sources. MIPT states founding date as 1975. Tr.Gov is more specific by giving the date 20 January which MIPT states to be the first activity of ASALA. Surprise surprise... This is how you write a quality article, with sources. -- Cat 15:40, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Don't close a discussion when it becomes inconvenient. -- Cat 16:02, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Please reinstate the close tags. This is over. This discussion is absolutely pointless. --Folantin (talk) 16:04, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Central Intelligence Agency

Grateful for some eyes over the recent activities by Travb, here. Seems like a wholesale destruction spree on some recent work improving the CIA article, removing or improving some of the conspiracy theory stuff and improving the coverage using a portfolio of articles. In particular his response to my cleanup here suggesting that it is POV vandalism.

Given previous experience it would be useful to have some independent views of the activities.

ALR (talk) 19:01, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

• First, this is clearly a content dispute and as such it doesn't belong on AN/I. Second, just on the face of it it makes sense to me to keep treatment of the CIA on the CIA article. Your diff, as you didn't note, is actually to the article CIA activities in Africa. Unless you intend to create a CIA infobox with links to all of the various CIA sub-articles, then I think an AfD is warranted (rather than a redirect). 19:18, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. However my previous experience is that Travb does not discuss content and given the wilful removal of material across a portfolio of articles it needs some eyes-on to identify the best way to deal with it. Nonetheless, thankyou for your comments.

ALR (talk) 19:27, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

• Agree its content based. I created a nav-box at the bottom, and I've been working with the editor who created most of the sub-articles to tailor his controbutions to our style. We've made progress and survivied an AfD on one of the articles. Some re-namings are probably in order, but I don't think deletion via redirect is the right way to handle things. MBisanz 19:22, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I've blocked 68.89.131.187 (talk · contribs) for impersonating Travb (talk · contribs) on Talk:Central Intelligence Agency. Review and eyes on the article are welcome, given the extent of this IP's participation under a false signature and their edits to the main article. I'm holding off on reverts to see if Travb logs in under his account. Acroterion _(talk) 05:00, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

And now Travb's logged in. I'm done for the evening, and will look in in the morning. Acroterion _(talk) 05:13, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Can an admin please unblock IP 68.89.131.187?

Acroterion is involved in this content dispute, and commented on the talk page against my edits. The rules state that an admin should not block other editors who he/she is involved with in a content dispute. Acroterion demanded that I log in, which I did. Acroterion knew that I was back online as travb but retained the block.

I have no delusions that Acroterion will be repremanded for abuse of his administrative powers.

The other comments are irrelevant here on WP:AN/I. The main editor and I are working it out ammitably and calmly on the talk page. The main editor of CIA seems like a really nice guy. Trav (talk) 06:21, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

I'll ignore the "admin abuse" business, since there is movement toward consensus, or at least discussion of consensus, which was the point of my comments. I blocked the IP (anon only) solely because it was signing as a registered user - Travb was free to log in and edit under his username, as he should have all along. The IP is unblocked. Acroterion _(talk) 17:08, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

User Sia34

I seem to be having some difficulties with this user in the Misplaced Pages:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2007-12-14_Persian_Gulf mediation. While mediation can be difficult at times, I am wondering why this user feels the need to be uncivil, making personal attacks on me simply because I (politely) disagree with his assertions. The user appears to be a SPA based upon his contributions thus far to the community, and thusly, I have tried to point out that we focus on the edits, and not the editors, all without success. The personal attacks (1, 2, 3) seem to be escalationg in both frequency and incivility. Additionally, the user has actively sought out a meatpuppet to support the filing of an RfC, presumably an attempt to eliminate me as a voice of dissent in the Persian Gulf mediation discussion.
Any assistance in helping to calm this user down would be both helpful and instructive. - Arcayne () 19:30, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Zello555 - serious vandalism problem with quattro (all wheel drive system)

I have placed a warning request in Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Automobiles, but I feel something needs attending to as a matter of urgency.

Either the above user needs blocking, or the page in question needs some kind of restricted editing status, as I have had probably three days work completely trashed by User:Zello555 - who never actually responds to any questions of fact. Regards -- Teutonic Tamer 20:01, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

OK, I don't think this is vandalism per se but a content dispute. That said, YouTube is pretty clearly not a reliable source here, and I left a message to that effect on the article talk page and restored the older version of the article. Let's see if Zello555 is willing to work on finding better sources. I don't see a need for blocks, protection, or other administrative action at present. MastCell 20:43, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm . . . I would say it is vandalism, but I'll bow to your better judgement. The reason for my particular stance is that I questioned Zello on the validity of internet forums and similar sources. I've already mentioned that I am a highly qualified Motor Vehicle Engineering Technician, and have spent my entire life working on four wheel drive vehicles. Furthermore, I quoted a specific text book, complete with ISBN number, which clearly confirms my stance. Zello repeatedly ignores my request for him to examine said text book, and instead, waits 'til I work on other stuff to repeated post factually incorrect information. The quattro article in question is absolutely based on engineering fact, and has no place for hearsay or mis-information. If mis-information is allowed, then it simply reduces the efficay of the encyclopaedic nature of this site! Rgds, -- Teutonic Tamer 21:14, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Like I said, I think you're correct on content/sourcing. The vandalism thing is largely semantic in this particular context. If he edit-wars to reinsert the poorly sourced material, that would conceivably be a case for administrative action. Otherwise, it may be more effective to have other interested editors weigh in on the article talk page. MastCell 22:29, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

OK, I've done some more searching into this. Firstly, I stand by my claim that Zello is vandalising. Having re-read the Wiki article on vandalism, it is perfectly clear that he is vandaising by repeatedly re-inserts un-cited and inappropriate material when he has previously been requested to do so. Quoting directly from the Wiki vandalism page, I state the following areas for consideration:

• Silly vandalism - creating nonsensical and obviously non-encyclopedic edits - a reference to "off-roading" in Audis, when the vast majority are clearly road-only cars; also, a reference to "raising a wheel in the air", when again, road cars including Audi quattros are specifically designed to operate with all four wheels on the tarmac,
• Self-promotion - he is using Misplaced Pages for a mirror to his own site (see below for more detail)
• Adding known inaccuracies - by sneakily using his own website to back up untrue statements
• Userspace vandalism and/or Personal attack - I could potentially cite this, but as I have previously admitted to "having a thick skin", I can't really moan about it, however, others may consider it differently, this definately is a personal attack .

He repeatedly refuses to accept that YouTube and internet forums are NOT accepted as reliable sources, and continues (or attempts to continue Talk:Quattro_(all_wheel_drive_system)#undoing_quattro_IV_and_V_off-road_behaviour, Talk:Quattro_(all_wheel_drive_system)#torsen.2Fhaldex_comparison_dispute, and User_talk:Teutonic_Tamer#Haldex_all_wheel_drive_torque_transfer) to quote such sources. He is also trying to cite his own original research (by creating his own video to upload to YouTube).

More seriously, Zello is effectively plagiarising from Misplaced Pages, and using Misplaced Pages as a mirror site for his own personal website, and attempting to "own" the Misplaced Pages quattro page. This is the 'trail' of evidence to support my theory: > 11:52, 20 March 2006 > Misplaced Pages:Articles_for_creation/2006-03-20 > Misplaced Pages:Articles_for_creation/2006-03-20#Quattro_Generations > (dead link ommitted) > . This then links to: , and some other pages which have content of dubious copyright status.

Furthermore, having established that Zellos own website is clearly aimed at "Off-road" vehicles with four wheel drive. The quattro system on Audis, whilst it may have initially been developed for rally cars, that was 30 years ago. The vast majority of modern Audis are clearly "road-only" cars, and their own official literature clearly states this. So to repeatedly try to include "off-road" characteristics in the quattro page is clearly wrong.

Finally, I fully agree that other editors could/should add to the article, or discuss on the talk page. However, this is a specialist engineering and physics subject, which requires a notable degree of Automobile Engineering technical expertise, but which few people have the inclination to specialise in. So, unless we have any College/University lecturers or professors, or someone who works (or previously worked) in Audi R&D - then it will be difficult to attract suitably "equipped" editors to this subject!

BTW, thanks for your time in reading and trying to resolve this issue, it's much appreciated, kind regards - -- Teutonic Tamer 10:39, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Outside eyes and admin review requested: Strider12 (talk · contribs)

This is actually more of a plea for help. I previously raised the issue of Strider12 (talk · contribs) at AN/I here. Briefly, this is a single-purpose account with a clear conflict of interest, dedicated to editing the disputed entity of post-abortion syndrome and promoting its main proponent, David Reardon. My previous AN/I post centered on his tendentious editing, canvassing, edit-warring, constant combativeness, etc. There was discussion from outside admins of a topic ban vs. a week's block, but nothing came of it.

Since that time, Strider12's behavior has continued, with the following new wrinkles:

• Proposing a massive rewrite of WP:WEIGHT to serve his needs (, ), along with forum-shopping his dispute at WT:NPOV ()
• Tendentious editing of WP:NPOV itself:
• Turning his usertalk page into a "sandbox" consisting of a POV fork of his "preferred" version of Post-abortion syndrome article. He has helpfully titled his user-talk page version "An Unpurged Work in Progress" and writes: "I do not want any of the POV pushers who are into purging verifiable information to alter this draft. This draft is only for those who truly wish to collaborate on an objective article... I have mostly concentrated to date on inserting missing material rather than cleaning up some of the nonsensical inferences which appear to have been inserted by high school students or Planned Parenthood interns."
• In response to the issue of conflict-of-interest, avoids question and suggests that other editors are paid employees of Planned Parenthood, NARAL, etc ().
• Continued edit-warring, most recently resulting in the protection of post-abortion syndrome (which has never before been necessary in the history of this contentious article)
• Continually denigrates the New York Times Magazine and PBS as "clearly pro-choice" and biased (), while simultaneously addding material sourced to priestsforlife.org or other highly partisan pro-life newsletters for "balance" ().
• Outside opinions have been solicited in this RfC; they pointed up Strider12's issues with soapboxing and tendentious editing.

I'm asking for anything here: outside eyes on the affected articles, administrative review, whatever. Personally I feel that this is an editor with a determinedly uncollaborative approach (as evidenced by the usertalk page fork), tendentious habits, a conflict of interest which they are unable to surmount (while describing other editors as sockpuppets or Planned Parenthood interns), disrespect for WP:OR and WP:WEIGHT, and violations of WP:SOAP and WP:BATTLE. The article needs to be improved, but it's impossible with a single-purpose tendentious agenda warrior operating unrestrained. I think that a topic ban is warranted, but at this point I'm mostly tired of banging my head against this particular wall and would welcome any and all outside input. Please. MastCell 20:14, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

The article draft on his talk page is a definite problem. I've told him that it should be moved to a subpage, and that I'll do it for him if he doesn't know how. (Left implicit is that I'll do it for him if he fails to understand the need.) We should also help this editor with his difficulties understanding WP:CIV, WP:NPA, and so on. Raymond Arritt (talk) 22:12, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I hope that's possible. My concern is that he's already had extensive feedback from uninvolved editors, RfC's, and even editors explicitly sympathetic to his POV (, ) - all to the effect that his tactics are unconstructive. He's ignored all of that feedback, choosing to ascribe it to sockpuppets, Planned Parenthood employees, and the like. I'm not sure what else will get the message across. MastCell 22:22, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

(cutting in) Raymond Arritt, I have already told him before how to create a sandbox. Although his response was hostile, he does have a sandbox at his user page. Check his talk page history. миражinred 23:48, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I second the call for administrative review, outside eyes, ect... However I do so from a different perspective. I feel that there is frustration with one of the particular articles in question David Reardon and that frustration extends to BOTH sides of the dispute. I believe that the article as written is NOT WP:NPOV and there are serious problems with WP:WEIGHT and WP:BATTLE and I believe that these issues extend to the opposite side of the dispute as Strider12. I believe outside intervention and mediation to develop consensus on the talk page would be a welcome and refreshing at this point. There must be a way to make the article fit with WP:NPOV. The situation as it currently stands is completely unacceptable. Ghostmonkey57 (talk) 22:21, 4 January 2008 (UTC)Ghostmonkey57

The article certainly needs to be improved. I'm not talking about content per se here. What I'm saying is that it is essentially impossible to make real progress with a heavily tendentious single-purpose account dedicated to promoting the article's subject sitting on it. Mediation only works with good-faith editors whose primary interest is improving the encyclopedia. I don't see how mediation is going to succeed with an editor who, 500 edits and innumerable warnings in, still can't restrain himself from ascribing all opposition he meets to Planned Parenthood employees and "abortionists" dedicated to "purging" the article of his chosen sources. Look at his user talk page - he's created a content fork from which he explicitly disinvites anyone who doesn't share his extreme POV. Mediation is not what's called for. MastCell 22:27, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

We are in complete agreement that the article needs to be improved. I cannot speak for Strider12 here, but I suspect that the frustration felt stems from a perceived bias and violation of WP:NPOV in the current editing. I believe that the user sees the article as slanted from a pro-choice perspective. Much of that is listed on the talk page for the article. Is there not a way to bring independent 3rd party eyes to the article and talk pages and develop consensus? If so, why do we do that? Are you suggesting that the user will not under any circumstances work with independent editors to develop consensus? Why not see if it will work? Ghostmonkey57 (talk) 22:34, 4 January 2008 (UTC)Ghostmonkey57

On reviewing the article and talk pages, it's clear that Strider12 doesn't understand WP:SYN, or has chosen to ignore it. The article is supposed to be about Post-abortion syndrome as such. What he's doing is assembling a bunch of journal articles that discuss consequences of abortion for the woman's health -- which do not discuss post-abortion syndrome as such -- and then using those to build a case that the syndrome exists. It's a common mistake of novice editors, and an especially common mistake of novice editors that are on a mission to disseminate The Truth. Raymond Arritt (talk) 22:44, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

(@ Ghostmonkey57) I am saying that Strider12 has made it clear that s/he will not under any circumstances work with editors whose POV disagrees with his/her own (). As to ways to bring in independent eyes, yes - a content RfC was filed on post-abortion syndrome. The responding independent, 3rd party, outside editor came to the conclusion that Strider12 "has a clear POV that you so far have not been able to control. You're not here to improve the quality of the article or work with others towards balancing both sides. You're looking to steer this article in one clear direction in order to make sure your point-of-view is the one most prominently represented." As you're heavily involved in editing these articles, you no doubt saw it. Similarly, User:The Evil Spartan, explicitly sympathetic to Strider12's POV, warned him several times about his tactics to no avail. The question is really how many outside opinions we need to solicit before accepting them. MastCell 22:55, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I can only speak for the David Reardon article. I've not made a single edit on the post-abortion syndrome article, and I have no plans of editing there. My comments are limited explicitly to the David Reardon article. Ghostmonkey57 (talk) 22:59, 4 January 2008 (UTC)Ghostmonkey57

Contrary to MastCell's assertion, I have repeatedly tried to work with people and have made clear my intent to not blank other peoples' contributions. I also object to many of her characterizations of the issues above. As just one example, she misleads when she says I am pushing a biased source by referencing priestsforlife.org. I wasn't referencing a propaganda page from priests for life or even a commentary. It just happened to be the first site I found that had a copy of Surgeon General Koop's letter and it was linked solely so readers could read Koop's letter. Rather than simply finding a more neutral site with Koop's letter, MastCell supported editors in blanking it so that readers are deprived the chance to easily find what Kooop wrote in it's entirety. Perhaps I erred in not realizing earlier that while pro-choice web site references are allowed, pro-life ones are verbotten, even if they only include the text of a Surgeon General's letter much cited in this article. That is just one example of how MastCell's allegations above are half-truths designed to paint me as the the problem rather than his own POV pushing.

Also, I clearly object to the characterization that I am the source of the problem when MastCell and others continue to delete veriable information simply because it goes against their POV push. Take two clear examples. They correctly cite Stotland as asserting in a commentary that abortion trauma is a myth. A fine quote to underscore the controversy. But they also keep deleting references to Stotland's subsequent article in 1998 in which she describes her own experince with a case of significant delayed post-abortion trauma. Why this objection to balance.

Another example, a chief issue of this article is about PTSD and abortion. And I provided a very recent study from South Africa looking exactly at PTSD scales following abortion. And almost immediately the reference was edited to remove all the information about PTSD and to make it appear that it was only discussing anaesthesia options.

I have repeatedly told MastCell and others that I am open to collaboration, but collaboration means INCLUDING verifiale information that people contribute to an article and INTEGRATING those contributions into a smooth whole. Deleting material in toto is simply not acceptable, nor is the excuse that "my group of experts" reflect the WEIGHT which justifies my deleting your studies and experts acceptable.

The ironic part is that MastCell's weight argument hinges on two articles (Adler & Stotland's) that are over fifteen years old, and these are used to blank out any number of studies and articles published in the last seven years.

Per Raymond's suggestion, I've looked at WP:SYN. I disagree that I am violating the principles described. But it is a principle being violated by many other editors. In fact, I try very hard to comply with the style advocated in the SYN piece in the example of Jones. For example, including Stotland's subsequent opinions, as noted above, is clearly relevent and not a synthesis of new ideas...just a fair reflection of her ideas.

Further, given the hostility of several editors to peer reviewed studies by Reardon, Colemen, Rue, Cougle, Shuping and others (as evidenced in their openly discussed purging of these "unreliable" sources...even though published in peer reviewed journals), I haven't even tried to referance these verifable sources in preference to showing that even self-identified pro-choice experts do not agree with the general denial of post-abortion emotional complications which permeates this article. In other words, I'm trying to demonstrate where the WEIGHT of expert opinion really lies and I've invited MastCell to produce more evidence of the WEIGHT besides her old peer reviewed articles and her three recent popular media articles which are clearly advocacy driven. I've not advocated for the removeal of these sources, even though I think they have little weight. I've only been attempting to include other material that has at least equal, if not more, weight. It is this that MastCell and other appear to oppose. They seem to dislike the fact that there are literally scores of experts, studies, and reviews which prove that the WEIGHT of opinion is not where they have been insisting it lies.--Strider12 (talk) 23:25, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

You want more evidence of where mainstream opinion lies, beyond the "old" peer-reviewed articles from Science and JAMA, the position statements of the American Psychiatric Association and the American Psychological Association, and the 3 recent mainstream-media pieces (from the New York Times Magazine, PBS, and Washington Monthly), all of which you dismiss? Do you see the problem here? MastCell 23:39, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I strongly disagree with Strider12's comments. Calling other editors "Planned Parenthood interns or high school students" is certainly not an attempt to work with other users constructively, not to mention that responding to another editor with "Thanks for stalking me." certainly goes against WP:CIVIL. миражinred 23:51, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Strider12's behavior is troubling, and the attitude displayed on his/her talkpage and in the article draft does seem to indicate that this user has no real interest in abiding by the various policies governing user behavior. Calling the draft the "unpurged" version, for example, is making quite an insulting statement to anyone who edited the article Strider12 doesn't approve of. Natalie (talk) 00:33, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Advice on Potential Sock...

I'm fairly certain that User:Wahoo4u is a sock of User:Americanconsumer...there's another potential sock being used, but it's only made one edit that doesn't seem that harmful (and for all I know, could be the guy's actual name). It seems like he's pretending to be a third party editor (the American Consumer Institute was created by the admitted president of the company). Within 30 minutes after the president was informed that the page needed to be edited by a neutral editor, Wahoo4u registered an account and appeared with the edit summary "2nd Contributor, revised, and added external links to Fox TV to this article". His "revision" was removing the COI, Unref and Wikify tags on the page, wikilinking a random word (standardized). Today he made this edit to the AfD on the article claiming to be a UVA student who had done a project on this organization and made a little bit of a bad faith accusation "It seems like there is more than careful gatekeeping going on here ...". --Smashville 20:31, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Probably a sock, definitely registered specifically to !vote in the AfD. You've already tagged with {{spa}} at the AfD; I added the {{afd-anons}} template. I'd suggest waiting for the AfD to close and tagging any more brand-new accounts which show up to !vote. Depending on the outcome, if the apparent sock accounts prove disruptive or abusive after the AfD closes, they can be handled. If the article ends up being deleted, then it may be a non-issue. MastCell 20:35, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry at AFD

There seems to be sockpuppetry at this AFD. I think Pennyfan87, Rcartwr and Dharrels are socks of Mhudson3. If so, can someone block all 4 indef and remove their Keeps at the AFD. D.M.N. (talk) 21:34, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I've blocked one of the accounts, Pennyfan87 (talk · contribs), as they essentially indicated they were solely here as a meatpuppet for an AfD (). The others also appear to be meatpuppets, but I'm going to leave them unblocked for the moment assuming they don't edit the article disruptively. They are best tagged with {{spa}}, as has been done. The closing admin will take into account their status, but it's not necessary to remove their notes IMO. MastCell 22:16, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Gkleinman

• Gkleinman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Commercial username for Geoff Kleinman and the companies he found or owns, dvdtalk.com and xcritic.com. It is a single-purpose account used to promote himself and his companies. He consistently inserts links and references to his websites into unrelated articles despite repeated warnings to the contrary that it is against WP:SOAP and WP:COI. He also posts under the ip, User:24.21.183.177. Vinh1313 (talk) 21:43, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Edit war over multiple articles

Osli73 (talk · contribs) and Grandy Grandy (talk · contribs) are edit warring over a large number of articles, reverting each other and calling each other vandals. Corvus cornix_talk 22:39, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

It looks like a case of them falling out somewhere and taking it personally. They should be told not to approach each other if they can't act maturly.--Phoenix-wiki 22:44, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

@OSLI73 is the one who starts edit wars and other examples of vandalism:

@OSLI73 Block log:

• 12:23, 5 December 2007, Stifle blocked Osli73 (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 24 hours ‎ (Three-revert rule violation: Bosnian Mujahideen)
• 07:45, 24 July 2007 WikiLeon blocked Osli73 (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 1 month.
• 07:37, 24 July 2007 WikiLeon blocked Osli73 (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 3 months.
• 02:26, 23 March 2007 Thatcher131 blocked Osli73 (anon. only, account creation blocked, autoblock disabled) with an expiry time of 2 weeks ‎ (violating revert limit on Srebrenica massacre see Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_arbitration/Kosovo)
• 01:48, 1 March 2007 Jayjg blocked Osli73 (anon. only, account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 2 weeks ‎ (violation of arbcom revert parole on Srebrenica massacre again)
• 09:48, 18 December 2006 Srikeit blocked Osli73 with an expiry time of 1 week ‎ (Sockpuppeteering and directly violating his arbcom probation and revert parole)
• 00:49, 5 September 2006 Blnguyen blocked Osli73 with an expiry time of 96 hours ‎ (did about 10 reverts on Srebrenica massacre in about 2 hours)

Sometimes he is signed in, sometimes he is not, but he vandalised the articles all the time. Do smth! --Grandy Grandy (talk) 22:45, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I would like to clarify that I have not called Grandy Grandy (talk · contribs) a "vandal". I have, however, reverted his deletion of tags and clearly WP:POV and WP:OR edits which he is not willing to discuss or seek mediation for. I realize it's inappropriate and I'll stop immediately. It's just so very frustrating dealing with these types of editors...Osli73 (talk) 22:50, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I would also like to clarify that I will stop it, but @OSLI73 obviously won't. The others called him a vandal as you can see from his block log: * 09:48, 18 December 2006 Srikeit blocked Osli73 with an expiry time of 1 week ‎ (Sockpuppeteering and directly violating his arbcom probation and revert parole).--Grandy Grandy (talk) 22:56, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I blocked Grandy Grandy for 24 hours for breaking the 3RR rule on the Bosnian Genocide page. I did not know that this discussion was taking place at the same time or I would have mentioned it here sooner --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 13:50, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi. I think it is OK you blocked Grandy Grandy (but according to the rules you had to warn him befor the third revert which you didn't). The real problem is you didn't block Osli who also violated the 3RR, which is very strange and unfair as you two share the same POV regarding Bosnian Genocide article. Osli also broke 3RR in Bosnian Genocide, he wasn't just signed-in for the first time. Someone should do an IP check: to see if Grandy Grandy accusation is correct, I am sure it is. It is an IP from Sweden, and Osli is from Sweden too with the same interest regarding the articles. So in my humble opinion Phillip's action was biased and unfair. Regards. The Dragon of Bosnia (talk) 14:03, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

See what I wrote under User talk:Grandy Grandy#Bosnian Genocide 3RR (Revision as of 00:33, 5 January 2008) the mention of this section was not placed on his on his page until 05:48, 5 January 2008 so when I put the block in place I was not aware of this conversation. But as I made clear on the talk page not only did I block Grandy Grandy so that there would be no accusation of bias I protected the Bosnian Genocide page for 24 hours with the "wrong version". --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 16:51, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Block and ban needed

ElectricEye (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has come out of "retirement" to harass Theresa knott on her talk page (starting with the fifth comment down in this thread). In May of 2007 EE changed their talk page to read, "Electric Eye has withdrawn his support of Misplaced Pages and has joined the ranks of those who oppose it." (diff of user page change and link to user page). He/she has continued to reiterate this point to anyone who leaves a message on his talk page. As of this writing, they have also begun commenting on Jimbo Wales' page (diff). Intimidation, harrassment, whatever you want to call it, coming from someone who has "joined the ranks" of those who oppose WP (whatever that means) demonstrates that they do not need an account here and should (imo) be blocked if not permanently banned. Thank you, R. Baley (talk) 23:20, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Notification of this thread here and here. R. Baley (talk) 23:27, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Too late; I blocked him while you were leaving the messages. Happy new year, TenOfAllTrades(talk) 23:34, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Good call IMO, TenOfAllTrades. This alone seems like a pretty good reason to block, as you mentioned on his talk page. That statement is a fair warning that the user was going to be disruptive. - Rjd0060 (talk) 23:43, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi, I would like to request that you reconsider and unblock EE.

This whole incident is making a lot of people upset. A lot of people on all sides are being uncivil and snippy with each other. None of this is good. ElectricEye was not doing good things. But he was doing not good things in response to stuff that he saw Theresa Knott doing on the Arbcom case which was also not good.

No warnings were left for EE that his behavior had crossed the line into abusive enough for user behavior sanction until I did just a bit ago, right before you blocked.

Blocking in this instance without warning and trying to calm the situation down is likely to lead to more drama, not less. Many involved parties in many parts of this dispute have been warned or asked to calm down by several people now. Please extend drama-reducing civil behavior requests rather than blocking as a first response. Thanks. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 23:47, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I told him what he was doing was harassment here. And respectfully, I would disagree with your assessment whether I had left one (of sorts) or not. R. Baley (talk) 23:53, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, and the one edit EE made after that warning was still confrontational, but much more civil. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 00:08, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

After that, he went to Jimbo's page to spread it around. I would strongly object to any unblock. R. Baley (talk) 00:21, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

I seriously don't think he is upset. Because unless he is a sockpuppet, and I don't think he is, he is completely uninvolved. Check his contributions. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 23:53, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

You weren't directly involved in the Jimsch62 / VO / OrangeMarlin case either, and look how you ended up feeling about it, Theresa...

The case is making a lot of people crazy, both what happened and how everyone is responding to what happened. This is really bad. Arbcom members are explicitly leaving civility warnings on arb case talk pages, several relatively uninvolved people are asking people to calm down, etc.

I don't honestly see what he did on your talk page as worse than the worst you did on the case talk page.

You have acknowledged and responded to requests to calm down; I think we owe him (and everyone else) at least one round of the same courtesy and chance to stop the problem behavior. Even if they are mostly uninvolved in the project now, they haven't been trolling elsewhere that I know of to establish that they are in fact operating just in bad faith, so we need to AGF there (and elsewhere, about everyone involved). Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 00:01, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes I ended up, after mutiply tooing and froing quite angry. That's not the case here. He's trolling. But if you want to unblock him and block him later I don't care to be honest. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 00:06, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

He opposes Misplaced Pages and there is no evidence to suggest that any contributions he makes will benefit the project. He is trying to stir up further trouble with the arbcom case and is simply trolling. I would support a ban at least for a while - maybe he will return with a positive attitude, but running to Jimbo and trying to cause trouble is in no way useful. violet/riga (t) 00:14, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

(scratching head) Surely you didn't just imply that we should ban people for complaining to or appealing to Jimbo... Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 00:18, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Nope. We ban people for stating that they have "joined the ranks of those who oppose" Misplaced Pages, and follow through on that statement for most of a year, and then start the new year coming out of nowhere to be an Arb gadfly and to bother editors who are interested in contributing to Misplaced Pages. Really, if there were any evidence at all that this individual were interested in adding to the project I might have given a warning—but I just don't see that evidence. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 00:33, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

For most of the last year, they weren't editing at all. Is there behavioral evidence off-wiki somewhere I need to be made aware of? Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 00:44, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Obviously not - that wasn't the only thing I said in support of the block. violet/riga (t) 00:37, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

George I think it would be fair to say at this point that you are unlikely to get the agreement of the blocking admin or to get concensus that unblocking is the right way to go. Which leaves you with a choice, you can choose to go it alone, or defer to the judgment of the multiple people who who think the block is good. If you choose to go it alone, and he reoffends you'd better be willing to block him yourself sharpish . But if you are willing to do that, and take the risk that he will disrupt when you are not around and so people might think you were foolish to unblock then go for it. I've unblocked people unilaterally before, usually stating on thier userpage that I am staking my own reputation on thier good behaviour. This sometimes works as the unblocked person doesn't want to let you down. Other times they can't help themselves . Anyway it's not that big a deal either way.Theresa Knott | The otter sank 01:08, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

I was going to add my opinion to this matter, but after his last comments on his Talk page (which included promises to breed incivility & evade blocks ), Coren protected EE's talk page -- an action I support, FWIW. The matter is now moot. -- llywrch (talk) 09:07, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

block and protection needed

In resent days there is attacks to this article. Plesase protect the page from IP-users. --Ilhanli (talk) 23:30, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Please make requests for page protection at WP:RFPP. However, even though I am not an administrator, I would say that there isn't enough recent disruption to protect the page. Also, in the last couple days, only 2 different IP's have edited it, and in the last 8 days, there have been 3 different ones. If a user is actively vandalizing, then report them to WP:AIV. Thanks, - Rjd0060 (talk) 23:37, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree that while the vandalism is unfortunate (btw this edit might be vandalism too), I don't think there is enough vandalism to warrant disallowing new and unregistered users to contribute. -- lucasbfr 00:24, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Technical administrative question, and request for advise/action

If a user opens an account, but then edits without logging in, and violates several Misplaced Pages's rules for which the IP address gets block, can he then log back in to his previous account and continue to edit, or will the blockage of an IP prevent him/her of logging in to the account created prior to the blockage?

I am asking this because 201.218.79.62 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), making spurious claims that Argentina is a developed nation rivaling European countries, after being reverted, violated WP:3RR (he has reverted by three users, but he kept on reverting 8 times); developed a theory by engaging in WP:OR at Talk:Argentina#Developed country, was warned by three users to stop, and his account was blocked for a 24-hour period. A few hours later Cocoliras (talk · contribs), using the same arguments (and even claiming that the ideas of "dual economies", originally pushed by the anon user, were his ideas), reverted the article once again. Not only has he used the same arguments, but he has the exact same history of edits (focused on Argentina, North America and Panama City. (Please review their history of contributions). The anon user also engaged in an edit war and violated 3RR in North America, and Cololiras is repeating the same pattern of behavior there too.

I was considering making a notice of possible sock puppetry, but I wanted to make sure that technically it is possible to log in to a previously opened account before the blockage of the IP. (Although it is also possible that the user is logging in from different location; the pattern of behavior is strikingly identical). He has been continuously reverting a perfectly sourced statement, and inserting his own OR and claims without proof, even after being asked by three users to stop reverting. Please advise. --the Dúnadan 23:49, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

If the block on the IP is "Anonymous only", the registered account can edit. Little trick: You can put a full block and see if the account (or someone else) complains ;). -- lucasbfr 00:18, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

I am not an administrator in the English Misplaced Pages, so I cannot put a full block. Did you review their identical pattern of edits? Should I open a case of WP:SOCK, or is their pattern evident enough to see that Cocolira logged in to circumvent the block and continue reverting and POV-pushing? --the Dúnadan 00:22, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Advice

I would like an administrator's advice on how to deal with Ghanadar galpa on the Communist Party of India (Marxist) talk page. I have tried to point out problems with the sources he is using to support his anti-CPM POV, which he regards as the "truth". However, his behaviour is quite aggressive, confrontational and uncompromising. He has now accused me of being a part of "a well-funded group of propagandists and Bengali supremacists employed by the Communist Party of India, paid and financed by the CPM gangsters to persistently whitewash their record on wikipedia." It is difficult to know what to do in such a situation. If he thinks that anyone that disagrees with him is hired by the CPM, then I don't think it bodes well for any meaningful mediation. I am unclear what the "referral for comment" procedure entails. Is this in addition or complementary to discussing it on this noticeboard? Is this noticeboard the first place to raise these issues?--Conjoiner (talk) 00:17, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Might also want to look at the well-sourced ] section that Conjoiner and his drive-by revert buddy Soman are desperately trying to remove

• : mass blanking as a "minor change"

and then using numerous interesting epithets, right before making disparaging remarks] about peer-reviewed sources and trying to discredit them, even after their peer-reviewed status has been independently attested by the British Journal of Sociology.Ghanadar galpa (talk) 03:37, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Reisio

This user is continuously refusing to accept the consensus established against the inclusion of his own Pantone-based version of the Flag of Italy (see Talk:Flag of Italy for details), featuring gray-white instead of bright white, despite he is the sole supporter of its inclusion and many other users made him note Pantone colours are for textile flags, and not computer-based depictions, thus disrupting Misplaced Pages to "illustrate" his point. I tried to deal with him with words and even protecting the article, which I just unprotected after I was sure a consensus was reached, but all I obtained was an ArbCom threat for mine. Can some other admin please deal with him? Thanks in advance. --Angelo (talk) 00:45, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

This is an ongoing problem; Commons has its own episodes. More discourse and name calling exist. 哦，是吗？(O-person) 00:55, 05 January 2008 (GMT)

Rouge Admin abuse by user:Future Perfect at Sunrise?

I want to report that I have been, what I perceive to be, the subject of long term assumption of bad faith and paranoia by self described WP:ROUGE admin user:Future Perfect at Sunrise (also known as FPS). I had joined in June 19. Immediately, banned user user:NokhchiBorz had accuse me of being a sock of user:Buffadren to which FPS had said

Hi, yes, it might well be the guy is a new Buffadren/Mauco sock. I don't yet see enough evidence to go on for a block, but we'll keep an eye open.

At this point I had been posting for maybe 3 days the number of posts you could count on your fingers and already he was monitoring me and assuming bad faith in believing that I may be a "Buffadren/Mauco sock"!

I had tried to calm him down my posting to his talk page and introducing myself but no response from him.

A few weeks later, a sock of banned user and arch sockpuppetier user:Bonaparte vandalized my user space. FPS blocked him but did not revert the sock puppet tags that the vandal had put on my user page. Perhaps believing that they belonged.

A few weeks later still. An IP sock of arch sockpuppetier user:Bonaparte had started up a Request for Checkuser on me. FPS then helped this banned sockpuppetier complete the checkuser request. He also blamed me for sparking an edit war which I absolutely did not do.

At this point I had tried to reason with FPS numerous times to no avail so I decided to wait and let the dust settle and hope that he would chill and I went forward with adding content to the project. Most recently, I tried to make a peace offering and a request to put all of this behind us which FPS rejected in what I perceive as a terse response.

Part of the reason I bring this up is that everytime I have a minor dispute with another editor, that editor brings up the fact that an admin believes me to be a sockpuppet of William Mauco.

I demand that Future Perfect at Sunrise clearly state what he needs from me to end what I considered is this long term assumption of bad faith and paranoia. Under no circumstances will I give up my privacy. Once this is met, I demand that he apologize. Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 00:50, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

user:Future Perfect at Sunrise's block of user:Britlawyer

When FPS had helped banned user user:Bonaparte file a checkuser against me. I had noticed another user user:Britlawyer which FPS had checkusered against user:William Mauco and had turned out unrelated and from different continents. Future Perfect had banned this user regardless of the checkuser results saying that he is a likely sock of William Mauco. I believe further scrutiny is required to look at his actions then and his continuing actions. This raised concerns by admin user:John_Kenney (read here). FPS responded to John_Kenney in that link:

This wasn't an easy decision for me either. Anyway, I looked pretty closely at the precise temporal patterns of account creations and edits by Britlawyer, Mauco and his other known socks. I consider that data pretty damning (I can forward it to you). Checkuser isn't magic pixie dust as they say, and we can safely assume the people behind the Transnistrian astroturfing campaign (which undoubtedly exists) have means of concealing their puppetry by using geographically diverse proxies; they only get caught occasionally when they slip. Just look at how Buffadren passed through multiple checkusers seemingly clean, and then suddenly was revealed to have been on MarkStreet's IP after all.

It looks like he is putting more faith in his sleuthing abilities than the checkuser. I for one can say that if his conduct towards me is any indication, his sleuthing skills need improvement. I recommend that this block as well as his actions be given more scrutiny.Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 00:50, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

I must agree that the account creation and edit patterns just scream sockpuppet, and that a checkuser cannot be used as "proof of innocence" (editing from a proxy is trivial enough). I can't tell whether FPS is correct, but he certainly seems to have been reasonable. — Coren  01:30, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Possibly so but did it warrant a block? I have posted a request on John Kenney's page and I await what he has to say about this. I also think that some of the principles from this arbcom descision might also apply here. Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 03:03, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Just to add, my reason for posting this block is that we know that false positives do occur and since FPS is wrong about me he could also be wrong about others. Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 03:08, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

I have a hard time assuming good faith from anybody who comes here demanding anything. Corvus cornix_talk 02:50, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Pretty please with sugar on top, could everyone not get caught up on semantics and WP:AGF and also Misplaced Pages:Assume_the_assumption_of_good_faith on my part and address my concerns. Thanks Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 03:04, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Britlawyer (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) was blocked in May. Am I missing something here? --B (talk) 03:34, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

It was in may. I posted it here in order to have a look at possible incorrect long term admin behaviour and possible overzealousness. Which I believe I have also been subjected to. Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 03:43, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

I am not a fan of admin FPS, he was one of the people who asked my ban during Transnistria arbitration (proposal rejected by arbcom), but I consider legitimate the checkuser he asked regarding possible conection between User:Pocopocopocopoco and topic-banned user User:William Mauco. Generally speaking, is nothing wrong to ask a checkuser if there are suspicions. Mauco was proved as an malicious sockpuppeteer and the checkuser didn't gave relevant answers regarding User:Pocopocopocopoco (the answer was "stale" - is bad that after the arbitration case the checkuser data regarding William Mauco were not kept). I wonder why this sudden demand of an apology for a checkuser asked long time ago and which had no relevant answers (that mean nobody can tell that the suspicions were wrong). To be mentioned that yesterday a ban evasion by User:Buffadren (banned in the same Transnistria arbitration like Mauco) was discovered, and FPS blocked the IP used for ban evasion, I wonder if it was not this fact who suddenly made Poco angry.--MariusM (talk) 04:47, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

I care not about Buffadren or Markus Street or whatever other socks that person has used. If it was proven that he was an astroturfer then he deserves to be banned. I am not angry, just determine to put an end to this issue of FPS's suspicions against me. The reason I bring this up now is, as I stated, whenever I get into a minor dispute with another editor, FPS's beliefs that I may be Mauco are trotted out by that editor and I want this to end. This has been occuring on an ongoing basis and has occurred recently (diffs can be supplied if requested). The other reason that I bring this here is that I was not able to resolve this by communicated with FPS on his talk page recently. I clearly stated that I would try to address his concerns if he would communicate these concerns. He did not present me with any way to get to a resolution on this issue with him. I have no problem with the fact that he ran a checkuser but I have a problem with the entire pattern of suspicion that hasn't even been put to rest even now and I have a problem with the fact that he seems to be basing all of this from the allegations of banned users (NokhchiBorz and Bonaparte). Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 05:06, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Wow, this was ages ago - I barely remember it. I remember that at the time I thought it was questionable to block a user when the check user suggested that they were not a sock puppet - and perhaps Future Perfect acted hastily. But I would imagine it's quite likely that s/he was right nonetheless. I'm not even sure what to say about this - there does seem to be a fair amount of Transnistrian sockpuppetry going on, but the Romanian side is hardly much better. It's all a fetid fever swamp, really. john k (talk) 05:21, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

if  Confirmed socks are very likely to be blocked regardless of behaviour, that doesn't mean that  Unrelated socks can't be blocked based on their behaviour. Sockpuppet is unfortunately not Magic Pixie Dust. -- lucasbfr 10:52, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Not exactly vandalism

87.158.121.94 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) has made five edits in his first day here. They're not necessarily inaccurate (well, the one to Antisemitism is), but they fit the description of what I think people used to call Jew-baiting. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 01:25, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

You can provide him with an appropriate warning (see WP:TT) and report him to WP:AIV if this keeps up even after a final warning. Sandstein (talk) 08:23, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Save Us 229

I suspect this user of being a sockpuppet master. Having followed correct procedure and placed a template on his Talk page, he subsequently removed it. MegX (talk) 01:28, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

And then what?....I think they are allowed to remove those notices. You've done everything right: Made a SSP report and notified the user. No admin attention is needed here. - Rjd0060 (talk) 01:30, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Also, please AGF until a checkuser is completed. Your comment on the mailing list about this wasn't really appropriate IMO. - Rjd0060 (talk) 01:34, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Guess what, per WP:UP, I can remove any content I like from my userspace. And I'll tell you something else, I only use one account, please someone run a checkuser if they see appropriate. — Save_Us_229 01:32, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

You added a "resolve" template without no public discussion with the admins. MegX (talk) 02:13, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

There is nothing for the admins to do here. This will be resolved someplace else: Misplaced Pages:Suspected sock puppets/Save Us 229. - Rjd0060 (talk) 02:14, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

We don't need any CU's - it's User:Moe Epsilon - he's quite clearly stated that many times before, and given he's also stated he no longer users the account, there's no sock issues here. Ryan Postlethwaite 02:22, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

And I've closed the SSP. There was no real evidence, just some dubious, circumstantial evidence based on editing times and dissimilar edits to a few pages. Mr.Z-man 08:27, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Notice for MfD

(general comment) There is a discussion at MfD relevant to this topic for those who care to weigh in link. R. Baley (talk) 02:49, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Request for Comment regarding the administrator, R. fiend

Per the discussion yesterday here at Misplaced Pages:ANI#User:R. fiend using his admin privileges questionably, please note that a Request for Comment has now been filed at Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/R. fiend regarding the alleged misuse of this editor's administrative tools. Anyone is welcome to comment there - Alison 02:25, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Copyright issue on Wall Street Spin

I reverted some external links on this page and the user has expressed concern on Talk:Wall Street Spin regarding their copyright over this boardgame. Would someone competent with copyrights help this user please or let me know where to direct them. Regards.--12 Noon  02:59, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

There are notability issues as well, and I have made a start. Meanwhile, I have left a note on the user (actually owners of this game) on their talk page re spam & COI, and will get back to this later. There is no need for admin action at present, copyright issue is not pressing. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 03:50, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Concerns of admin abuse by Nihonjoe

User:Nihonjoe created the article Youmex, a now defunct anime and music production company. Another editor tagged it for CSD.. Even though he was the creator of the article, Nihonjoe removed the CSD tag rather than letting another admin decide it. The editor who tagged it sent it to AfD instead. In the AfD discussion, Nihonjoe has shown some borderline uncivil behavior in his interactions with other editors. While the AfD is going towards a keep consensus, the sources themselves were questioned by the original nominator as well as other editors in the AfD. To address the issue, I checked all of the sources and found most were just the word Youmex appearing on a store page or as part of the catalog number, clearly not reliable sources. I cleaned up the article to fit what was verifiable through reliable sources, and added another reliable source for some additional titles. Nihonjoe reverted the redo, proclaiming his version had correct sources. I reverted, because what was removed was unreferenced and said so in my edit summary. Nihonjoe removed again, with the edit summary of "What the hell are you talking about? You REMOVED several references, please stop doing that, I'm working on the article right now, and your reverting is making that difficult". I undid, again, and tagged his user page for adding unsourced material and to ask him to work from the revised version rather than an old version. He removed the warning with the edit summary of "You're full of it, as I said, and I'. I reverted again (unintentionally as vandalism) as he continued to refuse to source the original research and personal views that he was adding back, or to explain how his "sources" were reliable.. In response, he protected the article with the note "To stop the stupid reverting by Collectonian )."

He also created a redirect for Futureland (record label) to go to Youmex. I CSDed it as an improbable typo (and his providing no reliable source that Futureland was, in fact, a part of Youmex. He removed the CSD even though he was the one who created the article, claiming that anyone can remove a CSD even the creator, even though the CSD notice specifically says otherwise.

To me, an admin who runs around un-CSDing his own articles and protecting as article he created so only he and other admins can edit it (even if he has, currently, kept it at the cleaned up version), is abusing his power. His attitudes with other editors in this case and seeming ownership issues with some articles is also appalling for someone with administrative powers. Collectonian (talk) 04:00, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

I understand your consern, and I am experiensing a similar situation with an admin in my category of expertise. But User:Nihonjoe has done a lot of work for the cumminity, why not give him a bit of latitude and see how things go? Igor Berger (talk) 04:17, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

His long experience and seemingly over all good edits are the main reason I brought here instead of RfC. Collectonian (talk) 04:19, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

First of all, anyone (including the creator of an article, whether or not they are an admin) can remove a legitimately invalid CSD notice (thought it's not recommended, but WP:IAR applies here, I think). If it is removed, then there's obviously a dispute over it and it should be taken to (in this case) TfD. Until Collectonian came along, all the concerns raised in the AfD discussion had been addressed (including my concerns that someone would AfD an article less than 24 hours after it was created when it was obvious someone was working on expanding it).

Collectonian then proceded to remove all of the references for various items in the article without any legitimate reasoning, and without regard for the subject of the article being a very difficult one for which to find online resources. The only legitimate concern was a little bias I had included in the article based on my personal experience and knowledge of the company. After it was pointed out, I specifically reworded the article to remove that bias, but Collectonian abused Twinkle to revert my edit without any reason (nothing in the edit summary at all, other than the fact he'd used Twinkle to do it and that he considered my edit to be vandalism). Collectonian claims that the information in the article which he removed was unreferenced, though that is clearly untrue.

I then protected the article (specifically at the version I did not want, and to prevent Collectonian from abusing Twinkle further) so that no one would edit it further as it was obvious that Collectonian was going to revert anyone else who edited the article to something other than what he wanted.

The messages I removed from my talk page were rude and uncalled for (especially since they were obviously intended for people brand new at editing—Collectonian himself has only really been editing for the last 4-5 months despite having an account open since 2004).

As for the Futureland redirect, it's a legitimate disambiguated redirect which is being used by several related articles. ···日本穣 04:25, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

I removed a bunch of references that didn't actually support anything in the article. You can't just throw in some links and try to call them references if they don't support anything. Anyone can remove a PROD, not a CSD. The removed information was not referenced. Most of the lists of titles you gave were not even mentioned in any of those references, and several of the "references" did nothing more than have the word youmex in a catalog number or somewhere on the page. Your references were invalid hence their removal.Collectonian (talk) 04:42, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

All of the references you removed were either referencing a specific item or contained lists of Youmex titles. None of the lists contained all of the titles, but together they listed all or most of them. As I've pointed out over and over, the company has been defunct for almost ten years (an eternity on the web), and finding online references is difficult. It is very likely that one or more of the magazines I have has an article about Youmex, but I haven't yet catalogued all of them yet (it takes a lot of time to catalogue an entire magazine, let alone hundreds of them). All of the sources you removed were legitimate. Nothing I did was abusive (concerned, yes, and perhaps a little heated, but not abusive). You complete ignoring of legitimate sources, and use of Twinkle to enforce your opinion is abusive, however. ···日本穣 04:52, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

All references don't have to be online. I added sources from one of several english language anime encyclopedias, and I suspect some of the other ones may also provide much better information as they do span multiple years. You did abuse your powers by removing a CSD from both an article you created and a redirect you created. A CSD is not a PROD and even if you felt it was not valid, as the article creator, you should never have removed them, but left it to an administrator who was not personally involved to make the decision. Regular editors who remove a CSD from their own articles are warned quick fast and in a hurry. Do you feel that because you are an admin you are somehow immune from the rules or being warned? Collectonian (talk) 05:09, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Collectonian, anyone can remove a CSD tag, and it is really improper for you to have been using Twinkle to edit war with an administrator who was in the process of writing an article. There was no reason to revert when content was being added that had references. The last version seemed to have several sources, but you tacked on that the edits were vandalism. I'm not sure if this is something you have to work on, or something that needs to be removed from the Twinkle script, but I can see no improper activities by Nihonjoe here, other than protecting a page he was working on.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 05:12, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Um, what? Misplaced Pages:Criteria for speedy deletion pretty expressly prohibits an article's creator from removing its CSD tag. Of course, IAR wouldn't let that translate into preventing the removal of plainly invalid CSD tags, or are you explicitly disagreeing with written policy, in general? Someguy1221 (talk) 05:18, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

If that is true, then the CSD template needs to be rewritten because it says very explicitly that the article creator should NOT remove a CSD, but put a {{hangon}} tag with an explanation of why they feel the article should not be deleted instead. Collectonian (talk) 05:21, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Okay, after reading that, it looks like I was mistaken in that one instance. However, it appears that I'm not the only one to be mistaken in this regard as Ryūlóng also wasn't aware of that. Regardless, it was an abusive use of the CSD system to nominate the redirect (and the article itself), and at least those who abusively used CSD are now actually discussing the issue rather than incorrectly nominating something for speedy deletion which obviously doesn't qualify. ···日本穣 05:29, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Accusing your opponent of "abusive" use of the CSD system won't help your case - it's not abusive as long as it was made in good faith and based on a defensible interpretation of policy. And then there's still the protection issue, which is a very blatant case of misuse of admin tools indeed. I mean, come on, you surely can't plead ignorance about that one, can you? Protecting a page you are in an edit-war over is an absolute no-no, most basic of all admin behaviour rules. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:34, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

For what it's worth, he at least remembered to protect the wrong version. Someguy1221 (talk) 07:38, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Point taken. But what's the point in such a protection then? If you've got an edit war between just two people, there's an easier way to ensure that the article stays on your opponent's ("wrong") version: just stop reverting yourself. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:45, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

The problem being that the article is listed for AfD, and unless the article is improved, it will be deleted. Collectonian did nothing but destroy the work that had gone into sourcing the information found there (calling ALL references other than his own unreliable). Exactly how is that good faith, and exactly how does that help improve the article? As I indicated (several times now, including when I originally did it), I specifically protected the version of the page I did not want so I couldn't be accused of using my twiddled bit for my own purposes. I haven't tried to hide the fact that I protected it, and I didn't violate the spirit of the rule (which is in place to prevent what I specifically did not do). I also haven't edited the page since protecting it, either. There is no misuse here on my part, blatant or otherwise. A misunderstanding on my part of the policy, but I already admitted to that.

As for Collectonian marking the Futureland (record label) for deletion, that was absolutely an abuse of the CSD system. The only reason he marked it for deletion was because I created it. Period. It was an invalid tag as it was a legitimate redirect (which was in use by several articles). He claims that I have no proof that Futureland was a label belonging to Youmex, and that's why he marked it for deletion. I have a pile of CDs here that would like to argue that with him, and there are plenty of CD catalogs out there which would argue that with him, too. As I've told him multiple times, finding online resources discussing Youmex/Futureland as a business is very difficult due to the company about ten years ago becoming defunct due to being reabsorbed into its parent company. I have printed resources that may have such information, but it takes quite a while to go through more than 100 thick magazines and 50 or so large books. ···日本穣 08:00, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Here's a first: a thread with a title involving "admin abuse" where there's actually a case to answer. Wow! I'm not going to comment on the admin issues, looks like some errors of judgement rather than malice. However: Joe, you know that new articles get patrolled and are under extra scrutiny. You know we need sources. You know that a deletion nomination isn't a personal issue and that you should remain calm. Most worrying to me is this continued mention of "online resources". Who gives a flying f*ck about online resources? We need references, not excuses. If the company's old, dig out your magazines and then write the article. At least get a few decent refs together first to establish notability. The world wasn't invented the day the web was switched on, nor is there any rush to document this company that probably isn't very notable anyway... --kingboyk (talk) 15:23, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Protecting the article means that no one can improve it, which seems silly since it's at afd and it's likely that people would want to improve it. Since the protection was illegitimate (Nihonjoe used page protection to prevent his opponent from editing it), shouldn't it be reversed? Seraphim 16:17, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

IP Address 212.51.199.173

212.51.199.173 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) Rjd0060 (talk) 04:54, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

This person is constantly editing sections of the Republic of China article that have a notice saying that those sections are not to be edited without a consensus on the talk page. His edits have been undone by other editors at least 4 times. Can he be banned or blocked or something (as he/she seems to be keen enough to avoid 3RR)? Butterfly0fdoom (talk) 04:24, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, no, you should try actually talking to him first. Leaving him vandal templates is only going to confuse a user who's apparently acting in good faith. Someguy1221 (talk) 05:01, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

ONGOING SOCKPUPPETRY CASE - IMMEDIATE ATTENTION REQUESTED

There is an ongoing sockpuppetry case at Misplaced Pages:Suspected sock puppets/Artisol2345. This request for verification involves the account of User:AL2TB as the suspected sockpuppet. There have been previous disruptive edits by this user, and now the user is attempting to game the system by having the puppetmaster account, User:artisol2345, deleted. As a last-ditch effort, user AL2TB has replaced the deletion tag, after it was removed upon guidance from the tag its self, and from another admin by myself. Please see the following diffs for the progress of events: DELETION TAG REMOVED, DELETION TAG REPLACED, AND BACKDATED. This user is now circumventing policy to meet their own agenda. The case, and this incident in particular, needs your immediate attention. Thank you. Edit Centric (talk) 04:55, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Well at the very least, realize that deleting a userpage does not delete the account itself. The contribs will still be very visible. Someguy1221 (talk) 04:58, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

It's not the contribs that need to be preserved at this point, it's the evidentiary content of the userpage and talk page, in direct relation to the SOCKS case. Edit Centric (talk) 05:03, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

And even if the user page were deleted, any admin that is reviewing the SSP case can view the deleted page. - Rjd0060 (talk) 05:10, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Any any event can be undone, so there's never reason to panic. If you do start panicking, it can be a good idea to step back and think about something else for a while. Someguy1221 (talk) 05:14, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, deleting the user page will not effect the SSP report in any way. I've left User:AL2TB a note about re-adding PROD tags though. Thats a no-no. Other than that, I don't see where administrator action is needed. - Rjd0060 (talk) 05:05, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

The tone of the puppetmaster is kind of dangerous, if not even delussional, be careful and keep an eye out, can be a stalker. Igor Berger (talk) 05:11, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Okay, cool beans. But just for reference, how much longer until the SOCKS case gets tended to? It's been sitting stale a few days, with no apparent actions taken... Edit Centric (talk) 05:23, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

It varies. I see it's been nearly a week. I'd guess it will be soon. - Rjd0060 (talk) 05:24, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

From all appearances, Artisol2345 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) stopped editing on October 25, and then was accused of using a sockpuppet on November 13 and blocked for a week. (I have no idea who the sockpuppet was or what he was doing, though. That's where it would help to have some warnings in the record. Maybe the sockpuppet was an IP address.) AL2TB (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) started editing on December 4. For the life of me, I can't see what is disruptive about what AL2TB is doing. I can see some friction between him and some of the editors in the highways project, but the highways project has always had a lot of friction between its editors. I can't figure out why you're looking for immediate attention from administrators when it isn't exactly obvious what behavior is being disruptive. "Friction and conflicts with other highway project editors" doesn't equate to "abusive sockpuppetry" unless you spell out exactly what the connection is. --Elkman 05:28, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Okay. Artisol2345 last edit was October 26 - verified. Per userpage, at the top there is a link to the list of suspected and confirmed sockpuppets. Recently, AL2TB has jumped into the midst of an edit war that WAS part of the whole Highways project deal. (Yes, I'm also keeping a weather eye on that situation too, as I'm also a USRD and CASH editor, on hiatus from editing those articles until the current RFAR is settled.) There have been other issues with AL2TB, some that have caused a few of our eyes to be raised. I examined the similarities between accounts, and those results are posted in the SOCKS case. The immediate attention was requested solely to address the replacement of the PROD tag. I should have been more specific, and I apologise for not being so. Edit Centric (talk) 05:38, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Something strange happened to the database lock notice

I got:

{| style="background: none;" |- | valign="top" | Database locked | The Misplaced Pages database is temporarily in read-only mode for the following reason: The database has been automatically locked while the slave database servers catch up to the master This is probably due to routine maintenance; if so, you will be able to edit again within a few minutes. We apologize for any inconvenience this might have caused. You can continue to browse Misplaced Pages articles while the database is locked. For further information, you can visit the #wikipedia channel on the freenode IRC network. |}

on Ilia II for no reason. I don't mind maintenance locks, but someone should check whatever MediaWiki: page is responsible for that message and correct the box formatting. 68.39.174.238 (talk) 05:06, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

That's odd. The page for it is MediaWiki:Readonlytext, which hasn't been edited in over a year. Anyway, this is the sort of question for Misplaced Pages:Village pump (technical). Someguy1221 (talk) 05:12, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Very odd. I didn't have that problem, and saw that page quite a few times within the last 10 minutes. - Rjd0060 (talk) 05:19, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

3RR help needed

Would someone have a look at the history of Talk:James I of England and help User:Law Lord understand why we use section breaks on talk pages when dealing with very long discussions? I can't seem to get him to understand and he keeps removing the section break six. -- ALLSTARecho 05:46, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

You're seriously edit warring over the position of an arbitrary section break on a talk page? You both need to stop. Mr.Z-man 06:36, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

And why this needs "3RR help" remains a mystery for the ages. Raymond Arritt (talk) 06:40, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Time for a new rule. Do not abuse 3RR. Igor Berger (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 06:44, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Edit warring or reverting vandalism? Indeed, a mystery. -- ALLSTARecho 06:46, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

I think they mean that this issue sounds like it belongs more at WP:AIV or WP:AN/3RR, but thats just my random guess. MBisanz 06:48, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh, ok. I couldn't tell through all of the sarcasm. Thanks. ;) -- ALLSTARecho 06:59, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Abmin abuse Pats1

I hope I am going in the right direction now, I was in error a coupple of times and then cut and pasted here. I was informed by an upper-Admin (I htink) that I may have reported somehting in the wrong area. The note from (talk) was cut and pasted with the rest. . . .

Here is my concern is a user: Pats1 twice threatend me with being banned without explanation. I may have been at the prompting of a user: chrisjnelson. I detected a possible familiarity with them. There was, I thought, a legitmate mistagging of trivia. There where three users who looked like they had a kind of history of being unkind. I had asked for a dispute resolution the best I knew how . . . After that occurred Pats1 came in and said I was doingsomething that was wrong --- he put in in his warning . . . and I thought it was mistaken. When I saw the second one I saw he was deadly serious. I then researched how he was supposed to handle things and what the rules were, especially with the power to block and in my view, I think he was in the wrong. I don't think I deserved that kind of meaness and what I think may have been a possible abuse of his Admin power. All I ask is to be treated fairly. I have not been perfect before, butonce I learned there are rules, I became confident this kindof abuse wouldn't occur.

Maybe I was wrong to assume that. It seems Pats1 had only been a Admin for a couple of months and maybe that kind of "bullying" has worked with others, but I like to edit and I think I have some things to offer and would not want to be banned inappropriately. It is scary to think that a person who may have had a connection to chrisjnelson would just jump and threaten a ban with hardly the time to investigate. It really seemed like an abuse of his "banning power". That is my view.

After all, this was a dispute. One that had occured a couple? of days ago and it was discussed. Then there was an attempt to bring in the "bigger guns" and all along, I was simply disputing the tivia tag. It is my view that Tivia is discouraged, but if you read the objectors chrisjnelson and others. . . it was the content the objected to, not the style. In the Tivia instructions there is a section "What this guidline is not". It is that I think is right.Nonetheless. when I was warned it was not for 3 RR as Pats1 NOW claims in my talk page. It was for essentially deleting portions of an article, which was never true. I removed a trivia tag I thought was in error. I also looked at the track record of chris and the others and in that Ted Ginn, Jr. article he even was pretty non-wiki friendly to another poster about things. So, I was dubios of those who objected to the content. It was almost like trying to misread to Trivia guidelines. But, I cannot be sure.

I didn't like being treated badly, espaiclly when I was following rules the best I could and since there is a record of what was done I think you can see that Pats1 overstepped his authority when he didn't give the correct reason for a potential band, made it seem to me it was to be punitive for perhaps defying him. He wouldn't communicate, well, until he knew I was serious about going "over his head", as it were. Only then did he try to explain and that was about as insulting as anything else.

So, I was hoping for an explanation and an apology but it has gone too far. I don't feel safe in editing with a person whose actions are so drastic and terse. I just don't think it was needed and I think you might want to reviewthis case, In fact I ask you do do that. Thank you.72.0.36.36 (talk) 06:02, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

72.0.36.36 (talk) 04:08, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

I note Pats1's edit summary : "(There isn't any "dispute" here. Trivia sections, no matter what they're named ("Notes" or "Personal" or whatever) are "to be avoided" unless temporary, when they're tagged to be inserted in prose.)" seems a little erroneous: There is no policy saying they are to be removed, & this does not justify a total removal of the material. The place for this, though, Is AN/I. DGG (talk) 05:41, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Back from ban and back at it

Would an admin take a look at this addition to the talk page, specifically the use of "homos". The user, Bluemarine, is the subject of the article itself - as in, he is Matt Sanchez. He just returned from a ban for attacking editors. -- ALLSTARecho 07:32, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

I think he's using "Homos" as a shorthand way of saying "Homosexual alliance". Theresa Knott | The otter sank 07:39, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Using "homos" as a shorthand for anything is derogatory and offensive. -- ALLSTARecho 07:43, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

In your opinion. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 07:46, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

I guess in Webster's opinion too. -- ALLSTARecho 07:55, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

(ec) Interestingly, Webster distinguishes between "usually offensive" and "often offensive" words, of which this is the latter (Webster lists the genus seperately, so that's not why, if anyone was thinking it). And you could always ask him about it first (really, so many people are quick to ANI everything). Anyway, he was blocked for attacking other editors, not for using the word "homo." I don't see in his recent edits any attacks on editors, or any individuals for that matter. Someguy1221 (talk) 07:47, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

An admin just needs to remove it from the talk page. -- ALLSTARecho 07:54, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

All right I'll do it but it's not an admin only action so it doesn't need to come here. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 07:59, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Then my apologies. I removed it myself and then got reverted and was told only an admin could remove other users article talk page comments. -- ALLSTARecho 08:09, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Admins are given far too much status by some non admins. We can do the things that require admin tools, but only then with community approval. For anything else I have the same status as you do. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 08:18, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

(unindent)Just to interject, the editing of another user's comments on a talk page, is a source of controversy and should be approached with care.

• Misplaced Pages:Talk_page_guidelines,
• Misplaced Pages:CIVIL#Removing_uncivil_comments,
• Misplaced Pages:ATTACK#Removal_of_text

As a general suggestion that I've seen in other disputes, its usually best to drop the person a note asking them to refactor their comment, and if they don't or don't respond in an appropriate amount of time, ask an uninvolved user to do it. Particularly in this case since the term wasn't directly at another user in particular, wasn't used in a hyperbolic/WP:POINT manner, and is a debatable term as Someguy1221 has indicated. MBisanz 08:36, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh I agree, and to be honest the only reason I refactored the comment was because Allstarecho seemed so offended by the word. My point above though is that just because something needs to be done carefully doesn't mean only admins can do it. There are plenty of sensible non admins around. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 08:54, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Respectfully disagree, this user has a long history and an open RfC for exactly this type of behavior - knowingly throwing around disparaging words widely accepted as slurs against LGBT people knowing (and in some cases mistakingly believing) that editors on his article are LGBT. Benjiboi 11:20, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Well I can't (and won't) defend any other actions Bluemarine may have taken, I'm just going on my suggestion re: this single incident, since thats what was reported here. MBisanz 12:15, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

(sigh) Could someone please check out this and this which both seem to be personal attacks generalized towards the LGBT editors and calling me a "pseudo-writer to invent this artificial term" when I had just asked for him to provide a source that we could use to correct what he felt was a mis-characterization. This user has been given many many last warnings and only recently (as far as I can tell) been getting blocked for his continual and, by all accounts, unrepentant and uncivil behavior. Quite a few editors have been patiently working to build consensus and keeping both this editor and socks (both pro and con) at bay. By this editor has continued to be incredibly disruptive and insulting to fellow editors. Benjiboi 11:15, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

This looks like a territorial thing to me, but I may be wrong. Igor Berger (talk) 11:29, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean? Benjiboi 11:53, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

• Comment. Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Bluemarine Benjiboi 12:09, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
• Comment To me it seems the homos are overreacting. --Law Lord (talk) 13:44, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
  • I agree that some people are probably overreacting however using the word "homo" in a thread where at least one person has stated they find it highly offensive is beyond the pale. You need to apologise. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 14:23, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
    • Unless he is homosexual himself, which I can only assume since he holds this page within his reach. Now, whether or not he should be finding a 17 year old sexually attractive is another issue all it's own, better left for him and his local government... Of course, it could just be the residue of our tiff over arbitrary section breaks at James I of England as well. -- ALLSTARecho 14:53, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
• Comment This has been going on for eight months now. He was just banned for it and he's now doing it again. Aatombomb (talk) 14:30, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Recommending indefinite ban

Why is there any tolerance here for hateful intolerance? Ban a bigot who routinely attacks and insults others over their sexuality and be done with it. Would this be tolerated if he was calling people wetbacks or nigger? This is intolerable. Per Misplaced Pages:No_personal_attacks#Personal_attacks such comments are never acceptable. Add in (read the below threads) that this user appears to be a single purpose account here to focus on editing (600+ edits) his own article of Matt Sanchez, and to attack gay editors, we have no need for this guy. I'm officially asking for an indefinite ban based on COI, lack of useful contributions to Misplaced Pages, and ongoing personal, hateful, bigoted attacks on minorities. Lawrence Cohen 17:00, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Support. Given the number of threads currently on ANI about this user, I don't see why not. Bluemarine needs to be blocked as he is not heeding warnings (which he has many of); if there are no objections, I will block him indefinitely for the various things he's done, although I would like to see if he bothers coming here first. --Coredesat 17:14, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

98.202.12.152

The IP address 98.202.12.152 has only ever made 2 changes to wikipedia:

• adding a link to "libertybankstory.com" (6 times, various articles, on Aug 28)
• adding a link to "tumbleweedsforsale.com" (3 times, various articles, on Dec 9)

After the first incident, this user was warned. While admittedly not the most egregious offender, I suggest that there is nothing to be gained by continuing to allow this person to edit wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.71.164.107 (talk) 09:01, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

It's far too trival to warrent a block IMO. This sort of thing can easily dealt with by reverting. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 09:37, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Polysynaptic getting out of hand

User Polysynaptic (talk · contribs) has been engaging in a string of inappropriate point-of-view edits, including erasing well-sourced references to Persian culture from articles related to Turkic topics, and conflating the distinct notions of "Turkish people" with "Turkic peoples". His responses to criticism do not suggest he is amenable to reason. It will require a substantial effort to repair the damage he is doing; it is doubtful that even a single dedicated editor could keep up. As evidence that this user is out of control: he has now nominated the well-sourced article Persianate society for deletion: Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Persianate society. He has also created an alternative article (Abu ar-Rayhan Muhammad ibn Ahmad al-Biruni) to the well-sourced article Abū Rayhān al-Bīrūnī. This is highly disruptive editing, damaging to the project, and I hope something can be done about this. (See also #Informed of possible sockpuppet above, but I feel the issue should be dealt with in any case, sockpuppetry or not.)  --Lambiam 12:35, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

I closed the AFD, but I need someone else to look into the user's actions. --Coredesat 15:12, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Suedois and talk page issues with removing comments

I have nominated two articles for deletion here: Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Descendants of Gustav II Adolf. Suedois voted "oppose" for both, but in two separate votes. Since I had never seen this done, I moved them both to the same place and with the bolding so the clarity of Suedois' comments was not lost. Suedois has reverted, taking out some of my comments in the process. Apparently, it is okay to remove my comments, but not to simply move Suedois' (where no one else has replied to complicate the matter of moving them). The onus, according to this user, is on me to restore my comments, yet I was "warned" for editing the opinions of others (which I did not do) while Suedois has, intentionally or unintentionally, censored mine. I feel that this may also be a civility issue, judging from a previous discussion on my talk page where I was accused of a "deletionist spree". I have tried to initiate conversion at Misplaced Pages talk:Articles for deletion/Descendants of Gustav II Adolf and have also welcomed civil discussion at my page (which was not followed through with).

I also find the following comment to be very uncivil and not in good faith at all: . Currently, the talk page for the article is now a mess, because of the user's insistence on having his/her comments separated. I am also being indirectly accused of anglocentrism, which is laughable because I have even edited articles on British royals to remove anglocentric specialist WikiProject guidelines. The user in question is Swedish and I believe it may be a factor in his/her misguided stress and anger. I am not attack Swedish articles at all; indeed, I have noted a good Swedish article in the Afd which can be reworked to be more encyclopedic. Charles 14:20, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Charles made persistent edit of my opinions, wanting to bundle them, simultaneously apparently writing his own comment. Such edit in an edit history disturbs greatly possiblities to esily track provenance of those comments and opinions. Suedois (talk) 14:22, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

The page history shows no such thing until it came to the removal of my comments. In fact, the exact text is shown to have not changed. Charles 14:26, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Charles has not shown any such relatedness between the two articles which would entitle to bundle them into one delete proposal. Such bundles are frequently done by bad faith deletionisdts who want to get rid of some articles, without having a proper discussion about it individually, and by biasing the discussion with inclusion of the other matter. Suedois (talk) 14:19, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

I will allow an administrator to judge the civility of the above comment. I have extended civility but have not been greeted with it, as noted in my initial report. Charles 14:27, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

• Since AfD isn't a vote and Suedois clearly stated which article he was discussing each time, I don't see a problem. He does have a point in that combining the articles into one discussion probably wasn't a good idea, you might be nominating both for the same reason, but that's the only similarity I see between the two. Shell 14:35, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

That's fine as an opinion on one matter but there is also the matter of continued incivility. Charles 14:42, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

The following diff shows what happens to warnings in talk page of User:Charles. The lengthy record of negative things he has done, is thus not easily visible. I rather keep discussion on pages where he has no privilege of manipulation. Suedois (talk) 14:39, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

To quote part of my talk page: I have found hostility, incivility and rudeness at certain times within the community. It is usually one person at any given time, referring back to disputes with others, acting in some sort of (royal?) succession. If this describes you, smarten up! Help make Misplaced Pages a better place to edit and read. Note also, lots of past disputes have involved people behaving exactly like you, reverting to leaving unfounded warnings as a follow-up to a disagreement. It speaks nothing of my character but volumes of others. I don't remove legitimate warnings and the like, just the unfounded, spiteful ones. Charles 14:45, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

I'd suggest that the two of you avoid each other. Shell 14:56, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Trust me, I would very much like that, but I truly did not have Suedois in mind when bringing the articles up for AfD. Given the evidence of uncivil behaviour, I ask that this be dealt with, at least a formal warning to the user about the matter. I shouldn't have to abandon a legitimate Afd if it fails on the basis of the articles being dissimilar because this probably will happen again if I start an Afd, with accusation of being a Anglocentic, uncivil deletionist on a spree. Charles 15:00, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

You're not behaving in a much better manner. Any editor can give warnings, not just administrators. Its been talked about here and he's seen it; move on. Shell 15:06, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Pardon me, but I would like to see it (the uncivil behaviour(. It's fine for any editor to give warnings (I did not question that at all) just as it is fine for me to remove them. But, as I noted, if it is going to be used in an uncivil manner and also to discredit me, I'm going to set the matter straight. Please close this as "resolved", I think it's done. Charles 15:10, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

vandalism and reverting more then 3 times in less then 24 hours

the user http://en.wikipedia.org/User:Dahn vandalised and reverted more then 4 times in a day without giving reasons this article http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Romanians&action=history. In addition he refuses to discuss the reasons in talk page. Adrianzax (talk) 15:54, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

I think you'll want to report this at the three revert rule noticeboard. Shell 16:08, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Bluemarine/User:Mattsanchez again

Edit: See edit. "Sounds like B** is stretching to write a novel and not edit a encyclopedic entry. Matt Sanchez (talk) 15:58, 5 January 2008 (UTC)"

This user has gotten repeated "final" warnings for incivility and abuse, and even appears to be freely violating COI by editing an article about themselves *extensively*; see here. This was just brought up earlier this week, and the user was blocked for attacks and incivility. Would someone be willing to give him another final warning?

Previous ANI thread from January 2 is here, where it was disclosed this user has also harassed and made disparaging comments and tone towards homosexual editors working on pages related to him, which seems to be a violation of discrimination policies and concerns. Lawrence Cohen 16:05, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Previous RFC on user is here. Lawrence Cohen 16:17, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

I have removed the WP:AIV report on this user pending the outcome of the discussion here. Caknuck (talk) 16:17, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

• See 5 sections above where there is already a discussion going on about this user. -- ALLSTARecho 16:23, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Another thread here on Matt Sanchez, same problems. That is three threads initiated by three people in almost zero time. Lawrence Cohen 17:10, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

User:81.153.131.222

• Continues ad hominem incivilities despite two warnings.
  • First warning:
  • Second warning:
  • Continuation:
• Disruptive editing (repeated blanking of a section) on Dana Ullman.

Guido den Broeder (talk) 16:21, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Bluemarine 4th request for help on this

(reposting in hopes on getting some help on this; User apparently not taking much of this seriously and has started targeting my talk page as well)

Could someone please check out this and this which both seem to be personal attacks generalized towards the LGBT editors and calling me a "pseudo-writer to invent this artificial term" when I had just asked for him to provide a source that we could use to correct what he felt was a mis-characterization. This user has been given many many last warnings and only recently (as far as I can tell) been getting blocked for his continual and, by all accounts, unrepentant and uncivil behavior. Quite a few editors have been patiently working to build consensus and keeping both this editor and socks (both pro and con) at bay. But this editor has continued to be incredibly disruptive and insulting to fellow editors. Benjiboi 11:15, 5 January 2008 (UTC) Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Back from ban and back at it Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:Bluemarine/User:Mattsanchez again (which includes statement that WP:AIV report is on hold until the board decides)

Also note: Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Bluemarine Benjiboi 16:37, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Based on what I'm seeing, he had a final warning and has continued to be incivil, so he should be blocked. I'm not sure how long, though I think a solid week would suffice. He just came off a 48hr block for the same thing. --Coredesat 16:52, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

I recommend an indefinite. He has a history of using sexual epithets. Would he still be here if he were using racial slurs, which are just as bad? Lawrence Cohen 17:03, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Point taken. The only reason I didn't suggest indef was because I'm unfamiliar with the complete history of this problem. I have noticed that a couple of indef blocks have been undone for different reasons, though. --Coredesat 17:07, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Another thread here on Matt Sanchez, same problems. That is three threads initiated by three people in almost zero time. Lawrence Cohen 17:10, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

I also move to block indefinitely. There appears to be consensus here for the block, and this guy needs to be stopped: no benefit is coming out of his contributions. Anthøny 17:16, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Kie250 (talk · contribs)

I feel like someone should have a look at this user's user page. Almost every edit they've made has been to their user space, and the ones they haven't are generally vandalism or inappropriate. Her edits should also be oversighted as she's given out her age and full name and she's an underage user .--Crossmr (talk) 17:11, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards