Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive426

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Noticeboard archives

User:Hegumen again[edit]

Yes check.svg Resolved.

Just a day or so ago Hegumen was warned not to call people names like tatars (in the special pejorative connotation) and curse them (See [1]). Today he put this on a userpage.--Laveol T 21:16, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

48 hour block by User:Future Perfect at Sunrise, and listed at ARBMAC. We're done. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 22:43, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
only fair to mention he self-reverted it 2 minutes after he placed it, and before the above message was placed, with the user summary, "watch yourself". In view of that, I think the block was perhaps not neededDGG (talk) 22:59, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
Perhaps a block reduction? The comment stays in the history, after all, and a (short) block may be sufficient to give the editor pause before he hits the "Save" button next time. LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:29, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
I was fully aware he had self-reverted. But I can hardly interpret that as anything other than a conscious attempt to game the system. The insult was made and cannot be unmade that easily. If you walk up to someone and tell them "you f..ing idiot!" and then the next moment "oh, I didn't say that", does that mean you really didn't say it? Of course not. An apology would have been the minimum requirement to show he honestly meant to take it back. Fut.Perf. 05:38, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
This edit summary after his block says enough, really. I'm pretty sure he's not going to apologize.--Atlan (talk) 11:41, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
As you can tell I'm was evading my ban. The sock puppet my insult was directed to was deserving of it. I have nothing against the Bulgarians as a people. I do, however, have a problem with those who use the chauvinist sentiments of the 19th century to demean their neighbors. I took a page out of their book, if I'm a "West Bulgarian" he's a "Tatar". I do apologize for the disruption I've caused. --124.182.46.34 (talk) 18:07, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Block/protection needed at Help Desk[edit]

Odd helop mangoon (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log) needs a block - it's the Avril Lavinge vandal back again, this time attacking the Help Desk. If someone wouldn't mind protecting Wikipedia:HDPATROL as well, there shouldn't be any reason for it to be edited except by Help Desk volunteers. Thanks - I'd do it myself, but I'd rather not log into my admin account since this is an insecure connection. Hersfold non-admin(t/a/c) 13:19, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

I've blocked and semi-protected. The only issue is that a few of these vandals are sleeper accounts that have reached the 4 + 10 standards for autoconfirm status. I can't full protect since a lot of the help page patrol aren't administrators. I wonder though, is Wikipedia:HDPATROL even necessary? Metros (talk) 13:29, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
Aye, semi protection is probably best - any sleepers can be blocked and checkusered if needed. I'm not really sure if that template is entirely needed either, though, but that's something to bring up on the Help Desk's talk page. Hersfold non-admin(t/a/c) 15:09, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

I am being impersonated[edit]

Yes check.svg Resolved.

Someone has posted as me (but it was very emphatically not me): [2]. How could this have happened? This post was on part of Wikipedia where I do not have an account--did someone make a second acct with my username, or has my acct been compromised? -PetraSchelm (talk) 15:28, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

They might be using an isomer of your username: for example using capital i to replace lowercase L or using Cyrillic letters. They have a unified login now, might want to try that out. 15:44, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

That link you gave is on Simple Wikipedia. If you didn't create an account there, someone else is allowed to create one with your name and use it all they want. —Wknight94 (talk) 15:38, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, but they put a userpage redirect from Simple to my userpage on en Wikipedia...-PetraSchelm (talk) 15:47, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
It is possible the person just has the same name, but if you are really concerned about impersonation you need to bring it to the attention of the admins at Simple Wikipedia. They have different administrators and handle things their own way. 1 != 2 15:40, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
The passwords don't match--I just tried to log in to simple Wikipedia using my en password. I deleted the userpage redirect from simple to en. I was alerted to this because a bureaucrat on the Simple Wikipedia sent me an email asking me a question about something "PetraSchelm" posted on Simple Wikipedia, which made no sense to me, since I didn't post anything there...do I need to protect the username PetraSchelm on meta, wikiquote, Wiktionary + whatever else now? -PetraSchelm (talk) 15:45, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
If you don't want anyone else taking them, then yes. Otherwise, you could add a line to your user page explaining the situation. —Wknight94 (talk) 15:47, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
Go to Special:MergeAccount and see what other accounts exist with your username. The crat on Simple can rename the impersonator so that you get the name instead. EconomicsGuy (talk) 15:49, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
(ec)That's always a problem when you use the name of a real person and there would be problems if you ever needed accounts on several wikis. However, if somebody else has taken that account name on another Wiki, as far as I can see, you can't usurp that account. --Rodhullandemu 15:50, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
It's not my real name--it's the name of a deceased member of the Baader Meinhof. But using it is one thing--putting a redirect to my en.Wiki userpage from the simple Wiki userpage is direct impersonation. (And they are definitely posting as if they were me--talking about Squeakbox, etc.) -PetraSchelm (talk) 15:57, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
I've now blocked the user and renamed them. I suggest that you create your global account ASAP to prevent it happening again - if it's someone that hates you from a dispute, it's likely to happen again. Archer7 (talk) 16:23, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, Archer. -PetraSchelm (talk) 16:27, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

User talk:Singthesorrow1[edit]

User talk:Singthesorrow1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) keeps adding information and claiming that it's from Census 2006 which is incorrect since the official site says other wise which can be viewed here. The user also told me not to undo their edits [3]. The article in question is Gunnedah, New South Wales. Bidgee (talk) 17:28, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Someone block MascotGuy[edit]

Resolved: blocked

Latest incarnation is User:Boney Guy. His latest edits are more self-referential--he keeps editing pages about himself and his banned status.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 17:31, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

The very first edit alone is rather convincing. RlevseTalk 17:38, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Mantanmoreland and Bassettcat[edit]

What now for Naked Short Selling, Gary Weiss, Overstock.com & Patrick M. Byrne?[edit]

Since we will now presumabley have no base against which to compare ip addresses (in the case of slips by socks) and that the individual who abuses these multiple accounts will doubtless continue to attempt to manipulate these articles, and will try harder to remain undetected, what can we do to protect them from editing by this person - short of deleting them as not sufficiently notable, and as a vandal/puppetmaster magnet, which was rejected when I proposed this earlier? I suggest that the articles be protected so only admins can edit it, and the talkpages be semi-protected to disallow manipulation by ip/newbies who may also be the same individual. I do not see any of these articles as sufficiently common knowledge subjects that would attract passing ip/new editors. LessHeard vanU (talk) 19:25, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Add Securities fraud to the list as well. The greatest challenge is that editors knowledgeable enough in the subject matter to really root out any subtle POV have shown little interest in editing the articles involved; I can't entirely blame them, as there is such scrutiny and they would have reason to believe there might be difficulties. I've done what I could with Securities fraud given my limited knowledge of this subject; and User:John Nevard, a regular editor on Naked short selling, has identified a preferred version for that article. That probably isn't sufficient though; I'd love to find a few editors with expertise in this area to really clean up the financial articles. The biographies are in better shape, I think. Risker (talk) 20:01, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
Not being intimately familiar with this situation, I think the general approach for sock-infested articles is to semi-protect. Make the COI-nik work a little to auto-confirm his sockpuppets before he uses them; more than that is not necessary or productive, and is likely to shut out legitimate editors. To make it perfectly clear: do you really want to prevent me from editing these articles since I'm not an admin? (Not that I really care to edit them anyway, but I'm just asking about the principle.) Shalom (HelloPeace) 21:42, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
I agree with Shalom. More eyes and hands are a better solution. Why not ask members of the Finance, Companies and Business and Economics wikiprojects if they would help out? None of these projects is very active, but there are dozens of editors there with an interest or knowledge (or both) in the general area. Better to intensify our openness than radically restrict it. At least, we should try that first. Noroton (talk) 22:00, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
I did solicit the assistance of Business and Economics shortly after the Arbitration Committee decision[4], and received only one response to my request[5], although other editors may have responded directly on the articles. I would be happy to continue to keep an eye on the articles, even semi-protect them and/or provide visible administrative support for neutral editors, but perhaps others might have more success than did I in recruiting editors with subject matter expertise. Active recruitment is probably needed, so anyone who knows an editor who's capable of doing a good job should go out and ask them personally to pitch in. It's an area of the encyclopedia where I've never really wandered, so I have no real familiarity with who's got the editing chops for this kind of assignment. Risker (talk) 04:56, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Hey folks. Some will say that any comment from me must be self-interested and biased, and hence must be ignored. I suggest, however, that such is precisely the knee-jerk thinking that let this problem persist so long, and so egregiously. When one discovers that one holds a belief in error, it is not enough simply to root out that error: one must retrace the thinking that led one to hold that error, and consider the possibility that other beliefs one holds are similarly misguided. After taking so long to get you good people to open your minds to a truth that could not be synthesized within your paradigm, now that you are there, please, please consider the following claims without reflexively responding with the obvious "oh you must be biased" stuff. You have to rethink everything you believe about this situation.

1) I concede that the perfidy of MM/GW is extreme: most people, when caught, understand that they are caught. Few can just stand in and refuse to own their acts so steadfastly, so brazenly, as MM/GW did here. It is hard for normal people to imagine such a person, so the length it took it took this community to get the joke is understandable. No blood no foul. But now that you get it, you should go back and reconsider some things you think you know. For example, I promise: Judd Bagley, Wordbomb, is the good guy. He saw what was going on, and tried to unmask MM. He thought this unmasking was for the benefit of the Wikipedia community. He may have violated some rules you have (remember, he was new to them all), but in retrospect, now that everyone clearly understands what MM was doing, does anyone really not get that Judd was trying to stop a guy who was manipulating everything that Wikipedia is about? If you see MM now in a new light, should you not see Wordbomb in a new light as well?
2) Some answer, "But what about Wordbomb's smear campaign?" To us, that is just more Bizarro World. MM hijacked pages on Naked Short Selling, twisting the facts so they read like something out of People's Daily. That coincided with a smear campaign against me and the company for which I work, so as to undercut our efforts to get the mainstream press interested in this financial scandal. Judd/Wordbomb tried to expose what MM was doing: in MM's Bizarro World that was translated into "Wordbomb is running a smear campaign".
3) Each time I try to get involved it's rejected with a claim along the lines of, "Byrne's just mad that the article about him is unflattering." Come on. That is not what this is about. There is a cover-up of a financial crime going on, Wikipedia has been used in that cover-up, and we're trying to break through a cover-up.
4) I did take a crack at editing the Naked Short Selling article, which in the eyes of any serious observer is laughably slanted, thanks to MM. Because I knew that some would claim that I was biased, I kept my edits substantively neutral. The content of the article as it stood ended with a section that was supposed to have claims from each side represented. However, the anti-NSS points were kept to a minimum, and were so badly written that they appeared to mean the opposite of what had actually been said. The pro-NSS claims were allowed to be far more numerous, and they were repeated over and over throughout the article. That was ridiculous. So I reorganized the article, keeping all the material that was there, but cut and pasted so that the start was simply factual, then had a section explicitly stating all the pro-NSS points, and another for all the anti-NSS claims. The point of view that opposed my own was completely retained, and simply brought together as one set of explicit statements. That was clearly intolerable for MM, because it created the possibility of the anti-NSS side then having a section where its own points could be stated. Thus my version was reverted and reverted. I challenge anyone to look at the version that I wrote and name anything missing in it from the current MM-approved version. It's all there. I just cleaned it up so that the MM claims no longer permeate the article, but have their own discrete location. I really do think that it would be a good place to start fixing the current article.
5) If you don't do that, you should consider just canning all the articles in question, and starting over, only with tightly-controlled involvement of well-known Wikipedia players. These events were not a random accident, or just a result of one guy, MM, having a fetish for this subject. There are reasons that he went to such elaborate lengths to corrupt them. Those reasons have not gone away. If you try again from scratch, there are people who have an interest in seeing those articles corrupted again.
6) Lastly, once again I request that you ask yourself, Cui bono? Who benefited? Did MM do this because he is just a nut? Why would it be important for someone to go to fanatical lengths to hijack a page concerning a financial crime? Now that you have as a community realized what MM was up to, you must ask yourselves, why? Otherwise, their disinformation campaign will find a new avenue of attack. (If you want to know how all of this fits into the bigger picture, I suggest you read Mark Mitchell's article on the front page of DeepCapture.com.) PatrickByrne (talk) 04:15, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
The financial dispute does not interest me and is frankly out of my depth. As a Wikipedian I care about keeping the site honest--I'm a geek who volunteers for an encyclopedia. I'm asking a couple of uninvolved people who have good editing records, some knowledge of the topic, and zero prior involvement to give these articles a look. It's the best and fairest I can do in this very odd situation. Regards, DurovaCharge! 04:49, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
While Mr. Byrne see's something behind MM's disruption, I see all too many folks attempting pov pushing and article control on articles that don't have such a potential repucussion to others. So, I'm not neccessarily buying that point. However, the fear shown by so many of us for so long over this issue is hopefully over. Off Topic but, would mr.byrne be able to get wordbomb to distance himself from his attempts at outside damage of the project? (this may have happened already, I don't check those places, and only look in at the 'Board of outer darkness where there is wailing and gnashing of teeth' very rarely). --Rocksanddirt (talk) 07:05, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
I would consider your sweet reason more plausible were it not for the fact that all of WordBomb's well-documented odious activities and blatant harassment and stalking were conducted at your direction, as your employee, in your interests, on your payroll, from overstock.com IP addresses, over two years. Nothing Gary Weiss is claimed to have done comes anywhere near that. Wikipedia is not a battleground for your commercial interests. Go away. - David Gerard (talk) 13:44, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
WordBomb maintains that he acted alone at the start and was only later hired by Byrne. Do you have a citation to support your contrary assertion about the timing of his employment? --Random832 (contribs) 14:05, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
I have no idea when he started, and can't seriously consider it makes any difference to his well-documented (in Reliable Sources, no less) activities since. Don't be bloody dense - David Gerard (talk) 14:12, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
Sorry David, but odious behaviour on the part of one party does not excuse odious behaviour on the part of another party. We're supposed to be grownups here, not grade schoolers, and we're supposed to be writing a factually non-biased encyclopedia - at least that's what it said on the flyer. Every knowledgeable person I have spoken to has indicated that the financial articles edited by Mantanmoreland are subtly but clearly slanted. Comparing the level of nastiness of these two "problem" editors (both now site-banned) is not getting us the result we need, which is non-biased, factual articles on these subjects. You've been here a long time and know a lot of editors; perhaps you could help out in identifying and asking some people with knowledge in this field to review the articles and clean them up. Your assistance in improving the encyclopedia would be really appreciated. Risker (talk) 14:18, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
I'm certainly not claiming Mantanmoreland has acted wonderfully - but Patrick Byrne is the still-ongoing funding behind one of the sides (his paid meatpuppet WordBomb), weighing in as if to help - he isn't here to help Wikipedia, in any way whatsoever, but in an attempt to continue the battle; encouraging him in any way at all doesn't help the project. I expect Overstock is attempting a fresh press push on the matter and is seeking quotes to mine - David Gerard (talk) 14:27, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
I wouldn't be surprised if you are correct, David. All the more reason for us to get our house back into order and get these articles into decent shape. Will you help to find editors knowledgeable in this subject matter, and encourage them to participate in the cleanup of these articles? Risker (talk) 15:05, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
David, the evils of Patrick Byrne is not the topic under discussion. How about commenting on the content, not the contributor - what should Wikipedia do concerning the articles LHvU lists? Neıl 14:30, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

:::I'm glad to see DG here. DG, have you apologized yet for your wrongful block of Piperdown? If not, why not? What do you really know about the issue? The Wikipedia world wonders. Cla68 (talk) 14:34, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorry about that DG, this remark was uncalled for and inappropriate. Cla68 (talk) 00:57, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
Cla68 - considering your conduct is currently at Arbitration, you may wish to consider this unhelpful off-topic interjection. I will simply say, it did not at all inspire me to gain the impression, "this is someone who wants to reduce distraction, close down disputes, let problems get resolved, sort out misunderstandings, cut down emotive drama spirals, encourage calm thought, get more light than heat, and not escalate problems". This is exactly the kind of concern being expressed by others about your judgement and conduct, at RFAR. I figure its best to point this out, since a live example is often helpful.
Please, think again, change conflict-style, seek advice from others you trust who don't seem to have these issues, or something. It would be helpful and genuinely beneficial. FT2 (Talk | email) 15:47, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
Please do not change the subject, FT2. Cla68 is 100% correct when he says that Piperdown is owed an apology. DG made a bad block and it is high time he owned up to it. --Dragon695 (talk) 00:24, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
Cla68, I'm going to ask you the same thing that I've just asked David Gerard. You too have been here a long time, and you may well have contact with some editors knowledgeable enough to bring these articles back to where they should be. Will you help in identifying such editors and encouraging them to participate in cleaning up the articles? That is what we're trying to focus on in this thread. Thanks. Risker (talk) 14:42, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I will. Cla68 (talk) 14:47, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
Good call. Risker, if you need it, I'd be willing to help on the cleanup too. FT2 (Talk | email) 15:47, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Patrick -- being candid here, and diverting to discuss WordBomb briefly since you raise him, this was an off-wiki dispute of zero interest to us. It was mostly due to WordBomb's own activities against editors and administrators who tried to deal with the dispute - and not Mantanmoreland - that the Mantanmoreland Arbitration case was handled as it was, which confused a lot of people. WordBomb's catalog of improper actions over time shows a history of reliable testimony from a wide range of users, indicating threats, coercion, intimidation, and the like by email. Crude hacking. And of course, sock puppetry. One webforum disabled images specifically to prevent his abuses. See my comments at the time. None of this was okay, and that means both were at fault, not just one.

None of this off-wiki dispute matters to us. The Wikipedia community just doesn't care about the Overstock dramas or those people involved. And I have no illusions: your presence here and the same Overstock issue are not entirely unconnected; WordBomb (I gather) has acted as your employee or the like, in these matters. In this context, the hollowness of the following quote is very unpleasant:

Patrick Byrne: - "I promise:... Wordbomb is the good guy... He may have violated some rules... trying to stop a guy who was manipulating everything..."

No, Patrick. That isn't okay, or even representative of the case. Your "promise" means little to me. You introduced WordBomb, your apparent employee, into this thread, and so David Gerard gave you the brief summary. The detailed one is, what Mantanmoreland did pales into insignificance compared to WordBomb's actions. Do not introduce on the back of a discussion of banned user X, an attempt to whitewash equally banned and far worse user Y who seems to be your employee, I gather. We need none of that. "He may have broken some rules"... That alone has to qualify for most understated statement of this thread.

We are an encyclopedia here, not a battlefield for gamesters. Two gamesters and a number of each of their sockpuppets have been removed. Administrators will likely remove others as we notice them. My apologies for being blunt, but I'm not minded to smokescreen on this one. Thank you.

FT2 (Talk | email) 15:31, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

FT2, I'll just say the problem with much of this evaluation is that it fails to consider where Wikipedia acted hostilely toward WordBomb, how early it did this, and the extent it has done this. Clearly at some WordBomb went into "battleground" mode, but he wasn't the first, and the fact is at least the main person he was allegedly stalking seemed as interested in personal campaigns and PR wars on his blog as WordBomb was. Anything recent has to be seen in the context of the Wikipedia campaign that has also been carried out against him. This isn't to say WordBomb's actions have been better than anyone else's, but that when someone is in active battle with Wikipedia, it's worth being a little circumspect at some point about whether there aren't grievances on either side, and about how we judge them. It's also one reason why Wikipedia should work harder to avoid these types of battles, even with people that are seen as unreasonable, the primary issue where I think Wikipedia should realize it has slipped up here. Mackan79 (talk) 16:48, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
Mackan, the stuff that went on bears no resemblance to what you're describing. It went far beyond any of the kind of things your comment suggests you have in mind. Although these are valid considerations in some disputes, on the stuff I see on arb records, these kinds of reasons carry no weight at all. They were far beyond any kind of act which these comments or mitigations might apply to. FT2 (Talk | email) 17:24, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
While I agree that wb's actions have been more egregiously odious than mm's, I submit that we (as en.wikipedia) pushed his unbalance button and set him on a course of awful activity that will very likely never allow him to return as a productive member of the community. Could we have known that he was easily unbalanced and prone to counterproductive and hurtful behavior? no, but we could have acted with a bit more explaination and good faith on day one and perhaps have avoided all this. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 17:42, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
Er, he was never a productive member of the community. He behaved inappropriately from the word go. He went after SlimVirgin because she dared act on his initial unacceptable behaviour. Wikipedia is not so desperate for contributors - David Gerard (talk) 18:43, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
SlimVirgin deserves no defending, lest we forget what she and her "wikistalking" crusade did to GraceNotes RFA last year. Her bee-in-the-bonnet approach to so-called harassment has been an utter disaster this project, produce not one single improvement, and caused plenty of drama. Please do not represent her as some sort of hero and reflect on your support for her highly questionable actions. --Dragon695 (talk) 00:35, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

People, please, not another repeat of the same old primal scream. I know, I know -- it's important that other editors know the backround and we must answer the incorrect statements someone else made. I'd like to propose a simple rule: If anyone in the future ever makes a critical comment on WordBomb, Mantanmoreland, Patrick Byrne or about any actions anyone made in this case, here or elsewhere, at least provide a diff to something, preferably to a statement with its own diffs, as Mackan79 just did. Educate, don't excoriate. And if we don't have anything further to say about helping these articles stay unbiased, it might be helpful to close this discussion soon. This is the opera's final act and the fat lady is clearing her throat. Noroton (talk) 18:51, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

  • I have WP:BOLDly gone and protected the named articles, plus Securities fraud per User:Risker's request above and at my talkpage, for 3 months and semi-protected the related talkpages per my initial suggestion and the couple of positive responses to my comments (before it degenerated into the same usual round of partisan comments regarding a banned user who was - and whisper it LOUDLY - fundamentally correct in their original complaining postings regarding an editor who was abusing alternate accounts when editing these articles). The afore mentioned "debate" also provided another rationale for the protection of the articles; we need uninvolved admins and editors to review the content of these articles sooner rather than later, and create the NPOV articles the subjects deserve. Per Risker's comments, if there are other articles that need protection to allow a consensus to form for the NPOV editing of the subject please note them here. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:28, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
  • This seems like a thoroughly excellent idea for sanity's sake - David Gerard (talk) 20:37, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
  • I support protecting these articles, given their troubled history and the quite significant possibility that MM will continue sockpuppeting (and will continue improving at it) in order to manipulate the articles. It is best that a consensus is worked out regarding all changes before they are implemented. I'd also suggest an especially strict application of the civility policy for the associated talk pages. Everyking (talk) 07:15, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, David Gerard, I see precisely the same old "Argument from Stern Authority" that corrupted the discourse so badly that it took your community about a year to see something that is blindly obvious to everyone now. I would have thought that having on your hands three articles whose history more or less indicts this project (including one on me) would have taught you a little humility. Instead, you repeat tired claims in the hope it makes them sound true. The fact is, Judd followed the rules in trying to expose MM, and SlimVirgin posed as a neutral arbiter but betrayed that role. Your founder, Jimbo Wales, interceded and asked the entire community to take his word that he had checked into it, and MM was not a sock-puppet. Judd/WordBomb got crafty, indeed, but in the end proved that SlimVirgin was wrong and Jimbo's word was false. Bombast all you please, but the fact remains: Judd proved that your system itself was in the wrong, but had to step outside your system to prove it. Was he right to do so? I think yes: The fact that Wikipedia still holds as a constitutional principle that WordBomb is wrong, but prevents precisely one person from engaging in that debate (WordBomb himself), tells me not only that he was right before, but also, that the deeper significances of l'affaire du MM has still not sunk in. Until you permit a free debate on this subject, you may as well be lecturing me sternly about the unanimity of popular support for Kim Jong-il in North Korea. Besides that, most of your claims about Judd are just flat falsehoods, which everyone would understand if Judd was actually permitted to defend himself in the discussion rooms of "The Encyclopedia that Anyone Can Edit!" And lastly, No, I will not intercede with the press and Judd. Partly that is because Judd is his own boss these days. Partly because they are calling him these days, trying to get their heads around this story, and he has waited for that for a long time. But mostly it's because it appears that Dave Gerard's kind of nonsense still corrupts the discourse here, so Wikipedia will never address some fundamental truths about itself, so someone else is going to have to write it for them. I regret that - I am not a vengeful guy - I don't give a toss about the page on me. I see many here are honest and straight, and seem to want to do what is right. But I still see other playground bullies toss their weight around here, and as a result this community let a cover-up persist. You have taken care of the MM problem, but you do not yet see that this all happened because you jettisoned basic procedural fairness, and until this community reclaims it I am not inclined to request that Judd not answer the phone. As far as I can tell, the free press is the only thing that got this community acting with any decency so far. Respectfully PatrickByrne (talk) 10:00, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, Mr. Byrne, it's a bit more complicated than that. I nearly did a serious sockpuppet investigation on MM/SH last September, but distaste at Mr. Bagley's investigative methods was a major reason why I held back. So it wasn't until January when the two account histories got parsed in a serious manner that persuaded most of the Wikipedians who followed the issue. Yes, this site's system could be set up better--yesterday I blogged about lessons learned from this case--yet it's Wikipedia's own internal mechanisms that succeeded in bringing MM's siteban. It shouldn't have taken this long or gotten so bitter; this was not well done on any side. DurovaCharge! 11:53, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
PatrickByrne, you're promoting drama, more drama won't help Judd or help you accomplish any other goals, and it diverts attention from the constructive task of setting these articles right for the long term. This isn't the place. With respect, please stop.Noroton (talk) 17:18, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
  • On the matter this discussion is ostensibly supposed to be about: Protecting the pages for three months has two negative effects: (1) Mantanmoreland has time to develop another sock at the same time that (2) no one is likely to get interested and involved with an article they can't edit for three months. If MM returns, or if other POV-pushers show up, we are less likely to have a healthy number of editors who are up to speed on naked short selling, etc. and who can spot POV pushing. If we can instead somehow recruit interested, knowledgeable editors, the problem is likely to be solved in the long term. And "long term" has been a very important element of this dispute. If the articles are going to be protected for three months, then at least do some more recruiting of editors near the end of that period, when it counts. Noroton (talk) 17:18, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
    • In the MM ARBCOM case I said: ... Also, suggest that the committee invites amicus briefs from recognized experts in the articles concerned - this could aid both the case itself and also help to benchmark the articles – luke (talk) 05:22, 4 March 2008 (UTC). Unfortunately the Committee weren't listening, nor were they listening when Lar asked: "the committee failed to achieve a consensus on whether sock puppetry occurred" ??? Surely that's a jest! How much more corroboration did you want? Is that actually the case that the committee failed this way?? Then things are possibly worse than I feared. Please put a finding in that states it plainly so it can be voted on, I'd like to see who on the committee actually thinks there wasn't sockpuppetry. ++Lar: t/c 12:59, 29 February 2008 (UTC) and 19 people agreed with the request. The Arbcom case was a lost opportunity to settle the issues surrounding these articles without the latest dramatic developments, and the arbiters failure is a standing reproach to all then on the committee.--luke (talk) 19:33, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
      • Fine idea to solicit expert opinions. Problem is, Wikipedia has a bad name in academia right now because the professors encounter us mostly via nineteen-year-old plagiarists. We need to do better outreach and reach the point where that plan becomes more viable. DurovaCharge! 20:31, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
        • If that was in reply to my comment, I'm only suggesting recruiting Wikipedians -- in fact, just repeating Risker's previous call for volunteers, only trying it at a couple more WikiProject venues. Asking outsiders to come in and learn Wikipedia ways is unlikely to work, especially in the short term, especially in this case. Noroton (talk) 22:55, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
          • It's a good bet that experts don't care to be thoughtlessly reverted. Whether they be wikipedians or martians they'll naturally hope for their contribution to be valued. -- luke (talk) 01:26, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
    • (reply to Noroton) Thanks for reading! I had hoped the 3 month period would have shocked enough editors to start discussing that... and how the articles should be tackled. I am all for a shorter period, since it is my suggestion that improvements to the article space should be discussed on the various talkpages and neutral admins enact the consensus. Once a NPOV consensus version of an article exists then the full protection can be reduced to a semi (just to stop drive by partisan vandalism by ip's and throwaway accounts) and all edits judged to whether it improves the article while remaining NPOV. I would still semiprotect the talkpages for the same reasons as for the article page. I would hope, with a consensual NPOV page in place, that even the most sophisticated sock couldn't slant the page as it would be reverted as would any editor introducing bias (and the type of bias would raise the suspicion of those watching the articles). I believe that Risker and a couple of others were hoping to see if they could recruit some uninvolved editors to review the articles, and hope that this is the start of some decent work on the subject(s). Cheers. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:29, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
      • OK, that sounds pretty good. It'll all depend on recruiting those editors. I recommend thick amounts of flattery verging on the fulsome and liberal sprinkling of barnstars once the initial work is done. Noroton (talk) 21:06, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
    • (reply to Noroton) I agree we should dispense with the drama, but ask merely that in thinking through the strategy for what to do about these pages, we do not flush the drama down the memory hole: it existed, there is a reason it existed, and we should remember that those dynamics may persist in trying to disrupt any new formalization of these pages. I also agree with Noroton that freezing these pages for three months is a bad idea: such a decision would merely further the agenda of MM, once again. I suggest, however, that there are great big chunks of the current page on Naked Short Selling about which all sides would agree. One possible approach would be to strip the article down to those pieces, and start there. I have made my own effort in that regard, cutting the current article from 3,500 words to 2,100 words. I took out anything that either side would side was a distortion (MM would say that I took out hard facts, I would say that those facts were either carefully parsed, or misleadingly stated, or were not facts at all: for example, the repeated citing of SEC statements from 2005, which have been contradicted by very recent statements). In any case, rather than both sides fighting about whether I cut was or was not neutral, I propose that the reader look at what is left. I do not think there is a sentence in this new version that either side would feel was misleading or inaccurate. If we can get consensus there, then we have a starting point from which to rebuild. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:PatrickByrne/Sandbox/Naked_shorting_stripped_down PatrickByrne (talk) 21:31, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
      • What I parsed out of that page protection was that 3 months appeared provisional--in order to discourage antics--until one or more people who understand the subject (preferably with honorable edit histories and no involvement in this mess) evaluate the content and draft useful improvements. DurovaCharge! 21:38, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
        • Yes - but then most long term time limits (including or especially indefinite) are absolute maximums against which good editing can "earn" reductions. As I said, I hoped the term might have provoked discussion regarding tackling dealing with the subject since my initial post was only a suggestion. I am glad that it appears to have been tentively adopted as a solution, but I am more than open to futher comment, fine tuning, or abandonment in favour of a better method. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:01, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
      • Durova - Peace. I understand. There is a drawback to what you propose: the universe of people who understand this stuff is tiny. The intersection of that set and the set of people who edit Wikipedia is more tiny still. The intersection of people who understand this mess, edit Wikipedia, and are not somehow involved in it in the real world, is the null set. I can recommend people to come help (economists and lawyers) but because I recommend them, some will say they must be on my side. So.... How about a combination of two approaches? First, start with the pared down article that I have presented, that has no single line to which anyone, from either side, could object. Then everyone who wants to be involved could submit papers and recent articles on this subject, for a neutral team of Wikipedians to read, and gradually use in fleshing out this article. (There is another alternative: look at my other sandbox article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:PatrickByrne/Sandbox/Naked_shorting : every line that is in the MM-approved version of the NSS article, appears here to. However, I simply structured it so that all the tendentious stuff from both sides was explicitly culled out of the main article, and deposited in the end.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by PatrickByrne (talkcontribs) 23:35, 31 May 2008 (UTC) PatrickByrne (talk) 00:14, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
        • Actually, anyone who examines the difference between the two articles will realize that said POV-fork is based off a version of the Wikipedia-approved article that is dated at best. John Nevard (talk) 04:46, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
        • Actually, I stand by my statement that this stripped-down sandbox version of the article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:PatrickByrne/Sandbox/Naked_shorting_stripped_down (which was based off the article as it stood yesterday morning) retains the basic facts concerning this issue (what it is, what the regulatory history has been, etc.), about which none disagree, and excises those sections which one side or the other would say are biased. An administrator really ought to consider just swapping this for the article as it stands, and then standing guard to make sure only legitimate accretions are made. Anyone disagreeing with this should feel free to tell me what section of the trimmed down article offends them, and we'll remove it. Let us just trim it and trim it until there is no line in it that causes heartburn, and then talk about what gets added. PatrickByrne (talk) 22:10, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Avril Lavigne vandal[edit]

User:JenJenAndAway at Template:Now (transcluded at Jimbo's user page). --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 14:31, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

This particular one blocked, but I don't have time to look into what templates may need protection levels changed and which should stay as is and just be dealt with via RBI. --barneca (talk) 14:37, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
That was the only template vandalized by that account. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 14:39, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

User:Onesimplequestion at Template:Userpageinfo as well. Also, for a bit last week there was Avril stuff here similar to those two templates. Should we CU? §hep¡Talk to me! 15:08, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm filing a report now. (see Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/IP check#Avril Vandals) Hersfold non-admin(t/a/c) 15:11, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
Not sure what to do with this, do I add it myself? Anyways User:AvrilUrge can be added to the list of known accounts. §hep¡Talk to me! 15:19, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
 Done --Rodhullandemu 15:22, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
I've full-protected those two templates - they're both used a lot and don't need to be edited regularly. Hut 8.5 15:23, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
Might be a copycat vandal. The original seemed pretty genuine when he said he was leaving. Ziggy Sawdust 15:34, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Another Avril vandal N Fillion's biggest fan (talk · contribs) - Various page moves Anonymous101 (talk) 20:11, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Anoyn User_talk:91.110.139.152 removing AfD notification from article.[edit]

Resolved: Blocked for disruption

Anoyn User:91.110.139.152 has repetedly removed the AfD notification from the Gavin Paul Carter article, and is doing so continuly right now. Propose immediate block for a period of time. His initial response to his first warning would seem to indicate a COI. Arzel (talk) 17:05, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

  • And I closed the AfD. Didn't seem any point in prolonging it. Black Kite 20:21, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Troll[edit]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Kingtut_579 -PetraSchelm (talk) 20:57, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

  • Resolved--blocked by R. Baley. -PetraSchelm (talk) 20:59, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

nb. I blocked 72.64.100.150 (talk · contribs) 24 hours for posting the same content at User:R Baley - I presumed it to be a throwaway account. If it returns... LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:56, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

I have also left a note on Alison's tp; as soon as pages were semi'd another longterm account contributions was used to make the same type of edit (appeared to be a good hand account until then). I would like anyone with checkuser to look into these accounts and see if there are any others related (fyi both of these accounts could be related to the whole grawp haggar thing, see [6]. R. Baley (talk) 22:28, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Re poll re bot creating towns and villages stubs[edit]

There's a notice at the top of my watchlist with a link to this poll: FritzpollBot creating up to two million new articles, but at the bottom of that poll page is a very recent motion by Fritzpoll to resume discussion in a few days. Perhaps that part of the watchlist notice should be removed for now? Coppertwig (talk) 22:17, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

User:CorticoSpinal[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
Resolved: CorticoSpinal blocked indefinitely by AGK

Background of User:CorticoSpinal:

User:CorticoSpinal continues to engage in personal attacks. Here are three examples from the past two days:

  • 2008-05-29: "Filll, Mr. 'AGF' and 'I'm evidence-based' (yet refuses to consider the evidence presented that is contrary to his belief system --true denier?--) comes in and completely proves my point to a 'T' with nonsense arguments and absolutely no clue of what the evidence says."[7] (This refers to user Filll; the references to WP:AGF and to Evidence-based are ironic; a "true denier" is the opposite of a true believer.)
  • 2008-05-29: "You seem to dispute all the details Eubulides. DigitalC has also said you have been pedantic. I would use tendentious, but that's just me."[8]
  • 2008-05-30: "I really don't think you understand NPOV, QG.... you have not learned any lessons whatsoever with your time editing at Chiropractic"[9] ("QG" refers to user QuackGuru.)

This behavior causes considerable unnecessary work for other editors and hinders attempts to gain consensus on Chiropractic, a controversial article. (Disclaimer: I am one of the editors being attacked. Also, these attacks are in the context of a content dispute: User:CorticoSpinal strongly supports chiropractic and the editors being attacked do not.)

Eubulides (talk) 11:26, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

  • 2008-03-09 Disclaimer: This was in complete frustration to the ongoing civil POV push of Ernst and failing to listen to concerns violating WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT repeatedly.
  • 2008-03-20 These were never specified despite repeated attempts to ask what I had done wrong. It's all on Archive 2 if anybody wants to look)
  • 2008-05-08 I actually didn't violate 3RR here, I accidentally broke my voluntary limit of 1RR and went to 2RR. CorticoSpinal (talk) 14:29, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
  • 2008-05-19 Rebuttal and context [10]
  • 2008-05-27 Character assasination attempt by ScienceApologist which he removed voluntarily when scrutinzed.
  • 2008-05-28 More attempts by ScienceApologist to get me blocked/banned because of my arguments which threaten the existing de-facto status quo (chiro is fringe)
Now, suddenly as there is a RfC for Chiropractic (is it fringe) Eubulides decides to take action immediately after I ask for a similar investigation into the work of QuackGuru. Coincidental? Likely not. Let us deal with the RfC Chiropractic first. If it declared fringe, I will voluntarily cease to edit Chiropractic, perhaps permanently. Thoughts? CorticoSpinal (talk) 07:23, May 30, 2008 (UTC)
Just to bring a little balance here, I do think it is important to notice that there seems to be a POV dispute occurring on the Chiropractic page which has attracted several editors that don't usually edit there. Their target appears to be CorticoSpinal, for whatever reason. Personally, I think CorticoSpinal may have a legitimate gripe, as does Eubilides. The rest don't really seem to have a reason other than to suppress his POV. It is important that you know that I am a chiropractor. -- Dēmatt (chat) 13:13, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
There is certainly a lot of disagreement on Chiropractic, but CorticoSpinal seems to react extremely negatively to anybody who disagrees with them. He seems to see a broad group of editors disagreeing with him as an organized war "SA and then anti-chiro skeptic alliance (ACSA) can randomly drop by here and bomb the article and try to railroad changes..."[11] and consistently fails to assume good faith "My opinion of this is that it's another classic example of stonewalling by dogmatic skeptics"[12]. This is really quite extreme poisoning of the well, which makes achieving consensus on this article currently impossible. Jefffire (talk) 13:45, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
This attempt by Eubulides to discredit me is part of a long string of overt and covert attacks on my character and contributions. I had brought Eubulides' underhanded tactics ANI previously In fact, if anything it is Eubulides' actions at chiropractic that truly deserve special attention. These include a 4 month civil-POV push of Edzard Ernst studies under the guise the research represents the majority "mainstream" health care as a deliberate attempt to subvert the majority of research which demonstrates chiropractic care and SMT is just as if not more effective than conventional medical care for back and neck pain while being MORE safe and MORE cost-effective. All the while I have been the recipient of continuous, non-stop attacks from anti-chiropractic editors. I asked admin MastCell here to help rectify the situation and nothing was done (as usual). unfortunately the attacks did not cease (clarified position, it was not to rebuke admin MastCell but rather to demonstrate I took active steps of trying to amicably resolve the non-stop character assasination by anti-chiropractic editors).
Eubulides has regularly misrepresented my views. I have counted no less than 21 separate incidents where Eubulides has twisted by comments, misrepresented my views in order to subvert my argument(s). Diffs can be provided upon request. Eubulides has been accused of cherry picking the evidene by several editors, a mining of papers of sorts, to distort the majority viewpoint of the scientific literature. Eubulides has been warned about WP:IDHT no less than a dozen times, with no change in behaviour. Eubulides has been asked to respect consensus regarding the validity of 'effectiveness' of the chiropractic 'profession' and failed to do so. Eubulides was warned for edit warring (in a covert manner too) at Chiropractic a few weeks ago. Eubulides has continuously used a string of logical fallacies in his argumentation, which when pointed out to him, went nowhere (besides disagreeing). Eubulides has acted as a judge, jury and executioner on all the research unilaterally deciding what research goes in, where and what tone and weight it is to carry. He meets all the criteria of a civil POV pusher. This is about science and research. I am a chiropractor. Eubulides is a medical doctor. These facts should be known as well. Diffs can be provided for all the aforementioned. I don't mind having 2 concurrent ANIs, one for myself and one for Eubulides. (Note: I have brought my concerns regarding Eubulides' civil POV push to an uninvolved admin who was going to look into the case). Looks like that time has come. Cheers. CorticoSpinal (talk) 14:23, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

arbitrary section break on User:CorticoSpinal 1[edit]

Statement by QuackGuru:

The indef-block was reinstated.

The unblock request was denied twice. See here and here.

To make a long story short, AGK unblocked CorticSpinal after it was declined by two admins. With the unblock, AGK explained it was conditionally. See below for more details.

To that end, I am conditionally unblocking you, with the following understanding:

  1. You will contribute civilly, and in a manner that is both constructive, and free of personal attacks and hostilities.
  2. You will bear in mind, that Wikipedia is a collaborative encyclopedia, and that things work a hundred times better if you make an effort to both empathise, and get along, with your fellow editors.
  3. You will make article-writing your primary focus, and refrain from getting involved in heated talk-page discussions in the immediate aftermath of your unblock. I attach this condition to facilitate an "easy re-integration" on your part, with the community, and I particularly trust that you will follow this.

I am more than open to reinstating a full block as before, if you fail to contribute in a positive manner. This is a final chance; don't blow it, please.

The conditional unblock was handled by AGK.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/EBDCM In the past, there was a possible ip sock.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/99.229.74.64 Recently, there was another ip with similar editing patterns as CorticoSpinal.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/3RRArchive72#User:CorticoSpinal_reported_by_User:Arthur_Rubin_.28Result:_1_week.29 There were at least four reverts.

CorticoSpinal wrote in part: Please do not attempt to confuse readers seeing you are confused. CorticoSpinal claims there are anti-chiropractor[13] editors.

There is evidence that User:CorticoSpinal has violated the terms of his conditional unblock. Therefore, a reinstatement of his indef-block is warranted. QuackGuru 17:33, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

As the 3RR reporter in question, I found 4 reverts and the closing admin found 6. CS's claim that there were only 2 (still violating the 1RR parole) is disingenuous. I didn't look into the conditions of the conditional unblock. (The question of whether his reverts were to a "consensus" version are irrelevant to 3RR and his previous and subsequent edit warring.) — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:40, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
As for User:QuackGuru, I find his editing style and comments such that the fact that his article edits are usually well-thought-out is well-concealed. It might be better for him not to edit in such a manner. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:50, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
This comment by CorticoSpinal was in poor taste. CorticoSpinal has exhausted the patience of the community. QuackGuru 18:18, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
Well, I am one that believes in seeing things in context, so you need to see the whole picture as POV warriors do there best to gang up on CorticoSpinal. Personally, I think he did a pretty good job fending them off. And QuackGuru has had a few warnings himself, those in glass houses shouldn't throw stones, but this isn't about you. -- Dēmatt (chat) 18:54, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
I feel that 3RR incident was dealt with, is stale, and I think this ANI should be focusing on other behaviour, such as civility. DigitalC (talk) 06:59, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

This is very unfortunate. I hope that we can all work this out in some consensual collegial manner. So it is forbidden to disagree? What policy does that violate? I am disgusted, frankly. I mean no disrespect to any who believe that Chiropractic is a mainstream medical practice. I certainly agree that some peer-reviewed publications in the last few years have shown that for some small handful of ailments chiropractic is as beneficial as any other treatment. However, I am not convinced that the current article strikes the appropriate balance and tone. I apologize to anyone who disagrees with me and I certainly do not mean to offend anyone with this suggestion. There is so much rancor involved with warring parties that it makes me really wonder about the Wikipedia model...--Filll (talk | wpc) 18:24, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree, I hate to admit it, but I enjoy the discussion. Maybe the chiropractic page is not the place to do it though. Somewhere where none of us have to worry about being blocked or banned. -- Dēmatt (chat) 18:54, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
You might enjoy the discussion, but frankly I think on these controversial articles the "discussion" just gets too dangerous. This is just a website after all; is it worth the threats and worse? Mark my words; sooner or later one of us is going to be killed for disagreeing with one of these zealots. This is very unhealthy and I think suggests a bad failure of the Wikipedia model.--Filll (talk | wpc) 19:00, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
You make a good point; not everyone has the right temperment for this type of discussion, and there are certainly some unstable personalities on wikipedia. But I am confused as to why you threw that fuel on the fire if you were concerned about that. Surely you aren't worried about CS killing anyone? -- Dēmatt (chat) 19:07, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
No, of course I do not claim CS or Eubilides or anyone in particular is going to kill someone. However, I have watched these controversial articles in alternative medicine and in racial topics and conspiracy theories and religious areas and political areas and so on for well over a year. I have seen how heated these things become on Wikipedia and on the websites that monitor Wikipedia, like Wikipedia review. I have heard horrendous accounts of frequent death threats and stalking and harassment over Wikipedia. As I realize how nasty and ugly things have become over what is just a website, I am increasingly dismayed. I have heard other people make this prediction that eventually tragedy will strike, and after having watched things proceeding in a very negative way, I have to say I agree. This is all much much too serious and much much too unpleasant over what is just a hobby, a volunteer persuit. Are these stupid conflicts worth it? I mean, really. This is nuts.--Filll (talk | wpc) 19:17, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
You are a good hearted editor. I am not sure it is worth it. -- Dēmatt (chat) 19:52, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
In regard CS's comment "Eubulides has been asked to respect consensus regarding the validity of 'effectiveness' of the chiropractic 'profession' and failed to do so.", I see only a partial consensus, and Eubulides has respected (most of) that. Of course, CS considers me an anti-chiropractic editor, so, of course, he'll disregard that. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:38, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
Well, Eubilides does not own that article any more than CorticoSpinal does, so we have to make sure all POVs are represented fairly and accurately. I think that is the whole issue abotu whether Chiropractic is WP:FRINGE because that would determine whether CS could use his peer reviewed information as well as Eubilides uses his. -- Dēmatt (chat) 18:54, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
To address AR, I have given you props for warning Eubulides that he may have accidentally gone over 3RR. I tend to dismiss extremist positions/editors, and I would not classify you as such. We just disagree on Chiropractic, just like we might disagree on politics. Nothing personal. To Dematt, " I think that is the whole issue abotu whether Chiropractic is WP:FRINGE because that would determine whether CS could use his peer reviewed information as well as Eubilides uses his." I could not have said it any better than that myself. I will declare here publically, if the evidence suggests chiropractic medicineis moreso fringe health care, than mainstream health care, I will voluntarily retire indefinitely from Wikipedia. There would be no point to continue editing when the opinion of dogmatic anti-chiropractic editors stating it is fringe nullifies and outweighs the evidencewhich suggests its moreso part of mainstream health care if not completely within it. CorticoSpinal (talk) 19:14, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
Dematt, where in heaven's name do you get the idea that all POV's have to be "represented fairly and accurately?????" Actually, WP:NPOV does not say that. We do not give undue weight to fringe theories. The vast preponderance of reliable sources say that Chiropractic is not very useful medically, and there is nothing in NPOV that states the article needs to give weight to the fringe theories.OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 21:47, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
This is part of the problem. There is a giant civil POV push to discount the evidence that IS out there, and just state that "the vast preponderance of RS say that Chiropractic is not very useful". That is NOT what the evidence states! DigitalC (talk) 01:59, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
Orangemarlin, If Chiropractic were just Palmer's 19th century subluxation theory that invokes Innate Intelligence, I would agree that would be fringe, because it is even in chiropractic circles (as I am sure that is what the proponderance of the literature agrees to). On those articles we need to use the principles in WP:FRINGE. But chiropractic(the profession) is more than that. We are talking about chiropractic physicians using spinal manipulation, massage, ice, heat, exercises, and whatever else they use short of medications and surgery for the treatment of musculoskeletal conditions. IOWs chiropractic care. These things are things that are used in physical therapists offices everyday now. There is mainstream research that compares and contrasts all different types of physical therapy (that all musculoskeletal therapists use - including chiropractors). So why should they be treated any less mainstream than they would be on the Physical therapy article? Some researchers disagree what works best. All I am saying is that NPOV requires that we present those two verifiable and reliable sources neutrally and without bias, letting the reader make up their own mind. Correct me if NPOV would not ask that I do that.
Now, to take this further into what CS is saying is... if one of those research opinions presented by one researcher is in opposition to a more recent task force of 16 researchers of different disciplines sponsored by the World Health Organization, does this mean that the first research can be left out of the article. He believes it's a question of weight and he is asking the community to give it some serious thought. I'm thinking that he has a good point and it appears that no-one is listening to him. No wonder he gets upset. It has nothing to do with some preconceived beliefs that chiropractic is WP:FRINGE. That seems to be all that anybody wants to say? -- Dēmatt (chat) 00:19, 31 May 2008 (UTC)


There's a difference between a fringe profession and a fringe element within a profession. That's the point here. Also, the evidence suggests contrary, chiropractic care, manual therapy and SMT is effective, safe and cost-effective, relative to standard medical care for back and neck pain and other similar musculoskeletal disorders. That's the claim being made. There's evidence to support this claim. The only thing preventing from it being stated this way (or close to it) is the disputed research of Edzard Ernst. CorticoSpinal (talk) 22:33, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Addendum: Fill wrote " I mean no disrespect to any who believe that Chiropractic is a mainstream medical practice. That claim has not been made. The claim is that chiropractic is moreso part of mainstream health care". The difference is important to note. One should also note that the current context is one of a dichotomy, i.e. there's only 2 choices, mainstream or fringe. In reality, the third option is presenting itself Integrative medicine where DCs are the backbone (no pun intended) of such a model that fuses the best practices of "alternative medicine" and "conventional/mainstream medicine". I work in such a setting. That's why, in part, I'm here. To present chiropractic care circa 2008 and not some outdated model. Sure, chiropractic has warts and these need to be presented (remember I'm the one who said chiropractic needs a criticisms section) but the fringe aspects of chiropractic care (ie manipulation for non-musculoskeletal disorders) is being used by less than 10% of chiropractors. It's a weight issue. The skeptics continuously straw man the minority view within chiropractic and present it as the majority view which then, in turn is used to call the whole profession fringe with the subsequent stigma and editing rules WP:PARITY that comes along with such a designation. Bottom line: chiropractic medicine has the evidence(research) to stand on its own 2 feet, chiropractic medicine for all intents and purposes has been incorporated into mainstream health care and chiropractic should not be treated like Flat Earth, Creationism and Homeopathy nor should nonsensical comparisons to alien abductions be made. Chiropractors should be not portraued as anti-science (as assumed by default by the fringe branding by anti-chiropractic editors) and shouldn't be treated like 2nd classes citizens from a 3rd world country here at Wikipedia. CorticoSpinal (talk) 19:26, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

CS, I appreciate what you are saying, and I want you to know that each of these editors that are here have made edits that would be considered pro-chiropractic edits when they understood the issue and the sources. Arthur has defended the Chiropractic article for years from wackos and kooks. You and FIlll would be on the same side on the Homeopathy page. I would venture that each of them would support your edits, because they, too, think that voodoo does not belong on wikipedia. Chiropractic needs to be presented to show all POVs, including the voodoo fringe (which you are not a part of), so that readers will not be sucked in by those type practitioners (and, yes, MDs use some voodoo, too - so that is not the point). The question is the weight. Eubilides, I submit to you that CS is right, you are not allowing the 'reform' view to be fully explained before blending it with the straight view. They will need to remain separate. I have given you guys time to see if you could blend the two, but it isn't working. That's my 2 cents, though I am not sure this is the place to say it. Basically, I am here to say there are more issues on this article than the diffs that show CS's "high points". -- Dēmatt (chat) 19:52, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

arbitrary section break on User:CorticoSpinal 2[edit]

I agree that there are serious disputes about content. But this ANI is not about content. It is about behavior. Although the behavior of attacking other editors is wrong, CorticoSpinal continues to engage in it despite repeated warnings. Here are two other recent quotes illustrating the behavior in question:

  • 2008-05-28: "You should not play so coy. You've been doing this for 4 months now, Eubulides. Except, over time your civil POV push for Ernst representing the mainstream opinion has been exposed as a farce.… That is so underhanded…. Shame on you."[14]
  • 2008-05-30: "The opinion of one man can subvert and circumvent international scientific consensus at Chiropractic. This is the push Eubulides has been making over the last 4 months, the push I've been resisting for 4 months and we're now seeing it crystallize. In Canada, we'd say this issue is the "TSN Turning Point". Eubulides assessment of the TaskForce has been demonstrated to be false. He has tendentiously pursued this point for months."[15]

This kind of personal attack needs to stop. But it isn't stopping, despite a block in the past, despite repeated warnings, and despite this ANI report. That last comment was made about 3 hours ago. Eubulides (talk) 21:35, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

I gave up editing the article because of the personal attacks from CS, who has been repeatedly blocked. He is pushing a POV that is inappropriate and unsupported. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 21:49, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
  • I have been editing the article over the last few months, and I have not seen any meaningful participation from Orangemarlin. His edits that I have noticed were drive-by reverts (often to a version of someone on 1RR parole - suggesting possible meatpuppetry), and he has stated that he refuses to participate on the talk page, or look at the talk page to see what the consensus is. I have also witnessed several personal attacks towards CS from OM. While this ANI is not about OM, I think it is important to take this into context. DigitalC (talk) 01:59, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Are you for real, OM? Luckiliy Wikipedia keeps a track of these types of things. [16] Look at the diffs provided for the reality of the situation. I am pushing for a scientific inquiry into whether or not chiropractic is fringe. I have provided evidence it is moreso mainstream than fringe. I have been attacked, harrassed, baited, bitten, stalked by anti-chiropractic editors. So, please forgive my occasional bursts of curtness, but you guys always have me on edge. Eubulides, I am making a claim that there has been a civil POV push of Ernsts' flawed research on SMT and chiropractic care, primarily by you. It's not an attack. It's a statement that I have backed up and that is currently being investigated. If I am proven incorrect, I'll happily retract the claim. Until then, it's just that: a claim. If the involved editors would care to look at these threads [17] and [18] you will see that there is strong evidence which supports my claims (and none that refutes it). This is about evidence and content. That drives the behaviour. If I've gone batshiat crazy it's because there's been a civil POV push happening at chiropractic for 4 months and it's been treated like a fringe subject (Flat Earth, alien abductions) rather than a part of mainstream health care. Chiropractic shares far more in common with a specialization like Dentistry than it does with Homeopathy. We should treat it accordinly. It's about professional respect. CorticoSpinal (talk) 22:28, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Addendum: In short this is about WP:IDONTLIKEIT. The anti-chiro brigade doesn't like the fact that I am debunking long held stereotypes and myths via scientific literature. Yet I am called anti-scientific continuously by the same editor time and time again. This happened at Raul654's very own talk page in front of numerous admins who just sat there while OM was feeding me personal attacks left and right. Diffs can be provided upon request. Would someone please look impartially at the content and context? Otherwise we're left with a cherry picking of diffs from the editor who opened the case with no proper context. Another way to look at it is this: find me 1 diff of alledged incivility to any editor outside the chiroskeptic brigade (Mccready, QuackGuru, Eubulides, Orangemarlin, Jefffire, ScienceApologist and (limited AR and Filll). These guys come into my specialization Chiropractic and mess around, call me names, prevent me from editing, censor my talk page comments, move my comments around so they lose all context and meaning, harass, bait, bite, attack, accuse me of being "anti-science" a "POV warrior" who "cannot collaborate". I've been blocked for far less than other editors, probably because of sympathetic admins to the chiroskeptics who think I'm a fringe practitioner promoting a fringe view. Incorrect. I play fine with others. Look who's showing up to bury me here! I'm like Nostradamus, I can predict who will come for the execution. Luckily I have documented this and let select impartial admins be aware of my concerns. And they're coming to fruition. CorticoSpinal (talk) 22:52, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Addendum to the addendum: I have been on edge quite a bit lately, but that's primarily because things have realllllly heated up and crystalized at chiropractic. I'm always on the defensive against one of aforementioned editors. Though I really try to be civil and patient and understanding, sometimes I let a barb slip. And I'm truly sorry for that. I have shown tremendous restraint over all, but do acknowledge that occasionally I let one fly. I have requested a few times now to be mentored, yet I don't know how and where to initiate that process. I truly feel as though I am a net-contributor to the project (create far more than I delete; whose expertise in physical medicine should be an asset to the project and who always brings indexed, peer-reviewed research. I don't cite quackwatch and layman pages. I bring quality research from PubMed (at a minimum!). I feel I bring in a unique blend of both mainstream health care and integrative health care (the very best practices and evidence of "CAM"). This is valuable here. Wikipedia can be on the leading edge and support and develop me/smooth the edges as a scientific chiropractor, or wikipedia can support the measures of the anti-chiropractic bandwagon to act without impugnity, attack me in every single which way until I crack, retaliate and then lobby to ANI to block me. CorticoSpinal (talk) 23:12, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

This editor adds almost nothing to the discussion at Talk:Chiropractic, acts primarily as a single purpose account and is so confrontational that discussion normally completely degenerates whenever he begins to add material. I suggest banning him for a time from Chiropractic and its associated talk pages as well as all related pages. Give him a chance to edit other articles on Wikipedia to see if he can be of use elsewhere. Otherwise, it's pretty clear that this editor is simply disruptive enough to be shown the door. ScienceApologist (talk) 05:46, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

This is a nonsensical statement. You've contributed nothing to Chiropractic, except drive-by reversions, statements of false consensus and attempts to vote stack a dubious RfC with opinions rather than evidence. I have invested hours of research and editing bringing up the scientific content miles above where it was. Just because you view chiropractic as fringe, and I'm challenging that opinion with reliable, undisputed evidence, your trying to have me muzzled and spayed. Hopefully the admins can see through this hollow request. On the other hand, one could easily suggest that your recent behaviour at Chirorpractic could very be your 9th life (look at your block list, and you've probably set a record for ANI appearances. If it weren't for some sympathetic admins who share your POV on FRINGE you'd be a goner, no doubt) and you've done nothing but wiki-stalk me the last 7 days. Quite simply SA: Do you have any evidence that disputes the evidence I presented that chiropractic is mainstream health care and not fringe? Because you're treating me like a fringe POV pusher rather than a health professional. That's hardly good faith and I could easily provide diffs that show how you've been warned about harassing me. It's time to face the facts that your opinion on chiropractic (fringe) is not supported by undisputed scientific evidence as well as governmental and health agencies worldwide and reputable lay sources such as the New York Times. You are merely stating your opinion that chiropractic, the profession, is fringe. And you call yourself ScienceApologist? Ironic, you really should apologize for misrepresenting yourself, for it is you, SA that does not follow the science. Over and out. CorticoSpinal (talk) 07:30, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
I think this last statement by CS just about proves my case. Is it really worth it to have a user who engages in snarkiness to the point of personal invectives in a section of AN/I devoted to dealing with that very issue? All I know is that if I was behaving the way CS is behaving, I'd have been slapped with a week-long block by now. ScienceApologist (talk) 08:55, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Looked at the evidence after 2008-05-18 - only 3 out of the 8 bits of evidence have any worth including the final relating to "QG" - bad! 2 things: 1/ take the content issues through Article RFC or mediation, and 2/ I strongly recommend an RFC on user conduct to be filed, particularly if there is any new evidence concerning his conduct. Other than that, there is currently insufficient evidence to warrant use of admin tools here. Ncmvocalist (talk) 13:47, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

FYI, the article has had a number of content RfC recently. As for new evidence about his conduct, how about the "chiroskeptic brigade" comments he makes above? Jefffire (talk) 15:22, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
It's understandable that he's upset, and in the grand scheme of things, though it might not be considered acceptable to some, it still wouldn't warrant use of admin tools (which is essentially what this noticeboard is for). Instead, you or those categorised in that way could politely request him here to retract that title if it's offensive - it's a step in the right direction to wanting to truely resolve a dispute.
I recommend an RFC on user conduct be filed if it's really out of hand, or even with whatever evidence from the past and recent past you have - but as you may know, the conduct of all those involved may be looked at in the process - particularly if he adduces evidence in the form of diffs. In any case, I'd be happy to look through it. If there are problems with conduct, third party input will be given stating what the problems are and suggestions on how to fix the problem (and it mostly ends there). If it doesn't, then we can go from there. It may seem long or perhaps annoying, but the results often speak for themselves, sooner or later. Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:14, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

The whole point of this section is about a continual series of violations of his unblocking, regardless of any possible worthiness as an editor. Other user's conduct is not the issue. We are way past the point of any user RfC, since we are dealing with a violation of conditions for unblocking an indef block, after many previous warnings and blocks. The personal attacks not only have to stop, they have existed continually and it's been getting worse. The fact that they have existed is proof of a serious violation of the agreements for unblocking, and thus the indef ban needs to be reinstated. It's too bad, but when an editor with such good potential can't stop the attacks, it's time to part (yet again). -- Fyslee / talk 16:19, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

An example of what we have to put up with from this user:
  • "What this discussion proves that zombie editors and anti-chiropractic skeptics are obstructing anybody who disagrees with them. The zombie editing practices of the anti-chiropractic axis of Jefffire-OrangeMarlin-ScienceApologist with sleeper cell of Filll and Arthur Rubin will be exposed. You don't have all the wikipedia admins in your back pocket. What a fucking joke this place is." CorticoSpinal [19]
-- Fyslee / talk 16:41, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
You have given no valid reasons or insufficient evidence to demonstrate that it is impossible or too difficult to attempt to resolve this through other steps of dispute resolution such as RFC on user conduct. This is the only way that there is an active demonstration of actually wanting and trying to resolve the dispute, rather than removing someone you disagree with (in content) for other reasons. So, don't bypass earlier steps of dispute resolution because of impatience - it will not result in a ban being reinstated/enforced from users outside of the dispute (or the community). Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:54, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
The indef-block was reinstated and the unblock request was denied twice. See here and here. AGK unblocked CorticSpinal after it was declined by two admins. Was this a valid unblock after it was declined twice?[20][21] Was there any consensus to unblock after the repeated declines.[22][23] QuackGuru 17:16, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
[EC] Reply to Ncmvocalist. We have already been there. It didn't work and he was blocked and finally indef blocked. He was unblocked based on conditions, and has been on probation ever since. He has violated those conditions. In such a situation, we don't start all over again. That wouldn't make sense and would violate all normal procedures here and in the justice system (if that were the case). It's a case of simple logic....if you (generic) break a promise and violate your probation, your indef block gets reinstated. A refusal to reinstate the block under such conditions would place the involved admin at jeopardy for ignoring community wishes and consensus. There is no alternative but to reinstate the indef block. -- Fyslee / talk 17:22, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
User:CorticoSpinal's comment was unindented by me for readability--Enric Naval (talk) 15:34, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

There is no community wish, other than the skeptics to block and we're seeing why that might be. Sour grapes, Fyslee. You defend QuackGuru yet try to bury me? That's rather odd since you pushed for him to get investigated one week ago for truly disruptive conduct. We get it, you don't like me. Fine. [outing and personal attack removed]

What we're talking about is editing practices and how it drives behaviour. Considering I've been branded as fringe as opposed to a health professional (because the skeptics personally view chiropractic as fringe despite the evidence presented that it is moreso mainstream and thusly should be edited under that banner) and have been subjected to the kind of scrutiny and attacks that likely few editors would ever have to endure. I'm simply trying to keep the chiropractic article stabilized, but other editors who have commented here to bury me have no intent to actually contribute, but rather to supress any real progress made and to disrupt and destabilize the article.

The edit histories of these 3 users are as follows > > OrangeMarlin (OM)

  • 27/5 revert
  • 11/5 revert
  • 17/4 revert
  • 17/4 revert
  • 08/4 revert
  • 07/4 revert
  • 07/4 revert
  • 21/3 revert
  • 20/3 revert
  • 20/3 revert
  • 20/3 revert

> > ScienceApologist (SA)

  • 27/5 removes sourced statement on 4th RR
  • 27/5 revert
  • 27/5 revert
  • 27/5 revert
  • 25/5 revert
  • 24/5 restores source seemingly removed by his own previous revert
  • 24/5 revert
  • 23/5 restores source seemingly removed by his own previous revert
  • 23/5 reverts 8 days of editing by CS and Levine
  • 15/5 revert
  • 14/5 revert

> > Filll

  • 27/5 revert
  • 15/5 revert
  • 14/5 revert

> This is not just the recent stuff, this isn't their total edits at Chiropratic It is hard to resist the conclusion that these editors are not actively involved in editing the article... at all. It appears that they are gang edit warring to avoid 3rr and trying to stir the pot. Their discussions on the talk page are are more along the lines of stonewalling and disruption since, as can be seen from their edit histories, they have nothing to add to the article in any way. You can see why, at times, I get exasperated with an ongoing civil POV push or Ernst and chiropractic is fringe. Find me one editor or diff outside the usual suspects here that I have been less than friendly terms. Good luck. CorticoSpinal (talk) 17:36, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Section break[edit]

Let me make some things very clear.

  1. Wikipedia is not a justice system.
  2. A community ban only exists where there is consensus for it, i.e. no admin is willing to unblock the editor in question. The community as a whole (outside of those involved) see it is the only way to avoid damage to the encyclopedia.
  3. The conditions of the unblock do not constitute indefinite probation.
  4. There currently is no consensus for another ban or block, and will continue not to be, in the absence other forms of dispute resolution being attempted, unless the user engages in severe or much more repeated violations of policy. In any case...
  5. filing an RFC is not starting again - it is an active attempt to resolve the dispute by way of third party input. It also ensures that you aren't filing this with an intent to remove a contributor while evading a sanction/block for your own misconduct, if you have engaged in misconduct.
  6. Failing to resolve the dispute in this way (in conjunction with mediation/article RFC), is when you come back and ask for conduct to be looked at
  7. Failing that, or after the RFC, you can try arbitration.

In no case will all parties conduct not be looked into. Ncmvocalist (talk) 18:01, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

CorticoSpinal blocked[edit]

Per my detailed rationale at User talk:CorticoSpinal#Blocked, and pending my current concerns that allowing CorticoSpinal to continue editing is actively hampering the smooth operation of Wikipedia and its articles, I have blocked CorticoSpinal indefinitely.

This action is further to a follow-up review of my unblock earlier in the year, at which time I made it clear that if CorticoSpinal resumed the behaviour he had been originally indefinitely blocked for, he would be re-blocked. Clearly, he has found himself unable to adhere to the standards of behaviour expected; if he becomes willing to reform, and is able to demonstrate such a willingness to one or more administrators, then I am willing to lift my block.

This action is separate to the discussion here; notification is only cross-posted here, for the purposes of well-informed ban discussion. At the moment, I do not consider my action to be representative of a consensus to ban, but only a run-of-the-mill, counter-disruption measure.

Anthøny 18:32, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

There is evidence that CorticoSpinal outed an editor today. CorticoSpinal has previously outed the same Wikipedian before. I provided Anthøny with the evidence. Outing an editor is indef-blockworthy. QuackGuru 18:53, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
You seem to be saying your comment in such a way that you are still arguing for action to be taken. It has been... Anthøny 19:00, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
The editor publicly associates his real name with his wiki nickname, as can be confirmed with a simple search. To repeat what he himself has made publicly clear is hardly "outing" by any rationale measure. Vassyana (talk) 23:06, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

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

Complex IP vandalism[edit]

Hi. An editor in Arkansas takes exception to . . . well, to not being a WP:DICK. During the school year from an IP address registered to the University of Arkansas, and over winter and now summer breaks from a series of proximate IP addresses, the editor has continued to undo a series of redirects and to remove maintenance tags. Several of these IPs have been individually blocked, but I thought I’d mention it here to see if a range block would be appropriate or if there’s anything to do other than have a beer sitting nearby when this fellow acts up again. The editor's talk-page comments make clear he/she has no intention of abiding by consensus or contributing anything useful to Wikipedia. A few of the popular targets -- Simon Tam, Eden McCain, Planet Express -- have received temporary semi-protection, although my most recent request for two of them to be semi-protected again was denied.

School IPs:

More recent (home for break?) IPs:

Statements of non-good faith: here and here

So. There it is. --EEMIV (talk) 22:41, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

User:Moldopodo[edit]

Hi. I want to ask help from an admin regarding user:Moldopodo's behavior. He raised again the issue of Moldovan/Romanian language. I don't wanna get into much recent history or political debates, but they are the essential in understanding the issue. In brief (as Moldovan language and History of the Moldovan language loosely addresse) Moldovan language is a notion rooted in the Soviet Union policy of inventing a new ethnicity for a territory he annexed during the WW2 from Romania. A Stalinist thesis, it is reused by the current ruler party of Moldova (the Communists - no others than the former Soviet elite) in order to play an obscure political game: after Moldova, a former Soviet state, declared independence following the collapse of the Soviet Union, in order to maintain the power, they've (re)invented a common enemy of the people: Romania, who allegedly wants to destroy a fictive Moldovan ethnicity, has "imperialist" dreams, and so on. So, they've introduced in the Constitution the phrase: "the state language is Moldovan". This has created a debate in the Moldovan society that is still ongoing. This is the broad picture as brief as I can present it.

Sustaining the above are quotes from authoritative scholar sources I've gathered two years ago for a similar "debate": (Linguapax Institute, Library of Congress, Encyclopedia Britannica, NY University School of Law and others). In fact Moldovan is no different than Romanian (same grammar, same orthography, same lexicon, diff accents of speakers). It has its ISO code because ISO doesn't make politics (especially when it's about a former Soviet republic, heh), and when a country asks for, it is given. But even the Academy of Sciences of Moldova calls the language Romanian, and has addopted the orthographic rules of the Romanian Academy. No one, excepting part of Moldovan politicians, call it Moldovan. It's like me claiming now I write in Inglanda language or else (btw, sorry for my mistakes) and asking you to believe it.

Once in a while there is some excessively disturbing user raising the Communist theses: starting a Mo wiki, or renaming the language Moldovan/Romanian etc. This time user:Moldopodo is doing his wars - starting from meta, where he proposes renaming the wiki from ro to mo-ro [24], passing through 3RR as in [25] (1st of June) although he was told he was making a mistake on his talk page user talk:moldopodo. More, he's going to other wikis to ask for help: [26]. I know it's a lot to read, this thing exploding into large debates, but this time Moldopodo is intentionally not addressing the arguments, is reverting edits, is pushing his POV against all evidence. For me is sad that this notion (Moldovan language) exists, but it's a fact, and it must appear on WP as it is. The same, it's not a controversial issue, because independent prestigious scholar sources explain its nature: a political instrument (all from Western literature). They too must appear in WP as objective POVs, explaining its deceptive and manipulatory nature. Finally, it's not an unresolved issue, because I've not heard of scientific facts being ruled by law. You can't compare a political decision with a scientific conclusion. When they contradict you usually have some casualties (but let's don't get melodramatic, if we can). Here all independent analyses explain the nature of the Moldovan language as an artificial political construct.

I don't know how should I "fill a complain" in this case, but I think an admin should be aware of the destructive behavior of user:moldopodo and take the appropiate measures. Thank you.

PS: For anyone interested in recent history, this is a good subject. Two wings of evil haunted the 20st century. Both were political "isms". One exploded and rapidly consumed itself. The other one kept half of Europe in dark for half of century. Both ideologies (dressed religiously: the messianic figure, the enemy, the good and the bad guys, the ideal, the confrontation). Both screwing up people minds. Both killing millions. I've lived one, and still fighting its demons it seems. It's sad. adriatikus | talk 02:20, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

User:DemolitionMan[edit]

Resolved: User indefinitely blocked due to continuous POV pushing, incivility and personal attack. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 13:13, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

DemolitionMan (talk · contribs) is the subject of an editing restriction, placed in March and reviewed in early May. Since the May review, he has accused me of racism (again), taken a huff and removed all my comments from his talk page, including more accusations of racism, and has now decided to stalk me and assist the banned User:DavidYork71 in his trolling/sockpuppetry campaign on Bernard Montgomery, 1st Viscount Montgomery of Alamein, which I was attempting to revert. He was warned about his stalking yesterday by User:Jayron32, but has decided to continue regardless. Can somebody please hit him with a cluehammer? Leithp 11:36, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

DemolitionMan is clearly a single purpose account and a POV warrior with a history of chronic incivility and personal attacks. Why we need a user like this? May I suggest a permanent community imposed ban on this user. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 11:41, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
I have indef blocked on the basis of their violation of WP:NPOV and questionable interpretation of WP:V, as well as their edit warring and incivility with other users who attempt to edit according to those policies. As I have previously commented on DM's topic ban and attempted to resolve some of the issues in my capacity as an administrator I invite review of my actions here. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:33, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
I'd say that the block was made in right mesaure, this initial thread by Leithp sums it up nicely. Good block. Rudget (Help?) 12:37, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
I also endorse the block. Seems appropriate to me. ColdmachineTalk 12:44, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
The user appears to be operating from a specific agenda, and may even be well-intentioned, i.e. may think he's being a courageous warrior. The wrong kind of warrior for wikipedia, though. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 12:47, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

I support the block. We do not need a user like this. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 12:49, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Support block. I told him that his actions were inappropriate, and warned him not to repeat it. He repeated it anyways. He was told of the consequences, and felt that he was willing to accept those consequences. He showed that by continuing the disruption. This is fully justified, based on both his long history of disruption and on the imediate refusal to stop being disruptive. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 16:51, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Here are some of his latest comments in his talk page:

  • "Thank you Klansman; I wasn't expecting anything less. Now off you go and burn some crosses and lynch some colored who disagree with your view point." [27]
  • "What a surprise, you self-confessed racist bigot!" [28]

I think it's time to permablock him and protect his talk page. --Ragib (talk) 06:55, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Personal attacks issued while under a block are typically interpreted as begging for a longer block. Baseba