Misplaced Pages

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

Notes on the aforementioned comment:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Comments by Scuro

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Section Break

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Have you considered this? Thoughts from Scuro

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

My notes of the above statement:

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

A response to Nja247,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Main ADHD article edits since November 1, 2008

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

Controversies edits since November 1, 2008

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Here are some diffs and concerns

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

• Keeps explaining wiki rules

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

yet another break

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

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

• Unsourced material:

• Removing sourced material:

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

• Tags:

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

multiple complaints, can we have some order?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

IP talk used for tracking good faith editor's logged-out edits?

I was rather surprised to be informed of Category:Suspected Misplaced Pages sockpuppets of Bluedogtn, which is populated by IP addressed marked in the manner of User talk:71.231.58.8. Bluedogtn has a number of legitimate alternate accounts, but as far as I can tell, is an editor in good standing. I would normally do a mass-MFD of the pages, however, after having been informed that no policy seems to exist governing the use of sockpuppet templates in a related issue (see here, here and here), I have no idea where to go with this. While the other dispute may be one way, this use of IP addresses to track an editor in good standing, using the blatant bad faith term "sockpuppet", is just wrong.

However, I'm not sure how to proceed. I'm reasonably sure administrative action is necessary here (e.g., speedy deletion of the IP talk pages). I'd simply use AWB to depopulate the categories in question, but I know from the related dispute that Tennis expert will simply repopulate them within one or two days... and I don't have the intent to engage in an edit war here. I just want to see the right thing done. —/Mendaliv//_Δ's/ 21:25, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Is there any allegation anywhere that Bluedogtn, et. al. has used any of the IPs in an abusive manner? —Travis 21:54, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

If I may chime in here, I remember this incident; or more specifically I remember it occurring with BlueDogtn's "TennisAuthority" alternate account, which (fairly obviously) he uses only for tennis-related posts. One of BlueDog's first posts (as TennisAuthority) was attacked by Tennis Expert here (part of said attack included accusing the editor of being a sockpuppet of me). He was attacked by Tennis Expert again here for the same reason; neither instance seems to me to have been a provokable instance. I do not have knowledge of his other alternate accounts but in my experience, his BlueDog and Tennis Authority accounts have only been used positively. AlonsornunezComments 23:09, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

All IP talkpages in above category deleted because there is no evidence that BlueDogTN has used them in an abusive manner, thus making the sock notice-laden talkpages borderline attack pages. —Travis 23:31, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the help, Travis. For the record, I've never seen any suggestions that Bluedogtn has engaged in any actual abuse- all I've ever seen is Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Bluedogtn/Archive, which didn't end up doing anything at all. But in any case that seemed to come after the tagging happened. In fact, Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive530#No, IPSock! seems to explain the problem, though it appears not to have resulted in the desired outcome. At worst, there's some sketchy behavior from around that time, which quite honestly could be assumed to be caused by confusion and/or frustration at being labeled as an abusive user. —/Mendaliv//_Δ's/ 01:17, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

There's another category that refers to an editor who is not blocked and from all appearances hasn't engaged in abusive sockpuppetry: see Category:Suspected Misplaced Pages sockpuppets of Jeffreyneave. —/Mendaliv//_Δ's/ 02:08, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

What about cats related to blocked editors?

In relation to this, might I ask what the appropriate steps to take would be when I come across an IP talk page tagged with {{IPsock}} when there's no clear evidence of abuse (or specifically, what form such evidence would need to take)? To be more clear, I'm asking with reference to the plethora of IPs tagged in Category:Suspected Misplaced Pages sockpuppets of Musiclover565 and Category:Suspected Misplaced Pages sockpuppets of Korlzor (and their duplicates; e.g., this, this). —/Mendaliv//_Δ's/ 01:26, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

By the way, in asking about this I'm not requesting that someone from here dig through everything and start deleting. I'm more than willing to go through these myself and tag those pages where there's no evidence of abuse as {{db-attack}}, if that's the appropriate move; I understand there are quite a lot of pages in these cats (I believe more than 400), and in very few instances were any ever mentioned at a SSP/RfCU/SPI investigation. —/Mendaliv//_Δ's/ 17:26, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Bluedogtn

Hello, I was just going on editing on wikipedia, and Tennis expert made these IPSOCK pages, which was because I made and have many accounts which do not violate wikipedia guidelines. I have been taking OrangeMike Admins advices and just letting it go knowing that it would get brought up later, which he was right. I have done what ever anyone has ever requested of me on here. I have with my GolfAuthority Account been doing many works for golf specific articles, and you can ask Wjemather how diplomatic I am working with the Golf Project, and how hardworking I am in bring things to the attention of the community, when I don't understand! I have done all the major champions on the womens side the infobox golfer and made major championship navboxes for the two oldest majors, and made for all of the major champions the wikitable for the majors they have won to make it sort-of like the men's, but could not find info on the oldest two on wiki or elsewhere. I love this site, and was and would not be detered from helping out on the subject areas that I love! Good Day Peace Out!_BLuE 01:40, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

You don't really need to worry about this at this point, Bluedogtn. The category tracking your logged-out edits has been depopulated, as it should be. However, it's probably a good idea in the future, if you do make logged-out edits on accident, to come back and sign them as being from an account. I don't have a particular opinion on your use of alternate accounts... beyond that it's a little extreme in my view, but well within policy limits. —/Mendaliv//_Δ's/ 02:13, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Legal threat at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/University of Atlanta?

The nomination at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/University of Atlanta seems like a legal threat to me. Am I reading too much into it? Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 22:30, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

It reads like an unsourced assertion of threats of legal action by a third party, which is well into the "huh?" zone for me. "I'm not going to make a legal threat, but they will!" kindof thing. KillerChihuahua 22:45, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Except that the person making the threat claims to be speaking for the people who would file the charges. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 22:55, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, where does he claim that? thanks - KillerChihuahua 23:05, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Have verified with appropriate government and accrediting agency and the information captured is defamatory as the schools stated in history are two different schools. The Accrediting agency is threatened to pursue further if the information is not removed immediately. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 23:08, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

That's a legal threat, i.e. it's intended to intimidate by talking about legal action. Warn the user to retract it, and if he doesn't then indef-block. Baseball Bugs carrots 23:16, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

While I am skeptical of Mistro12's motivations, I should point out that he/she does not have much experience here. I suggest warning (which has been done) but not blocking for now. --A. B. 23:18, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

With new users, it's always important to keep this essay in mind: Don't overlook legal threats. --A. B. 23:19, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

What I was about to say also. No legal threats. PERIOD. The user has two choices: (1) Retract or (2) Be indef'd. Baseball Bugs carrots 23:21, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I think Mistro12 is off-line. I suggest those with torches and pictchforks wait until tomorrow. I may be editor he most disagrees with, but I suggest just taking this in stride for now. --A. B.

If he doesn't respond within 24 hours, bring the hammer down. He can always appeal the block, and it can be rescinded if he promises to withdraw the threat (which would probably kill the AFD, but that's show biz). Baseball Bugs carrots 23:46, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

I went ahead and speedy kept the article. If s/he doesn't like the article the way it is, s/he can fix it, within consensus, of course. (Assuming they don't find their editing privileges curtailed.) —Travis 23:58, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but my sock-sonar is going off. Compare this user's contribs with Amithani (talk · contribs), in particular, this diff and this diff after the indef block was made. What arouses further suspicion of exclaiming proudly on his userpage I'm the new kid on the block. If I'm off on my assessment, I'll apologize and recalibrate the 'ol sonar. MuZemike 01:02, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Ding-ding-ding! You may well be onto something. Socks often make a point of announcing that they're new. "On the block" is a potentially ironic choice of words, though. Baseball Bugs carrots 01:08, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

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

Mistro12 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

They're both single-purpose accounts, and Mistro12 started later the same day, March 28, after Amithani made its last entry. Baseball Bugs carrots 01:20, 15 May 2009 (UTC)‎

Although there is the minor issue of why the one would create the article and the other try to delete it. That bears further investigation. Baseball Bugs carrots 01:25, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

And the answer appears to be that he's miffed about article content added by others, so his AFD was strictly "pointy". Baseball Bugs carrots 01:47, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

I think it's more than pointy; the proprietors of this school have financial reasons to want to see this article disappear. Compare the article Amithani wrote against the current, well-referenced version. Mistro12 (and some mysterious Ugandan IPs in the 196.0.7.x range) are pretty worried about this article. I've repeatedly said that we'll use all the "good news" they can provide that it's backed up by independent sources that meet our reliable source requirements. --A. B. 04:54, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

The IP 12.22.184.3 which I just added geolocates to Atlanta and added its own name to Amithani's signature on the whitelist page on 12/16 and 12/19. Baseball Bugs carrots 01:40, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Also similar typing styles - mostly lower case, numerous transposition and other typos, and tendency to drop "a" in front of names. Baseball Bugs carrots 01:44, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Okay, the above conversation(?) between BB and himself makes an interesting case. The above IP hasn't edited since December, but there are overlapping edits between 74.190.36.18, which also happens to geolocate to Atlanta, and Mistro12. BB and his carrots might want to take this down the hall. I'd look into this more if I weren't about to fall asleep on the keyboard... —Travis 02:21, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Your ball, Bugsy. Can you do it without making another 'axcident'? MuZemike 02:27, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Too soon. First the user needs to address the legal threat, assuming he even shows up again. Then we'll see where it goes. Baseball Bugs carrots 02:30, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Mistro has replied on their talk page. I'm not sure it's a very helpful reply. Edward321 (talk) 04:45, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

I advised him to withdraw the legal threat, and also informed him of this discussion. If he refuses to withdraw the threat, he should be indef'd pronto. Baseball Bugs carrots 04:54, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

I would at the least wait until a response is given before anything. If anything else, then start the SPI. MuZemike 06:58, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

OK, I have been involved here since the beginning of the article. A. B. a bit earlier, as he blacklisted uofa.edu as an SEO was spamming related sites. I removed from the blacklist, upon request from a SPA, User:Amithani. That immediately resulted in promotional material being inserted. ufoa.edu was re-blacklisted, and the AboutUs was whitelisted. This did not stop the situation, promotional material was still being inserted, now without the link. The article has since been semi-protected, protected with an abusefilter (Special:AbuseFilter/36, which was disabled when there were no hits after quite some time).

User:Mistro12 was already active by then, but did not edit the article himself. I had at that point no reason to suspect that this would be another sock/meat-puppet.

Accounts used (some typical diffs, general, tag deletion or deletion of the "not to be confused with" are common. Removal of referenced parts, insertion of peacock sections (contents the same over and over), etc. etc.):

• Amithani (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · AbuseLog · what links to user page · count · COIBot · Spamcheck · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Edit filter search · Google · StopForumSpam)
  • diff (COI?), diff (tag deletion), diff ("University of Atlanta" rename to "U of A"), diff (see the "recently developed" section which reappears over and over)
• Shamirhirani (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · AbuseLog · what links to user page · count · COIBot · Spamcheck · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Edit filter search · Google · StopForumSpam)
  • diff
• Hiranismhamir (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · AbuseLog · what links to user page · count · COIBot · Spamcheck · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Edit filter search · Google · StopForumSpam)
  • diff, details, details
• Mistro12 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · AbuseLog · what links to user page · count · COIBot · Spamcheck · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Edit filter search · Google · StopForumSpam)
  • No sticking edits to article (except for the AfD), discussion on talkpage, now the AfD. details,
• 12.22.184.3 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • Spamcheck • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot)
  • diff in delisting request initiated by User:Amithani
• 74.190.36.18 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • Spamcheck • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot)
  • diff Answers to my answer to Mistro12, suggesting this is Mistro12.
• 12.5.30.227 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • Spamcheck • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot)
  • diff, details
• 196.0.7.2 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • Spamcheck • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot)
  • diff, diff
• 196.0.7.3 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • Spamcheck • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot)
  • diff ("high pithced standards", "outstanding achievements and promise")
• 196.0.7.4 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • Spamcheck • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot)
  • diff edit summary "University of Atlanta - Where New Intellectual Journeys Begin")

In short, we are talking here about a long time disruption, promotional edits, sockpuppets and IPs from over the world, and starting off with the SEO-edits on related domains which suggest they are only here to promote. I would really suggest that Mistro12 retracts the threat (or is blocked until he does), and that other socks are monitored and/or blocked at sight here (maybe do a checkuser to tie it all together?). I've had enough of this rubbish to work on it further (and probably should recuse from further action). --Dirk Beetstra 09:22, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

It's amazing what can turn up overnight. :) I'd like you to stick with us, as we might need you further. I think we should give the guy the workday to respond. If his next edit is not a retraction or clarification, he should be indef'd. And if he doesn't respond by end of workday, he should be indef'd. Then an SPI could be attempted, although if the IP's are truly worldwide that could be a futile effort. Keeping the article semi-protected is good. Also, the notion of wikipedia being sued for "defamation" due to allegedly having its facts wrong on a school, is patently absurd. It's nothing more than an attempt at intimidation - which didn't work, as the RFD was rejected. Although if he could provide a citation backing up his claim, it could make for interesting reading. Baseball Bugs carrots 12:19, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

It's worth pointing out that the 196.0.7 IP's geolocate to Uganda, and the others to Atlanta. Baseball Bugs carrots 12:25, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Oh, I am still here for discussion and keeping my eyes open. There are no protections on the article at the moment, and no edits to the article to 'clean' it have been performed in some days. A. B. and Abd have been asking for a long time for more info from the accounts (and I believe there has also been off-wiki contact), but nothing turned up. It is worth going through the article edit by edit, it was started quite promotional, cleaned, and notability was questioned. Notability was found somewhere, but that seems not te be what they want from this article .. obviously.

I suspect it are two 'sock-farms', one located in Atlanta 'close to the school', and the other may be the SEO that was the original reason for the blacklisting. --Dirk Beetstra 12:57, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

The blacklisting of uofa.edu

A. B. blacklisted the following links in one go, according to a WT:WPSPAM item:

• contactlaw.co.uk: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Misplaced Pages: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com
  • IP Special:contributions/202.38.49.122
• nationalhighschool.com: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Misplaced Pages: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com
• nrgcompliance.com: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Misplaced Pages: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com
• seoexpertpakistan.com: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Misplaced Pages: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com
  • User Special:Contributions/Raajj81
• simplemailmanager.com: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Misplaced Pages: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com
  • IP Special:contributions/202.38.49.122

And related:

• onlinetitle24.com: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Misplaced Pages: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com
• title24bid.com: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Misplaced Pages: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com
• title24requirements.com: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Misplaced Pages: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com
• title24service.com: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Misplaced Pages: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com
• uofa.edu: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Misplaced Pages: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com
• wtwm.co.uk: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Misplaced Pages: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com

Note that the report WT:WPSPAM report gives more related links, I'll have a look into the spamming of those separately.

And articles:

• Online Diploma School
  • User Special:Contributions/Raajj81 (creation)
• Online National High School
  • Special:Contributions/Nationalhighschool (creation + edit) - Special:Contributions/Raajj81 (recreation)
• National High School Atlanta
  • Atlanta!! Special:Contributions/Nationalhighschool (creation)
• SEO Expert Services
  • Special:Contributions/Nationalhighschool (creation)

He identified the users:

• 202.38.49.122 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • Spamcheck • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot)
• 202.38.50.23 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • Spamcheck • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot)
• 202.38.49.124 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • Spamcheck • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot)
• Raajj81 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · AbuseLog · what links to user page · count · COIBot · Spamcheck · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Edit filter search · Google · StopForumSpam)
• Nationalhighschool (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · AbuseLog · what links to user page · count · COIBot · Spamcheck · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Edit filter search · Google · StopForumSpam)

Some of this predates my database, I will work on getting a fuller picture. This looks like a third sockfarm (I suspect the uofa.edu case now to be two meatpuppeting sockfarms). --Dirk Beetstra 12:57, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Lots of IP's, and IP's are typically not given lengthy blocks. Semi-protection would seem to be the better option, if the trolling becomes more persistent. Baseball Bugs carrots 13:05, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

I would suggest to re-enable the Abusefilter. --Dirk Beetstra 13:09, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Or maybe both. Why was it disabled? Baseball Bugs carrots 13:13, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

No hits anymore. Editors seemed to have stopped to edit the article themselves. --Dirk Beetstra 13:22, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

He's given us another possible sock: DTAD (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Also, this in my opinion does NOT constitute a "retraction". I would ask that an admin decide whether a block is called for, and if so, to take action on it. Baseball Bugs carrots 17:22, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree, I don't think this is a retraction of the legal threat. But as I said, I am not going to take admin action in this case anymore.

A. B., could you look if those links that DTAD added in 2006 are related to these cases? --Dirk Beetstra 17:40, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

I have recognized my legal threat entry was out of line. I have struck through the statement. Intention is only to improve this article. See my notes under the Article’s talk page. --Mistro12 (talk) 20:19, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

SPI

I went ahead and started an SPI on this. I have referenced to this ANI section and the WT:WPSPAM diff for brevity. I have also naturally requested CheckUser to confirm the connections between the socks and the IPs and to see what else are in these sock farms. See Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Amithani. MuZemike 17:55, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Socks have been blocked, and the legal threat has been withdrawn (diff). Time to close this. --Dirk Beetstra 13:21, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Disruptive editing, personal attacks

In the Terror bombing article by Dapi89.

This user is

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

In addition this user is creating a hysteria , and is very aggressive and inpolite (see: "Dubious use of sources", "False accusations" etc.) and which contains repeated personal attacks and unfounded accusations; in each case it was tried to provide Dapi89 direct quotes of the cites; yet even after having been presented with the direct quotes, Dapi89 continue to replace them with your own POV, for which Dapi89 do not present any reference.

Some personal attacks in edit logs:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Falun Gong activism on Misplaced Pages

This belongs at arbitration enforcement. See Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_arbitration/Falun_Gong#Article_probation, Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_arbitration/Sathya_Sai_Baba#Removal_of_poorly_sourced_negative_information, Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_arbitration/Sathya_Sai_Baba#Removal_of_poorly_sourced_information, and Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_arbitration/Sathya_Sai_Baba_2#Prior_remedies_clarified Durova 18:02, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

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

• HappyInGeneral (talk · contribs)
• Dilip rajeev (talk · contribs)
• Asdfg12345 (talk · contribs)
• Olaf Stephanos (talk · contribs)

Over the past few months all of my edits on the Falun Gong series of articles has been systematically reverted by a tag-team of Falun Gong single-purpose accounts. , , , , .

This stuff has been going on for 2 years now, basically the pro-FLG editors maintain a cabal over the FLG series of articles, maintaining a illusion of consensus so that FLG POV material can be freely added, and yet adding material critical of FLG need their "consensus". They seemed to be unaware that the arbcom enforcement calls for the articles to be conformed to a POV standard, yet the articles themselves say otherwise. Their editing style provides a large amount of undue emphasis on pro-FLG media such as the Epoch Times and FLG-apologist academics, yet sources by the mainstream media and cult critics are dismissed as Chinese propaganda.

• Reports of organ harvesting from Falun Gong practitioners in China - A conspiracy theory claiming that the PRC is running concentration camps for FLG practitioner and harvesting their organs while alive, while over 50% of this article comes one source, David Kilgour and Matas, two FLG-sponsored politicians from Canada who never set foot in China, while other relevant sources, including visits by US embassy officials and Chinese dissident Harry Wu gets sandwiched in between.
• Academic views on Falun Gong - basically a whitewashing essay of FLG by FLG apologist sources to push the view that the PRC is evil and that FLG is widely accepted by society. Earlier versions had sources from Chinese academics and American cult critics that were systematically removed.
• Tiananmen Square self-immolation incident - A former good article nominee that has been withdrawn due to one editor's insistance in adding opinions and commentry to suggest that the incident is staged by the PRC government.
• Persecution of Falun Gong - another article on the ban of the FLG practice in China. Was renamed from Suppression to Persecution to suggest that the PRC government are criminals. Article currently is full of attacks on the PRC government by questionable sources, including a whole section on former Chinese PM Jiang Zemin that possibly violates WP:BLP.
• Falun Gong outside mainland China - currently an essay on FLG practitioners outside China by one source.

Is wikipedia supposed to be an encyclopedia or an opinion column? Because after 2 years dealing with users that have a strong conflict of interest and violating policies of WP:NPOV and WP:SOAP, (including several editors who practice and protests for FLG personally , and spread their soapboxing to other users ) I had enough with assuming good faith on these editors. All of my edits, whether minor or major, has been systematically reverted by these overzealous editors regardless of content. Their tag-teaming meant that no sooner than one editor finished, another resumes editing on their behalf. Most good faith users has stopped editing because of their behavior, and these users basically claim a ownership, de-facto control over what get and doesn't get written by other editors shows a serious concern in interests and POV. This type of behavior would only lead to further edit warring and violations of WP:NPOV and WP:SOAP--PCPP (talk) 05:32, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Please note that the above user has been systematically removing information, as may be verified from his edit history, from almost all articles related to CCP's Human Rights violations, Xinhua(CCP controlled news) news agency, Tiananmenn Sq incident etc. Often, blanking pages of highly sourced info from some of the articles and resorting to misleading edit summaries to cover-up the nature of his edits. Here the above user blanks out pages of info from an article, reducing it from 67 K to 34K, without a word of discussion, while covering up the nature of the edit with a misleading edit comment.Here the same user again blanks out a significant portion of anothr stable article, reverting to a version almost a year old, again with no discussion. Three different users - User:Benjwong,User:HappyInGeneral and myself attempted to fix this - but the user has been continuing to revert attempts to restore the blanking- characterizing these attempts as "reflexive edits". On top of all this, when these edits of his are countered by other editors, the user resorts to baseless personal attacks of the sort.

Dilip rajeev (talk) 07:08, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

You're the one to talk. So far Dilip has:

• Been blocked 4 times already for disruptive editing
• Tried to get Ohconfucius (talk · contribs) banned by making false allegations on checkuser
• Falsely accused me and others of engaging in vandalism over content disputes
• Causing an article to be delisted from good article status
• Accused bobby fletcher (talk · contribs) of a Chinese spy by posting attack sites
• Took Antilived (talk · contribs) to the ANI, and insists on removing a source he views as propaganda, despite user consensus
• Continously removing tags from article headings without discussion
• Edit warring on the Sathya Sai Baba article and continously tried reinserting controversial material in dispite of arbcom result.--PCPP (talk) 08:20, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

PCPP, could you take a moment to tell us why is it that almost all your edits surround/target well sourced information critical of the CCP? Persecution of Tibetan Buddhists, 1989 Tiananmen Square Incident, Persecution of Falun Gong, Epoch Times, Tibetan Olympics 2008, Human Rights Torch Relay, Concerns and controversies over the 2008 Summer Olympics , Sujiatun Hospital, Xinhua News Agency, Organ harvesting in the People's Republic of China ‎... to point out a subset. Also, regarding your post above, I don't think this is the place for me to reply for each of these allegations - but regarding the "Bobby Fletcher" case you mention above - I'd like to clarify that I only pointed out that according to reputable sources, CCP has been employing people who engage in a disinformation campaign online - to cover up CCP's human rights violations. And regarding the particular user, there was an entire article on the user's activities on westernstandard.ca - and I just pointed that article out.

Dilip rajeev (talk) 01:06, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

PCPP, I was just taking another look at your contribution history! All I can say is.. I think it would have been a lot more factually-accurate/ honest on your part had you titled this post of yours "CCP activism on wikipedia!"

Dilip rajeev (talk) 02:06, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

There are a series of discrete issues. I'm not going to bother with a recrimination (like saying all the things you are saying but opposite), what it comes down to are what sources you can muster, and how you conform to wikipedia's content policies and guidelines. You say there are systematic problems, so why don't we try to solve it in a systematic way? I agree that the current approach is simply counterproductive: you come along once a month and do a big stack of reverts that leave the articles in a mess and delete swathes of well-researched information, then just get reverted. One thing is, if these discussions are to be fruitful, is to not divide people into camps. Painting a number of editors with the same brush is immediately unhelpful, and in this case also quite inaccurate. One thing: I look at every edit you do and basically only revert in the egregious cases where you've deleted stacks of info or offered no explanation or engaged in no discussion. I've also apologised in the past for reverting without being proactive in discussion, and since then I don't believe I have reverted without enhancement to the edit or something. There's also a certain onus on you, who is deleting information, to explain the reasons for it and be prepared to be challenged. You can't not respond to the arguments that are put up against you and then complain that it's unfair.

What we need to do is pick a place to begin and start scrutinising things carefully, deal with it article by article. You need to gather a whole lot of high-quality sources to back up what you're saying. The ideological and conspiracy themes you are raising are a waste of time. At the moment most of the articles are very carefully referenced to very high-quality sources; the only problem is that you don't like what you read. So pick an article to start and we'll do it section by section, looking at sources, referencing, and counter-arguments. I've always been a vocal advocate of this sort of careful, considered, and intelligent discussion, and I don't think I've ever pulled out the ideological brush to try to characterise your editing style, or dismiss what you are saying. What it needs is actual discussion of specific issues, rooted in policy and with strict reference to the highest-quality sources. If you are up for that, then let's get to it, because I also look forward to working produtively on these articles, too. Or it's just going to go around in circles. And believe me, I could write several long tirades in response to what you say, but what it still needs is to hash it out--so let's get down to it, and let's hash it out.--Asdfg12345 07:00, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

No, you're the one using your so called "high-quality material" as a way to promote your personal pro-FLG agenda. These sources has no problem if they're simply taken as statements on FLG. But when they're quoted en-masse and presented as factual evidence, this becomes a serious cause of concern. Your editing style consists of pushing a large amount of pro-FLG sources in order to squash any criticism. The several article mentioned above have more quotations from those so-called academics than than reported facts, and just because XXX academic said YYY about FLG doesn't automatically warrant inclusion into wikipedia.

And what of the articles themselves?

• Reports of organ harvesting from Falun Gong practitioners in China - material from Kilgour and Matas outweight any criticism of the claims, including those by US Dept of State and Harry Wu. This is not an essay on Kilgour and Matas, and therefore does not need three sections devoted to their allegations, especially unproven ones.
• Academic views on Falun Gong - earlier material from FLG critics such as the Chinese Buddhist Association, the US Anti-Cult Movement, and Maria Chang and several other sources has been mysteriously removed.
• Tiananmen Square self-immolation incident - dilip has inserted large amount of statements from Danny Schechter without consensus
• Persecution of Falun Gong - material relating to the Chinese view and justification has been removed into an attack page against the PRC government. There's more commentary than facts in this article, including ludicrous material on jiang Zemin's state of mind.
• Falun Gong outside mainland China - again, is there any justification for asdfg to insert whole sections on FLG demographics entirely based on claims entirely from Ownby?

I had enough of this "masquerading opinions as facts" BS. Several of my edits have been reverted when I only changed one goddamn word or sentence , , . You're a single purpose account that edits wikipedia solely to promote your real-life personal practition.

We are saving people. You are right: it is a sinking ship. We are trying to get as many people off the ship before it sinks. That is our purpose for doing all these things. The destruction of the CCP is inevitable because it has persecuted the Buddha Fa. Now we are trying to save as many people as possible before it is eliminated; all those who can still have a sense of justice woken up inside them, some righteous thoughts, and who are willing to listen to their consciences.

So there you go. I've addressed the issued in the past 2 years with little result. It's up to third party intervention from now on.--PCPP (talk) 08:20, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Also for the latest discussion please see: Misplaced Pages:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard#Persecution_of_Falun_Gong. --HappyInGeneral (talk) 08:57, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Speaking as a third party, this is clear pro-FG POV pushing. I mean, no neutral person would suggest the title contain the word "genocide" without a multitude of sources. Sceptre 19:42, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Warning Called For Collectonian

Collectonian's removal edit was uncalled for as the RfC was uninflammatory in any way and requested outside opinion on the dicussiontopic at hand. Can someone please give him a warning?68.148.149.184 (talk) 08:20, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't think the RFC was especially relevant. Stifle (talk) 08:53, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for notifying me of this thread (except, of course, you didn't). The RfC was unnecessary and completely irrelevant to the topic at hand. RfCs are not for trying to help a single person understand consensus, something you continue to refuse to do. For disclosure, the IP added TWO more to the guideline, again calling for Scientists, and I have removed them. I also noticed he is now making thinly veiled personal attacks, implying the unanimous voice against his inappropriate conduct are caused by people "have a problem with reading tables". This came about after the IP began mass changing film articles from the MoS preferred list format to tabular format and was reverted. In response, he came and modified the MoS without discussion to try to claim that it supported his preferred format. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 14:58, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

If anything, I should like to call for administrative action against the IP. I believe that his edit history with relation to the film style guideline and its talk page should be most illustrative, and would like to request a neutral admin to examine it. Many thanks, Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 01:58, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. As a side note, I am not the only one who has rejected his attempted at doing an RfC of scientists on the Film MoS. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 02:12, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Even is that was the case, you have started an edit war. The tags are not vandalism and inflammatory in any, which seems to be have misread. Instead of putting {{rfcmedia}}, I have put {{rfcstyle}}, per Stifle above, yet you seem to be unopen to outside opinion and spearhead with your personal vendetta (so it seems) so silence your opponent.

Now you are claiming that I am "... a single person ..." "... trying to ... understand consensus ...", which you have no proof of. But just so you know for your information, I am not.

Claiming incivility on my part with your own edits: , , , ?

Not only have you been engaged with an edit war, the pretense is that you did of 3 of these 4 edits were done before the page was listed on the linking rfc page. I really do not want to continue this edit war. If you continue to remove my tags without any meritable i.e. good reason to do so, I suggest you be forewarned.68.148.149.184 (talk) 02:44, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

You're not what? You're not one person? Its against guidelines to share accounts, so presumably multiple people grouping up to share an IP would b ethe same. Or you're just not trying to understand a clear consensus you've had multiple people explain to you? Adding irrelevant RfC's may not be text book vandalism, but it is disruptive and pointless, and that is good reason to remove it. As another person who removed your ridiculous RfC tags noted "this is borderline gibberish and has nothing whatsoever to do with this guideline" -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 02:55, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

You are entitled to your own opinion. Those rfc tags are disruptive, but so far, you are the only person to think so. But removing the tag repeatedly and repeatedly, is OUTLINED as vandalism. If you continue to do so I see a block in the very near future.68.148.149.184 (talk) 03:18, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

As a side note, the only injured parties in this section are from Wikiproject Films, of which were the ONLY aggrieved parties I have worked with. I.e., Girolamo Savonarola seems to be in collusion to silence me.68.148.149.184 (talk) 02:49, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Edit summary by PC78 is inflammatory. Please warn.68.148.149.184 (talk) 02:52, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

For any admins looking, the IP has now violated WP:3RR on the Film's MoS, after having already violated and been warned for the same issue on Watchmen (film). He is being completely disruptive. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 02:59, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

And after receiving the warning, the IP added the tag back yet again. Despite his claim below, he has made six reverts: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 04:06, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

For any admins looking, talk has violated the WP:3RR on Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Films/Style guidelines. Collectonian has presented false information as I have not made more than 2 reverts.

And any reverts on Watchmen (film) are not reverts on Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Films/Style guidelines, and which I have not been warned of the same issue, because the issue SHE has, I will repeat, SHE has, is that I am repeatedly posting the tags on to the talk page, only because she has repeated taken them off, WITHOUT ANY discussion. I see nothing wrong with getting an outside third opinion.

If Collectonian is mistaken, this may be because she mistook my adding both {{rfcmedia}} and {{rfcstyle}} and then just {{rfcstyle}} as edit waring. I apologize for that mistake. I will say it out here: I did not intend to vandalize, or disrupt, and I apologize for any inconvenience this may have caused.68.148.149.184 (talk) 03:13, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Then why do you keep doing it when you yourself just admitted to being disruptive and edit warring? -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 03:23, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

I did not admit to being disruptive. You started the edit war.68.148.149.184 (talk) 03:35, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

IP is also doing the same edit warring without discussion at Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment, trying to change the page. When he was reverted and requested to discuss it first, he simply redid his edits again without appropriate starting a discussion about his proposed changes. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 03:48, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Once again Girolamo Savonarola has removed my request for comment. I want to ask, why can I not ask for outside comment? Maybe you feel that scientists will not contribute anything to a discussion, but this is an open discussion and I am inviting scientists for the opinion. I request that scientists come and discuss the topic, but they are not the only demographic who are entitled to voice their opinion. Why would you even think that. Where in wikipedia is there censorship? Per his edit summary, you might be confusing your "8 opposes" with the section above. Do you know what systemic bias is? In this case, I want to get (hopefully more) unbiased contribution to the project. If your wikiproject has exclusive membership, I'm sure you project will be closed down for sure. I ask you to NOT REMOVE MY TAGS FOR OPINION. I HOPE I have explained this VERY CLEARLY.68.148.149.184 (talk) 03:52, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

In case no one got the idea, yes, he just did revert #7 . Can we please get a block? -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 04:06, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Now #8. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 04:43, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Already filed. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 09:00, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Prejudice and canvassing: Woogie10w and Molobo

Previous AN/I thread concerning user:Woogie10w

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

Recent developments

Continued disruption at The Holocaust by Woogie10w:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Random break. Input of uninvolved admins requested

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Excessive user-space usage

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Possible suicide threat

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

It would be interesting to see if an Abuse Filter could be constructed that would block various kinds of threats of violence. Baseball Bugs carrots 22:21, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

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

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

I gather that one editor actually did commit suicide in December. Were there any warning signs? Baseball Bugs carrots 03:13, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Racist comments

User Donadio left racist and offensive comments against Brazilians on talk page of article Arthur Friedenreich :

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

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

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

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

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

"Macaquitos" does mean "little monkeys" in Spanish. It is often used by Argentinians to ridicule what they perceive as a Brazilian tendency to copy everything American or European. How is this racist? Donadio (talk) 04:42, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

Radiojon

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

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

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

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

  • I strongly disagree with your assessment, Uncle G. Girolamo Savonarola and myself do not have any disagreement. Radiojon argued that "montage sequence" refers primarily to "video montage," an argument that does not find any support outside of Radiojon's misunderstanding of the concept of montage and misinterpretation of Misplaced Pages:Search engine test. Girolamo Savonarola simply moved the page to "Montage (filmmaking)" because it is the correct title after disambiguation (montage is a dab page). I agree with Girolamo Savonarola, and I feel that the new title is more inclusive of the general topic. So, in fact, Girolamo Savonarola and myself are in agreement, as we both disagree with Radiojon's move. (Did you somehow miss Girolamo Savonarola's edit summary?) This is one example of many bad page moves made by Radiojon since 2005 (possibly even as early as 2003) Currently, there are a total of 206 threaded discussions in Radiojon's user talk pages and archives. What percentage of Radiojon's 206 user talk discussions consist of disputed page moves? What percentage of Radiojon's page moves have been reverted? And finally, how many of these disputed and reverted page moves involve a discussion by Radiojon on either the user or article talk page? See below for a growing list of undiscussed page moves. The full list is enormous and would take hours to complete. Uncle G, please try to answer these questions and then revisit your position. Viriditas (talk) 13:15, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Undiscussed moves by Radiojon

This list is incomplete

• 24 August 2008 - Historic district (United States) to Historic district; Reverted by Nyttend Comments: ...move was undiscussed and actually reduces the quality of a GA

• The subsequent edit history, in which Radiojon added the "globalize" template to the article, indicates that this move was part of an unilateral undiscussed initiative by Radiojon to convert this from a US-specific article to a global article. --Orlady (talk) 16:58, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

• 20 December 2008 - Low pressure area to Low-pressure area; Reverted by Juliancolton Comments: rv undiscussed move
• 24 February 2009 - Wears Valley, Tennessee to Wears Valley; Reverted by Orlady Comments: Misplaced Pages naming conventions

• After the move, Radiojon did make one comment at Talk:Wears Valley, Tennessee#"Tennessee" in article name. Apparently he had decided (without discussion and possibly without reading the article) that because the article topic is treated by the US Census Bureau as a census county division, it is not actually a populated place and should not use the state name in the article title. --Orlady (talk) 16:58, 16 May 2009 (UTC) PS - I can't find any other responses to the comments posted on his talk page (User talk:Radiojon#Wears Valley, Tennessee). --Orlady (talk) 17:20, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

• 25 February 2009 - Moved White box testing to White-box testing and Black box testing to Black-box testing. No discussion. Moves have not been reversed, but the hyphens were not added to the text of the articles, only to the titles.
• 4 March 2009 - moved Automated airport weather station to Automated weather station; Reverted by Famartin Does not respond or engage in either the discussion initiated on his user talk page or on the discussion started on the article talk page, however, he continues to move the page.
• 16 April 2009 - Explosively formed penetrator to Explosively-formed penetrator; Reverted by BillFlis. Comments: Adverbs ending in -ly do not require a hyphen
• 24 April 2009 moved North American call sign to Broadcast call sign to Broadcast callsign;; Closeapple disagrees with the move and requests an explanation. Radiojon does not respond on either his talk page, the article talk page, or on the talk page of Closeapple. A second user, 121a0012 also questions the move on Talk:Broadcast_callsign saying that the Article should not have been moved. Consensus on the talk page is to move the article back to its original title. To date, Radiojon has not provided the requested explanation or engaged in any discussion of this move.

Note on naming conventions

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

Wears Valley is not a particularly well-known place. --Orlady (talk) 17:07, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

But is it the only notable Wears Valley? rootology (C)(T) 17:32, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Radiojon's move was not motivated by a notion that this is the only "Wears Valley" in the world, but rather by a misconception that it's a landform and not a community (see my note above). Regardless, because there is some ambiguity about its name, the inclusion of "Tennessee" is very helpful. Wears Valley is an unincorporated community with no legal existence, although it had about 6,500 people nine years ago and has grown quite a lot since then. Its name is unofficial, and (before Radiojon moved the page) we had some discussion here about whether its correct name is "Wears Valley," "Wear Valley", "Wear's Valley," or possibly "Wears Cove" or "Wear Cove." To further complicate there's also a Wear Valley in England. In view of the potential for confusion, I've just now created Wear Valley (disambiguation). --Orlady (talk) 17:47, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

It's irrelevant if it's the only Wears Valley or not. The decision about New York, Boston, Seattle etc. wasn't about them being the only places with those names, it was about them being so prominent that they can be referred to without attached disambiguation. That applies to only a few world-class places, and it's clearly not the case with Wears Valley. Ed Fitzgerald _{t / c} 23:04, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Analysis

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

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

Yet another legal threat

Could someone please block this guy. I believe this IP is the same person as Inhwiki (talk · contribs), but I don't really think it's worth taking to SPI, since his only interest on WP seems to be promoting his gin operation, and once the train-wreck of an AfD closes we'll probably not have to deal with him again (except perhaps for repeated recreations of the article). Deor (talk) 02:34, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Since we don't indef IPs, I have blocked for 1 year or until the legal threat is credibly retracted. CIreland (talk) 02:38, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

I noted this block on the AfD. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 02:48, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm taking this to SPI. The disruption at the AFD needs to be addressed, and I have strong suspicion that all those SPAs are the same user. MuZemike 06:02, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Notice of an editor who is vandalizing multiple pages

I hve a concern about a Misplaced Pages "editor" named MetalMagnet1987. This user first came on my radar when I noticed he removed information about one of the singles in the Jane's Addiction discography article. I have followed some of his edits and noticed he is vandalizing multiple articles. He is removing factual data with no explanation, such as changing the status of the Aerosmith song Fever from "single" to merely "song" repeatedly. He is apparently removing chart positions relating to charts he doesn't consider legitimate. One of his most recent vandalism efforts was to the U2 discography article. A glance at his talk page reveals multiple frustrated editors tired of him removing and altering chart information without cause or explanation. His purpose on Misplaced Pages is clearly only to vandalize articles and he makes at least a dozen edits a day. He should be banned immediately. Nightmareishere (talk) 03:10, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

You could consider reporting this user to WP:AIV or, as the user has not received sufficient warnings, can warn him/her. -download ׀ sign! 03:15, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Notice of an editor who has vandalized multiple pages

I have a concern about a Misplaced Pages "editor" named MetalMagnet1987. This user first came on my radar when I noticed he removed information about one of the singles in the Jane's Addiction discography article. I have followed some of his edits and noticed he is vandalizing multiple articles. He is removing factual data with no explanation, such as changing the status of the Aerosmith song Fever from "single" to merely "song" repeatedly. He is apparently removing chart positions relating to charts he doesn't consider legitimate. One of his most recent vandalism efforts was to the U2 discography article. He just vandalized the Saliva (band) article a few minutes ago.A glance at his talk page reveals multiple frustrated editors tired of him removing and altering chart information without cause or explanation. His purpose on Misplaced Pages is clearly only to vandalize articles and he makes at least a dozen edits a day. He should be banned immediately. Nightmareishere (talk) 03:23, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Above comment moved from WP:AIV. –Juliancolton |  03:24, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

How about if you ANI and AVI folks stop bouncing this notice back and forth between each other and deal with this issue I have reported? Nightmareishere (talk) 03:29, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

This user has only received two warnings. It is usually standard to give an editor 4 warnings before blocking. -download ׀ sign! 03:35, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Now he has three warnings. Nightmareishere (talk) 03:46, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

You also need to fill out a TPS report and deliver it in triplicate to the Wikimedia Foundation offices. Good luck finding them --NE2 08:29, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

• Four warnings are not always necessary. A review of this editor's contributions show that the problem has persisted for six months, and/he has been made aware of it. Accordingly, I have blocked this editor indefinitely, or until a commitment to follow WP:V and WP:RS is demonstrated. Rodhullandemu 14:56, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, Rodhullandemu. I have gone back and undone many of his most recent edits, but I imagine there could be hundreds of articles over the past six months that contain inaccurate information, or had useful information removed. I don't know if I have the time or the desire to spend hours and hours reviewing all his edits to correct any uncorrected vandalism, but maybe I will. Maybe some of us could split up the work? Nightmareishere (talk) 18:42, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps a mass rollback could work? -download ׀ sign! 21:42, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

More article ownership by Opinoso

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

Plus, insisting that there is something like a "2008 Census" in Brazil, which is false - the source is clear that those are "estimativas", estimates. But Opinoso cannot stand the idea that other people edit "his" articles, so he reverses correct information. This is disruption, and should be accordingly treated. Donadio (talk) 04:55, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

Also here:

Various grammatical corrections suppressed, because Opinoso cannot allow anyone else to edit "his" articles. Also edit warring to maintain POV ("persecution" instead of "discrimination"), and contending that broken links are valid sources. Donadio (talk) 05:13, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

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

My experience is that talking to Opinoso is impossible. He either ignores all attempts to address the issues (see, for instance, White Brazilian, protected for more than two weeks so that consensus can be achieved, and systematically ignored by him), or hurls back a series of insults and provocations. But... I will try. Donadio (talk) 13:53, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

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

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

Have a good night. I hope you have noticed that I have also tried to start a discussion in Talk: German Brazilian, on subjects as varied as the concept of "persecution" as opposed to "discrimination", the suitability of using the adjective "guilty" in reference to languages in a formal context, and whether mayors "down" decrees or merely "issue" them. Thank you for taking interest in this. Donadio (talk) 14:37, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

He seems to misunderstand a few things:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Copyright/promotional material on user talk page

What is the position about copyright material on user talk pages? Aubergedusoleil (talk · contribs) was blocked yesterday as a promotional/role account after posting spam material copied from http://www.aubergedusoleil.com/html/story.shtml; he has now posted it on his talk page, replacing the warnings and block notice. He may well own the copyright, but it has not been properly released, and anyway is inappropriately promotional. JohnCD (talk) 09:36, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

David Chaytor BLP issues

• David Chaytor (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• CIreland (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
• 81.100.190.97 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

For those not following UK news, David Chaytor was recently suspended from the British Labour Party while his expenses claims are investigated. User:81.100.190.97 has been persistently making unsourced edits that allege that the expenses claims are fraudulent andI have been reverting him (3RR exempt).

However, because there is the possibility that, because I am a member of the Labour Party, there is the potential for the appearance of a conflict of interest here, I would be grateful if someone else could take over monitoring this article and take whatever steps seem necessary with respect to 81.100.190.97. I certainly wish to avoid taking any admin-capacity actions here, but will put the protection of the article subject above all else, if necessary.

CIreland (talk) 17:50, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

• I'll happily keep an eye on this since I am not a member of any organised political party (cue Will Rogers joke....). WP:BLP will be rigorously enforced. Rodhullandemu 17:53, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Promotional spam from 155.135.55.229 - hitting notable billionare articles.

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

User who repeatedly uploads copyvio images despite numerous warnings

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

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

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

Attempt at off-site meat puppetry

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

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

User:QuotationMan and Declan Ganley etc

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

http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Special:Contributions&limit=500&target=QuotationMan

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Stalking by User:Fondesep

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

1. The United States Holocaust Memorial Museum, CHILDREN DURING THE HOLOCAUST
2. The United States Holocaust Memorial Museum Poles as Victims of the Nazi Era
3. Tadeusz Piotrowski, Poland's Holocaust