Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive527

Legal threats from 99.29.153.17

Resolved

 – IP blocked, article sent to AfD Black Kite 11:01, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

I've received legal threats from this user (on my talk page) about this edit. I left a warning and a note on the user's talk page. I feel slightly biased in this so I'll leave an admin to come to their own conclusion. Cheers - Kingpin13 (talk) 07:12, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Promises to continually blank an article, then makes a legal threat bundled into a generally incivil comment...blocked for 48 hours. Of course, I would have blocked indef, except that I have no idea when the IP will change. Someguy1221 (talk) 07:40, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for dealing with this :) - Kingpin13 (talk) 07:53, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

The IP might have a point about invasion of privacy. How is a little bitty dead end street "notable" in wikipedia? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 08:02, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

This occurred to me, but then how is this article invading their privacy? - Kingpin13 (talk) 08:06, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Assuming the IP's complaint is on the level, he's saying there are only 2 houses on that street, that he owns both of them, and this article might draw undue attention to that street. I don't know if that's a reasonable complaint or not. But if it's true, then someone took a photo of one of his houses and posted it here, so if I were him I might be ticked also. I'd like to hear how that tiny street qualifies for an article. The thrust of the article seems to be complaints about the way the street was dealt with, given the subtle editorial-like verbiage. I'm guessing the article subject is highly personal to whoever wrote it. That part is understandable too. But this is just a small side street in a Cleveland suburb. What are the notability rules for individual streets? For example, Lombard Street is certainly notable - a well-known tourist attraction in a large city. But this little street? I can't see it. I'm tempted to nominate it for deletion, but I'm not a deletionist. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 08:15, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

I've been looking into that. I suppose the argument would center on the unusual decoration of the houses and the activist campaign to save it from redevelopment. But then, the only real source given is a local news story. There's also a few sentences in this book about it. Every other mention of the street on the whole of the internet is either part of a real estate pitch or a mention of utmost triviality. But I don't think there's any credibility to the "invasion of privacy" claim; I am actually sympathetic to such claims with regard to articles of extremely questionable notability, but that doesn't forgive the incivility and the legal threat (actually in the same edit) when we're not dealing with threats related to a serious BLP issue. But anyway, I'm reasonably certain the article would be deleted at AFD, after going through the 46 unique ghits. Someguy1221 (talk) 08:21, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

From edit-conflict: An AfD might be suitable? We have Wikipedia:Notability (populated places) but this is just a proposal. - Kingpin13 (talk) 08:25, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't question the block. You make a legal threat, you're history. His proper course of action would have been to file an AFD. But are IP's allowed to file AFD's? And obviously he can't right now, but he could in 48 hourse - if IP's can file AFD's. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 08:32, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

IPs can create AFDs through Article for creation (that's right, you can use it for deleting stuff too) or by placing the AFD template on the page and their reason on the talk page. Someguy1221 (talk) 08:37, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

That should cover it. So we'll soon find out if he's willing to follow procedure or is just messing with things. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 08:39, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

The original author and primary contributor is Swinterich (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). I'll post this discussion on his talk page and see if he has anything to say about it. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 08:41, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Another observation is that if someone things it's notable because of that "mural" - well, the average third-grader could do better than that. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 09:25, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, let's discuss it at AfD instead. Black Kite 11:01, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Why do I get the feeling that merging the info into another article is not going to dissuade the legal threat? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 21:03, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Ad.minster and Tb

• Ad.minster (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Tb (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Ad.minster

In the past day, User:Ad.minster has:

• Reverted a page of notes in my user space (User:Tb/Foo) seven times,
• Published my name in user comments four times (once after he knew that I objected)
• Accused me of sockpuppetry three times
• Reverted many of my edits as "vandalism" which are in fact good faith content disputes
• Posted a spurious CFD on Brotherhood of Saint Gregory and engaged in an edit war there.

I regret that I may have violated 3RR on Brotherhood of Saint Gregory; the question is complex because counting "reverts" is tricky in the particular case. When I realized that I may have crossed the line, I stopped editing the page immediately. I do believe that his edits to the text of Brotherhood of Saint Gregory are not in good faith.

He has accused me of WP:HOUNDING, and it would be useful to explain. I noticed in my recent changes that he had posted the spurious CFD on Brotherhood of Saint Gregory, and added a "holdon" tag, and set to work tracking down some references. Further references will await some newspaper research, so I stopped that work. I then noticed that he also edited many pages which are on my regular watch list, most notably, by creating some new templates with virtually identical content to other templates in use by the Anglicanism project, and with confusingly similar names. He started putting these templates in many pages edited by the project, and removing the previous templates. In all these edits, he did not provide any edit summaries. Because such changes are destabilizing and the project normally discusses them rather than simply charging ahead, I reverted some of the changes, and looked at his contributions log as a guide to which changes should be reverted. I was careful to examine each change carefully, considering case-by-case, and many of them I did not revert. In addition, there was a discussion a while back about the separate pages for the various seminaries of the Reformed Episcopal Church, and the consensus was that the different seminaries did not need separate pages, but that the section in the REC article should include the relevant info in a merge/redirect scheme. Because some of these pages are on my regular watchlist, I noticed the changes when they occured, and restored the previous consensus, with a request to open a discussion if the consensus needed to be changed.

I am confident that his edits in both the templates question and the REC seminaries question were in good faith, but still, they were contrary to the consensus, and I believe my edits were justified.

When I realized that he was not interested in discussing either of these content disputes with me, I stopped editing the pages in question, and got back to work on Brotherhood of Saint Gregory. An admin denied the CFD (of course), with some useful comments about notability should a VFD be opened.

He then begins an old pattern of personal comments about me on his own userspace [1] and [2]. Of course, the notes I made are not anything of the kind, nor did I delete the pages in question (nor could I, not being an administrator).

In the course of the content dispute, he has, as I mentioned above, violated 3RR in my user space, published my name in user comments (once after he knew I objected to this), accused me of sockpuppetry three times, and labelled every single one of my good-faith edits as vandalism. Tb (talk) 11:14, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Leave me alone.

Stop reverting all my edits.

Stop mass deleting of articles and templates with sneaky redirects, etc.

Stop following me around Wikipedia.

Stop filing complaints that you lose.

Stop ignoring the outcome of Noticeboard Incidents.

Did I say to just leave me alone and stop following me? Ad.minster (talk) 11:47, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

• I'm not willing to stop editing pages on Anglicanism, and if you are also not willing to stop editing them, we're going to have to work together.
• I don't "revert all your edits", and indeed, I explained exactly what I did earlier today.
• I don't mass delete articles (that isn't even possible) nor is there such a thing as a "sneaky redirect". The community agreed to the redirect/merge, and you reverted it without discussion, and I simply tried to restore the community's consensus.
• I don't "follow you around".
• You have been asked twice now to document those complaints that I "lose".
• You have been asked twice now to document what outcome you think I am ignoring.

I will happily leave you alone if you don't edit pages that interest me. But I suspect that's not something you're willing to agree to, so we will have to find a way to work together. Tb (talk) 12:34, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

• Where you say "Reverted a page of notes in my user space (User:Tb/Foo) seven times," can you provide a link? I look over there, but don't see that. Dream Focus 11:50, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Sure. [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] Sorry, I counted wrong. The seventh was not a blanking, but was this (incorrect, unsigned) comment: [10]. Tb (talk) 12:29, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Tb

• Ongoing and persistent harassment and WP:Hounding, meaning that he follows my substantive edits all over Wikipedia and deletes them. Then he files spurious Noticeboard Incidences, which he loses, but which disrupt Wikipedia significantly.

• He does little else but hound people.

• When someone complains about his harassment, he says it is a "personal attack" justifying him to hound the editor some more and file more spurious Noticeboard Incidents. He ignores the outcome and the cycle goes on and on.

• He has been doing this to me for about a year now. He loses the disputes, but ignores them and continues harassing me.

• Deletion of tags on the article which is about himself and a group in which he claims membership. It is a WP:Conflict of Interest to edit it and it is disruptive to constantly revert several editors attempt to put up tags. The article Gregorians has no WP:Notability.

• Frequent (about 200 times) deletion of content on my user pages.

• Deletion of five different articles and numerous templates, which he lists, promising to delete them. Here is his list of the articles he keeps deleting and promises to delete again, which is extremely non-productive and indeed disruptive: [11]Ad.minster (talk) 11:31, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

This was opened after the User:Ad.minster entry was filed by me recently. I would be happy to respond. As I indicate in my entry above, I have not been monitoring User:Ad.minster's contributions log, except when I was attempting to track down the recent creation of templates which I believed was a good faith, but destabilizing, change to the Anglicanism project. As for the generic claim about filing spurious noticeboard incedents, and "losing" them, I would appreciate some actual evidence. I challenge this as being factually untrue. As for the claim that "he does little else but hound people", a look at my edit log will show this is untrue. Most of my wikipedia activity consists of monitoring a large set of pages, and reviewing other editors' work, often fixing up style, or resolving inconsistencies in articles, and the like. Regular readers of this page will remember that when I edited User:Ad.minster's user page, it was specifically to remove comments I had made and no longer wished to have published there, and to remove personal attacks of me in his pages by link or by name. Finally, User:Xeno stepped in and "courtesy blanked" the offending material in User:Ad.minster's pages, though I was content with simply having all reference to me removed. I have not deleted any articles (I am not an administrator), nor have I blanked articles. I believe that User:Ad.minster is referring to articles such as Reformed Episcopal Seminary, which was part of a merge/redirect a while ago--which I did not execute or have a strong opinion about--and in which User:Ad.minster reverted the consensus. I have not "promised" to delete anything, and he is quite incorrect about the purpose of my notes. Tb (talk) 11:37, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

• Stop reverting all my edits.
• Stop mass deleting of articles and templates with sneaky redirects, etc.
• Stop following me around Wikipedia.
• Stop filing complaints that you lose.
• Stop ignoring the outcome of Noticeboard Incidents.
• Did I say to just leave me alone and stop following me? Ad.minster (talk) 11:47, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

• "(about 200 times) deletion of content on my user pages." Can you provide a link to an example of this? And the other claims as well. You two shouldn't be posting on each other user's page, if the other party asks you not to. Dream Focus 11:53, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

The history has been removed. But you know what it doesn't matter, just get him to stop following me and reverting all my edits. Is that really so hard to understand? He won't listen to you. Do something! Ad.minster (talk) 11:58, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Dream Focus on that score! Indeed, the previous dispute arose because I wanted to remove what I had posted on User:Ad.minster's page, and he kept re-adding it, along with commentary amounting to a personal attack on me. I read WP:3RR carefully, and it said that edits of one's own comments were an exception; alas--edits of one's own user space are also an exception, and we were neither of us willing to back down. Then User:Ad.minster went away, and User:Xeno courtesy blanked the page. Then a fair bit later, a different admin (IIRC) came along and removed the history, since they were personal attacks. (I was surprised when that happened; I had nothing to do with it.) As for the content dispute, there is no right not to be reverted. I would like User:Ad.minster to engage in some basic courtesies: don't make large numbers of changes without edit histories; when he is reverted with a request to discuss in talk, I would like him to discuss in talk; when he is reverted with a reference to previous community discussion, I would like him to discuss. Indeed, if you look at his edit history, you'll see jillions of changes without edit histories, and essentially no posts to talk pages except to criticize me in recent months. But that's all a content dispute and a how-to-handle-content-disputes question. So, the fact is that the content I wanted removed from User:Ad.minster's pages was a personal attack on me, and which ultimately User:Xeno removed, and a different (IIRC) admin purged the edit logs in accord with the policy on personal attacks. Indeed, if this were not true, there would be no reason for the removal of the history, and User:Ad.minster would be able to substantiate his claim. Tb (talk) 12:25, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Comment to both parties

I've taken the liberty of merging both threads into one; apologies if anyone objects and please do feel free to revert me (ideally retaining this comment but I'm thick skinned so no worries if it disappears ;-)

I notice you've both been awarded a half-barn star of cooperation by Xeno recently; have either of you contacted Xeno very recently to discuss this? It looks to me like Xeno is a very able diplomat, and would be able to assist both of you in handling this matter privately.

Regardless, I'd like to hear from Xeno before commenting further.

Cheers, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 11:43, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Listen, I hate to be dragged into these meaningless disputes.

Could you just get Tb to stop following me everywhere and reverting everything I do.

Get it? Get him to stop following me! He doesn't take any of your people seriously, or he would have stopped a year ago. Could one of you please do something? Thanks! Ad.minster (talk) 11:52, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm not an admin, so I can't do much that you two can't do yourself (I suppose the one exception is be uninvolved ;-)

In any event, since Xeno has been mediating between you two, I'd like to hear what Xeno thinks before jumping in and assuming that you're right and Tb is wrong. Once I've heard from Xeno I'm prepared to offer any support I can.

I suspect administrators will want more detail - e.g. information from Xeno, or more detail from both you and Tb - before taking any action against Tb, you or both of you. I note that Dream Focus has already requested more detail, for example.

Cheers, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 12:03, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

I would be happy to hear from User:Xeno. I'll say that I don't believe I have somehow failed to follow appropriate procedures or policies, and I would readily apologize (and do!) if such is pointed out to me. I urge though that I have been as clear as possible both about my motives in the content dispute, clearly explaining my actions, and documenting and substantiating my claims about User:Ad.minster's behavior when requested, while he has simply repeated them same generic, vague, and unsubstantiated claims. Alas, I think that Xeno's efforts were not quite what did the trick before. Instead, User:Ad.minster has a pattern of popping up once every month or so in much the same fashion (by making a huge number of tendentious edits) and then vanishing in a day or so. When he vanished last time, Xeno did his "courtesy blank" and advised us to both steer clear of each other. Then, nothing happened for a while, and the half-stars were posted. But this was simply the side-effect of User:Ad.minster's every-month-or-so editing cycle, and the very next time he popped up, one of the things he decided to do was a spurious speedy-delete request on an article about a group close to my heart. And, simply "steer clear" works fine if the dispute were only about the personal attacks User:Ad.minster was posting against me, but we also have these content disputes. If User:Ad.minster would adopt a pattern of discussion in talk pages, filling in edit summaries, explaining the purpose of changes, not re-reverting if his change is reverted by another editor, and so forth, the result would be much happier. Tb (talk) 12:41, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm seeing one user whose name looks like an abbreviation for a serious lung illness, and the other whose name looks like it could turn up if I ran a Norton scan. Eek. And this bad blood between them contrasts with the fact that they both make a thing out of being Christian. Maybe they could both do with a bit of a timeout, and review some of their scriptures about loving their enemies and stuff like that there. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 12:00, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

"Onward Christian Wikipedians, marching as to edit-war..." That's number 1232 in your Octal Hymnal. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 13:39, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't think either of these comments is helpful; they sound like an attempt to ridicule people in a serious dispute--by making fun of their names, to boot. Tb (talk) 17:33, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

OK, here's serious: You two are supposed to be Christians. So ACT LIKE IT ALREADY. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 21:01, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Ad.minster blocked for 72 hours / Tb warned

I've blocked Ad.minster for 72 hours due to the edit warring at User:Tb/Foo. Tb is exempt from 3RR as its his own userspace and as far as I can tell, the material was not contentious in the least (just a bookmark page of internal wiki links). I'll be looking at this situation in a little more detail, but would like some opinions from others. Ad.minster seems to have an unhealthy obsession with Tb (see, in particular, Ad.minster's deleted edits - sorry, admin only); Tb has done his best to stay away as far as I can tell. –xeno (talk) 12:48, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

We can't see that, since the list you link to as for administrators only. Odd they don't let everyone view it.

Unauthorized

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search

The action you have requested is limited to Administrators.

Return to Main Page.

Oh well. Dream Focus 12:59, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, you'll have to comment on the other aspects of this, the deleted edits are admin-only. –xeno (talk) 13:03, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

• I'm a mere-motal too, but I've seen some WP:Outing going on, after Tb requested it stop. I won't link to it, but I dare say Xeno can confirm it. I'm tempted to suggest that Ad.minster simply didn't realise that it wasn't Tb who blanked part of Ad.minster's userpage, but Xeno has made this clear on Ad.minster's talk page so it's more likely a case of selective hearing. Despite the claim that Tb is on some sort of deletionist crusade, Ad.minster has nominated at least one article for deletion. I'd be interested to hear more from Ad.minster, but right now I wouldn't argue against a topic ban of articles Tb frequents (and also Tb's user pages, and possibly talk page). I'd also be interested to know exactly what User:Tb/Foo is a list of - though I've seen no evidence that it's a list of articles that Tb intends to "delete" (I believe that Ad.minster means that Tb intends to redirect these articles, rather than physically delete them). Cheers, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 13:14, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

• Oh, since you asked. The list of pages is a (partial) list of pages which I want to go back and check over once things die down. The only one on that list that should probably get redirected is Reformed Episcopal Seminary, but that's the merging discussion, and maybe should get reopened for group discussion. Tb (talk) 13:34, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

• Thanks for the response, Tb - that makes sense. As I mentioned above, I've seen no evidence that the list was what Ad.minster believed it to be. It might be worth adding some explanatory text... though I don't know if it will convince Ad.minster. Cheers, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 15:28, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

• I have issued a warning to Tb regarding Brotherhood of Saint Gregory. –xeno (talk) 13:27, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Going forward, the best solution may be for both editors to always follow the bold-revert-discuss principle when dealing with one another's edits. I realise that it's more common to impose 1RR or 0RR restrictions in this sort of situtation, but I think this approach may be more productive. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 14:00, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree completely. In the past, what has happened has been similar to this incident (though with less virulence): User:Ad.minster appears, makes a large number of changes, and I and others then carefully go through them and keep some and revert others. That's steps one and two. The change from what has happened in the past would then need to be User:Ad.minster's willingness to begin a discussion, rather than simply re-reverting. In addition, I believe that he should be requested to provide edit summaries for his changes and to offer explanations when he makes them. Tb (talk) 19:53, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

this has been brought to my user page as well, as I originally declined the speedy on the Brotherhood article. I have warned Ad there about a matter that was mentioned above: he saw fit to place the personal name of another editor on that page; I have of course redacted it. It seems probable to me that the two parrties know each other, and I very strongly suggest they not carry off-wiki matters onto Wikipedia. They would do very well to avoid each other altogether, though this may be difficult because of topic overlap. At the least they show avoid making comments on each others' talk pages. DGG (talk) 21:18, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

I have no idea who User:Ad.minster is in real life, and have (to my knowledge) only had contact with him on Wikipedia. Tb (talk) 21:49, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Yet another Historian19 sock

Resolved

 – blocked forever and ever --GedUK  20:27, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Uruguayan (talk · contribs) (aka Historian19 (talk · contribs), NIR-Warrior (talk · contribs))

A gentle touch of sledgehammer please, it's too obvious to go through WP:SPI. Thanks. No such user (talk) 14:18, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

User:Coemitch UserMitchcoe

Resolved

Hi, I've just indef blocked User:Coemitch for recreating the original research articles for which User:Mitchcoe got blocked. Would a more experienced admin please review my actions on this. ϢereSpielChequers 17:37, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Nice shooting - definitely appropriate. Tony Fox (arf!) 19:03, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Tony. ϢereSpielChequers 19:22, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Crunk Incorporated

Resolved

Can someone do something about Crunk Incorporated (talk · contribs)? I have notified WP:AVI, but there is a bit of a backlog and I would rather this user not continue to keep creating pages like this. Cheers! -- moe.RON ^{Let's talk | done} 19:29, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Never mind, resolved now. -- moe.RON ^{Let's talk | done} 19:32, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

(ec) I have blocked the account and deleted their contributions. Next time, try WP:UAA. Cheers, Tiptoety ^talk 19:33, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Ah, but it wasn't a username issue, but a vandalism one. Therefore, I went to WP:AVI and then here. -- moe.RON ^{Let's talk | done} 19:37, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Nope, it is a username issue. Take a look at WP:IU and {{spamusernameblock}}. Cheers, Tiptoety ^talk 19:39, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

CharlesRKiss

CharlesRKiss (talk · contribs) is having a hard time understanding wp:consensus[12], wp:NOTFORUM, wp:SOAP[13][14], and wp:POINT[15][16][17][18]. He doesn't seem interested in seeking help at the wp:REFDESK, but is much more interested in having editors discuss his OR. Can an uninvolved admin help him out? Also, before yesterday he used Charlesrkiss (talk · contribs). NJGW (talk) 16:35, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

I've notified CharlesRKiss (talk · contribs) of this discussion. Looie496 (talk) 19:06, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, he's ignored your notification Looie, but fretted publicly about the cabal controlling that article[19] and provided even more of his own personal proof that the article is totally false.[20] I predict messy edit wars will commence once he either figures out that his old account can edit the (semi-protected) page or waits 2 days to edit it with his new account. Meanwhile all the multiple new sections he is creating on the talk page are really annoying. Please keep this man with a mission on your radars. NJGW (talk) 03:39, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

He is now sending (ungrammatical) insults on userpages via copy/paste spam. See mine, NJGW's, William M. Connolley's, and Skyemoor's. His inability to behave with anything resembling professional civility is unfortunate, and his insults are unacceptable. I told him on my talk page that I was reporting his actions here. Awickert (talk) 03:45, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

He is now taking a 24 hour break from the project which he can use to read up on the policies and guidelines that concern his editing and behavior. Mfield (Oi!) 03:58, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Ah, he'll flame out soon enough if people just quietly delete his rants and don't give him the attention he craves. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 03:59, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Darko Trifunović blanking / vandalism

Darko Trifunović (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) is repeatedly being blanked by Darko Trifunovic (talk · contribs), who claims to be the subject of the article. It's been the target of a lot of disruptive editing by Serbian and Bosnian editors over the years, as the individual in question appears to be fairly controversial. In the last few months a series of anonymous IPs have attempted to replace the article with a poorly written curriculum vitae. The problems appear to be reaching a new stage now, so input from an uninvolved administrator would be appreciated.

(I've also posted this to the BLP noticeboard as it involves a BLP article.) -- ChrisO (talk) 00:28, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Non-judgemental preliminary - I have full protected the article for 24 hrs while we sort this out. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 00:35, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Just to add a bit more background info, over the last eight months or so, a series of IP and new editors has repeatedly sought to replace the article with an unsourced curriculum vitae or to add this text to the article. I strongly suspect that this is the same individual, probably Darko Trifunovic (talk · contribs), as the style of writing appears to be the same and there are some very distinctive common elements (look for the use of "ref" followed by a hyperlink). The geographical range of the IP addresses used may indicate some degree of open proxy abuse.

• Spasioc (talk · contribs) 14:29, 8 March 2009 - [21]

• 196.207.28.218 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) 20:42, 9 January 2009 - [22]

• Dusan Trifunovic (talk · contribs) 13:35, 5 January 2009 - [23], 08:00, 5 January 2009 - [24]

• 82.137.200.7 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) 23:51, 9 October 2008 - [25]

• 66.92.173.59 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) 08:09, 10 July 2008 - [26]

A checkuser run would probably be useful at this point. -- ChrisO (talk) 00:41, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Informational background - the article is a fairly critical BLP of a ethnically Serbian Bosnian (now Serb) citizen and former minor Bosnian diplomat, who wrote some material widely believed to be genocide revisionism / denialism over the Bosnian civil war.

We believe that the user account is the subject of the article.

This has come up before - with different accounts, people claiming to be Mr Trifunovic complained about having the article at all, specific content, etc. I believe this flew up to OTRS at one point - I think that's where I saw it first. Complaints have been rejected in general as attempts to whitewash the subject's reputation and remove well sourced negative materials.

In my opinion, the sourcing, while somewhat biased, has consistently met WP:RS and WP:V, and though some Bosnian extremists have violated WP:BLP on the article on and off it has generally met the policy as written and normally enforced.

However, now is as good a time as any for more previously uninvolved admin review, if he's up and zapping content again. I am tempted to just indef the account, as he's been blocked under other account names before, but independent review before action would be great. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 00:45, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

There was no blanking, Trifunovic is a NPF and Georgewilliamherbert and ChrisO have blocked anyone's effort to point out the article has no merit and violates Wikipedia policy on Non public Figures. Futher they shout vandalism but ignore all discussion that challenges their neutrality and qualifications by claiming all critics are Trifunovic. I am not Trifunovic but an American PhD who specializes in Balkan matters and I can tell you the article is biased, not relevant, over hyped and all the rest and appears to be an attempt to incite hatred against Trifunovic who is simply a colleague of mine. The article puts Trifunovic at risk of being assasinated by Bosnian extremists and it's a bad article as pointed out repeatedly in the discussions. Dr. Levy Resistk (talk) 01:21, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

There clearly was blanking - here on April 1, a second time today, a third time today.

Please use the "History" tab on articles to review before making claims like that. We make edit histories available just to avoid any question of who did what when.

Regarding the non-public figure claim - Trifunovic and Levy (Resistk) have both asserted that, but the reliable sources stand as evidence that he is one. If one is covered in the media for multiple notable events, and Trifunovic is and continues to be, one is notable and a public figure. One might argue that if all the coverage was purely from Bosnian sources it might not be generally notable, but he's appeared in other media as well.

Dr Levy - How is Dr Trifunovic a colleague of yours?

Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 01:35, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

We both teach counter terror courses, have academic affiliations etc. Both of us are involved with the Jasenovac Research Institute. Resistk (talk) 02:04, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

You are really stretching things when you say he is notable and mentioned in non Balkan articles - exactly one I count - an Italian new service reporting threats on his life for exactly the same sort of stuff recklessly put out in the Wikipedia article. In my opinion Wikipedia is getting as bad as Blogspot and Blogger which never remove anything no matter how violative of their own terms of service. This is why universities generally mark down students who attempt to use Wikipedia as a source. Resistk (talk) 02:09, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Dr Trifunovic's publications denying mass murder at Srebrenica were noticed outside Bosnian media circles. Time magazine noticed (referenced on the article). There are more, if you go back further and deeper - we have not bothered, as notability was previously established.

There are two possible venues for removal of the information - one, Dr Trifunovic is judged to be truly not a public person, or two, the claims are shown to be false.

The claim that he's not a public person fails due to the media coverage - mostly in Bosnian and related Balkans publications, but it's wider than that. Neither Dr Trifunovic nor you are arguing that the information is not true.

Is it true that most professors in the Balkans have no Wikipedia page? Sure. However, Dr Trifunovic has become a public figure due to his controversial viewpoints and assertions.

You can't un-become a public figure because the attention is embarrassing. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 03:06, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Further - on the article talk page, you (Resistk) just suggested that the Italian article on his uninvitation to an academic conference was somehow not reliable or inaccurate, because it had been in a less well known Italian news source.

I would like to know if either you or Dr Trifunovic assert that the Italian article under discussion is false. Further - do you or Dr Trifunovic assert that anything else in the Wikipedia article is false?

Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 03:16, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Iran2 failing to respond to copyvio notices, was blocked and still continues

Iran2 (talk · contribs) has continued uploading the same copyvios after over 20 warnings and already after having being blocked. I would usually take this to AIV, but this needs more serious action and scrutiny. The user has continued to upload copyvios after warnings, failed to respond to any warnings, and continued uploading the same copyvios immediately after having being blocked. There is no evidence that he intends to stop with his uploads. — neuro^{(talk)(review)} 14:59, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Somebody did take it to AIV, and i've just blocked them for a couple of days. If the consensus here is to extend that, then i've no issue with it. --GedUK  15:19, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Took a look at one image uploaded today randomly (File:Milad tower new04.jpg) and it took all of 15 seconds to verify it was a copyvio. I'd say that if he's already been warned and blocked, and continues uploading copyvio images to just indef and forget about him. Resolute 15:21, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

(EC) Are you sure they're copyvios? Take this case for example. Mr. Rattansi (for I am guessing it is he) claims to be copyright holder of the work, and the version you found on the internet has a watermark with his name on it, that is not present on our version. Only the photographer would have the original copy. Why wouldn't he be legit? All the images are from in and around Tehran, presumably where he lives. Just because he has previously posted them elsewhere (or sold them), doesn't mean he's stealing them. yandman 15:26, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

But his uploads currently listed at PUI seem to have watermarks from different websites and naming different copyright owners (e.g. File:Milad_tower_new07.jpg names one "Arash Hamidi", while File:Milad tower new01.jpg has "amirpix.ir"), so it's unlikely he's the same person as any one of them. Also, isn't this the same user as ااممییرر (talk · contribs), who was blocked for the same kind of mass bad uploads? Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:18, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

• Off-topic, but Iran2 has also been inserting images at inappropriate places in the Flag article. I've not discussed the matter with them (except through edit summaries) because I'm a gutless coward whose linguistic skills can be summed up as "speeks inglish badly, rites inglish badly. Other languages? Don't make me laugh!" The images tend to exhibit a degree of national pride, which is understandable (why shouldn't the Iranian flag feature in the article?), but I've reverted because they're typically in the wrong place - the modern flag or Iran in a section about historic flags, or an image claiming to be the world's largest Iranian flag which is "supported" by references to a campaign trying to create the world's largest Palestinian flag (in Palestine). Cheers, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 15:34, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

They really don't seem to be responsive to any kind of feedback. If this second block fails to change their behavior, I suggest a much longer block to get their attention; say 1 week. If that has no effect, and they continue to post copyvios when it expires, we might as well move on to an indefblock. -- The Anome (talk) 16:36, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

@yandman - That is just from a preliminary search. With his record, and evidence that the image existed elsewhere on the internet pre-upload, and no response, I am presuming that it is indeed a copyvio as suspected. — neuro^{(talk)(review)} 00:12, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Legal threat by Waynemart

Resolved

 – Blocked pending resolution of legal action Papa November (talk) 20:06, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Waynemart (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Just recently made a legal threat here over the removal of unsourced information and spammed links to unreliable sources that supposedly tell his side of the story. This editor claims to be Mike Martin. He has fairly recently been spamming articles supposedly written by himself, along with a number of ip's 72.183.76.76 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), 24.93.32.58 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), and 70.112.62.246 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). 72.183.76.76 was recently blocked for spamming the same links and edit-warring over them Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive522#72.183.76.76. --Ronz (talk) 19:29, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Blocked pending resolution of legal action. Papa November (talk) 20:06, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! I've tagged the article in question with blpdispute and started a discussion. I expect some ips will respond. --Ronz (talk) 20:10, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Just for clarification. Is contacting the legal department and saying that you "will hold folks liable" for content a legal threat? Haven't had much experience in this area (fortunately). I did now read WP:LEGAL and it seems against the spirt. Anyways, --Tom (talk) 20:55, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

If the intention, by posting such comments and using terms like "liable" and "legal department", is to deter the other side of a discussion/dispute rather than using WP policies/guidelines as a means of resolving an issue, then, yes, it is a legal threat. The intent of WP:NLT is to counter the chilling effect of the use of such methods rather than the precise wording of a quasi legal comment. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:55, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for that explaination. Tom (talk) 04:00, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Personal attack by Bali Ultimate in violation of WP:Civil

Resolved

 – Complaintant struck much of this thread and apologized twice below. Hopefully we can move on. Tom (talk) 03:32, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

In ongoing discussions inre the DRV for the article on Alan Cabal, User:Bali ultimate has been raising the bar of personal attacks in a manner that is escalating. Most recentlly on the talk page of the DRV discussion, he pointedly called me "obtuse" and called my quoting of guideline as "nonsense"diff, and then referred to my own courtesy and civility as "faux" diff. Prior to this latest in his escallation of rudeness, he let me know that he has been stalking my edits diff. I do not believe the many other past examples of his bad faith toward me or others need be brought up, as I do not wish him blocked for his continued and repeated incivility. It is just that I do not wish to be goaded into a return of such, and ask that he be admonished to behave himself. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 20:46, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

• As there were admins taking part in the discussion who obviously saw what Bali Ultimate was doing, what do you expect to accomplish by posting this here? Try WP:WQA. ThemFromSpace 20:54, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Excuse me, but is that a request or a command? What I "expect to acomplish by posting this here" is to seek intercession. That others saw this and did nothing does not mean I have to tolerate it. Thank you. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 20:59, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
    • I would strongly suggest not escalating this dispute to more places than absolutely necessary. DGG (talk) 21:08, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
      • I fully agree. I would simply like it to stop. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:23, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
        • No admin action is necessary here. I'm sure you'll consider this a personal attack, but this feels like an attempt to gain the upper hand in an editorial dispute under the thinnest of pretenses. AniMate^talk 21:25, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
• I see no problems with bali's edits. If you post nonsensical edits, you might expect to eventually get called on it. KillerChihuahua^?!? 21:29, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
• A useful administrator action would be to close the DRV, and to my mind there is a clear outcome - that the AfD should be respected. Verbal chat 21:34, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

?? Just so I get this straight.... Is it now being condoned that to call another editor "obtuse", his use of guideline "nonsense", and his courtesy as "faux" in order to denigrate attempts to contribute to the project, as to not be an personal attack? And that this will be allowed to continue impunity? Just how rubbery has WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL become? Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:40, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

I retract my complaint and ask that any of my personal concerns toward perceived incivility be disregarded, as not worth being brought to the attention of administrators. Bali, you have my sincere apology. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:48, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

I would like to thank Schmidt for failing to notify me of this complaint. I would like to commend him for pointing out that he has been an innocent victim of vicious attacks like "don't be obtuse" (though i do wish i had written "don't be deliberately obtuse" as that, which is different, was more what i intended). And i would like to tell him that all of his speculation about my "personal animus" (which is clearly skewing my judgement as to notability and whatnot) has been spot on. I am clearly acting out of vindictive reasons and obviously don't respect Wikipedia's guidelines. In seriousness: I dispute much of the way Schmidt has characterized our exchange here. Anyone care for the details? (I doubt it). If he stops ascribing motives to me (that he couldn't possibly know) and stops claiming i'm making his arguments for him when I'm clearly disagreeing with him , then i won't address him directly at all. Deal? Bali ultimate (talk) 21:47, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

I think his snarky response to my suggestion above is relevant as it seems to be an example of what you claim he's been doing to you. ThemFromSpace 21:50, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

I reinterate, my complaint is withdrawn and an apolgy for my misperception of being ridiculed is again offered. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:56, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Long-term harrassment?

Resolved

It started with the deletion of Redboy back in 2007 as patent nonsense, and has gone on for a year and some change under numerous screen names and IP addresses (sockpuppets of User:Johnjoecavanagh). Lately, since I semi-protected my user page, it's involved insulting messages on my talk page on an almost daily basis for months. When I looked at my block log today,[27] I noticed that all of the IPs I've blocked as Johnjoecavanagh socks are 86.40.x.x and 86.45.x.x. Would this be appropriate to range-block for this long-term abuse? SchuminWeb (Talk) 14:15, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

This is a very busy ISP and I would not recommend blocking 130,000 IP addresses on this network. You'll block most of Ireland. You'd be better off semi'ing your talk page. On a seperate point, it's completely useless to block dynamic IPs for one year each, when they are changed daily. The odds of the blocks affecting the target user after 24 hours are virtually zero, while the odds of affecting innocent users are almost 100%. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 15:16, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

I would have done that long ago, but (A) I didn't think it was appropriate to semi-protect a user talk page, especially in the long run, and (B) there are legitimate IP-user uses for the user talk page that I'm not sure I want to block out, most recently with User talk:SchuminWeb#Vandalism. What do you think? SchuminWeb (Talk) 17:12, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Semi-protection of an admin's talk page is obviously not a good thing, but in this case would be better than the range block. Some admins have, or should have, a subpage like User talk:SchuminWeb/unprotected talk page with a big link to it at the top of the real talk page. This allows noobs to contact you, while at the same time taking away the bright orange message bar from you, as well as most of the fun from the vandals. Just copy the noob comments to your talk page, and ignore the ones from the vandal. It's a variant of RBI and may help reduce any disruption. It's up to you whether you think the disruption is worth it, but it's a better option than the range block. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 17:49, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

I found User:Bastique doing exactly that, so I've seen it in practice, and who knows - it might just work. I'll see what happens, since the orange bar is perhaps the most annoying part of the trolling. SchuminWeb (Talk) 02:41, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

An excellent idea, and I have followed suit done likewise (apologies for implied legal threat) with this - improving on the idea, as usual. 0:) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 03:56, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, doesn't that just trump everything? (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 11:44, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

I should deck you for that one. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 13:10, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

I only did this because Schumin ignored me. I can't remember the amount of times I tried to reason with him, get him to respond. I also honoured several ceasefires, to no avail or apparant recognition from Schumin. Since I now regard this as an apparant recognition of my existence, I will now leave Schumin alone, like I have promised to do countless times before. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.40.223.35 (talk) 11:27, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Whoa there, nobody is required to ever respond to you. If they either ask you to stop, or choose to not respond to you because they feel that it's better to back away from a situation than to enter into a disagreement, then that is their choice. Forcing interactions is not the way to go.(talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 11:44, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

He is an odious and arrogant admin, and he really has no grounds to be like that. He needed someone to give him a hard time because he gets away with too much crap. If you really want you can study the pattern for the last half year - 90% of the time I was pleading with him to recognise my existence and I will go away. The guy is obtuse that he simply blankly reverted. And so I kept at him, didn't care how long it would take. All he had to do was recognise I existed - does any sentient human being really have a problem with that?

Now that he has, in a roundabout way recognised my existence I will leave him alone. But I hope he learned something from all of this. A few less templates, less arrogance and a bit more common sense a year and a half ago and he wouldn't have made such a persistant enemy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.40.223.35 (talk) 15:48, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

New user, strange behavior

Just bringing this here for future reference, FireFoxUser2343 (talk · contribs) is a new user who appears to just be commenting on people's pages (in alphabetical order, no less). I've welcomed them, but since we see so many examples of users who come and post to get confirmed, I figured I'd bring it here just in case someone else wants to keep an eye on them. Dayewalker (talk) 17:57, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Sock, but whose? Gwen Gale (talk) 18:00, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Strange indeed, saying Hi to every admin. By my calculations it'll take well over a day to reach my talk page :P It just seems like a waste of a day, rather than an immediate problem. On the other hand this doesn't look promising, so it's probably worth watching, slowly. I can't help wondering if they'll make it. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 18:09, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Not likely, since User:Future Perfect at Sunrise just blocked them for three hours. I declined the unblock request just now, citing WP:MYSPACE, and also because three hours isn't really much of a block to begin with. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 18:19, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

His 3-hour block expired quite awhile ago, but he hasn't been back yet, so presumably that block put out his fire. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 13:06, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Can an available admin block a bot?

Resolved

 – Bot blocked. — neuro^{(talk)(review)} 05:45, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Citation bot is incorrectly formatting authors, and User:Smith609, the operator, does not appear to be online. See [28], [29], [30] and [31], all within the last 50 contribs of the bot as of this posting. Thanks, —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 04:37, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Blocked, referred to this thread. Mfield (Oi!) 04:44, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I had to go back 2 days to find more mistakes ([32], but four in less than 50 edits is not good. Apologies to Martin when you read this... —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 04:49, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Update: this bug is now fixed. The bot is operating in supervised mode only so it should be safe for you to unblock it. Martin (Smith609 – Talk) 14:55, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

 Done- unblocked. SoWhy 15:16, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

User:Mnengrmh

• Mnengrmh (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Robert Hunnicutt (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Has been engaging in extreme article ownership at Robert Hunnicutt, personal attacks, and vandalism as shown in the edit history. I think a block is in order to prevent further disruption. MuZemike 07:04, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

I will also note that the user in question has tried to sign as Gaghostsociety (talk · contribs), as shown here. Perhaps the account was changed after that. MuZemike 07:08, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

He used to be Gaghostsociety (talk · contribs) but requested a name change after being advised to. Check his talk. he probably momentarily forgot about the change while logging in. He's very upset now and has asked for the article on him to be deleted. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 03:27, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Note: BTW, I've G11ed it, as he's blanked the article. I've warned him about Owange of articles on his talk page. Cheers. I'^mperator 20:24, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Bambifan101 Yet Again

Know we just got to deal with this April 1st[33], however he is back and on another lovely roll again, and I really really think we need some range blocks here. I'm also practically begging for them. Since March 31st, we have had to block at least 14 socks, including IP socks from his usual 3 ranges:

1. Bambifan102 (talk · contribs)
2. Bambifan103 (talk · contribs)
3. Bambifan104 (talk · contribs)
4. Bambifan105 (talk · contribs)
5. Disneyhater (talk · contribs)
6. 68.220.180.164 (talk · contribs)
7. 68.220.174.27 (talk · contribs)
8. TheFoxandtheHound (talk · contribs)
9. Newswings (talk · contribs)
10. 65.0.174.173 (talk · contribs)
11. Knowoncares (talk · contribs)
12. 65.0.178.127 (talk · contribs)
13. 70.146.212.103 (talk · contribs)
14. Riverseverywhere (talk · contribs)
15. 70.146.213.249 (talk · contribs)

The last five there were all ones from today. Per Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Bambifan101, he now has 67 confirmed socks, and another 85 highly probable ones. He also gave a list of more here[34] that I have not checked and someone else can try to make sense of [35]. (Same category page also has alot of links to the history of all this). Many of his favorite targets, the Disney and Teletubbies articles, are now practically indef semi-protected because of him. He is no longer content to just vandalize these articles and their talk pages, however. He began vandalizing my user talk page, so it is now also back under semi protection. He also now goes through my contributions to randomly vandalize articles I have edited recently.[36][37][38][39] He admitted that he is doing this, I can only guess out of some sick/bizarre desire to get me to start watching for him again and get me "back" on the Disney articles.[40][41] I do NOT want to deal with this BS anymore. I walked away months ago, and I know he's continued since, but unless someone asked me specifically, I have ignored him. So I guess now he's trying to be unignorable. There is a abuse filter request, but it doesn't seem like that can stop him when he moves outside his range. The abuse report I filed in October to get ISP contact has never been touched. He obviously has some issues and feels a need for attention, and unfortunately he keeps getting it because we can't just ignore his vandalism. So, can we get some range blocks, something, anything to put him back on ice.-- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 00:37, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

• Can't you trace what internet service provider he uses, and then contact them asking who was using that IP address at that specific time? Do they keep records like that, or would they if requested? And is the [42] vandalism? Seems like a real summary of the manga. But yeah, he is certainly stalking you, the Disney thing confirming that. Dream Focus 00:49, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

It is a WP:COPYVIO summary he grabbed from a non-mentionable site. He did that with some others to, just Googles to grab something to shove in there to be aggrevating. With the Disney articles, he frequently adds false info, trivia copied from IMDB, and rips clean ups and expansions of sourced content by restoring older even worse versions (not that any of the Disney articles are awesome). On Teletubbies, he's merged and unmerged the character articles so many times himself its like he's arguing with himself. *shakes head* He's actually indef blocked on at least half a dozen Wikis, and has vandalized numerous other language ones because of the lack of notice of his activities and the inability/unwillingness of meta to implement "universal" bans on him.-- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 01:26, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

(Banned user's edits removed by Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Cardmaker)})

Riverseverywhere Plaxico'd and blocked indef. -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Cardmaker)} 01:14, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Active at 65.0.184.16 (talk · contribs) as well. I extended the autoblock until he rotates off that IP. Kuru ^talk 03:26, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

From his bragging on some of his last IP pages...he has successfully vandalized just about every language Wiki there is. :( -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 05:00, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

And he's back again today with the 70 IP range. Already reported the first, 70.146.213.249 and added above, but more eyes would be good.-- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 20:05, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

User:Chrisjnelson

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

Can someone keep an eye on this user? He's already made two personal attacks against me, which I've warned him about. Dollars to donuts, he's gonna make another, but I'm stepping away for a bit, and since I'm involved, I can't do much than warn him, anyway. Thanks. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 16:33, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

You have to post a link to where he made these alleged personal attacks at. Dream Focus 16:58, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

• That user Nelson has a long history of getting into verbal slugfests with other users. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 17:02, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
• This - "You display qualities that pretty much show you shouldn't be an admin (immaturity, avoidance of policy) ... Grow up, pal" - seems pretty attacky. The edit summary for this ("they'll let anyone be an admin these days, wont they?") might also be seen as a personal attack. Mind you, I'm only bitter because they won't let Bugs be an admin. Cheers, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 17:14, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

• Ironic, ain't it? Also ironic is that I think I would have to recuse myself from issuing a block because I think (though I'm not absolutely sure) that he and I have had words in the past, or at the very least that I took someone else's side against his side in a dispute. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 17:18, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

• And I could point out that that was a not untypical example of Nelson's in-your-face approach to things. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 17:23, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

For documentation of the history see here. Chrisjnelson is a prolific and hardworking editor who can also be difficult to work with. Not sure what the best response would be in this case, but yes it did go as far as arbitration with a civility probation. Durova^Charge! 17:19, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, he was put on civility probation at one time. His path and mine rarely cross, as he is mostly concerned with football articles. He also runs his own website. Maybe the problem is that he's like Jim Rome only more so. Which is fine on a personal website or a radio show, but not so fine on wikipedia. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 17:23, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

It was one of Wikipedia's oddest arbitration cases and he was on the way to sitebanning, during the proposed decision. Then checkuser revealed two surprising things: the other main party to the case was a returning sock of a banned user, and a second abusive IP editor had tried to frame Chrisjnelson for an impersonation attack. Both of those got sitebanned properly and the Committee decided to give Chris a chance, since it was unclear what his conduct would be without two trolls baiting him. Overall it's been a pleasant surprise: he's racked up a very high edit count, and not-too-frequent noticeboard complaints. Of course the other editors on the receiving end of the nastygrams may feel differently. Consistent sub-blockable sniping may go the direction of wikiquette alert or conduct RfC: have either been tried lately? Durova^Charge! 17:33, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

"Well I'm sorry you're so childish you can't just say "You're right. My mistake."" Landon1980 (talk) 17:22, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

There are a couple other diffs that at the very least are very rude, such as here where he says "use your head" "you should be smart enough." Landon1980 (talk) 17:29, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Basically, if I think I'm being uncivil, I can look at a guy like Nelson and see how much worse it could be. Basically, it's all just way-over-reacting, wise-guy stuff that he does. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 17:36, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Basically, I like to say "basically" a lot. That's 4 of them, which pretty well covers all the basicallies. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 17:37, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

I've interacted once or twice with Chris, and moreso saw his interactions with others. They don't look to good, like the diffs already provided. His actions seem to indicate some WP:OWN issues. Grsz¹¹ 18:10, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Also warned for 3RR. Grsz¹¹ 18:16, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

I get it, Chris can be a bitch sometimes but look here, he helps too, and what Durova said he's hasn't had a civility block since June 2008.--Giants27 ^T/C 19:30, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Looks like no one has informed Chris of this thread, so I went ahead and left a notice. Landon1980 (talk) 19:46, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Just a general comment: I love how whenever an ANI gets started about Chris (and it's been awhile now), you can count on someone showing up to comment on Chris' history, so that the entire discussion and investigation deals with Chris' history, and so that the "punishment" often ends up being a function of Chris' history as well. All I ask in this case is that the situation at hand - Cutler - is looked at, and judged on its own merits. This is just an outside comment; it seems that whenever something like this comes up there's always a user with historical grievances who jumps in and pulls the discussion off what it should really be about. Pats1 ^T/C 20:19, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

If that's intended toward me, I have never been in a content dispute with Chris and actually urged the Committee to downgrade his proposed siteban to a lesser sanction, once it became clear what was going on. It is reasonable to mention in an admin board thread when that sort of conduct history exists, because it is equally reasonable for admins to weigh the difference between "good editor, bad week" and "good editor, two year history of incivility". It's very good to see things toned down from what they used to be, but habitual sub-blockable sniping may drive away other contributors. This was why I asked about WP:WQA and WP:RFC. Durova^Charge! 20:28, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

To clarify, no, it was not about you. There have been a small group of other users who have, though, done what I described. Pats1 ^T/C 02:19, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

(EC)I apologize, as I said in the beginning, I was away, but I see this got more complicated than I thought it would be. Some of these differences are already supplied above, but I thought I'd piece them together in one place. As far as I can recall, this is my first and only interaction with this user.

• "...If you're familiar with the above policies, you should be smart enough to know your edits are wrong and don't live up to those policies... ...Use your head..."
• "Well I'm sorry you're so childish you can't just say 'You're right. My mistake.'"
• "Well I probably wouldn't have been so harsh if I had known you were an admin, if only to protect my own ass. I just assumed someone making edits that clearly violated WP policy couldn't have possibly been voted to be an admin so I never entertained the thought."
• "Right. You display qualities that pretty much show you shouldn't be an admin (immaturity, avoidance of policy) and I'm the one who's done something wrong. That makes sense. Grow up, pal."
• As far as no one informing him about this ANI discussion, well, he was aware of it. I let him know about the thread before I logged off, but he blanked out with an edit summary of "they'll let anyone be an admin these days, wont they?" Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 20:21, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Personally, I'd call showing up and replying on a user's talk page with a comment like this, then replying with sarcasm, and then a sarcastic threat - and then starting an ANI thread to have him blocked a rather inappropriate sequence of events. While Chris's comments were certainly not appropriate, Jauerback's replies did nothing but escalate and inflame the situation. Mr.Z-man 16:31, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Jauerback

I think the bigger concern here is the fact that User:Jauerback has admin privileges.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 19:49, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Please explain - without personal attacks, needless to say. What grounds for concern are there? Can you provide diffs of questionable use of the admin tools, disruptive editing, or other policy violations? SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 20:01, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Taking the liberty of sectioning this off as a subthread, since a discussion of an admin is really separate from concerns about Chris's civility. Durova^Charge! 20:03, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Chris' concern with me as an admin is that I crystal balled, which is what brought on this whole drama. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 20:22, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Yeah that, and the fact that he's too immature to just admit he was wrong about his edits and be an adult about it. Someone like that shouldn't have admin privileges.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 20:44, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, i think Chris has made the case for us. Grsz¹¹ 20:41, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

By the way, my comment was only half-serious. I don't care about him being an admin and I certainly don't care enough to pursue it. It's just my personal opinion that he's too immature to be an admin, not to mention his lack of understanding and/or disregard for WP policy.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 20:45, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Yeah he told me about it. It doesn't matter anyway, I have little interest in this. I didn't do anything to warrant any punishment so I trust I won't receive any.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 21:31, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

As long as you start keeping your personal opinions about editors to yourself, you hopefully should be fine. Tom (talk) 03:49, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

A compromise could be to maintain a subpage with an enemies list, as User:Tecmobowl did. That way, a user would only know about it if they went looking for it. :) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 04:06, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Shannon Rose

Resolved. Blocked by User:Kralizec! but next time, just use warning templates and then WP:AIV -- Ricky81682 (talk) 17:38, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Gross incivility by User:Shannon Rose [43], [44], [45] to user:Spring12. Asked to stop by numerous editors [46], [47], [48] all of which deleted with an incivil edit summary [49], [50], [51]. Please block, at least for the duration of the Sheree Silver deletion debate so that this can be completed without intimidation. SpinningSpark 16:47, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

More in the same vein here. --AndrewHowse (talk) 17:11, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

User(s) blocked: 55 hours (talk · contribs).. Comments like "you're a nonsense person in Wikipedia, and you're one of the reasons why so much garbage don't get thrown out. You are ignorant, impertinent and absolutely useless" [52] cannot be tolerated. — Kralizec! (talk) 17:36, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

And so justified. What the hell ever happened to the imaginative and accurately targeted pejorative paired with razor sharp epithets that are so crucial in today's politically-soaked and "tell the teacher" atmosphere of the background machinery (or should that be machinations?) room of Wikipedia's infrastructure. I cannot stand inane and unimaginative personal attacks, give me a well-crafted one anytime! ;) --WebHamster 17:43, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Because this is no longer "the Internet" but teh Internets. MuZemike 00:47, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Script Error?

I am unable to log in to my account. Further, my text appears garbled after I save my edit (everything looks fine in the textbox before I save). Is this a script error, or a problem with the servers? 68.245.93.187 (talk) 01:09, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

^{Text was backwords, I translated it. Seraphim♥ 01:19, 5 April 2009 (UTC)}

Interface could be stuck in right-to-left mode? Couldn't suggest much else. Not an ANI issue anyway. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 01:56, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Problems at DreamHost with an SPA

This is so minor, I am almost embarrassed to bring it up here; however, I would like to request administrator review at DreamHost, where I have been variously accused of WP:OWN and WP:COI issues. This relatively low-trafficked article has few editors, with only 19 edits in 2009 (this far). The accusations have come from a disgruntled SPA: Judas278 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). He/she keeps disruptively tagging the article with unwarranted COI and SELFPUB tags, and this "slow motion" dispute has continued for several months. I have tried to improve the article, but I find my efforts thwarted by this individual. The claims of a conflict of interest stem from the fact that I am a customer of DreamHost (I have some websites hosted there), but I fail to see how this would disqualify me as an editor. My suspicion is that the SPA is a former, disgruntled customer of DreamHost - other such people have vandalized/abused the article in the past. I would appreciate any advice on how to solve this "dispute". -- Scjessey (talk) 22:30, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Obviously an SPA, first created about 3 weeks ago and went straight to this subject; and near as I can tell, he has not made one iota of suggestion on how to actually improve the article, so it does indeed look like either trolling or agenda-pushing of some kind. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 22:40, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

I disagree. The editor made this reasonable edit, which Scjessey reverted. The editor tried to discuss, got nowhere, and offerred to go to mediation, which Scjessey ignored. I don't see why a possible disgruntled former customer has less right to edit than a current happy customer. In short, this is a one-vs-one content dispute, and this is the wrong place to bring it. Looie496 (talk) 22:49, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

The SPA on his first edit took out language that does indeed look like editorializing, except that the cited source supports that viewpoint. My guess would be that the SPA had some sort of bad experience with them, and is thus also guilty of conflict of interest. If the SPA were a little more up front about his agenda, maybe things would be going better. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 23:04, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

If this is the "wrong place to bring it," could you tell me where? Bear in mind that this is not a content dispute, but rather it concerns editor conduct. The SPA has not made any effort to improve the article, but has instead made accusations about conflicts of interest and engaged in what I call "drive-by tagging". You claim I "ignored" mediation, but this is incorrect - I do not know anything about the mediation process, and I assumed that if an editor "accepted" the role of a mediator the parties involved would be informed and mediation would proceed. Is this not correct? Also, does it not look like a bad faith call for mediation, given that no attempt at talk page discourse has occurred? -- Scjessey (talk) 23:31, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

In Sept. '08 JaverMC concluded "Neutrality is in question on this article." and "...having read the discussion under this section of the talk, leads me to believe there is a possible WP:COI and an even more unsettling WP:OWN tendency." The two cited reference problems remain, including the blog mentioned above; however, his tags were removed on Feb. 26. Please judge whether the COI and OWN tendency exist in the article edit history and talk. --Judas278 (talk) 03:38, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

What's your personal interest in this subject? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 10:48, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Though the most recent complaint was brought by an SPA, there are issues lingering from last fall, where neutrality of the article was questioned in this discussion: Talk:DreamHost#Neutral third party view. If agreement to mediation cannot be found, I suggest a Talk discussion or an RFC on exactly how the quality of DreamHost's customer service should be described in the article. If that issue were settled, there might be no need for tags to remain on the article. EdJohnston (talk) 17:05, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

The article has evolved since last fall, with better sourcing. With the exception of the SPA, the only other person to engage in talk page discussion agreed that the article "seems fine", which is why the COI/NPOV/SELFPUB tags were removed and replaced with a request for better referencing. My requests on the article talk page for thoughts on how to improve the article have, thus far, fallen on deaf ears. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:32, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

I removed the COI/NPOV/SELFPUB tags, but it could still use better referencing. And yes, I'm a Dreamhost customer too.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:41, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

I was a customer. They were not transparent. I left. I didn't want to remain silent here when I saw appropriate tags being deleted from this article. It is not neutral. Editors have COI. Readers should be warned. The biggest changes since last fall are deleting 3 self-published references and one reference on being an (unsuccessful) .LA registrar. I acknowledge this is something, but 5 of 13 references are still self-published, by the company. --Judas278 (talk) 23:04, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

So essentially what you are saying is that your personal bias has led you to engage in agenda-driven editing. You have made claims about conflicts of interest and self-publishing, although you have no evidence to support either. You claim a lack of neutrality because of an over reliance on primary sources, and yet that is exactly what I said on the talk page (and tagged the article for). You are here to right some great wrong - to exact revenge. Your actions, therefore, are clearly not in the best interests of Wikipedia. -- Scjessey (talk) 23:54, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

It is a content dispute, and COI, neutrality and OWN dispute. As Looie496 said above, I made a reasonable edit, which was reverted. Then I restored previous tags, which was reverted. I tried to discuss, but motives were questioned and bad faith was assumed, so I requested mediation. Evidence of COI and non-neutrality? The many reasons given on the talk page. BTW, How many dollars per month in referral income do you receive from DreamHost?! Were you administrator of DreamHost's wiki? Do you have a closer relationship than most people? Are you patrolling to protect the article from all "wrong" opinions?! --Judas278 (talk) 00:38, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

You "tried to discuss" what, exactly? You have only posted on the article talk page twice (diff1, [53]) before today, and neither was an attempt to discuss anything. My reason for patrolling the article is that as a customer, I have knowledge of the company and how its system works. This is no different from a user of Windows patrolling and contributing to the article on Microsoft Windows. I have made a small amount of referral money over the years (along with thousands of other customers), but that in no way disqualifies me from contributing. In fact, most of my edits to the article have been to remove "referral spam". I am not an administrator of DreamHost's Wiki, although I was granted sysop privileges to police vandalism, but I have no special relationship with the company. I've been a customer since 2004, and that's pretty much the whole story. Again, none of these facts should prevent me from working on this article. You, on the other hand, have confirmed that you are a former customer with a beef. You have deliberately setup a Wikipedia account to edit the DreamHost article to denigrate the company you are unhappy with. -- Scjessey (talk) 01:28, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

I "tried to discuss" the COI tagging, but you bit the newcomer. How many dollars per month do you stand to lose if the company failed? --Judas278 (talk) 22:41, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

I haven't made more than a handful of dollars per year for ages, and I donated most of it to charity (Susan B. Komen) because DreamHost matches donations. Anyway, you aren't a "newcomer" - you are just an SPA. -- Scjessey (talk) 10:54, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

I suppose it's not true you're known as one of their biggest fans?; rlparker, another customer "sysop" got hired by the company; and you wouldn't be against arranging a nice job there for yourself? --Judas278 (talk) 23:03, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

I see you have dispensed with any pretense of good faith and are now just wading right in with the personal attacks. I also see that you continue to edit the article with your agenda firmly in mind, ignoring any sort of consensus-building talk page discussion. I recommend that this SPA be blocked, or at the very least topic banned for abuse of editing privileges. -- Scjessey (talk) 00:36, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Another thing that occurs to me is that Judas evidently joined Wikipedia for the exclusive purpose of attacking a company of which he is a disgruntled former customer. Surely that is a significant conflict of interest? -- Scjessey (talk) 15:43, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

What is being a current customer, who highly recommends and defends the company all over the Internet, who gets money from the company, who "sysops" their wiki, who wants to work for them, who places customers' sites with them and makes money from that?! Can you admit no COI yourself? --Judas278 (talk) 15:52, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

That's a clear misrepresentation of the facts. I have been completely open about my relationship (or lack thereof) to DreamHost. I edit for the good of Wikipedia on hundreds of articles. You edit for some sort of revenge on just DreamHost. You should be blocked for abusing your editing privileges. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:02, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

You've now been warned about OWN and personal attacks by another independent editor at the DreamHost talk. Also, you continually revert well-sourced brief statements I restore or add, because you judge them to be "misleading" or something. You make "wholesale" changes to the article and then demand discussion of any further changes, and post warnings on my talk page. Admins should tell you to stay away from DreamHost, and leave me alone. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Judas278 (talk • contribs) 06:27, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

User:Fodient

Moved to Talk:Richard Gere

 – Sancho 18:58, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

This user has a long and glowing block history, and I am having trouble with him adding the gerbil story to the Richard Gere article. Despite the fact that it is sourced that there is an urban legend regarding this story, I am of the opinion that WP:BLP takes precedence over this damaging rumor, and as such, it should be kept out. There are no sources stating it actually happened, just that an urban legend exists about it happening. Given the long block history, I support an indef block on this user. Crotchety Old Man (talk) 18:15, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

• Shame really as if a real source or citation could be had I'd be very interested in the name of the rodent and how it manages to crawl with 3 paws whilst the fourth was holding its nose. It may even have been possible to discover what make of shampoo said gerbil used after his/her little dalliance in such a famous alimentary canal. Enquiring minds need to know these important things! --WebHamster 18:24, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
  • WebHamster, seems like you might have a conflict of interest in gerbil related articles... ;-P --Fabrictramp | talk to me 20:06, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
• The urban legend actually happened. This user has been disruptive toward a valid post. It has been discussed here on BLP, which trumps all.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard/Archive8#Sourced_Rumors Fodient (talk) 18:27, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Again, you linked to one, singular opinion. No "discussion". Crotchety Old Man (talk) 18:28, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
    • I guess that one opinion was solid enough to not warrant a discussion.Fodient (talk) 18:31, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
      • The story's bogus, so it doesn't belong on the Gere page. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 18:36, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
        • Fodient, it appears that consensus does not agree with you that the gerbil story is part of the best possible version of that article. edit-warring is never a good way to approach any article. Your block history indicates that you understand both of those rules. Your actions at this point indicate that your intention for the future is to ignore those rules indefinitely. In this situation, I think an indefinite block would be appropriate and useful. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 18:37, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
          • If it were true then there'd be a Wikipedia article on that undaunted gerbil. Let's face it if it was able to scale the south face of Gere's perineum then there would be no end of reliable sources to demonstrate said gerbil's notability... not to mention it's phone number so as to illicit more work in the rectums of Hollywood's cognoscenti. But as there's no article it's safe to assume that it never happened. Or more tellingly, there's no stuffed gerbils on the walls of the Hard Rock Cafe just beneath Buddy Holly's mannequin's gusset. --WebHamster 18:38, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
  • No one is saying that he had a gerbil in his rectum. All that is being said was that there is a highly notable and imfamous urban legend about him and a gerbil that has been mentioned and became a part of pop culture. My references are just a few of them.Fodient (talk) 18:42, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
    • That's just not fair... If Gere has an article then so should the gerbil. Damned unfair I say. Crawling through inches of odious, pebble-dashed, hirsuited and dark niches and all it gets is the anonymous tag of being an "urban legend". There is no justice in this world... none at all! --WebHamster 18:48, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
    • And I'm not edit warring because I have not violated the 3RR and if you look at when i was blocked for the 3rr, I did not make 3 reverts.Fodient (talk) 18:44, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
• Discuss article content on the article talk page. No administrator action is required to settle this disagreement. See WP:RFC if you're having trouble getting a useful discussion going. Both parties need to remember WP:3RR. I'll contribute to the discussion at the article talk page.Sancho 18:47, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Agreed, however I would draw the attention to any Wikilawyers present that "I'm not edit warring because I have not violated the 3RR rule" is a specious statement. Please note the 3RR noticeboard, which states: Remember, 3RR is a type of edit warring, and just because a user has not violated it does not mean they have not engaged in edit warring. Tonywalton ^Talk 18:56, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
    • Both editors have reached 3 reverts in 24 hours, so one more and they've broken the rule. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 18:59, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
      • 3RR doesn't apply, as per BLP. Crotchety Old Man (talk) 19:03, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
        • The sticky point is that they are claiming it's not a BLP violation. And with another supportive editor in there, you might be outnumbered. What I'm uncertain about is who can settle the issue of whether it's a BLP violation or not. It's not just a content dispute, but is it an ANI-level dispute? I'm not altogether sure. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 19:08, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
          • However, as has been pointed out on the talk page, this creaky old story fails as much on notability as it does on BLP issues. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 22:13, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
            • Richard Gere and the Hamster of Doom fails WP:N? This is an old story, and I recall its debate ages ago and it turned out to apparently be true. However, it's the reversions and lack of sourcing, etc that are/were the issue here. (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 11:55, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
              • Yes, it fails. Wikipedia:Notability requires sources that directly discuss a subject, in depth, that are by identifiable people with good reputations for fact checking and accuracy. Sources with identifiable authors who have such good reputations do not discuss that subject, in depth or otherwise. Notability is not fame, importance, or degree of gossip by people who don't check facts. It's being properly documented, in depth, by multiple independent identifiable people who have checked their facts, been subjected to peer review, and who have good reputations for accuracy to uphold, as part of the acknowledged general corpus of human knowledge. Wikipedia is not Usenet. It's an encyclopaedia.

                If you are recalling an AFD discussion, then it's most probably the one linked-to at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Richard Gere. Notice that (a) the AFD discussion does not conclude that the rumour is true, and (b) it's not about Gere. (There's another AFD discussion, for a slightly different title for the same subject, where one editor tried to make it about Gere. That cavalier everything-anyone-ever-wrote-on-the-WWW-no-matter-how-badly-informed-they-are-is-includable approach to biographies was in fact one of the reasons that that person is no longer participating in this project. That's an example of what to avoid doing here.)

                If you are recalling some other discussion, external to Wikipedia, then you are recalling a discussion by people who are not reliable. Reliable sources report that this story has been told about many people, including about another Hollywood actor (whom I am not going to name) 20 years before it was told about the Hollywood actor under discussion here, and that it is not true at all in any form. Uncle G (talk) 13:04, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

See the RfC: at Talk:Richard Gere#Gerbil — Becksguy (talk) 23:54, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

User:Ejnogarb and culture-warring

The previous thread [54] just barely slipped into the archives Unresolved, and it only took a day or two for Ejnogarb to return from his block and begin making non-neutral edits right away again. I just reverted his newest edit in which he claimed a sentence was unsourced, when in fact the footnote immediately before that sentence gave verifiable sources with explicit confirmation.

Ejnogarb indicates on his userpage that he belongs to the church which is being described in that edit. Last week his edits were mainly to insert his church's non-neutral viewpoint into articles about homosexuality and promiscuity and LGBT issues. He was blocked for edit-warring on articles about gay sex, and although i don't have a problem with him editing those articles if he did so neutrally, i do have a problem with him making these kinds of obvious non-neutral edits. Numerous editors tried to explain to him repeatedly about the need for consensus to avoid edit-warring and to avoid wrongful insertion of his viewpoint into articles. If he is so interested in gay sex and promiscuity, that's his business, but i think it's improper to allow this ongoing sort of propagandizing which he is trying to achieve. Wikipedia is not his soapbox, and he has been asked nicely repeatedly to avoid standing on the soapbox when editing in the article mainspace. His soapbox viewpoints are perfectly welcome on talkpages and i believe his viewpoint deserves to be respected and included in discussions. I don't think his viewpoint deserves to be insinuated into neutral articles. Thanks ~_{Teledildonix314}~^Talk~_4-1-1~ 19:43, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Great: another spurious attempt to block me. Those involved in this dispute have personally attacked me numerous times, and I doubt this will be the last. The most recent edit in the Proposition 8 article was by an anonymous editor (probably a sock) who inserted inflammatory statements with no source into this and another article. I did my Wikipedia duty and deleted them. The above user has shown very little of the respect he keeps referring to.  EJNOGARB  21:01, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

He says the source was in the previous paragraph. The solution probably is to also cite that standalone statement about the LDS still being under investigation. Ejnogarb himself is a Mormon who presumably wants the Mormons cast in the best possible light. However, if he honestly thought the statement was uncited, then Teledildo needs to cite that line specifically, to resolve any question about it. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 21:18, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry you feel that way, Ejnogarb, i really have been using every bit of effort i can humanly muster to find the tact and civility and calmness to discuss anything with you. I don't dare to presume what your "wikipedia duty" is, but i think the way you are fascinatingly drawn to the articles about Men Having Sex With Men, Promiscuity, "Ex-gays" Pseudoscience, Same-sex Marriage, and Homosexuality is perhaps indicative? I came to your talkpage and thought of every possible way to try to encourage you to edit, while asking you (as nicely as i know how) to perhaps do that editing with some help from people who would be able to coach you on Neutrality. You deleted this and called it "my rant" which indicates to me that you have absolutely no intention of giving it serious consideration. Maybe you would be more inclined to give this some consideration if i were not the person making the suggestion? If one of your friends made the suggestion, perhaps then you would think about it? If some administrators-- perhaps even some administrators who go to your church!-- make the same suggestion to you, would you maybe consider it? It's only a suggestion to seek neutrality in your mainspace edits, i even went to your UnBlocking admin and presented the situation, because i thought the UnBlocking admin would be more sympathetic to you, given their willingness to listen to your side and give you an UnBlock already this week. If there is more respect that you would like to receive from me, please tell me what that form that respect would take, and how i could give it to you, and i will try. Really, i prefer having conversations about good things on wikipedia, rather than discussions about conflicts and interpersonal value clashes. ConflictJunkies make me uncomfortable, i hate to even have to put this ANI page on my watchlist just because it saddens me to see all this negativity scrolling by. ~_{Teledildonix314}~^Talk~_4-1-1~ 21:31, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

You're not going to change his mind on anything. The best you can do is make sure everything about the LDS Church is explicitly and reliably sourced, and if he still deletes it, then he's being disruptive and something can be done. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 21:35, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Please could somebody with admin skills and civility skills and neutrality skills, take a look at the edit history for the User:Ejnogarb and please note that i have now had to bring the Mop over to the Hate crime article. This is making me sad. I just had to undo/revert more of his POV pushing [55] [56] which seems to be in blatant disregard for the readily available Reliable Sources. All i had to do was read the footnotes on those articles and their associated topics, and presto i had Verifiable references. If Ejnogarb won't listen to the simple WP:ADVOCACY suggestions, what should be done? It's one thing to go pushing an anti-homo anti-sexual freedom and anti-mansex agenda into the articles.... but then to start spilling that POV into Hate crime and LGBT Civil Rights pages, well, it's just depressing. Scapegoating queers and propagandizing a sex-negative religiosity is not really a very admirable "wikipedia duty", and this could be defused if some admins would just emphasize the importance of avoiding POV Advocacy (preferably admins who are friendly toward evangelical or LDS viewpoints, for the sake of doing this in the most constructive and neutral way? Ejnogarb won't take my word on this, but perhaps if a LDS editor were to give him the same suggestions, he might be more receptive to the notions?) Due to my self-awareness of the limitations of my own Civility skills, i don't think i should be the one making direct comments to Ejnogarb any more, i think comments should come from experts of Civility and Neutrality and not from muddling people like me. Thank you, ~_{Teledildonix314}~^Talk~_4-1-1~ 23:03, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

I have left messages for both Ejnogarb and Teledildonix314 on their respective talk pages.

In my opinion, Ejnogarb has (other than the edit warring for which he was blocked) been pointing out legitimate NPOV and RS/V issues with some specific points in articles. He has not used the most collaborative and collegial method of dealing with many of those - {{fact}} is better than deleting something which you aren't sure about, and a talk page discussion is better much of the time than a fact tag. I have asked him to start with the least controversial way of pointing out issues of concern and progress to deletion only if nobody helps fix / clarify / re-source questionable or controversial points.

Teledildonix314 needs to remember WP:AGF. Ejnogarb has a clear personal viewpoint in these issues, but is generally respecting Wikipedia policy and process.

Hopefully this isn't something which ANI is needed to respond to further... Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 01:08, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

I think you are quite correct, i will try to improve my AGF efforts, and to attempt better dialogue by using more Zero 0RR style of editing with everybody. I'm gladly removing ANI from my watchlist now, i will use my most absolutely open-minded attempts to ever avoid needing a visit here again. Thank you for reminding me of where my efforts are best directed; it seems this issue is Resolved, thank you kindly. ~_{Teledildonix314}~^Talk~_4-1-1~ 08:18, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

A couple of possibly related thoughts

1. This edit appears as if Ejnogarb has entirely rewritten a comment places on his talk page by Georgewilliamherbert. He's obviously entitled to remove the comment entirely if he wants, but a complete rewrite over someone else's signature is right out.

2. Is there anyone here besides me who has wondered to him/herself whether Teledildonix314's user name violates policy? --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 00:11, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

1. Ejnogarb didn't rewrite that comment; he deleted the one that GWH posted and copied the current one from here (just a few lines above).

2. It was discussed previously; as I remember there wasn't a consensus. Kcowolf (talk) 04:41, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Add to it today's change of a user's comments. - ✰ALLST☆R✰ ^echo 16:20, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Apparent re-creation of deleted page

Ram Dwivedi is new, unsourced, probably un-notable but above the Speediable threshold (and apparently autobiographical) stub; from what's on the editor's talk page there seems to have been a previous article of same title, proposed for Speedy in August 2008. I don't know whether this new page is speediable as re-creation of deleted content? PamD (talk) 12:12, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

No previously speedied or PRODed page can be tagged as G4 - recreation of deleted material. It only applies to pages deleted in a deletion discussion. You can try and tag it wit the previously used tag instead. Regards SoWhy 12:18, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Ah, thanks - sorry to have got that wrong. I see it's now been deleted anyway! PamD (talk) 18:41, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

WP:PROD says "Any article deleted via this process and then recreated is not subject to speedy deletion under criterion G4". --74.138.229.88 (talk) 14:40, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Song articles incidents

Resolved

 – A block, a rangeblock and a protection applied

Hello administrators. I hereby report to you my displeasure on some Wikipedia's issues. Some song articles' editors not act in good faith. It is this: the user Ericorbit is constantly deleting official charts of countries such as Slovakia, Czech Republic and Russia, in the Takin' Back My Love article. This is clearly a disregard for the Wikipedia's rules. Another issue is the Brazilian official chart. The Crowley Broadcast Analysis monitors the songs performed on Brazilian radio. It is an official source. However, users SKS2K6 and Kww removed it many times from Bye Bye and Touch My Body articles. And they do it in several other song articles and no one punish them. Wikipedia does not belong to them. This is not right. It is vandalism. I ask you, honestly, to take account of these incidents and take drastic actions. I am a journalism student and I like to inform and editing on Wikipedia. But these users act in bad faith and they do not let the other users editing correctly. I ask you to restore the deleted contents. Please take some action. I thank you very much.

Sources:

Russian Airplay Chart Brazilian year-end chart Slovakia IFPI Chart Czech Republic IFPI Chart —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.214.226.101 (talk) 17:12, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

89.214.226.101 (talk) 18:01, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

I would suggest going to Wikipedia:Record charts which is where the discussion about which charts to include are made. It seems pretty thorough and a number of the ones you mention aren't listed either way. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 17:40, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

In fact, see here. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 17:45, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

• Comment - Aside from the above link at which there is a current discussion pertaining to these particular charts, the only other problem I've had with the removal of these charts were two users who insisted on adding them to many articles, engaging in edit warring, finally leading to a block as one was a sockpuppet of the other. Clearly there is a bunch of editors who are regularly involved in song/charts articles who feel these in particular are not appropriate for articles. Note also that the sockpuppetteer in the case I mentioned, User:JuStar, also used User:89.214.175.137 IP address to make similar edits, per Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/JuStar. I don't know why time is being wasted here for someone who obviously refuses to work for a consensus at WP:CHARTS (as JuStar stated, "I will not discuss this matter further. Already tired."). - eo (talk) 18:31, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
• P.S. The Brazilian chart issue is here. User is not getting the answer he wants by consensus, so here we are. - eo (talk) 18:36, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

There is no consensus at WP:CHARTS that these "charts" are either reliable (there are so many fake chart sites on the web, particularly in foreign languages), or notable. The issue needs to be dealt with at WP:CHARTS, not ANI. — R² 19:02, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Actually, this is pretty clearly block evasion by JuStar (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), and should be treated as such. JuStar and his sock were blocked for edit-warring in these changes yesterday, and WP:Requests for checkuser/Case/JuStar revealed 89.214.175.137 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) to be one of JuStar's IP addresses. 89.214.226.101 isn't enough different to have any reason to believe that this is anyone but JuStar. Suggest that 89.214.226.101 be blocked for evasion, and that JuStar have his block extended as a result of the evasion, and that that be the end of this discussion at ANI.—Kww(talk) 20:53, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

• Socking has also taken place by 89.214.184.30 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Think it's time to seriously extend JuStar's block.—Kww(talk) 21:15, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Well obviously if JuStar remains blocked, IP addresses will be used. Perhaps a rangeblock is justified. - eo (talk) 21:47, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Scanning for anonymous edits from that range doesn't show anyone else editing anonymously within the last several days, so there wouldn't be significant collateral damage from a soft-block. I would suggest upping JuStar's block to a week, and putting on a 72-hour softblock to 89.214.160.0/18. If he pops up anonymously again after the soft-block expires, it'll be time to consider more drastic measures.—Kww(talk) 23:08, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

OK that's a good thing - I have better things to be doing than chasing down IP addresses by a user who at this point is clearly disrupting Wikipedia to make a point. I am not familiar with issuing range blocks, so I'd rather another admin take care of that. I'd also like some input here from others, specifically other admins besides me, as I am already too involved with this as it is (this + yesterday's report against me by the sock). - eo (talk) 23:56, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

More socking by 89.214.217.207 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)—Kww(talk) 03:12, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

If there's evidence he's trying to avoid his small 72-hour block, I say we extent it to a much larger period. Otherwise, what's the incentive not to sock? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:22, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Help, please: Ericorbit asked for help with the range block 16 hours ago, and no one has stepped up to the plate.—Kww(talk) 15:12, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Without judging the basis for this block, this looks like a /16 block, affecting 65,000 IP addresses. A quick look shows IPs from 89.214.34.* [57] up to 89.214.232.* [58]. I can also see a lot of collateral within that /16. Have you considered semi-protection? -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 15:43, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

89.214.160.0/18 will suffice. I have scanned that range, and it has not provided any anonymous edits outside of JuStar in the last week. A soft-block should have little collateral damage.—Kww(talk) 15:49, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

I have indeffed User:JuStar, as they are clearly not here to improve the encyclopedia. I am about to semi the main article concerned, and am looking at the rangeblock now. Black Kite 15:51, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Softblock of 89.214.160.0/18 applied for a week. If anything else comes up, either bring it back here or on my talkpage. Marking this resolved. Black Kite 15:55, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Death threats with personal info by (now-blocked) user Idearange123

Posted repeatedly at User talk:FT2:

Hey, [name removed], age [age removed], of [company name removed] on [address removed], you animal fucker, I am going to slay you.

You are a censorship scum. All Wikipedia administrators should have their identities exposed. You are a piece of shit who doesn't deserve to live. In fact, you deserve worse than death. I will have you horribly tortured before I finally kill you. How does stripping off your skin square inch by square inch sound?

The edits have been oversighted, but what about contacting the police? --Rrburke^(talk) 01:50, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Can a checkuser look to see if there are any socks of this guy hanging around? Aleta ^Sing 01:54, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

This is, of course, User:JarlaxleArtemis. If you would like his contact information, email me and I'd be glad to send it to you. NawlinWiki (talk) 02:13, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Also, he's now back to creating privacy-invading usernames. Could someone with log-blanking powers please check my block log? Thanks, NawlinWiki (talk) 02:25, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Those should now be blanked and the names hideusered. And a bunch of others besides. --Rrburke^(talk) 05:34, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Doesn't this qualify as harassment, and if it does, can't we get his ISP to revoke his access? -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Cardmaker)} 04:39, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

People have been trying to do that for months now, ever since people gained info about his docs. Verizon isn't exactly known for great customer service, though. Xclamation point 17:24, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, good luck with that. HalfShadow 05:04, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Anyone who feels personally threatened could consider reporting it to the police of the state where the culprit lives. If the police ask the ISP to assist them, the ISP can't blow it off as easily as they do Wikipedia. EdJohnston (talk) 06:13, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Please help at Talk:Barack Obama

A discussion that was marginal to begin[59] has now degenerated into a one-against-three revert war to delete part of an Obama talk page discussion arising from a procedural attempt I made to calm things down.[60][61][62][63][64][65][66]. If you'll excuse my language, without administrative help this is a "damned if you do, damned if you don't" situation. ChildofMidnight has been reverting cautions on his own talk page, calling them "trolling" and insisting he be talked about only in the article talk page, while simultaneously deleting the comments from the article talk page and leaving them tit-for-tat warnings. I have pleaded a number of times that the discussion be closed, but having personally participated in it and having been accused of things there, I do not wish to make any page patrol edits that could be seen as self-interested.

This is not two sides sparring. ChildofMidnight (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has also been attacking an admin for enforcing Obama article probation and inciting a disruptive editor to further disruption and incivility (see generally, talk page of Grundle2600 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Before that is a much longer patter of disruption and vexatiousness that would take unduly long to document. However, I do not think all that needs administrative attention right now, just calming the talk page, because broader Obama page patrol matters already fall under an Arbcomm case here, at which ChildofMidnight has registered opinions relevant to what he seems to be doing on the talk page,[67][68][69].

What we could use help on, quickly please, is calming down the Obama talk page. I advised ChildofMidnight, and advised the talk page, I would ask for help here if we could not bring things to an orderly conclusion.[70] That isn't happening so may we please have some wise and calm guidance there? Thanks, Wikidemon (talk) 06:32, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

One piece of advice that hopefully gets taken on board is the one I was attempting to make (as an uninvolved admin) at the start before the issue got hijacked. Answering the honest content questions of a newbie, however uninformed or misguided they may be, with sarcasm and/or telling them they have a chip on their shoulder is not good. I know the article has been a hotbed of controversy and battling for a long time and patience is frayed at this point, but each new user has to be treated as just that - unless they are an obvious disruptive sock. He laid out valid questions in his initial post and the end result is he walked away[71], no doubt with his initial feelings about the situation seemingly confirmed (however incorrect they may have been). That is a situation we should be trying very hard to avoid, at least they have to be politely directed to article FAQs or other reading, even if it has to be done 20 times a day. Mfield (Oi!) 07:14, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Agreed 100%. Assuming that the the newbie editor was sincere and not completely misguided, the mess could have been prevented at two points: first by avoiding directing sarcasm at him/her for starting a talk page discussion to complain about other editors,[72] and second when the discussion was "hijacked" as Mfield describes,[73] which I think traces to this attempt by ChildofMidnight to champion the editor in order to pursue ChildofMidnight's own agenda.[74] Good faith article patrollers responding abusively to inappropriate comments from newby editors is a problem we need to work out under article probation. So is longstanding editors turning the talk page into a forum for attacks and process gaming. If I had been the first to respond I would certainly have been more neutral and helpful - but by the time I took note the editor had already lashed out[75] in response to the sarcasm and, I felt, needed some earnest but stern advice.[76] Rushing to his defense or criticizing editors on article patrol sends exactly the wrong message to him that he is vindicated, that Wikipedia truly is a cabal of censorship that he should be using the talk page to rail against. The new editor, along with several dozen others in the past month who started essentially the same thread, may all just be socking or trolling. The community has to date given too much leeway and encouragement, not too little, to these editors. Nevertheless, on the slim chance that some are sincere and can overcome whatever moved them to vent and become productive editors instead, it is still best as a first response to assume good faith, and be dignified and courteous, yet firm, even in admonishing them for inappropriate comments. That is the larger issue that I hope people keep in mind, and perhaps ArbCom can address. Wikidemon (talk) 07:30, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Statement by marginally involved editor - That someone disagrees with another does not an "editor from the lunatic fringe" make, as has been a fairly standard and common response to questions or suggestions proffered by newbies on this talk page. Attempts to exert ownership over the article by claiming that anyone who raises a question or brings up a discussion point is somehow evil or fringy, is clearly against the spirit of AGF, and counterproductive to collaborative editing. It does not matter if someone has made 20,000 edits or six edits; everyone has a right to participate, edit freely (given they follow Wiki's rules), and ask questions on the talk pages as many times as they like (to a point). I suggested before that it might be time for a multilateral break. I re-suggest now that the part of the discussion that is at the center of this AN/I be archived, and the entire article probation be removed, so that editors can freely edit without the fear of being reported for "trashing a featured article" that is under probation. This might also help to reduce the unusually hostile environment surrounding edits to this article, which has only gotten worse with the passage of time. QueenofBattle (talk) 16:36, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Without commenting on any of the other stuff, archiving the discussion in question is exactly what I'm asking for. If nobody is going to do that, is there any objection from admins here if I do? Please speak up or hold your peace. Thx, Wikidemon (talk) 17:05, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/DVDfan12

Resolved

 – User blocked for 55hrs by Hiberniantears (talk · contribs) treelo _radda 14:51, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Struckthrough resolved tag momentarily until personal info is oversighted. --64.85.222.71 (talk) 15:06, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Resolved

 – Selectively deleted, email oversight if you feel it really necessary. –xeno (talk) 15:10, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

DVDfan12 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log): This user has the problematic behavior of removing CSD and AFD templates. The user was repeatedly warned and then ultimately given a 24 hour block. There has been absolutely no communication back from the user. I am not asking for a perma-block, but I would like admin intervention here. Something to get the user to start communicating one way or another. Yngvarr (t) (c) 13:19, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

The user is currently at WP:AIV, I wouldn't be entirely against an indef block being handed out until the user (who identifies as 12) grows up some more. treelo _radda 13:26, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

His real name and birthdate should be oversighted from his userpage history and edit summary per Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Protecting children's privacy. --64.85.222.71 (talk) 15:06, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

User:RighteousPlague

Resolved

 – Sock puppet blocked, well spotted Daedalus. — R² 20:27, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

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

This user is cause for concern. He or she is a brand-new account, and already seems to know about stuff like the {{cite}} template, and RFPP. Did I mention the user name? Things don't add up in my opinion.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 03:31, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

• Obviously not a new user, just a new ID. Requesting page protection on the third edit is certainly odd. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 03:43, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
  • WP:AGF. No need to run to ANI simply because the user is intelligent. The edits do not show any sign of disruption yet. ^LeaveSleaves 03:44, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
    • I don't AGF on users who show fishy signs in behavior. And BB, the RFPP was the first edit, not the third. It worries me that this user shows more than normal knowledge of how wikipedia works than true new users. Did I mention his username? You know what this reminds me of? This reminds of me of the righteous plague that is User:DavidYork71. In my experience, righteous plagues are never a good thing.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 03:52, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
      • Could you (Daedalus) please provide diffs showing disruptive behaviour? If not, please archive this yourself. //roux   03:53, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
        • The user only has three contribs, you can go view them yourself. The first edit of the account is a request for page protection on an article the account has never contributed. It is obviously a sock puppet, we just have to find out who's.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 03:56, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
          • And those are disruptive how? //roux   03:58, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
            • In fact, this really does smell like a DY71 sock, especially since it was one of the articles his socks frequented.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 03:59, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
              • I have filed an SPI, anyone familar with the DY71 case, please, you are welcome to contribute to the discussion at WP:Sockpuppet investigations/DavidYork71.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 04:17, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
                • His statement, "Issues of last December now resolved and unprotection desired by consensus for purpose of updating recent events", are hardly those of a brand-new user. A new user ID, but not a new user. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 04:28, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
• "diff diff Quack!", surely? Uncle G (talk) 15:58, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Surely. You may swing your vorpal sword. :) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 16:31, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

•  Confirmed the following as DavidYork71:

1. Theveet (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
2. RighteousPlague (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
3. GrosFalse (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
4. PoweredByApathy (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

I'm glad we can close this now.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 23:29, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Foreign name of living people

Some users keep on adding unsourced foreign name to biography of living people, such as Hakan Yakin, Murat Yakin, Armend Dallku and Mehmet Dragusha, does it notable that all people related to Turkey need İ to I, and for those Kosovar Albanian, need a unsourced Serbo-Croats Latin form for the Albanian name?? The name conversion of the article has been discussed in Footy, but not yet for inside the article. Matthew_hk tc 15:04, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

The Yakins were born in Switzerland, which doesn't legally discern the two I letters in people's names. However, Kosovo is an entirely different story as it's independence is disputed by Serbia and it was just an autonomous province of Serbia or a part of SR Serbia in Yugoslavia at the time Dallku and Dragusha were born. I'm not sure that ANI is the correct venue for this discussion as, as far as I could find out, no consensus has been established about this. My suggestion is to start a discussion at WT:FOOTY or at WP:KOSOVO. —Admiral Norton ^(talk) 19:29, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Accusations made by User:Pixelface

During User:Someguy1221's RfA, Pixelface made an accusation that Someguy1221 was a sock puppet of User:Jack Merridew. This allegation was found to be untrue on the basis of two CheckUsers 1, 2. PF insisted on the second because, apparently, John Vandenberg isn't impartial enough.

It's no crime to voice one's concern about possible sockpuppeteering. HOWEVER, consider Pixelface's subsequent petulance, this thinly veiled accusation that Jack Merridew is running or intends to run a sockpuppeteering operation, and continued refusal to explain just why he thought there was something dubious going on- this leads me to believe that this was nothing more than a dirty and bad faith attack on Jack Merridew, an editor Pixelface dislikes on purely ideological grounds.

Pixelface has a recent record (complaint of disruption and edit warring, complaint of incivility and hounding, complaint of belligerent editing) of objectionable behaviour and this cheap shot is just the latest escalation. I am concerned that Pixelface will continue to use cheap tricks like spurious accusations of sockpuppetry to sink the boot into other editors he comes into conflict with. Reyk _YO! 03:43, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

FWIW recent history also includes Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Pixelface. Pete.Hurd (talk) 04:06, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Terima kasih (thank you). For the record, I am editing with no other accounts than this one, as the AC has directed. All prior accounts are listed in;

• Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Davenbelle

For background, see

• Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Jack Merridew ban review motion#Indefinite block lifted with editing restrictions and
• User:Jack Merridew/History

Pixelface is in full battleground mode re myself and has been since E&C 2. When my unban was being discussed, he stated his view rather clearly; archived here.

There was an RFC/U re Pixelface recently which he basically blew off;

• Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Pixelface

I have no idea why Pixelface believes, or believed, I and User:Someguy1221 are related. I'd not heard of him previously or crossed his path in any way I'm aware of.

I would like some action here. Cheers, Jack Merridew 04:12, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Checkuser cannot prove a negative. Durova^Charge! 05:17, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Oh, I know that. He has admitted that he was wrong; that's not really the issue. His battleground approach to me, others, and various policies and guidelines is of wide concern as the links I and others have offered show. And of, course, there is more if one digs. Cheers, Jack Merridew 05:25, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, what are you looking for that isn't being addressed at the RFC? What admin action are you seeking? Durova^Charge! 05:27, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, the User RFC garnered a fair number of comments but no real change in behaviour. As to actions, I would think a stern admonishment and warning from the community would be the minimum and a community ban the maximum. Pixelface is relentlessly disruptive. Cheers, Jack Merridew 05:35, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

As a note on the User RFC, PF has not performed any more than 1RR changes on policy/guideline pages since the RFC. But the other factors mentioned do not seem to have changed. --MASEM (t) 15:27, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

As noted by Masem, the only behaviour that Pixelface has changed is the edit-warring on policy pages, and all the other problems remain intact. Since he has already been blocked multiple times for this, I think a 72-hour block is in order, with an eye towards eventually making it indefinite if he cannot learn to civilly engage with other editors.—Kww(talk) 15:33, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Are we blocking people for 72 hours now for filing SPIs on self-admitted sockpuppets? And I believe you made a comment at my user RFC about your own civility Kww. Like I've said before, when I'm treated in a civil way, I typically respond in a civil way. --Pixelface (talk) 22:27, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Masem, your desired outcome was fairly vague. And I never agreed to follow 1RR on policy and guideline pages. Which reminds me, I still need to start a thread about that change to WP:POL which came about in October. --Pixelface (talk) 22:31, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

I didn't blow off that user RFC, although it looks like most of the community ignored it. It was archived by Ncmvocalist after two weeks of no comment, and I had plenty more to say. I edited the page 11 times[77], I edited the talkpage 25 times[78], and I was the first to propose a solution. I promised to not edit WP:NOT during January before you did, and that policy was unprotected as a result. I also promised to not edit WP:NOT for two more months. However, you agreed to avoid all disruptive editing as a condition of being unbanned and you were warned by one of your three assigned mentors after your edit-warring on WP:NOT[79], where you just happened to accuse me of "vandalism." Now there is a baseless accusation. I suggest that if you don't want people to think you're operating sockpuppets, don't operate sockpuppets to begin with. Dominic can verify that he received an email, over 200K, with evidence that led me to believe that you might have been Someguy1221. I really think you should have told Reyk about your history before you let him start this thread. Oh, and please don't leave any more trout on my user talkpage. Cheers, --Pixelface (talk) 22:21, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

As I understand it, there are three problems with Pixelface's conduct in this issue:-

1. An unsubstantiated accusation of sockpuppetry by, and disruption of the RfA of, Someguy1221 - someone completely uninvolved and blameless in this matter. Fortunately this did not affect the outcome of the RfA, and an apology has been made.
2. An unsubstantiated accusation of sockpuppetry against Jack Merridew, which was not so much withdrawn as laughed out of court. There's been no apology for this and judging by the apparent past history between these editors, there is unlikely to be.
3. An unsubstantiated accusation that John Vandenberg isn't impartial - to the extent that he would falsely report checkuser findings. I'm not aware of any withdrawal or apology related to this. I'm aware that there is no explicit accusation of falsification, but it makes no sense to say "I question your impartiality, and I've emailed the evidence to another Checkuser" unless one believes the report of the first checkuser to be false.

Provided that Pixelface accepts that these are serious conduct issues and undertakes to address them, then I think no further sanction is necessary. I am well aware that the editors on the receiving end of Pixelface's problematic conduct are respectively an admin (now), a veteran editor, and a checkuser, and that as such these people ought to be able to laugh off such attacks. I trust that they will be able to do so, but our discussion here ought not to be about punishment for past actions, but prevention of future disruption, in particular prevention of discouragement to the much less-experienced editors that Pixelface will surely come into contact with. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 14:01, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

First of all, my accusation was substantiated, to Dominic, who had previously performed a reliable checkuser on Jack Merridew. Second of all, Jack Merridew is a self-admitted sockpuppet, and is apparently proud of that fact. Third of all, I had no intention of ever submitting my evidence to Jayvdb, one of Jack Merridew's three assigned mentors, who Jack Merridew contacted by himself. I don't think any of his assigned mentors should be performing checkusers on Jack Merridew. In addition to being one of Jack Merridew's mentors, Jayvdb said that Jack Merridew had "earned" a final chance in December and Jack Merridew voted for Jayvdb in the 2008 Arbcom elections. I expect Jayvdb to recuse in any further checkuser requests related to Jack Merridew. It does make sense to provide the evidence which led me to believe that the two accounts may be sockpuppets or meatpuppets to a checkuser, and I did so. Reyk certainly didn't seem to be aware of Jack Merridew's past history and frankly, Jack Merridew should have told Reyk about that history when Reyk told Jack Merridew he was thinking of starting an ANI thread. I have already apologized to Someguy1221 for thinking that he may be Jack Merridew. He is the only editor in this situation who deserved an apology. --Pixelface (talk) 00:15, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

There was no need for Jack to tell me anything. There is a rather conspicuous disclosure of his past on his user page- coming clean about his past is, I think, good evidence that he's acting in good faith now. Reyk _YO! 01:15, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Above at the start of this thread you called this comment by me a "thinly veiled accusation", which seems to indicate you were totally unaware that Jack Merridew is a self-admitted sockpuppet and has edited under several sockpuppets in the past. Jack Merridew has done several disruptive things since being unbanned in December, but that's a topic for another thread. I'd be happy to list them on a user subpage. --Pixelface (talk) 02:01, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

While I disagree with Pixelface's suspicions in this particular instance and encourage him to be cautious when alleging sockpuppetry (perhaps consulting with a trusted fellow editor before making an allegation in an RfA?), he is by and large a constructive and good faith editor who is frequently hounded by those on the opposite end of the inclusion spectrum. A good deal of what is typically alleged against Pixelface is partisan in nature and frequently hypocritical, i.e. dismissing him because of his beleifs when those doing the dismissing engage in the same allegedly poor behavior or worse. Few try to make attempts to reach out and in fact only perpetuate and escalate tensions. It becomes an effort to stifle the dissenting view rather than trying to reach an amicable understanding or a polite agree to disagree. Everyone should spend more time working together to rescue and improve articles rather than on trying to see sockpuppetry under every corner (unless it is blatantly obvious as in the recent report I filed that turned up 25 socks!) or tattling on each other at ANI. WAAAAY too much time is wasted in these discussions rather than on actually building Wikipedia and besides as Sheffield suggests above, it is really not that hard to ignore others when the accusations seem baseless. We typically only encourage people or make things worse by feeding into or getting up in arms over some things that can easily be ignored or passed over. In other words, to Pixelface, please help us work on article rescue and ask someone you trust first if you think sockpuppet looks possibly, because say if you asked me for example first in this case, I would have discouraged making the accusation in the RfA. To everyone else, please stop trying to bait Pixelface and enflaming tensions. We are here first and foremost to build "the paperless encyclopedia anyone can edit". The priority should not be trying to get each other in trouble. Have a wonderful weekend! Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 14:27, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

While it is true that anyone can gode another into behaving improperly, PF is the only editor in these cases that seems to be throwing personal attacks around. There's obviously animosity between Jack and PF, but I have yet to see an instance of Jack attacking PF on a personal note, even when PF starts off that way (I'm not saying there not might be any, I'm just not aware of any). We've been through this before that PF needs to stop engaging in personal attack, even if there seems to be an overwhelming number of more vocal editors that are against his position which may mirror an even larger number of non-vocal editors. WP is not a battleground - calm and rationale discussion is the means to settle disputes, not attacks at editors themselves. --MASEM (t) 14:36, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

I would strongly disagree with the characterization of Pixelface as being "by and large a constructive and good-faith editor". He is by and large a chronic source of low-level disruption and bad behaviour. His RFC demonstrates his general unwillingness to recognize the problems he creates, and, if this event isn't sufficient to cause him to be blocked, it should at least put him at the final warning stage.—Kww(talk) 14:35, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Accusations of sock pupperty are common, and often they are proven wrong. Maybe Pixelface had a legitimate reason to worry about Jack, since he has been blocked multiple times for sock puppet abuse:

1. 16:46, 31 March 2008 Ryan Postlethwaite (talk | contribs) blocked Jack Merridew (talk | contribs) (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of indefinite ‎ (Abusing multiple accounts)
2. Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive142#Jack_Merridew, listing EIGHT sock puppets of Jack.

To paraphrase Reyk's bad faith attack on Pixelface, now we have "editor[s who] dislike [Pixelface] on purely ideological grounds", Kww and Masem joining the argument.

If I were Pixelface I would have consulted the three admins, Casliber (talk · contribs), Jayvdb (talk · contribs) and Moreschi (talk · contribs) which are mentoring Jack to make sure the bad behavior does not happen again.[80]

Pixelface apologized that he was wrong, but that wasn't good enough. Jack Merridew added a huge trout to his page, but that wasn't good enough. Why can't editors accept this apology? Ikip (talk) 14:39, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't dislike Pixelface on "purely ideological grounds". I maintain a civil and friendly relationship with DGG, for example, who is certainly as ideologically my opposite as Pixelface. I dislike Pixelface for edit-warring, incivility, and a complete inability to work with people that disagree with him.—Kww(talk) 14:59, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Struck comment. So do you agree that Pixelface dislikes Jack on purely ideological grounds? Maybe Reyk should strike that comment too. Ikip (talk) 15:06, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Judging only on what I've seen, the language that PF uses in talking about Jack is complete dislike or disrespect for the person, not ideology, due to Jack's past sockpuppetry that he was banned for. At the same time, PF also is very opposite in ideology from Jack. It's fine for PF to comment and debate the ideological differences, but I've seen PF engage in attacks against Jack as an editor (including calling him out by his real name). (And to echo Kww, I certainly don't dislike PF as an editor, and respect that his ideology reflects numerous unvoiced editors of fiction and thus useful; I dislike the means which he approaches debate which edges on the border of appropriate behavior.) --MASEM (t) 15:19, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

It's hard for me to evaluate. I strongly opposed the restoration of Jack Merridew's editing privileges, and still think it was a mistake on philosophical grounds (I'm equal-opportunity on that aspect as well ... I think it's a grievous error to allow A. Nobody to edit, as well, and he's on the opposite end of the exclusionism/inclusionism spectrum from Jack). That said, I'm not aware of any explicit misbehaviour by Jack since his unbanning.—Kww(talk) 15:22, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

You wrote about how Jack Merridew is behaving, but that is not really true. For background, Pixelface and I were among the few editors convinced by White Cat’s evidence that Merridew was indeed a sock and had to contend with the usual hyperbole about us assuming bad faith until check users confirmed it and Merridew was blocked as a sock of Davenbelle who had several socks with which he used to harass various inclusionist editors FOR YEARS. And now, after arbcom unblocked him under strong conditions that he not antagonize anyone or cause any disruption of any kind, he is making a joke out of his being a sock account: [81], [82], [83], [84], [85], etc. The "lulz" is also consistent with the attack site Encyclopedia Dramatica. Given that he was blocked for long term use of socks as harassment, it is hardly "funny" about his being a sock and given what’s on ED about various editors, why use that site’s catchphrases? Would you think it would be a big slap in the face and insult if say I did the same thing? There is also this pointed use of the rescue template: [86]. I am increasingly seeing it as a bad idea having allowed him back as he has numerous instances of pointed or bad taste edits with limited good edits to boot, whether it's the above or other instances where he referred to me by my old username mockingly. Casliber has recently reverted an edit Merridew made to my talk page and then told him to leave me alone: [87], but… I comment in one AFD on one day and argue to delete and notice the post immediately after mine... [88]. That AfD is not an April Fools prank for one thing... Now see this. If you check, his so called apology is [89], i.e. a post by Pixelface. Given the ANI thread, what is with making digs at Pixelface in this manner? He calls for some kind of restriction on Pixelface while using him as part of his “April Fools” jokes? Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 04:09, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

1. I was not blocked per check users; rather per my own admission.
2. You have no sense of humour.
3. Have you seen what Encyclopedia Dramatica has about me? I have nothing nice to say about them.

G'day, Jack Merridew 05:48, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Kww, so I guess now would be a bad time to bring up this[90][91] edit-warring by you, which immediately followed my edits to those articles? At that time, there was no consensus to merge at Talk:List of characters in Watchmen. And there was no consensus to merge at WikiProject Comics either[92][93]. That first thread is basically WesleyDodds telling WikiProject Comics that he boldly redirected them and another editor saying "yay." Look at all the complaints at Talk:List of characters in_Watchmen since then. Are you seriously saying that the characters Ozymandias is not notable? I can work with people who disagree me. But can you? --Pixelface (talk) 02:20, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

I had reason to believe that a user might be a sockpuppet or meatpuppet of Jack Merridew, and I think Dominic may agree with me. He did perform a checkuser after I sent him my evidence afterall. I admit that my edits to articles have drastically fallen off as of late, but part of that is because of editors like you Kww, following me around and reverting my every edit. Like this[94][95][96] for example. Have you noticed how I'm not hounding you and reverting your edits to articles? I would appreciate it if you (and anyone else) didn't do so to me. But even considering all my edits in WP/WT-space lately (which many people support[97][98]), over 50% of my edits are still to article-space[99]. Most of those edits came at a time when people were not hounding me, and I was free to improve any article whatsoever, articles like GTD-5 EAX.

Arbcom has never considered a topic ban for me, something that cannot be said about you Kww. I don't know what problems you think I've "created." I'm not the one who said over seven years ago "I agree with this one completely" when someone said "There is no reason why there shouldn't be a page for every Simpsons character, and even a table listing every episode, all neatly cross-linked and introduced by a shorter central page. Every episode name in the list could link to a separate page for each of those episodes, with links to reviews and trivia." Take it up with the editor who said that and the people who listened to him and followed him. I've never understood your attitude towards me. One of the very first things I remember you saying to me was "Be grateful that I'm not an admin, so I don't have a block button on my screen." And believe me Kww, I am grateful for things like this. --Pixelface (talk) 01:56, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Pixelface is NOT "the only editor...throwing pesonal attacks around." On his talk page, for instance, someone makes a play on his username by calling him "egg on face" or something to that effect and if necessary, I am sure we can turn up a number of diffs in which editors were incivil to him as well. I don't condone incivility by anyone, regardless of inclusion stance. Pixelface should remain civil, but so should others as well. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 14:49, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

If people are ploying him on his talk page, that's a violation of WP:NPA and they should be brought forward as well. I don't watch his talk page, I know what I see through the various talk page discussions on certain policies and guidelines, and clearly there PF is pretty much the only one that engages in personal attacks. --MASEM (t) 15:13, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Kww and User:Jack Merridew routinely engage in incivility and personal attacks. The parole of the latter does not seem to be working as the demands upon his mentors indicate. Colonel Warden (talk) 16:15, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Evidence for this? I don't see it on the policy/guideline talk pages, but it would be helpful to know if it's happening on user pages. (as to justify any addition behavior remedies) --MASEM (t) 16:57, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

I'd be interested in evidence that I "routinely engage in incivility and personal attacks" as well.—Kww(talk) 17:32, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Feel free to provide diffs Masem. --Pixelface (talk) 02:27, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

I realize that alleging that a user may be Jack Merridew can be insulting, but I've already apologized to Someguy1221. And Masem, if the user RFC you started on me hadn't been archived when it did (organizing a timeline from last April was proving to be difficult), you would have seen me present plenty of Jack Merridew's inciviilty towards me, going back to December 2007. I didn't start it. But I may put all that on a user subpage. You're right Masem, Wikipedia is not supposed to a be a battleground, which is why I would really appreciate it if would you stop starting threads about me that go nowhere — your recent AE thread comes to mind. You know, a recent paper has found that Wikipedia's dispute resolution system does not actually resolve disputes — and I've certainly found that to be true in my own experience. And I think it's worth noting that the user who intiated E&C2 and listed me as an involved party is now banned from editing Wikipedia. --Pixelface (talk) 00:39, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

I realize that alleging that a user may be Jack Merridew can be insulting- again with the churlish personal attacks. It never stops with you, does it? Reyk _YO! 01:17, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

One striking element of the RfC is that Pixelface entered no response to it. Also, Pixelface was more recently the subject of a Wikiquette alert. Due to the nature of the surrounding environment (inclusionism/deletionistm) it is unlikely that consensus will form at a community level. So one possibility would be arbitration. There have been enough recent formal DR attempts to justify a case. Durova^Charge! 16:43, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

PF did respond, but on the talk page, as well as offering one possible remedy that wasn't accepted by the editors involved (including myself, full disclaimer). But there seemed to be no effort by PF to work out towards other remedies given. --MASEM (t) 16:57, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, past experience with established editors has been that unless they do something really obviously bannable (legal threats, etc.) it's difficult for the community to take action. Action may occur, but generally slowly and with plenty of drama. Since Pixelface has 12,000 edits and is a participant in a polarized wiki-ideological debate, perhaps the best approach would be:

1. Try a little more dispute resolution.

2. If that doesn't succeed, initiate RFAR.

In the meantime, please exercise care to avoid provocative action. Place trout on the grill, not on the editor's talk page. When a first trout doesn't succeed later trouts are rarely effective. Just be as reasonable as possible. And for editors who agree with Pixelface ideologically, please encourage Pixelface to pursue that belief without sniping at others who disagree. No one likes arbitration, so let's do our best to resolve this amicably. Durova^Charge! 17:49, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Masem created that user RFC about me 5 hours and 20 minutes after Jack Merridew started an ANI thread about me on December 30, following these edits[100] by Jack Merridew and me to the policy Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not, where Jack Merridew stated he was reverting "vandalism" by me. The section of policy I was removing does not have consensus to be policy, it has not had consensus to be policy ever since it was proposed, and many threads at WT:NOT have been devoted to it. The policy Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not was protected for a month, and was unprotected after I promised not to edit that policy at all during the protection period, and after I requested unprotection. In addition to that, at the user RFC, I promised to not to edit that policy at all during February or March 2009, and I've kept that promise. Jack Merridew agreed to avoid all disruptive editing as a condition of being unbanned in December 2008 and was warned by one of his three assigned mentors about his edits to that policy.

In the Statement of the dispute, Masem objected to my long responses and use of diffs, which makes crafting a response a bit difficult in my opinion. I asked Masem and Protonk for a wordlimit, and received none. Nevertheless, I edited the user RFC page 11 times[101], I edited the talkpage 25 times[102], and I was the first editor to propose a solution.

I am still unaware of which dispute it was exactly that the four certifiers made previous attempts to resolve, and when they attempted to resolve it. Diffs were never provided. I did respond in several areas below on the user RFC page, saying much of what I was going to say in the Response section. IIRC, JzG entered no response at his user RFC. I considered (and still am considering) putting a response in my userspace, going over Masem's complaint line by line, as well as others. The user RFC about me was archived by Ncmvocalist after over two weeks of no comment. During that time I was busy doing other things, and I was actually quite surprised when I noticed it had been archived. I had typed up a fairly long statement by that point. Protonk had also started an RFC on a proposal during my user RFC, and that consumed much of my time.

Bignole did file a recent Wikiquette alert against me, but he seemed to misunderstand some things I said to him, although I admit many were uncivil. That WQA thread was archived with no action. Masem did file a recent AE thread against me, after I suggested a thread about Bignole might be warranted because Bignole was arguing over a page that Arbcom explicitly mentioned during E&C1, an arbitration case which lists Bignole as an involved party. The AE thread about me that Masem started was also archived with no action. I am getting really tired of Masem starting threads and pages concerning me.

John254 listed me as an involved party of E&C2 (but is now banned), and Masem's RFA occurred during E&C1 and Masem edited the E&C2 case pages quite a bit. I think arbitration is a bad idea, since I believe E&C2 only served to inflame the dispute and make it worse. Many of the current arbitrators would also have to recuse. I think the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution policy is lacking in several ways, and that seems to be supported by a recent paper which found that Wikipedia's dispute resolution system does not actually resolve disputes. --Pixelface (talk) 03:44, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

This complaint was filed by User:Reyk. This [103] suggests that the complaint is ideologically motivated. It is uncivil to use AN/I to play the "ban my opponent game". I suggest Reyk drops this mode of operation. Arbitration is probably not necessary here. Judicious application of WP:POINT, WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA should be sufficient. Jehochman ^Talk 18:01, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Could you point out where Reyk asked for a ban? I don't see it. It was Jack Merridew who stated I would think a stern admonishment and warning from the community would be the minimum and a community ban the maximum. Mentioning a possible ban as the extreme end of a range of possible remedies is a bit different, and it was not Reyk who made the mention. Unless there's another post to that effect? Durova^Charge! 18:06, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Even if Reyk had brought it, that wouldn't invalidate it. Nothing about being an exclusionist means that he has to accept misbehaviour from anyone, including ardent inclusionists. This board should be about behaviour, not ideology, and Pixelface's behaviour is certainly open to question.—Kww(talk) 18:27, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

It's a bit more worrisome to see an outright accusation of game playing against one editor, based upon a comment made by someone else. If this dispute does sink to outright game playing (which I hope it doesn't) a mistaken accusation by an administrator could be used against Reyk. It would be more helpful of Jehochman to either substantiate the accusation better or else withdraw it. Durova^Charge! 18:34, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

After getting a new source in the mail today, I have made a suggestion for Pixelface to help me at User_talk:Pixelface#Something_different_to_work_on, but I extend the request to help to everyone. Let's all stop trying to get each other in trouble, escalating tensions in AfDs, etc. and work together to use such sources as the one I mention on Pixelface's talk page to bring these articles concerning the most "notable" fictional characters all up to DYK, Good, and/or featured status. We know the sources exist for these ones and now is the time to pool our resources together to bring them to these statuses. I trust any editors who in good faith are not here to perpetuate ideological disputes will put that all aside and work for the good of the project and who knows maybe and hopefully in doing so, we will all gain better respect for each other in the process. Thanks! Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 18:20, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

While there is absolutely nothing wrong with this effort, it doesn't address why this ANI exists: PF's means of editing. We will never get rid of inclusionists vs deletionists, even if we work towards good middle ground efforts, and it is important to keep civility in line regardless of where one is editing. --MASEM (t) 19:33, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

I think editors would be more civil with each other if they have some constructive interactions as well. One editor a while back referred to me as an "extreme inclusionist not welcome" on her talk page. So, rather than just take her to ANI for being incivil or what have you, I helped identify socks that were harassing her and we've had various other helpful gestures toward each other. Sure, we'll still be on opposite sides of AfDs, but it isn't mean when we debate anymore. Rather than trying to defeat opposition by calling for blocks that tend only annoy editors, why not try a more carrot approach? Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 19:43, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, we need editors to behave civilly toward those they disagree with. Behave is the operative word. Speaking polite words while sticking the knife in another editor (and twisting) does not count as civil behavior. The attempt here to get Pixelface sanctioned might have been taken seriously if it had been filed by an uninvolved editor. Disagreements should not be escalated with WP:AN/I filings. People aren't given flowers here--they get blocked or banned. We all know that. Jehochman ^Talk 21:59, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Make tulips, not knives.

This thread is not about me. It's about Pixelface's pattern of escalating belligerence- behaviour for which I and others in this thread have provided actual evidence. Which is more than I can say for your vague and spurious notion that, just because Pixelface and I don't see eye to eye on the inclusionism/deletionism debate, my objections to his behaviour must be politically motivated. Reyk _YO! 22:32, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

It is unclear how uninvolved Wikipedians are to become aware that a problem exists, if involved parties may not post evidence to a noticeboard. Question to Jehochman: what avenue would you recommend as appropriate for Reyk, if you find this so objectionable? Bear in mind that user conduct RFC and Wikiquette alert have both been attempted already. Durova^Charge! 22:44, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

There was an RFC where plenty of uninvolved Wikipedians reviewed the problem, and you'll notice that WP:ANI is not listed on WP:DR. If a user is making snarky comments, WP:WQA is often a useful. "Help me with difficult communications I am having with this user" is a better approach than "sanction this user for being rude." If a sanctions request is made, the prior dispute and the prior RFC should have been disclosed. Both important pieces of context were left out of the initial complaint. That's what made me skeptical about motives. We're here to help each other, not to assume bad faith and bash each other. Jehochman ^Talk 00:56, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Many editors aren't talented at initiating noticeboard threads; they don't know what to say. Yet it certainly added to the appearance of good faith that two prior types of dispute resolution had been tried: these people attempted DR over a conduct issue, then sought administrative attention when the conduct failed to improve. This board would be a more orderly place if more editors followed that approach. WP:AGF is indeed a good idea; best to lead by example. Durova^Charge! 05:32, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Reyk started this thread because of this comment I made at Someguy1221's RFA. I struck that comment 40 minutes after I made it upon MSGJ's suggestion and emailed a checkuser, Dominic, since my evidence pertained to a potential admin, and since it contained some private information, and since WP:SPI says "For exceptionally sensitive matters (e.g., admin sock-puppetry, harassment, privacy), please contact any CheckUser or any Arbitration Committee member, by e-mail." I had already apologized to Someguy1221 two days before Reyk started this thread. I don't know what Reyk wants. I'm certainly not the first person to suspect another user of being a sockpuppet and be wrong, and I think Reyk's creation of this thread has merely served to blow this event out of proportion. --Pixelface (talk) 08:33, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Reyk, first of all, it's not "bad faith" to think that Jack Merridew may have another sockpuppet, since he is an admitted sockpuppet and has edited under multiple previous usernames (D73733C8-CC80-11D0-B225-00C04FB6C2F5, Davenbelle, Diyarbakir, Moby Dick, Note to Cool Cat, Senang Hati, Thomas Jerome Newton), he has previously lied on a noticeboard about it[104][105], and is apparently proud of being a sockpuppet ("This account is a sock puppet of Davenbelle, and has been unblocked indefinitely.", "for great justice and epic lulz" [106])

My suggestion that Someguy1221 might be Jack Merridew was also not baseless. After MSGJ told me to file an SPI, I began gathering my evidence together. My email to Dominic, who previously performed a checkuser on Jack Merridew during the arbitration case E&C2, was over 200K. Dominic can verify that. During the time I was organizing my evidence, Jack Merridew contacted Jayvdb to perform a checkuser, an editor who said Jack Merridew had earned a final chance when Jack Merridew petitioned to be unbanned (from abusing multiple accounts) in December. Jack Merridew voted for Jayvdb in the December 2008 Arbcom elections and I voted against Jayvdb. Jack Merridew contacted Jayvdb before I could email Dominic, and I questioned Jayvdb's impartiality regarding Jack Merridew. I was not going to send the evidence to Jayvdb.

After jeers and sneers yet another unwelcome trout on my talkpage from Jack Merridew, and after what could be interpreted as insults to me from Jayvdb and Sceptre and MSGJ, I apologized to Someguy1221 for thinking he might be Jack Merridew. No insult was intended to Someguy1221. I think I behaved quite civilly, considering.

I would like Sceptre and Jack Merridew to stay away from me. One thing I was never able to bring up at my user RFC (which was apparently closed by Ncmvocalist after two weeks of no comments) is that last May after I got into an argument with Sceptre's friend Seraphim, Sceptre photoshopped a "badger ring" to mock me and showed it to Seraphim. Then Jack Merridew commented, while banned. Sceptre mentioned that "badger ring" just a while ago at WT:RFA.

Jack Merridew has already been ordered by Arbcom to stay away from one editor. And I want him to stay away from me, although that may be a matter for RFAR and not ANI.

I didn't disrupt WP:N like Karanacs claimed, I never called Bignole "pathetic", and Masem apparently only opened that AE thread (yet another thread Masem has started where zero action as taken) because I told Bignole that Bignole's recent actions at Talk:List of South Park episodes (which Arbcom explicitly mentioned in E&C1, an arbitration case Bignole was an involved party of) might violate the ruling of that case.

What admin action is necessary here Reyk? I suggest you brush up on the following pages: [107] [108] [109] [110] [111] --Pixelface (talk) 21:48, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Um, my "involvement" in E&C1 was when I stated that I would not be taking part in said discussion because I didn't have the time to devote to it. So, please stop saying that I was an "involved party", because I wasn't. I have one comment, which was given right when it opened. I never ventured back to the page again. Secondly, I made not "actions" on the List of South Park episodes. Discussions of mergers is not a violation of anything, especially when I did not start said discussion of merger. The E&C1 says, "The parties are urged to work collaboratively and constructively with the broader community and the editors committed to working on the articles in question to develop and implement a generally acceptable approach to resolving the underlying content dispute." Dicussing a merger is exactly that. As for the "pathetic" bit, you called my actions "pathetic", which is the same thing as calling me pathetic. I let it slide, but considering that that wasn't the last time you said that to me at the LoSPe page, that was why I filed that Wikietiquette alert about your behavior. The fact that you cannot even recognize when you are being incivil to other editors shows that there is a problem.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 01:27, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

You're listed as an involved party of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Episodes and characters. In that arbitration case, List of South Park episodes was explicitly mentioned by Arbcom. On March 18, 2008 at Talk:List of South Park episodes I told you "This article was explicitly mentioned by Arbcom in E&C1, an arbitration case that you were an involved party of. A new request for arbitration or arbitration enforcement may be in order, since you apparently refuse to let it go." Six hours later, Masem started an AE thread about me. And once again, a thread started by Masem about me resulted in no action. And no, if I think an action you do is pathetic, that is not the same thing as thinking that you are pathetic. It's the action I disagree with. --Pixelface (talk) 16:11, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

First of all, I know that Jack Merridew has done some shady things in the past. I also know that, for the last ten months or so, he's scrupulously kept his nose clean. All the evidence suggests that he's a reformed character and almost certainly innocent of continued misbehaviour, and deserves to be treated with the same respect and decency given to any other productive member of Wikipedia. Having a bad record does not make him an open target for your frivolous allegations.

You made a baseless accusation in a very public place rather than going through SPI like you should have. You dragged an innocent person into your attack on Jack Merridew. You insisted on a second checkuser after the first one told you something you didn't want to hear and called another editor's impartiality into question in the process. When conclusively proven incorrect you refuse to apologize to the person you've wronged and continue to insist he's currently sockpuppeteering. And throughout the whole thing you have not provided the community one shred of evidence that you were actually acting in good faith; you refuse to, because apparently Jack might use it improve his nonexistent socking campaign. Personally, I think if your "evidence" was ever released the community would ridicule it as obviously desperate and contrived flim-flam.

Now you say you want Jack Merridew to leave you alone. Well, why don't you leave him alone? Why provoke him into "sneering" and troutslapping you with this muck-raking, when otherwise you have not much to do with him at all except maybe the odd encounter in policy and guideline talk pages?

You are in the wrong here, Pixelface, and your behaviour is getting more and more obnoxious. It needs to stop. For your own sake, listen to all these people who say your behaviour is poor and consider they may have a point. Otherwise, one day, you'll go that one step too far and wind up with a lengthy block. Reyk _YO! 01:05, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

It probably would best for those on both sides to disengage and avoid each other. Wikipedia is a big place and as such there are plenty of articles needing improvement and people can and should focus on what interests them while ignoring those trying to bait them. There's been clear incivility and escalation all around and nothing good or bipartisan is coming from anything. As I've suggested above, we should focus on specific article improvements. We should not just beat dead horses on ANI. Pixelface had suspicions, checkuser didn't confirm them and he said he was wrong and apologized on his talk page. All this thread is doing is escalating things. When I recently asked for admin input on ANI when I suspected canvassing, the editor in question notified other editors and that's that. Just as I asked a question in my thread title rather than asserting he had done wrong as if it were a fact. No need to assume I'm right and no sense going on and on any further against him. I should not and have no interest in demanding anything else or needlessly escalating things. I had a concern, it was addressed and that's that. It shouldn't be about venue shopping or trying to squash our opposition. Thus, this thread too is moving away from constructive discussion and is not going to result in anything worthwhile by continuing it. I hope that Pixelface consults with trusted editors before making any accusations public that may be unwise to make and I hope that editors on both sides will not be incivil toward each other. Moreover, I hope that editors will devote the bulk of their energy to improving articles rather than adding to a battleground atmosphere in discussions. And finally, it would indeed be wise if the various editors with argumentative pasts avoid provoking each other further, and I mean all of us. Let's start the week on a good note, disengage from escalation, and all see how many DYK, Good, and featured articles we can get! Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 04:14, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

I think this entire long discussion can be summed up with this sentence found in the first paragraph:

"It's no crime to voice one's concern about possible sockpuppeteering." Ikip (talk) 06:18, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Let me put it this way. Suppose I were to accuse you and some random editor of being the same person. Then, when proven wrong, I profusely apologize to the other editor but sullenly refuse to apologize to you. And when asked why I thought the other editor was your sockpuppet, I refuse to answer, saying "Ikip will just use the information to continue his sockpuppeteering". You'd say I was gaming the system, assuming bad faith and being provocatively nasty to you. You'd be justified to feel that way. Well, that is exactly how Pixelface has behaved toward Jack Merridew. Reyk _YO! 08:08, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Meh, this is a mess. Reyk, I doubt you're going to get the concrete resolution you want here. I'd recommend filing a WP:RFAR. This has gone through plenty of channels and I don't see anything short of arbitration putting down something strong enough to stop his behavior. The thread here has degenerated rather badly, and is far too muddled with random accusations for an outside observer to make any sense of it. A RFAR would be a better and more organized step. — sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 08:36, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, Jack Merridew actually has not "kept is nose clean" for the last ten months or so, but that doesn't have anything to do with this thread. I never said Jack Merridew was, in fact, operating the account Someguy1221. My comment at Someguy1221's RFA, which you seem so enraged about, was on that page for a total of 40 minutes. And I did go to WP:SPI after MSGJ suggested I do so. My comment was not baseless. My email to Dominic was over 200K and apparently Dominic felt it was reason enough to run a checkuser. I apologized to Someguy1221 two days before you started this ANI thread. I emailed my evidence to the checkuser I was planning on emailing my evidence to. Apparently Jack Merridew couldn't wait and decided to contact one of his mentors first. And checkusers cannot "conclusively prove" that one user is not another. I provided my evidence to Dominic. I don't need to provide you, or the "community" with any of it. And I expect Dominic to not provide you or the community with it either.

I think it's safe to say that me and Jack Merridew know more about our interactions than you do. They go back to December 2007, when I contributed to the case pages of E&C1, where I ran into Jack Merridew while he was a banned user, talking to White Cat. Jack Merridew was banned in May 2007 for harassing White Cat, and was ordered by Arbcom to avoid that user as a condition of being unbanned in December 2008. You probably don't know that Jack Merridew followed me around to AFDs in March 2008, much like he followed White Cat around.

I was wrong about Someguy1221. I admitted I was wrong. I apologized. And by the way, there are only two editors on Wikipedia I've ever seen use the word "churlish." There's you. And the other is a friend of Jack Merridew. --Pixelface (talk) 09:12, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

If you're going to vilify a person in a very public place that has nothing to do with the sockpuppet investigation process, potentially torpedoing another user's RfA in the process, then it's only natural to expect that the audience for your attack on Jack Merridew might want to see some justification. And you seem to think that you can justify your present poor behaviour towards him by repeatedly rehashing the same stale litany of his misdeeds from over a year ago. It doesn't work that way. Just because he's done some things in the past does not entitle you to make accusations willy-nilly. You seem to be incapable of understanding that you've wronged Jack Merridew as much as you wronged Someguy1221 and that Jack's equally deserving of an apology, not continued personal attacks and more accusations of continued sock-puppeteering. As for me staring this ANI two days after your post at the RfA, I thought it would be proper to run it by him first. Not that that has anything to do with anything. Finally, I don't know why you would mention the fact that I use the word "churlish" but it could be taken as yet another insinuation of the same kind. I hope that's not what you're getting at, and if it is I advise you to quickly and quietly drop it. Reyk _YO! 22:19, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Please note that I didn't immediately reply to your query because it came on the eve of Nyepi, A Day of Silence in Bali. Cheers, Jack Merridew 04:35, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

I know that the WP:BATTLEGROUND has gotten so bad that people tend to assume bad faith and refuse to apologize for anything, because their apology will be used against them as evidence of their bad behavior. I disagree. I really appreciate some acknowledgment from Pixelface that some of the things he said were incivil, at least to one editor. Let's just drop it for now, because the goal is to correct the bad behavior rather than engage in a witchhunt. Everyone deserves another chance if they acknowledge they got carried away. If Pixelface tones it down and stops focusing on the character/intelligence of other editors in discussions about content/policy, we won't have any problems. Moreover, I think he might actually find that he'll attract more bees with honey than with a stick. Randomran (talk) 17:58, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

General comment: I have two concerns with what seems to be double standards in this thread:

• Outrage over unsubstantiated sockpuppet allegations: Pixelface suspected sockpuppetry; checkusers did not substantiate these suspicions. Pixelface acknowledged his error and apologized. So, he gets a big trout on his userpage (by the way, the same editor trouted Pixelface before...), and taken to ANI... Now, I have had four checkusers done on me. One confirmed my two alternate accounts that have been abandoend since 2007 and another said an account that never edited at the same time as my main account was only "likely" me (that account is also inactive). Yet, in there, I have had a few accounts alleged to be mine on even more baffling of grounds than Pixelface's suspicions regarding these other users. Checkusers naturally did not subtantiate these accounts either and in fact if one editor's username and userpage is correct, he is not even on the same continent as me! So, should someone demand that apoligies be given to User:ISOLA'd ELBA, User:Testmasterflex, and User:Fairfieldfencer? Should those who made unsubtantiated allegations against these editors be blocked for filing frivolous requests? If not, then we should not be up in arms over Pixelface's suspicions as well.
• Concern over suspected incivility: I do not blindly support editors because they are fellow inclusionists. When I asked him to refactor a statement he made, he did indeed stike the word in question. Indeed, incivility should not be acceptable from any of us; that should be a bipartisan stance. As such, it strikes me as not right to demand Pixelface be civil while ignoring how he has been personally attacked and baited by a multitude of editors. Here are just some relatively recent examples: Pixelface opposed in an RfA and so a user says to Support per Pixelface, obviously mocking the opposer (imagine saying to oppose in an RfA because someone supported the candidate...); regarding the same RfA, another editor accused Pixelface of having OCD (a mental disorder); another editor made a play on Pixelface's username and called him "egg on face"; another editor called it an "oddity" that someone would be nice to Pixelface and later referred to Pixelface as "Agitated Toilet Dwarf'; he has had disgusting talk page personal attacks made against him; notice the edit summary as well; etc.

Thus, what we should be saying is that 1) everyone should be more careful about throwing around sockpuppetry accusations; however, at the same time making the accusations especially if an editor in question has a certain kind of past, should not result in sanctions and in all instances if the allegations are not substantiated apologies probably should be made; and 2) everyone should be urged to be more civil and to avoid their opponents. It should be clear that Pixelface should refrain from insulting editors, but it must also be made clear that we will not tolerate personal attacks or baiting of him either. Now as I said above, everyone should try more of the carrot approach and if not then just disengage from opponents. Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 23:27, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

• Not sure why you're calling me out, considering I'm all for letting Pixelface get off by acknowledging some wrongs. But I think you've failed to recognize two factors that distinguish Pixelface's wrongs from others:

1. after accusing someone of being a sock, he went out of his way to freeze out and isolate one of the editors. That's not only a continuing assumption of bad faith on his part, but it's the epitome of violating WP:NOT#BATTLEGROUND by using the selective apology to fuel a grudge against that editor. He'd have been better off not apologizing to anyone at all, rather than offering this kind of backhanded apology.
2. His civility is a repeated problem, and indiscriminately targets anyone who disagrees with him. People he has virtually no history with, and certainly no history of being incivil towards him, will find themselves on the receiving end of a personal attack, or an incivil snide remark about their intelligence or honesty. I agree with you that no one is without sin, but we give much more attention to repeat offenders.

• Now, I think there's been progress if Pixelface recognizes that he hasn't been civil. And like I said, I think this problem would all go away if Pixelface focused more on the substance of Wikipedia in talk page discussions, rather than peoples' character or intelligence. But we have to stop with this false equivalency of "everyone is to blame, so no one is to blame". Some people are clearly bigger problems than others, and have not yet taken personal responsibility. Again, it's not about doling out penalties. It's about Pixelface finally taking responsibility for a consistent pattern of bad behavior. I'm glad that you finally agree that Pixelface should refrain from insulting other editors. But if others are prodding him, he needs to learn to resolve those conflicts productively rather than turning every comment that irks him into a battle. If you're suggesting that one insult will give Pixelface a free pass to go buck wild on anyone he wants for the remainder of tat discussion, or that one person's past transgressions will give Pixelface a free pass to indefinitely treat them like dirt, then we're never going to foster a positive environment where we can build consensus. In fact, the bad attitude will spread to other editors, unless we put a stop to it every time it reaches a boiling point. Randomran (talk) 00:32, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Randomran, where did you think I was calling you out? My post above was a general reply to the thread in general and not directed at anyone specifically. It is below your post solely because your post was the bottommost post when I posted my overall thoughts about the discussion as a whole. Anyway, my recommendation is that everyone refrain from incivility and personal attacks and that those with obviously tense pasts either make good faith efforts to reach out to each other or disengage from each other altogether. We spend too much time going back and forth on ANI, guideline talk pages, and in AfDs as a whole that really could be more effectively spent actually improving articles. Maybe it would be best if all of us involved in some of these disputes to let others give them a try and instead focus on article improvement. Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 02:27, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Ah, that was a little confusing. Try to keep Wikipedia:TALKPAGE#Indentation in mind, because it usually indicates who you're replying to or which thread of thought you're following. It's not always best to just tack your comment onto the bottom. ... as for this situation, as much as I think a blanket warning is accurate, I don't think it's appropriate to just skirt over the repeated problem with Pixelface. When an editor is the victim of incivility, should they: (A) hold an indefinite grudge with the incivil editor and treat their opponent poorly until they feel vindicated, or (B) use that incivility as an excuse to be belligerent to everyone that disagrees with them? My answer is neither, and probably points towards WP:DR. But I'm legitimately curious to know what you think. We can only make progress here if your recommendation is specific. Otherwise it's just an abstract re-statement of our policies, and you shouldn't be surprised when that accomplishes nothing except postpone the AN/I until next time: with Pixelface acting incivilly, and someone jumping in to say "that's okay, other people are doing it too". Randomran (talk) 02:46, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) Seriously, where is this heading? If it settles in polite agreeement (or even polite disagreement) between the parties, then all is well. But if this is likely to fester into Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Episodes and characters 3 then maybe a small arbitration now is better than a big arbitration later. As most of the participants know, I've got no dog in this race. But a small case is bigger than a big case. Can (and will) this dispute get resolved amicably on the community level? Durova^Charge! 04:02, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

In my opinion, a small case will be dismissed. A good, clear, specific warning would accomplish more than a small case. Even if it affects multiple people, a warning would be helpful so long as it is specific. "Everyone drop it and be nicer" is probably the best way for this problem to keep going until it hits something big. Randomran (talk) 04:18, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Honestly, I don't see this getting dismissed if it goes to arbitration. The combative attitude is pretty apparent and the exhaustion of all previous aspects of dispute resolution (WQA, RfC/U, ANI) would give such a case some credibility. I'd like to agree with Randomran in that the notion that everyone can "drop it and be nicer" is plausible, but I don't see anything short of arbitration changing behavior at this point. — sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 07:49, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

To be clear, I think "drop it and be nicer" would be a complete failure, inviting more minor incidents before another explosion. But I don't think ArbCom will be effective, because the other methods of dispute resolution have been undone by the WP:BATTLEGROUNDish defense of "if other people are bad, then Pixelface is allowed to be bad too". I'm not sure why ArbCom would be any different, and would likely end in "we don't take the case... everyone drop it and be nicer". And I've already told you where that will lead. Randomran (talk) 08:20, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

The main problem is that the battleground defense is used when it doesn't even apply. I've been accused of chronic incivility twice in this discussion, for example, but no one can show evidence of me being chronically incivil (or even occasionally). Do I hold opinions that Colonel Warden and Pixelface detest? Certainly. Do I consider undoing redirects on articles that fail WP:N and WP:NOT#PLOT without making any effort to repair that failure to be disruptive editing? Certainly. Do I think trying to hide the fact that you are doing so by not putting it in your edit summary is deceitful? Absolutely. Am I uncivil about it? No.—Kww(talk) 17:33, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, the whole point of arbitration is to put down something binding and concrete that is a bit more substantive than "drop it and be nicer". Again, I don't know why you think ArbCom wouldn't accept this. There has been multiple avenues of dispute resolution that have been exhausted, and as Protonk emphatically said below, this is a conduct issue, which is what ArbCom was made for. — sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 22:48, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Um, Arbcom's ruling in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Episodes and characters wasn't substantive at all. It kind of was "drop it and be nicer." Which is why I thought Bignole should not be at Talk:List of South Park episodes pushing for a merge. Incidentally, in December 2007, I said "I think if this decision mentions List of South Park episodes, the South Park episode articles will be the next target for the merge tag/redirect tactic.", and Jack Merridew, while banned, replied "The rest of your post is merely a massive assumption of bad faith."

At my user RFC, which was instigated by Jack Merridew, the four certifiers (Masem, Protonk, Sgeureka, and Sceptre — notice that Masem contributed to E&C2, Sgeureka was an involved party of E&C1, and Sceptre was an involved party of E&C1 and E&C2 and at Someguy1221's RFA (and I would like to stay away from me)) never explained which dispute it was that they all tried to resolve with me and failed. And E&C1 and E&C2 didn't resolve any disputes. Arbitration cases typically do not resolve disputes. The dispute died down for the most part when TTN was placed under editing restrictions for six months, and then when TTN stopped editing Wikipedia altogether.

But being wrong occasionally and admitting it is not a conduct issue. --Pixelface (talk) 09:50, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm disheartened that we seem to come to the conclusion that PF's hostility toward JM is okay because JM socked before. This isn't just accusations at Someguy's RfA (which can poison the well like all get out). almost every thread w/ the two of them includes the same tired litany of JM's former socks and PF's insistence that JM's contributions are null and void because of it. Taken by itself, an accusation of socking isn't actionable, and it shouldn't be. Presuming that some reasonable grounds fos suspicion might exist (and you could argue they did), we should not generate a chilling effect for accusers. But this wasn't isolated. PF seems incapable of engaging w/ "deletionists" without trotting out JM's past misbehavior and incapable of dealing w/ JM without having things descend into a slugfest. JM isn't blameless here, I've contemplating blocking or waring him for goading PF a few times, but this needs to stop. Also. STOP CONFLATING THIS WITH CONTENT. Stop stop stop stop. This isn't a content issue. This is a conduct issue between editors who happen to stand across a content divide. The content issue is an impetus, not the crux. This isn't a potential E&C 3 and I'm good and tired of hearing that all conduct issues between deletionists and inclusionists be resolved as content issues or dismissed as based hopelessly in wiki-philosophies. Protonk (talk) 22:39, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Damn straight. — sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 22:48, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Eloquent. Durova^Charge! 02:12, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Yep, Protonk is a smart guy. This isn't E&C3, and it isn't a hopeless content dispute. But how many times does a good point get undermined by other peoples' petty bickering? How are we going to actually stop this? Randomran (talk) 16:19, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

That's easy. Everyone stops baiting and being incivil to each other and when someone is incivil to us just ignore them and not feed into it. If we start ANI threads and all, then we're just letting people get to us and in turn we're spending oodles of time on something other than rescuing articles or bringing them to DYK, GA, or FA status. The wisest course of action is to not even humor comments made in bad faith and to absolutely not make any ourselves. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 18:14, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

The problem is that Pixelface doesn't stop making incivil comments, and often one or two "comments made in bad faith" are used as an excuse for him to lash out indiscriminately. At what point are we going to draw a clear line and say it cannot be crossed? At what point do you say to Pixelface "next time someone makes a negative comment, you need to learn to take it to WP:DR instead of storming across the line of good behavior?" Because as far as I can tell, it looks like you've chosen to make excuses for Pixelface no matter how many times he crosses the line. Are you saying he should learn, or are you saying he doesn't have to? Randomran (talk) 21:25, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Pixelface should maintain civility, but so should everyone else who discusses with him. What I have found is that those who have reached out to him rather than starting ANI and RfCs against him actually are able to work constructively with him. Taking people to admin boards tends to make the person brought to the boards resent those doing the bringing. And when it seems like those of different stances are ganging up in those threads and excusing the behavior of those of similar leanings, but anyway, in most istances I think we should take the "not even dignify with a reply" approach when people make unhelpful comments. Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 22:08, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm glad that Pixelface has recognized that he's been incivil, and I'm glad you think he should stop doing that. I also agree with you that everyone should be civil. And while I recognize that Pixelface resents these AN/Is, nobody has the right to be incivil to anyone who participates in an AN/I against them. Wikipedia is not a WP:BATTLEGROUND, and someone's past bad behavior to you is not licence to behave badly towards other people. If he really resents these AN/Is and RFCs, he should stop being incivil -- provoked or not. Learn to disengage, or take it to WP:DR. Don't shift the discussion to peoples' character, and don't insult other people. We can agree to make that clear to everyone, especially repeat offenders like Pixelface... can't we? Randomran (talk) 00:23, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Typically, I only say something uncivil if someone else says something uncivil first. If nothing happens to the first editor, why punish the second? --Pixelface (talk) 11:18, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Because the second editor has worn out that excuse from overuse. Because the second editor's incivility recurs more often. Because the first editor may have already been dealt with, and the second doesn't get to hold a prior resolved issue over their head indefinitely, let alone use it as an excuse to treat the first editor badly. Because the second editor gets overly frustrated by the first editor, and makes the mistake of lashing out at otherwise civil third parties. Because Wikipedia is not a battleground. Because escalating the conflict often drags talk page discussions off topic, and prevents other cooler heads from reaching a consensus. Because escalating the conflict reliably fails to produce a consensus. Because there are other methods of dispute resolution available. Because the second editor should know better by now.

I'm not even saying any significant action needs to be taken, because you obviously appreciate that you've crossed the line more than a few times. Despite accusations of bad faith from your friends, most of us are not on some ideologically minded crusade to expel, silence, or cripple you. But I'm asking you, politely, for the benefit of Wikipedia: can you avoid deriding other editors, avoid taking the WP:BAIT, use WP:DR, and generally stick to making counter-arguments rather than talking about other editors? Or would you rather keep coming back to AN/I? Randomran (talk) 03:57, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Mostly I've been biting my tongue here; I find myself doing this a fair bit. My history is well known and does not need Pixelface and The Team continually dredging it up. The AC has unbanned me and Pixelface et al need to accept that. That they do not puts them in violation of the unban motion re myself. I have made a few 'humourous' comments re Pixelface in reply to provocation; some have cast these as 'mocking' — but I've been quite tame, really. Now it is true that I don't much like Pixelface and view him as highly disruptive, but I'm not after his balls here; I want him to cut it out — 'it' being well discussed above and in the various threads and issues covered.

See these two diffs;

• In spite of not agreeing with much of what you said, I was impressed with with it. It has changed how I see you. Cheers (and goodnight), Jack Merridew ^diff
• My reply may have changed how you see me, but my opinion of you hasn't changed one bit. Cheers, --Pixelface ^diff
• @ User talk:Pixelface#Kiellor and Prufrock
• + Wikipedia talk:Notability (fiction)/Archive 44#No 'trousers rolled' for me, thank you
• & Wikipedia talk:Notability (fiction)/Archive 44#I'll bite

I have tried turning the other cheek and have been slapped again for the effort.

Also, he's commented about the sock motif of my user page, offended at the lulz, it would seem. It is humour. A similar message box graced my user page for 8 months and I got used to it. It is about being straight about my past, something A Somebody Else is not doing. Has anyone noticed this image at the top of my user page? And the alt-text assigned to it? Motif of harmful sensation. Pixelface & Co. can not abide my presence on this site and are going all-out to thwart my return.

Cheers, Jack Merridew 04:32, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Jack, why is it okay to mention Pixelfaces Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Pixelface, but yet editors cannot mention your much more disruptive edit and ban history?

Can't Pixelface write this:

Mostly I've been biting my tongue here; I find myself doing this a fair bit. My history is well known and does not need Jack Merridew and The Team continually dredging it up. The RfC did not proceed and Jack Merridew et al need to accept that.

On wikipedia edit conflict it is important to make yourself sound like the victim.

Regarding this not being about content, recently there were three editors who regularly deleted articles and were talking about another editor. These three editors said they must seperate out the behavior from the content, and if it became a content issue then the chances of punishing this editor (i.e. shutting him up) had no chance.

So who has successfully portrayed themselves as a victim here?

Have the editors who tend to delete sucessfully seperated Pixelface's behavior from his ideology and contributions, which these same editors strongly oppose? Ikip (talk) 20:44, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean Ikip, but the last time Pixelface directed an apology my way it went "I apologize if anyone was offended by my comment, but [...] I would not want any of the fucking readers of the Genderfuck article to be fucking offended by my fucking comments. Fucking thank you for your fucking time." [112]. He !voted to delete, FWIW, and I !voted keep. I see the issue with his behaviour there as one thing, and the substance of his views as a second. Are you suggesting that the fact that I consider his behaviour to have remained fundamentally unchanged is somehow tangled up with my disagreement with his views about notability? Pete.Hurd (talk) 20:58, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Pete, did you read what I wrote to you at my user RFC? And that was the first of two times in total that I have used the word "fuck" on Wikipedia. You were the first editor to ever start an ANI thread about me, and you didn't contact me about that thread either. And people in that ANI thread thought that comment was funny, as it was intended. Clearly your opinion about it has remained unchanged. --Pixelface (talk) 10:44, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Your fellow Australian didn't seem to know about your history before he started this thread. And the history between me and you is actually not well-known. I accepted that Arbcom unbanned you months ago. And I'll let the editors on the receiving end of your "humourous" comments determine how "tame" they've been.

I want you to leave me the hell alone. You and Sceptre. I don't want you following me to any more AFDs. I don't want you talking about me to other editors. And what I said was true: My opinion of you hasn't changed one bit. If the sock motif on your userpage is "humour", WHO thinks it's funny? Do you suppose White Cat think it's funny Jack? I can "abide your presence" just fine. And I'm not out to "thwart" your return. I am just sick and tired of you harassing me, like you've harassed other users.

I had reason to believe that Someguy1221 might be you. You contacted Jayvdb before I had gathered all my evidence together. Next time, I'll go to SPI rather than leaving a comment at RFA (which was only there for forty minutes). Please do not edit my user talkpage any more. --Pixelface (talk) 11:05, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Enough of this bickering. It's not going anywhere. Jack, Reyk, or whoever still has a beef with Pixelface, file a RFAR if you want to proceed on the issue. If not, then this thread should be closed. No impartial observer can make heads or tails of it with people sniping at each other, and nothing concrete is going to come of it. — sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 23:04, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Protonk, I never got to go into detail at my user RFC about Jack Merridew's interactions with me because it was archived while I was busy doing better things with my time. Do you think it's unreasonable to think that an editor who has lied about socking in the past may be socking now? And I have NEVER said that Jack Merridew's contributions are "null and void" because of his history. His article edits are fine. But his interactions with certain users are not fine.

He's already been ordered to stay away from one editor. His incivility towards me started during E&C1 while he was banned. And his hounding of me started in March 2008 during E&C2, when he followed me to several AFDs. Then "cute" messages about a "work assignment committee." After he was banned, he continued to monitor what I was doing and saying on Wikipedia, sometimes commenting on it to other users (like after Sceptre photoshopped a "badger ring" to mock me and showed it to Seraphim) While Jack Merridew was petitioning to be unbanned, he even looked through my contributions and referenced an article about a newscaster that was up for deletion that I commented at. When Jack Merridew petitioned to be unbanned, I said Arbcom might as well open E&C3. After Jack Merridew was unbanned, he gave Gavin.collins a "D&D Barnstar for great justice and epic lulz." Three days after he was unbanned, he told another user "A lot of WikiProject will morph into WikiaProjects. That's what Pixel's so afreaid of." After he was unbanned, I contacted him about Wikia, and he started at thread at WP:FICT called Articles for Wikia to bother me. He also referred to one of my comments as an "inclusionist manifesto" and contacted Jimbo Wales to scare me. And Jack Merridew did instigate my user RFC after he was unbanned. Plus "trout slapping", twice. Then "jeers" and "sneers." And that's just off the top of my head.

I can engage with "deletionists" just fine thank you. Most of their ideology is built around treating notability guidelines as if they were policy (or a legal document), and they're not. But I think this particular ANI thread is more related to nationalism than some people think. --Pixelface (talk) 10:33, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

We'll be sure to pwn-off the ankle biters, and toss back some amber fluid while offering you an Aussie salute. G'day, mate. Jack Merridew 04:56, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

(<--) Okay, I am an unaffected observer, and I see people arguing over something that has nothing to do with the original subject. I'm sort of confused about this. I believe that the best way to resolve this situation is to have Pixelface be mentored by an admin. That's it. No block, no fustration. The end of story. MathCool10 ^{Sign here!} 01:06, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Has Pixelface expressed any interest in mentorship? Has a willing mentor been found? Durova^Charge! 16:46, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

I seem to remember reading that an editor can be forced to attend mentoring  rdunnPLIB  09:26, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Speaking as one of Wikipedia's more experienced mentors, that approach is not advisable. Durova^Charge! 18:30, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

The incident that spurred Reyk to start this thread was resolved two days before Reyk came here. I really don't know what admin action Reyk expected by bringing it here. --Pixelface (talk) 16:19, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

this may be going of the point a bit but why has [113] been mentions so much. If you lo0k at the date it was done surely it would be obvious that peeps have grown up since then.  rdunnPLIB  09:26, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

• That's part of the general problem. If you have ever expressed any sentiment like that, expect to never be able to live it down in these debates. It's frustrating to see people engaging in discussions then have a diff like that waved in their face as proof that they can't be arguing in good faith. Protonk (talk) 16:28, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
  • There is no issue about living anything down. There is nothing, in itself, wrong with taking a stance on the Great Inclusionism/Deletionism Übersquabble. I think it's obvious to most participants in this discussion that dredging that up is just an attempt to deflect attention from the real issue (though it's a little bit alarming to see that at least one admin fell for it). My views on content quality have nothing to do with my views on editor behaviour. I don't really see the need to justify, apologize for, or hide my opinions on that account. Reyk _YO! 22:28, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
    • See this old version of my user page — ;) G'Day, Jack Merridew 05:07, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

I'd just like to point out (since my name has come up three times) that I'm sure the picture of a badger ring was made with the intent to cheer me up, not to mock Pixelface. I have no animus with Pixelface and apologise if the image is seen as mocking. Seraphim♥ 20:40, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Good lord, enough of this circus. Just topic ban them from each other already. Jtrainor (talk) 04:42, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

This is not just about Pixelface and I (although some are attempting to cast things that way); I've not been involved in many of the areas where others have commented about Pixelface's behaviour. FWIW, I was about to close this sprawling thread until I noticed your comment. G'day, Jack Merridew 06:03, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Elisabeth Hasselbeck marriage date & DOBs

redpen keeps reverting. I have made the concession of the bio section being named early life. Having DOBs & marriage dates doesnt make her more likely to have her identity stolen. Mariage dates & DOBs are all throughout wikipedia. So please you alll intercede as redpen keeps reverting. Thanks. 70.108.79.147 (talk) 04:49, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Please see the above thread as well as Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/70.108.110.22. MuZemike 16:18, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

As I had to explain on my talk page here, user is demonstrating a patent unwillingness to work with others. IPs keep adding back in falsified material (violation of BLP) and repeatedly breaking 3RR for it (this is clearly laid out, diff by diff, at SPI). This has also caused Elisabeth Hasselbeck to be protected. IPs are also causing a bit of disruption by placing {{HELPME}} and {{adminhelp}} templates all over the place. I think a rangeblock is necessary here. MuZemike 17:00, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

I have been informed that a rangeblock would case a bit of collateral damage. I would then request that Omarosa Manigault-Stallworth, Carson Daly, and Girlfriends all be protected (note I am requesting it here since we are already here, or I can go to WP:RFPP if not appropriate). MuZemike 17:06, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

I am willing to work with others. I havent added false info. EH page is locked bc redpen successfully manipulated you all. I have not abused helpme or adminhelp tags. Y do u want to lock these pages but not tell redpen to stop editing the pages? 70.108.102.252 (talk) 18:13, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Lilkunta/Archive for more info. Mayalld (talk) 22:03, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Note This thread seems appropriate for the noticeboard about edit-warring. Please move to there in the future with similar problems. Cheers. I'^mperator 20:11, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Illegal immigration to the United States

There seems to be some serious gaming and meat and/or sockpuppetry going on at Illegal immigration to the United States in the past few weeks and especially today. Several IPs (presumibly the same individual) have edited the article in a rather POV matter, and several more have argued the cause on the talk page.

NetRange 166.128.0.0 - 166.255.255.255; OrgName

Service Provider Corporation, Bedminister, NJ

• 166.196.217.71 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 166.196.104.47 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 166.199.196.253 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 166.196.235.104 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 166.196.174.163 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 166.196.240.67 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 166.196.149.151 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 165.123.122.121 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 166.196.30.217 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 166.196.211.111 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 166.196.231.254 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 166.196.121.14 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 166.199.234.190 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 166.196.235.104 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Net Range 32.0.0.0 - 32.255.255.255; OrgName

AT&T Global Network Services, Lake Mary, FL

• 32.165.73.42 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 32.165.47.202 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 32.165.230.112 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 32.166.135.133 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 32.164.141.83 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Not one of the IPs has made more than one edit, and the IP is different five minutes later. I'm not up on the technical aspects of the issue, but I think it needs looked into. The IP has easily and multiple times broken 3RR and has continued disruptive and POV editing. Grsz¹¹ 00:19, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

There are two issues here. Let me discuss the most obvious one first. As you said, my IP changes sometimes in a five minute span. That's a feature of my computer network which is outside my control. I can't rely on when it will happen. I've never used it to avoid the 3RR or vote more than once. In short, I've never used it to sock puppet As for the second issue -"pushing pov". I tried to engage in consensus building in the talk page. When that fell through, I thought we were going to get a third party to help us reach consensus - then the other editor I was working on the article with suddenly was no longer interested in getting a third party involved. Immediately after that, Grsz11 comes in, shuts down all discussion (without ever having participated in the discussion himself, reverts my edit, and reports me here. I tried to engage him in dialogue on his talk page, but he didn't reply. As a general rule of thumb, the guy interested in npov is the guy trying to keep the dialogue going and trying to build consensus.-32.165.41.17 (talk) 01:17, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

All I hope to happen is that the IP ends his attacks and accusations on the talk page, and not use his changing address to game 3RR. If that much can be assured, there isn't much more of an issue. Grsz¹¹ 01:24, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

I would encourage the anon involved to register for a Wikipedia account. Usually, once one gets involved in Wikipedia deeply enough to discuss things on AN/I or use the dispute resolution mechanisms, one registers for an account and establishes an identity here. Thanks. --John Nagle (talk) 04:33, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

CharlesRKiss again

CharlesRKiss was just brought up here and banned for 24 hours for insults on userpages, unconstructive discussion, WP:NOTFORUM, and WP:SOAP. Now that he's unblocked, he just added a new section to talk:Global warming in which he insults other editors with some nasty, nasty language - exciting stuff. What should be done? Awickert (talk) 01:33, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Plenty of warning to justify an indef, with option to unblock if user promises to stop the nonsense. Anyone who doubts the appropriateness should read his user page. Looie496 (talk) 02:16, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Indefinitely blocked

I've blocked User:CharlesRKiss indefinitely. However, since I am also the person who denied his unblock request a day ago, outside review if needed. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 02:41, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. He has a second account, User:Charlesrkiss, which seems to have been somewhat more productive than his new one, but I'm guessing you'll want to block it too - unless the goal is to send a message by blocking the offending account, not sure how these things work. Awickert (talk) 02:57, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

User:Future Perfect at Sunrise's and the article Greece

This is going nowhere. No consensus for administrator intervention. yandman 07:19, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

The following content has been placed in a collapse box for improved usability.

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. I though first reporting this in the edit-warring noticebard, but I then felt that this is the best place, since edit-warring is not the only thing I wanted to present, and ask for your opinions and feedback. First let me say that I feel really badly, because this is the first time I come here as a "reporter", and especially reporting the behavior of another user. Edit-warring is the first thing. Fut has, only for today, reverted the Greece article 3 times [114], [115],[116]. You can check his contributions for further edit-warring, e.g. in 2008 civil unrest in Greece we have 3 reverts during two days (I also reverted there twice in two days, which I regret). Some days, he was edit-warring in the Greece article for two issues simultaneously, the naming dispute, and the motto (just an example of his reverts on March 25: [117], [118]! But edit-warring is of minor importance for me, when we have to deal with "attitude" issues! Let's explain myself: Fut is insulting towards all the users who do not agree with him. He is impolite, non-civil, and tries to label them in any possible negative way. This remark of his against User:Avg is on the verge of being considered as a personal attack. But the worse came today, and it is this statement of his: "The situation is clear: there is an overwhelming project-wide consensus of uninvolved users, versus an equally overwhelming consensus of a small local faction armed only with undefeatable tenacity. There is not the tiniest chance that one side will ever convince the other. So, the solution is not to have more talk. The solution, I'm very much afraid, is to fight it out, until one side wins. And that, unfortunately, will mean: until one side is banned." Read again: "... fight it out ... until one side is banned". As a member of "a local faction armed only with undefeatable tenacity" I feel really offended. How can these words be written by an administrator, and, especially, by the user who initiated the WP:ARBMAC? Is this the spirit of Wikipedia? Is this how we work and express ourselves here? I think the least Fut could do is to declare that he did not mean what his words say.--Yannismarou (talk) 11:52, 2 April 2009 (UTC) I totally mean it. The current case at Greece reveals a very deep-seated structural problem with the Wikipedia decision-making model: (a) The self-selecting nature of participation in decision-making means that things ultimately get decided by those who are most passionate about them. (b) Where editorial decisions affect POV interests of externally defined groups, such as nationalities or religions, it is naturally members of those groups who are most passionate. (c) This means that things get decided by people who have their own POV interests at stake. Under these circumstances, decision-making in contentious corners of the project is reduced to a stand-off between national factions according to force of numbers, and where one faction numerically dominates, it can create and defend its own POV islands. This can't be tolerated. As long as Wikipedia doesn't find a way to reduce the power of local POV cliques, I will protest and, if necessary, edit-war against them. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:03, 2 April 2009 (UTC) BTW, just one tiny correction: I never "edit-warred" about the national motto on that page. I removed it exactly once, and then consensus for the removal prevailed on the talk page. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:08, 2 April 2009 (UTC) Isn't this an outright admission of WP:POINT?--Avg (talk) 12:06, 2 April 2009 (UTC) How is that? He is stating what a number of editors see as a serious problem on Wikipedia. What he says he will do seems, at the moment, if not the only thing to do about the problem, at least one thing that can be done by those with the stamina. Wikipedia is in danger of having walled gardens -- in fact, I believe it does have a number of walled gardens -- where our policies and guidelines are extremely hard to maintain if they can be maintained at all. Dougweller (talk) 12:23, 2 April 2009 (UTC) It is clear that he disrupts Wikipedia to make a point. However, let's take one step back. Is his point even remotely valid? Future claims he belongs to the moral majority of uninvolved editors who are pushed aside by a small ethnic faction. Has he even substantiated his claims? No. In fact when he's faced with arguments he resorts to personal attacks and threats. What actually happens is that he is a heavily involved party, subject of sanctions of WP:ARBMAC, whose three principles (Purpose of Wikipedia, Decorum, Editorial process) he has repeatedly violated. --Avg (talk) 12:34, 2 April 2009 (UTC) I didn't know that WP:POINT said Thou shalt not disrupt Wikipedia to make a point, unless thy point is valid. ΔιγουρενΕμπρος! 13:04, 2 April 2009 (UTC) By way of clarification, I absolutely agree: when the point is *invalid*, it most certainly doesn't deserve any disruption. Disruption in pursuit of an invalid point is the count buffoon's job; buffoons' labour union would be very unhappy about competition in that area. ΔιγουρενΕμπρος! 16:11, 2 April 2009 (UTC) What is the "moral majority of uninvolved editors" anyways?  rdunnPLIB  14:33, 2 April 2009 (UTC) I think FP could do with a prolonged Wikibreak, to be perfectly frank. His erratic behaviour in recent weeks is a sign of increasing frustration and, sadly, loss of his formerly trademark German sangfroid. The FP of late is certainly not the FP we'd grown to know and love. ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 12:32, 2 April 2009 (UTC) Stop it, I'm gonna cry. My sensitive inner being can't stand such professions of love [119] ;-) Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:39, 2 April 2009 (UTC) And I meant every word. ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 12:44, 2 April 2009 (UTC) Although I tried to stay away and not involve in the current discussions, I see the situation is worsening and I'll comment as well. The cause of the problem is essentially the Macedonia naming dispute that is going on for years in the real world, but reflecting here in WP as well. In short (for those uninformed if there are any...), Greece objects the usage of name Macedonia by its neighboring country (Republic of Macedonia) everywhere in the real world (mainly because there is a region in Greece called with the same name) and, as a consequence, Greek editors here in WP strictly follow that Greek national policy and try to impose their POV as much as possible. However, before several years a WP community wide compromise has been reached and the country here in WP is referred to as Republic of Macedonia, a solution that balances between the option to reference the country as simply as Macedonia (that the Macedonia’s constitutional , it can be also said a self-identification name, and also widely used by English speaking people and media) and the provisional reference the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia that was originally invented before several years and intended to be used in UN until the dispute is resolved (note that it is not a name, it is a provisional reference). However, from time to time there are regular disruptions caused by some Greek editors in order to impose their view (to change the WP policy of usage of Republic of Macedonia to FYROM). I must say it is pretty much irritating, it causes long and unproductive discussions involving politics, history, personal attacks, edit warring, page protections etc, etc… This is pretty much frustrating, it completely takes the time and desire to truly edit and improve those articles and I understand the FPS behavior in such circumstances (that is the reason why I'm always trying to stay away from this kind of discussions because they almost always don’t finish productively). This incident is a result of the long standing discussion on Greece article talk page when several editors (including FPS) tried to line up that article with the rest of WP articles (to use the same naming policy as in the rest of the Macedonia related articles) and it was fiercely opposed by Greek editors. So, we have a situation when all non-Greek editors from different places all over the world have an opposite view with the Greek editors (you can check the talk page to confirm this) and the situation is now even more complicated than it was at the beginning of discussion. I also think there is a problem here in WP because it seems it is very hard to produce neutral solution (there are no applicable mechanisms) when a group of editors (in this case grouped on national basis) is hardly pushing a solution without much concern about opposite views. About FPS, I think he is one of the most devoted, cool-headed and neutral editors involved in Macedonia’s related articles for years, you can check his edit history and see that he really spent hard time to keep those articles neutral and in good shape. These articles we are talking about will be a total mess without having assistance of neutral admins involved as much as FPS in the recent period. Therefore before any decision has been made, I urge neutral and uninvolved readers to dig in more in the history of this conflict, to extract conclusions on their own and probably all this mess should be resolved on a higher level (RfA looks appropriate to me).MatriX (talk) 13:08, 2 April 2009 (UTC) MatriX,Please avoid tagging user with ethnic labels. How does anyone know what ethnicity/nationality we are dealing with? How do you know that FPS is no Greek? Can anyone prove anything? Perhaps. MatriX please remove your ethnic label, otherwise thank you for your contribution and good to have you on board. I consider myself a neutral editor. I am a neutral editor. I follow established precedents and they say that depending on the context we use one of the two (or both) terms. If anyone can prove that I do not back my statements... prove it.Politis (talk) 13:32, 2 April 2009 (UTC) While FP's choice of words could be qualified as — infelicitous — the problem he describes is real and has already led to a number of catastrophic disputes to the quality of the encyclopedia. Because of self-selection, pseudo-consensus forms around local "convection cells" of editors battling around a few very strong points of view, to the point of scaring away anyone with a semblance of neutrality. The constant abuse, disregard for policy, and aggressiveness in those walled gardens are so strong that few administrators dare venture in them, and are always unfailingly attacked for trying to preserve the encyclopedia. FP should be commended for willingly trying to bring some neutrality and conformance to our core principles despite the organized and oftentimes vicious attacks that such attempts bring. The community should seriously consider methods by which the work of dedicated volunteers like FP could be supported; and perhaps consider improvements to policy to solve the longstanding problem of real-world disputes corrupting the encyclopedia before we burn even more admins and have to throw up our hands in defeat. — Coren (talk) 13:24, 2 April 2009 (UTC) Thank you Coren. Just a small point, I would want to stress that in this dispute I definitely do not consider myself as having ventured in "as an administrator". I'm clearly a party with my own opinion here - but it's an opinion not predetermined by my national allegiance, that's the point. – Apart from that, I can only repeat my plea of the other day: the only way, given present wiki procedures, to take the decision out of the hands of the partisans is to outnumber them. There's a poll that's still open. Please please, everybody who has not yet done so, I know it's a boring issue, but please go and register an opinion there. I truly don't care which side you decide, as long as we'll have a result that is not exclusively dominated by the national partisan vote. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:43, 2 April 2009 (UTC) I wonder if the problem is that ArbCom constantly appear to frighten the useful users (inc. admins) away from this much more informal, yet equally important form of dispute resolution. The same goes for when ArbCom fail to recognise things that need to be recognised. For example, certain arbitrators seem to be unable, incapable or unwilling to fully support attempts to recognise or formally appreciate the ideal way things are meant to work, like here, when usually, that's not how it would work. Until each of the users who abstained (as well as that who despicably opposed) get it through their heads that the only kind of obligation on Wikipedia are those that are self-imposed, this will not change. If you want tireless voluntary self-appointed work to be recognised, then please do something more substantive yourself than just ask or talk about a need that it be recognised by everyone else. If ArbCom cannot fully support this sort of thing formally, then it's beyond me how any arbitrator can honestly expect the community as a whole to do so in the same fashion. As it is, although we have legitimate reasons to oppose certain RFAs, it seems we also have a large share of silly excuses too; attempts by the community to formally recognise/support admin-work would have a similar result. I do agree that FPS's work should be commended. Ncmvocalist (talk) 13:57, 2 April 2009 (UTC) I echo Coren's thoughts with respect to the general project-wide problem of clusters of ethno-nationalist editors attempting to circumvent NPOV through supposed consensus. In the instant case, though, the diffs cited by Yannismarou with respect to Future Perfect at Sunrise's edits to Greece could indeed be construed as edit-warring, which I am sure he knows is never an appropriate solution for any problem.  Sandstein  13:39, 2 April 2009 (UTC) For anything like this to have a meaning, the first argument in his whole reasoning has to be correct. And his first argument here is that (in this case) the Greeks are a minority turning consensus around to their favor, while all others are a majority unable to establish NPOV. The fact is that we all remain *unconvinced* of the veracity of this argument, and FP refuses to even discuss about proving it, or about the other side's opinion which he dismisses degradingly. Other than that, I totally support his rationale, and I'd do anything I could to support him in a similar case where I judged that there was collective POV pushing. In this case, however, he is terribly wrong, and the more public such a persistence becomes (like e.g. with this thread right above), the more third party opinions come with the Greek side (just check the last 3-4 oppose votes and their rationale). This is a serious indication he is wrong, which combined with the fact he doesn't want to discuss it, makes things even worse... BTW I also think very high of him, and he knows it. NikoSilver 13:42, 2 April 2009 (UTC) As Coren says, Future Perfect is just describing a real problem, and he should be commended for his efforts (and told to use better wording the next time). --Enric Naval (talk) 13:58, 2 April 2009 (UTC) I would argue that if FPS is to become a high profile case, then all his contributions - under all his user names, if applicable - should be examined. We should examin his method of seeking election, potential racial prejudice (where agreed) and swearing/intimidation tactics. My respectful feeling would be that he is best suited as an editor, not an administrator. He definetly seems to be pursuing something. Thank you all. Politis (talk) 13:46, 2 April 2009 (UTC) I think this affair shows the limitations both of Wikipedia policy and of existing arbitration remedies. Fut. Perf. is absolutely right to point out that we have what amounts to a "walled garden" of POV in articles relating to Greece, where Greek editors seek to impose a form of words that is consistent with the views of their government and nationalist parties. It's comparable to (for instance) Arab editors insisting on referring to Israel as "the Zionist entity" on all articles relating to Arab countries. Clearly this isn't acceptable; it's a fundamental violation of NPOV as well as a range of other policies, including our naming conventions. A number of Greek editors are indisputably using Wikipedia as a vehicle to promote their faction's POV, in open defiance of our standing policies. There's also no doubt that the provisions of the previous arbitration case on this issue - WP:ARBMAC - have been systematically violated. Each one of the principles set out by the ArbCom in that case has been broken by multiple editors. Bad faith is consistently being shown, wikilawyering is endemic, basic policy requirements are simply being ignored and external political dicta are being imported as justifications. Unfortunately, this is where arbitration enforcement appears to break down. We can deal adequately with individual editors, but when you have a dozen or more editors acting as an ethnic-nationalist block vote, admins appear (understandably) to be much more reluctant to impose some order. The problem is endemic across Wikipedia; as well as established editors edit-warring on obvious articles such as Greece, we have a constant drizzle of vandalism from newly-registered editors or Greek IP addresses, often on articles with only a loose connection with Macedonia (such as Staffordshire University). A number of editors, including Fut. Perf. and myself, are monitoring these problems but face constant hostility from nationalists on both sides (predominately Greeks, it has to be said). Unfortunately a second arbitration case is likely to be needed to address this problem. The creation of POV walled gardens by any group, be it an ethnic, religious or political one, is a problem we've had for a long time. It's the nature of these things that they cannot adequately be resolved within the walled garden - someone needs to knock down the walls. -- ChrisO (talk) 13:54, 2 April 2009 (UTC) I think the primary problem here is that Future Perfect is taking on more than one admin should. There should be 6 or 7 admins giving their attention to this particular national issue. Chillum 13:58, 2 April 2009 (UTC) I second that. A group of admins should work on Balkan-related articles, not — as quite frequently — Fut. Perf. alone. If the issue is that much disputed, probably some kind of reference is needed to both solutions ONCE in every article. (According to the Greek government..., according to other sources the name is...) Squash Racket (talk) 14:09, 2 April 2009 (UTC) But FutPer is not acting as an objective adms my friends?! Could you explain me why is he now un-bolging the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia name from the Republic of Macedonia article without prior discussion?!--Yannismarou (talk) 14:15, 2 April 2009 (UTC) As a recent newcomer to the Macedonia naming dispute I think that this complaint is unwarranted. On the Talk:Greece page it was advertised in a discussion of the overall "naming" issue as an attempt to talk things out with a cooler head and more reasonably. When I followed the link, however, it led me here to an attempt to remove from the discussion one of the more vocal opponents of the uncompromising Greek POV. The lead-up text to following the link here was misleading. I think that it is a case of WP:GAME. Future Perfect is trying to improve Wikipedia by enforcing standards within one of its most closely-guarded "walled gardens". He doesn't deserve to be placed here. Some of the same editors who above sound so calm and reasonable are not so calm and reasonable at Talk:Greece. I was accused by one of the preceding editors of being a sockpuppet before he ever even examined my user page and edit history. There is a history there of very strong nationalistic opinions driving unwarranted attacks, rude and insulting comments, and uncompromising positions in violation of Wikipedia policy. Future Perfect needs some help there. (Taivo (talk) 14:20, 2 April 2009 (UTC)) Including yourself, Taivo? [120] Talking about rich northern European neighbors who can buy poor Eastern Europeans in order to shut it up? Kapnisma (talk) 14:30, 2 April 2009 (UTC) No one is immune from hyperbole to make a point in a heated discussion, but I fail to see that as a personal attack. It was a comment about Greece and Greek politics, not about individual editors. (Taivo (talk) 14:54, 2 April 2009 (UTC)) Taivo, I respect your efforts in the talkpage and I thank you. I notice you voted second, before the oppose rationale was posted. Just out of curiosity, and without any intent to imply anything, what brought you to the poll? NikoSilver 14:32, 2 April 2009 (UTC) I don't honestly remember. No one asked me on my talk page, which sometimes happens. I sometimes look at the Wikipedia requests for arbitration page and other such fora and occasionally a topic catches my interest. Sometimes there is something that comes up on a language page that I watch. I don't remember in this case. (Taivo (talk) 14:54, 2 April 2009 (UTC)) It would be helpful if you remembered, because evidently I wasn't the only one wondering about it (only a lot more cautiously). NikoSilver 15:16, 2 April 2009 (UTC) If people are suspecting me of canvassing: I swear I didn't (except through my open appeals on this board, in this very thread), and I specifically don't remember ever having interacted with Taivo (or with any other of the "newcomers" in the debate, certainly not in private.) Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:17, 2 April 2009 (UTC) Let me put this as carefully as possible. You are asking about a single supporter who is clearly an active Wikipedia editor and who is clearly not a sock puppet. Why isn't anyone asking about the drove of opponents who suddenly showed up whose edit history is old and vague at best? My interests have ranged from Book of Mormon to Aramaic language to Death Valley (California) to Buyang language to Rivne (Ukraine) and beyond. I have created dozens of stubs for obscure languages and added bibliographic references for even more languages. You can look at my real world web pages here and here and here and see my photo here and my USU faculty page here. I actually studied Ancient Greek back in graduate school and own three different copies of the film "Alexander", so my interest in Greece is not totally out of the blue. The vast majority of the opponents appear to be one-topic editors and I suspect are little more than ghosts and formerly active accounts. No one is asking about them or how they managed to suddenly appear at Talk:Greece. (Taivo (talk) 13:14, 3 April 2009 (UTC)) If you want genuine sock puppetry there’s some further down this very thread where one of our Greek nationalist editors has logged out and re-emerged as an anonymous IP from Panama in order to accuse Future Perfect of being part of some conspiracy theory to “Balkanise the Balkans” (or whatever). His later comments suggest he thinks sock and meat puppetry is standard practice and allowable by Wiki-policy so you’ve got to wonder how much of this kind of thing is going on in this neck of the woods and how many of the “votes” are genuine. Folantin (talk) 13:29, 3 April 2009 (UTC) For the record, the "Panamese" anon below is one of a small group of well-known banned harassers (and should have been rolled back before people opted to answer to him). But I have no reason to believe he's a sock of any of the people who turned up at the poll, and I also don't think any of those are literally socks of each other. There are a couple of longtime inactive or semi-active accounts there that got suddenly revived, pointing to some possible canvassing among the old boys network, and there are also of course several edit-warring-only single purpose accounts among them, but that's about all. I'm very much in favour of the idea that the weight of a !vote should be evaluated critically according to the account's overall productivity, but none of them is strictly illegitimate. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:46, 3 April 2009 (UTC) Ah, my bad. From past experience I know that ANI is one of the few places on Wikipedia where banned users can sock with impunity ;)!--Folantin (talk) 13:56, 3 April 2009 (UTC) I see suggestions here to even "examine his method of seeking election". FPaS has been an admin since November 2006, for crying out loud; insinuating now, without any evidence provided at all that his "method of seeking election" needs to be examined, is a brutal personal attack and does not help to resolve conflicts like this one at all. Politis, please retract that statement (in full, the rest of your suggestions are not much better) or provide ample diffs to support it. Fram (talk) 14:32, 2 April 2009 (UTC) Fram, I truly agree with your sentiment and you find an ally in me; can you just as forecfully put a stop to editors labelling some users as 'Greeks' and using the term in a deragatory manner? As I keep stating, we should never give ethnic labels in a mostly anonymous site such as wikipedia. Otherwise, I think FPS might have a word to say before I take any reverting or proof-supplying action - it seems fair. Also, if that is a 'brutal attack', then how would you describe swearing (using the f word, etc) as FPS had done. I would say that swearing is bullying and my comment was objective under the circumstances Politis (talk) 14:58, 2 April 2009 (UTC) The problem, Politis, is that few issues are as clearly identified with a particular country and its expatriates as is the Macedonia naming dispute. Greece was the author of the dispute and has pushed its POV throughout the international community. It has singlehandedly blocked Macedonia's membership in international organizations because of it. When you look at the self-proclaimed nationalities of the users who voted "oppose" they were 90% (or more) persons who freely identified themselves as "Greek" on their user pages, used Greek letters to write their user names, or claimed to be native or nearly native speakers of Greek. To identify this group of editors as "Greek" is hardly prejudicial when that is what they call themselves on their user pages and elsewhere. I also notice that the dispute is bleeding over onto the Republic of Macedonia page where editors who oppose Future Perfect at Greece are pushing their POV on that page and overemphasizing the FYROM designation. The present no arguments for why they want to bold FYROM on the Macedonia page other than "Why not?" (Taivo (talk) 15:13, 2 April 2009 (UTC)) Taivo, you receive concrete answers on the bolding issue, while you present inaccurate aguments, e.g. telling that Taiwan's is RoC's internationally recognized name. Can you please respond to what I say in the appropriate talk page. Thank you.--Yannismarou (talk) 15:34, 2 April 2009 (UTC) For anyone who has never spent serious time working on articles which suffer from various forms of nationalist editing, I would strong suggest taking a look at User:Moreschi/The Plague/Nationalist hotspots. This is one of the most contentious areas of Wikipedia, and Fut Perf. is dead on when making the observation that we are not currently set up to prevent it. He also happens to be one of the few people willing to take the grief that comes with trying to keep the peace (or pieces) from crashing to the ground. You're dealing with countless fringe (and some not so fringe) groupes of editors who genuinely, and militantly believe that their specific ethnocentric view of history is "the truth"... that doesn't help foster intellectual, objective discourse. Flagged revisions will probably go a long way to fixing this, but until they are in place, some breathing room needs to be granted to those of us willing to try and mitigate the ugliness. Hiberniantears (talk) 14:44, 2 April 2009 (UTC) Hiberniantears, please give clear example when stating "groupes of editors who genuinely, and militantly believe that their specific ethnocentric view of history is "the truth"...". In this particular case, can you pick up quotes that make your case? If you think you were a bit hasty, you might wish to withdraw your comment. Thanks. Politis (talk) 15:03, 2 April 2009 (UTC) At least give me a challenge. I'll give you this one to start. The history of just one page, Turkey. Total trainwreck, and par for the course. Next, read this, and if you need to view the parade of banned sock armies from any of those articles, I'm sure any number of admins here can provide a myriad of lists. Hiberniantears (talk) 15:39, 2 April 2009 (UTC) Challenge? No challenge intended. Thanks for the links. The first one seemed irrelevant. The second some kind of a list. Is there some umbilical link between people giving their reasoned argument for an edit that contradicts some admin, and the label "groupes of editors who... militantly believe that their specific ethnocentric view of history is the truth"? Think it through (and no, this is not a challenge). Politis (talk) 15:53, 2 April 2009 (UTC) I think User:Future Perfect at Sunrise is mobbed by people who want to push their nationalist ideas on Wikipedia, in any case he's not alone in this discussion, if you have any doubts see talk:Greece. To me this is a situation that should draw attention to POV pushing on national articles and maybe produce a clear policy regarding this attitude, because otherwise, if we accept this situation Wikipedia is doomed, people will simply watch "their" pages and defend their national POV against all the world (like how it's done in talk:Greece at this point). I think if anything Future Perfect should be praised for raising this issue. 147.9.205.47 (talk) 15:17, 2 April 2009 (UTC) At the risk of being accused of repeating myself, I precisely agree to Politis right above. We're not talking about an unsubstantiated opposition here. Nor is it only backed up by the "faction". It is a policy-based rationale backed up by editors of various nationalities at an increasing rate. The problem is that FP (whom I repeat I tremendously respect) refuses to even discuss this rationale and dismisses it as nationalistic. I totally support his rationale as a general idea for examination in other cases, but not this one! Please read for yourselves that other third party users who happen to disagree with the Greeks (including Taivo above)[121], at least acknowledge that the opposition has points which are policy based, and that it is a matter of interpreting which points should prevail over the others. Not to mention that there's a poll running at the moment there, and at least FP should wait for it to finish and then interpret if it is like this or not, and then resort to edit warring (if ever)! NikoSilver 15:35, 2 April 2009 (UTC) For any interesting party, the discussiona about FYROM's bolding (a case where Fut once again allegedly exposed his NPOV proactively reverting against established version of the article and before even opening a discussion in the talk page) is here.--Yannismarou (talk) 15:41, 2 April 2009 (UTC) Why is this here? If it's a content dispute, keep it on the talk pages. If you're alleging edit-warring, take it to 3RR. If the problem is "attitude", take it to Civil. If your arguments in support of administrator intervention are baseless claims of racism against anyone who disagrees with you, repeated cries of "I feel really offended (sic)" and the fact that the admin in question reverted an article (!!!), well... yandman 15:50, 2 April 2009 (UTC) If it is all that except for the latter?--Yannismarou (talk) 16:00, 2 April 2009 (UTC) Well, I think it's safe to say that there is no consensus for a community ban of User:Future Perfect at Sunrise. yandman 16:06, 2 April 2009 (UTC) perhaps there is for a community vote of thanks. DGG (talk) 16:44, 2 April 2009 (UTC) What’s this? Future Perfect has refused to obey Greek nationalist shibboleths and has dared to refer to Macedonia without its obligatory “Former Yugoslav Republic of” figleaf? Oh dear, oh dear. Let’s hang him out to dry. Let’s lynch him at ArbCom. The heretic. As others have said above, the hijacking of articles by various gangs of POV-pushers is one of the most serious issues facing Wikipedia. Whole areas of the encyclopaedia have been given over to factions who care nothing about neutrality, due weight, reliable sourcing or even common English usage (to take one example, most books on Alexander the Great care little about the precise details of his ethnicity – now compare that with the talk pages of his article on Wikipedia). The Balkans is one of the worst of these areas and Future Perfect is one of the few admins with the guts to police it day in day out. We’ve got to decide whether we’re here to provide information for the general reader or to disseminate propaganda by special interest groups. Let's start breaking up the gangs and throwing the worst members off this project. --Folantin (talk) 17:05, 2 April 2009 (UTC) There had been an RfC for this user some time ago. Check it out. Also, note that he usually edits only Greek-related articles, mainly about controversial issues such as minorities etc, with a clear POV in favour of the newly found protectorates. My take (after examining his past here closely; a thing I suggest you do too before rushing out to premature conclusions) is that he's doing mercenary work for establishing the balkanisation of Balkans, that took place in the 90s, further. 190.34.160.226 (talk) 17:30, 2 April 2009 (UTC) — 190.34.160.226 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. An allegation of a conspiracy theory from an anonymous IP. That ploy always works. Must use it myself one day. --Folantin (talk) 17:40, 2 April 2009 (UTC) Folantin or Moreschi or whatever: everyone can edit this page (even users with two or more accounts, like yourself and Fut.Perf. Even IP users like myself). As for the conspiracy theory, allow some of us to know better about Fut.Petf.'s deeds here and in real life. Stick to your eunuch singing: you're being used. (My comment above wasn't referred to you in particular: unindenting.). 190.34.160.226 (talk) 18:06, 2 April 2009 (UTC) Stabbing in the dark. But thanks for giving us a clue as to your identity. If you're such a coward you have to log out in order to peddle your absurd Greek nationalist conspiracy theories, you don't get to talk about other users' "eunuch singing". --Folantin (talk) 18:20, 2 April 2009 (UTC) At least I'm not a hired goon. Cheers, and be loyal you two, employers fire non-loyal goons. 190.34.160.226 (talk) 18:27, 2 April 2009 (UTC) Money not so good in bug-eyed conspiracist lunacy then? Shame. You want to get where the action is. The CIA, the Mossad, the Masons, the Bilderberg Group, the Elders of Zion, the Airfix Modellers' Club, the Secret Seven and the Cult of Cthulhu all pay top dollar for editing Wikipedia.--Folantin (talk) 18:50, 2 April 2009 (UTC) My take on this can be described with the saying the road to hell is paved with good intentions. Future came into Macedonia articles with the purpose of cleaning the crap generated from both sides. Initially he was very successful and respected by everyone. However, he slowly got himself too much into the issue and acquired a very strong POV himself, to the point where he now openly advocates a mass banning of one side of the dispute. His basic mistake is that he constructs his arguments (even immediately above) as if by default he's the NPOV crusader. He didn't even hold back a minute to see if his accusations hold any water at all. He doesn't leave any room to third parties to even examine if he is right or wrong. He simply is right and he just needs help in his just cause against nationalists. Well, I feel personally offended to be labelled a nationalist again and again. I hate nationalism as much as anybody. Again and again, I see Future using "we" versus "them" arguments. I am not "them". I am also "we". This is too unhealthy. --Avg (talk) 17:06, 2 April 2009 (UTC) Community vote of thanks Harde har har :) But, thanks for the hard and difficult work, FPAS. seicer | talk | contribs 16:52, 2 April 2009 (UTC) I'm not sure what is this section for, but I have to thank user Future Perf. for working against national POV ganging on Greece article. man with one red shoe 20:15, 2 April 2009 (UTC) Support thank you. This isn't an easy issue, and FP probably isn't perfect himself, but he's taken on a very big problem and tried to do the best he could with it, and seemingly done well. John Carter (talk) 20:21, 2 April 2009 (UTC) Support thank you. For making all the bigots come out of the closet. Dr.K. logos 21:29, 2 April 2009 (UTC) Support - it's not easy to deal with disruption coming from a group of editors as opposed to individuals, but FP deserves our collective thanks for standing up against the tide of POV. -- ChrisO (talk) 23:54, 2 April 2009 (UTC) Support - I've been involved with other "walled gardens" before, but with time the parochial interests worked with those of us on the outside and improved the article. Consensus was reached, compromises were hammered out, and a good NPOV article was the result. This cabal running the walled garden at Greece and expanding their purview into Republic of Macedonia and other places where the Greek POV ("Greek" as in "of Greece") can be expanded without regard for Wikipedia policy and practice is as uncompromising as any I've seen before. There are some notable exceptions, but the most vocal proponents of the Greek view tend to be utterly convinced of the rightness of their "cause" and they don't care who or what they steamroll. Because of this, Future Perfect is called many names by them, none of them deserved. I applaud his patience and tireless effort in this area. (Taivo (talk) 04:24, 3 April 2009 (UTC)) Taking the opportunity to publically thank Fut. Perf. for his significant contributions to the always conflictive area of South-Eastern Europe. His patience & good-humoured approach to even blatant disruption are truly remarkable. - Ev (talk) 16:29, 3 April 2009 (UTC) No Greek cabal Dr.K. logos 04:59, 3 April 2009 (UTC) Welcome to Greece. Parthenon is on the right side of the entrance. Enjoy your stay ye who enter here. (There are no walled articles. The only real walls are the walls of the mind) Dr.K. logos 13:30, 3 April 2009 (UTC) Welcome to Thessaloniki. The White Tower is easily accessible. How strange! Like so many other monuments in Greece it has no walled garden around! These nationalist Greeks decided to erect them here, in Wikipedia. In any case, the Macedonians are ready to offer you their hospitality and make your staying as comfortable as possible.--Yannismarou (talk) 16:41, 4 April 2009 (UTC) Many thanks to Future Perfect, who deals with the difficult area of POV and fringe theory in the Balkans with a grace, aplomb and humour that few can muster even in less rocky waters. His knowledge of the languages, the region and complexities of the political issues at stake, as well as the various editors involved, are absolutely invaluable. Kafka Liz (talk) 01:25, 4 April 2009 (UTC) Recruiting the mice brigade It's been stated above that 6 or 7 administrators ought to be working on the Greek nationalism dispute. Actually, it should be double that. A team of half a dozen got worn down at a similar dispute (The Troubles). We need a group big enough that work's spread around to a fair share on each set of shoulders. 12 to 15 admins are enough to check and balance each other. Remember the story about the mice who had a meeting about a cat that was eating them? Everybody agreed that the solution was to put a bell around the cat's neck so they could hear it coming. Somebody asked, "Who bells the cat?" That was the end of their meeting. An ethnic dispute is a great big cat and there's safety in numbers. So don't hold a vote to thank Future Perfect at Sunrise; hold a vote to join him. Sign up to watchlist these articles, to semiprotect them when necessary, to communicate with editors on the talk pages and show them site policies mean something. When the need occurs, show up to form an impartial consensus. Although not an administrator, I'll add my name at number 12. It doesn't take effect unless the other spaces get filled. DurovaCharge! 17:45, 2 April 2009 (UTC) Then could we have your input here? And, if you think that I am that wrong, feel free to join him.--Yannismarou (talk) 20:42, 2 April 2009 (UTC) Well, after all, wait a bit first, until he finally decides what he stands for. After his reverting (knowing he is acting against a long-standing consensus resulting from a popular vote), he decided that the things are not exactly the way he thought about. So, let's see ... By the way, I would also like to add my name, but I am an involved party, just like Fut.--Yannismarou (talk) 21:01, 2 April 2009 (UTC) Actually when intervening in policy matters it's best to keep as light a touch as possible about the content side. If there's a question about copyright or reliable sources or BLP application that's one thing, but in a discussion like the one in that link I'd rather step back and keep an eye out for civility etc.--being totally evenhanded. In forming consensus, think procedural or policy consensus. DurovaCharge! 03:08, 3 April 2009 (UTC) Thank you for clarifying that. Therefore, your mice team's purpose is not to join Fut.Per. but to help "forming consensus, thinking procedural or policy consensus". Because I really did not like the wording in your introductory comment of this thread.--Yannismarou (talk) 16:14, 4 April 2009 (UTC) A few good mice: henrik•talk 20:17, 2 April 2009 (UTC)   Will Beback  talk  20:36, 2 April 2009 (UTC) John Carter (talk) 20:45, 2 April 2009 (UTC) (although I might need prompting, as I tend to get sidetracked a lot) SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 21:00, 2 April 2009 (UTC) Not my area of expertise, but sometimes that can be an advantage in situations like this. AniMatetalk 22:29, 2 April 2009 (UTC) Sign yer name here LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:01, 2 April 2009 (UTC) Rklawton (talk) 16:47, 4 April 2009 (UTC) Sign yer name here Sign yer name here Sign yer name here DurovaCharge! 17:45, 2 April 2009 (UTC) Guys I'm touched. But if you want to "vote" for something useful, there is actually still that damned old straw poll open, and as I said, the most crucial thing right now is that it gets a halfway reasonable outcom. It's here. It's now totally submerged by subsequent discussion, but you can safely skip that, there's nothing new in the rest of the page. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:57, 2 April 2009 (UTC) Actually, by Husond's own definition, the poll has closed at 19:30 UTC today. However, I'm proposing extending it for another day, so that everyone can still vote.--Avg (talk) 21:04, 2 April 2009 (UTC) I wasn't voting for anything. I was volunteering to help monitor articles.   Will Beback  talk  21:09, 2 April 2009 (UTC) And I think that just like Beback this is what all sysops who put their name here want to do; something that obviously Fut (and Avg) misunderstood. Anyway, from my part, I support Durova's initiative (not to help Fut, of course, but monitor articles), and I hope the list with the 12 knights is ready the soonest possible.--Yannismarou (talk) 21:27, 2 April 2009 (UTC) Anybody who wants to watch some articles: Cham Albanians, Markos Botsaris and Souliotes could do with a few pairs of eyes. Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:53, 2 April 2009 (UTC) I also strongly recommend watching the Macedonia naming dispute abuse log created by Dragons flight a few days ago. There's a constant stream of vandalism, usually involving defacements of the name "Republic of Macedonia" and/or its replacement with POV terms such as "Skopia", "Slavomacedonia" etc. Many of the vandals are anonymous IP addresses in Greece or newly registered users. This is happening all over Wikipedia, not just on articles about the country or about Greece. Anyone who watches this for a while, as I have, will soon realise that the vandalism is overwhelmingly in one direction - in favour of the Greek nationalist POV. There are structural reasons why disruptive Greek nationalism may be more prevalent than its Macedonian counterpart (more Internet access, more English-speakers, a bigger overseas diaspora etc), but the end result is that most of the disruption you deal with will be from the Greek nationalists. -- ChrisO (talk) 23:51, 2 April 2009 (UTC) Further to ChrisO's request, could please some uninvolved admins have a look at the contributions of some involved admins in the last couple of days since the abuse log does not capture admin renames? As an example, User:Future Perfect at Sunrise changed references from FYROM to ROM at List of Greek roads and User:Ev at a host of articles [122], falsely stating some kind of standard and policy, while the straw poll is still open.--Avg (talk) 20:59, 3 April 2009 (UTC) Good for Ev. L'audace, l'audace, toujours l'audace. (Taivo (talk) 21:21, 3 April 2009 (UTC)) I can't speak for Ev, but it's clearly right that we should have a consistent approach to naming. There's absolutely no policy reason why articles about Greece should be a walled garden in which fYROM is used while RoM is used everywhere else on Wikipedia. The only reasons we've heard so far is "it's confusing" (what other RoM could it be confused with?) and "it's offensive to Greeks" (which is completely irrelevant). I'm all for knocking down the walled garden. -- ChrisO (talk) 13:15, 4 April 2009 (UTC) There is no walled garden. However, there is clearly a crusade from a couple of biased editors to push their POV against Wikipedia policy and previous consensus. Blatant violations of almost every Wikipedia policy I can think of. They consistently disrupt Wikipedia by inserting a controversial name in the place of another controversial name. They should be immediately reverted and cautioned (as a minimum). --Avg (talk) 17:22, 4 April 2009 (UTC) It all comes down to the following question (no kidding) "Is the name former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia POV or NPOV?" I'm not kidding, this is the crux of the matter. Please, please get involved, do your research and weigh in. We want this to be over. This is the cause of all disputes.--Avg (talk) 17:57, 2 April 2009 (UTC) That's not really the right question. The right question is, "By what name is this region most commonly known?" We go by reliable sources, not by worrying about whose feelings might get hurt. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 18:29, 2 April 2009 (UTC) I second that, so what is really the most common unambiguous name for this country? Let me also add that Wikipedia simply describes, does not prescribe. Now the reason an apparent content dispute needs administrative intervention is that both sides adamantly believe they're defending NPOV against POV warriors. This will simply never end unless there is some definitive answer that everyone will be forced to follow.--Avg (talk) 18:34, 2 April 2009 (UTC) In English, it's "Macedonia" or (more formally) "The Republic of Macedonia". "Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia" is regarded as a sesquipedelian joke. --Folantin (talk) 18:41, 2 April 2009 (UTC) And yet, UN, EU, NATO, IMF, FIFA, FIBA, EBU and virtually every international organization on this planet are not laughing. But please, don't bring the dispute here.--Avg (talk) 18:49, 2 April 2009 (UTC) Bugs... by that standard this article would just be titled America. That's why most of these topics are such a disaster... everyone just wheels out their preferred sources. Adding to the problem is a general lack of good English language sources, so various factions within any given article can run circles around the admin corps if too few of us can't read the languages that the sources are written in. Hiberniantears (talk) 18:42, 2 April 2009 (UTC) It's the difference between formal and informal speech. Informally, it's America, England, and Macedonia. The articles are at the names most commonly used in formal contexts. --Carnildo (talk) 08:07, 3 April 2009 (UTC) Actually, "United States" is also semi-informal. "United States of America" is the proper formal name of our nation. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 22:06, 3 April 2009 (UTC) I think you mean: "The Republic of the United States of America". Rklawton (talk) 22:21, 3 April 2009 (UTC) No, it's just "The United States of America". "Republic" is not part of the official name. (Taivo (talk) 05:30, 4 April 2009 (UTC)) Or maybe it's "Former British Republic of the U.S.A." Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 22:24, 3 April 2009 (UTC) It's my understanding that the term Republic of Macedonia is used across Wikipedia, with the exception of Greece. On that basis, I think the question that ought to be asked is: what's different about Greece? Alternatively, one could simply turn the original question around: Is "Republic of Macedonia" POV or NPOV? SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 18:47, 2 April 2009 (UTC) No this is not the case. Republic of Macedonia, former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia and plain Macedonia are all used in Wikipedia, according to certain conditions. --Avg (talk) 18:52, 2 April 2009 (UTC) (e/c) Not entirely. Wikipedia:Manual of Style (Macedonia-related articles) suggests RoM generally, but allows fYROM under some (non-Greek) circumstances: In articles about international political organisations or cultural/athletic events where the Republic participates officially under the appellation former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia or variants thereof (e.g. the United Nations, accession to the European Union, the Olympic Games etc.), the official naming conventions of those organisations should be followed when choosing between Republic of Macedonia and former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia The UN, the EU and Nato all prefer fYROM, so European Union, for example, mentions former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia becoming an EU candidate country. I know that because I reverted several editors making WP:AGF edits before I learnt the error of my ways ;-) Cheers, This flag once was redpropagandadeeds 18:54, 2 April 2009 (UTC) How about: is "Republic of Macedonia" POV or not? Reading the guidelines is very clear a self-identifier is not POV, the guidelines cannot be more clear than that, and yes, why we should use it all over the place but not in Greece page? What's special about Greece? I agree that "Macedonia" can be confused with the Greek region, but "Republic of Macedonia" cannot. So what do you have against "Republic of Macedonia" term and why Greece page should be an island of POV? man with one red shoe 20:12, 2 April 2009 (UTC) So what if I proposed a compromise solution that there are two NPOV names which can be used interchangeably?--Avg (talk) 20:25, 2 April 2009 (UTC) It's not quite that easy. The, more or less, official position of an established country which is a member of a number of international bodies carries quite a bit of weight. On the other hand, it is not the sole arbiter of what another nation may refer to itself as. As with many of the current international disputes, if the solution was obvious we wouldn't be here arguing. A case by case approach seems appropriate here. henrik•talk 20:26, 2 April 2009 (UTC) I tend to agree with Henrik above. The name FYROM is not POV, as it is the name that the government recognized at least once. However, to use it today as the primary name by which to refer to the country is less than optimum. The evidence that I've seen indicates that the citizens there refer to it as the ROM. That seems to me, on that basis, to be the most commonly used and recognized form of the name, and the one we should use according to WP:NAME. Yes, I know that internally Macedonia (Greece) refers to itself as Macedonia as well. But I have real trouble seeing how anyone would think that that area calls itself "Republic of Macedonia" or ever has. So, on that basis, I can't see how there is much confusion resulting from using the ROM name for the country. Yes, I know several other countries have the title of their main article as something other than the country's official name. That's fine, because they don't generally use that name themselves internally, and we tend to use the name that is most frequently used by natives and outsiders to refer to that country. I know externally the FYROM name is used a lot for disambiguation purposes. I guess the example that strikes me as most relevant is the article Roman Catholic Church. I know of nowhere where that body officially uses that specific name to describe itself when dealing with internal matters. It is however the unofficial name by which the organization is most frequently recognized, and there are other uses of the name CC, as can be seen at Catholic Church (disambiguation). In that instance, the wikipedia community decided adding the unofficial "Roman" to the name was sufficient to prevent ambiguity. In this case, the name ROM seems to be to be sufficiently unambiguous on its own. John Carter (talk) 21:40, 2 April 2009 (UTC) I know many Roman Catholics (or just Catholics) and I've never heard any of them complain about either of those terms. "Roman" is used to distinguish from the Eastern Catholic Churches, such as Byzantine Catholic. The RCC, naturally, considers itself to be simply "The Church". RCC is commonly used in English, and wikipedia didn't "decide" that, it was decided by conventional usage over many generations. Reliable sources are what count, not the personal opinions of wikipedians. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 14:02, 4 April 2009 (UTC) I've already addressed this particular question several times on other pages, so I won't repeat myself at length here, but "FYROM" is not a name and is not used as such by either Greece or the RoM - see my fuller explanation here. It's merely the diplomatic equivalent of a placeholder or asterisk. The only official name of the country and the only name by which it identifies itself is "Republic of Macedonia". The question we have is whether we follow Wikipedia policy and call a country what it calls itself, or not? Though of course there should be no question about that; the only reason why this is even an issue in the first place is the determination of many of our Greek editors to promote their government's POV rather than following wikipolicy. -- ChrisO (talk) 23:32, 2 April 2009 (UTC) And you've got your answers to that little detail also: [123],[124],[125]. As for applying policy as you simply put it, it has been stressed out clearly, WP:NC talks about the most common unambiguous name which in our case is "(the) former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia", you yourself helped to show exactly that. Your approach is to construct "Republic of Macedonia" (which is by far the least used of the three names) from "Macedonia" using one of many ways to interpret the naming conflict guideline, which by the way is still a guideline, not a policy. In other words, you're applying a qualifier ("Republic of") to the most common term ("Macedonia"), you're not selecting "RoM" because it's the most common term without ambiguity, you're creating a hybrid by contentiously combining "Macedonia"'s higher frequency of use and "RoM"'s unambiguity. WP:NC prohibits us from constructing or prescribing names and your methodology is, to say the least, disputable, even when applying the "self-identifying term" sauce to cover it, which you have incorporated into the guideline anyway. This does not fully summarize the problem of course, a lot more arguments were posed from both sides, but in my view it demonstrates the simplest approach to a seemingly never ending issue. Every time someone tried to focus on this and other valid points the other side usually held the "Greek POV" tag above his head. A continuing game of messing things up and hope your "opponents" would look more disruptive or ridiculous to outside viewers. --Δρακόλακκος (talk) 03:51, 3 April 2009 (UTC) The preceding is an example of the logic applied by the proponents of the Greek POV ("Greek" as in "of Greece"): "Since 'Macedonia' is ambiguous, then we must use the non-name placeholder found in international documents rather than the formal self-identification of the country itself." This is not the solution that Wikipedia has used in other places. To distinguish the two Congos, Wikipedia reverts to the formal self-identifications "Republic of Congo" and "Democratic Republic of Congo". To distinguish the two Chinas, Wikipedia reverts to the formal self-identifications "Republic of China" and "People's Republic of China". To distinguish independent Ireland from the island as a whole and from the English dominion in the north, we revert to the self-identification "Republic of Ireland". But to the Greek nationalist position, Wikipedia practice is unacceptable and the only option for them is the Greek POV. They argue that since international organizations have been forced to use the provisional reference by Athens, that should be the preferred disambiguating option rather than the self-identification of "Republic of Macedonia". They resort to circular logic to accomplish this--a) "Macedonia" is ambiguous, therefore b) Greece forced international organizations to use "the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia", therefore c) "FYROM" is common in international discourse, therefore d) it's not Greek POV to insist on "the most common option besides 'Macedonia'--FYROM" in Wikipedia rather than the shorter NPOV self-identification that Wikipedia uses in most other cases of disambiguation (and which is just as unambiguous)--"Republic of Macedonia". (Taivo (talk) 05:34, 3 April 2009 (UTC)) And the preceding is a perfect example of what the other side is facing. We're advocating Wikipedia policy WP:NCON, while you clearly prescribe that Wikipedia should act differently because "international organizations have been forced to use fYRoM". That is as POV as it can get. And enough with the "Greek nationalist" stuff. Really. Stop it.--Avg (talk) 08:28, 3 April 2009 (UTC) Taivo is spot on. There is a close parallel with this situation in the Middle East over Azerbaijan, a geographical region split between the Republic of Azerbaijan and Iranian Azerbaijan (in fact more Azeris live in Iranian Azerbaijan than in the republic). Yet nobody has any problem with the Wikipedia article on the Republic of Azerbaijan being at Azerbaijan because this is its common English name. "Republic of Macedonia" is unambiguous enough for anybody but the most rabid nationalist.--Folantin (talk) 08:59, 3 April 2009 (UTC) There are various nations where this issue comes up. A continual hot-button has been Burma, which begins with the sentence, "Burma, officially the Union of Myanmar..." because its rulers call it one thing and the world wants to call it something else. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 08:55, 3 April 2009 (UTC) In fact, hitting really close to home, the article on Greece begins "Greece... officially the Hellenic Republic..." "Greece" is not "Greece" to its own people, just to us outsiders. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 08:57, 3 April 2009 (UTC) Yes, but Greece is called "Greece" in English, the Republic of Macedonia is not called FYROM except mostly in official documents and those in my opinion don't count as "current English usage", in normal English: press, books, atlases, encyclopedias it's called "Macedonia". man with one red shoe 13:38, 3 April 2009 (UTC) That's what I'm getting at. This is the English wikipedia, so it behooves us to use what the reliable sources tell us is the most common name (or names) used in English, not the most common names used in Greece necessarily. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 17:13, 3 April 2009 (UTC) The argument for "FYROM" has always been made on the basis of its widespread use internationally and in English. If we were advocating common Greek usage, that would be "Skopje", not "FYROM". ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 17:51, 3 April 2009 (UTC) Once again, Kekrops is ill-informed. "FYROM" does 'not' enjoy "widespread use" in English except in documents that are discussing the Macedonia naming dispute including things that are required to use UN or EU terms for the sake of accuracy. It is virtually absent from English maps and atlases. (Taivo (talk) 05:34, 4 April 2009 (UTC)) Folantin you're not getting it, Taivo is using his political/ideological bias to evaluate the situation, i was talking about common English usage and policy, not any UN documents or diplomatic unfairness. We don't care why "former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia" is common in English, this is a simple fact. Evaluating the reasons why that happens according to our own POV is prescribing. The analogy with Azerbaijan follows Taivo's reasoning, there's no widely used disambiguating name in English for Azerbaijan (not even sure if there's an alternative name in any other language to that matter), and the reasons for that are again irrelevant. --Δρακόλακκος (talk) 13:24, 3 April 2009 (UTC) Sorry, but "Macedonia" or the "Republic of Macedonia" is common English. There are no other "Republics of Macedonia" the state needs to be distinguished from. "Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia" generally only turns up in the documents of organisations scared the Greek government will throw a hissy fit. --Folantin (talk) 13:34, 3 April 2009 (UTC) Nope, all indicators presented in the discussions, even the research by ChrisO of mainstream encyclopedias, showed that "former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia" is a lot more common than "Republic of Macedonia" with plain "Macedonia" ranking first. What we're talking here is which is the most appropriate disambiguating term, which excludes "Macedonia".--Δρακόλακκος (talk) 13:52, 3 April 2009 (UTC) Let me quote from WP:NAMECON guideline: "A city, country, people or person by contrast, is a self-identifying entity: it has a preferred name for itself. The city formerly called Danzig now calls itself Gdańsk; the man formerly known as Cassius Clay now calls himself Muhammad Ali. These names are not simply arbitrary terms but are key statements of an entity's own identity. This should always be borne in mind when dealing with controversies involving self-identifying names." man with one red shoe 13:45, 3 April 2009 (UTC)\ (ec)Actually, Folantin gets it very well. The reason that "Macedonia" is unacceptable to Athens really has nothing to do with disambiguation, that's why those who advocate the Greek POV are not interested in "Republic of Macedonia" which is a good self-identification and is as NPOV as "Republic of China". Indeed, in international organizations, like Macedonia, the Republic of China must be called something else because of a naming dispute that is not too dissimilar from the Macedonia dispute. Indeed, if you look here you will see that "Republic of China" (which, like "Republic of Macedonia" is also not used by the UN) is used in the article on People's Republic of China. In the end, the Greek POV is that Macedonia must be treated differently than every other country in the world in terms of naming. According to them, Wikipedia must not be allowed to give Macedonia its self-identification at all costs and they will trot out every UN and EU document they can find on-line in order to justify that demand. They ignore Wikipedia precedent (China, Congo, Azerbaijan, etc.) and every Wikipedia preference for self-identifications. (Taivo (talk) 13:50, 3 April 2009 (UTC)) Yep. This is why there was nothing "shocking" about Husond's statistics at all. I could guess what the ethnicity of 95%+ of one side of the vote would be before that poll had even taken place. The only people in the world who care about the designation "FYROM" are Greeks. Unfortunately, English Wikipedia has a duty to see things from a more global perspective. --Folantin (talk) 14:03, 3 April 2009 (UTC) Yet even from the global perspective, the majority of countries in the world call it "Republic of Macedonia" in their bilateral relations and official documents. (Taivo (talk) 14:16, 3 April 2009 (UTC)) Yeah, I meant "Unfortunately for the Greek nationalist perspective". In everyday parlance in the anglophone world modern Macedonia isn't "FYROM".--Folantin (talk) 14:19, 3 April 2009 (UTC) Maybe so, but it isn't "Republic of Macedonia" either. Who says that in their "everyday parlance"? ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 18:03, 3 April 2009 (UTC) Istanbul was Constantinople. Now it's Istanbul, not Constantinople. Why did Constantinople get "the works"? It's nobody's business but the Turks. SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 14:25, 3 April 2009 (UTC) This is mostly "relevant" by what you are trying to imply about the "Greek POV" again, anyway, take a look at Tenedos, Imbros and their talk pages, it was concluded that the traditional names were more common in English than the official Turkish names.--Δρακόλακκος (talk) 14:53, 3 April 2009 (UTC) I think it will be easier to have a constructive debate if editors make an effort not to make assumptions about what other editors might be "trying to imply". SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 17:47, 3 April 2009 (UTC) What were you trying to imply, then? "Istanbul" is not ambiguous; "Macedonia" is. ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 18:07, 3 April 2009 (UTC) Apologies, but you can't blame me for underestimating you, since the obvious point you made could be as obviously addressed with the example i gave, i thought you were probably aiming on something else and since you had chosen to highlight an issue that involves Greek history again, my mind went in that direction. Although now that i think of it, how many people know anything about Imbros and Tenedos ? my answer was not as obvious to others as it was to me afterall. Anyway, Istanbul (the local official name), Imbros and Tenedos (both traditional names of Greek origin that have no official use in Turkey for about 8 decades) are the common English names, and that's why they were chosen.--Δρακόλακκος (talk) 18:13, 3 April 2009 (UTC) To sum up, the dispute is over which formal long name to choose, given that the short form is ambiguous. Both "the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia" and "Republic of Macedonia" are in official use, by different parties. It has been demonstrated rather convincingly that the former is the more common of the two, but some editors feel that the self-identifying term should take precedence over the more common English term, arguing that the country has the "right" to decide its own name. Is that a correct appraisal of Wikipedia policy, or a value judgment that should not be influencing the editorial decision-making process? That is the question. ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 15:32, 3 April 2009 (UTC) Actually, Kekrops' "demonstrated rather convincingly" is not an objective measurement, but only from the POV of a person who openly opposes any usage other than "FYROM". The "hard evidence" is totally ambiguous and inconclusive and depends on one's POV approaching it. He likes to cite a Google search, for example. I won't even bother to respond to the invalidity of a Google search for anything scientific except finding the latest YouTube video. I conducted my own unscientific poll on the issue as well. I asked in Yahoo! Answers, "What countries border Bulgaria?" Of the five answers, one included "Republic of Macedonia", three included "Macedonia", and one (named Hephaestus) had "former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia". Thus the two terms were tied. (As an aside, I included in the survey instructions, "DO NOT give a thumbs down to any other answers", everyone followed that instruction except for Hephaestus, who gave a thumbs down to every one else's answer.) (Taivo (talk) 16:03, 3 April 2009 (UTC)) It was demonstrated rather convincingly, as the other side's focus on the self-identification argument has shown. Nobody seriously questioned these findings, the search methods used were described in your beloved guideline.--Δρακόλακκος (talk) 16:38, 3 April 2009 (UTC) Actually, Drakolakkos, there was no "convincing demonstration" at all except in the eyes of those whose viewpoint is Greek. None of the others bothered to even address the "proof" simply because the evidence was 1) so poor, and 2) irrelevant in the face of the self-identification issue. It doesn't matter how "common" or "rare" FYROM is if FYROM itself is irrelevant because it is not a self-identification. Actually, in dealing with the issue of what actually occurs on maps in atlases, I demonstrated conclusively that FYROM is virtually nonexistent in an actual examination of maps and not just doing a worthless Google search. But since the issue of the primacy of self-identification for disambiguation is more important, counting noses is irrelevant. It's like this--you have to disambiguate between two Congos. If counting noses of references were more important than self-identification, then the Democratic Republic of Congo should still be called "Zaire" since that name is far more common on maps and in texts than the new name is. The Greek POV is insisting on unique treatment for the Republic of Macedonia. Wikipedia should treat the disambiguation of Macedonia just as it treats every other case of disambiguation (Congo, China, Ireland, America, Azerbaijan, etc.) and use the full form of the self-identification and not some name imposed on an unwilling population by its southern neighbor. (Taivo (talk) 20:07, 3 April 2009 (UTC)) Wow, a lot can happen while the devil scratches his eye. Am I right to assume that the lengthy discussion above didn't produce any practical effects? Now that both me and Future Perfect seem to have escaped punishment for our purported gross misdemeanor, I would expect some actual decisions to finally put a halt to what's happening at Greece, and at once resolve this whole FYROM/Republic of Macedonia imbroglio. Few seem to dispute that we have a serious case of block voting and walled garden here, and yet this is set to be another topic to be forsaken as soon as it reaches the top of this page and plunges into the netherworld of the archives. Are we hamsters in a wheel, or how many more threads like this will it take for some results start to appear? Like Future Perfect reiterates, this will inevitably reach the Arbcom unless the admins who could straightforwardly identify the real problem put hands to work and do something to fix it. The Arbcom is at the risk of being slayed by their worst nemesis Macedonia, and this may well be the last chance before we go through a process that everybody should try to avoid for the sake of the reliability of our encyclopedia and for the sake of our sanity. Húsönd 18:39, 3 April 2009 (UTC) I wonder why there is this whole thread discussing the content question here on this board again? People just can't restrain themselves, it seems. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:55, 3 April 2009 (UTC) Sorry for straying into content. But what is frustrating to see is that the inhabitants of the Greek walled garden feel compelled to place their POV not just within their own garden, but within the next garden over as well. They are imperialist walled gardeners. (Taivo (talk) 20:14, 3 April 2009 (UTC)) Husond, your comment is perfectly placed exactly where it should be. The reason I inserted a content section in here is precisely to demonstrate that your assertions of "block voting", "walled garden", "unreliability" can (and should) be accepted if, well, there is actually some POV pushing happening in the article. There can only be POV pushing if the abovementioned name is actually POV. If it is not, and I do not think there has been a decision on this, then I'm afraid all your accusations are moot and you're simply using them to make your POV prevail. So thanks for your comment and I really hope what has been happening is a bit more clear now.--Avg (talk) 21:29, 3 April 2009 (UTC) Please don't start repeating those arguments all over again. I stress, no more hamster wheel please. Húsönd 21:31, 3 April 2009 (UTC) On the contrary, I've focused on your apparently biased representation of facts. Your third time in only a week, after your straw poll description and your ethnic profiling.--Avg (talk) 21:38, 3 April 2009 (UTC) Yes, you and your party focused on that a zillion times now. Time to stop. Húsönd 21:57, 3 April 2009 (UTC) Again with the smokescreen complaints, this time about "ethnic profiling". Husond alleges there is bias in the voting. The ones accused of bias keep changing the subject. Imagine that. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 22:03, 3 April 2009 (UTC) Honestly, what more do you want? If someone accuses a whole ethnic group of being biased and it is specifically demonstrated that the accusation is in very shaky grounds (which is precisely that fYRoM is supposedly POV), plus it is demonstrated that the accuser himself is strongly biased, where is the changing of the subject? I'll leave it at that.--Avg (talk) 22:27, 3 April 2009 (UTC) You err and persist with your assumptions. The whole issued was ignited when I requested the article Greece to comply to Wikipedia:MOS#Internal_consistency. The main premise was never addressed, quickly warped to accusations of racial profiling, censorship, bias, etc.. You cannot be expected to be taken seriously with this kind of response, especially when this kind of response comes from a group sharing a common background, a common stronghold of pride. Húsönd 23:43, 3 April 2009 (UTC) When you present evidence that a diverse group says "support" and a solid wall of one group says "oppose", that's not an "accusation", that's FACT. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 13:19, 4 April 2009 (UTC) There is a simple fact when it comes to the issue of "FYROM"--there are no self-identified persons who are Greek, no self-identified persons who are of Greek descent, no self-identified persons whose native language is Greek, no persons whose username is written in Greek letters who voted "support" in that poll, while at least 90% or more of the persons who voted "oppose" in that poll were. That's just the simple fact and we didn't need Husond's flag poll to see that and understand that clearly. The phrase "Greek POV" is often used in that discussion for "the attitude of the government in Greece", but that phraseology was twisted to be something racial. It's very easy to use the term "racist" when it is convenient and will help to galvanize a position on the opposite side from the person using a given, otherwise neutral, term. Had a proponent of "FYROM" used "Greek POV" there would have been not a single peep of "racist" as an accusation. While Husond might have been ill-advised in listing the information by flag, it was a simple fact that everyone knew (and still knows) is true (on both sides of the issue), but just weren't saying quite so obviously. (Taivo (talk) 13:35, 4 April 2009 (UTC)) Actually, the casual observer wouldn't know that at all, which is why that lineup was so useful - and the non-denial denial or smokescreen reaction to it, by some users, unintentionally reinforces its premise. As a parallel example, the recently-banished Axmann8 was griping about how wikipedia was dominated by liberals. Maybe yes, maybe no. But if he had gone through the list of users who "support" or "oppose" his indefinite block, and tagged each of them with their apparent political affiliation, that would have been just fine. Except it wouldn't have worked, because there were liberals and conservatives in both lists. He made an accusation and failed to cite any facts to support it. By contrast, Husong starkly presented the facts, and the opponents are furious because they got "shown up". So rather than address that issue, they try to cloud it by making false claims of "racism" or "ethnic profiling". Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 13:56, 4 April 2009 (UTC) I don't know about that parallel, but parallel examples are not exactly hard to find. Just look at Talk:Battle of Vilnius (1655), where editors who happen to come from Poland (coincidence I'm sure) wish to change the spelling of the Lithuanian capital Vilnius to the obscure Polish spelling "Wilno", and will probably win just because of numbers. Likewise, there is a big move to rename Ireland Ireland (island) because of similar concentrations of users of similar mindsets in similar topics. It happens all the time. Wikipedia needs a broader mechanism for dealing with the kind of thing, and until we get it we'll just have to put up with it and all the drama created by impotent attempts to address it. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 16:04, 4 April 2009 (UTC) Not sure this is quite the same thing. Historical names for towns can be a tricky matter. It's more like Constantinople/Istanbul or Reval/Tallinn. --Folantin (talk) 18:10, 4 April 2009 (UTC) While we're at it, let's get a Dutch voting bloc together and change NYC back to New Amsterdam. Then we can call them the "New Amsterdam Yankees". That has kind of a nice poetic sound to it. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 18:46, 4 April 2009 (UTC) Well it's the voting patterns that make them the same. The particular arguments for and against obviously differ. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 19:14, 4 April 2009 (UTC) How amusingly one-sided, Deacon. Evil Poles voting bloc, sure, and no mention of the Lithuanian bloc, nor of how you stumbled upon this article to revert my move... --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 05:07, 5 April 2009 (UTC) Piotrus, partizan campaigning with personal attacks and straw men on AN/I is not likely to produce any results for you. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 15:36, 5 April 2009 (UTC) What "partizan campaignin"? What "personal attacks"? What "straw men"? Please explain, or apologize. Further, I asked you how did you stumble upon the orphaned but not so new battle of Wilno (1655) article, where your first action was to revert my move? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 00:09, 6 April 2009 (UTC) [126]. Try to find me or anyone else talking of "Evil Poles" please. I honestly can't see any useful purpose to your participation in this thread except as partizan campaigning; unless that is stacking up Polish votes to to Polonise the name of the Lithuanian capital has nothing to do with nationalism. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 00:18, 6 April 2009 (UTC) "where editors who happen to come from Poland (coincidence I'm sure) ... and will probably win just because of numbers" - correct me if I am wrong, but what else is this describing as a bad faithed voting block? Partizan campaigning? It was not me who linked this discussion from here (hence how am I campaigning??), and it was not me who described the sides with a language that describes ethnic groups as victims and the victimizers. Once again, I would like to ask you to apologize, refactor your posts and assume more good faith in the future. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 01:14, 6 April 2009 (UTC) Not necessarily "bad faith" block voting, but definitely a clear nationalistic voting trend. I don't think a reasonable person would disipute this. BTW guys, this indignation is, ironically enough, coming from the guy who only yesterday said of his multi-national opposers "remember that no amount of logic and evidence will change the opinion of a nationalist true believer. For some, Vilnius was forever 100% pure Lithuanian Vilnius, likely created that way when the universe begun.". ;) Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 01:22, 6 April 2009 (UTC) I have no idea what this quote has to do with anything. Please check the definition of nationalism. Are you saying that I and other Polish editors there are nationalists? And if so, are we the only group with such a POV there? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 01:25, 6 April 2009 (UTC) Well I suppose that explains why you don't apparently get the irony here. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 01:27, 6 April 2009 (UTC) Baseball Bugs, a certain ethnic group (the Greeks) may or may not agree on this issue. However, if you fail to see the implications of someone claiming that since people (are assumed to) belong to an ethnic group their opinion has less value and the result of the poll is "a fraud"(sic from Husond) I really, really cannot help you. Also how about you commenting on non Greeks also voting "oppose"? I failed to see this part.--Avg (talk) 18:44, 4 April 2009 (UTC) Until you recognize and directly address the stark facts of the voting, instead of raising false claims about racism and ethnic profiling, I really, really cannot help you. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 18:49, 4 April 2009 (UTC) The only thing I recognize is the level of abuse Greek editors get. This has to be addressed in a very clear and decisive way. --Avg (talk) 18:55, 4 April 2009 (UTC) Diffs, please? Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 19:05, 4 April 2009 (UTC) I have stored plenty of diffs from the usual rogues for the upcoming arbitration, but as a general comment the witch hunt going on is rather unhealthy wouldn't you think?--Avg (talk) 19:11, 4 April 2009 (UTC) What witch hunt? It's a solid Greek voting bloc. You're just angry because you have nothing to refute it. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 19:14, 4 April 2009 (UTC) (ri)So now it's a conspiracy with ethnic overtones? On the Greek article[127] it is indeed Πρώην Γιουγκοσλαβική Δημοκρατία της Μακεδονίας, and that's fine fo their nationalist and ethnic sensibilities, but on this article fYROM is simply not appropriate. In Macedonian, it is Република Македонија. •Jim62sch•dissera! 19:28, 4 April 2009 (UTC) (ec)"Greek" editors (whether "an editor living in Greece" or "an editor who claims Greek nationality or descent") are not abused per se. I would welcome Avg's input at Greek language on issues of grammar. I would welcome Avg at any article where he is professionally competent to have his professional input. But when a bloc of editors who are clearly self-identified with an ethnic group or, as in this case, a government, act in concert opposite of Wikipedia policy then that is a different matter. The "oppose" bloc at Talk:Greece is not "international" in character except for a vanishingly small number of individuals. The "support" bloc, on the other hand, is very international in character and it is impossible to identify them with a particular region or political group. I am not interested in Avg's claims to an "international" character to the Athenian POV faction because it is really not true. However, I would be very interested if there were any self-identified Greeks (however one wants to define "Greek") in the "support" bloc. There just aren't any. That complete absence of mixing in the composition of the two voting groups at Talk:Greece is very strong evidence that this is a clearly-defined "walled garden". And, Avg, the "abuse" at Talk:Greece has gone in both directions. There are just as many unnecessary attacks thrown in the other direction (for example, this, this, this, this, and this. Here is an example of a supporter of the Athenian POV calling the other position "racist": here. And here is an example of a supporter of the Athenian view using "Greek POV" himself: here. The "Greeks" (as in supporters of the Athenian political position) are not the poor, abused bloc that Avg is claiming they are. (Taivo (talk) 19:59, 4 April 2009 (UTC)) Mankind has learned nothing from his foibles as the backround "philosophical" catalysts in this discussion are precisely those which have lead to so many wars. (and I'm not talking about our ephemeral and inconsequential "edit-wars".) Sad. •Jim62sch•dissera! 21:03, 4 April 2009 (UTC) Disruption of Wikipedia continues This is appalling [128]. Mass changing article names without consensus and exactly when there is a poll discussing this very issue. Also look at his edit summary where he threatens to edit war another administrator until one gets banned. Someone please enforce WP:ARBMAC on him.--Avg (talk) 17:42, 4 April 2009 (UTC) Some diff's, please, on the renaming of articles? And until you face up to the POV-pushing of your fellow Greeks, you are in no position to complain. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 18:50, 4 April 2009 (UTC) There are so many I simply linked to his contributions. I'll shortly edit this with diffs. Oh and if you think there is POV pushing going on, provide your diffs please and drop the empty and offensive accusations of which I've had enough already. Thank you.--Avg (talk) 18:59, 4 April 2009 (UTC) The solid Greek voting bloc is not an accusation, it's a demonstrated reality, so drop the empty and offensive accusations, of racism and ethnic profiling, of which I've had enough already. Thank you. :) Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 19:05, 4 April 2009 (UTC) Kekrops, whose user name is actually written in the Greek alphabet, himself called this voting bloc the "Greek POV" on several occasions. (See the link at the end of the previous subsection for just one example.) He also identified "Greek expatriates" as a solid voting bloc in another post. (Taivo (talk) 20:09, 4 April 2009 (UTC)) It would be excellent if you could provide those diff's, as it would nail this one down. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 20:22, 4 April 2009 (UTC) Yeah, nail this one down! Drutasgub (talk) 21:10, 4 April 2009 (UTC) Speaking of "nailed", the above sock was nailed to the wall 8 minutes after creation. Some editors have mighty enemies. My enemies are more like... well, like that guy: Mosquitoes to be swatted. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 21:24, 4 April 2009 (UTC) Please find below a detailed list of User:Future Perfect at Sunrise disruptive editing in the last few days. This has been going for quite some time. Let me note (you can check yourselves) that all the articles below were stable and free of edit wars, until he decided to create controversy. Crystal clear WP:POINT, which, he has after all admitted himself just at the top of this thread. Graecoanatolica macedonica 07:58, 4 April 2009, substituting FYROM for ROM, falsely claiming ROM is the "standard" name. 18:11, 4 April 2009, revert warring, admitting WP:BATTLEGROUND by "challenging" fellow editors and simultaneously insulting User:Dr.K by calling him "these people" List of Greek roads 06:17, 31 March 2009 , substituting FYROM for ROM, falsely claiming it is the "standard" naming, and even better, violating the consensus he had himself set up from October 2007 "as per guidelines"! 16:04, 2 April 2009, revert warring. 16:19, 2 April 2009, revert warring. 20:33, 2 April 2009, revert warring. 16:22, 4 April 2009, revert warring and threatening admin Yannismarou of more disruption "until one of us gets banned" 17:29, 4 April 2009, revert warring. International Bank Account Number 06:00, 31 March 2009, substituting FYROM for ROM, falsely claiming it is the "standard" naming. This is especially obvious here, since the European Committee for Banking Standards itself refers to FYROM, well, as FYROM [129] Geography of Greece 06:03, 31 March 2009, substituting FYROM for ROM, falsely claiming it is the "standard" naming. 06:04, 31 March 2009, more of the same. 09:24, 4 April 2009 , revert warring. Prefectures of Greece 06:07, 31 March 2009, sneakily substituting FYROM for ROM by not even mentioning the change in the edit summary, simply claiming "over-linking". Modern Greek 06:12, 31 March 2009, removed a reference to FYROM altogether stating "still no convincing documentation of any significant numbers here". Having a look at the article history and talk page he seems to frequent the article. He has never expressed such concern, nor the reference to the country has ever been reverted. This edit of his was simply to stir even more controversy. Greek language 06:13, 31 March 2009, substituting FYROM for ROM, falsely claiming it is the "standard" naming. 09:12, 1 April 2009, revert warring stating "rv banned user". Let's note here that Future banned this anonymous user himself. I have to check this further, but from a cursory look at the user's only two contributions, he didn't seem to commit any offense at all. He simply changed back ROM to FYROM. If this is the case then we have a clearcut abuse of admin tools to win an argument by Future Perfect of Sunrise. Unless he's kind enough to explain exactly what he did and why he did it. National Bank of Greece 11:46, 31 March 2009, substituting FYROM for ROM, falsely claiming it is the "standard" naming. 11:46, 31 March 2009, more of the same Vinča culture 11:50, 31 March 2009, substituting FYROM for ROM, falsely claiming it is the "standard" naming. Staffordshire University 11:50, 31 March 2009, substituting FYROM for ROM, falsely claiming it is the "standard" naming. 2008 civil unrest in Greece 11:43, 26 March 2009, reverting FYROM to ROM, falsely claiming it is the "standard" naming. 14:05, 26 March 2009, revert warring and accusing User:NikoSilver of "near-vandalism" (!) 07:05, 27 March 2009. revert warring and falsely adding "rv banned user". However the user was not banned. 12:21, 27 March 2009, revert warring. 14:04, 1 April 2009, revert warring, falsely claiming that ROM is "standard practice" and additionally claiming that "incidentally ROM was the stable version from the beginning of the article" (which, incidentally, didn't seem to entertain his thoughts when changing the stable versions in all the other articles). In any case, his "incidental" claim was, again, false [130]. 14:21, 1 April 2009, revert warring. 05:28, 2 April 2009, revert warring and explicitly claiming that there is no consensus (hence that himself is making POV edits). Greece 09:27, 2 April 2009, revert warring, again claiming lack of consensus (forgetting to mention of course that Editors are strongly discouraged from editing for the sole purpose of changing one controversial name to another. If an article name has been stable for a long time, and there is no good reason to change it, it should remain.) 09:31, 2 April 2009, revert warring. 10:45, 2 April 2009, revert warring, and basically the primary culprit that Greece is now a fully protected page. Minorities in Greece 07:36, 4 April 2009, again sneakily substituting FYROM with ROM under the misleading title "reduce overlinking and reduncancies". This one is extremely interesting because he substitutes "Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia" with "neighboring Republic of Macedonia", basically admitting that "Republic of Macedonia" is not enough a disambiguation when Greek Macedonia is in the same context. European Union Monitoring Mission 07:54, 4 April 2009, reverting FYROM to ROM, falsely claiming it is the "standard" naming. Additionally, the EU, of course, recognizes FYROM as FYROM. Humanitarian Overseas Service Medal 07:56, 4 April 2009, reverting FYROM to ROM, falsely claiming it is the "standard" naming and of course ignoring that Australia refers to FYROM as FYROM and the organization delivering the medal itself refers solely to FYROM [131] Mediterranean Cosmos 08:02, 4 April 2009, reverting FYROM to ROM, falsely claiming it is the "standard" naming. Since the mall is in Thessaloniki, this is another one of the extremely interesting ones: He again substitutes "Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia" with "neighboring Republic of Macedonia", basically admitting that "Republic of Macedonia" is not enough a disambiguation when Greek Macedonia is in the same context. Drosato (Kilkis), Greece 08:05, 4 April 2009, reverting FYROM to ROM, falsely claiming it is the "standard" naming. Marija Šerifović 08:06, 4 April 2009, reverting FYROM to ROM, falsely claiming it is the "standard" naming. Moreover, this paragraph is clearly referring to the Eurovision Song Contest, on which FYROM is mentioned exclusively as FYROM. 67th Academy Awards nominees and winners 08:07, 4 April 2009, reverting FYROM to ROM, falsely claiming it is the "standard" naming. 2007 Fort Dix attack plot 08:08, 4 April 2009, reverting FYROM to ROM, falsely claiming it is the "standard" naming. Kostas Novakis 08:11, 4 April 2009, reverting FYROM to ROM, falsely claiming it is the "standard" naming. Outline of Greece 08:13, 4 April 2009, reverting FYROM to ROM, falsely claiming it is the "standard" naming. Kratero 08:25, 4 April 2009, reverting FYROM to ROM, under the sneaky title "restructuring". Istituto Superiore Internazionale di Scienze Criminali 08:27, 4 April 2009, reverting FYROM to ROM, falsely claiming it is the "standard" naming. The Istituto itself, of course refers to FYROM as FYROM [132], but that wouldn't stop Future. Traian Stoianovich 08:29, 4 April 2009, reverting FYROM to ROM, falsely claiming it is the "standard" naming. Again, let me stress that these changes were made in the past few days, when the community was debating these very issues. He didn't even have the courtesy to wait for the outcome of this debate and any possible consensus or suggestions from uninvolved administrators or editors. It is obvious User:Future Perfect at Sunrise shows zero respect for the Wikipedia process. --Avg (talk) 23:50, 4 April 2009 (UTC) Commendable performance by Future Perfect, making more articles comply with WP:MOS#Internal consistency despite the tediousness of the task. Let's hope that Greece will appear on that list soon enough. Húsönd 00:31, 5 April 2009 (UTC) 'Greece is the time, is the place, is the motion; Greece is the way we are feeling...' HalfShadow 00:50, 5 April 2009 (UTC) I don't know if you need a spelling dictionary, a movie guide or just my sympathy. Dr.K. logos 04:22, 5 April 2009 (UTC) What does the "Fort Dix Attack Plot" have anything at all to do with Greece and its POV? Not a single thing. The problem with Avg's list is that it is not a critical list, it is just a general witchhunt of everything that Future Perfect has done over the last few days. It uncritically combines changes to articles that have a legitimate Greek relevance with articles that have nothing whatsoever Greek about them and where FYROM should be changed to Wikipedia-standard ROM. And Traian Stoianovich was Macedonian and not even Greek! The criteria for using FYROM are (with consensus) 1) articles on international organizations that use FYROM internally and (without consensus) 2) articles specifically on Greece. The Fort Dix Attack Plot is neither and Traian Stoianovich is even Macedonian! So Avg's list is flawed from the beginning and illustrates that he is not interested in an objective examination of Future Perfect's editing with relation to Greek-related articles, but in a witchhunt. (Taivo (talk) 04:04, 5 April 2009 (UTC)) ec Greece (the country) has a POV? Talking about POV gone wild. Dr.K. logos 04:22, 5 April 2009 (UTC) And just to show to what extent the Greek POV is being pushed beyond the borders of Greece, we have Future Perfect's edit to Marija Šerifović being put forward by Avg as an example. The use of FYROM (if it should be used at all) should not extend beyond the borders of Greece. I find Avg's list to be POV-pushing to the extreme. (Taivo (talk) 04:13, 5 April 2009 (UTC)) Of course Greece (the country, the government) has a POV. That POV is that ROM is unacceptable as a name and that FYROM is a compromise for international purposes. Kekrops, for example, has used the phrase "Greek POV" on several occasions to describe the position of Greece on this issue. Is he wrong? (Taivo (talk) 04:33, 5 April 2009 (UTC)) A country doesn't have POV. It has foreign policy. WP:POV refers to individuals. I don't know what Kekrops meant by his statement but I am sure he wouldn't mistake foreign policy with POV. Dr.K. logos 04:45, 5 April 2009 (UTC) Then I will use the phrase "Greek POV" to refer to the POV of the individuals in this discussion who espouse the "foreign policy" position of Greece. Otherwise, my comments on the "Greek POV gone wild" are still relevant--Avg's list includes many entries that have nothing to do with Greece--it is just a case of someone with a Greek POV trying to infuse FYROM in places where it is not relevant. And unless you've examined each of Kekrops' statements, I wouldn't be so sure of his intent. I've looked at most of them within the last few hours and my impression of his intent is not the same as yours. (Taivo (talk) 05:32, 5 April 2009 (UTC)) I agree with the corrected terminology but I disagree with the quotes around "foreign policy". I also don't agree with the notion that Avg tries to infuse FYROM in some places where it does not belong. This is too against WP:AGF. This can equally well be attributed to his lack of knowledge of the finer NC policy points. After all we are all editors in an open wiki. It would be naive to think that he would try to underhandedly infuse things into articles without knowing that he would be scrutinised and corrected by his peers. I didn't check Avg's contribs but the charge of infusion entails that he edit warred trying to infuse FYROM in these articles. Did he do that? Or did he just list the articles, which is just a passive reaction and not related to infusion? I really believe in WP:AGF because it also has the added advantage that it lowers the temperature of a debate. It is beneficial to the wiki and to the discourse when the temperature remains as low as possible, especially in an overheated topic such as this. As far as Kekrops I have not examined his edits and I won't because it is something that I just find too boring to do. But I still believe that the difference between POV and foreign policy is not really hard to understand, therefore maybe he was just being careless, if what you suggest about him is valid. Dr.K. logos 06:34, 5 April 2009 (UTC) If this were just a discussion on an article Talk page, I could assume good faith. But this is a formal accusation of misconduct against Future Perfect. If you are going to accuse someone you better do an extra careful job of getting your evidence accurate. Given the blanket accusation and the total lack of any restraint on Avg's part in publishing the above list, I can only assume one of two things: 1) Avg is so bent on "nailing" Future Perfect that he doesn't care whether what he posts is relevant or not and is on a witchhunt, or 2) he is ignorant of what he is posting and shouldn't be posting anything if he doesn't know what it is. Either way, he has shown an utter lack of veracity and seriousness in posting totally irrelevant information in this accusation. (Taivo (talk) 09:33, 5 April 2009 (UTC)) I don't know how else to put it but Taivo it seems you either do not understand the issue or you're trying to divert from it. For all these articles above, you will not see me "infusing" FYROM in any of them (although of course I'm considering helping in tackling Fut.Perf. disruption - but only when the community has decided). I only did a single test revert of Fut.Perf. to explain to him he'sacting against consensus, he simply reverted me back immediately. It was of no use. So what I am doing is flagging someone else mass-reverting stable articles and revert warring to push their POV, without consensus, explicitly stating WP:POINT and offending a whole ethnic group at the process. It is unacceptable and I urge Wikipedia to deal with it.--Avg (talk) 11:44, 5 April 2009 (UTC) It is evidently useless to even try to debate Avg on the merits of these edits at this point. Avg can only be dealt with on the behavior dimension, which needs admin intervention. Unfortunately, Wikipedia's NPA policy prevents me from effectively talking about Avg's behaviour and its causes. Can somebody please, please now intervene here and get this person off our backs? Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:52, 5 April 2009 (UTC) I wish it was just Avg that was the problem. Let me point out one example of the sheer absurdity of what's going on here. A Greek editor reverted Fut. Perf. on Graecoanatolica macedonica - an article about an extinct snail. What's the argument here? - that because the snail used to live in Greece, it has to conform to the Greek POV on the naming issue? This is turning into an outbreak of mass insanity. -- ChrisO (talk) 09:26, 5 April 2009 (UTC) Before you go on a rampage I inform you that Future issued what I thought was a friendly challenge on Yannis' talk page as in here:[133]. Unfortunately I took, in good humour, the bait and I became collateral damage. My full reply to Yannis on this incident is here. Your should moderate your tone and your near ad-hominem attacks. Dr.K. logos 11:39, 5 April 2009 (UTC) (add) And in case you wonder where the insanity is coming from, edits like this one and this one are occurring daily on articles across Wikipedia - not just those relating to Greece. Unfortunately we seem to have an endemic and systematic problem with disruptive Greek nationalism. -- ChrisO (talk) 09:39, 5 April 2009 (UTC) Just for the record, the snail one was supposed to be a joke on Tassos' part. I had sort of provoked that by a semi-jocular message on User talk:Yannismarou. No further problems about this one. Let's let the poor little snail rest in peace now. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:41, 5 April 2009 (UTC) That's the old, chivalrous, Future talking again. I will take the snail and bury it in the garden. The garden happens to be walled. What a coincidence. On second thought I might go fishing with it. It's a great bait, though extinct. Danke Future. Dr.K. logos 11:39, 5 April 2009 (UTC) The snail was prized as an aphrodisiac, and was shelled out in great numbers by those Greek philosophers during their thought-provoking orgies. So, ironically, the snail was extinguished by mass hedonia. :( Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 10:01, 5 April 2009 (UTC) In the same semi-jocular way, I'm sure Future wants the snail to rest in peace, as do all of us. However there is a small difference. He's prepared to edit war for it to rest in peace in "ROM" and not "FYROM".--Avg (talk) 11:59, 5 April 2009 (UTC) Here is mass insanity, the creation of this article. Not only does it have a ridiculous title, which is far more lengthier then need be. But has basically reached the point surpreme political correctness. This page not only represents a major factor of the strong Greek POV here, but also goes as far as calling the Macedonian language, "the Slavic one". AVG is so interested in keeping FYROM, he does not realise that the majority of the English speaking world uses the term "Republic of Macedonia". In the real world 2 of 3 countries recognised ROM and uses that term. Future Perfect, was right in his decisions to revert the names. A concerted effort has been made on behalf of the Greek team, here on wikipedia, to toe "country policy". 100%. Whether or not this is what is recognised in the English speaking world. See here, here and here where an unacceptable POV is represented. PMK1 (talk) 09:38, 5 April 2009 (UTC) Let's please not mix up the country naming issue with the question of that language article, where quite serious reasons for that naming choice existed. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:53, 5 April 2009 (UTC) Actually, according to Ethnologue, the Macedonian speakers in Greece call their language "Slavic", so there is no POV at all present in these references. It may seem that way to a casual observer, but according to a reliable (and non-Greek) source, it is not. (Taivo (talk) 11:58, 5 April 2009 (UTC)) Yeah well, User:PMK1 is not a "casual observer", he's the very person who created a POV fork calling all the Slavophones in Macedonia Aegean Macedonians, with very clear irredentist connotations. Probably you could take it from there.--Avg (talk) 13:00, 5 April 2009 (UTC) It is simple what Future did. He has set himself up to delete any reference of FYROM from anywhere in Wikipedia and change it to ROM. It is so clear, it doesn't need explaining. But the scale of disruption had to be explicitly demonstrated. After all, he's still doing it [134]. Note that this AN/I thread was not initiated by me. Note that the straw poll where consensus was seeked was not initiated by me. Yet, exactly at the same time that the community was deciding on the issue and exactly when he had been reported, he simply continues to act irresponsibly and provocatively (to show the disdain he has for consensus? to prove to everybody he's untouchable?), And of course, he occasionally refers to his favourite "ban" thing. If this is not major disruption, then what is.--Avg (talk) 11:33, 5 April 2009 (UTC) Avg, you need to refer back to that straw poll--it only related to Greece, not to Wikipedia as a whole: [135]. Your list above showed a blatant disregard for discriminating between those articles where FYROM might have been appropriate and those articles where it was absolutely not appropriate. Your complaint about his changing FYROM to Macedonia in articles that have to do with Macedonians and Serbians and not Greeks showed a serious lack of restraint on your part. (Taivo (talk) 12:04, 5 April 2009 (UTC)) Taivo, you are wrong. I suggest you might want to revisit the whole debate. Future unilaterally pronounced the long-term status quo, also catered for in WP:MOSMAC, namely that FYROM can be used in Greece-related articles as "dead". A discussion has started on this, which still has not reached any consensus. The discussion, in case you also missed it, has been expanded to which is the most common English name, ROM or FYROM, per straightforward WP:NCON. So the debate has gone further than Greece-related articles now. He then completely ignored the discussion and started mass reverting. In the process, I've explicitly flagged reverts of his where Wikipedia explicitly mentions we should use FYROM and NOT ROM (see above).--Avg (talk) 12:13, 5 April 2009 (UTC) Sorry, Avg, but the straw poll specifically stated that it related only to Greece--very plainly and clearly. That was never changed. Sure, the discussion ranged beyond Greece, but the straw poll was set up for Greece and nothing more. And you have flagged nothing above. You still include the Fort Dix attack which has absolutely nothing to do with Greece. You still include one article on a Macedonian national that has nothing to do with Greece. You still include one article on a Serbian that has absolutely nothing to do with Greece. Either clean up that list or admit your real motives in listing everything whether it relates to Greece or not. If an article doesn't have Greek content, then it should be changed. And your justification for complaining about the article on the Serbian is particularly silly (sorry, but that's the right word)--she sang in a contest that was sponsored by an organization that has sometimes used FYROM. Get real. And Dr. K has specifically explained how the snail "war" was a misunderstood joke. (Taivo (talk) 12:25, 5 April 2009 (UTC)) Once more, you divert from the subject. From the edits it is clear that Future did a Wikisearch on articles that included FYROM and reverted them all to ROM. Irrespective of content. This is a vigilante approach. You explicitly mention Fort Dix, yes it has nothing to do with Greece, it has everything to do with FPaS reverting and falsely claiming this is the "standard" naming - he put this reason in dozens of reverts - but it is simply not true. With regards to the "particularly silly" edit, it is a well known consensus that in articles referring to organizations that use solely FYROM, as is the Eurovision Song Contest, FYROM will be the name. As a last comment, because I see this happens continuously now, please make up your mind on the basis of the discussion. When behaviors are flagged, you reply with content arguments. When content is flagged, you respond with behavioral arguments. This is a clearcut case of WP:POINT and disrespect of the Wikipedia process and community. As per content, there is a section just above that.--Avg (talk) 12:35, 5 April 2009 (UTC) Actually, your subject is Future Perfect's reverting FYROM where you think it is not appropriate. But as long as you include cases where his reverts were absolutely appropriate, your case is nothing more than a witchhunt. Refer to [136] and you will see that the only place where FYROM is definitely appropriate is in articles on international organizations that use FYROM--not on articles that only mention those organizations. The article on the Serbian singer mentions Macedonia in a sentence that says "She toured these countries". That is not a direct reference to the organization so using Republic of Macedonia in that sentence is absolutely appropriate. The article wasn't about the international organization, it was about a singer. The article on the Macedonian doesn't mention Greece, doesn't mention anything about Greece, doesn't refer to an international organization. Reverting FYROM to ROM is perfectly appropriate there and it is, as Future labelled it, standard usage. And using a search to find FYROM is not "against the rules". It's an appropriate use of Wikipedia's tools to improve Wikipedia. We allow bots to automatically roam Wikipedia at will making automatic changes. Would you rather Future write a bot to change FYROM to ROM everywhere? According to [137] using FYROM in Greece-related articles reached no consensus so your implication that changing it in those articles was "against the rules" is overstated. That is what other admins will decide, but your continued insistence that changing FYROM to ROM in articles that have nothing to do with Greece seriously weakens your position. I can't take any of your accusations seriously as long as you think that changing FYROM to ROM in the Fort Dix bombing article is relevant. (Taivo (talk) 13:00, 5 April 2009 (UTC)) Perfect. This is what I say. Why did FPaS embark in a mass renaming frenzy before the community decides and at the height of this controversy? And he did violate a rule, WP:POINT. This is not an uncontroversial rename or a formatting change, it is a controversial rename and one of the most controversial in Wikipedia today. You cannot simply go about changing one controversial name to another. And for the last time, my position is mainly about behavior. After all, this is why he's been reported at AN/I.--Avg (talk) 13:07, 5 April 2009 (UTC) How many more policies are you going to throw in, hoping that one will stick? FP's actions not only are perfectly valid, as they should also be necessary as per WP:MOS#Internal consistency. Húsönd 17:49, 5 April 2009 (UTC) Funny you mention consistency. That would be correct if he was consistent. But he isn't. He has always accepted that fYRoM is to be used in the international organization cases (see his recent edits at George Panandreou (junior), Greece - United States relations, European Security and Defence policy,White Tower of Thessaloniki among others). And he has continuously been on the side of Macedonia vs Republic of Macedonia in many articles. So he is not consistent. This behavior of his goes far beyond policy. He's leading a war (hell, he has expressly stated it - "until someone gets banned"!). His behavior has to be checked and the sooner the better.--Avg (talk) 18:02, 5 April 2009 (UTC) The behaviour of a few editors on that article needs to be checked. •Jim62sch•dissera! 18:10, 5 April 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.

Likely vandal at Tupac Shakur

An editor named User:Johnnymurda is causing some disruption in the article over the rapper's past sex offenses. See Johnnymurda's contributions and Talk:Tupac Shakur#Tupac Hater Sesshomaru. (S)he asked for a source, I provided two reliable ones, and yet this user is still acting quite uncivil and is reverting my edits (for no reason really). I am now thinking that this isn't a good faith editor anymore, but purely a disrupter. Some administrative action would make a difference here. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 00:59, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Gave them a first warning on npa and civil editing and agf... Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 01:16, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks man. May you add Tupac Shakur to your watchlist if you haven't already? An extra set of eyes might be fruitful. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 01:22, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Try [138] NYT "Tupac Shakur, the wounded rap performer who was convicted of felony sex-abuse charges last week." which rather seems to state that he was convicted of a felony sex crime. Dozens more cites for the NYT on this. [139] "He served nine months on a sexual-abuse conviction, accused of raping a fan in Manhattan. " He was on bail pending appeal of the felony when he died. Collect (talk) 12:04, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Yeah they're edit warring over a content dispute, see section immediately below this one, "Vandalism by Sesshomaru". KillerChihuahua^?!? 12:53, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Vandalism by Sesshomaru

An editor who goes by the name Sesshomaru has been making falsehood claims about rapper Tupac Shakur of being a sex offender. he/she has not shown any solid proof that the rapper is a sex offender, no documents, no web sites,no nothing. the so called source that Sesshomaru provided were not reliable Enough to Categorized Tupac has a sex offender. Sesshomaru didn't even get this so called source from any web site, it was fake. It's funny how Sesshomaru had a talk with other editor named Wakamusha who has since retired had a discussion back in August 2008 about Tupac being Categorized has a sex offender.see Talk:Tupac_Shakur#Category:American_sex_offenders. Wakamusha and Sesshomaru agreed that tupac should be in the Category:American criminals instead of Category:American sex offenders. now for some reason he/she had a change of heart and decided to put tupac back in the Category:American sex offenders list for whatever reason I don't know. this person is WAY TO OBSESSED CATEGORIZED TUPAC HAS A SEX OFFENDER and it is getting very annoying.Johnnymurda (talk) 01:16, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

You are both guilty of edit warring over a content dispute. Article edit protected for 3 days; I'm not blocking either of you for your WP:3RR violations, but be aware next time it might be different, depending on circumstances and which admin takes a look. You two need to discuss this ont eh article talk page and work things out. KillerChihuahua^?!? 05:23, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't understand Johnnymurda's issue. How do those two links fail WP:RELY and how are they "fake"? The reason (I believe) why Shakur wasn't categorized as a convicted sex offender before was that there was no source explicitly stating it. Now that a few have been added, Johnnymurda is still against the cited facts and reverts for inexplicable reasons. Could someone solve this madness? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 22:59, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

This is what im talking about, Sesshomaru believe's that a person who commits a sexual crime are automatically a registered sex offender.each case is different form the other and Sesshomaru doesn't seem to get that. there are many articals on 2pac that says he was he was convicted of sexual abuse (forcibly touching the buttocks). i'm 100% sure that none of these articals say anything about 2pac being a sex offender..Johnnymurda (talk) 09:17, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

But there are two sites that support my theory. Johnnymurda, if you really think that Rollingstone.com and Streetgangs.com are "unofficial" or "false", you have to back up your claims with very reliable references (and no, your own logic does not count). Inclusively, you still have not explained why Category:Freestyle rappers should be listed on his page twice. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 21:48, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

If you only rely on Rollingstone.com and Streetgangs.com than your not really doing a good job. about the Category:Freestyle rappers i never put that on the tupac artical, so I don't know were you got that from. if you check my Johnnymurda Contributions it will clearly show that I have never put that there, so what are you taking about? Johnnymurda (talk) 12:00, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Still not a valid excuse to disregard those citations. And don't think lying will help your case, you put the category there twice just to annoy me. See this and this. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 23:12, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Your source are so weak it's not even funny. Lying to me is not gonna help your case my friend so don't make an ass out of yourself. I will proof to you that I didn't put the Category:Freestyle rappers on tupac's artical for the last time. I did my investigation on the person who added the Category on tupacs artical. An editor who goes by the name of Therainbow (See:Therainbow Edit) was the frist person to put the Category on there. I didn't even notice that unit you mention it. The Category:Freestyle rappers has been on tupacs artical for close to 2 years now and no one has remove it. you're like an annoying house fly that just won't go away stop it. Johnnymurda (talk) 11:25, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Read WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA. Guess we should continue this nonsense at Talk:Tupac Shakur, and a third opinion might help. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 13:07, 6 April 2009 (UTC)