Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive541

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

Noticeboard archives

Contents

Outing on Boron related talk pages[edit]

See also: User_talk:Uncle_G#Re:_request_for_correction, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gamma boron discovery controversy, & Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive537#request_for_a_correction

Aoganov (talk · contribs) appears to have outed the supposed email address of Materialscientist (talk · contribs) at Talk:Boron (history) and suspected real world name of the same user at Talk:Gamma boron discovery controversy (history). Aoganov is a new user and is using his real name. So I suspect this violation of policy is due to frustration and not knowing our policies. I already deleted the offending versions and will create an oversight request if Materialscientist wants one. I don't think Aoganov will do this again but part of the dispute is being fueled by Aoganov's suspicions over the real world ID of Materialscientist (claim of bias editing due to a COI). So, I mainly need advice on how to deal with a situation like this since I don't want to lose either editor. --mav (talk) 22:59, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

After more reading, the email part seems OK due to the fact that Materialscientist confirmed the email and didn't seem to be bothered by the outing of that fact. --mav (talk) 23:36, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

User:Born2cycle and Lane splitting[edit]

I'm requesting assistance withan ongoing problem with a disruptive editor, User:Born2cycle who has been preventing consensus and making bizarre demands to refute his theories in Lane splitting and Filtering forward. This person has been carrying on endless, unproductive arguments on Talk pages and has been inserting unsupported opinions into the articles, reverting them when removed, and then demanding that other editors must provide sources to disprove these fringe theories. I went to great effort to answer some of his objections here and this only served to keep the argument going and bring on more challenges for more sources to counter his ideas.

The immediate problem can seen at Talk:Lane splitting#Legal Status Edit War. Born2cycle keeps reverting an edit, here and here which is intended to support a novel legal theory. The discussion shows that this person feels the burden is on other editors to find sources to disprove this claim.

This is part of a larger pattern of ongoing disruption, which I believe is due to the Born2cycle's passionate support of a cause called Vehicular cycling. He has stated that that "Vehicular cycling is not a social-political movement, it's the law." When sources are cited from police, transport authorities and judges that contradict this belief, he argues that "the issue appears to be a lack of awareness about the existence of the law, even by police and judges, not a different interpretation of the law." Thus, he wants to use Wikipedia to correct what he sees as systemic bias.

This has caused him to disrupt efforts to merge the two different articles Lane splitting and Filtering forward and to demand that bicycles and motorcycles must be written about on Wikipedia together, rather than in separate articles or sections of articles, because to discuss them separately constitutes an attack on the rights of bicyclists. Giving in to these demands makes reading the articles confusing and writing them awkward. When offered compromise, Born2cycle has returned with more demands, and more pointy arguments and objections. On topics that Born2cycle does not feel so strongly about, he or she has made very valuable contributions. There seem to be several possible routes available to try to address this problem, and I'm starting here with ANI.--Dbratland (talk) 22:47, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

First, Dbratland has made no attempt to contact me on my talk page before starting this ANI. I consider this ANI to be a disruptive attempt to get out of discussing the controversial issues involved.
Second, I understand Dbratland's frustration, but he or she is confusing a lot of issues, and we have different opinions on several of them. For example, what my opinions may or may not be about vehicular cycling have nothing to do with our latest discussion, which was cited above. But, for the record, yes, vehicular cycling, is, by definition, simply riding a bicycle in accordance with the rules of the road. Why pointing this out frustrates Dbratland so much, I don't know, and he or she can't explain.
Third, I did not revert twice as Dbratland claims I did above (not that there is anything wrong with that if I did). I added a statement to the article here, which Dbratland deleted, and then I reverted here, once. Dbratland characterizes that as "Born2cycle keeps reverting and edit", which is an excellent example of how unreasonable and outlandish his or her perspective is.
Finally, editors are supposed to reach consensus through discussion on Wikipedia, and that's all I've been trying to do. My posts speak for themselves, including the entire current discussion. The statement in question, that I added to the article, Whether such a citation will hold up to a challenge in court depends on the particular situation, simply says that something is unknown. Dbratland wants me to cite a source for that. Well, if something is known (in this case whether such citations will hold up in court), there should be a source for it, not the other way around. My position is that as long we don't have much evidence about the issue one way or the other, it's reasonable to say it's not known. That's all this is about. Dbratland notes that he has gone to great effort to explain his position. So have I. The difference is that I've addressed and refuted all of his points, and he's ignored many of mine, and he's frustrated by that. Again, I understand, but if I disagree with what he's saying, and explain the reasons I disagree, is it my fault that he gets frustrated? I think not. --Born2cycle (talk) 23:31, 21 May 2009 (UTC)


User:Born2cycle is relentless in his efforts to make Wikipedia say that lane splitting by motorcycles might be legal in other states besides California. After having his previous attempt reverted by another editor, his new edit tries to argue that "opinions differ" on the question, using weasel words and a single blog entry by an author who has not spent much time researching lane splitting to suggest it might be legal in some "other" unspecified states. If it is legal in any other state, name the state and provide evidence of for that. The burden of proof is on the editor who inserts the information into Wikipedia.
To an extent, this is a serious issue. If a naive reader takes this Wikipedia article as the truth, he or she could attempt to lane split on a motorcycle in a state other than California and be cited for a serious traffic infraction, as well as risk a deadly accident. All because some radical skeptic wished to argue a fine point beyond reason. I think it would be best to refrain from this type of insinuation and not use Wikipedia in a way that calls into question what motorcyclists are told to do in their state riders' manual. At the very least, hold off until more solid evidence is found.--Dbratland (talk) 05:47, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
Sounds like a WP:V problem. --John Nagle (talk) 20:17, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
I was checking to see if "vehicular cycling" might be a neologism, per WP:NEO. A Google news search brings up "Los Angeles Times - May 22, 2006. One of the best and safest approaches to riding around town is "vehicular cycling" (VC), which Wikipedia defines as "the practice of driving bicycles on ... ". Does that circular reference count as a reference from a reliable source? --John Nagle (talk) 20:28, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
Google often returns the Wikipedia entry for a given search term at the top of the list, and Wikipedia is getting referenced more and more often by the mainstream press. I get 60,000 ghits for "vehicular cycling" (in quotes). Perhaps it was a neologism back in the 70s when it was first coined by John Forester, but no longer. And the concept to which it refers - that bicyclists riding on roadways are to abide by the rules of the road for drivers (e.g., riding with traffic rather than against like pedestrians) - goes back to the 19th century. --Born2cycle (talk) 19:49, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
By the way, in contrast, note that "lane splitting" in quotes nets less than 40,000 ghits. --Born2cycle (talk) 20:25, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Results 1 - 10 of about 59,700 for "vehicular cycling".
  • Results 1 - 10 of about 38,100 for "lane splitting".
If vehicular cycling might be a neologism, then the topic at issue here, lane splitting, is one for sure. --Born2cycle (talk) 20:25, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
Yes, John, this is a verifiability issue. For states in which lane splitting is not explicitly illegal, it is difficult to verify whether it is legal or not. Dbratland is way out of line when he states, "User:Born2cycle is relentless in his efforts to make Wikipedia say that lane splitting by motorcycles might be legal in other states besides California". I would be perfectly happy to have the article state that it is illegal in all other states, if we had verifiable and reliable sources to substantiate such a statement. Perhaps those sources exist. Great, bring them on. But until we have them, it's irresponsible and misleading to say anything other than the matter is unresolved - nobody really knows whether lane splitting is legal in those states or not. --Born2cycle (talk) 19:41, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Here is one [1] Top of last paragraph on the page: "Lane splitting is not recognized as a legal maneuver in any state except California."
    Born2cycle's insistence that the burden of proof lies on others to disprove vague, weasly innuendo that it might be legal, based on an unsupported legal theory, is why I think this is not merely WP:V, it is WP:DISRUPT. And what is the justification for the rush to insert weasel words like "opinions differ" when there is nothing to gain by it? What if some poor motorcyclist takes it seriously and gets a ticket or gets injured? We can confidently say it is legal in California if done safely, but we have no business suggesting you try it in any other state until we have reliable sources.--Dbratland (talk) 20:29, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
  • I never said, much less insisted, that the burden of proof lies on others to disprove vague, weasly innuendo! What are you talking about?
  • The very same source you cite goes on to state, "In most states [lane splitting] is not explicitly prohibited but is regularly interpreted by police and courts as unlawful." The words "most" (but not all) and "regularly interpreted" leaves room for reasonable exceptions. In fact, the implication is that the standard for what determines when lane splitting is safe is simply a bit higher in those states than in California. None of this supports claiming in a Wikipedia article that lane splitting is flat-out illegal in all states but California. --Born2cycle (talk) 15:50, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

....and so it goes: on and on and on and on endlessly between these two. Can an administrator please step in and sort this out one way or another. --Biker Biker (talk) 21:21, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

The difficulty is that there's no clear demonstration of actionable activity. An ongoing edit war could be stopped, but it can be hard for outsiders to tell the difference between good faith failures to communicate effectively and actual disruptive editing. Our assume good faith guideline makes good faith miscommunication the default assumption. The way to sort things out is to head to dispute resolution. A content request for comment on one or more disputed articles would be the first and quickest solution, followed possibly by mediation or a conduct request for comment. We don't mean to be overly bureaucratic: if a couple of honest attempts to sort things out that way fail, then it's easier for passersby to see where the cause of the failure is. With any luck this will clear itself out amicably. Even if that looks unlikely, go ahead and give it a fair try anyway. You might get pleasantly surprised, and if not the attempt at dispute resolution will clarify matters for the admin corps and make it easier to get intervention. Best wishes, DurovaCharge! 03:23, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
If Dbratland simply abided by WP:AGF and focused exclusively on the issues, there would be no conflict between us. These issues are important, and we agree it's important to get the article right, and my posts speak for themselves. How that amounts to disruption is beyond me. --Born2cycle (talk) 15:50, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
No independent third party is pointing fingers at anyone. The purpose of formal dispute resolution is to get a structure that makes it easier to focus on the issues and assume good faith. This board is for administrative intervention, which is different. Recommend you give dispute resolution a try, starting with a content request for comment. DurovaCharge! 21:23, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
Thanks. Perhaps it might be helpful for an admin to encourage Dbratland to abide by WP:AGF. --Born2cycle (talk) 23:38, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
Not an admin, but AGF is good advice generally. Best wishes to you both; here's hoping there won't be a need for you to return to ANI. DurovaCharge! 05:31, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
Thanks. I apologize for being part of something that wasted your time. --Born2cycle (talk) 04:42, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

User:LOTRrules evading blocks[edit]

As the two IP socks below:

Please block/rv.— dαlus Contribs 00:47, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Blocked the second one for 31 hours. The first hasn't edited since May 9. --auburnpilot talk 01:12, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
Would anyone be willing to do a rangeblock? It was decided against because of the different locations he was using, but more than half of the IPs the user has edited under are from the 78.148.0.0 - 78.151.255.255 range, which i'm guessing is their place of residence. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/LOTRrules/Archive.--Otterathome (talk) 10:26, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
According to the rangeblock calculator, up to 524288 users would be blocked, so I don't see that being an option.— dαlus Contribs 06:09, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Erroneous 2nd AfD on Nick Louvel[edit]

Resolved

I mistakenly AfD'd Nick Louvel twice. Could an admin kindly nix the 2nd AfD, please? Thanks. Jim Ward (talk·stalk) 04:34, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

 Done Icestorm815Talk 04:44, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
Looks like we both had the same idea. Damn closing script created the page right after you deleted it. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 04:48, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
No problem, I just re-deleted it. :) Icestorm815Talk 04:50, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
Thank you both and I'm sorry for the mistake. Jim Ward (talk·stalk) 05:28, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Ward3001 threat[edit]

After updating Kristen Stewart´s biography with information from reliable news sources ( not blogs ) the item was deleted and prior any discussion I received the following threat:



May 2009

This is your only warning. The next time you violate Wikipedia's biographies of living persons policy by inserting unsourced defamatory content into an article or any other Wikipedia page, as you did to Kristen Stewart, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Ward3001 (talk) 02:58, 26 May 2009 (UTC)


I sent the following message

Your editing and threat

Hello Ward3001 I know that in demand celebrity bios are constantly defaced. If you check my history you might see the battles I endured within the Wiki organization trying to enforce the guidelines for it. The item I posted was relevant due to the graphic and NEWS reports about the issue. Agreed, I didn´t reference them at the time. But to threat me to be banned is a long call. I think this should be included. Reliable sources:

Huffington Post TMZ (photos and videos) and most recently Ciak and ANSA (Italian News Agencies)

If you think this is not relevant for a public figure we might discuss it.

Worldnewsjunkie (talk) 04:30, 26 May 2009 (UTC)


Probably that article is a headache to control, but just because someone has the "editorial control" shouldn´t be granted the right to threaten proven collaborators. Worldnewsjunkie (talk) 04:43, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Matty has replied on the above editor's talk page explaining that his unsourced edit was indeed a BLP violation and expressing wishes that now that he understands why he/she was reverted it won't happen again. Hopefully the editor will acknowledge their error and this can be marked resolved when that happens. Dougweller (talk) 05:30, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Mosedschurte[edit]

Mosedschurte (talk · contribs) spent the last 24 hours practicing WP:IAR and engaging in civil POV pushing on Human rights in the United States and acting unilaterally in every aspect of the article, refusing to collaborate with editors on the talk page or in the article itself except to insist on his way or the highway. In the process, he moved the article against consensus (and human rights-related article naming conventions) to Human rights inside the United States in order to push a unique POV of exclusion. To my knowledge, there is no other human rights article with this type of name. We need an administrator to undo this move and restore it to its previous title (Human rights in the United States). Mosedschurte also made a total of six reverts in less than six hours, and reverted four different editors (Soxwon, 91.63.151.181, Larkusix, and SlimVirgin). I have filed a AN3 report and I would like an administrator to review it asap. I would also like to discuss continuing problems with this article, and as I previously requested in the "Civil POV pushing" thread, I would like more eyes on the article and talk page. Recently, MastCell and Sceptre offered some help, and that was appreciated, but we need more editors and admins to monitor this page on a daily basis as there is also tag-teaming going on as well. In addition to edit warring, page move warring, and undiscussed content deletions, there is a lot of wikilawyering occurring on the talk page and we need rational heads to prevail. Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 11:45, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Blocked via ANI. Will look at move William M. Connolley (talk) 13:30, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
In the last few months Mosedschurte has contributed a number of high quality but extremist POVish articles to Wikipedia. Many of them are listed in his template {{Eastern Bloc}}. His original contributions include Eastern Bloc politics and Eastern Bloc economies. I do not think Wikipedia is the right place for this content. They would be better served if transwikied to Conservapedia (unless they originated from the said source). Mosedschurte's contributions have seriously disrupted the neutral point-of-view of Wikipedia. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 15:58, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
This is preposterous. It is your POV that Mosedschurte's contributions are extremist POVish. Wikipedia is hopefully not a mouthpiece of the extreme pro-Soviet left and SAFKA in particular. Mosedschurte's other contributions do not violate any Wikipedia rule and are not what is discussed here. You are not forbidden to follow WP:SOFIXIT, by the way. Colchicum (talk) 19:28, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
I am not familiar with the specific issues that Petri Krohn is referring to here, but I am familiar with NPOV violations and false claims made by Mosedschurte about the content contained within the human rights in the United States article. I am concerned about Mosedschurte's failure to address questions about his edits on the talk page, while he plows ahead with changes against consensus. His position seems to be paternalistic: Mosedschurte knows what is best for the article; other opinions don't matter to him. I raised some serious questions about his neutrality here and my concerns were ignored. In fact, all of my concerns about his edits on the talk page have been ignored. Regardless of what Petri Krohn's issue is with Mosedschurte on another page, this issue is not "preposterous" nor is it really Petri Krohn's POV that this is a continuing problem. We've seen this type of editor before, with User:Raggz and User:TDC coming to mind as only two of many examples. Raggz supposedly left on his own accord, but it took more than three years to get TDC blocked, even though there was ample evidence of his disruption. Hopefully, administrators are more proactive now than they were in the past and this kind of behavior will not be allowed to continue. Viriditas (talk) 22:22, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
No, it is Petri Krohn's POV that this problem is present elsewhere, and it is preposterous. As to the other things, users don't have to be neutral, in fact they cannot. It is the content they write that should be neutral. Well, I've looked at your article, and apparently you also know what is best for it, don't you? Who are you to tell people to "walk away from this article"? The article is indeed far from perfect, there are some problems with WP:NPOV and WP:UNDUE, though I am not sure that Mosedschurte means the same. And I certainly don't see anything even remotely similar to a consensus there. Colchicum (talk) 22:46, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
No, the evidence so far, shows the problem is widespread, and appears in multiple articles. We are currently collecting diffs to test that hypothesis. FYI.. the article in question is not "mine"; I have contributed very little to it in the way of content, and I have spent the vast majority of my time mediating disputes before I recently got involved in the content side of it. Nevertheless, your concerns are misplaced. This incident report is about the conduct of an editor, not about content. Please take your concerns about content to the talk page. Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 02:58, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
Now could you please explain where a consensus is on Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard#Human rights in the United States and Talk:Human rights in the United States? Colchicum (talk) 22:55, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
The main problem I see there is that despite there are many different theories of what human rights are the article deals with human rights in the sense of the UDHR. This goes against WP:NPOV. E.g. it is disputable whether minimum wage or healthcare have anything to do with human rights; on the other hand in the article there is nothing about property rights, which are seen by many as crucial, and so on. Colchicum (talk) 23:08, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
That "content dispute" is not under discussion here. Please use the talk page to raise those questions. This incident report revolves around the conduct and behavior of an editor, behavior I would characterize as disruptive. Viriditas (talk) 02:59, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

As far as I see it, there are grounds for a content ban for Mosed on the human rights in US article, and a 3rr block assuming he was warned previously, but there are no grounds for any other ban. As far as I know this user has created a ton of quality articles on the Eastern Bloc, and he should be encouraged to keep up this productive avenue of his work. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 22:40, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

That's an ordinary content dispute (and apparently also 3RR violation). Bringing this issue also to ANI is a typical WP:Battle action. I encouraged Mosedschurte to contribute positively to the subject [2], and he is very capable of doing just that.Biophys (talk) 02:49, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
Biophys, I must strongly disagree with your assessment. The only person who has raised a discussion of a "content dispute" is User:Colchicum above, and it is my opinion that he did so to distract away from this incident report. He is welcome to bring his concerns to the talk page, but this is not the place for it. This incident report is not about content but about behavioral conduct involving a host of issues that boil down to disruptive editing. Furthermore, I would ask Petri Krohn at this time to try and find diffs for his allegations of non-neutral editing, and I will do the same. (Actually, I already have the diffs, but they will have to wait as I am somewhat busy at the moment.) Viriditas (talk) 03:03, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
The content dispute is also my assessment. It is also my assessment that Mosedschurte is one of the most knowledgeable editors on the Eastern European subjects who created many high quality articles. Unfair treatment of this editor will be resisted.Biophys (talk) 03:10, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
No offense, friend, but you are on the wrong page. To discuss a content dispute, please go to the talk page of the article. Humans have a highly evolved sense of fairness. If Mosedschurte was treated unfairly, the diffs would be raining down on us like confetti on New Year's. The fact that they aren't disproves your presumption of unfair treatment. Viriditas (talk) 04:08, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
No problems with diffs. This user provided a valid point by point criticism of the article [3]. After failing to address his points, you accused him of tag-teaming which he never did; your accused him later of "personal attacks" here and here, and you finally said : "There are currently two open ANI reports on your disruptive behavior, and I expect to open three more in the next 24 hours."here. That is what I call WP:Battle. If there are any ANI issues here, they are not on the part of Mosedschurte.Biophys (talk) 04:43, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
Those diffs show that Mosedschurte avoided addressing any and all discussion of his points/edits and instead, ignored my questions. This is the disruptive, tactical strategy he and others (including yourself) are engaging in on the talk page and is spelled out in detail on the civil POV pushing page. It goes like this: An editor makes a disputed edit or uses the talk page to make a criticism about some content. When asked to explain their edit or their criticism and give a valid reason for implementing their proposal, none is provided, but claims of "incivility" and "personal attacks" are handed to the person attempting to engage in discussion. Then, the civil POV pusher edit wars over the content they never had consensus to make, and continues to repeat themselves on the talk page, pretending that the issue was never discussed. You are engaging in this same behavior on the talk page. For example, about the Katrina section, you recently wrote, "This is classic Wikipedia:Coatrack and undue weight." Nevermind the fact that the Katrina section has been discussed on the page in detail and on the NPOV board linked above, you are now returning to the same dispute and wikilawyering over "coatracking", a term that in no way applies to the Katrina section in any shape or form. It's the same disruptive strategy: Ignore past discussions, plow on through with criticisms that lack reasons (Why is it coatracking? No explanation...) and then remove the material based on your own "discussion", a discussion that never took place. This is disruptive editing at its best and it needs to stop. Viriditas (talk) 06:46, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
If we are on the wrong page, then the issue has probably already been resolved, no? What else do you want? Colchicum (talk) 08:35, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
Nothing has been resolved, the problem appears to have occurred in multiple pages, and Mosedschurte appears to have some help. I want to solicit more comments as this problem is ongoing on the talk page with User:Yachtsman1 contributing to the disruption as a tag-team player. Viriditas (talk) 08:53, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
Which multiple pages? Diffs, please. Not everyone who disagrees with you is disruptive. And you are not immune, by the way. Colchicum (talk) 10:38, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
That is what I'm trying to find out, so I'm glad you asked. We can see at least three articles mentioned in this thread. I have been told that there is at least one more, so we are talking about at least four. Obviously, I need more information - and diffs. So we are in agreement. Viriditas (talk) 10:44, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment. FWIW, this editor's name popped out at me for the months of disruptive POV pushing at Harvey Milk nearly derailing the path to featured article that we ultimately had to take to mediation. They had simultaneous injected some troubling People's Temple content on numerous politicians articles (some BLP) and seemed to enjoy contentious prolonged discussions. I would suggest a revert sanction as part of any remedy and not just in practice but in spirit. They had some real issues understanding due weight and sourcing policies. If they are indeed created neutral and well sourced articles then great but given the extent of their work and brazen unwillingness to see any issues with their editing accross multiple admin boards at the time I would caution taking this latest round as just an isolated incident. -- Banjeboi 02:43, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment What is clear from Mosedschurte's contributions is that he sees the world from a narrow cold-warrior point-of-view. The extremely high quality of his contributions / propaganda makes one think that he is not a individual unpaid editor but a collective account of some conservative think-tank. I believe he has failed to understand or embrace the central policy of Wikipedia: neutral point-of.view. We cannot expect NPOV to arise from edit warring between different points-of-view. On Wikipedia everyone must aim forward neutrality and be prepared to write for the enemy. However I do not think these points alone warrant a ban by an administrator. Maybe this should go to WP:RfC, unless there are other signs of disruption. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 03:47, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment I have read the items posted on this thread, and I take extreme exception with the departure from normal policy that one must assume good faith on Wikipedia. Instead, I have seen such items posted such as we have above in the form of "cold-warrior point-of-view" or "contributions/propaganda makes one think that he is not a individual unpaid editor but a collective account of some conservative think-tank" which I find are themselves a violation of Wikipedia policy and guidelines. The issue raised concerns the article Human rights in the United States, an article I have been working on for some time, trying to gain consensus to obtain some semblance of neutrality. The subject is, unfortunately, quite contentious. Changes are met with hostility, and any move to change a single word is met with an army of reverts from anonymous IP's, comments on the talk page, and hostile defiance. The reason for this is that the POV of the editors involved has taken the form of ownership, and any countering point of view dealt with by frank disdain. Indeed, my own commentary was met with the words to the effect "this is not Fox News", an obvious attempt to provide a ready-made motive and objectification of a dissenting point of view. Consensus has been reached with numerous editors on the talk page as to what is required to improve the article, yet the hostility and ownership of the article remains active. The individual editor who has most pushed their own point of point and engaged in the most outrageous acts of incivility is User:Viriditas, who started this thread. The incident that gave rise to the editor's complaint can be seen in the history here: [4]. However, the action in user:soxwon making the change which was reverted by user:Mosedschurte was made without first attempting to reach a consensus, and the matter was under discussion on the talk thread here: [5]. As to the nominator, I left her a warning as to her incivlity here, which she removed as "harassment": [6]. The editor was also left a message from user:Mosedschurte which she also deleted here: [7]. In conclusion, I think the revert was made in good faith, and was in response to the fact that the change was made without consensus having been reached as required. The other changes were made after dozens of comments from various editors on the talk page, and in the vast majority of cases, the changes were made after consensus had been reached that the article required significant work for the purposes of neutrality. Notwithsnatding, each and vevery change was reverted without any attempt to reach consensus. In conclusion, I think an assumption of good faith can easily be reached in this case. I must also take this time to point out that the vein of this thread, that an editor's "motives" are being judged because he might be "conservative" to be extremely dangerous as a precedent. I have not missed the extreme irony of the fact that "freedom of speech" and "freedom of expression" are viewed as fundamental human rights, and we are being asked to look at this case through the prism of whether a differing point of view is "acceptable" because it might counter the views of people who dislike "conservatives". A frightening Orwellian thought comes to mind, that all animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others. On this basis, I move that this thread be closed with no adverse action taken against user:Mosedschurte for the reasons I have stated above. Thank you.--Yachtsman1 (talk) 05:15, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
Mosedschurte was blocked for edit warring and breaking the 3RR. I was not involved in this dispute, so I find it interesting that you blame me for his bad behavior. Furthermore, you have been engaging in the exact same behavior as Mosedschurte and actually, much worse. You will not answer questions about your proposals or your criticism of the content, nor do you seem to understand that the sources used must discuss the topic, i.e. human rights. As one example of many illustrating your disruptive behavior, you recently removed a sourced lead section and added unsourced material, without consensus. Not understanding how the {{fact}} tag works, you hardcoded "[citation needed]" into the text you added, making it clear that you were acknowledging your addition of unsourced material.[8]. When I pointed out that your edit didn't meet the requirements of our sourcing policy[9] you responded with "The lead section has thirteen cites, which were from the prior incaranation with changes in verbage, but not substance or citation."[10] And yet, you yourself added "citation needed" to your own edit, after you deleted the previously sourced material. This is, indeed, a "change in citation", and reasonable people will agree on this point. And so, I pointed your error out to you saying, "We have diffs which show you adding unsourced material and even adding "citation needed" and I provided you with the diff.[11] Furthermore, I have dozens of diffs showing you avoiding answering questions about your edits. This thread should not be closed. On the contrary, it should be expanded to include an analysis of your bad behavior. You are using the same strategy as Mosedschurte, making disputed edits without consensus, replacing sourced content with either unsourced material or sources that have nothing to do with human rights. When this is pointed out to you, you make false accusations of "incivility" and "personal attacks" and forge ahead with trivial objections. We have a situation here where editors who are not aligned with the purpose of Wikipedia are using the article and talk pages as battlegrounds for their personal POV rather than adhering to NPOV and using appropriate sources to improve the article. This needs to stop now. Viriditas (talk) 07:08, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
You misread me. I blame you for your bad behavior. There is no one else to blame. I find your rabid responses to anyone who disagrees with your POV stands on its own, and leave it to others to judge the merits (or lack thereof) of your argument. Good day.--Yachtsman1 (talk) 07:43, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
I have never discussed my POV, on the other hand, the entire talk page is filled with your personal POV pushing. Writing for the enemy entails representing POV other than your own. Please show me where you have used sources in the article and composed material that does push your personal POV. One diff will do. That will be enough to convince me of your neutrality. It should be easy, right? You seem to forget that our first interaction came about because I saw you deleting material about Katrina. This is material I originally had nothing to do with. So, I restored the material you removed without any rational justfication other than your POV, and did some research on the topic, expanding it to represent the POV as accurately as I could from reliable sources. For some reason you seem to think that representing a POV is not neutral. Contrary to your mistaken belief, this is the very definition of NPOV. Do you understand? I'm assuming you don't understand, which is the problem. You've been here since Raggz left, from September 2008, and you've been editing with a number of erroneous beliefs about how this place works. Take this incident report as an opportunity to learn and move forward. To recap, we do not delete content because we personally disagree with it. What we do, is we do research based on reliable sources and best represent significant POV other than our own. Do you understand? If not, ask someone to explain it to you. Viriditas (talk) 08:15, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
Your point of view has been precisely stated, and I think that not a single cogent editor on this page or the talk page, can miss it. Contrary to your opinion, and demeaning commentary, I am well aware of the neutrality requirements, and the failure of this article to live up to Mikipedia guidelines in that area. We take "sources" and present them in a "neutral" and objective manner without interjecting our own personal POV. Therein lies the problem. As for your other comments, I have no idea who "Raggz" is. Thank you.--Yachtsman1 (talk) 08:24, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
I'm almost convinced you are Raggz now. I'm going to prepare a RFCU. Your latest disruptive editing at Talk:Human_rights_in_the_United_States#Maintenance_tags_have_been_readded, where you took a discussion out of context and pretended that my reply to the discussion does not exist is the most bizarre thing I have ever witnessed. Either you are blatantly trolling or like Raggz, you are suffering from some kind of disorder. It doesn't matter, I'm going to escalate this to the highest levels. Viriditas (talk) 08:34, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for striking your comments. Please do so as you say, and prepare for disappointment.--Yachtsman1 (talk) 09:57, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Yachtsman1[edit]

I am adding a subsection here about Yachtsman1 due to his continuing disruption on Human rights in the United States. Examples of continuing disruption related to this case follow:

Tag warring[edit]

  • At 07:24, 24 May 2009 I removed two tags from the Katrina section, the {{off-topic}} and {{Synthesis}} tags, with the edit summary of Tags removed. Neither off-topic (all reliable sources discuss human rights in the U.S. directly) nor synthesis. Requests for clarificaiton on talk have gone unanswered)[12] These tags were previously added by Mosedschurte[13][14] with no justification. Nobody has been able to demonstrate that this material is either off-topic or a synthesis of sources. In fact, the sources themselves are devoted to human rights in the U.S. and address the issue directly.
  • Approximately two minutes later at 07:26, 24 May 2009, Yachtsman1 reverted my edit, with the edit summary, Tages restored. Stop edit warring. These tages have been repeatedly addressed on the talk page.[15]
  • I would like to take the opportunity to point out that 1) I had never removed these tags before so I don't see how this one edit could be considered "edit warring", and 2) The use of these tags has never been addressed on the talk page. In other words, nobody has ever given a reason on the talk page how and why this material is both off-topic and synthesized. I am posting this here as an example of how Yachtsman1 engages in disruptive editing. He has accused me of "edit warring" while reverting me, and falsely claiming that there is a reason for this tag on the talk page. I don't think it is appropriate for an editor to edit war over tags while accusing someone else of edit warring, and at the same time, claiming that a non-existent rationale exists. It is the responsibility of the editor adding the tag to provide a good reason. None has been provided. Could someone review this please? Viriditas (talk) 07:51, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Close

  • The maintenance tags are an issue of ongoing discussion on the talk page. The fact that this article is not neutral, and the reasons provided for that position, have been clearly stated by numerous editors. I let the talk page stand on its own: [16].
  • I made note of my change on the talk page, and the editor has asked for an explanation. I will now try to reach a consensus.
  • Since May 20, 2009,User:Viriditas has made, by my count, 26 separate edits to the page in question in a four day period while the article has been under discussion. If this is not edit warring, I don't know what is. [17]
  • The basis of my comments should be obvious, and this matter closed. Thank you.--Yachtsman1 (talk) 08:01, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
    • Er, making edits to an article is not edit warring, nor is it considered edit warring by anyone. On the other hand, reverting my edit, as you did, is considered edit warring. Please read up on the concept or have someone you trust explain it to you. And you have not provided one single diff showing where you have justified the use of the tags you have added. Please do so now. As far as I can tell from the above, you edit warred maintenance tags into the article and failed to provide a justification for them. Viriditas (talk) 08:07, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
Making more than three edits in a 24 hour period certainly is: [18]. Ignoring editors comments on the talk page and any consensus being reached is also edit warring. I have addressed your concerns on the talk page by, among other things, cutting and pasting the comments of another editor on this subject for your review. In short, this should have been addressed in the talk page, and that is precisely where it will be addressed. Thank you.--Yachtsman1 (talk) 08:16, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
Making three reverts in a 24 hours period is edit warring. Not edits. Please read for comprehension. I have not engaged in any edit warring. As for "ignoring comments on the talk page", the evidence I present below directly contradicts your claim, as does the evidence above which shows you edit warring while accusing others of your bad behavior. Viriditas (talk) 08:56, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
  • After all of this, and a tedious discussion on the talk page, believe it or not, we reached enough of a consensus that I could make some rather simple edits and eliminate one tag for lack of synthesis, clarifying this section as I went. As stated, it's best to deal with this on the talk page, though I still maintain for the reasons I have provided that the section on Hurricane Katrina on the article should not be included. As stated supra, this matter should be closed. --Yachtsman1 (talk) 11:15, 24 May 2009 (UTC
  • I spoke too soon. Anyone want to see what I am dealing with? Here are the uncivil remarks:[[19]]; and here's the ensuing change of my good faith efforts to resolve the problem: ][20]]. I am in shock.--Yachtsman1 (talk) 11:38, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Blatant personal attacks by Viriditas[edit]

Could anybody please address his/her appalling behavior on Talk:Human rights in the United States and here right above (or like Raggz, you are suffering from some kind of disorder)? In my opinion, this is unacceptable. Colchicum (talk) 08:53, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Abolutely correct. The user's comments have been outrageously offensive towards not just me, but anyone who comments on the talk page.Yachtsman1 (talk) 08:59, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
I don't think that "personal attacks" plural applies, and the one above isn't that bad, but it's something that Viriditas could usefully withdraw. ╟─TreasuryTaghemicycle─╢ 09:00, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
I don't know how else to explain this discussion and the above discussion accusing me of edit warring because I have made more than three edits a day. Raggz had the same problem with reading discussions and policies and guidelines and he claimed to have a TBI. Is there another way for me to describe this kind of bizarre discussion? Is making more than three edits a day edit warring? Is asking for a response to my comments too much to ask, only to discover that the user has responded to another comment made an hour before I made the comment, and then when this problem is explained, the user tells me they already replied? I don't know how else to describe this bizarre behavior. Is describing it as a reading comprehension disorder out of the question? If so, I withdraw and apologize. Viriditas (talk) 09:02, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

<< (edit conflict) If you meant a reading comprehension disorder, that's perhaps more acceptable, but to be fair, you didn't say that. You just said "some kind of disorder" which is not dissimilar in broad meaning to "spaz" (say). But I think we can put this one down to misunderstanding and move back to the main issue here. ╟─TreasuryTaghemicycle─╢ 09:05, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Take a look at this discussion. The user is responding to a comment made an hour before I replied to it and ignoring my reply. How would you explain this kind of behavior? The user is also convinced that anyone who makes three edits, not reverts, but edits, is edit warring. Are you seeing a pattern here? If so, what is it? The user does nothing on the talk page but confuse people and distract the discussion away from making any progress. It's either a deliberate form of disruption or something more serious. Viriditas (talk) 09:15, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, all I'm saying is that making an open-ended comment suggesting that another user has a disorder is a borderline personal attack. If you meant a reading disorder specifically relating to their actions or non-actions in a discussion, you should have said so. You now have, we know what you meant, tht's fine, and that should be an end to it. ╟─TreasuryTaghemicycle─╢ 09:19, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
Agreed, but do you find it a little bit strange that two disparate editors who have had similar disputes on the same articles, one of whom left Wikipedia in September 2008, and the other who first arrived in September 2008, should both share the same reading problem? Isn't that a bit odd? Viriditas (talk) 09:24, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

<< I don't really want to get involved in the squabble, to be honest. I've not got time to examine editing patterns, but your description does suggest sockpuppetry (on the other hand, you're presumably not the most impartial commentator). ╟─TreasuryTaghemicycle─╢ 09:38, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

I absolutely invite anyone to check for sockpuppetry. Thank you.--Yachtsman1 (talk) 09:48, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
No worries. I've struck out my comment above. Viriditas (talk) 09:39, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
Thanks. I'm sure it's for the best. ╟─TreasuryTaghemicycle─╢ 09:42, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Propose to close the discussion[edit]

The AN/I noticeboards is designed to attract administrative attention to the issues that either require urgent administrative response or to the issues there the consensus is clear that a specific administrative action is warranted. It is not a universal substitution to wikipedia mechanism of dispute resolution. The section discusses two issues:

  1. Endemic content conflict on the Human_rights_in_the_United_States particular whether and in what extent add the information on the effects of Katrina Hurricane.
  2. Sometimes uncooperative behaviour of Mossedchurte.

I do not think AN/I could help with either of these problems. Regarding the first problems. The content conflicts are specifically outside the realm of the administrative actions. We need to get some sort of consensus first, then admins could enforce it. I think an article WP:RFC could be the best method as almost any wikipedian has their own view whether Katrina was a human rights issue. Regarding the second problem. I have my own experience with Mossedchurte. He is a brilliant editor with wealth of knowledge and good writing skills. Still his communicative skills somehow fails him and often small genuine editorial disagreements tend to blow into conflicts requiring some sort of mediation. Still it is possible to deal with him and his brilliant contributions more than compensate the additional efforts on solving the editorial conflicts. This is my opinion on Mossed, someone else's opinions might be different. Still one thing is clear, he is a very valuable asset to Wikipedia and we cannot apply a long ban to him based on a short AN/I discussion. If somebody feels frustrated with Mossed they could open a User RFC on him and get some consensus on his behaviour. We can do nothing without such a consensus. Thus, I propose to close the AN/I discussion for now and to recommend participants to start some WP:DR process Alex Bakharev (talk) 14:37, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Please take a moment to review all of the edits made by Mossedchurte to Human rights in the United States. I'm seeing original research, synthesis, and very few if any sources that have anything to do with human rights. This is brilliant editing? On the other hand the topic of human rights and Hurricaine Katrina has been covered by newspapers, scholarly journals, human rights-related books published by academic press, UN research reports, and Brookings-funded studies. Perhaps you can convince me of his "brilliant" editing here? He has edited the article by adding material that doesn't have anything to do with human rights, and at the same time, he is preventing sources that are devoted to human rights from being used? I'm not following this "brilliance" in any way. And now, his proponents in this thread (Biophys) are edit warring by proxy for him in the same article. Why should this be closed? We have reports from two other users reporting the same problems in two other articles, and I have received notice that this has occurred in other articles. Since his behavior has not changed, and continues to be disruptive, I would like to see someone actually take the time to look at his edits to the article and his arguments on the talk page. All I see are off-topic sources used to push his POV, unilateral editing and edit warring to preserve his POV, and disruptive wikilawyering on the talk page to distract the discussion away from the topic of human rights. Please show me otherwise. How about actually taking a moment to look at the page history? Show me a source that he has used that is relevant to human rights. I'm sorry, but I fail to find the "brilliance" in an editor who has ignored virtually every policy and guideline in order to push a POV. These type of editors don't belong here. Viriditas (talk) 02:43, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
The story is a content dispute. The only solution for you is to learn to communicate calmly and in appropriate venues with those who don't share your brilliant shining POV rather than to brand them sockpuppets, edit-warriors and POV-pushers and desperately try to win your war by getting them banned. Otherwise, this way or another, it is most probably you who is going to find himself in trouble, rather than Mosedschurte or anybody else. Colchicum (talk) 11:10, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
No matter how calm and civil you are about, civil POV pushing is still the underlying problem here. You've tried very hard to turn this incident report into a content dispute, which it never was. And now we see the same editors involved in this discussion, edit warring by proxy for Mossedchurte. So, this incident report is still a question of editorial conduct and does not concern a content dispute. Unilateral edit warring, content removals without consensus, and obstruction on the talk page is continuing and ongoing.[21][22] Mossedchurte is incapable of collaborating or working with other editors on this article, and I suggest that this incident report be kept open until further administrative action is taken. Viriditas (talk) 17:35, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Just saw the crazy baseless allegations in this ANI by Viriditas[edit]

Wow. I just noticed this ANI. Simply incredible. Viriditas has conducted virtually countless Wikipedia policy violations such as threats on the talk page and WP:Uncivil. He just attempted to add the navbox "politics in the United States" to the article -- BUT THE ARTICLE ISN'T LISTED IN THAT NAVBOX. I simply deleted the navbox and explained that "Article not in the "politics and the United States nav box". This will no doubt be followed by more threats on the Talk page from Viriditas, who as explained above, is a highly disruptive user.Mosedschurte (talk) 17:39, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

  • This incident report is about your edit warring and civil POV pushing, not about your ignorance of navbox conventions used in the majority of human rights in x articles. You were recently blocked for edit warring and now that you have returned to the article, you have begun to edit war and remove content without consensus on the talk page, the same material you were edit warring with before.[23] This incident report should not be closed as Mosedschurte did not learn anything from his last block. Furthermore, there are at least three open discussions on the talk page (Racial, Katrina, Outline) where Mosedschurte has either ignored repeated queries about his edits or pretends the questions were never asked. The user has also removed content that is significant to the topic (the person who created the first human rights organization in the U.S. was deleted by Mosedschurte) and the user is also adding content to the article that does not use human rights related sources. There is a clear record of disruptive, civil POV pushing behavior here, and it needs to be stopped by administrative action. Viriditas (talk) 17:51, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
Re: "This incident report is about your edit warring and civil POV pushing, not about your ignorance of navbox conventions used in the majority of human rights in x articles."
--As noted by others above, you have shown ZERO POV pushing.
--In fact, as others have pointed out, every sentence I've added -- which have been limited to 3 of the 35+ sections of this article -- has been well-sourced and NPOV-worded.
--You have been WP:Uncivil nearly countless times on the Talk page, and I just noticed these outlandish accusations on ANI.Mosedschurte (talk) 18:05, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
I've shown zero POV pushing? Here's your chance to prove me wrong: Show me one human rights-related source you've added to the article since you began editing here. Just one. Can you do that? No, of course you can't, because all of your edits have used sources that have nothing to do with the topic. Viriditas (talk) 00:46, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
Re: "he moved the article against consensus (and human rights-related article naming conventions) to Human rights inside the United States in order to push a unique POV of exclusion." (Viriditas)

This is a flat out falsehood, and its statement as such is in line with Viriditas's usual behavior. In fact, another editor, Soxwon, suggested a changing of the scope of the article to include outside the United Stats. Other opposed him. Soxwon, with not only zero support but only opposition at the time, then "unilaterally moved the article to "Humand rights AND the United States" preceding a mass expansion of the article. I opposed all moves of the article. Because I could not move the article back to revert the unilateral change (can't move back over the redirect), the only thing I did then was move the article to "Human Rights inside the United States" to retain its ORIGINAL scope. I didn't want the article moved at all in the first place, and had never requested any such move. I completely agreed with the admin's changing of the article back to "Human rights in the United States" -- the original title.Mosedschurte (talk) 17:51, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

What I said is true, and is currently being discussed at Talk:Human_rights_in_the_United_States#Objection_to_unilateral_editing. You are not engaging in the talk page other than to make disruptive comments, and your edits to the article have been disputed by many editors. You do not seem to understand that repeatedly edit warring your POV into the article is not the way forward. You did not learn anything from your last block and I request immediate administrative action to prevent you from engaging in the same disruptive behavior and to allow us to return to a collegial and collaborative editing environment. Viriditas (talk) 18:03, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Yes, Viriditas is disruptive. He demanded me to comment at the article talk page, and I did just that. However, he repeatedly moved my comment to another place [24] and ignored my objections. How can one discuss an article content, if his comments are repeatedly moved or otherwise modified?Biophys (talk) 18:10, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
    • You opened a duplicate thread of an already existing and ongoing discussion, and your comments were moved there and replied to in the appropriate place. You then began to reboot the same discussion several times, ignoring the replies that were already made. This was pointed out to you with links to the discussion both on my talk page and on your talk page, yet you continued to pretend that it did not exist. This is classic, civil POV pushing behavior, and I propose that you receive sanctions as well as Mosedschurte, for disrupting the talk page. Frankly, neither of you have done anything to improve the article, and both of your behavior violates the core working principles of Wikipedia. If you can't follow appropriate talk page guidelines, NPOV, and good conduct guiding harmonious editing, you shouldn't be editing here. Viriditas (talk) 18:17, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Viriditas is incredibly disruptive, with comments that amount to little more than personal attacks, consistent reverts of even the most minor edits, threats on the talk page, and referral to policies that counter the editor's own arguments. Any change made is met with an accusation of "POV pushing", and any comment on the talk page is ignored. Hardly a recipe for "harmonious editing". The editor's own history of bans for edit warring hardly argues in her favor either: [[25]].--Yachtsman1 (talk) 18:27, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
    • Here is a recent example of Yachtsman1 pushing a POV about Ray Nagin in the Human rights in the United States article. As it turns out, the source did not say what he said it did, and I removed it per BLP. This content had nothing to do with human rights, and the source itself said nothing about human rights. To conclude, Yachtsman1 attempted to push a POV about a living person, Ray Nagin, that did not appear in the source and did not have anything to do with this article. Viriditas (talk) 18:49, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
      • Actually, the source 'did say what I said it did, and the source was the Washington Post, which documented how the City of New Orleans failed to follow its own evacuation plan by not evacuating city residents without cars. The source documented the failures by city, state and federal agencies and officials, including Ray Nagin, a "public figure" as an elected politician, to evacuate residents, and in their delay in responding to the disastor (BLP? Ridiculous). The present "spin" or POV advocated by Virititas is that they were not removed and provided timely assistance because of the race, which is absurd, given the volumes of sources on the subject that describe eladership failure as the leading cause of the response-;ag, coupled with the fact that the vast majority of those without automobiles were afircan-american. The UN Human Rights Council agreed, but this source was also removed with an explanation that it was a "primary" source, and of "cherry-picking" by including their conclusions, which examined the correlation between suffering and economic disadvantage. The matter of "race" being the source or motivating factor for a slow response to such a disastor was not part of the equation, except to the extent that most of the poorest residents of the city were African American. In other words, the motivation was to bring the section to a standard of "neutrality" by presenting two points of view. The POV of Viriditas was reaffirmed, however, when she removed the sources. As stated previously, Viriditas is a disruptive poster, and this is a prime example.--Yachtsman1 (talk) 19:34, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
        • Actually, the source doesn't say that at all, and you spun it to say that to push your POV about Nagin. There are also many other authors on the topic, such as Stephen Graham at Durham University, who see things differently than you and blame the Bush administration, not Nagin, for the failure to evacuate residents. But this has nothing to with the human rights article, and unless the source is about human rights, it should not be used. Capiche? Viriditas (talk) 19:40, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
          • Then include them. Welcome to a neutral point of view. I'm sorry if you favor one side of the argument over another, but that ha salways been the problem. Your own point of view takes precedent over others, and your manner in dealing with countering points of view are voluminous discussions on the talk page, threats, referral to proceedings like we have here, and harassing messages on the user talkj page. Any change is met with an instant revert, which translates to edit warring. As for your points, your wrong. See p. 4 of the cite. The busses set aside for evacuation were left in their parking lots, and the evacuation plan for the city was not followed.--Yachtsman1 (talk) 20:06, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
            • Please pay very close to attention: The source you cited does not say what you are claiming. You interpreted and twisted it in order to push a POV into the article. And, there is nothing about human rights in the source you used, so you are synthesizing the material. When a source is challenged like this, you need to prove a second one if you continue to make the same claim. If this isn't making sense to you, please have someone else explain it. And this holds true for all of the edits Mosedschurte has made to the article as well. All I see from you is incessant wikilawyering and filibustering on every level. Nothing gets done as long as you and the rest of the POV pushers are allowed to edit here. And, that is, precisely the goal, isn't it? To prevent editors from improving this article in any way. And you appear to be succeeding. So, what we need is for administrators to monitor the talk and article page, (especially the latest series of reverts by Mosedschurte, which were not only unjustified, but were completely ignored in his edit summary) and to block editors on sight when they pull this crap. Viriditas (talk) 00:43, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

RfC[edit]

  • Now user:viriditas is edit warring on an Rfc. [[26]]. This is amazing. --Yachtsman1 (talk) 20:15, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
    • RFC's are designed to solicit the opinions of uninvolved editors outside the dispute. This RFC was not designed to solicit your comments. If you want to condense your position into the RFC and present it in a neutral manner as the RFC recommends, then by all means do so. It is not surprising that the purpose of the RFC is being defeated by the same editors causing all of the problems in the article. The RFC is designed to invite outside editors to comment on the dispute. You are not an outside editor. Please follow the RFC framework and condense your position into the RFC. Viriditas (talk) 20:40, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
      • And by your own admission on the Rfc, I did just that. Your revert was outrageous, given your own admission. Further, the "framer" and "originator" of the Rfc asked for comments from "involved editors" which I provided, and you then reverted. This is simply unacceptable behavior.--Yachtsman1 (talk) 20:52, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
        • The comments are supposed to be merged into the neutral RFC. I think it is beyond obvious that you and Mosedschurte will not allow a neutral RFC to solicit outside opinions from uninvolved editors, opinions that could change the direction of the article. So, you never entertained the idea of an RFC in good faith. I think it is also obvious that any changes or attempts to improve this article will be prevented by the two of you, because your only purpose is to push a particular POV. Viriditas (talk) 21:01, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
          • Familiarize yourself with WP:AGF, WP:CIV, WP:OWN. Colchicum (talk) 21:04, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
            • As you have been repeatedly informed above, I have not contributed much to the article, so there is nothing to "own". I started off as a mediator, and when I saw the full scope of the revolving door of civil POV pushers who would seemingly congregate in flash mobs on the talk and article page, I began to get curious. Looking deeper, the editors currently editing the article do not seem capable of using sources correctly or adhering to NPOV. As for "good faith", was does not continue to assume it when it becomes obvious that good faith has been all but exhausted. You may not be familiar with that part, but I'm here to remind you. Viriditas (talk) 21:11, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
        • The comments were provided on the Rfc at the invitation of the originator, and they were made in good faith, though your assumption otherwise is duly noted. What appears obvious is that you are edit warring on an Rfc, reverting comments. Your own history of being banned indicates this is not the first time you have engaged in this course of conduct either. Please cease doing it.Yachtsman1 (talk) 21:10, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
          • No such thing has ever occurred, although I congratulate you on changing the subject again. The RFC is not about soliciting the opinions of involved editors. The civil POV pushing has to stop, one way or the other. Viriditas (talk) 21:12, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
            • No, it's about comments from all editors, even those who might disagree with your positions, which have been met to date by you with personal attacks. That's the subject of this thread, by the way. Your continued course of conduct has been and remains outrageous.--Yachtsman1 (talk) 21:34, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
              • All outside editors. Get it? What do you think the purpose of an RFC is for? You see, this is precisely what I am talking about. Wikilawyering every aspect of a process, from citing sources, to NPOV, to even a damn RFC. This has got to stop. Viriditas (talk) 00:36, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
                • If the policy was all "outside editors" it would say "outside editors". As it does not say "outside editors" it does not mean "outside editors". It means what it says - all editors. See WP:RFC. It is a language of inclusion, not exclusion, and the "purpose" is stated as the the venue for the "comments" of "all editors" to reach some sort of consensus. It widens those editors to "outside editors" but does not restrict comments to those editors alone. Get it? You are creating a condition that does not exist, and your position is entirely unsupportable. You want this to stop? Then stop misquoting Wikipedia policy in defense of your positions when they counter your own arguments. You are free to comment on your position on the RFC and I urge you to do so. Thank you.--Yachtsman1 (talk) 01:33, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
                  • "Requests for comment (RfC) is an informal, lightweight process for requesting outside input..." Like I said, you are wikilawyering again. It's all you can do. Viriditas (talk) 01:48, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
                      • The part you missed - "All editors (including anonymous or IP users) are welcome to provide comment or opinion, and to assist in reaching agreements, by responding to requests for comment". As I also stated, you are free to comment on your position on the RFC and I urge you to do so. Thank you.--Yachtsman1 (talk) 01:54, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
                        • I don't recognize the RFC as legitimate as it doesn't include my position or the position of the other editors on the talk page. RFC's are intended to solicit outside opinions to solve disputes that cannot be resolved on the talk page from involved editors. The majority of the comments on the current RFC are connected to Mosedschurte, and seem to have been organized as another POV pushing flash mob. This type of strategy is classic civil POV pushing, and exploits Wikipedia's greatest weakness, namely, the lack of a DR system which allows for competing POV to comment in proportion and representation to the topic. To the best of my knowledge, almost nobody has responded from the Human rights WikiProject or from other related projects. Instead we see the same editors showing up, exploiting the RFC in every way they can. This is par for the course and to be expected. The purpose of the RFC has been defeated, the article has lost the opportunity for improvement. We have a group of editors only interested in promoting their POV, ignoring every and all human rights-related sources, and arguing not from the sources, but from their entrenched political positions. Wikipedia has once again, lost the battle. Congratulations, you should be proud of yourself. Mission accomplished. Viriditas (talk) 02:40, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Request[edit]

I need several administrators to help monitor the talk and article pages and to make recommendations as needed. Viriditas (talk) 18:27, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

I think the request for Rfc on the talk page by user:JN466 was a good one, and takes this matter to where it belongs. Thank youYachtsman1 (talk) 18:31, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Additional mischaracterizations by Viriditas[edit]

Sorry for more information, but his mischaracterizations in this section, which I didn't realize had been continued after the first edits days ago, are ridiculous and should not go unaddressed.

Re: "Mosedschurte's failure to address questions about his edits on the talk page, while he plows ahead with changes against consensus. His position seems to be paternalistic: Mosedschurte knows what is best for the article; other opinions don't matter to him. I raised some serious questions about his neutrality here and my concerns were ignored. In fact, all of my concerns about his edits on the talk page have been ignored."

Yet another falsehood by Viriditas in what is becoming a troubling trend from this editor. This can plainly be seen even a casual perusal of the Talk page as I provided extensive discussions regarding various problems with the article -- very few of which I've even addresssed with article edits -- and here, and here, etc.
--Viriditas has demanded others answer his questions regarding creating an "Outline" for him, and then actually threatened "Please stop ignoring my questions per talk page guidelines. Failure to answer them but continuing to make the same points will get you in trouble." (Viriditas)
-- Viriditas also overtly revealed his own POV motivations for editing in the article after I added section simply noting the advanced made by the U.S. Constitution and Civil Rights Act (with sources of course), he criticized them being overly positive, proclaiming: "Mosedschurte, do you understand that the positive advancement of human rights in the U.S. has come out of the criticism of negative incidents?" (Viriditas)
--As an aside, for anyone wanting to know the "question" Viriditas continues to ask, followed by threats when no one answers him, this is it (actually combative rhetoric he himself humorously answers) : " Thankfully, I can easily prove my point in few words. I'll do it now: If you were to rewrite this article, and as your first step. you were to create an outline, what subtopics would the outline contain? Please note, your entire outline would have a single theme: the positive advancement of human rights in the U.S. arising out of the criticism of negative incidents" (Viriditas)
--Such rhetorical silliness (answering his own rhetorical question was an especially odd choice) is one of many tactics employed by this editor that HAVE NOT advanced the article or helped with its problems.Mosedschurte (talk) 18:28, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Again, classic civil POV pushing. Your so-called "extensive discussion" rebooted previous discussions that you have still not replied to on the talk page. For example, questions about your unilateral edits to the racial section were asked three days ago here. To date, you have ignored these questions and you continue to plow ahead with your edits. Questions about your unilateral edits to the Katrina section were asked here and you continue to ignore them. That is just a sample of how you pretend to discuss a topic and then ignore the discussion, often returning to it again and again and claiming a false consensus, when in fact, you never discussed it in the first place. I also asked you in three separate instances to explain your ideas for an outline, since you seem to know what shouldn't appear in the article but won't explain what should. You ignored my first two requests, and when I made my third request for what an outline for this article would look like, you wrote, "This repetition of this point for probably the 10th time is needless. Numerous editors have already responded that the article should cover what the title states - Human rights issues "IN THE UNITED STATES"." Nevermind the fact that the question was never answered, and this "answer" does not address the question. But, it does contradict your position on Katrina, which you fail to recognize. So here we have a solid example of you moving the goalposts when an issue doesn't agree with your POV. This is a good example of the kind of disruptive editing from Mosedschurte on the talk page, and represents only one of many reasons why this incident report should remain open. Civil POV pushing is a huge problem on this article, and Mosedschurte has not responded to repeated questions about his edits nor has he edited the article in compliance with NPOV or with sources related to human rights, and he continues to edit war his changes into the article without engaging in actual discussion. Viriditas (talk) 19:01, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
This could not be more ridiculous. I, and a number of other editors, had already addressed the issues why an extended section no "Hurricane Katrina" should not be included in an artiel titled "Human rights in the United States", such as here, but all over the Talk page actually. This is yet another tactic -- to re-raise the exact same issues, and when others don't respond even one time to an issue that has already been addressed claiming that they will not "respond to my questions," followed with threats such as "Failure to answer them but continuing to make the same points will get you in trouble."
Re: "So here we have a solid example of you moving the goalposts when an issue doesn't agree with your POV."
This is so false and based in nothing -- again, part of an attacking pattern -- that it can't even effectively be addressed. There aren't even any relevant underlying facts with which to discuss, let alone back up such a statement.Mosedschurte (talk) 19:39, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but you have not addressed any of the issues that you claim to have addressed. You just keep saying, "I have addressed the issues", but you haven't. This is classic POV pushing, and is a strategy used to push contested edits into the article. Again, here are two discussions Talk:Human_rights_in_the_United_States#Neutrality_in_the_racial_section and Talk:Human_rights_in_the_United_States#Katrina where you have not answered questions about your edits. Please stop claiming that you have when those two links show that you have not. For what it is worth, I just took a brief look at your contribution history, and this seems to be one of your more popular tactics to pull on the talk pages. In other words, this isn't the first time you've done this, and I can see that many editors have complained about you doing just this, and I have the diffs to prove it. This incident report needs to stay open until your behavior is examined in the full light of the sun and seen for what it really is. Viriditas (talk) 19:48, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

3RR section for Viriditas's latest deletion of Talk Page comments[edit]

Viriditas's latest antics today have risen to even greater levels, involving the flat out deletion of several Talk Page comments by at least three other editors -- me, User:Biophys and User:Yachtsman1 -- in violation of WP:TPO, which explicitly states "The basic rule is: Do not strike out or delete the comments of other editors without their permission. (bold emphasis in original Wikipedia guidelines).

Moreover, they involved at least six different reverts (actually more) in a five hour time period. Thus, the 3RR board section on them.Mosedschurte (talk) 02:05, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

  • Add in the fact that user:Viriditas has personally attacked another editor, then personally attacked me for trying to get her to strike through the personal attack, or provide permission for me to do so. [[27]]. Yachtsman1 (talk) 02:27, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Continuing edit warring by Mosedschurte[edit]

  • 17:34, 25 May 2009
    • Continuing removal of disputed Abu Ghraib prison abuse scandal without discussion on talk. This is the same edit that got him blocked.
    • Removal of File:Liberty-statue-from-below.jpg without discussion or explanation
    • Removal of {{Politics of the United States}}. It is a general convention for the Politics of X navbox to appear in Human rights in Y articles.
    • Insertion of content regarding the Bill of rights from sources that have nothing to do with human rights or the relationship of the bill of rights to human rights. This is basically true for most of his edits to the article. In other words, he continues to add content from sources that does not discuss the topic. Viriditas (talk) 02:34, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
1--Re: "Continuing removal of disputed Abu Ghraib prison abuse scandal without discussion on talk."
This is simply false (shocker, huh). Talk sections by me on the topic: here and here as just a few examples. Mosedschurte (talk) 02:42, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
And users have responded to say 'they do not agree with you. What part of this are you having trouble with? Viriditas (talk) 02:48, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
2--Re: "Removal of "Politics of the United States". It is a general convention for the Politics of X navbox to appear in Human rights in Y articles."
How laughable that would would falsely dub this edit an WP:Edit War. And not out of character for the antics shown thus far in this ANI section. I noticed that the "Politics of the United States" navbox in the article did not even contain a link to this article and simply removed it, giving the comment: "Article not in the "politics and the United States nav box". If this is WP:Edit Warring, then every edit on Wikipedia would be such.Mosedschurte (talk) 02:49, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
3--Re: "Removal of File:Liberty-statue-from-below.jpg without discussion or explanation"
Nice catch. I had accidentally deleted that. I just returned it: here. Not a single mention of this image removal was made by you until mentioning it on this ANI board. Not that I'm surprised. It took literally 20 seconds to fix.Mosedschurte (talk) 02:50, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
You blanket reverted my edits in full for no reason. It's hard to believe it was an accident. You intended to delete my changes, and that's what you did. You didn't care why or how. This illustrates the underlying problem. Now, when are you going to start using sources that discuss human rights? For your information, that's what the article is about. Viriditas (talk) 02:48, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for agreeing not to revert talk page comments for no reason on your talk page Viriditas after receiving a warning from admin. I would suggest we move on, and this matter be closed, and I would suggest you concede to this request given your own actions. Please also review WP:CIV so we can avoid another referral to this avenue in the near future. Your comments have not been civil by any stretch, but I can let that pass if you can agree to treat others with some modicum of respect in the future. --Yachtsman1 (talk) 04:55, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
I suggest that this matter continue to stay open, as the wikilawyering and civil POV pushing on the talk page has not ended, and Yachtsman1 has now been taken to task by several different editors on the talk page as a result of his disruptive behavior. In other words, the problem is ongoing and requires administrative attention. Viriditas (talk) 05:29, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Move for Closure (Yachtsman1)[edit]

The matter of the article is being discussed on an Rfc at this point. I would move that this matter be closed and archived, and the status quo maintained for now while this proceeds on the article talk page and in the Rfc. Thank you. Yachtsman1 (talk) 04:58, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

I would request that the incident report remains open. Concerns have been raised on Talk:Human rights in the United States by other editors about Yachtsman1's disruptive behavior, and he is continue to wikilawyer over the meaning of the NPOV policy, ad nauseum. Serious writing and collaboration is being prevented by the barrage of wikilawyering and misinterpretation of policies and guidelines to promote his POV that no human rights-related sources about significant issues can be used in an article about human rights. It doesn't make sense to me, and I'm sure it doesn't make sense to most rational people. Viriditas (talk) 05:27, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
These personal attacks are getting rather old at this point. This editor has just been warned to stop edit warring after making changes to a talk page, eliminating editors comments without consent. [[28]] The "wikilawyering" the editor speaks of concerns the inclusion of materials presently being discussed on the Rfc referred to above on the article in question. The discussion is here under basic misundertanding: [[29]]. The POV advocated is neutrality, and that "the cites/sources you have provided are biased, they are not based upon fact, they are editorialized findings, they seek designation when none exists" per a designation of Hurricane katrina surviors as "Internally Displaced Persons" (IDP's), not the invention provided above. Rather than dealing with me in a rational manner, I have been consistently insulted, degraded with comments such as "I know you've only been here since September 2008, so your "rookie" arguments are understandable (biting the newcomer), or "Combine this with your inability to cite sources correctly (Re:The Washington Post and Ray Nagin) and your misunderstanding of basic guidelines and policies (No offense, some of them are esoteric), and a pattern emerges" (translation - I'm stupid) or "So, to set the record straight, you posted a red herring. Is such a thing intellectually dishonest" (ascribed motive, not in good faith). I leave this to an administrator to deal with, but Viriditas's conduct has been and continues to be outrageous.--Yachtsman1 (talk) 05:55, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
No personal attacks here. Your wikilawyering on the talk page is available for anyone to see. And it's getting even more exciting now. Your recent proposal to use consensus to override NPOV was a wonderful example. And per the above, you still haven't figured out how to use RS. If the source isn't about human rights, we can't use it. Viriditas (talk) 07:45, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

User Edditer[edit]

Resolved: user already blocked

Edditer (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

User has persistently vandalised pages such as Cradle of Filth. Despite receiving a final warning for vandalism on Days of Thunder, user continued to vandalise pages such as Rihanna and Nemifitide as well as leaving offensive messages on the user page of User:Erik9 and User talk:Magnius. magnius (talk) 14:47, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Report to WP:AIV, please. Thank you, MuZemike 14:51, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
User was already blocked indef by Jclemens (talk · contribs) after the last vandalism spree, well before this post was made. ~ mazca t|c 15:20, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, I did report it to WP:AIV but didn't see a notice of user being blocked, then I was advised by another editor that this may be the place to report the incident. magnius (talk) 21:43, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
No harm done. Special:Log/block may help for future reference. Stifle (talk) 08:24, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Disruptive edits along Armenian-Azeri articles[edit]

I feel that this is the most appropriate medium to express my concerns following the activities on Wikipedia over the past month and I ask that the admins here take some form of action. Unfortunately, VartanM left Wikipedia in April, as he was disgusted against the questionable block placed against Meowy in the face of disruptions. Eupator is away and Meowy was placed on a 2-week block just recently and unfortunately I and very few editors are keeping an eye out on the sprawling vandalism of the past few weeks. Many new users are jumping out of the blue, being fixed on articles on "Armenian terrorism", Armenian genocide denial and the "Azerbaijani genocide." It is quite probable that some off-Wiki coordination is being done.

For example, see the contributions of the following newly-created accounts: [30], [31] (Fiegl's book was on "Armenian terrorism"), and [32]. Some action also seems to be warranted against Proger, who has a long history of disruption. Many of his disruptions won't be understood by admins because of their lack of knowledge on the content but here are some of the most outstanding offenders:

We next encounter the following disruptive edits. There is a new user, InRe.Po, who might be ErkTGP, who might also be this user with a fake Armenian name , Անդրանիկ (Andranik), who failed to demonstrate any knowledge of Armenian or Russian [33]. It might be notable to read the contents of his conversation with Grandmaster here. While on the surface it appears that there are disagreements between the two, his main space edits on the March Days reflect no such dichotomy. This editor was inactive starting from October 2008, and didn't return until May 18, 2009 and right when one of the most controversial articles POV pushing, the neutrality tag even disappear in the process. His past editing pattern shows is interesting. He was activally involved in the articles History of the Kurdistan Workers Party, the template of Turkey-PKK conflict, Kurdistan Worker's Party, the template US War on Terrorism, in which he added the PKK (see here for the general basis of his edits). User ErkTGP, just like him, was interested primarily in Turkish matters until he jumped out of the blue to reinsert parts of Անդրանիկ additions, see [34]. There appears to be some similarities in Անդրանիկ's and InRe.Po's editing habits, as both appear to have intentions to serve as a strawpuppets.

If users wish to edit, then this should be done transparently, but it appears that a group of veteran editors as well as new ones are cooperating off wiki to work on specific articles. Recently it was "Armenian terrorism," this includes Grandmaster and Atabek. On two occasions, even John Vandenberg engaged in provocative actions. During the heated debate on the Movses Khorenatsi page, John Vandenberg out of the blue, loaded on wikisource Auguste Carrière's work on Movses Khorenatsi, which regurgitated much of Grandmaster's arguments and then created his article on Wikipedia. John then went on to create a section under the title of "Development notes" and left not any comment but a link to the Turkish foreign policy institute official website of the booklet: The Armenian Issue in Nine Questions and Answers which is the backbone of the denial of the Armenian genocide and the Armenian people (it can be compared to the "66 Questions and Answers about the Holocaust", which appeared in the Revue d’histoire de la Shoah, no 177-178, January-August 2003, where a similar comparison was made). Another user expressed his outrage over the material but there has been no comments left by John on Carrière's talk page.

John once more stepped in during an edit war going on Erich Feigl's article and a ridiculous website on par with tallarmeniantale.com, whose sole purpose is devoted to the denial of the Armenian Genocide and the promotion of the fabricated Azerbaijani Genocide, see the click here here to see the site. And an Azerbaijani genocide is what is now being pushed from another series of new editors, one of them being Joebobby1985 ([35]). Just like InRe.Po, he started with the Kurdistan Workers' party, for his first edit was to the word terrorist. From then on edited the Genocides in history article by ruining the entry about the Genocides perpetrated in the Ottoman Empire and unsuccessfully tried to include mention of an Azerbaijani genocide.

We now come to User:Abbatai (history) who, after being warned dozens of times to not edit war, has proceeded to do the exact same things. He created the Azeri genocide which was fortunately deleted. It is also worthy to read here this report [36]. What I once believed was merely a temporary nuisance seems to be a recurring problem. It is becoming increasingly difficult to continue editing in this atmosphere. And I am merely skimming over the material here. The passivity by admins here in unacceptable, given that Meowy was unjustly hounded and blocked on every given occasion outnumbered by editors who ignore what is being discussed and who don't even give a damn about improving the articles' quality.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 18:25, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

In my humble opinion, there are too few admins dealing with ArbCom enforcement in general, and in particular too few dealing with enforcing specific disputes, instead of just fielding reports at WP:AE. However, I don't agree with your assessment regarding Meowy, who was blocked more than once for 3RR, then placed on 1RR under an ArbCom editing restriction, and then repeatedly went over 1RR. PhilKnight (talk) 00:13, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
I'm generally ready to act on complaints that ethno-nationalist POV-pushing disrupts Wikipedia, but this report by MarshallBagramyan is too long and superficial for me to feel to be able to usefully do anything here: it is aimed at what look like about a dozen accounts and appears not to distinguish content disagreements from what may be genuine conduct problems. My advice is to file individual WP:AE reports against individual users that display clear conduct problems.  Sandstein  05:36, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Please see the topic "Turkish genocide, again" below. Aramgar (talk) 03:40, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

In regards to the question on Talk:Erich Feigl, I have been working on an answer, and will finish that off shortly. John Vandenberg (chat) 07:21, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Turkish genocide, again[edit]

Resolved: Indef blocked

User:Devanizmo has created a page Turkish Genocide which lists as its only source the ultra-nationalist website tallarmeniantale.com. The same user has also repurposed the dab page Turkish genocide (note the capitalization). Could someone with tools look into what is quite obviously tendentious POV axe grinding? I would post this at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Geopolitical ethnic and religious conflicts, but few respond to matters listed there. Aramgar (talk) 03:38, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Turkish Genocide deleted, edits to Turkish genocide reverted and user warned. Next step is a temp block. --mav (talk) 03:53, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
he did it again, so it's time for that block. ThuranX (talk) 03:58, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Looks like a Wikipedia version of Serdar Argic. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 04:00, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

He's gone.--chaser (talk) 04:05, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
Could you please let him know why? There's nothing about a block other than the block text available to him right now. We already got an appeal via info-en redirected to unblock-en-l...
I don't believe there's any visible ground to unblock, but a uw-blocked3 notice explaining how they can leave an unblock request is the least we should do. Blocking someone without a note on their talk is not good form... I'll leave the notice template, but you owe them the note. Thanks. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 06:43, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Correct the arabic Language Place[edit]

The arabic language has more than 100,000 articles; but still categorized in the (over 50,000). Please correct that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Goodmanjoon (talkcontribs) 09:21, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Which page are you referring to? Our list is up to date, as far as I'm aware. Are you referring to the categorizations you see when you go to http://www.wikipedia.org ? That site isn't controlled by the English Wikipedia (the site you're on now), but by MetaWiki. You can contact them with regards to that page by posting at meta:Talk:Www.wikipedia.org_template. Someguy1221 (talk) 09:40, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Slow reverts and probable Ownership issues in Bukidnon State University part 2[edit]

Resolved: Tomorts has been indef'd, recreated material has been deleted.— dαlus Contribs 06:59, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Tomorts (talk · contribs) is insists in adding unsourced materials in the Bukidnon State University. Failing that, he creates a content fork, Bukidnon State University Intramurals to house his material. The article was speedied before as The BSU Intramurals. I have reported the user back in January and recieved no admin assistance. I strongly suggest that the user be blocked due to repeated posting of materials and refusal to communicate.--Lenticel (talk) 06:12, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

I have requested speedy deletion under G4, with a link pointing to the previously deleted article.— dαlus Contribs 06:22, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
The account has now been indef'd. The page will likely soon be deleted and salted as well.— dαlus Contribs 06:52, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for your assistance.--Lenticel (talk) 08:01, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Note for future reference that CSD G4 is only for articles recreated that were previously deleted following an AFD discussion. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 13:53, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Userpages User:Nandiyanto and User:Cheaptubes[edit]

Would someone please have a look at userpages User:Nandiyanto (a copy/paste of CV with no relation to wikipedia) and User:Cheaptubes (advertisement page - warned 15 May - no reaction). Materialscientist (talk) 07:09, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Are you certain that the User:Nandiyanto is a draft for mainspace and not just an overly "myspacey" userpage? Since he has some mainspace edits, maybe we should hold off slapping tags all over his userpage. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 14:04, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
My mistake, it seems it was userfied from mainspace but still, this report is a little premature. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 14:07, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

User:BatteryIncluded on Talk:Life[edit]

User BatteryIncluded (BI) has twice now removed a large comment block (mine) from Talk:Life: See today's delete diff and yesterday's delete diff. I have pointed him to WP:TALK for basic guidance, but he did not acknowledge and now repeats his violation. Seeking some assistance. Regards, -Stevertigo 21:07, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you Baseball Bugs for chiming in on the talk page. I went ahead and restored my comments to that page, and in the event that BatteryIncluded removes them again (violating WP:TPOC), I humbly request that an admin here takes action. Regards, Stevertigo 23:15, 24 May 2009 (UTC)


I will keep ignoring Steve's attempt to debate the meaning of "meaning" and miscelaneous words. I am sure there are forums to do that. If the administrators want to preserve in there Steve's personal beliefs on the worthiness of biological sciences, that will be fine. As a molecular biologist I will keep to labor for the article's scientific accuracy, so his inclusion of pseudo-scientific terms and original research in the article will be deleted again. You can have the talk page and write a novel if you wish. However, no drama Steve can make in the talk page will change scientific methods, terms, international conventions or biological facts.

Cheers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 03:19, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

You are within your rights to ignore comments made in talkspace, but unless they are made in bad faith (and we are encouraged to assume the opposite) they should not be removed. If there is some question of whether there is a bad faith intent behind the edits, then request the view of a neutral third party to make a determination and to try and deal with the issue. Talkspace and article space are different creatures (no pun intended, but I will accept the kudos) and while accuracy and sourcing is required for editing the subject, the only consideration in talkspace is the intent - if it is honest and well meaning then it stays; no matter how ludicrous the content. I trust this clarifies the "Wikipedia method" of creating content. LessHeard vanU (talk) 11:46, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
I dropped in at the talk page (and some damaging edits made to the article) and BI, who I don't know from Adam, is perfectly right. For some reason people who spend 40 years learning everything they can about, say, the Peloponnesian War -- and indeed, advancing the body of human knowledge -- get all pissy when their contributions are edited away by Randy in Boise who heard somewhere that sword-wielding skeletons were involved. And they get downright irate when asked politely to engage in discourse with Randy until the sword-skeleton theory can be incorporated into the article without passing judgment. Peter Damian (talk) 11:38, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
Indeed; but it is easy enough for any expert in the field to say, "These are my sources, please cite yours," LessHeard vanU (talk) 18:05, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
And it only takes Randy about three seconds to say "I see all of your sources are from tradionalist historians who believe that only things that are documented to have happened happened. I just so know Crackpot McJunkyscience, who, as you may know, is the foremost authority on turning Lead into Gold, wrote a paper on this recently, in the very reputable journal Frontiers of History in Kyrgistan. His paper was cited favorably by Loonytons Dementia the third in his well regarded book "Things I Thought About Whilst Crapping," published by very reputable publisher Eastern European Scientific. He says that Skeletons absolutly fought in the Peloponnesian War, and, since he's the most recent article published on the actual combatents in the war, it is very important that we have a section on his opinion of skeleton combattants. Hipocrite (talk) 18:14, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

KoshVorlon and rollback[edit]

This has nothing to do with his sig. Earlier today I removed a link from Dead Sea Scrolls which has too many external links - I made my reasons clear in the edit summary. KoshVorlon (talk · contribs) reverted it using rollback (I'm told). I discovered he'd done the same thing to Acalamari [37] [38]. Looking at his history page, it looks like he's also done it to QuackGuru and just now [39] he's removed referenced text. As I could be considered involved (see my talk page where someone has commented on his removal of the link on Dead Sea Scrolls I'd appreciate it if another Admin could deal with this. He's using Lupin's tools it seems, if that's relevant. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 21:31, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

The edit to Dead Sea Scrolls which Dougweller made was this, and Kosh's rollback was here. Seems to me that would constitute a violation of the rollback guidelines (WP:RBK). I recall other cases previously where rollback-like edits of good-faith contributions were permissible (e.g., using WP:TW) provided a descriptive edit summary was used. —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 22:02, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
I'm not really looking for drama here. However, Yes, I do use Lupin's tools, and have been doing so for quite some time.

First, let me point out that Dougweller made no attempt to ask me about these rollbacks. Had he, we might not be on this board. The rollbacks were all done in good faith. I have no agenda on the Dead Sea Scroll pages, in fact, my only edit was the removal of a blog from that page. (In Lupin's tools, it highlighted a blogsite and I used the rollback function to take it out, per our policy). As far as QuackGuru, yes, I've been reverted him a lot today, for his usual "Jimbo Wales is the CO-Founder" of Wikipedia " edits. The particular edit that Dougweller is talking about is a different page where a Sultan had a highlighted nickname of "The Lame", which was obviously not supposed to be there. I would prefer to continue this discussion with DougWeller directly , as it should be ( disupte resolution ? ) instead of bringing more drama here. I would move that this section be closed and I will continue discussions with Dougweller. (However, I , as before, will yield to consensus)Naluboutes, Nalubotes Aeria gloris, Aeria gloris 22:15, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Consensus is that one should use rollback only for vandalism reversion. Were you not aware of that?--chaser (talk) 22:30, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
Of course. The edits I described above are obvious vandalism. Giving some the nickname "The Lame" is vandalism, as is adding in non-rs sites. That's why I use the tools. Take a look at my contributions and you'll see that I have a history with those tools, and I've not encountered any issues (except for a few mistakes, like putting a test1 message on the wrong person's page, as would be normal) My use of this tools has always been in good faith.Naluboutes, Nalubotes Aeria gloris, Aeria gloris 22:35, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
I'm not sure what "the Lame" is about (diff?), but the latter example and the other diffs in this thread are not vandalism. See WP:NOTVAND generally. Vandalism is actually more narrowly defined around here than you might think.--chaser (talk) 22:50, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
Why are we accusing Kosh of abusing rollback? According to this, he doesn't even have rollback! He must have been faking it, that's always possible. Dylan620 (Toolbox Alpha, Beta) 22:38, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
Wait a moment, can I get this straight please. KoshVorlon, you are saying you made this revert because the other editor was referring to Tamerlane, and you think that because that name incorporates the historic nickname "The Lame" it was vandalism? Can you please quickly say something that convinces me you are not on a trolling spree here? Fut.Perf. 22:51, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
...and adding a non-reliable source is not necessarily vandalism if one follows WP:AGF to start. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 22:57, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
I'm gonna suggest you WP:AGF on this one, FPaS. If I weren't familiar with the etymology of "Tamerlane" courtesy of Badass of the Week, I'd probably have made the same mistake as KV upon seeing him referred to as "Timur the Lame." It sure as hell sounds like something a vandal would add, since "lame" seems to be a favorite... rdfox 76 (talk) 23:49, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
Even if Kosh isn't using the real Rollback, the reason using rollback for reverting good-faith edits is frowned upon is not because of the tool, but because of the lack of any reasonable edit summary. Using a rollback-style edit summary while reverting edits is tantamount to saying "rvv" in an edit summary. While I have no opinion of QG's edits, characterizing DougWeller's edits as vandalism without any obvious evidence of those edits being deliberately bad is just plain wrong. —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 23:57, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
I agree with Mendaliv here. Undoing/reverting/rolling back edits with a generic edit summary (those edit summaries are the exact same native rollback uses) is basically saying to editors that you feel their edit was so worthless it didn't deserve a descriptive reason for your undoing it. This is not collegial. Use undo with an edit summary (or twinkle's rollback that allows you to enter an edit summary) except in cases of clear vandalism. –xenotalk 00:17, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
FPAS .. your'e correct. Timur the Lame appears to be vandalism, and so it was reverted. This was a good faith revert. Just for clarities sake, I don't have Rollback. I am and have been using Lupins tools which allow for a quick revert, in which I can see an edit summary window for 2 seconds (literally). Not enough time is available to enter in any type of edit summary (and I'm pretty quick typist, 80-85 WPM)! Check my contrbs and you'll note I've used this tool in past, in good faith. Especially take a look at the Dwight Lauderdale page and you'll see plenty of examples of me reverting in bad faith. You'll know it by the summaries (pretty incivil!).


Naluboutes, Nalubotes Aeria gloris, Aeria gloris 01:08, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

That's a bit more understandable, but even so Kosh, the use of automated tools, no matter how well or poorly designed, does not excuse their users from the behavioral expectations the community has of editors not using automated tools. All that's being asked here is that you not make rollback-type edits to revert things that don't meet Wikipedia's definition of vandalism. —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 02:07, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
..."appears to be vandalism"? KoshVorlon, are you actually still of the opinion it was vandalism? Have you taken the time to understand that the byname "the Lame" is a well-established historical name of this ruler? And, in addition, did you even read the diff carefully enough to understand that the edit you reverted wasn't even the one that introduced the phrase? "The Lame" had been part of that passage long before KansasBear's edit (and your revert didn't remove it either). What were you thinking? Fut.Perf. 06:09, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
<< KV does seem to have a bit of a problem with assuming good faith; he notes above that, "...is vandalism, as is adding in non-rs sites. That's why I use the tools." In addition to being factually incorrect, it has a rather unappealing defensive tone. He still seems to be defending his reversion of "The Lame" (above), not as a mistake—which would be reasonable—but as perfectly proper.
I don't think any action's warranted, but, KV, I urge you to be much more careful. If the automated tools you're using don't give you time to check that you're not making mistakes like the various ones above, then find some other ones or do it by hand. Twinkle is good, if you're looking, because it uses the normal diff system before giving one the oppurtunity to revert. ╟─TreasuryTaghemicycle─╢ 07:34, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
No doubt, this excuse doesn't hold water. Popups has the ability to click "undo" (it's right next to revert), at which time you can enter a descriptive edit summary as to why you are reverting the edit. Further abuse may result in the removal of the privilege of semi-automated tools. –xenotalk 17:01, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
FPAS, step away from the horse carcass, please. Anyone with 1/2 a brain would look at an entry that shows a historical figure nicknamed "The Lame" and at least consider that it could be vandalism.
AGF.
I'm closing this now. This whole episode is imporper from the word go. The admin filing the report failed to follow WP:DR at all and it definetly not "involved". So....... stick a fork in it and call it done.< br/> KoshVorlon (talk)
Please don't "close" threads dealing with yourself. As to the dead horse, well, perhaps it is one, but you still seem not to have understood the issue: perhaps anybody with half a brain would consider whether "The Lame" might be vandalism, but a wikipedian with a bit more than half a brain would be expected to actually check whether it is vandalism, before accusing other users of such. If you are now admitting you made a mistake, fine, we can call this finished, but your defiant tone is hardly fitting here. Fut.Perf. 14:15, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

User:194x144x90x118[edit]

I am concerned that, while this user is making some useful edits, they are outweighed by his general incivility to other editors. It isn't hard to understand why he dislikes me, since I blocked him, incorrectly supposing him to be a sockpuppet, about a month ago, when he was a relatively new user. But his incivility and refusal to assume good faith has been directed at many more people than myself. In general, I've avoided contact with him except when he's definitely breaking the rules, but I couldn't help noticing that the problem does not appear to be going away. A few examples of edits that I found problematic include the 'no one is allowed to talk to me' message on his talk page, his repeated undoing of another user's edits, this charming personal attack- and that's just the last two days. Because he is so convinced of my incompetence, I am hoping that an uninvolved editor would be willing to read through his talk page and express an opinion on what, if any, action might be called for. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 01:09, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Second FisherQueen's request, since I'm apparently too incompetent and insane to deal with this user...--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 01:14, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

My good friends SarekOfVulcan and FisherQueen that like writing on my talkpage so very much, well I am glad that we are now able to discuss our matters with more of our friends. I'd like to start out by repeating a reply that I wish that someone else would have written on my talkpage but nobody did:

I just viewed the talk page of the dreamhost article and I can see that 194x makes some valid points regarding alleged strange behavior of the admin Sarekofvulcan, like 194x says the dreamhost talk page is rather clouted with personal attack from the user he mentions and I for one find it strange that the admin finally chose to block both 194x and the other user at the same time as if they were somehow equally guilty especially seeing as 194x had mainly been reacting to the other users personal attacks and nothing had previously been done about them whatsoever.

I also took a look at the block by Fisherqueeen that 194x mentions and I have to say that the only things that I can think of that could possibly have led Fisherqueen to come to that conclusion are A. the fact that 194x stated an opinion, something not strictly prohibited by wikipedias rules and B. Wishful thinking. It also seems as if another editor warned Fisherqueen that she was indeed mistaken but she decided to ignore his words. Also these "if you were wise" and "right to expect" remarks that she made on his talkpage are hardly appropriate seeing that she is a wikipedia admin so perhaps it would be best if Fisherqueen left matters relating to this user for someone else to deal with in the future. --194x144x90x118 (talk) 01:32, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

As far as I know, Julius Cesar talked in the 3rd person when he was referring to himself. Is this or such resemblance intended? Just wondering.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 01:48, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
I was confused for a moment as well. 194x144x90x118 is printing the administrative reply he is hoping someone will give him. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 01:50, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
That is possible as it makes sense. Let's see if s/he'll comment on this.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 01:57, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
Per The Magnificent Clean-keepers polite request, I stated "I'd like to start out by repeating a reply that I wish that someone else would have written on my talkpage but nobody did:" So in other words I am both displaying my disappointment that nobody took a look at the other side of the coin and writing a pseudo reply as if someone had. I was unaware that Julius Cesar talked in the 3rd person when referring to himself. Expect further replies from my behalf regarding more serious aspects of the issue that we were discussing.--194x144x90x118 (talk) 17:00, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
The specific conversation that this user is referencing is here. Notice that I undid the block in question on April 30, which was nearly a full month ago. There does not seem to be any further action I can take regarding it, and it is not directly related to my concern regarding this user's current edits. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 01:44, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
I'm a little worried by this editor's apparent interest in FisherQueen's work here; in particular, I see no reason why this edit occurred, beyond her input to that situation, and on the face of it, this is getting perilously close to WP:HOUND. On the other hand, if a reasonable justification is forthcoming... Rodhullandemu 01:52, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
Ok man you want it you've got it I aint hounding anyone the edit you are referring to was actually a well motivated edit, after seeing all that discussion that he had been participating in I just thought I'd give the fellow a little pat on the shoulder, we all need one every now and then, my hope was that it would calm the fellow down and motivate him to use his time for something more productive.--194x144x90x118 (talk) 02:08, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
You told him that you were familiar with his accomplishments on the screen. Which particular role of his did you notice and remember him by name from? Was it 'bar patron,' or 'party guy?' -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 02:13, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
My dear, this is Not the place for casual chat or personal attacks. Do try to maintain the very high standard that you demand from other users.--194x144x90x118 (talk) 02:18, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
Do try not to patronise other editors; it scores very low on the kudos scale. Rodhullandemu 02:21, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
(ec)Well, perhaps, but I didn't think "Don't be wasting too much of your valuable time and energy on these people, life is too short." was particularly helpful in the circumstances; it shows to me a lack of understanding of the policies and issues that led to the blocking, and a lack of good faith in the editors who had given quite enough advice to that editor before their patience was exhausted. Rodhullandemu 02:21, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
I don't think that you quite understood what I wanted to say, I didn't necessarily write my honest opinion there, the reason I wrote that was that I was concerned for the well being of the individual and my hope was that those remarks would ease its mind and make it feel less "alone in the world", I wrote those comments on the users talkpage not the proposed deletion thread so they were primarily intended for his eyes. The carrot and the stick, both are necessary you know what I mean?--194x144x90x118 (talk) 02:42, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
WP is not a forum and social network. Even so it is not against any rule, "...a little pat on the shoulder,..." is basically a nice thing to do, the way you phrased it wasn't helpful to the editor (nor to your résumé) as you should first familiarize yourself with rules and guidelines so you can give him/her some helpful advise how s/he can do better in the future. You chose not to do so. In fact, you gave this editor no real advise but instead clearly (very) bad advise. You have to make yourself familiar with policies, rules and guidelines before attempting to "help" others or you'll just draw them in the same or similar trouble you're in; Or you might just drive them away this way which would be even worse.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 02:42, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
My advice to the editor was to not waste too much of his time on these matters. The guy obviously wasn't on the right path and if he wants that article to someday acctually excist here on wikipedia then he'll have to get himself a little bit away from his computer and do something to justify its creation. My advice was good.--194x144x90x118 (talk) 02:58, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
Well then, assuming good faith regarding your comment at this editors talk page, it wasn't good advise. Details are already pointed out at my comment above. Maybe "watch-and-learn" (as I did and still do) might help?
BTW, regarding the small print above: Would you mind to enlighten us and clarify? --The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 03:11, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
Another "BTW": Quote: "My advice was good". No it wasn't. Not in my opinion. Although you think so it is a common and human error that happened to you, me and everybody else. We always think we do or say the right thing and might see and regret our errors later, (or not...).--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 03:18, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
Second that. The section in that edit was titled "Your article". That is leading him to believe that he owns the article. Nobody owns articles. MuZemike 05:47, 26 May 2009 (UTC)