Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 09:55, 4 January 2008

• WP:ANI
• WP:AN/I

This page is for urgent incidents or chronic, intractable behavioral problems.

• Before posting:
  • Read these tips for dealing with incivility
  • If the issue concerns a specific user, try discussing it with them on their talk page
  • Try dispute resolution
  • Just want an admin? Contact a recently active admin directly.
• Be brief and include diffs demonstrating the problem
• Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead go to Requests for oversight.

When starting a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page; pinging is not enough.
You may use {{subst:ANI-notice}} ~~~~ to do so.

Closed discussions are usually not archived for at least 24 hours. Routine matters might be archived more quickly; complex or controversial matters should remain longer. Sections inactive for 72 hours are archived automatically by Lowercase sigmabot III. Editors unable to edit here are sent to the /Non-autoconfirmed posts subpage. (archives, search)

• A request for adminship is open for discussion.
• Voluntary RfAs after resignation
• Allowing page movers to enable two-factor authentication
• Rewriting the guideline Misplaced Pages:Please do not bite the newcomers
• Should comments made using LLMs or chatbots be discounted or even removed?

Unblock of Callmebc

So, about a month ago Callmebc was indefinitely blocked because he had basically given up on "editing in a collaborative spirit" and was becoming abusive and disruptive over the topic. Since there was no apparent way to fix his behavior, he was blocked for a long period of time. While blocked, he has remained up to date as a lurker on the topic he was previously engaged in, and we have been (quite genially, I might add) discussing how his editing habits might be improved, since he has an honest desire to contribute to these subjects in a constructive fashion. As you can see from his block log, he has not been a perfect editor, to put it mildly — however, we've discussed a lot of these issues, and I think he has a sincere desire to begin "editing in a collaborative spirit".

Since I'm not here to play parole officer, or pretend I'm some kind of behavior-police (something which I do not believe is the correct role of admins), I've mostly discussed with him how to address the concerns many people brought up in his previous blocks, and the discussion which led up to his indefinite block. In any case, since I didn't want to put words in his mouth or set "conditions" for unblocking him, we decided that he should work up a statement of compromises that he's willing to make to engage his unblock.

Statement by "Callmebc"

I wish to be unblocked from Misplaced Pages. I was indefinitely blocked apparently because of my attitude -- I put accuracy above all else, and I don't play well with others whom I suspect of not being honest. This has led me to be combative and somewhat sarcastic at times, with both other editors and admins. While I feel very strongly that whatever comments I have made were entirely justified in context, I understand that Misplaced Pages is not all about being accurate at all costs -- it is a social, collaborative effort requiring some degree of patience, tolerance, encouragement and giving editors and admins the benefit of the doubt even when I strongly disagree with what is being said or done.

I've been inactive over a month and thought about behaviorial & attitude changes I can agree to that would strike a balance between my wanting things accurate and up to date in a timely manner, and the Wiki process of collaboration and WP:AGF. This is what I think would be a good compromise:

1) I will refrain from making any changes at all to the main article page without first going through a Talk page discussion. If the discussion degrades to WP:TE, and WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT, and WP:GAME (as is often the case with politically sensitive topics), I will still avoid simply going ahead to make the changes anyway and instead will follow Misplaced Pages policies regarding WP:DR

The only exceptions I'll will be blatant vandalism and substantial undiscussed changes I have problems with in terms of accuracy and content -- I will just revert the first as a matter of course, and will revert the second with a note on the editor's home page to please discuss first on the Talk page. In the second case, if the editor makes an effort to discuss the changes, I will follow consensus and not object to putting the changes back even if I still have problems with them. If it is an issue with a single editor wanting to change something and there is no other feedback from anyone else, I will instead again follow Misplaced Pages policies regarding WP:DR rather than engage in an edit war.

2) I will endeavor to be polite, regardless of the circumstances and provocation. The articles I tend to be interested in are politically charged and regularly draw in anonymous IP's, sock/meatpuppets and the like. In the worst case I will only adopt a neutral tone and will strive to avoid even making sarcastic remarks, however "appropriate" the circumstances might be.

3) I will give everyone the benefit of the doubt, and then some, regardless of my suspicions. I will even go further and start with a clean sheet in regards to editors and admins I have bumped heads with in the past and regardless of my personal opinions. In real life, you get to pick your job but not your coworkers, and you are expected to get along regardless. The same is much the case with the Misplaced Pages -- you can pick which articles to work on, but you can't choose your coeditors, and you should try to get along regardless. They may include people you would never want to socialize with, but that's not the point of why you're there in either case.

4) In a nutshell, I will endeavor to improve the quality of articles without violating, however accidently, the collaborative spirit of Misplaced Pages.

-BC aka Callmebc

As you can see, it basically amounts to a self-imposed probation on all articles, with civility probation attached. I think this will satisfy most of the concerns which surrounded his editing pre-block, but I wanted to bring it up for discussion here. So, what do you think? It would be helpful if comment could focus on particular requirements you think are not met in this, if you are opposed. For consideration, --Haemo (talk) 04:02, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Frankly, I am always concerned when users try to get themselves unblocked in unusual fashions. I would rather Callmebc go through (since email is not disabled) and just request an unblock through unblock-en-l@lists.wikimedia.org first before coming here. If that is rejected, then fine, but AN/I is frankly too fast for a discussion of this type. If some admin is willing to consider it, I'd suggest unprotecting his user talk page and discussing it there instead of here. No opinion, just a random admin musing through. Frankly, after seeing your diatribes as unblock requests, I'd say to at least wait until the end of the month before even considering it and learn why your unblock requests got you deservedly blocked even worse. I'll add this: if (1) this thread goes nowhere, (2) he's emailed unblock and they've denied it as well, have him email me and I'll consider unprotecting his talk page after December 28 . Even then, I'm going to ask that at least one of the users who you are edit warring with agrees to the restrictions and will reblocked immediately and permanently for any nonsense. After this many blocks (and especially given the attitude during the blocked periods), I think I'm being way more than fair. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:10, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

To be fair, this is not really an "unusual fashion". I was discussing with Callmebc on-Wiki when he was appealing his block in the usual fashion. However, our discussion was cut short when his talk page was protected, but he had contacted me via email, so we decided to continue the discussion via email. There is nothing unusual about this, and it seems slightly bureaucratic to insist on jumping through hoops like reposting an extensive discussion we've had via email on his talk pages, or emailing a list which will only result in a discussion here — since this is clearly a case where the community needs to get involved. To be fair, in addition, its now been more than 1 month since his block was implemented. With respect to the "too fast" comment, the community sanction board was merged with WP:ANI — so this is de facto the only place to bring up discussions of this nature; the consensus was that WP:ANI is not "too fast", but is in fact the correct forum for these discussions. --Haemo (talk) 08:11, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

To be honest it may seem bureaucratic but it is justified, he knew his talk page was going to be protected if he used it disruptively and he went ahead and gave a rather pointy reason for unblocking, wich was: "See below -- I was in the middle of composing an answer and proposition to Haemo when MaxSem shot first without asking me any questions. That wasn't nice or WP:CIVIL of him, was it?" the talk page was protected shortly after this last request was denied, there is no reason why the desicion to protect could be considered out of place. - Caribbean~H.Q. 08:30, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm not saying it was out of place — I was simply explaining that the discussion we began there was continued via email, instead of by arguing over the protection. I merely made the comment to explain why it was not an "unusual fashion" — i.e. it's not as though he contacted me out of the blue, or something, asking for an unblock. --Haemo (talk) 08:35, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

• If Callmebc is unblocked, it should be on the proviso that there is a topic ban from articles related to George W. Bush's National Guard service, interpreted liberally and to include all comments including on user talk, and on a permanent final warning about WP:BLP. See VRTS ticket # Ticket ID parameter missing. and VRTS ticket # Ticket ID parameter missing. for evidence of this editor's single-minded determination to pursue an agenda in violation of WP:BLP, causing great offence to a living individual in the process. I am not in favour of unblocking, personally, but as I say, any unblock should be contingent on some form of editing restriction. The above comments about "accuracy above all else" do not augur well, indicating that Callmebc self-identifies as a bearer of The Truth™, rather than accepting or engaging the numerous legitimate criticisms. Guy (Help!) 09:00, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

  I don't have OTRS access, so I'll take your word for it. Since he appears to be mostly involved in the Killian Documents issues, and global warming, I'm not sure if he'll be willing to agree to that. However, he might, so I will consider broaching it with him after this discussion wraps up. He may be the bearer of The Truth™, but I think his comments show that he's realized that he has to compromise and engaged with us unenlightened ones, as well. --Haemo (talk) 09:04, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Agree with the above. Normally he would be allowed to use his talk page to argue his point but he abused it for days so no one should act like he deserves to be unblocked or any sympathy for his circumstances. Now, he should go through the process and ask via email. Frankly, I didn't realize he was getting to the point of OTRS tickets (I probably wouldn't have even offered to unblock if I knew he was that far gone) so Guy's topic ban has to be strictly enforced (I don't even want him on the talk pages there). Maybe even a requirement that he can only go on articles that don't have WP:BLP concerns? Either way, if he does "jump through all the hoops", I'll go to each of the talk pages and ask about him. Frankly, Haemo, I'm doing him a huge favor (as I feel this is going to take a lot of my time) and honestly, I'd prefer it if I felt that he realized that editing here is a privilege, not a right that can be abused and then "I'm sorry", "all is forgiven" after a diatribe against everyone. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 09:15, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, he's a passionate guy — he's shown me as much in his emails. I think he has experience which might be of use to the project; however, the problems related to his behavior are an issue for the community to settle. Passion and conviction are not a recipe for temperance — as his past behavior has shown. However, I think he understand now that temperance is necessary to participate in this community. As you can see, he's made some serious concessions and appears willing to talk about things. This is a big step forward, and means a lot more than just an "I'm sorry". --Haemo (talk) 09:32, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

• This editor should not be unblocked at this time. I have had first hand experience in dealing with him. Instead, advise him to participate successfully in another Wiki, such as WikiNews, for three to six months and then he can apply for reinstatement. - Jehochman 09:26, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

• Do you really think that would help? The issue here is behavior; our sister projects are not test-beds for problem editors, and we should not use them as such. If we refuse to unblock him due to behavior problems, why would should inflict that behavior on a sister project in order test the waters for an unblock? It seems backwards — if he's trustworthy enough to edit WikiNews, then he should be trustworthy enough to edit Misplaced Pages — the negation of this should apply equally. --Haemo (talk) 09:32, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

• Sister projects have much less visibility as Misplaced Pages. Those who merely want to soapbox won't bother. Those who have a sincere desire to participate will. - Jehochman 09:58, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

• I'm not sure that's compelling. Perhaps they have a sincere desire to participate in a proper encyclopedia, not WikiNews or Simple English Misplaced Pages? An editor could very well be ready to turn over a new leaf, but not want to spend half a year doing something they have no interest in as a litmus test for whether they want to use Misplaced Pages as a soapbox. Many editors who want to contribute in good faith, and have turned over a new leaf would balk at such a suggestion and refuse. It's seem pretty punitive, and serves little purpose — if he's unblocked here, and starts soapboxing, then he'll have violated the terms he's already agreed to, and will be blocked. I don't believe in sending our problem users to other projects, especially as part of litmus tests which have no precedent (IIRC) and little evidence that they will actually do what we want. --Haemo (talk) 10:15, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

• JzG, I have OTRS access but can't see that one, either... o.O - Penwhale | 09:55, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

I really don't support him being unblocked yet, I know that unblock consideration can take place anytime but the last time he displayed disruptive behavior was about three weeks ago, while blocked this shows disregard for losing his editing privilege wich makes me question his desire to return, not to the point of assuming bad faith but I have to wonder if his intention is to push his past agenda in a more subtle manner. I wouldn't even consider unblocking this user without severe editing limitations like the ones presented above. - Caribbean~H.Q. 10:29, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Just to clarify, he's come up with those above by himself as suggestions for restrictions he feels are reasonable. --Haemo (talk) 10:37, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

I was refering to Guy's topic ban, and the subsecuent comment that sugested that said ban was extended to talk pages. - Caribbean~H.Q. 10:46, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Callmebc has repeatedly used talk pages to promote precisely the same offending content that was a problem in article space, and his abuse of his talk page for this was a factor in it being protected. I fixed the OTRS ticket links, incidentally. Sorry about that. Guy (Help!) 16:31, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I guess I can go along with this. The tone of his message is reasonable and the editing conditions he's come up with for himself look quite decent. Someone will always be around to enforce them. I don't think a topic-ban is necessary - if he comes back and does the same thing over-and-over-again we can just slap the ban back on. Cheers, Moreschi 10:55, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

• I really do think we need to make it crystal clear that no comments about the individual concerned will be tolerated. Callmebc has offended the complainant, and the best course will unquestionably be for Callmebc to refrain form making any further comment in respect of this person. If that is acceptable to Callmebc then I have no objection; if Callmebc will not undertake to leave this person alone then I cannot support unblocking. Guy (Help!) 16:34, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

I am a firm believer in second chances, but I think the myriad chances given to this user to shape up have been completely exhausted. It's rather easy for uninvolved spectators to say he should be allowed to try to edit articles again, but as a person who's borne the brunt of his attacks and incivility, I wouldn't consider it an option. ~ UBeR (talk) 19:43, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm not exactly saying that; rather, I'm giving him an avenue to express his desire to contribute, and the concessions he's willing to make. You've mentioned that your concerns stem from his incivility and personal attacks. What more would you like to see from him that is not already expressed in terms of what he's agreed to? --Haemo (talk) 23:48, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, my first restriction on him potentially is that he stay off article space completely for one month, once and if he's unblocked; only talk space edits. I want to see if he is actually interested in discussing his views and can get others to agree based on persuasion, not by force. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 02:04, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm a non-admin who has had a lot of contact with "BC" since before he registered as Callmebc. While our opinions about the Killian Documents are quite different, I would like to note for the record that he has helped improve our articles about those documents in some fairly significant ways. "BC" has sometimes drifted into a self-defeating pattern of incivility (this appears to be cyclical, as do his bursts of amazing energy), but I'd like him to get one more chance. CWC 03:55, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Since ArbCom determined that User:Vintagekits deserves a second chance, then this erudite and productive editor deserves several - and promptly. Alice 14:22, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Callmebc was deleting my edits because he couldn't find an online copy of cited material, and later because he couldn't find what was in it. He could still do that under his understanding of truth: "The only exceptions I'll will be blatant vandalism and substantial undiscussed changes I have problems with in terms of accuracy and content -- I will just revert the first as a matter of course, and will revert the second with a note on the editor's home page to please discuss first on the Talk page." Only his unnecessary Talk messages will increase. -- SEWilco (talk) 03:45, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Callmebc doesn't have ('special counsel') Giano on his team, so I should imagine that if he pulls a stunt like calling good faith editors vandals and reverting them, he will get chopped off at the legs again - this time justifiably.

Callmebc needs to promptly give the undertaking to refrain from any personal comment whatever concerning the "complainant" (as Guy suggested) and then he should be unblocked. A preliminary step should be for his talk page to be unprotected so that he can give plain and unequivocal assurances there in full view of the aggrieved parties (and, hopefully, those same parties can confirm there and then, on Callmebc's talk page that they accept the undertakings in good faith). Misplaced Pages is a collegiate project and Callmebc needs to demonstrate that he has learnt that now; his relayed statement above certainly talks the talk - unprotecting his talk page would mean we could all be satisfied that he walks the walk too. Alice 05:29, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, just exactly that. Guy (Help!) 23:49, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

• I hope I don't seem like a sucker here, but it seems that callmebc recognizes the problems that lead to his block/ban and will endeavor to prevent them in the future. I, for one, would be supportive of a trial unblock to see how it goes. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 16:51, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Passionate at times. If he can control that, he will be a great editor. In addition, notice that, to the best of our knowledge, he has not used socks which supports the view that he is a good editor, just loses it at times. Give him a chance. Brusegadi (talk) 06:47, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

• unblock It is Christmas. Give him a chance (again). Seriously, he states he will make a strong effort to improve. He can always be blocked again if he reverts to his old ways. Gtstricky 17:02, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Another non-adminstrator who's had exchanges with callmebc in the past; well said, Gtstricky, and a Merry Christmas /or insert winter holiday of choice/ to you all. htom (talk) 17:51, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

It's now five days since the matter of Callmebc's block and user talk page protection was raised here.

Although Guy does not seem to violently disapprove of the protection being removed, he's still omitted to un-protect User talk:Callmebc (I also requested that here).

Mindful of ArbCom's opinion in another matter: "Since administrators are strongly discouraged from reversing one another's blocks, it is of particular importance that blocking admins respond to good-faith requests to review blocks they have made. Similarly, administrators who perform independent reviews of unblock requests are expected to familiarize themselves with the full facts of the matter before marking the unblock request "declined."" and "It is important for all users, but especially administrators, to be aware of their own agendas, feelings and passions, and to deal with them appropriately, avoiding both biased editing and ill-considered administrative actions.", can anyone now suggest a way forward since the consensus seems to be to exercise some generosity of spirit here? Alice 02:48, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

It looks like no admin is willing to unblock. Having said that, I will make an offer. I've had a little experience with Callmebc and think that he is capable of being a constructive editor -- even a very good editor -- if he can rein in his passions. I'm willing to unblock Callmebc and give him advice as to how he can proceed constructively. The condition I require is that if he goes over the line, I will reinstate the block at my sole and uncontested discretion. I'm willing to serve as an informal advisor but am not willing to get into an endless back-and-forth. If he gets into a rut of tendentious editing or other inappropriate behavior, I re-block and wash my hands of the matter. Raymond Arritt (talk) 03:03, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

I think that's very fair, Raymond. I hope Callmebc and Guy will think so too.

By the way, I've stolen your Highland Cattle for my user page. Alice 03:40, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Listen, just relax. I too am willing to unblock him, given the discussion here, but I want everyone to be able to chime in, and to get Callmebc's opinion about some of the suggestions made in the thread. I have been in constant contact with him via and email, and he is pleased with the way things are going. There is no need to create any additional conflict over this issue. --Haemo (talk) 04:08, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

I oppose the unblock, as an editor who sees that callmebc still thinks he's got 'The Truth', as evidenced by his opening statement justifying all he's previously done: "I put accuracy above all else, and I don't play well with others whom I suspect of not being honest." That's "I have The Truth, thus I did the right thing and you all can't see it." Why would we continue to invite someone back whose 'apology' is 'yeah, but i was right and they weren't so they started it and i was just fixing everyone's mess'? No. No more agenda warriors and POV pushers, we have plenty. ThuranX (talk) 14:25, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

With respect, Thuranx, I don't read his statement that way. I read it as him being honest and non-delusional about his own innate motivation and world outlook and recognising that it will take a big and constant effort from him to adapt to our collaborative way of doing things.

But I do think that this is a dialogue that you (and possibly others) need to be having with Callmebc himself - which is why I would strongly plead again for his talk page to be unprotected right now. Alice 19:45, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

A little late to the party (been away for Christmas) but I'd just like to add that I support an unblock and am willing to do it myself. I'm going to leave that action up to Haemo, of course, but I wanted it to be clear that there are admins willing to unblock. - auburnpilot talk 03:30, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

That's three admins who have clearly stated they are willing to unblock and I concur that unblocking is best left to Haemo who says that he is in constant contact, but what about the page protection? We need to be fair not just to Callmebc but to those who have reservations and wish some dialogue so that they can be reassured (or otherwise). Would one of you admins please unprotect the talk page right now as I can not see any objections being voiced to that unprotect after more than a week of discussing Callmebc's block and user talk page protection. Alice 07:42, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Given the torrent of abuse that he previously let loose on his Talk page, I'm not willing to unblock the page. He's in contact with Haemo so that's fine as far as communication. My own unblock offer does not require discussion, just a simple yes or no (which can be communicated by email). Raymond Arritt (talk) 01:36, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

I see nothing productive that can come from this user on the Killian Documents issue. He should be unblocked only on condition he stay away from that topic, per Guy. Otherwise he'll go right back to insisting on including his original research in that article (and I'll be happy to return from my Wikibreak for the express purpose of stopping that from happening). - Merzbow (talk) 03:48, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Just so everyone knows, I emailed him a little while ago to try and wrap up this whole thing. I will keep everyone posted! --Haemo (talk) 04:00, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! Alice 04:06, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

I'll be away for a few days and I know that this section will shortly be archived (into oblivion if there are no further edits) so, would it be possible to drop me a line on my talk page (or by e-mail) when there are any developments with this particular Callmebc theme, since this whole page falls off my watchlist after 9 days? Happy New Year! Alice 05:04, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

If nobody is going to reply or deal with this, please would the admins that previously said they would update us do so now and then this section can fairly be archived - otherwise it just looks like it's being swept under the carpet again.

Haemo? Alice 09:07, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Just relax. He doesn't seem to be in any great hurry, and he latest emails reflect that he understands what people expect from him. I'm going to go send him one last email, before wrapping this up. --Haemo (talk) 05:21, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Mikep2008a

Hello,

I find the first sentence of his userpage not really appropriate with our scope (building an encyclopedia). Would you agree with that ? I put a message on his talk page but I think it would require some people to track that. Thanks. Poppy (talk) 14:04, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

I concur. Also, the use of non-free content on userpages is not allowed. I've left a message to that effect. -JodyB _talk 14:14, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

I concur, too - and I've removed the first sentence and fair use stuff. diff Happy New Year, Jack Merridew 14:28, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

User is repeatedly re-adding the non-free content to his user page, despite the warnings: here and here. I've once again removed the content ,which has now been done a total of 1, 2, 3, 4 times by different editors. I've also left a 3RR warning for this user. I see a block in the near future if he continues. - Rjd0060 (talk) 15:40, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Looking back further, User:ImageBacklogBot (User:ST47) also removed the non-free content. --Jack Merridew 15:48, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Blocked 1 hour by User:JodyB. Probably keep an eye after the block expires. - Rjd0060 (talk) 15:55, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Isn't that whole User page one big copyvio, since it's a cut and paste from the Kylie Minogue article? Corvus cornix_talk 18:23, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, the userpage was a copyright violation. I've blanked it, and issued a warning. JodyB already has spoken to the user (who is currently blocked) and I assume Jody is monitoring for further violations. Avruchtalk 23:56, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

User:JzG misuse of page protection

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

JzG consecutive edits to Condensed matter nuclear science:

represent a violation of the page protection policy on two counts:

• Except in cases of clear vandalism, or issues with legal impact such as copyright or defamation, pages protected in an edit war are protected in whatever version they happen to be currently in.
• During edit wars, administrators should not protect pages when they are involved as a party to the dispute, except in the case of simple vandalism or libel issues against living people.

I have notified him on his user talk page and asked him to remedy this: . Since then, he has responded to others on his talk page: , but has not responded to my notice, nor taken any action with regard to it. Kevin Baas 19:30, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't see any issue with his two edits to that page, he's fixing a mistake and formating a source. FeloniousMonk (talk) 19:38, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, JzG's reasoning seems accurate. I see no abuse here. RyanGerbil10(Говорить!) 19:42, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Whatever the nature of the edits, I'd like to note that User:JzG did not fully protect the page; User:Doc glasgow did.--Moonriddengirl 19:41, 1 January 2008 (UTC) (eep. Didn't notice the redirect!)

Doesn't seem to be a problem here. Avruchtalk 19:43, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Just to check, has anyone actually read the diffs, or are we all going off FeloniousMonk's statement? -Amarkov moo! 19:45, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

I looked - I don't see a problem with restoring a redirect on a POV fork and protecting it. The below information is transferred from a different thread above (As yet unresponded to) and is a little more complicated (and deals with a different page). Avruchtalk 19:51, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

That is a POV judgement and is immaterial to the policies in question. Kevin Baas 20:16, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Good. I was a bit worried when I started reading about how redirection is the same thing as "fixing a mistake and formatting a source". -Amarkov moo! 19:53, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

I think you guys might be looking at the cold fusion article history. JzG made the condensed matter nuclear science page a redirect to cold fusion. So you've got to backwards from the redirect: .

There was a series of reverts back and forth between an article with content: and a redirect: , involving multiple people.

JzG is heavily involved in multiple disputes about condensed matter nuclear science on the cold fusion talk page. Page protection policy states that:

• "During edit wars, administrators should not protect pages when they are involved as a party to the dispute, except in the case of simple vandalism or libel issues against living people."

Before protecting the page, JzG reverted it back to the version that he prefers. Page protection policy states that:

• "Except in cases of clear vandalism, or issues with legal impact such as copyright or defamation, pages protected in an edit war are protected in whatever version they happen to be currently in."

Kevin Baas 19:54, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

In both cases, JzG violated wikipedia page protection policy in letter and principle. Kevin Baas 19:55, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

In my case, you are quite right. I didn't notice that I had been redirected, and we had just been discussing the matter of the Cold fusion article at the help desk. --Moonriddengirl 19:58, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

JzG doesn't like "POV forks" and likes to remove them . violet/riga (t) 20:27, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Calling something a POV fork is itself a POV. The fact is that it's status as such is clearly disputed by multiple users (as one can see just by looking at the edit history). And JzG is involved in this dispute, thus it is against policy for him to use his admin power to protect the page. Misplaced Pages policy is clear and explicit on this issue. Kevin Baas 20:31, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Um, Condensed matter nuclear science was redirected to Cold fusion because it was a POV fork. FeloniousMonk (talk) 20:44, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Calling something a POV fork is itself a POV. The fact is that it's status as such is clearly disputed by multiple users (as one can see just by looking at the edit history). And JzG is involved in this dispute, thus it is against policy for him to use his admin power to protect the page. Misplaced Pages policy is clear and explicit on this issue. Kevin Baas 20:31, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

From talk:cold fusion: a pro-cold fusion reference says "... renamed their subject more appropriately, Condensed Matter Nuclear Science". Add to this Ed Poor's history of creating POV forks, and honestly I can't see how nipping this in the bud was wrong for the encyclopaedia. A redirect is obviously the right outcome, per the source cited, and if he'd created one instead of trying to fork the content then we would be tanking him for helping out. Guy (Help!) 23:27, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Point 1: Cold fusion (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) is protected due to the effects of a protracted attempt to insert fringe science.

Point 2: At least three POV-forks have been used to try to get around WP:NPOV and page protection; 2004 DoE panel on cold fusion (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) was just deleted, this was another, Cold fusion research (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) was a third.

Point 3: Kevin Baas brought this up on my talk page and then came here only an hour later; sorry, Kevin, I'll stop visiting my father in hospital so I can respond to your demands in a timescale you find acceptable.

Point 4: I did not identify the POV forks, that was user:ScienceApologist this time, user:Michaelbusch in the other case.

Final point: Am I sick to death of special pleading, cherry-picking and misrepresentation of sources, querulousness, farcical "straw polls" and other attempts to boost fringe "cold fusion" research? You bet. Anyone else want the baton? Guy (Help!) 20:55, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

(1)Firstly, this is not about the cold fusion article, it is about the CMNS article. Secondly it doesn't matter what you claim the reason for cold fusion being protected is, or what the what you claim the reason for the CMNS being protected is.

(2)Again, doesn't matter what happened nor how you characterize it. Kevin Baas 21:13, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

(3)According to WP's user contribution logs, I posted the message on your talk page at 2008-01-01T12:33:56, and posted the notice on the noticeboard at 2008-01-01T13:30:48. In the meantime, you found the time to make these two edits: , while, purportedly, "visiting your father in the hospital". Apparently, making these edits were not only more important than to you than responding to a notice about policy abuse that was left on your talk page, but also more important to you than visiting your father in the hospital. So either you got your priorities really screwed up, or you're lying out your a$$. Kevin Baas 22:23, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

(4)It doesn't matter what you call the articles, nor what anybody else calls them, nor who does the calling. Kevin Baas 21:13, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Kevin, I have refactored your comments so they leave mine with clear attribution. In response:

(1) CMNS was a POV fork created by someone on an ArbCom sanction for creating POV forks. I was not the one who identified it as such, the evidence is, however, presented here and there and seems compelling to me. The two are, after all, synonymous in the (admittedly very limited) literature.

(2) Yes, the creation of other POV-forks is relevant. This topic has been the subject of lengthy and determined attempts to promote fringe science as mainstream. That is still ongoing, I believe.

(3) My father is in the high dependency unit of Hemel Hempstead District Hospital, we had a phone call at 11pm on Sunday calling my mother (who is nearly 70) to his bedside because he took a dramatic turn for the worse, I have visited him today in hospital, but as you point out that was not the period in question, the period in question was, if I track back, while I was packing the car and the kids to drive home. Fact remains, you gave me less than no time to respond on my talk, not that it matters as I'm sure you'd have brought it here anyway. Lying out of my ass? Thank you so very much, I love you too.

(4) Yes it does, nyer.

So, who else wants this mess, or should we just let the POV-pushers run riot again and then maybe revert to the 2004 FA version after another year, as has happened twice already? Guy (Help!) 22:04, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

(1) I really don't know the history of the article. I do know that the article was not deleted and no RfD was filled. If it really is a POV-fork, an RfD request should be filed. I really don't see what POV it pushes except the one that there is a field called "CMNS" in which some research has been and is being done, which is true. But that's besides the point. I do vaguely recall - though i may be mistaken, that a lot of the content in it used to be in the cold fusion article, but then i think a spinoff article was made per WP article split policy because the cold fusion article was kinda long, and people thought it should deal more specifically with the pons-fleishman setup, because that's what most people think of when they refer to "cold fusion", and the non-F/P stuff, though related, wasn't close enough to that. I believe the article had "good article" or even "featured article" status when it had a lot of that content in it, so maybe merging it back might be a way to go. In any case, an RfD would be much more effective at reaching a resolution than trying to strong-arm the article forever.

(2) As far as I know, the other articles were not reverted and then protected consecutively by the same editor, and certainly not recently.

(3) I'm sorry.

(4) If it matters, than show me the policy that says so. Kevin Baas 22:23, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

The issue isn't that you thought te article was a POV fork. The issue is that you treated it as such, and then immediately protected the article to keep people from changing it back. If you don't see why this is a problem, then you need to take a break from dealing with POV forks. -Amarkov moo! 21:00, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, you're right. It's not, after all, like I'm dealing with a bunch of POV-pushers who have been trygin for years to skew the article on cold fusion to represent a fringe view of a subject which is essentially discarded by the mainstream. Oh, wait, that's exactly what I'm dealing with! Well hell. So, what process do you want me to go through to get rid of these blatant POV forks, and how quickly can we get it done with so these people stop degrading the encyclopaedia with blatant attempts to pretend to a controversy that barely exists, a field of science that is all but abandoned, a review they interpret as a green light for more research but actually says nothing has changed in fifteen years, and a mess of free energy suppression nonsense reverted along the way? Only this is getting just a bit old, so a really good and permanent solution to this fringe nonsense would be really appreciated, and I do sincerely mean that. Guy (Help!) 21:08, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Er, I think you're also now dealing with me, and I am exactly not someone who has been trying for years to skew the article on cold fusion. BTW I disagreed with the POV-fork and would not have been against a redirect or merger. Very sorry to see this mess now. Itsmejudith (talk) 21:35, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm not entirely sure a solution that permanently eliminates the controversy would be possible. It probably isn't. But even if you think there is such a solution, that doesn't justify anything you do towards the goal of stoopping the ocntroversy. -Amarkov moo! 21:37, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't know what to do for the best here. If we restore the text I changed, it is wrong, misleading and confusing for the reader (which is why I changed it, because I checked the conclusion and found it didn't say that, but something subtly different and a bit wider in scope); this seems to me to be a silly piece of process wonkery, restoring something that is actually wrong just because some editors prefer it to be wrong. We could leave it, but then some people will burst a blood vessel because, for some reason I absolutely cannot fathom, it makes a Really Big Huge Enormous Difference to them quoting a selective para from a subsection of the report rather than quoting the conclusion - and incidentally if anyone could explain why, I'd be really grateful. Probably the best thing is if someone goes and just removes the summary text as redundant and more trouble than it's worth. But I am going to do my level best not to care which is done. Guy (Help!) 22:12, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

It's a new year, so we're starting it off right, I see. Guy was right, just like the last doze ntimes we've gone over this. A small group of hardcore editors, living in denial about the actual report, state of the science, and so on, continue to agitate recklessless and relentlessly on the page. Guy, they like the other because that subsection lets them walk through some wiggle room the actual conclusion eliminates, in their reading of it. People whose dreams are crushed by reality will seize upon any hope availed to them, and that's happening here. Because Misplaced Pages is percieved by some as a 'battleground of ideas', they seek to exploit fringe theories here, in the hopes of getting attention, either for their cause or themselves. I support any amount of rollbacks to the FA quality article, and I find it disheartening that time after time, a good article is ruined by people with an agenda. ThuranX (talk) 22:01, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Edits to protected page Cold fusion

The Evil Spartan and I both asked JzG to self-revert his edit to protected page Cold fusion. His response was that it was a minor edit that no one could object to.

However, it was in part due to JzG reverting other contributors' edits that led Doc Glasgow to protect the page. It seems unfair for one party to an edit conflict, being allowed to continue making edits, however "minor".

Action requested: Please suggest to JzG that he self-revert, or simply roll back his edits. --Uncle Ed (talk) 19:08, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

In fact, he deleted a quote that I made, as explained here. I do consider his edit an abuse of admin power. Pcarbonn (talk) 20:40, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

These are the same edits as being discused above, Ed, Condensed matter nuclear science was redirected to Cold fusion because it was one of your POV fork attempts. I still fail to see any issue with JzG's 2 edits, but I do with yours and you creating another POV fork since you are on probation for creating POV forks, Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Ed Poor 2. FeloniousMonk (talk) 20:43, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

A quick glance at the CMNS page history will show that I neither created it nor made any edits to it. What on earth are you talking about? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ed Poor (talk • contribs) 22:28, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

You may not have created the page, but much of the content you did. Others have called it a POV fork and spoke to you about that directly and I'm pointing out that you are on RFAR probation for POV forks. FeloniousMonk (talk) 03:13, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

FeloniousMonk, you are wrong on multiple counts:

1. These are not the same edits as being discussed. This is clear from the fact that the edits are on entirely different pages. One discussion is about JzG protecting an article that he is involved in a dispute on (the CMNS article), and furthermore not protecting it on whatever version it happens to be on at the time. The other discussion is about JzG making controversial changes to a protected article (the cold fusion article).
2. You are in asserting the reason that cmns was redirected.
3. You are wrong for even discussing what the reason was, as it is completely irrelevant, AND it's the wrong article.
4. You are wrong to call it a POV fork, per Misplaced Pages:POV_fork.
5. You are wrong to assume bad faith on the part of Ed (and everybody else involved in this discussion), per wikipedia good faith policy.
6. You are wrong in stating what the incident being discussed is, both in this section and the one above. Both incidents are about wikipedia page protection policy, which is clear and explicit. Kevin Baas 20:56, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but the facts do not agree with you here,, nor do I. FeloniousMonk (talk) 03:13, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

• This was not a content edit, it's an edit to the summary of a link in a reference citation. The citation says see the 2004 DOE conclusion, but the text was not from the conclusion. I was sure it was an innocent mistake from whoever inserted the text, but the editor in question is now implying that it was deliberate. Be that as it may, it's an unambiguous factual error. As I say, the text was in quotes, represented as the "2004 DoE conclusion", but the quoted text was a small paragraph from the response to Charge Element 3, not from the conclusion. The sense is similar except that the Charge Element 3 response is more limited:

The nearly unanimous opinion of the reviewers was that funding agencies should entertain individual, well-designed proposals for experiments that address specific scientific issues relevant to the question of whether or not there is anomalous energy production in Pd/D systems, or whether or not D-D fusion reactions occur at energies on the order of a few eV. These proposals should meet accepted scientific standards, and undergo the rigors of peer review. No reviewer recommended a focused federally funded program for low energy nuclear reactions."
original text, a small para from the response to charge element 3

versus

While significant progress has been made in the sophistication of calorimeters since the review of this subject in 1989, the conclusions reached by the reviewers today are similar to those found in the 1989 review.
The current reviewers identified a number of basic science research areas that could be helpful in resolving some of the controversies in the field, two of which were: 1) material science aspects of deuterated metals using modern characterization techniques, and 2) the study of particles reportedly emitted from deuterated foils using state-of-the-art apparatus and methods. The reviewers believed that this field would benefit from the peer-review processes associated with proposal submission to agencies and paper submission to archival journals.
what the conclusion actually says

Here's the source itself: http://www.science.doe.gov/Sub/Newsroom/News_Releases/DOE-SC/2004/low_energy/CF_Final_120104.pdf

Honestly, I saw it as a copy-paste error. I don't mind removing the summary text altogether, or if someone wants to suggest an accurate citation text, but it was simply and unambiguously wrong, a trivial copyediting matter that I happened to notice and fix when I opened the report to respond to a point on the talk page - and of course I noted it on the talk page there and then. I really don't see why such a huge big deal is being made of this. I've explained in detail, and there is active discussion ont he talk page, so I see no reason it should have been brought here, unless it's to try and gain an advantage in what I never thought for a moment would actually be a dispute! Guy (Help!) 21:03, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry but I just don't buy that. I noticed from my watchlist that there were edits. I didn't particularly find the first edit problematic, but I didn't agree with the second one at all. The question of whether the removed information was "unnecessary" was debatable at the very least. I thought it should stay in as without it the reader would be wondering what research areas the reviewers thought should be investigated further. I went to revert it so that discussion could ensue on the talk page. But the page was fully protected. I wasn't able to revert the edits and JzG hasn't reverted them himself, despite being asked to do so at least twice. I'm very unhappy with the situation. Please note that I consider myself as a neutral editor in the edit warring on this page. I don't want to see it advocating cold fusion, which was a problem a few weeks ago, but I am also concerned that a group of editors including JzG want to take it the other way so that it is completely devoted to debunking the concept. I do hope that there will be no further insinuations about editors trying to gain an advantage by raising this issue. Itsmejudith (talk) 21:25, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

The second edit was to cut out "two of which were: 1) material science aspects of deuterated metals using modern characterization techniques, and 2) the study of particles reportedly emitted from deuterated foils using state-of-the-art apparatus and methods." - and I did that solely because the great chunk of text was unwieldy, and the reader probably does not need to know to that level of detail in a citation summary. Actually the whole thing is probably redundant, it could probably just be a link to the report and be no less useful. I don't mind. I just fixed an error of fact, quoting something as the conclusion which was not actually the conclusion, because it gave me a "huh?" moment. I have no interest in debunking the subject, my best friend worked in the lab where the original experiments went on and played a small part in them, he was very excited, he's still an academic in electrochemistry, I asked him about it before I saw this article and his view echoed the DoE report pretty much exactly - something odd is going on, but probably not cold fusion, people need to conduct some rigorous basic science to find out the source of the anomolous results. On the other hand, the repeated hijacking by free energy suppression people and other oddballs over the years is clearly unacceptable. Guy (Help!) 21:38, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

If I'm getting this right - the link of the citation was to something other than the conclusion (the response) but it was an accurate quote of the response? Without judging the other issues, wouldn't it have been easier to change the link? Avruchtalk 21:15, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

• I don't know, like I said, it said "conclusions" so I pasted in the conclusions. Tat was the obvious thing, to me, since the conclusions are by definition more comprehensive than one single para from somewhere in the body (which may be out of context, after all, if quoted in isolation). It seemed easier to take the very short conclusion than to try to wordsmith a new citation based on why the original editor chose to use that paragraph, assuming it was not an error, which I thought it was. I've invited the editor, user:Pcarbonn, to say what he meant to put, but it's a recent thing so I don't think there's an answer yet. Pcarbonn has been a bit naughty about pushing the fringe side of cold fusion, but not to the point of forfeiting the assumption of good faith, for sure. As I say, it seemed really unambiguous to me. The summary said "conclusion", I went to the conclusion, the text was subtly different. I didn't even spot that it was from elsewhere in the report until I'd copied and pasted the conclusion text. As far as I care the quotation can go altogether, I don't see it adds much and I thik we quote it in the article anyway, I don't know why it's even quoted in the citation summary. The article's been hacked about a bit between competing POVs so it's a tad messy in places. Guy (Help!) 21:33, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

It is obvious from the talk page that the edit was controversial. Personally, I think you are altogether tight about the edit, the redirect above, and your views on the subject, but you should never have taken any admin action on either of those pages including using admin powers to edit after it was protected or to protect a redirect. Your discussion above about the merit of the edits & the redirects only emphasizes this. I don't think you even realize that this is wrong. DGG (talk) 22:18, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

No, you are spot on there. First, the redirect. Scenario A: We take it to AfD, wait for consensus, then go to ArbCom enforcement and get Ed Poor slapped with a trout for creating a POV fork. Scenario B: We quickly fix the problem, identified by more than one editor, spare Ed the trout slap, and end up with a useful redirect and a discussion of how to cover the new terminology in the article. Why is Scenario B worse than Scenario A?

Second, the edit. I fixed a summary in a reference because it was unambiguously wrong and thus confusing. I freely apologise to everybody who has wasted time on this, but the encyclopaedia is clearly better off if people don't find that the linked text says something other than what the summary quotes - and in "quotes" at that. Seriously, if it's such a big problem, take the text out and just leave the link. We are supposed to make trivial clueful changes without bureaucracy and I honestly do think that was a trivial change, matching the quoted text to the title. Of course I should have foreseen that Pcarbonn would kick up a stink, I should have recognised it as his pet sentence from the report that he wants to stand in place of the conclusion in every instance because he feels it better reflects his interpretation of the report than the conclusion does, but I didn't. Why would we pander to that idiosyncracy anyway? It was simply a misquote, corrected, move on.

I freely admit that when I am pissed off I sometimes do things which are rash, but I was not pissed off then, I just fixed what looked to me like a mistake. And having fixed a mistake, I am (being me) reluctant to make it wrong again just for the sake of process. Sorry, that's just me. Guy (Help!) 23:44, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

What the hell happened to common sense ? Clearly Guy is right here. Nuff said. Move on. Eusebeus (talk) 02:14, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

No, sorry, it is not just PCarbonn kicking up a fuss. I am cross too. JzG absolutely knew that the edits could have been controversial. It is a blatant abuse of admin privilege. Itsmejudith (talk) 16:18, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

I am withdrawing my request for the reversion or roll-back of the edits by JvG (aka "Guy"). It's a tempest in a teapot. (By the way, it was cold fusion research not Condensed_matter_nuclear_science which I created, and I have no objection to keeping everything about cold fusion in a single article.)

Let's unprotect the page and move on, as Eusebeus said. --Uncle Ed (talk) 21:25, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Edits of Pandiyann (resolved)

Pandiyann (talk · contribs · count · logs · block log · lu · rfa · rfb · arb · rfc · lta · socks)

Actually, looking deeper into this a little bit - I notice that this editor has a long history of abusive edits and edit summaries, including this page: Talk:1957_Ramnad_riots. I think this could stand for some additional review, and perhaps an additional step beyond the warnings already on his talk page. This type of SPA caste-warring is inappropriate at the least. Avruchtalk 22:45, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

• Notifying Pandiyann of this thread now, sorry 'bout the delay. Avruchtalk 00:06, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Abusive edit summaries

• 08:06, 19 December 2007 (hist) (diff) m Pandyan Kingdom‎ (This section must be excluded frm this article as this is not an article abt tamil castes. The low caste scum, Paravar, will be gettin his share soon.......)

• 03:06, 20 December 2007 (hist) (diff) m Pandyan Kingdom‎ (I know my history too damn well, moron. If u r too damn sure of wat u r speakin abt, y use different ip addresses to post this crap. Afraid that u might get kicked! Better quit, fisherman!!!)

• 03:41, 19 December 2007 (hist) (diff) m Pandyan Kingdom‎ (The fool from Madras should think thrice b4 speaking abt this caste. Get the heck out of this site or go thru the aricle in wiki abt this caste and shut up!! -Nadar Sagham)

• 10:07, 10 November 2007 (hist) (diff) Nadar (caste)‎ (Undid revision 170301361 by 203.94.202.95 (talk) The article must be protected from morons!!!!)

• 11:04, 8 November 2007 (hist) (diff) Nadar (caste)‎ (Undid revision 170048828 by 203.193.184.206 (talk) y don't u get the hell out of this site...)

• 11:05, 31 October 2007 (hist) (diff) Nadar (caste)‎ (Undid revision 168276090 by Tn pillai (talk) The coward is back to display non-sense...!!!)

• 14:15, 5 October 2007 (hist) (diff) Talk:1957 Ramnad riots‎ (←Created page with '==Nicely written piece of shit to aggravate the fame of Kamarajar== The 1957 riot happened due to many reasons. This article was obviously written by some thevar to...')

• 14:16, 23 August 2007 (hist) (diff) Nadar (caste)‎ (The loser tn.pillai returns with baseless theories...)

These are just edit summaries... Avruchtalk 01:33, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Disruptive edits

Some interesting edits can be found:

• here

• and here

• and here (look at the above comments by him there also)

• here

Takes awhile to find typical contributions, because a lot of it seems to be revert warring. Avruchtalk 01:48, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

My take

As someone from this region and belonging to none of the castes being discussed, I can state the following.

• As for the content dispute part, I've commented at Talk:Pandyan_Kingdom#Edit war reported.
• Pandiyann's edit summaries are clearly offensive to caste sensitivities.
• Some of the anon editors' (from the opposite camp) edit summaries in the Pandyan Kingdom page are equally offensive and provocative.

I'd prefer NPOV brought by removing claims from either group and adding any of them only after discussing in the talk page and only if citations are provided. -- Sundar 10:03, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

He's a sock of the banned PONDHEEPANKAR (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). I've blocked it. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 00:36, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you, everybody, for clearing up the mess and nastyness. I know I'm not an administrator, but I will pop in from time to time to check on that article, to see that the ones left are being civil. StephenBuxton (talk) 12:37, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Open proxies at Bates method

Just a heads up, but in the last week or so, a whole lot of identified Tor open proxies have been used to edit this article, which ought to be cause for concern:

• 140.112.96.201 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 217.157.63.36 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 217.198.148.36 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 219.232.228.230 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 71.155.229.183 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 80.126.121.54 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 81.64.210.51 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 82.237.39.18 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 85.17.45.118 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 85.31.186.104 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 86.136.70.106 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 88.191.38.228 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 89.37.216.213 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 99.246.150.40 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 202.38.124.246 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) (already blocked)
• 68.48.198.145 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) (already blocked)
• 80.249.115.146 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) (already blocked)
• 87.255.6.234 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) (already blocked)
• 88.167.101.27 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) (already blocked)
• 88.198.47.43 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) (already blocked)
• 89.123.10.206 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) (already blocked)
• 91.121.102.64 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) (already blocked)

There are a whole bunch of other IPs which are not obviously open proxies, but perhaps someone who knows what he or she is doing could actually check. --Calton | Talk 05:08, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Take it to Misplaced Pages:WikiProject on open proxies; they'll identify and block. As for TORs, I'll check using the infobox in each IP's contribs. -Jéské 05:17, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Nevermind, other admins have it. The advice avbout WP:OP applies, however. -Jéské 05:18, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Already identified and blocked, half a dozen admins beat me to the punch. east.718 at 05:19, January 2, 2008

Actually, it took me less than a minute to verify all of em, but no one is giving me a chance to block them, so I moved on to crack, instead. El_C 05:19, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, dude. -- Flyguy649 05:23, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

I actually reported three of them some hours ago, but nothing happened. More to the point, these were a whole lot that all centered on a single article, which was my real cause for concern and something some unovolved and/or tool-bearing admin could look into. --Calton | Talk 05:23, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

You've got to be quick. I got four of them by starting at the bottom. Jehochman 05:25, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Bates method semi'd for 120 hours. -Jéské 05:32, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Why has the page been protected? Proxy paranoia? 87.28.84.44 (talk) 14:27, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

I ask a simple question about why semi protection is being abused on this article, and the first reaction is for an admin to block my IP, instead of undoing the manifestly out of process protection. How about allowing anyone to edit? (copied to Oxymoron83's page) 122.145.6.138 (talk) 16:11, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Stop using Tor - open proxies are prohibited on all Wikimedia projects because of abuse. -Jéské 22:57, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Um no, this is not the case. There is no prohibition on open proxies. The Foundation doesn't prohibit them, Jimmy Wales doesn't prohibit them, the meta policy doesn't prohibit them, and the policy on this wiki doesn't prohibit them. The policy even says that users are explicitly allowed to use them, "freely" it says. Sure they get abused and blocked from time to time, but they are certainly not prohibited. On the other hand the protection policy allows protection when there is vandalism, and prohibits protection to prevent anonymous editing. Your protection on the grounds of "IP Abuse" is without any foundation in policy, and worse, is detrimental to building an encyclopedia. 80.249.115.147 (talk) 00:29, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

(RI) From the Meta policy: Although Meta encourages anyone in the world to contribute, such proxies are often used abusively. Since MediaWiki (the wiki software) depends on IP addresses for administrator intervention against abuse, open proxies allow users to completely circumvent administrators. The use of scripts or bots allow malicious users to rapidly rotate IP addresses, causing continuous disruption that cannot be stopped by helpless administrators. Several such attacks have ocurred on Wikimedia projects, causing heavy disruption and occupying administrators who would otherwise deal with other concerns. (emphasis mine) The Misplaced Pages policy is simply a reiteration of the Meta policy, and both are generally interpreted as prohibitions on using open proxies. -Jéské 00:53, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

You deliberately missed out the relevant bit of the consensually agreed policy: "While this may affect legitimate users, they are not the intended targets and may freely use proxies until those are blocked." Your protection has no basis in any policy. 64.191.50.123 (talk) 01:04, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Edit warring is legitimate editing? Mr.Z-man 01:09, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

This TOR proxy's just playing Harvey Birdman now. -Jéské 01:31, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

As a Anti-Spam Evangelist I am very worried when anon users try to edit with anonymous proxy IPs, but as a free speech and a human rights advocate I am conserned that some people in some countries may not be able to access WikiPedia for reading the content. Is it possible to allow anonymous proxy users to read the content but block them from editing? Igor Berger (talk) 01:20, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

This is always the case for all blocks. Blocks only block an editor from editing Misplaced Pages but the said person can still read. --WinHunter 01:24, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

WP:OP backlog

Somebody want to take a look at WP:OP, which has a big backlog? Which, unfortunately, I'm responsible for, since I started adding candidates 37 hours ago and which no one -- with a couple of exceptions -- has touched since? One of those exceptions is one of the Tor proxies commenting above, which I, in fact, had already flagged 13 hours ago.--Calton | Talk 12:19, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Not everyone here is a trusted proxy-checker. -Jéské 23:58, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Advice needed regarding inclusion requirements

An apparently new user, User:Esborg / User:76.100.118.160, has engaged in what at first seemed to be spamming of a subject, or at least repeatedly attempting to add a wikilink to some type of alternative medicine practice. From the way the user has reacted to warnings, and the pattern of their continued edit history, I AGF and assume they were unfamiliar with our inclusion criteria and weren't engaging in commercial or malicious linkspamming. But....at the time no one could know that. (The point of all this comes at the end, but this history is important.)

• Special:Contributions/76.100.118.160
• Special:Contributions/Esborg

I happened upon it after seeing that other users were deleting what seemed to be spamming. I then contributed to their efforts:

• http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Template:Alternative_medical_systems&action=history
• http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Template:Energy_therapy&action=history
• http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Glossary_of_alternative_medicine&action=history

For that last one I left this edit summary:

• Not notable enough for inclusion. Write an acceptable article first."

The following one I left intact because it seemed a logical place for him/her to place such a request (which fulfilled my request in my previous edit summary), and no inclusion criteria are required for making a request here:

• http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Requested_articles/Applied_arts_and_sciences/Medicine&diff=prev&oldid=181322992

The problems (only one...;-) start here (the same edit history as one listed above):

• http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Glossary_of_alternative_medicine&action=history

It's the one where I left this edit summary:

• Not notable enough for inclusion. Write an acceptable article first."

Here User:John Gohde reverted me using this edit summary:

• "RV there is no such requirement. In fact, one of the primary reasons this Glossary exists is to avoid the creation of stub articles. See talk."

I had read Talk and saw what looked like an argument that could be interpreted as instructions on how to bypass our inclusion criteria. I therefore deleted the link again with this edit summary:

• "Esborg has been spamming this link. Inclusion is fine if referenced with V & RS, and I have left one of his instances elsewhere."

I am not interested in getting into an edit war or getting anywhere near a 3RR situation. I am asking for help in interpreting policy in such a situation. As I understand it, even stub articles have inclusion criteria, and inclusion in this type of glossary would at least need some type of V & RS to justify inclusion. Am I wrong?

If I am misinterpreting things, please let me know on my talk page and also do the courtesy of letting me restore it. If I am correct, I would appreciate it if other users would watch that article. -- Fyslee / talk 05:26, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

It looks like probable COI spam to me. I did a Google search on ("Fu Xi Wen" +open +source) based on the description of the link added to the glossary, that mentions "open source medicine". The search showed this website: http://www.fuxiwen.com - the name of the owner of the website is a lot like the user name Esborg (talk · contribs). The website strangely requires a legal agreement be accepted before viewing any of the additional pages so I stopped there. Per the user's talk page, it seems like Fu Xi Wen was speedy deleted in September. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 06:43, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for that explanation. That clears up some background information about this particular user and their link. -- Fyslee / talk 06:07, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I would still like an explanation of policy regarding the need for fulfilling inclusion criteria requirements or at least using V & RS to justify inclusion. -- Fyslee / talk 06:07, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Richard Daft

Could an administrator please study all edits made by this person since mid-December? Other relevant pages are User talk:Richard Daft and User talk:88.111.83.82.

Richard Daft's contributions are persistently unconstructive. It seems that he is using WP as a means of mounting personal attacks against a particular individual. Some of his comments amount to abuse. Attempts to reason with him have produced responses that are at best incoherent and at worst potentially threatening. His edits have all been reverted apart from his last one which is still on my talk page.

My recommendation is that this user and IP address are blocked for a suitable cooling off period and that appropriate admin notices are posted on the relevant pages. --AlbertMW (talk) 11:12, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Your post seems to be a spillover from a very hot content dispute at such places as John Leach (writer). Please supply diffs of any violations of Misplaced Pages policies that you believe have occurred. A cursory scan of the contributions suggests that Misplaced Pages:Dispute resolution is the best option for you to pursue. Though I don't know who should receive credit for the article improvement, the John Leach article looks pretty good right now (improved since November), and this is the period when you suggest the bad actions by Daft occurred. I did not see any vandalism, only good faith edits. Daft has not touched the article since 19 December, while many edits have happened since, so it's surely not an ongoing problem. Some of Daft's messages on your Talk are overheated, and he should moderate his language. EdJohnston (talk) 02:58, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

This is not good enough. Look at the three latest posts by Daft/Asquith and it is clear that he is deliberately conducting a campaign to try and discredit John Leach. I see he is now trying to forge an "alliance" with another member. His statement that the e-mail sent to Mr Wynne-Thomas was "rude and unpleasant" is a pack of lies. The e-mail was posted on a forum and read by perhaps 100 people. It is a polite and arguably humorous response to a book review that Wynne-Thomas had written.

Furthermore, in a previous post to me, Daft closes with a statement that could be construed as a threat: how else can you take being told to shut up or something serious will happen?

Do you want genuine editors to quit WP because of vindictive people like Daft or are you going to do something to prevent Daft from adding to his tally of 30-odd invectives all directed against one person? --AlbertMW (talk) 06:52, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

In fact, I have absolutely had it. I cannot stand this situation any longer and I am resigning from the site. If you are going to do something about Daft then contact User:BlackJack and listen to what he says. Otherwise, let Daft have what he wants and you might as well shut the site down. --AlbertMW (talk) 07:27, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

The responses to Mr Wynne-Thomas are far from humorous and this can be verified by contacting him at Notts CCC. Mr Leach also sent me a diatribe based on false information(He quotes the ACS minutes - I have them as do a small number of other people, and what he states is not born out by the facts). I have had one intention is starting this debate and it is this - Misplaced Pages needs, as far as possible to be accurate. Obviously mistakes occur, articles are fattened up over time and blatant errors removed and controversy discussed. In my opinion and that of many acknowledge experts(people used as a source by other well known writers, called on in the media, written prize winning books etc) is that whilst Mr Leach has an excellent knowledge of cricket and especially pre-1800, he is not an expert because his research has been secondary. In other words he has not spent 20, 30 plus years researching newspapers and original artefacts - in this area, neither have I but others have and they have compiled books, reports and articles and made their research available. Mr Leach, legitimately has drawn on this. Was is not legitimate to claim that his work is breaking new ground. It is not. he has found athe odd new score and drawn attention to others. So have I, so have thirty other people(I prefer the period from 1840) he has written an ebook that makes claims, some of them reasonable and some of them not. What is problematic is he has no sources or examples of original research to substantiate these claims. Therefore the crux of the matter is that the original and subsequent revision of his entry are completely misleading. Mr Wright is not a cricket expert and you cannot supervise a site such as this without a high level of knowledge and, it seems to me, a lack of objectivity. I would re-iterate that I was the one who initially publish Mr Leach's match scores list. It is a bit rich for him to say I receive criticism from the ACS committee over articles when his was the one in question. I would reiterate again that he has done an excellent job with the overwhelming majority of his additions to the site. However he has made some which are simply not accepted by anybody but himself. I have just seen Mr Leach's new entry and this surely is a better entry. Concise and accurate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Richard Daft (talk • contribs) 13:15, 3 January 2008 (UTC) M Asquith —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.111.101.5 (talk) 12:40, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

To answer the question placed by the alleged "admin" on AlbertMW's page, someone called Mark Asquith (see above) is operating on here as User:Richard Daft (see above) and nearly every single one of his posts since he first appeared on about the 12th December has consisted of invective and diatribe against one person, as per the incoherent drivel above, which is a typical sample.

Whenever genuine editors have tried to be reasonable with him he becomes abusive, ignores what is said and goes off at a tangent before coming back with yet more of the same unsubstantiated garbage.

What has happened to WP:CIVIL? AlbertMW has specifically complained about a comment like "shut up before something serious happens" and you do nothing about it?

AlbertMW resigned from the site this morning and I am resigning from it this afternoon. If Misplaced Pages's so-called administrators will stand aside and allow a campaign of vitriol like this to be pursued against one person for over three weeks then the site is not worth supporting.

If you want people on the site who carry on like Asquith is doing then go ahead. You're welcome. I'll find another way to pass the time. Goodbye. --BlackJack | 13:55, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Bluemarine

I'm requesting a 48 hour block of Bluemarine (talk · contribs) for abusive comments. This user is also known as Matt Sanchez and a look at the recently archived Talk:Matt Sanchez/Archive11 shows an extremely long history of abusive comments, most recently . -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 15:44, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

I say indef block or ban. Hasn't he caused enough trouble as it is? Isn't there an Rfc on him now? And isn't this diff unpleasant enough to indef block, given all the other warnings he has had? Jeffpw (talk) 15:52, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

I've warned him to stop. I don't think the diff Jeff gives is unpleasant enough to indef ban him. Based on , I think he's on his last warning now, though. Neıl ☎ 15:55, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Have you read his Rfc? How many last warnings do you think this makes, now? And why is it that some editors get a free pass to edit their own bios, and behave in as abusive manner as they want on this site, while others are shown the door for much less? This guy is editing with an agenda and without regard for his fellow editors. Ticking his fingers each time he violates policy only encourages him to be that much more aggressive the next time. Jeffpw (talk) 16:00, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

I forgot to mention his RfC - thanks. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 16:01, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

How many final warnings was the user given, exactly? I'll notify him of this thread, as well. Lawrence Cohen 16:02, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Four, if I count his recently archived talk page correctly. Three for uncivil behaviour, one for a possible legal threat. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 16:10, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

(ec) I was going to suggest a ban altogether, but looking at his history, he *does* contribute to other articles besides his own. I don't know if he's abusive on those or not, but I'll take a look. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 16:04, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Lawrence, that is 4 final warnings, and 22 warnings in total, if I counted correctly, over a variety of issues, including NPA, CIV, sockpuppetry, COI, etc. Surely the community's patience has been exhausted by now? Jeffpw (talk) 16:12, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Wow, he made it this long? Lawrence Cohen 16:13, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

(ec3)*I've been following this for awhile, and personally I don't think he should be banned. I don't think he is consistently disruptive or abusive, and I can appreciate that he loses his cool occassionally as a result of some of the editors who work on the article provoking him. His article attracts a lot of tendentious editing, and while he is certainly not a model Wikipedian I don't think a ban is the answer. Avruchtalk 16:15, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Whats the answer to stop someone who is routinely uncivil? Some sort of parole, do it again, banned? Lawrence Cohen 16:19, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

I support Neil's issuing of a final warning and would endorse a block of up to a week should Matt Sanchez disregard it. I don't think a ban is the answer - we should be very reluctant to take such measures against people who have article about them (especially ones that have serious WP:BLP issues). Having followed some of the discussions on the talkpage of Matt Sanchez's article in the past, I know that there are a lot of efforts to bait him. That doesn't excuse his conduct, but I am sympathetic to the fact that there is more going on here than one rogue editor making random personal attacks. There has been some talk of refering the editing of Matt Sanchez and other articles to ArbCom - that is starting to seem a sensible way to go. WjBscribe 16:21, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

This is what I mean by a free pass. Only one block, and that was for a legal threat. The rest of his grossly uncivil actions have only resulted in toothless warnings which he obviously feels he can disregard at this point. I'd say block him, and for each repeated infraction add to the block time. I haven't had time to go look and see the outcome of his sock case, but I know he as at least two accounts. Seriously, situations like these are what make people question Misplaced Pages's enforcement of policy. And just to be perfectly clear, I have neither read nor edited his article, and only know of this user through all the discussion his actions have provoked on various pages I watch. Jeffpw (talk) 16:24, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Mattsanchez and User:Bluemarine, I believe. He hasn't, as far as I know, been accused of abusive sockpuppetry (at least I know I have been aware of both and they have been listed on the talk page for quite awhle). Avruchtalk 16:55, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

I might have been tempted to block him, but Neil responded to this thread first and judged a final warning to be the appropriate response. I respect that decision. I suspect this matter is one that needs to go before ArbCom as it may require more carefully crafted remedies than simple blocks. WjBscribe 16:28, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Shouldn't subjects of BLP if they edit here be held to the same policy standards as any other editor? I think it would be bad precedent to make them a special class of editors. Their articles are one thing, and BLP applies, but their behavior should be held to identical standards as anyone else. Lawrence Cohen 16:27, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

In general I agree with you. But I think that should be tempered with some sympathy for the additional stress they may be under above other editors. Especially where there is an interest group trying to add weakly sourced information alleging that one has worked as a prostitute into your biography. My opposition was to a ban, which I think would be premature and a bad way of dealing with this particular problem. I think a block of up to one week would be appropriate should the behaviour continue - it would after all be his first block for incivility/personal attacks. WjBscribe 16:34, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

A short block is usually the next step following a final warning to play nice - while I saw some warnings, I didn't see a "final" one, which is why I gave one (also noting he has made good faith edits). I also note there has, as yet, not been a valid block made on the account (the only one that has been made was overturned). Neıl ☎ 16:31, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

I hope that if (when) Matt acts unpleasant again, that it will be followed be an actual block. I agree he shouldn't be banned outright at this point, but he has gotten by being very incivil for a long time. There are some editors who deliberately bait him, but he is also incivil to those who are polite to him, sometimes even after they have agreed with him on a content issue. Aleta (Sing) 16:42, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

• As someone who invested far too much time on trying to fix that article, I recognize that ArbCom might well be the only solution to the longstanding issues with it. (I dropped in after a month-long absence to see that little has changed.) The article has been semi-protected (or fully protected) for eight months now (protection was removed 3 days ago), and as soon as the IP warriors realize that it is open again, they will be out in force to attack Sanchez, which will result in another round of protection. Sanchez himself is not helping matters with his nasty attitude towards gay editors and his ceaseless self-promotion. As WjBscribe has pointed out, Sanchez has been baited by many people (including three now indefinitely-banned editors, one of whom runs an attack site dedicated to personally destroying Sanchez), but he seems to think that gay editors should not be allowed to edit the article (which is an issue, considering the LGBT WikiProject tag). Since blocks are not punitive in nature, I don't know if a block would be appropriate at this time, but I would support an indef-block upon his next blanket attack against gay or leftist editors. However, something should also be done to address the flock of single-purpose accounts associated with this article, most of which are anti-Sanchez editors with a clear agenda. Horologium (talk) 16:43, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

• This person has additionally attacked homosexual editors? The NPA policy aside, does this cause problems with any sort of discrimination policies here? Lawrence Cohen 16:53, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Long time problematic user. He's had plenty of warnings. Support 1 week block now, 1 month on next infraction, indef after that. — Rlevse • Talk • 16:57, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

He attacks them as biased against him or for inclusion of his porn history in the article. Avruchtalk 16:58, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Refer to the RFC for diffs. The history is rather extensive. Often, they have been posted after nasty comments from anti-Sanchez posters, but sometimes they are unprovoked or totally disproportionate. Many of the worst attacks (on the talk page) have been redacted by other editors (primarily me and WjBscribe), but some of them still appear in the extensive talk archives. Horologium (talk) 17:04, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

For just one example, see this diff. Aleta (Sing) 17:08, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

I would block both user names, for at least 3 months' time or indef, for sockpuppetry, incivility, and the risk of further vandalism. Bearian (talk) 20:30, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

It sounds like we've got consensus that:

• If User:Mattsanchez or User:Bluemarine writes WP:CIVIL-violating comments or edit summaries he will be blocked for at least 48 hrs.

I'm going to be monitoring the article (and probably doing some minor cleanup), so I'll leave word here if anything requires admin attention. Since I'm not really an "uninterested party", I'd rather have another admin take any required action. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 21:09, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Bluemarine blocked

I have blocked Matt Sanchez (User:Bluemarine) for 48 hours. He chose to disregard Neil's warning and made two attacks replacing the names of two others editors with crude homophobic references: , . WjBscribe 05:53, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I would have done exactly the same thing - he was warned, and chose to ignore it. I suggest if he uses his other account to evade this block in the meantime, it (the alt account) ought to be indefinitely blocked. Neıl ☎ 09:54, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Tara Whelan (resolved)

I have tried to submit a 2nd AfD nomination for Tara Whelan at http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2008_January_2#Tara_Whelan (2nd nomination), however I have not been able to do so properly. Can someone please help. I haven't been able to find any instructions on how to renominate for AfD, maybe my bad. Thanks. Happy New Year. Yellow-bellied sapsucker (talk) 16:37, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't know, looks fine to me. Avruchtalk 21:11, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Lopakhin and the Jewish Encyclopedia

Lopakhin (talk · contribs) has created a number of articles that are almost verbatim copies of articles from the Jewish Encyclopedia. See for instance Barthold Dowe Burmania‎ and , Seligman Baer Bamberger and , Davicion Bally and , etcetera. The Jewish Encyclopedia says on the bottom of each article: "Copyright 2002 JewishEncyclopedia.com. All rights reserved." Are these articles violations of the copyrights of the Jewish Encyclopedia, or do we have an agreement with the Jewish Encyclopedia about the use of their content? Aecis 16:50, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Note: the articles appear to have been created in accordance with Misplaced Pages:Jewish Encyclopedia topics. Aecis 16:52, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Merely republishing a public-domain work with a copyright notice does not take it out of the public domain. They specifically state the contents are unedited, therefore they probably cannot claim copyright. The copyright notice is probably only intended to apply to the website layout etc, not the article contents. I've sent them an e-mail asking for clarification. —Random832 18:16, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

This totally sucks. No, it can hardly be copyvio, but we should NOT be using the Jewish Encyclopaedia as a source anymore, no more than we should Britannica 1911 nor the Catholic Encyclopaedia 1913. Outdated and partisan sources like this are not good enough for Misplaced Pages any more. We've outgrown them. Come on, we can surely do better than this. Moreschi 19:20, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Hear, hear! I'm personally glad we did use those Brittanica dumps as a starting point - in my opinion they helped us grow faster - but nowadays there's no excuse for relying on 70+-year-old material just because it's out of copyright. — Gavia immer (talk) 19:40, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, thats an opinion I've expressed before in specific instances of JE references. Its hopelessly partisan and out of date, and while references can't be removed they should be inserted with extreme attention to the lack of quality often displayed in these articles. Avruchtalk 21:13, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm confused, is this about using the JE as a source for article text or as a reference in any shape? —Preceding unsigned comment added by JASpencer (talk • contribs) 21:37, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Firstly I think that Lopakhin has been doing a good job in creating these articles, and I hope that the work rate keeps going. I think the problem is that the guidelines on externally present articles are not at all clear. I would suggest that there are two alternatives:

(1) To text dump the articles into a sandbox and only to release the articles after they meet (a) NPOV criteria, (b) have up to date language and (c) remove outdated references (eg 1908 population statistics), or

(2) Create a one line summary article which asserts notability and includes a link to the old encyclopedia to meet WP:V and have either a talk page tag or (less preferably) an external list of the "expandable articles".

JASpencer (talk) 21:33, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Jewish Encyclopedia is in Public Domain, and therefore copying text from there to Misplaced Pages is not a copyvio. The quality and today's relevance of the articles there differ dramatically - it would be absolutely wrong to claim that that every article is "hopelessly partisan and out of date". There are plenty of articles which are as up-to-date today as they were a century ago. If anyone feels that particular text copied from JE doesn't meet the Misplaced Pages quality standards, it should be dealt on per article basis. I am sure user Lopakhin used his best judgment when picking the articles. Wikiolap (talk) 19:25, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

George Reeves Person returning??

It would appear that the George Reeves Person (whoever he might be) is returning to Misplaced Pages. Judging by the post here - , it seems like the George Reeves Person/Squidward is returning to Misplaced Pages.

Looks like we might have to restore Misplaced Pages:Long term abuse/George Reeves Person (edit | ] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) that was deleted as a courtesy - since he seems intent on returning.

I also notice he's trying to incite people to vandalise Misplaced Pages too, from what I read.

Should the page be restored or kept deleted?? I'd take it to deletion review, but I'm not sure if we should ignore this or see if he does come back.

Hope this is of help to you all. --Solumeiras 21:12, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Solumeiras...how did you discover the post? I just find it weird that you found it and posted here about it all within 8 minutes of it being posted to that web forum. Metros (talk) 19:24, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

• Heh, I had it open in another tab on my browser... was reading it for a completely different issue - unrelated to Misplaced Pages (sex/relationships related!) That web forum is one I read regularly anyway, quite entertaining to read, sometimes not worksafe though! I myself was surprised to see it. I've no idea who this George Reeves person is, but whoever he is, isn't he banned or something?? --Solumeiras 22:42, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Sprotret (talk · contribs)

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

All of Sprotret (talk · contribs)'s edits have been vandalism or nonsense. The extreme BLP vandalism and move vandalism of Regina Richards should result in a block. I've issued a uw-bv warning, but haven't taken this to WP:AIV because we haven't gone through four rounds of warnings. Corvus cornix_talk 21:40, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

While the contributions are dubious at best, the user hasn't been active in about 5 and a half hours, which makes me wonder if a block is really necessary at this point. Since you have issued a final warning, the next time they vandalize, a report to AIV should suffice.

Their last edit was less than two hours ago. And they get a free pass on vandalism like this? And since I've put a uw-bv tag on their page, does that mean they now get to go through three more rounds of vandalism before anybody will do anything? Corvus cornix_talk 21:47, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Ah, I did look at my clock wrong, my apologies. No, of course they don't get a free pass for vandalism like that. As I said before, you issued a final warning, so if they edit again, they can be blocked immediately. But, after taking a look at the user's deleted contribs, I think a vandalism-only-account block may be in order. Sorry for overlooking that before. Ioeth _{(talk contribs friendly)} 21:52, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

help sought

A few days ago user:ScienceApologist (a productive editor) was blocked for 72 hours for incivility and related issues. He had had such issues before as well. After considerable discussion, the roots of the problem seem to be that he is trying to ensure balanced and fair handling of scientific topics, but he feels that when faced with unscientific viewpoints, he will be unsupported if he seeks help, and considered uncivil if he tries to deal with it himself.

Whilst there may be many views on this perception, the bottom line is, he has been suggested to use dispute resolution and factual descriptions of editing problems, and use the community to help in such issues, rather than sharp words and uncivil personal views on editors ("calling a spade a spade").

I'd like to ask if a couple of experienced admins who are neutral in science/pseudoscience type issues, possibly with some mediation-type ability, might be willing to offer themselves as people he can contact if he has a problem, for a more immediate response/input/handling? Thus supporting him better, and maybe making it easier to get this kind of problem resolved without wondering how much time or hassle it will take if he can't speak as he's used to :)

Relevant background (shortish): User_talk:ScienceApologist#Handling_problem_editors.

Thanks to anyone able and willing!

FT2  —Preceding comment was added at 22:02, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

• The major problem here is that ScienceApologist has enemies, and those enemies know his hot buttons and press them relentlessly. Getting SA out of the way would be a major step forward for those wishing to promote fringe and pseudoscientific views on Misplaced Pages; he's a standard bearer for scientific rationalism, well educated and articulate. The various arbitration cases surrounding paranormal subjects, such as Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Paranormal and the non-standard cosmologies case, show how determined the fringe advocates are. I'm trying to help as much as I can. Guy (Help!) 22:07, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

In part yes, but the issue here and now is, he has made clear he doubts that he will get prompt support and help if he did try a more "DR" type approach. Support may provide either reassurance, or skilled input if a dispute arises. In both cases he may feel if it's in competent hands, or he has competent admins to pass it to who will help resolve it properly, then he may not feel under such pressure personally to act himself, as he has been. If he felt he had support that would act effectively, that could only be good for both him and for the project. FT2  22:25, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

There is another problem, of course, which is that in most of these cases the neutral point of view is much closer to the scientific point of view than the paranormal. Which means that the paranormal supporters will not consider the neutral parties to be neutral, and anyone they do consider neutral probably won't be :-/ Guy (Help!) 22:33, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

I mostly agree with JzG here. Though, I find a substantial problem with many folks trying simply to insist on use or not use of the word pseudoscience. Even in "mainstream" academia there is plenty of poor (even pseudo) science that has gone on, and is going on. If we keep to clear explainations of sources, and not worry about 'labels' as much, we might keep the heat lower on some of these topics as well. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 18:00, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

If people are willing to help me with this, please add your names to User:ScienceApologist#Administrative helpmates. I really do appreciate this. ScienceApologist (talk) 22:41, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Whether or not an editor considers an administrator neutral is one problem. The more immediate one is helping SA to feel he can stand back a bit from the line of direct confrontation, in favor of more dispute-skilled others who can help him better, when an actual problem conduct or dispute is at hand. This will keep disputes down a lot. As a community, we appoint mentors (and admins step in on disputes) every day, routinely. First things first, then deal with any genuine remaining issues. FT2  22:43, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

I will help as much as I can as a user, and I will step in and say that ScienceApologist's experience seems very real to me. There is a problem with admins that misapply NPOV when the article is about scientifically nonsensical subjects. The one and only time I have been blocked was for "edit warring" on What the Bleep Do We Know, and I have had my behaviour reviewed by one other editor and an admin that I have edited controversial articles on Misplaced Pages with, both of whom were surprised that blocking was considered or done.Kww (talk) 22:51, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Wait a second! For months now I thought that FT2 and NE2 are the same person and only now I, indirectly, learn otherwise. Not a good sign. El_C 02:08, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

IPs in 63.3.10.1 > 63.3.10.2_63.3.10.2-2007-12-28T15:44:00.000Z">

Getting out of archive so a admin can finally do something about this

• 63.3.10.1 (talk · contribs)
• 63.3.10.2 (talk · contribs)
• Cowboycaleb1 (talk · contribs)

I have a feeling the IP's in this range are being used by blocked sockpuppeter Cowboycaleb1. I therefore, a few weeks ago, tagged 63.3.10.1 and 63.3.10.2 with the {{suspectedsockpuppet|Cowboycaleb1}} template. I believe this, as 63.3.10.130 has been determined to of been used by Caleb as found out in the SSP case for Caleb. However, since then, those 2 IP's, along with IPs in the 209.247.5.57 to 209.247.5.59 range have blanked the tags I left and simply left the message "This is a shared ip address.", see . I have reverted the IP edits a number of times, as my concern still stands. The IP's trace back to Memphis, Tennesse, where Caleb is from, as proved in the SSP case. Can someone block these IPs for two - three months as sockpuppets of Caleb. Cheers, Davnel03 15:44, 28 December 2007 (UTC)_63.3.10.2"> _63.3.10.2">

D.M.N. (talk) 22:31, 2 January 2008 (UTC)_63.3.10.2"> _63.3.10.2">

Whois states the range is 63.0.0.0/10, and I wouldn't dare blocking that for 3 months. Does he stay on 63.3.10.0/24? (eg. 63.3.10.xx) -- lucasbfr 08:42, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Possible Socks?

User:24.20.216.95 and User:Brennusgroup. Both started editing this week and both have only edited the same 3 articles (with the exception of the IP putting a link to the movie that the registered account wrote the article about). It looks like either a good hand-bad account or something weird... --Smashville 22:37, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Did you want a cookie? 72.193.221.88 (talk) 00:55, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Excuse me? --Smashville 02:03, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

It's unclear what you wanted. I was thinking: "cookie." 72.193.221.88 (talk) 02:15, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm wanting to know opinions...--Smashville 05:41, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

They haven't done anything wrong, so this is pretty pointless. It looks like a well-meaning user who doesn't always remember to log in - please assume good faith. Neıl ☎ 09:55, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

User Talk:FortKent Block Review (Resolved, reduced)

Per Special:Contributions/FortKent I've just blocked, without many warnings, this user indef. Sorry if my WP:AGF has run out but it's trolling to me. Only bringing it here as I'm about to go offline, and will not be back until 08:00 UTC. I have no issues with an unblock at all, if someone feels the editor deserves another chance. Night all! Pedro :  Chat  22:50, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

He claims in his unblock request that he was just being bold. Those weren't edits consistent with a new user being bold. I think it would take an experienced user to find and redirect RfA and a malicious intent to make the edits he made. Sometimes AGF must take a back seat to IAR and protecting the project. Dlohcierekim 23:02, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

It should be noted this user made his last edit in the same minute he received his first warning. In any event, his edits were truly bizarre for a new user. Someguy1221 (talk) 23:03, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Warned, ceases editing, then blocked indefinitely? Have I read the page history right? DuncanHill (talk) 23:09, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

That certainly would appear to be the case here - Alison 23:25, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

It's true that the block occurred before the next edit. However, it may have just been that the next bad edit was pre-empted. 6 bad "test edits" is a pretty bad start. Dlohcierekim 23:27, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

The first two edits seem fine to me, and as far as I can tell actually clarified the meaning of the sentence (if not the simplest way of doing so). And the next four were self consistent. Someguy1221 (talk) 23:36, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. DuncanHill (talk) 23:42, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

• I doubt its a new user, but it looks like this one should be unblocked or at least have the block reduced to something reasonable. Avruchtalk 00:11, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I reduced the block to two days.   jj137 00:44, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I concur with the reduction to two days. Thank you Jj137, and all. Pedro :  Chat  07:54, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

cold fusion

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

Consequent on the discussion above. Doc has unprotected the article, and almost immediately user:Pcarbonn made this edit .

There is a problem here. It is a cherry-picked sentence from the middle of the report which supports his preferred interpretation that the reviewers were virtually unanimous in supporting more research; the report's conclusion is more neutral, and the link says "conclusions of", but Pcarbonn wants to say that the conclusion is much more supportive than actually it is. I've had more than enough of this querulous POV-pushing, could we have more eyes please. Guy (Help!) 22:54, 2 January 2008 (UTC) ... And, after a brief storm of POV editing, protection back on. Perhaps we should just leave it to the kooks and have a quiet life. Guy (Help!) 23:08, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

I have reprotected the article. I no sooner unprotect it than inane edit warring resumes. Take this to dispute resolution - and don't bring the content dispute here. I'm tempted to block everyone concerned.--Doc 23:10, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

• Feel free, I'm sick to death of resisting fringe science POV pushers and could do with a break :-) —Preceding unsigned comment added by JzG (talk • contribs) 23:19, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

• • I'm concerned with this edit, where Pcarbonn removes the major quote. A few edits later, he inserts the OTHER contentious paragraph he prefers. ThuranX (talk) 23:40, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

• This is no longer an AN/I issue. Avruchtalk 23:47, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Second opinion on User:Calumbyers (not resolved)

Could somebody take a look at User:Calumbyers and Calum byers? Besides being an nn bio, the article looks like an attack page. But since it's written by User:Calumbyers (who claims to have sourced the article from an interview with the subject), the User name itself seems problematic. Corvus cornix_talk 23:15, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

I speedied it per A7, didn't assert significance.   jj137 00:11, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

What about blocking the User? And deleting the User page? Corvus cornix_talk 00:30, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I warned the user   jj137 00:35, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Warned them what? They're using somebody else's name as their User name. And their User page is still an attack. Corvus cornix_talk 00:37, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

How do we know that they aren't the person? Also, just looking at the user page, without knowing what "GSA" is, I don't see how it is an attack. - Rjd0060 (talk) 01:28, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Read the deleted Calum byers page they created, in which they said they got the information about the article "FROM" Calum byers, and in which they claimed that the GSA is a gay organization. Corvus cornix_talk 03:42, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I see that no admin will do anything about this situation, so I have blanked the offensive User page. Corvus cornix_talk 16:57, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Aatomic1 editwaring again (resolved)

User:Aatomic1 has just dropped into this article Easter Rising for a spot of edit waring. This issue was discussed and the references don't support the statement. All they want is to join the POV bandits on this article. Could Admin's review this article, and the editors. --Domer48 (talk) 00:15, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I semi-protected the article for one week due to edit wars.   jj137 00:33, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry - semi-protected? Is Aatomic1 not the one edit-warring? I thought edit-war protections were usually full? 00:54, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Looks like it was full protection. Marking resolved. 00:56, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

User:TTN/monobook.js

User:TTN is using Twinkle to make large number of high speed controversial edits. Would someone be good enough to remove his access please?Geni 00:18, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Can you be more specific? Avruchtalk 00:19, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. Diff's would help. Resolute 00:22, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

We have had discussions similar to this before. TTN is always making high-speed merges without really getting a consensus, and it seems he can now do it even faster with Twinkle. I'll alert TTN of this discussion, by the way.   jj137 00:22, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

It seems that has already been done --  jj137 00:23, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

The only ones I used TW with recently were ones that underwent discussion, but were brought back anyways without as much of a peep on a talk page. I don't really see that as contraversial. TTN (talk) 00:26, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I'll provide some diffs. .   jj137 00:29, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Looks to me like User:Catchpole needs a severe talking to.Kww (talk) 00:40, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I started boldy restoring content due to the response at Talk:List of Scrubs episodes. Many editors have complained about the WP:EPISODE on that guidelines talk-page. I then saw similar insstances where TV shows had been merged and redirected without a consensus and so similary restored the content. Catchpole (talk) 06:21, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I cry "foul"! If TTN is using Twinkle to do his work, the Twinkle developers should consider optimising it to do whatever it is he needs done. Making his task harder by preventing him from using tools isn't reasonable.Kww (talk) 00:35, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

(To initiator of this thread and in general) I thought the first step would have been to discuss this directly with the user first, before deciding its needs admin attention. Seraphim 00:38, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

• Wasn't there an ArbCom decision admonishing TTN regarding these types of actions? Can someone post the relevant text? Thanks! 00:51, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

TTN went through all the necessary steps for a merger this time round, short of flashing neon signs on the main page. Catchpole isn't even attempting to discuss. Will 00:43, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Where did TTN discuss this on the target merger page? Where was this discussed and supported? I couldn't find anything. Lawrence Cohen 00:47, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

There was no arbcom decision against him. The arbitrators split, and could not manage to pass any motion admonishing TTN. He has a lot of fans, because he is doing a good job of a necessary task.Kww (talk) 00:45, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

(ec x2)Final decision here, Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_arbitration/Episodes_and_characters#Final_decision. TTN was not admonished. Seraphim 00:46, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Still it was stated that the editors involved should seek consensus on the issue. I don't see TTN seeking consensus at all, rather he keeps up doing what he has been doing in the past - rapid, semi-automated editing, mass "mergers" and down talking to editors. CharonX/talk 01:28, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

• His edit summaries are saying to refer to talk on Talk:List of Stargate SG-1 episodes, but there appears to be no comments from him there? Is he just redirecting entire seasons of TV shows and changing all those articles to be redirects? If there is objection to this activity, wouldn't it require consensus to proceed? What user name discussed doing this? Lawrence Cohen 00:42, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Stargate#SG-1 Episode notability. The project agreed that some articles failed the guideline. Will 00:46, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

• Must be a small project then, there is hardly any discussion. Shouldn't something like this be mentioned on the target page, rather than some out of the way corner of Misplaced Pages that most editors may not be watching? TTN just swooped in based on that? I don't see him participating. Lawrence Cohen 00:49, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Shouldn't one of the people that participated in that discussion have made the necessary redirects, and not TTN? It looks to me like he just "swooped in".   jj137 00:56, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

There does seem to be some controversy about use of TW by editors lately. See here for a recent example. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles 00:57, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

It was talked about they seem to be in the process of transwiki, this is no big deal and not the type of thing that took him to ARBCOM. Seems like every time he performs a redirect people are going to jump all over him. Ridernyc (talk) 01:20, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

If you look at the edit histories for those articles, you'll see that the merger/redirects were originally performed by sgeureka (talk), reverted by Catchpole (talk), and redone by TTN, probably by just hitting the undo or revert button, which is what made it possible to do them so fast. They were discussed by Sgeureka on the project talk page in advance, with a reference to the discussion on the episode list article with no objections or comment by Catchpole. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 02:52, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

three editors is not wide enough participation for something of this magnitude. TTN is violating the spirit fo the arbcom decision--it was that census was required, and it was up to us editing here to find it. They were right about that, and continued edits without substantial consensus might be good grounds for reopening. One is supposed to learn something from an arb com. Many of us hoped they would say something one way or the other giving more direct guidance, but if they think we can deal with it ourselves, they deserve that we give it a good try in good faith--not try to see how much one can get away with. Transwiki to Wikia is not a reason for unilateral action--its not a wmf project like Wiktionary. Anyone who performs mass actions in controversial matters, damn right people are going to complain about it. Now its up to us to follow through on those complaints. DGG (talk) 06:18, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

There was not a single complaint (rather the opposite) in the last five or six weeks about the transwiki I (in this case not TTN) was doing. Catchpole did not leave a comment at the LoE talk page, my talkpage, or the WikiProject talk page, all of which I have watchlisted, so I had no idea that he resurrected the episode articles despite the (my) last edit summary Redirect after discussions in the SG wikiproject and the List of Episodes talkpage. Now transwikied to wikia. Please give significant real-world information when/if resurrecting this article. The only controversial thing here are Catchpole's may-I-say-sneaky actions, which TTN promptly undid. TTN had and still has unglorious moments, but this is clearly not one of them. – sgeureka 09:52, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Sneaky? I didn't realise I was required to fill out multiple forms to edit the encyclopedia. Whatever happened to being bold? Catchpole (talk) 10:06, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

As I said, these redirects have been discussed at length at the appropriate forums, and the edit summary was quite clear what to do (and what not to do). As you ignored both consensus and failed to leave a note *somewhere* so that others would notice, despite you being an established wikipedian who should know better, I can only call such an action "sneaky" (for lack of a better word). – sgeureka 12:16, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Arbcom ruled collaboration. TTN is just merely continuing his edit behaviour and I see no evidence of collaboration on his part. Had there truly been a consensus no one would be revert waring or even reverting. A non-controversial edit would be trivial stuff like double redirect fixing. Something is controversial by nature if it is disputed. -- Cat 22:38, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure that if no-one complains to a proposal where there'd be the most views for six weeks, it's not controversial. Will 22:49, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Violation of WP:TVS consensus

The established consensus for television station articles is to only include staff members who appear on-air. Several individuals have been adding non-air staff to WKYT-TV, in blatant violation of that established consensus. What is the best way to deal with that sort of issue? I've been told when trying to report the individual for vandalism that the edits have been in good faith. But they stand outside of the establihed guidelines for those articles. The person in question refuses to communicate and certainly does not want to cooperate with everyone else. --Mhking (talk) 00:36, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

• You've got yourself in an edit war my friend. Seven reversions in less than 24hrs. Whoa now, time to step back and take it to the talk page. RMHED (talk) 01:14, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Correct, and 3RR warned. - Rjd0060 (talk) 01:22, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough -- I've backed off of reverting the other two editors in question. Despite taking the conversation to the talk page of the editors in question along with the talk page of the article in question, I've received no feedback from anyone else involved. I still am pleading for guidance and commensurrate intervention from others both here and in WP:TVS. Thanks in advance... --Mhking (talk) 01:29, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

If I'm not able to get any further guidance here, I'll go to WP:3O to see if there can be any other means of solving this impasse, but I remain open to any additional suggestions and guidance. --Mhking (talk) 13:41, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Dissruptive Editing by user Koonleg50 (talk · contribs) 2nd complaint

This user has been engaging in disruptive editing practices for the past week on Wing Chun and Wing Tsun, and Jee Shim Weng Chun Kungfu and several other pages. He was previously blocked for these practices. This includes consistently adding WP:OR, and altering references and referenced sections. I have tried to help and compromise by working in some of the material in to a non WP:OR and a WP:NPOV format, yet he continues to revert and push more WP:OR. He has been engaged via the talk pages for those entries as well and has had it explained how he needs verifiable references. He responded with more WP:OR, followed by more reverts on the main pages along with an addition of a link to his personal blog for a reference, as well as references back to wikipedia. The user has also used multiple anonymous IP's. He just engaged in a revert war as well again at Wing Tsun and has started the same at Jee Shim Weng Chun Kungfu and List of Chinese martial arts. I have stopped before reaching 3rd this time. I'm requesting administrator intervention again.

Here is the record for the previous block:

Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive347#Dissruptive_Editing_by_user_Koonleg50.C2.A0.28talk.C2.A0.C2.B7_contribs.29

--Marty Goldberg (talk) 02:14, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Is there anyone that can take care of this? Its 12 hours later and he's still continuing his disruptive editing across all the pages mentioned, doing everything he was warned not to do after the last block. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 08:25, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I give up, its 3am and I need sleep. He's still going at it, moving pages, doing reverts, pushing WP:OR, etc. and now throwing up "edit protect" tags in an attempt to keep his reverts. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 09:01, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

He's been blocked by admin Can't sleep, clown will eat me. Off to sleep for me......*thud*. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 09:46, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Koonleg50 (talk · contribs) is promoting a school of martial arts that does not have external references (for example, books, documentary) and has a name that is identical to a widely known martial art (Wing Chun). In order for him to do that, I suggest the following:

1) Provide a reference or source to his information other then the organization's website. His reference provide no information on this style so according to the information on the site I would consider it a traditional Wing chun school. If I can see some additional information the nature of this style then I can consider it a separate and distinct style.

2) Refrain from editing the Wing Tsun pages because according to you, it is not your style anyways. Find a classification that matches your style, describe your similiarities to other Southern styles and your uniqueness but leave the traditional Wing Tsun information alone. For example, if your style is more related to Fukien style, Hung Kuen or White Cranes, describe it. Then we can relate in within the broader context of this encyclopedia. The Weng Chun style might be interesting but I do not have the information to make any inform decisions about this style.

3) I and the Misplaced Pages community are here to help each and everyone to contribute and disseminate quality information.

--Ottawakungfu (talk) 16:39, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Block evasion

Will someone take a look at Talk:Blood_libel_against_Jews#Jewish_women_admitting_Child_sacrifice_on_OPRAH. User 85.92.85.2 (talk) claims to be the same editor as the blocked IP 78.86.159.199 (talk), which seems like a pretty clear-cut case of block evasion, if true. Note that I did not ask for the original block, and I think his conduct so far, although clearly inflammatory could probably be handled without the use of administrator tools. He also claims that he's editing from a computer at some kind of student residence. Perhaps someone who knows how to get the information to use the {{SharedIP}} tag should take a look at this and see if it applies. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 02:15, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

It's odd; the new IP doesn't seem nearly as rude and trollish as the first one. Maybe he took the hint? Someguy1221 (talk) 04:14, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I blocked the first one; I'm inclined to block-evasion block the second, but if someone else wants to try to reason with them a bit first then I will hold off. They do seem to have become somewhat more reasonable with the second IP. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 10:34, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Indefinite Block applied - user HowFake

HowFake (talk · contribs) was identified as a vandalism only account targeting The Pinks by inspection of contributions and summarily blocked indefinitely. This message is to notify so that opinion regarding the action can be registered. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 02:16, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Obviously a vandal, but why not give him a final warning instead of blocking? All he received was a level 1 cluebot warning. I personally doubt he has anything constructive to add, but he stopped editing hours before you blocked. Someguy1221 (talk) 02:33, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

User makes a total of 4 edits in a 6 minute time frame, and is indef blocked. Doesn't seem appropriate given the edits he made, which were vandalism, but not anything more than that. No warnings except for one. Should definately be unblocked, and given a final warning for the vandalism, and the misleading edit summaries, asap, IMO. - Rjd0060 (talk) 04:05, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

It obviously a bad faith account and warnings are just a formality. A short block may have been a better idea. John Reaves 04:14, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Repeating sockpuppets

If this is the wrong place, I apologize. I am not sure if it is Tajik or Beh-nam who is creating these new sockpuppets, but they keep appearing. CanadianAnthropologist (talk · contribs)/HariRud (talk · contribs)/KabuliTajik (talk · contribs)/BamyanMan (talk · contribs)/Padmanii (talk · contribs)/AntiFascism (talk · contribs). The latest is Ghurid (talk · contribs) who picked right up after AntiFascism (talk · contribs) was blocked. --Bejnar (talk) 02:28, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Ghurid appears to have been created inside the account creation block levelled against AntiFascism. Uh, I have nothing more to say, but I felt that worth noting. Someguy1221 (talk) 04:17, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Anti-BS Squad (talk · contribs)

Hello, I'd like to voice concerns about User:Anti-BS Squad. Although "BS" stands for "big squid", this can be easily confused with "bullshit." I didn't go to UAA, but what does everyone else think? JetLover (talk) (Report a mistake) 04:23, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't bother me, personally. Even if it was intended to represent bullshit, I don't think that necessarily would be a huge problem considering its abbreviated and not a directed epithet (like F-U-A-Hole). 04:27, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

It's fine. John Reaves 04:27, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Mmm, yeah, I guess it's okay, but I doubt the person had the name "Anti-Big Squid Squad" (heh, Squid Squad!) when they created an account. Unless of course the user is a Giant Squid hunter. I guess it can slide - BS stands for more than I'd expected. J-ſtan_{User page} 04:31, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

It obviously stands for bull shit. The username is inflamatory and aggressive and it wouldnt be a problem if the edits coming from the username werent agressive (,). I have a slight hunch that this is another a Kirbytime sock (claims had old username, started right when Atarti400 was banned, Islamophobia) but time will tell. Anyway, I'll AGF for now and will keep an eye on this. --Matt57 04:49, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Lol, I think I'm right. Anyway, we'll see. --Matt57 05:05, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Eh...... does 0rrAvenger (talk · contribs · block log) ring a bell? Similar username. He made a mistake. --Matt57 05:20, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Nercronalon (LWA)

Nercronalon (LWA) (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Needs a block; sockpuppet of User:LaruaWA11, as evident from the users' first contributions. - Rjd0060 (talk) 04:30, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

And by the initialization. I was curious as to how you suspected it was that user's sockpuppet, but I got it now. J-ſtan_{User page} 04:33, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Blocked. John Reaves 04:35, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

• Somebody please protect User talk:Nercronalon (LWA). - Rjd0060 (talk) 05:00, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Been done. Thanks, User:Jéské Couriano. - Rjd0060 (talk) 05:08, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

More

Maybe these should be blocked now? Special:User creation log. Should probably protect all the talk pages also, he always abuses the unblock and helpme tags after blocked. - Rjd0060 (talk) 05:11, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Well that was kind of silly of him. Someguy1221 (talk) 05:12, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Sure was. There are still a couple more that aren't blocked; see Category:Suspected Misplaced Pages sockpuppets of LaruaWA11. - Rjd0060 (talk) 05:23, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

If any more pop up, be sure to protect their userpages after you block them - I just got through protecting a spate of them. In the meantime, is it possible to add "(LWA)" to HBC NameWatcherBot's filter? -Jéské 05:48, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I think I've blocked all of them. John Reaves 05:48, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

S/he may still create more, hence the reason I asked if it was possible to add "(LWA)" to the filter so that HBC NameWatcherBot could flag them. -Jéské 05:55, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I know admins can add things. The page is User:HBC NameWatcherBot/Blacklist. - Rjd0060 (talk) 06:02, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I know that, but I don't know if the parentheses will break the bot. -Jéské 06:05, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I didn't think about that. - Rjd0060 (talk) 06:08, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

(RI) I'll ask on the bot op's userpage. -Jéské 06:21, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Disputed POV

Does anyone agree that the following is POV?

when the author combined his work in quality assurance and quality control points with function deployment used in Value Engineering

Rjsfhl (talk · contribs) has inserted this several times, but insists it is not POV on his talk page. JetLover (talk) (Report a mistake) 04:59, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I can't make heads or tales of it, sounds like corporate double speak to me, but it sounds like a content dispute. Maybe try getting more input on the articles talk page. This really isn't the place for content disputes. RxS (talk) 05:09, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

It's certainly not POV if it's supported by a citable reference. It is saying that the creator of this technique did so by synthesising two existing approaches, and he either did that or he didn't. This would be better at WP:3O, perhaps, as the article's talk page is not overloaded with editors. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 05:38, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Agree with Rodhullandemu. ThuranX (talk) 13:03, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely not POV. "A combined X and Y to make Z." I don't understand why anyone would think it *is* POV. Andrew Jameson (talk) 15:22, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

The only reason I can see it could possibly be read as POV is if someone didn't realise that quality assurance and quality control are two processes used to maintain the quality of a product, and as such the word "quality" is not actually a comment on this person's work. Confusing Manifestation(Say hi!) 22:55, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

DOS and MS-DOS Compatible Operating Systems

There had been a dispute that DOS be deleted or merged into MS-DOS for various reasons. It survived a vote for deletion (unanimous keep) and a vote to merge (unanimous oppose). Consensus was that DOS was a separate entity and deserved an article. One of the opponents (see here) moved the DOS article to MS-DOS Compatible Operating Systems, and changed the DOS redirect to DOS (disambiguation) so that it can't be moved back. They didn't put a discussion up before doing this (other than that linked above, which doesn't mention moving). Could this be moved back and move protected until a discussion and consensus could be done? 69.221.166.33 (talk) 05:45, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

That's pretty ridiculous, and needs to be reverted. This is total circumvention of the process to achieve a goal that was discouraged. I'd also support a block of the editor. ThuranX (talk) 12:51, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Moved back. I am going to issue A Plague of Rainbows with a strong warning about unrevertible moves. Stifle (talk) 13:00, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

If it happens again another admin should move-protect the page. Stifle (talk) 13:02, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Please note that per Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/AndriyK#Reversal of irreversible page moves, "scorched earth" moves may be summarily reversed without any discussion. east.718 at 14:43, January 3, 2008

Same anon; thank you very much. It's been in the VfD and merge votes above; I wish people would let the issue drop already. Thanks again. 69.221.152.25 (talk) 18:40, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Please halt this

Last week I reported massive canvass disrupting a move proposal at Talk:Franz Josef Strauß. The proposal was rightfully speedy closed by User:James086, who called for a period of about one month to elapse before a new move proposal could take place (in order to have the canvass die out). However, the same user took the initiative to restart the same move proposal just a few days later, apparently pressed by users unsatisfied with the early closure. I've contacted James about this but received no response. Meanwhile, at Talk:Franz Josef Strauß the second proposal goes on, with the effects of last week's canvass still obviously present. Please analyze this situation that should really be halted. Thanks. Húsönd 06:11, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

The discussion appears to have been closed in favor of the move. I stand mute on whether the closure is proper, but note that the most recent discussion began on 28 December. UltraExactZZ ~ Evidence 13:26, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Requested move discussions are opened for five days or whenever discussion has ended (whichever is greater), and the Strauß/Strauss discussion was on the WP:RM backlog when I closed it - I note 28 December was 7 days ago, and there had been no particularly relevant contributions to the discussion since 31 December. Neıl ☎ 13:52, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree, which is why I specifically highlighted the date. Apart from not waiting a month before opening a new discussion, I saw no other problems with the discussion, which is why I didn't comment on them - nor do I see evidence of canvassing, as was claimed in the previous discussion. It looks like a good close to me. UltraExactZZ ~ Evidence 15:00, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! Personally, I'm not sure how bringing an ongoing move discussion to the attention of interested parties could have been construed as canvassing, providing both "sides" of the discussion are similarly informed. And as for the lack of a month's wait, given a discussion had taken place, at great length and in an admirably scholarly fashion, it would have been very discourteous to dismiss it with a "sorry, you didn't wait long enough" and leave as is. Neıl ☎ 15:23, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

providing bot "sides" of the discussion are similarly informed - didn't happen here. Check the first move proposal at Talk:Franz Josef Strauß and see what User:Unschool's canvass to 34 users supportive of only one "side" made to that discussion before it was speedy closed. You'll see a handful of those 34 back at the second proposal. By the way, I don't think that informing both sides of a discussion would not be canvass. The only way to make things even is not to tell anyone. Húsönd 16:51, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

You need to provide evidence, other than the way they ultimately voted, for your claim that they were chosen based on what "side" they're on (IIRC the proportions among those who were not canvassed were similarly overwhelmingly in favor of the move, and this was a reason people were dissatisfied with the early closure). It looks to me like you're against the move and, lacking any consensus for your view, you're lobbying against it any way you can. If there were a significant number of people who agreed with you surely they would have spoken up one of the times this came up in this highly visible noticeboard. —Random832 18:34, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I was against the move and that's a no-brainer because I participated in the first poll as "oppose", shortly before the canvass had taken place. But the far-fetched lobbying accusation I think you should have kept for yourself instead of posting it on "this highly visible noticeboard", because a) you don't have any evidence for that; b) WP:AGF and c) it's rude. Húsönd 05:29, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

You've made the accusation (without providing any evidence beyond the way they ultimately did vote, which is insufficient) that the users who were notified were chosen because they were predisposed to vote one way. It doesn't violate AGF to suggest the possibility that you _might_ be forum-shopping, especially since the subject line above clearly indicates (states outright, in fact) that you were fishing for a particular outcome rather than just asking for more eyes on the issue. —Random832 05:57, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

4 users who contributed to the second poll were notified of the first. So of those canvassed, 4 returned to the second RM (all of which supported the move). Even if they were to be discounted from the second survey, the numbers would be 12-4 in favour, still 75% in favour of a move so I don't think the original canvass has had a large enough effect on the second discussion to mark it void. I began the second move discussion because it was clear that many people did not want to wait a month to have another discussion. During the second dicsussion a note was left at the German Wikiproject informing people of the move request, but per Misplaced Pages:Canvassing#Friendly notices it would be acceptable. James086 02:46, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

They were 5 actually but yes, even disregarding them we would still have a majority calling for the article to be moved. And yet, I still don't trust the outcome of this discussion. Should this have happened a month or so later and everything would look much better for me. Canvass is a powerful disruptor, even off-wiki, and only time can weaken it. Anyway, I'll drop this. Húsönd 05:36, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

BLP concerns on candidate pages (American election)

Just an FYI, the first major event in the American election cycle for 2008 is January 3rd, the Iowa Caucus. All the candidate pages may be major vandal targets. Lawrence Cohen 07:49, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Those candidate pages would be Joe Biden, Hillary Rodham Clinton, Chris Dodd, John Edwards, Mike Gravel, Dennis Kucinich, Barack Obama, Bill Richardson, Rudy Giuliani, Mike Huckabee, Duncan Hunter, John McCain, Ron Paul, Mitt Romney, and Fred Thompson. Neıl ☎ 09:58, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

They may well be vandalised but I don't think we need worry about BLP concerns. Politicians are highly public figures. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 11:41, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I suspect that most admins will be more open to semi-prot if we see vandal activity in light of the timeframe, but we may get lots of good IP contribs as well. I'm more concerned that after semi-prot, we'll see sleeper acc'ts popping up for weeks, but that's nto totally a bad thing either. ThuranX (talk) 12:57, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

121.45.181.31 removes external references again

Hereby I report trolling behaviour of unregistered user 121.45.181.31 again (previously I did that on 1 Jan at 21:02).
He repeated his actions on 2 Jan, at 07:29 (with comment There is no source for this info and it seems to be just an opinion).
Is he playing dumb?
He has removed the references, that had explicit explanations why are they necessary.
Despite being warned by user Avruch with two messages on 1 Jan at 22:220 and 22:25 , that troll continued with same behaviour. Kubura (talk) 10:56, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Axctually, the section he removed deserved deletion. as to the external links, if they were references, they should've been in-line'd and/or put int he references section, not the EL. I'm more concerned by your most recent edit there, where you switched the reference which the only explanation being some noise about how it was a pdf. the other ref appeared to be a book. ThuranX (talk) 13:02, 3 January 2008 (UTC

Qwl (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

An editor in need of a bit of attention, I think. Single-purpose account pushing Turk nationalist POV only (anti-Kurd, anti-Armenian, this being a good example), see in particular edits to Armenian Genocide and Talk:Armenian Genocide. His talk page looks innocuous but check its history - a lot has been removed, including the whole discussion concerning his block for edit warring. Any ideas as to what to do? Moreschi 12:08, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Mervin 110694, part 2

Can anyone stop the madness of User:Mervin 110694? S/he uploads images without copyright tags, adds logos for decoration, and several other useless GMA POV-pushing edits. --Howard the Duck 12:52, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Editor also had problems with copyvios in articles; hasn't responded to any warnings or communication. Blocked indef until they communicate and agree to stop. Shell 13:09, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the speedy response. --Howard the Duck 14:05, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

user:Sfacets

sfacets (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has just finished a block and piled straigh in with this: . As far as I'm concerned this is deliberately pressing the self-destruct button, I have blocked for a month because it's clear that everyone who's ever come across this user has to watch his behaviour whenever he is unblocked at present. I'm not opposed to shortening (if someone wants to take on the job of helping him not to disrupt, push POV, harass other users and in sundry other ways be a dick) or lengthening to indef if people think we should wash our hands of him. Guy (Help!) 13:20, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

This is just one in a long line of reasons that I believe we would be better off without this particular user. The user has uploaded some suspicious images in the past, fought to keep them from being deleted by making many contradictory claims (including having taken pictures before he was born) and attacking those involved in the deletion discussion and now re-uploads them on the sly despite being warned not to. This most recent action is more harassment of the editor who originally discovered the copyright infringements. Since the user does not seem to care about violating copyright, its unlikely that his presence will do anything but hurt the project. Shell 13:30, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I have engaged in a discussion on his talk page - it is not going well. He seems to feel that his harrassment of Will Beback and re-uploading the image which has already been deleted something like 8 times are ok. The edits to the archived RFCU page might just be a mistake, but the others seem implausible to have any non-disruptive interpretation, and he is sticking with his story that he hasn't done anything wrong.

More uninvolved editors taking a look at the situation and commenting on his talk page may help clarify in his mind that he really does have a problem. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 21:18, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Opinion provided and unblock request declined. Sandstein (talk) 22:08, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Sfacets indefinitely blocked

Following the discussion on Sfacets' talk page, I have concluded that he is too disruptive and not willing to contribute to the encyclopedia under our community policies and guidelines. Pursuant to that, and given that he believes his disruptive actions were perfectly ok, I believe there's nothing we can do to reform him and that an indefinite block is in order. He has a long problem history, and is entirely unrepentant.

I have unblocked him and reblocked him indefinitely, both to clear the JzG block (legit appearance of conflict of interest question over RFC filed against JzG, though I don't believe it has underlying merit) and to impose the appropriate indef block.

As with any block of mine, especially indefinite ones of longstanding users, I invite other admins to review in detail and if you disagree feel free to undo it. I believe that this is going to be a community ban, and that he is not reformable, but I leave it up to the rest of the administrator communities' judgement whether I have acted appropriately here, etc. Thanks. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 01:10, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

When someone's block log is so long that you have to scroll down to read the whole thing, you get the impression that they may not fully embrace Misplaced Pages's norms. Support indef. Raymond Arritt (talk) 03:24, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

WP:POINT violation?

Could some admin undo this unwarranted and undiscussed move? I think WP:POINT needs to be explained. Nomen Nescio 13:48, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

 Done. I'll drop a note at the user's talk page. Snowolf 14:53, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Anonymous threatening

IP 122.167.6.1 (talk · contribs) is threatening to ban me, accusing me of spreading fascist, racial propaganda, telling about some "legal action" against wikipedia in Talk:Communist Party of India (Marxist). An investigation is necessary. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 14:30, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Well he can't ban you.--Phoenix-wiki 14:43, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

It is impossible for an IP or a standard user to block anyone from Misplaced Pages. Only Adminstrators can do that. Stwalkerster 14:51, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

This IP is continuing legal threats. Please see User talk:122.167.6.1. Demanding "formal explanation from wikipedia before proceding with legal action". Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 14:53, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

This user is violating WP:NPA WP:NPOV and has WP:COI Special:Contributions/122.167.6.1, please block his IP. Igor Berger (talk) 14:59, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Blocked for a short period of time. However this does not mean that he is the only user at fault in this dispute. I have not looked in detail at the situation, but it is clear to me that 122.167... has in some way been baited by other users, even if he instigated some offence to them. I'll remind all parties to observe no personal attacks and civility policies, and suggest that they consider pursing dispute resolution, from step one, after 122.167...'s block expires. Martinp23 15:15, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't think the anon editor was provoked in any way. Their allegations that everyone editing the article is a fascist are completely unprovoked and without foundation. The targets of their attacks have been remarkably calm.--Conjoiner (talk) 15:26, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

The anon user has definately broken against WP:LEGAL. However, as per the other accusations presented here by Igorberger, I would disagree. The debate climate on the Talk:Communist Party of India (Marxist) has deteriorated significantly in the recent period, but it would be unfair to attribute this solely to the anon user. As per NPOV, the massive POV edits in the mainspace have been done by other users, whose sole purpose in editing the mainspace of this article has been to push negative pov. As per COI, this was an accusation raised on the talk page, an accusation that (see the talk page in question) was full of flaws. --Soman (talk) 17:21, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Copacabana

I believe an article which I helped to construct has been a victim of abuse of power by an administrator, and decided to write here in request for help, since the dialogue between all the parties has been aggressive and offense-riddled.

I have been envolved for some time in a discussion about the Copacabana -- Copacabana (disambiguation), and I think it may need some external arbitration. I have reorganized the article, in order to classify the topics being disambiguated by order of relevance, that is, cities first, then neighbourhoods, then nightclubs and other places named 'Copacabana'. Sadly, my changes kept being reverted and I was repeatedly insulted by an individual native from Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, who kept offending me and, unable to disguise his nationalistic bias and partiality, would not accept that there should even be a disambiguation page for what he considered to be "his" Copacabana (Rio de Janeiro), and even when a consensus was achieved that this page should indeed exist, he kept altering the page in order to have his Copacabana (Rio) on top of the list, even though it is a neighbourhood, in contrast to cities which were named Copacabana hundreds of years before.

User:EconomistBR, the user in question, appealed to an administrator, User:Hu12, who took an unfair and unbalanced view, in my opinion, and exercised his prerrogative to block the page in a somewhat arrogant and authoritarian way, refusing to properly debate the subject. Furthermore, he has blocked the page for editing without properly double-checking it, therefore leaving the page with some spelling and editing mistakes (pieces of links which do not work etc). I appeal to all other administrators who might be interested in helping me solve this problem to take a look at that page and see what could best be done for the good of Misplaced Pages, which, in my point of view, has been the only harmed in this débacle. Rsazevedo (talk) 15:12, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

(2x ec) As the main search term was a redirect to a disambig page (which makes no sense), I've gone ahead and fixed that. east.718 at 15:18, January 3, 2008

Discussion location → Talk:Copacabana. I might also add this page is being extremly disrupted by Rsazevedo. My protecting the page was a reuslt of severe disruption by Rsazevedo after an appeal by User:EconomistBR here →User_talk:Hu12#Request_for_really_simple_conflict_resolution. Neither versions seemed to follow Misplaced Pages:Manual of Style (disambiguation pages). Both parties participated in edit warring and WP:NPA, however Rsazevedo seems to have engaged in tendentious editing in pursuit of a certain point for an extended period of time attempt to disrupt Misplaced Pages in order to illustrate a point and despite discussions, is perpetuating this conflict through the use of brute force and Harassment.

• "CNN talks about it". Oooooh, I'm impressed! :) What kind of an argument is that, "CNN talks about it"? hahahahahah
• Why the hell did you delete my entry in the discussion in the Copacabana article?
• Are you mentally challenged?
• By the way, the correct spelling is "biased", and not BISED; you should know better, cause you seem to fit that concept perfectly.
• Man, you really are a nut job! Get a life

--Hu12 (talk) 16:00, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Once again you are biased, Hu12. You conveniently "forgot" to mention that I had been extremely restrained, even though EconomistBR had been offending me, and it was only after he called me A LIAR in a TOPIC and being repeatedly offended by him that I lost my patience and eventually lashed out -- something which I, BTW, deeply regret and am not proud of. But may I ask why you did not quote his offenses as well?

• 'Rsazevedo you lied to me
• Rsazevedo, you said that Misplaced Pages "is not the place for nationalistic displays" but you displayed an incredible degree of nationalism when you created a page redirect just to get your precious Copacabana Bolivia on top of the alphabetical list.
• Don't worry your Copacabana (Bolivia) is top of list at Misplaced Pages's expense.
• (Your Copacabana Bolivia comes on top is all 3 organizing methods created. It's shameful)
• I have nothing agaist you is just that you lied to me when you said that Misplaced Pages "is not the place for nationalistic displays".
• This is proves that you are bised and corrupted Misplaced Pages for personal ends. It's quite sad really, I always try to be impartial, you've given up on that.
• But I guess your "work" here is done. Your precious Copacabana Bolivia, which you visited, is first on the list. You've spread your personal views at Misplaced Pages corrupting this encyclopedia, and then lied to others about Misplaced Pages not being "the place for nationalistic displays".
• 3 organizing methods the same result - this is Rsazevedo at work Good job, some Brazilian you are.
• You have no shame, you should admit that you are biased. After 3 organizing methods with the same result your lame excuses are a joke.

Please try to understand my point of view and not be that one-sided. I am NOT a vandal and have always contributed positively to Misplaced Pages, you can check all my previous edits. Have some respect, both for myself and for Misplaced Pages. Rsazevedo (talk) 16:33, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Another key to the problem here, Rsazevedo. You don't see yourself as having an opinion; you see yourself as bearing the Truth. You perceive your biases as neutral..--Hu12 (talk) 16:43, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

That is simply not true, Hu12. I may well have a bias, as everyone does, but this is certainly the case where I have not incurred in that (if I were being biased, wouldn't I change the page in favour of my country, putting Copacabana (Rio) on top as EconomistBR did? On the contrary, I prefered what seemed to me the better way for Misplaced Pages to present a disambiguation page); I simply tried to set the page in a logical and rational way. If you disagree, you could have at least discussed it, something which you, under the cloak of Administrative Authority, has consistently refused to do.

On the other hand you have been acting with an enormous degree of bias, in favour of EconomistBR, perhaps because he came seeking for help in your talk page, to the point where you chose to portray me here as someone inherently bad who does nothing on Misplaced Pages but offend others and conveniently "forgetting" to post EconomistBR's offences and disruptions. I'm appalled, and considering leaving Misplaced Pages for good if that is the standard of decisions one has to put up with. Rsazevedo (talk) 16:51, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

This case seems to be an attempt by Rsazevedo to continue to impose one's own view of "standards to apply" rather than those of the community. Attempts to resolve this dispute has resulted in attacks against myself and wholsale mischaracterizing of my good faith actions to make me seem unreasonable or improper. In this situation, Rsazevedo is attempting to perpetuate the disputes act in spite of policies and guidelines such as Misplaced Pages:Civility,Misplaced Pages:No personal attacks, Misplaced Pages:Ownership of articles, by sticking to a WP:POINT, repeating it almost without end, and refusing to acknowledge others' input or their own error. Collectively, disruptive editors harm Misplaced Pages by degrading its reliability as a reference source and by exhausting the patience of productive editors who may quit the project in frustration when a disruptive editor continues with impunity. A slippery slope, in which usualy ends in a block.--Hu12 (talk) 17:08, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Why did you protect a page you've been involved in a dispute on after reverting to your own version? east.718 at 17:20, January 3, 2008

Why not? Its not my dispute and an appropriate action due to the disruption.--Hu12 (talk) 17:51, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

To be fair we can't blame Rzacevedo alone for the uncivil path that led to this content dispute, here is just a nice quote of what the other half (EconomistBR) has said as well: "3 organizing methods the same result - this is Rsazevedo at work Good job, some Brazilian you are." was there really a need to escalate this to the point where one user attacks the other's nationality? I doubt it, either both of them calm down or both receive a nice block for uncivility, no preference for one user or the other. - Caribbean~H.Q. 17:36, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Hu12, I tried to discuss with you my "standards to apply", but you chose to ignore them and in an unprecedent and authoritarian way imposed yours. Does it not seem logical to you that the first city in the world to be called Copacabana should the be the first in the disambiguation page, considering that the others were named after that? And, not only that, should a city not come before a neighbourhood in a list of relevance? I have never received an answer for these topics, and, instead, have been patronized insistentely by you.

It's behaviours such as these that are the sort of stuff which exhausts the patience of productive editors such as myself and degrade Misplaced Pages's reliability.

Now, for the last time, I am asking to correct the mistakes you left in Copacabana and answer the question I asked you in its talk page. Rsazevedo (talk) 17:42, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Rsazevedo, you make serious, baseless and defamatory accusations. I requested Hu12 to resolve our conflict. Since Hu12 is an Misplaced Pages administrator and therefore his impartiality is above doubts, we must be prepared to acknowledge and accept his ruling on our conflict. Instead, by accusing him of being partial and a dictator you, Rsazevedo, drag his name and reputation through the mud.

Rsazevedo, nothing can stop you from having your way, if it takes bullying and smearing the reputation of a Misplaced Pages Administrator so be it.

The user Rsazevedo is going to keep this unashamed defamation, continue this relentless slander and making false accusations until people give up and allow Rsazevedo to have his way.

I admit, I behaved badly and in an uncivil manner, so did Rsazevedo. But there was no justification to drag Hu12 into our conflict. Rsazevedo dragged Hu12 into our fight as vengeance because Hu12's decision was not satisfactory to Rsazevedo.

EconomistBR (talk) 17:54, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

That is simply a lie, EconomistBR, as anyone who checks the history of the discussions will tell. I did not "drag" anyone into this, I don't even have the power to do so. You cannot change facts; a lie will always be a lie, no matter how much you scream and shout. And the proof that you don't regret your disgraceful behaviour is that you keep doing the same things, offending me over and over. Will any responsible administrator take a stand against this person? I am being seriously offended by him, and this shouldn't be allowed to go on.

Can an administrator also please fix the mistakes left by Hu12 when he blocked the Copacabana page? I explained them in the talk page, and Hu12 doesn't seem to be very interested in correcting the page, only in preventing me from editing it. Rsazevedo (talk) 18:01, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Why didn't one of you just opened a request for comment before involving a admin in this? disputes like this one are better solved with consensus of the community instead of a admin making the choice. - Caribbean~H.Q. 18:05, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

There was no community on that page just the 2 of us, I had previously tried to reach consensus with Rsazevedo, but he simply ignored me, undid my editing and written some excuse justifying his actions. The Rsazevedo has twice undone edits made by Hu12. Hu12 edited the list and we should have both accpeted it but he embarked on this smearing campaign to get things his way.

Defamatory and slanderous accusation made by Rsazevedo against Hu12

• Rsazevedo calls Hu12 an abusive administrator: "victim of abuse of power by an administrator"
• Rsazevedo accuses Hu12 of having bias: "You have revealed yourself to be tremendously partial do EconomistBR's opinion"
• Rsazevedo calls Hu12 a dictator: "I would appreciate some further explanation of your actions, rather than unsubstantiated dictatorial acts"
• Rsazevedo calls Hu12 arrogant: "exercised his prerrogative to block the page in a somewhat arrogant and authoritarian way"
• Rsazevedo calls Hu12's opinion unfair: "EconomistBR, the user in question, appealed to an administrator, User:Hu12, who took an unfair and unbalanced view"

This smearing campaign and personal attacks of Rsazevedo against Hu12 is Rsazevedo's vengeance against Hu12, because Hu12's impartial ruling didn't produce satisfactory results to Rsazevedo.

I behaved badly and I was uncivil at many times, so was Rsazevedo. But there was NO reason to put Hu12's intergrity into question. This was a low blow EconomistBR (talk) 18:47, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

EconomistBR, please refrain at once from offending me. I don't think I have to remind you that you're breaking all possible rules in proper behaviour in Misplaced Pages, and I once again call for a responsible administrator to punish you accordingly.

Keep in mind:

• Misplaced Pages:Civility: be civil and avoid harassment.
• Personal attacks are expressly prohibited because they make Misplaced Pages a hostile environment for editors, and thereby damage Misplaced Pages both as an encyclopedia (by losing valued contributors) and as a wiki community (by discouraging reasoned discussion). Misplaced Pages editors should conduct their relationship with other editors with courtesy, and must avoid responding in kind when personally attacked.

*Personal attacks are not excused or justified by offers of demonstration of their truth.

Penalties for behaviour such as the one you're displaying vary in length from a three-month to a one-year ban. Rsazevedo (talk) 19:07, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I attempted to reach a consensus with Rsazevedo, but he ridiculed me:

• "and much less "CNN talks about it". Oooooh, I'm impressed! :) What kind of an argument is that, "CNN talks about it"? hahahahahah"

Someone who makes this kind of comment doesn't want consensus, he wants to shove his view down everyone's thoats.

Rsazevedo has also offended and ridiculed me other times:

• "Are you mentally challenged?"
• "Now go watch the fireworks in Copacabana and stop crying, Mr Carioca. :)"
• "Man, you really are a nut job! "
• "Get a life, carioca"
• "EconomistBR is the one who is being intolerant" —Preceding unsigned comment added by EconomistBR (talk • contribs) 19:12, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Here are your displays of impartiality and civility, EconomistBR:

• 'Rsazevedo you lied to me
• Rsazevedo, you said that Misplaced Pages "is not the place for nationalistic displays" but you displayed an incredible degree of nationalism when you created a page redirect just to get your precious Copacabana Bolivia on top of the alphabetical list.
• Don't worry your Copacabana (Bolivia) is top of list at Misplaced Pages's expense.
• (Your Copacabana Bolivia comes on top is all 3 organizing methods created. It's shameful)
• I have nothing agaist you is just that you lied to me when you said that Misplaced Pages "is not the place for nationalistic displays".
• This is proves that you are bised and corrupted Misplaced Pages for personal ends. It's quite sad really, I always try to be impartial, you've given up on that.
• But I guess your "work" here is done. Your precious Copacabana Bolivia, which you visited, is first on the list. You've spread your personal views at Misplaced Pages corrupting this encyclopedia, and then lied to others about Misplaced Pages not being "the place for nationalistic displays".
• 3 organizing methods the same result - this is Rsazevedo at work Good job, some Brazilian you are.
• You have no shame, you should admit that you are biased. After 3 organizing methods with the same result your lame excuses are a joke.

Once again I call on you, EconomistBR, to refrain at once from offending me. I don't think I have to remind you that you're breaking all possible rules in proper behaviour in Misplaced Pages, and I once again call for a responsible administrator to punish you accordingly.

Keep in mind:

• Misplaced Pages:Civility: be civil and avoid harassment.
• Personal attacks are expressly prohibited because they make Misplaced Pages a hostile environment for editors, and thereby damage Misplaced Pages both as an encyclopedia (by losing valued contributors) and as a wiki community (by discouraging reasoned discussion). Misplaced Pages editors should conduct their relationship with other editors with courtesy, and must avoid responding in kind when personally attacked.

*Personal attacks are not excused or justified by offers of demonstration of their truth.

Penalties for behaviour such as the one you're displaying vary in length from a three-month to a one-year ban. Rsazevedo (talk) 19:16, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Both blocked

As noted in bold red type at the top, this is not the Misplaced Pages complaints department. Per the recommendation of Caribbean H.Q., I have blocked both Rsazevedo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and EconomistBR (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) for 24 hours in order to stop the out-of-control mudslinging above. Once the block expires, both users are invited to settle their content dispute according to WP:DR. Sandstein (talk) 19:40, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

The fact that the drama continues on their respective talk pages proves that they were talking past, not to, eachother. Unblocks posted, one so far declined, bets on how long before the other? 20:21, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Washington Square Park, New York

This IP User:207.237.41.137 persists in inserting a lengthy, highly partisan edit to the recent controversies about rebuilding the park, complete with use of people's and organizations' names in a manner which suggests to me that the IP is one of the people on a particular side of the dispute, probably one of two people favorably described. Could somebody check me on this and consider semi-protection? --Orange Mike | Talk 15:17, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

The user has made three edits, one correcting a typo. Rememberr don't bite the newbies. I have just left the user a welcome message and advice about COI editing. Hopefully the communication will alert them to our social norms and they will respond appropriately. Jehochman 15:30, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Calton

While reviewing new edits, I noticed an edit that seemed to boarder on WP:AGF. I mentioned this to him / her and immediately received a response: "You would, in fact, be dead wrong. Go away." I shall refrain from responding to kind of comment. Perhaps someone else could remind him / her to be a little more constructive and less hostile. Thank you. 58.88.55.173 (talk) 15:57, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

• Without commenting one way or the other, I have advised Calton of this thread. Pedro :  Chat  16:06, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Note that the Hirohito page move issue is kind of a heated topic right now, with some discussion here that might help explain Calton's commentary. Tony Fox (arf!) 16:13, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

It is worth noting that Calton was previously blocked in November for "continued incivility and taunting", following a block in September for "persistent incivility and taunting of other users"; in fact, this behavior has been going on throughout Calton's editing career, for about three years. Since returning from his last block, he has engaged in further incivility and generally aggressive editing. I suggest that only a block of quite considerable length may be sufficient to convince Calton to follow our policies concerning interaction with other users. Everyking (talk) 18:56, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

The two diffs here, while not commendable, are not in themselves blockworthy. If James (or anyone) has more diffs since the last block we can certainly take a look. Haukur (talk) 19:33, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Another edit of Calton's caught my eye - on 1 January, he blanked another user's userpage here. The user, Sellick666 (talk · contribs), has contributions, but has not edited since 1 November 2007, so I'm not clear on what caused this to become an issue. The userpage didn't have a whole lot of worthwhile material on it, and did have profanity, but the edit summary read "blank non-editor's page". MegaMom reverted the change, and Calton reverted twice as vandalism. MegaMom then left a note on the user's talk page apologizing for the incident here, which Calton then removed as "nonsense" here. Again, I don't know if it's blockworthy, but it's certainly unusual and quite possibly uncivil. UltraExactZZ ~ Evidence 19:37, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

See also: Everyking (talk) 19:39, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

While I appericate the above diff being added to this discussion, could we please leave me out of it, as it will get me in much trouble. Thank you...NeutralHomer 22:05, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Doon't see how it would, he's clearly baiting you into trouble. Big deal. so long as no one finds a diff where you bothered to respond, you're perfectly in the clear. And block Calton for a long time. ThuranX (talk) 00:34, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

It should also be noted that Calton has subsequently blanked that user’s page two more times here and here and placed a warning template on MY talk page entitled “Pointless Stalking” which was removed by another user as “undue harrassment” Please, note that he has referred to my restoration of a user page he BLANKED as belonging to a “non editor” as vandalism (!) That seems pretty uncivil to me. Honestly, I think a lack of civility is only the tip of the iceberg where Calton is concerned and a long block might do him some good. MegaMom (talk) 01:25, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

There are nicer ways to deal with people, no matter how difficult.

Without wishing to comment one way or the other on Calton's actions, it should be noted that the other user who reverted his "Pointless Stalking" on MegaMom's talk page with the comment of "undo harassment" is an IP with a grand total of 5 edits, 4 in the last 24 hours, of which one of those was the reversion in question, a second was a reversion of another of Calton's edits to User talk:Gross1952, and a third was a continuation of the edit war on List of fictional ducks, with El C and Calton on one side and a number of IPs on the other. To my mind that doesn't smack of the actions of a wholly impartial user. Giles Bennett 09:22, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

• I understand and respect the fact that Neutralhomer wishes to be left out of this, however, it should be noted that although Calton was last blocked for incivility on November 19, his edit history shows that he only returned to editing December 23. (In other words, he’s been back less than two weeks.) One of his first edits on the day he returned included the following edit summary: “Not your call, Mr. Stalky McStalkerson. Say, didn't you just get in trouble for abusing TWINKLE?" Followed shortly with : “That would be you, Mr. Poor-Impulse-Control. Hey, whatever happened to your pious promise to stop the stalking and blind reversions? Was that taken away, too?” That doesn’t sound to me like someone, who fresh off a block, has learned a lesson or is remorseful for his conduct. MegaMom (talk) 02:54, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

The mere fact that a user's edit history shows no edits before 23 December is not absolute grounds for determining that they have only been back at editing for two weeks since the expiry of their last block. Giles Bennett 09:22, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I definitely respect NeutralHomer's wish to stay out of this as well, but I think the fact that Calton knew about NeutralHomer's "Twinkle abuse" is a bit stalker-ish of Calton, not NeutralHomer.   jj137 04:02, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

requesting a block of User_talk:82.36.179.158

The user has been given enough warnings User_talk:82.36.179.158 and vandalizing and deleting Hippocrates Igor Berger (talk) 16:56, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

User has been blocked 31 hours. Keilana_(recall) 17:03, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Georgexx41 (talk · contribs)

• When I reverted some routine Yu-Gi-Oh! vandalism, I noticed this user uploaded an extraordinarily large image that doesn't load. I'm worried that this may not be an image at all, but some malicious program. Could someone check it? JuJube (talk) 17:12, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Image:She and meh.jpg deleted under CSD I2. Ioeth _{(talk contribs friendly)} 17:15, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Appears to have been a photoshop file. —Random832 18:31, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Drive-by tagging

AnteaterZot (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) has been discussed at the village pump before for drive-by tagging. . Initially he was using RS tags to "experiment" to see if he can change wikipedia editor behavior (his words). Now he's moved on to prod and merge tags. His methodology is to simply leave the tag and move on, no discussion on the talk page, etc. The high volume of tagging vs actual editing coupled with the lack of productive edits seems to have moved this into the disruptive behavior category. Drive-by tagging with RS tags is annoying, doing it with prod and merge tags seems to me to be worse. Comments? AliveFreeHappy (talk) 17:39, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

That looks like awfully pointy behavior to me. — Coren  18:18, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Looks like? That's pretty much the _definition_ of WP:POINT - wikipedia is not for breaching experiments. —Random832 18:23, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

(ec)Agree, I was going to say that; there are better ways of "changing editor behaviour", consensus being the obvious route. I don't think WP is meant to be a Social Psychology lab. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 18:25, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Wow. I suppose some articles should be merged, some reliable sources needed, and some non-controversial articles PRODDED, and I don't think we should tell him to stop editing like this and make more constructive edits, but tagging all of those articles in such a short time is a bit disruptive. J-ſtan_{User page} 18:27, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I think it might help if others let him know that they think this behavior needs to be improved. If you're going to tag an article for PROD or merge, it's best to give a reason. The tag itself suggests that a discussion has been left on the talk page. AliveFreeHappy (talk) 18:35, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

My current tagging operation is largely to apply merge-school suggestion tags to elementary and middle schools. The merge tag leads people to the WP:School project, with guidelines on how to merge. In the edit summary and the the tag it says the merge is suggested. As for the Prod tags, I only tag listing-type entries of clearly non-notable schools. I put my reason in the tag. What exactly is wrong with what I am doing? AnteaterZot (talk) 03:23, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

The tags point other editors to the talk page, but I can't see that you ever leave any comments explaining why you put the tags. AliveFreeHappy (talk) 05:30, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I go into detail here, in the other forum you opened at the same time. In that forum, I responded by saying that the tags themselves are more than clear about what they are asking for, and adding text to a talk page would be redundant. Furthermore, you suggest there that I do research before placing a Prod tag, which is the policy for AfD, not Proposed Deletion. AnteaterZot (talk) 06:21, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I disagree, the tags are not clear, they're very generic. The give a list of possible problems rather than an actual problem. That can be very daunting for an inexperienced editor such as those often found on school articles. Why not opt on the side of courtesy and cooperation? AliveFreeHappy (talk) 06:56, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

That is not true. Even if were true, it is the way the tag is set up: boilerplate text surrounding a place to explain, in bold, what is wrong with the article. The tag itself says, "remove me if you want the article to survive". Have any of my prod tags been inappropriate? AnteaterZot (talk) 07:30, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

you are using a merge tag saying "merge to the appropriate locality article". You can at least take the trouble to find the appropriate article, or to create it if it doesnt exist. This template should probably go to mfd--a proposed merge has to actually propose something to merge to. I've started a discussion on that at Template talk:Merge-school DGG (talk) 04:05, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

As I said, I was unaware that I could insert the target in the tag. I will do so in the future. AnteaterZot (talk) 04:44, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

He's definitely trying to make a point AliveFreeHappy (talk) 06:54, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

• Which is what? Is my point "these articles should be merged" or "this article seems to be eligible for deletion?" How many of my tags are inappropriate? AnteaterZot (talk) 07:33, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

---

A general question as well. AnteaterZot seems to be implying above that the due diligence for placing a PROD tag is somehow less than if you use AfD. "you suggest there that I do research before placing a Prod tag, which is the policy for AfD, not Proposed Deletion" WP:DELETE seems to indicate otherwise. I'd be interested to hear what others think of that. AliveFreeHappy (talk) 07:10, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Legal threats on Oxford Round Table?

Hi, I've been trying to tidy up this article from what seemed like an extensive piece of original research to begin with. It's looking more encyclopaedic now with the input of other editors too. However, there are claims it is an attack page, and there has now been mention of legal issues on the talk page here. Some of the editors also seem to be single purpose accounts, not that this is anything new or worthy of punitive action, but I just thought I'd mention it. Anyway, I thought I'd flag the article here because I can see it might get out of hand sometime soon... Coldmachine 17:50, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Blocked the editor who made the legal threat and - big surprise - it threw up an autoblock three minutes later. east.718 at 18:09, January 3, 2008

Vandalism 192.249.47.11

This IP address has numerous warnings (including one in the past 30 days) and at least one previous block (see User_talk:192.249.47.11. I have reverted two vandalism edits in the past 24 hours. I'm recommending another block. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alancookie (talk • contribs) 19:19, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Not blocked. Thanks, but that shared IP has no warnings after its recent vandalism, and as a matter of practice, we do not block users until after a recent final warning. For future reference, such requests are processed faster at WP:AIV. Sandstein (talk) 19:48, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Fasach Nua

User:Fasach Nua has made a threat to block me and has accused me of vandalism. I am increasingly concerned about the irratic behaviour of Fasnach. This includes removing opinions from talk pages he disagrees with and he has now resorted to blocking threats. Can anybody tell me if he has any authority to do this. I am a respected editor on Wiki, having contributed hundreds of articles. I do not deserve to be treated like this. If anybody should be blocked it should be him and not me. Djln --Djln (talk) 20:40, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi Djln, would it be possible to provide examples of this conduct by way of diff's please, thanks, Regards --Domer48 (talk) 20:49, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

The conduct Djln is referring to happened on Talk:Ireland national football team (IFA), in which Fasach Nua blanked an entire thread without citing a valid reason for doing so. I have left Fasach Nua a message regarding the blanking. Ioeth _{(talk contribs friendly)} 20:59, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Looking into it it looks like User Djln cpoied and pasted an entire threat from talk:Fasach Nua into an article talk page. Fasach removed it Djln edit warred over it and Fasach left a level 4 warning on Djln's talk page. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 21:01, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't ever call it vandalism but Fasach Nua was rm'ing a very unfriendly and longwinded threat. Gwen Gale (talk) 21:04, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I've reverted Ioeth's reinsertion, as I'm pretty sure he didn't look into the matter as far back as i did and I'd like to see Djln's explanation for the copy and paste job myself. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 21:06, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Hm, I see. Djln, if this is the case I feel I should let you know that the manipulation or movement of other users' talk page messages is generally discouraged. If that thread was initiated on Fasach Nua's talk page, there is no reason to move it en masse to an article talk page. To answer your original quesiton, Fasach Nua is not an administrator, and as such has no power to block any user. However, your edits were improper, so the warning was justified, if a bit harsh. You can of course remove the warning from your talk page, but please remember that this sort of content manipulation is not acceptable. Thanks for fixing that up, Theresa knott! Ioeth _{(talk contribs friendly)} 21:07, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

• The discussion at Fasach talk page was relevant to the discussion at at Talk:Ireland national football team (IFA). Fasnach is a menace who is trying impose his political opinions on pages about a national football team and football players. Wiki needs to reprimand him about his behaviour which is very negative. His is seriously spoiling my enjoyment of Wiki to the point I am considering quitting it all together. Djln--Djln (talk) 21:56, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't matter that the discussion on Fasach's talk page was relevant to the article; altering other users' talk page messages is inappropriate. If you feel that Fasach is acting inappropriately, please seek try to resolve the situation with that user civilly or seek mediation, as it seems that you two are having a disagreement that can likely be resolved; ANI is not the place for it, though. Thanks! Ioeth _{(talk contribs friendly)} 22:04, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

• Loeth, you have got it completely wrong, I did not alter his talk page in anyway. All I did was transfer a relevant discussion from one talk page to another. How exactly is that inappropriate. Fasnach has only objected because another editor expressed a similar view on his talk page as I did at Talk:Ireland national football team (IFA) and he did not like it. Djln--Djln (talk) 22:22, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

It's inappropriate because you moved other users' comments from one talk page to another. The discussion was taking place on Fasach's talk page, and that's where those users left the comments. Moving those comments to another talk page makes it look as though the discussion was taking place there, which it was not. It may not be obvious, but doing that misrepresents those users, which is why copying the thread was inappropriate. Ioeth _{(talk contribs friendly)} 22:28, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

The problem is you are moving peoples comments from the environent in which they were posted, and in changing context you are possibly changing meaning. I repeatidly invited Padraig to contribute to the Ireland page, and he doesnt want to that is his choice. There is no problem with you copying your own comments between talk pages, but 'only your own comments Fasach Nua (talk) 22:29, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Notability issue at Cayra

An editor recently made this post at WP:EAR. The editors there, including myself, are probably able to handle the DR work, however when I was checking the page's history, I noticed a lot of reverting being done, not as vandalism, but removing and replacing a Notability tag there. I wanted to alert the administrators of this little edit war going on. The article does seem to be covered by multiple independent sources, but it does lack in-text refs. As I mentioned previously, we can handle the DR for now, but this situation might require admin intervention. J-ſtan_{User page} 21:35, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

What admin intervention against what or whom, specifically? I just see a minor edit war with IPs and new users over cleanup tags. Sandstein (talk) 22:01, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

None right now, I just wanted to put admins on alert, in case page protection or 3RR blocks are needed. J-ſtan_{User page} 22:09, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Please do not do this again. This page is reserved for incidents requiring actual intervention. Sandstein (talk) 22:16, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, won't happen again. I'll post if any intervention is required. J-ſtan_{User page} 22:32, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Misza13 (talk · contribs)

Pardon my French, but what the hell is going on here? All I saw was East718 (talk · contribs) placing username and indef-block templates on those pages and blocking him. However, he unblocked himself a moment later. Could we find out what exactly is going on? -Jéské 22:24, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't know. A couple of us have already left a note at East718's talk page asking for an explanation of the block. Metros (talk) 22:26, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Wow, what's that about? Is it because 13's an unlucky number? :) Kidding. Probably just a slip of the mouse. J-ſtan_{User page} 22:34, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Apparently something to do with user error on a report in IRC (blocked reporter rather than subject of report), but awaiting clarification from East718 himself. AGF on fumble-fingers for now, I assume... 8-) Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 22:42, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Who wants to bet me that it has to do with this? Time is identical to the block time. —Wknight94 (talk) 22:48, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I guess others already figured this out on East's talk page. Thought I was so clever... —Wknight94 (talk) 22:50, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Posted my suspicions on East718's talk page; can't wait to see if they were correct. Миша13 23:06, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and I'm male, btw. :) Миша13 23:08, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

My apologies, chummer. -Jéské 23:56, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I didn't know admins could unblock themselves. Odd how he happened to have been experimenting on that before the block. --Thinboy00 @210, i.e. 04:01, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

They can, but it's considered very poor form to do so. -Jéské 04:46, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

First of all, mea culpa... this is the first time in more than two months that I've made a mistake of this nature... and second, Misza13 is the smartest person in the room. east.718 at 04:13, January 4, 2008

Special purpose Twin Paradox account TwPx

This user TwPx (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been trying to insert what amounts to an unsourced originally researched essay (, , )into the Twin paradox (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) article.

See also , , , , . Can something be done about this whithout risking a WP:3RR offence? Cheers, DVdm (talk) 22:58, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I'll place a test1 warning on the user's talk page. Bearian (talk) 23:12, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. - I love your cat :-), DVdm (talk) 09:15, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Hezbollah userbox

This userbox was featured until recently on Noor Aalam (talk · contribs)'s user page. I removed it because Misplaced Pages is not a battleground and WP:UP prohibits userpage content that is likely to give widespread offense, as enforced in various recent arbitration committee rulings. Noor Aalam disagrees and considers the box not to be offensive (see the discussion at User talk:Noor Aalam#Offensive userbox removed). Before I apply any sanctions to prevent the repeated readdition of this box, I would appreciate input by other administrators and experienced users about the appropriateness of this userbox. I'll be offline for nine hours or so following this post. Thanks, Sandstein (talk) 23:44, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

That userbox is too inappropriate, offensive, and controversial. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles 23:48, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

The userbox advocates "armed resistance", which in itself seems too provocative for Misplaced Pages. Linking the term to an organization which is deemed terrorist seems to imply the user advocates terrorism. I support the removal of the userbox. Jeffpw (talk) 23:50, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

As i stated on the tk pg, i am willing to change it to "This user supports Hezbollah" and remove the rest. Noor Aalam (talk) 23:52, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Ugh, that userbox is a perenial problem. That version is toned down - agression used to wikilink to massacres - but still in my opinion, divisive and soapboxing. Viridae 23:56, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I have changed the box to

Noor Aalam (talk) 23:58, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I certainly have no desire to restart The Userbox Wars — but how is this any worse than at least 50% of the entries here, all of which are on a relatively prominent gallery, and about which nobody seems to have objected? Or this fine piece of T1 material, which is transcluded on over 50 user pages? — iridescent 23:59, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

For starters, I don't see any userboxes there linking to terrorist organizations. That makes a difference to me. Also, it seems prudent to confine the discussion to this one box, instead of widening it to an elaborate debate of boxes in general. Jeffpw (talk) 00:07, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

(EC) I've nominated the Dead Marxists userbox for deletion. How are some of these allowed. "This user believes Vince Foster did not commit suicide, but was instead murdered to prevent him revealing information about Whitewater." What is the point of this? Lawrence Cohen 00:08, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Six countries view Hezbollah as a terrorist organization, which means that the majority of the world doesnt. Bias should be avoided. Noor Aalam (talk) 00:22, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Let's put it this way: How does having this userbox on your user page promote building the encyclopedia? If we can't come up with a good answer to that (and not just in reference to this particular userbox - I'm not trying to target Noor Aalam personally), then that's a pretty good indication that we've got something superfluous on our hands. I'm not interested in wandering into userbox wars either, but if having one causes disruption for more than a few editors, then there's rarely a good reason to keep it. Tijuana Brass (talk) 00:44, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

We are coming across several userbox issues lately, and this makes me wonder, should we actually try to establish a guideline for the userboxes themselves? I know WP:USER covers it nicely, but maybe a very direct set of content instructions can prove useful for new users. - Caribbean~H.Q. 00:49, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

There is another userbox on Noor Aalam's page that should be assessed as well—the one that advocates the vandalism of the George W. Bush page. Disagreeing (even vociferously) with a politician is fine, but advocating the vandalism of a wikipedia page is not acceptable. Horologium (talk) 03:36, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) Also an unacceptable userbox. I have removed both. Regarding the Hezbollah box, we have been through this a number of times before. See the next subsection. -- Avi (talk) 03:49, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Any userbox advocating vandalism is wrong, and should be removed. Supporting Hezbollah is another matter. Some people say they support Israel (which was responsible for many civilian deaths during the Israel-Lebanon conflict), so why is it incorrect to support Hezbollah?Bless sins (talk) 03:45, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

BlessSins, please realize: a userbox saying "I support armed aggression against Israel", is no different than one saying "I support XyZ Holy city being bombed". --Matt57 04:03, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

The userbox says "resistance," not "aggression," so your comparison is totally irrelevant. <eleland/talkedits> 04:34, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) See below; it has been deleted three times as divisive and inflammatory. There is nothing that the wikipedia project gains from that userbox, and a lot that it loses. Misplaced Pages is not myspace. By all means, anyone may have userboxes supporting any cause, party, ideal, charity, mass murderer, or local bakery that they please, but not on wikipedia. -- Avi (talk) 03:49, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

That is simple nonsense, Avraham. CSD T1 applies only to pages in Template: space, per Misplaced Pages:Userbox migration. I realize that you are outraged by the claim that Hezbollah (in addition to whatever else it may do) resists Israeli aggression, but your outrage does not hold sway over the Misplaced Pages. I and other editors I know regularly come upon outrageous statements in userspace and talk space, but we do not seek to censor and/or block those who make them.

As I'm sure you know, there are about a gazillion userboxes which support political parties, political positions, ideals, charities, and perhaps even local bakeries. If you feel this is a problem, fine, but don't address it by removing content which you personally disagree with in the guise of enforcing WP:SOAPBOX. <eleland/talkedits> 04:31, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Eleland, the fact that the template was substituted, instead of transcluded, just means that it was missed when the template was deleted. That userbox was deemed inappropriate for wikipedia -- Avi (talk) 04:36, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

There are similar user boxes, from which "there is nothing that the wikipedia project gains". Example would be a userbox supporting Likud, a party which doesn't want the Palestinians to have their own state, thereby denying them the right to self-determination.Bless sins (talk) 04:58, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

The fact that a Template: page was speedily deleted does not, and cannot, mean that similar content was thus forbidden from userpages. A policy which would forbid the simple statement "This user supports Hezbollah resistance against Israeli aggression" from userpages would require a lot more discussion than a unilateral procedural deletion under CSD T1. <eleland/talkedits> 04:55, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Stop being so nitpicky with the rules and recall that they serve a purpose. Circumventing that purpose with a subst does not negate the fact that the material (clearly) can be reasonably considered to be offensive or inflammatory. The userpage policy prohibits such content on userpages, and it doesn't matter that he went the extra six characters and two clicks. Someguy1221 (talk) 05:03, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Looking at Noor's userpage, I would have to add the "This user wishes to test the limits of userboxes" userbox. The first version above IMO is clearly unacceptable, the second somewhat less bad, but still showing blanket support for an organization which advocates unacceptable use of violence to achieve political ends. How about a userbox with the Hezbollah symbol and a message supporting peace? That would put it on a par with that horrible box suggesting DVD's shouldn't have region codes, a clear attempt to destroy the Western economic order. Unless the laws of the server location clearly state that any mention of Hezbollah is prohibited, the userbox in question is just political advocacy like many others, providing it disavows the advocacy of violence. Franamax (talk) 05:32, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

See {{User Hezbollah}}

This is just a substituted version of a template that was deemed inflammatory and deleted three separate times as a WP:CSD#T1. The fact that this user substituted it is irrelevant. I have deleted it from his page. -- Avi (talk) 03:29, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

The substituted userbox was also found on User:Yahussain (Supplied by User:Embargo here) and User:Aisha uk. -- Avi (talk) 03:40, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Further action

Thanks to all of you for your comments. Consensus appears to be that userboxes expressing support for Hezbollah are divisive and inflammatory, especially substituted copies of the multiply-deleted {{User Hezbollah}}. I will remove such boxes from userspace and enforce the removal with protections and/or blocks if required. Sandstein (talk) 08:21, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

What about boxes such as these? You are forgetting that divisiveness can be caused not just by Arab groups, but Israeli ones as well.Bless sins (talk) 08:46, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Since this is a template in user space, you are free to open a deletion discussion about it. In my opinion, all political or ideological userboxes should be deprecated, but our current consensus only supports the removal of those that are considered too inflammatory. This includes support for Hezbollah, which is widely recognised as a terrorist group, but not for Likud, which is a mainstream political party. (It may be worth noting that I am Swiss, do not adhere to any religion and do not consider myself to have any personal stake whatsoever in the Arab-Israeli conflict.) Sandstein (talk) 09:06, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Excessive block

User:Noor Aalam was just blocked for 24 hours. The block was regarding his edit to User:Avraham's page. Edit another user's page (without their permission) is inappropriate. However, User:Noor Alam did not place anything offensive. The edit was basically a removal of userboxes. Nevertheless, User:Noor Alam realized his mistake and immediately self-reverted within one minute. I don't see how any harm has possibly been caused.

I know that editing a userpage without permission is inappropriate. However, a 24 hour block (usually given in cases of editwarring and 3rr) is too excessive. Please also consider the fact that the user immediately self-reverted their edits.Bless sins (talk) 08:58, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Repeated vandalism on Endowment (Latter Day Saints)

restoring past discussion for contextKww (talk) 00:03, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

The LDS have a tradition of silence about certain of their traditions. This has led to trouble on a few articles, notably Endowment (Latter Day Saints) and Temple garments, where LDS editors will attempt to strike large sections of text and images on religious grounds. Usually, they give up after a few patient explanations that we don't censor Misplaced Pages to match any religious groups tastes. One particularly persistent anonymous editor showed up on Nov. 13, 2007, alternately using IP address 12.159.66.24 and 68.4.107.116 (its a home and a work account for the same user, as stated on the talk page. This editor claims that it is "excessively detailed", but the section he strikes is exactly the same section stricken as "too sacred" by previous LDS members. I've explained it to him. I've enlisted the help of User:Storm Rider, a long term LDS member. He has explained it to him, and recognised, as I did, that the issue was the "sacredness" of the material, not the detail. Ultimately, Endowment (Latter Day Saints) was semi-protected to put a stop to it. After that, User:Brock Soaring pops up, a single purpose account that makes that edit, and only that edit, repeatedly. The tone and style of his comments make it clear he is the same anonymous editor. Protecting the article doesn't seem to be the answer: blocking Brock Soaring probably is.Kww (talk) 00:55, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, at least this user is contributing with the same account now ;). In any case, you're right, this is a single purpose account, and he has been chided by other users, including LDS members, to no avail, and continues to edit war. Will an administrator give this user a short block for edit warring and incivility? The Evil Spartan (talk) 01:01, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

I've added a level four warning to his talk page, but since this has been added to the AN/I, he has not edited. I'll watch the article (which I did in the past for months); if he chooses to ignore the latest round of advice, it will likely result in a block. Tijuana Brass (talk) 01:33, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

He only shows up every few days ... one of the behaviour patterns he shares with the anonymous IPs that were making the same edits before. I could take care of it for a long time without hitting 3RR, but I don't want to risk looking like I'm in a slow edit war.Kww (talk) 04:32, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Brock came back today, in the guise of the anonymous IP he used before (12.159.66.24), and deleted the exact same text, despite having received a level 4 warning. Can we please just block all three and be done with it?Kww (talk) 00:03, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Sigh. Given that this user has a history of persistent, long term disruption, both at the Endowment article and elsewhere (i.e. WP:OWN of RealGM), I'm going to do block all three accounts. The IP pages will have {{anonblock}} added in case there are legit users who get caught up in it. If other admins want to revise this solution, that's fine, but make sure to look through the three contribution histories first to check the extent of the problem. Tijuana Brass (talk) 00:22, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Nostradamus1

Nostradamus1 (talk · contribs) is, despite my repeated attempts to direct him to the guidelines in WP:CAT that indicates that generally, an article should not belong to both a parent category and a subcategory, misstating the situation and making improper claims about my edits. (See Talk:Qilibi Khan.) I'd like for someone else to review the situation and to warn/block him/her as you see fit. Thanks. --Nlu (talk) 00:33, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Sounds like a content dispute, which does not belong here. Also, see the Blocking Policy, and note that the user hasn't done anything to warrant a block. - Rjd0060 (talk) 00:36, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I see his latest edits as personal attacks. --Nlu (talk) 06:29, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

User:R. fiend using his admin privileges questionably

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Nothing more to be said here and it is in danger of dredging up further editing history of this user - it's been agreed to take it to RfC, so either someone initiates that or the matter is dropped. violet/riga (t) 09:16, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

This article is protected yet User:R. fiend is using his admin privilages to continue editing he has been warned before about doing this when he is involved in a content dispute on the article. This is not the first time he has done this and has done on other articles as well, and been warned before for doing so.--Padraig (talk) 00:37, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

The user R. fiends was involved in some edit warring (on the same article) back at the end of December. I don't think it is acceptable for admins to edit a page freely, if it is fully protected, unless they visit the talk page and reach consensus for changes they wish to make; just like the rest of us. Also, User:R. fiend has been notified of this discussion. - Rjd0060 (talk) 00:42, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

R. fiend definitely is an involved user, if the edit at 21:38, 19 December 2007 and his edit summary of "restoring FASCIST CENSORSHIP or REFERENCED MATERIAL. This has a FOOTNOTE. Therefore it CANNIT be removed or altered by ANYONE, ever. To do so would be ORIGINAL RESEARCH!!!!111!!11oneone1!!!" is any indication. He shouldn't be acting as an admin here at all and should revert himself back. Lawrence Cohen 00:49, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Wow is right. Somehow I didn't even notice that. - Rjd0060 (talk) 00:50, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I would like to hear R. Fiend's side of the story here as well before coming to any conclusions. 1 != 2 00:52, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Hopefully, it was an error. Admin priviledges shouldn't be used here. Lawrence Cohen 00:53, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

• Can everyone please bear in mind that the article was actually broken in the protected state and that no one (including Pádraig) objected to a message in the talk section by an uninvolved editor that it needed fixing whatever. Aatomic1 (talk) 00:54, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Comment I didn't see the comment on the talk page your refering, care to provide a link to the dif. --Padraig (talk) 01:44, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I bear some culpability here for making this edit requesting what I assumed (wrongly, it now turns out) would be an uncontroversial edit (primarily involving a spelling mistake and a breach of WP:MOS guidance as to piping external links in inline text citations).

Nobody, including Padraig, bothered to reply and User:R. fiend might justifiably have assumed that my title of "Uncontroversial (?) copyedit while page is protected" might have been accurate. Sorry for that!

Thanks are due to Rjd0060 for raising an alert on User Talk:R. fiend that his conduct is being discussed here and I apologise that I only notice this when editing the "Unblock of Callmebc" section above or I would have set the record straight earlier. Alice 08:01, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

• It was a totally trivial edit, but it still ought to have been done by another admin, so as to not enflame a situation by someone on one side of a dispute doing it. Lawrence Cohen 00:57, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
• (2 edit conflicts) What?...Errrr, if changes "needed" to be made, they should have been discussed first. Thats why the big template says "Protection is not an endorsement of the current version". I agree though, maybe it was just an error. - Rjd0060 (talk) 00:58, 4 January 20

It was just a minor edit, totally harmless. John Reaves 00:59, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

(ec)It was a trivial edit (thanks, Lawrence, I was looking for the right word to use), and it was requested at Talk:Easter Rising#Uncontroversial (?) copyedit while page is protected. R.fiend made a less controversial edit than what was requested there by leaving in that the historian was noted. I don't see a problem with this edit. WODUP 01:04, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

If anything, R. fiend should be commended for making the edit to make the article more presentable in the short term, and leaving in the content that xe disputed because the page is protected and the issue is being discussed. WODUP 01:09, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I would second both that factual analysis and your opinion, WODUP. Alice 08:01, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, I got R. Fiend's response to this. 1 != 2 01:02, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Ugh..- Rjd0060 (talk) 01:03, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

• Precisely !! - You you all want to be useful please consider Domer's spamming of the talk pages on that articleAatomic1 (talk) 01:06, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

• Comment Aatomic this has nothing to do with Domers request for sources in this dispute, because you have had disputes before with Domer don't try and bring that dispute into this.--Padraig (talk) 01:41, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

• The edit summary and reaction to the AN/I thread are inappropriate for an administrator. Even if the edit was discussed between some editors, it was also (clearly) disputed by at least one and there is no reason not to have used the editprotected template for it. These issues keep coming back to AN/I, and its because folks keep thinking that if they think an edit is no big deal, they can make it through protection even if they are involved. 02:02, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

• • Are there any admins prepared to act on this obvious abuse of editing tools? DuncanHill (talk) 02:05, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Does anyone disagree with having someone remove the text from those embedded links? Please forgive me if I'm a little dense right now, but this doesn't seem to me to be an obvious abuse of editing tools. The only issue that I can see is that R. fiend edited a page on which xe had a dispute while it was protected. That's really where the problem ends because xe didn't edit anything with regard to the dispute. Xe fixed two embedded links that displayed text and corrected a typo. WODUP 02:19, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Correct. R. fiend's edit was appropriate, moderate and correct - the only problem was that he did not aks another admin to make the edit. I am at fault for not using a template to request an uninvolved admin to make the technical edit to a protected page. Alice 08:01, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

FYI - R. fiend is a "he". 02:23, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I was about to ask who this User:xe was. DuncanHill (talk) 02:25, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

And yes, I see an issue. He is an involved editor on a protected page, and made an edit himself using his status as an admin. He put in a wildly inappropriate edit summary, and then ignored the AN/I thread as an 'inanity.' So, problem piles atop problem and the mole hill of the edit in normal circumstances becomes a problem warranting an AN/I thread and criticism of R. fiends judgment in this case. 02:25, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

In my opinion, he really shouldn't have made that edit; he was involved in the article and just used his administrative rights to edit. It wouldn't have been a big deal if he had at least discussed it on the talk page before just going and making the edit. Seriously, I think we should have protection levels such as or . That way maybe we can avoid problems like this.   jj137 02:42, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

The guy certainly seems to have a bit of an issue regarding civility, judging from his talk page. Admin or no, editors should treat each other (and the community) with a little more respect than that. The guy's been here long enough now without the need to have WP:CIVIL spelled out for him - Alison 02:47, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I was under the impression that WP:CIVIL didn't apply to admins. DuncanHill (talk) 02:49, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Ah. My mistake, sorry. Carry on ... - Alison 02:54, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

There was also the matter of this controversial revert war on a similar article, Kevin Barry, which resulted in R. fiend reverting to his version and immediately fully protecting the article. As I recall, this went to ANI and another admin stepped in to review and ultimately unprotect the page - Alison 02:54, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Alison I knew had used his admin rights before whilst involved in edit disputes.--Padraig (talk) 03:06, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

• As far as Duncan's question: Is an admin going to do something? I don't know that there is anything to be done. Unprotect the article, possibly? Revert the edit? Its an invitation to wheel war. The method of review for administrator actions if an admin refuses to participate in good faith is ArbCom. Perhaps an RfC would be a better first step, but it doesn't require an admin. 03:15, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

• Especially since now it looks like R. fiend is refusing to discuss his actions, I think it's time for a RfC (my choice) or ArbCom. I would think ArbCom would want an RfC first, but the fact that R. fiend is refusing to discuss such "inanities" as possible misuse of his administrator rights probably would satisfy the "Attempt to resolve dispute beforehand", especially since we have been here before! SirFozzie (talk) 03:27, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I think as well it may be time for an RfC. This guy is refusing to comment on his discussions, and I think referring to this as "inanities" is simply unacceptable.   jj137 03:34, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

That is, indeed, a questionable use of admin powers. I will certify such an RfC if it starts; but I'm definitely not in favor of bringing this to the AC unless that has been attempted. — Coren  03:37, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm certainly ready to get involved in an RfC regarding this administrator. It's this kind of behaviour that gives us all a bad name - Alison 05:12, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

You're right, Alison; this is why people have problems with admins. I think an RFC is the best way to go from here, and I'll be there. - Rjd0060 (talk) 05:14, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Ah, but it is inane, very much so. Someone pointed out a typo and an improperly formatted inline citation (please, if there is a word "sprit" that is not preceded by "bow" or suffixed by "sail" or an historian named "RTEPrincess Grace Irish Library (Monaco) Eoin Neeson" do let me know). No one objected to fixing them (for very obvious reasons), but (surprise surprise) no one actually fixed them either. So I did. And, as one of Misplaced Pages's sensible editors, WODUP, pointed out, I did not change the contentious part (though I would certainly be in favor of that edit). Sure, I could have gone around to a bunch of talk pages and tried to get someone else to do it, but, really, why bother? I could do something myself in 3 seconds or spend minutes trying to get someone else to do it for me. As for my edit summary, which someone had an issue with, well, it was done automatically so if you have an issue, it's with the software. And now people are wasting a hell of a lot of time discussing two of the most trivial edits ever made. Did someone say a potential course of action would be to revert the edits, reinserting a typo? I'm sorry if it strikes people as incivil, but that's inane, if not downright stupid, and the very worst from of wikilawyering. Oh, and making the edit myself had another advantage, it let me know whether people were interesting in correcting mistakes in an article or whining. I guess I got my answer. -R. fiend (talk) 03:50, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

The edit summary we were referring to was not that one, but this.   jj137 03:54, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, the edits were rather minor, but the point was that you were involved in the article and edited it while it was full protected for edit warring (using your admin rights to do so). Any regular user wouldn't have been able to do that.   jj137 03:57, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Y'know, you're being rude, arrogant and dismissive all over again here, just like earlier. This isn't about fixing typos, it's about your repeated misuse of your admin tools on articles with which you are in dispute. When told this was on ANI, you brush it off with a smart comment. Only when people start making RfC noises, do you bother to even show up here, thus showing huge disrespect for the community. I saw the Kevin Barry stuff going down last month, but I kinda let it slide - see this thread in my talk page archives for all the details. Now, I'm not so sure. I do know this; It's exactly this kind of attitude that other editors so often complain about when it comes to admins. And this looks like an exemplary case. If this happens to go to RfC, I'll certainly weigh in on the matter - Alison 04:17, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

And not only that, there was yet another example of this behaviour from last July in which you shut out an anon editor from yet another "Troubles" article (I'm beginning to see a common theme here) in which you were editing. I only discovered this on my WP:RPP patrolling. Rather than undo your prot, I brought it to your talk page first & as did another RPP admin at the time. One of your revert comments, "revert deletions by anon editor - have the deceny to get an account and identify yourself", speaks volumes, I feel. That's three times in a short period - Alison 04:22, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Do your homework. That comment wasn't even from me. -R. fiend (talk) 04:32, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

My apologies - you're right and I've struck that comment. However, the protect; as the log shows, User:Steel359 ended up reverting the protect with "Inappropriate use of semi-protection" as you chose to ignore both our questions on your talk page. Steel commented at the time, " it would still be inappropriate for you to protect it yourself given you are in that dispute". Care to discuss this now, seeing as you have an established, regular habit of misusing your admin tools on articles you're in a dispute on? - Alison 05:05, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Honestly? Not really, as I don't remember the details and don't have the desire to go back reading old diffs, but I sort of recall this basic scenario: an anon with an axe to grind who has clearly not read the talk page or looked over the article history decides unilaterally to make a bunch of edits of the sort that have been gone over a whole bunch of times before, probably about how there's no way Pearse could have possibly been gay therefore even addressing it in the article (even if only to largely dismiss it) is the most horrible thing ever. A mini-edit war ensues and I semi-protect the article to put a stop to consistent reversions and force the anon to actually try to discuss changes on the talk page if they want to make significant controversial alterations to the article (while still allowing normal editing of the article to proceed as usual). I think after that the person went away and everything was solved. As I said, I don't remember the details. -R. fiend (talk) 05:42, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Also, apology accepted for misquoting me. There is little quite as annoying as having words you never said attributed to you, knowing full well others would believe the accusations without checking for themselves. I was understandably a bit irritated by that. I realize it was unintentional on your part, so I don't hold it against you. -R. fiend (talk) 05:47, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

BTW, You blocked User:Ed Poor for no reason last October, with absolutely no edit summary. When you were asked by a number of admins to explain, you said Hmmm. Looks like a mistake. Oh well. No harm done" - and that was all you said. When User:WJBscribe suggested you apologise ... well, you didn't bother. User:Jeffrey O. Gustafson ended up unblocking with, "until blocking admin can give reason for original block" - which was never forthcoming. And on it goes ... - Alison 04:37, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

As an aside, (as I have not investigated the thread of conflict and edits) I would like to point out that completely non-controversial, janitorial-type edits made by admins on protected articles are allowed. Even if the admin is involved, if the edit is a maintenance-type edit (not adding new information, even if uncontroversial) that is not considered an abuse of privileges, as one of the responsibilities of sysops is to perform these janitorial functions on protected articles. Yes, regular users cannot edit protected articles, so admins should not add information to an article (outside of responding to a reasonable {{editprotected}} request that has consensus on the talk page). But fixing the article (gross mispelling, broken link, etc.) is something sysops are supposed to do to protected articles. It does behoove the admin, any admin, to use a very clear edit summary stating that the edit was a maintenance-type, though. -- Avi (talk) 04:03, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

It's late here and I need to go. If this issue has not been resolved by tomorrow and if someone else has not already filed an RfC, I intend to file one myself - Alison 05:41, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I already suggested R. fiend exercise extreme care in this area. I'm disappointed he doesn't seem to have gone for my suggestion elsewhere of letting a neutral admin make any edits to the article while it was protected. Having said that, I do think that R. fiend's actual edit was fairly harmless; whether his behaviour taken as a whole merits further action would be for the community to decide. I would personally characterise R. fiend's intervention here as having been well-intentioned, and its conclusion here as being a result of his continually failing to communicate civilly with those he is in dispute with or to properly separate admin from non-admin roles (always a tricky one to call, that one; I should know, I later reverted a change I thought unhelpful and then added a citation tag to it, though not while it was protected...), combined with the highly-charged atmosphere regrettably ever-present on Ireland-related articles these days. I suggest R. fiend learn from the criticism here, indicate such learning has taken place, and we can all get on with life. There is work to be done and I don't think Misplaced Pages will benefit from further magnifying this drama, if all are agreeable to such a conclusion. --John (talk) 05:46, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

John's analysis seems moderate and appropriate. I would only add the rider that R. fiend might well have been frustrated that some of the editors on that article have such a pronounced point of view that they wish to advance that no amount of rational argument would have persuaded them that one amateur writer's original research was not enough to overturn the combined weight of prvious historical analysis.

I think it might be wise to form a cadre of obviously uninvolved admins for these nationally and religiously controversial articles in future. Perhaps Hong Kong and Thai admins can patrol Irish articles and Irish and British editors can patrol Singapore and Thai articles? Alice 08:01, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Further to the above, I want to apologise for the revert on the article; I hadn't studied the history or I would have seen there was an edit-war going on. At the time I was just being BRD about it, and working from the talk page discussion. I now see there seems to have been a lot of edit-warring back and forth on the article; maybe some of the remedies from the recent Arbcom need to be invoked on some of the edit-warriors? --John (talk) 05:54, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I think an RFC is in order here. Looking over this section I'd say R. fiend's behavior and attitude, even in this thread, leaves something to be desired. More discussion and less snark would be good for starters. RxS (talk) 05:57, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree, as I'm sure several others do as well. RfC seems to be the best way to go from this point. - Rjd0060 (talk) 06:00, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

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

User talk:Voxveritatis

Can an adminstrator please review this user and his defamatory comments about me, continous accusations of libeling him. His comments on the discussion pages, including another wikipeia user User talk:Slp1 are becoming almost harassment. No one has reprimanded him or given him any warnings for continued rule breaking. He claims to be the subject in question (Greg Felton) and is only using wikipedia to edit the page according to his pleasing. I really need help with this user as his actions are becoming disturbing.

--Eternalsleeper (talk) 01:10, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Dear Administrator: Eternalsleeper is a troublemaker whose hypocrisy is beyond description. His claims against me are groundless and deliberately provocative. His talk page reads like a rap sheet of reprimands and warnings against rule-breaking.

This whole issue began when he repeated a second-hand libel about me and complained when other editors and I took action. SLP1, for example, is an excellent editor who is well aware of eternalsleeper's misconduct. The claim of harassment is preposterous and inflamatory, and designed to make the accuser appear to be a victim. I ask that you give no notice to this vexatious individual, who is not worth your time.

Thank you. Voxveritatis (talk) 03:45, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

• As you can see from his above posting, you will see what I am referring to.

--Eternalsleeper (talk) 03:52, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Repeated removal of tags at Holodomor denial

Since the creation of this page, supporters of the article have repeatedly removed every disputed tag placed on it, in spite of the fact that a substantial minority has questioned whether the article meets encyclopedic standards.

• 9:36, 25 December: User:Horlo creates the page.
• 16:27, 25 December: User:Irpen tags the page with POV and OR templates.
• 8:05, 27 December: User:Horlo removes the tags with the edit summary removed tags - no reason given for their being here.
• 6:57, 28 December: Irpen tries to rewrite the intro to conform to NPOV.
• 7:01: Horlo reverts Irpen with the comment Irpen, this is not a soap box. This is an article about Holodomor denial. The lead paragraph must explain that.
• 7:04: Irpen reverts to his version with the summary I clearly explained at talk.
• 7:28:Horlo reverts Irpen again, with the summary Please do not make any changes without a discussion on the talk page, not just a statement on the talk page.
• 7:39: Irpen adds a totallydisputed tag with the summary: totallydisputed per persistent insertion of factually false info.
• 8:50: Horlo removes the tag with the summary: Removed numbers and tag. (Note that at this stage, Irpen seems to have gone on wikibreak, along with a number of other editors who were expressing concerns over the page).
• 4:39 30 December: Having arrived at the page from DYK, and noting several POV problems that will take time to fix, I add a POV tag to the Duranty section,, and add a comment to the talk page to explain some of my reasons for doing so.
• 5:00: Having read through the article more carefully and seen what I regard as major problems, I move the tag to the top of the article, and leave another note on the talk page explaining my reasons.
• 18:03: Horlo removes the tag without comment.
• 18:07 I restore the tag with the comment Please don't remove disputed templates when there is obviously a dispute going on.
• 18:46: User:Bandurist removes the tag without comment.
• 19:18: I restore the tag, with the comment Please do not remove disputed templates when there is clearly a dispute. See Misplaced Pages:NPOV dispute.
• 18:20, 31 December: Horlo removes the tag without comment.
• 6:58: Frustrated at the tag-team tag removal and the stonewalling on the talk page, I add an AFD template in hopes of at least getting more eyes on the page. (This is the first AFD I have initiated in almost two years at the project BTW).
• 14:40, 2 January: Having realized that I am in fact not alone in my concerns about the page and that many other editors have expressed the same or similar concerns, and also having realized what a singularly inappropriate forum AFD is to try and promote debate about content, I withdraw the AFD and restore the totallydisputed tag instead.
• 21:23: User:Vecrumba removes the tag, with the summary withdraw your AFD and instead immediately tag the article? after your ethnic insult, this is nothing but WP:IDONTLIKEIT, tag removed. (I must add that this is prototypical of the kind of response my attempts to get a discussion on content going at the article's talk page have been met with).
• 6:53, 3 January: I restore the tag, with the summary: Replace tag. Multiple editors have expressed the view that this article has serious issues.
• 7:32: User:Termer removes the tag with the summary: the tag "Totallydisputed" not justified for well referenced article, please do not misuse tagging.
• 12:27: I restore the tag with the comment: Well referenced when you don't even have a reference for the article's major premise? I don't think so. Please stop removing tags when you know perfectly well there is a dispute here.
• 13:46: Bandurist removes the tag without comment.
• 23:55: I restore the tag with the comment: For the last time, please stop removing the tag. If it's done again I will have no choice but to take the matter up with AN/I.
• 00:03, 4 January: Bandurist removes the tag without comment.

To summarize the situation, a total of about 18 editors have commented on this article at the talk page or at the AFD. Of those, six, or roughly one third of editors including me, have expressed serious reservations about the page's title and/or premise and/or content.

• User:Irpen opened the talk page discussion with the comment The article is a soapbox and should be deleted. I would welcome serious contributors to help in covering this topic on wikipedia but that kind of soapboxing is totally out of question...
• User:Hillock65 concurs with the comment I have to agree. The title itself is an attempt to mimic the Holocaust denial, which is troubling. There is no basis for that. All of that can be mentioned at the Holodomor article, it doesn't warrant a separate article. If there is a vote, I support redirect to the main article.
• Kuban Cossack made a number of comments, including There is argument over keeping the article...knee-deep in nonsense...This article needs a lot of work!
• User:Molobo (a user who appears to support the article) poses one of the same questions I have: Isn't Holodomor denial also a term for denying that it was a genocide?
• User:Jo0doe accuses the article's supporters of tr to exploit WP as a soapbox".
• In addtion, at the AFD, User: Lankiveil recommended a rename (now my own preferred option) commenting that the name was inherently POV and that the article Definitely has the look of a POV fork.
• User:Bogdan, at the AFD, also expressed the view, which I thoroughly endorse, that the accusation that 'Holodomor Denial' is an original research statement must be disproven in the very first sentence of the article (i.e., which published works cite the term)...it should be explained where such terminology originates (hopefully, not the Ukrainian government).

My point in posting this is not to try and demonstrate that "I am right" in my concerns. It's simply to show that there is substantial dissent about the suitability of this page's title and content, surely more than enough to justify a POV tag.

I regard the removal of a POV tag to be a highly questionable action at any time, but to repeatedly remove a tag when there are clearly major concerns from multiple editors is I believe completely unjustified. POV tags are often the only method that users in the minority have for expressing their concerns about a page and for encouraging debate about content at the talk page.

The users who support this particular page have shown almost no interest in discussion of the article content or in resolving disputes, instead contenting themselves with an endless stream of bad faith accusations or at best red herring obfuscations. If the POV tag is removed, what incentive will they have for entering into debate at all? They will just ignore any concerns raised and ensure by sheer weight of numbers that they get their way on the mainpage. Gatoclass (talk) 03:24, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Response by User:Vecrumba -- I came to this late and have been met only with comments about Eastern European editor "axe-grinding". Gatoclass fails to mention that his AfD nomination went nowhere (all keep with one rename as I recall), and once he withdrew his AfD since it was obviously failing he then immediately retagged the article. Most recently, I invited Gatoclass to apologize for his uncivil and insulting comments, he asked when we would get back to discussing the article, I asked for specifics, and his response was to open the above, choosing not to respond to my request for his specific top three problems so the discussion could move forward. Gatoclass' blanket assumption of bad faith on the part of Eastern European editors and, for example, myself insisting I am participating only to shed light on the past being proof of his charges of Eastern European axe-grinding ("hoist(ed) by my own petard") is unfortunate at best. Then there is Gatoclass' statement he owes no apology (re: axe-grinding et al.) for "stating the obvious." One only has to read the current Holodomor denial article talk page. I'm sorry, but if Gatoclass is looking to identify recalcitrant parties, he only need look as far as himself. —PētersV (talk) 04:29, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but this incident report wasn't made "in response" to your supposed generous offer, you made that post while I was busy preparing the above post, and I didn't see it until I had posted here.

But in response to your purported offer to bury the hatchet, I invite users to take a closer look at the post of PetersV to which he refers, and ask themselves just how conciliatory it actually is:

...(Totallydisputed) tagging does not connote assumption of good faith on your part, I expect the tag to stay off. Let's deal with any specific factual problems first. If you apologize for your uncivil conduct and are prepared to abide by the consensus of editors once factual errors are corrected, we can make progress. If you think the editorial community here is a axe-grinding cabal out to get any opposition (you), I'm just as happy to go to arbitration enforcement over your conduct. Everyone here has better ways to spend their time than indulge spleen venting.

Note that after his threat to take it to arbitration, to which I reminded him that all users conduct is put under the spotlight in an arbcom case, he responded thus:

I'm sorry, but I am also tired of "reminders" about what ArbCom is going to do to me. I have asked you to deal with any issues of fact specifically one by one and you have obviously made up your mind already. I suppose this means you're not apologizing either. This would appear to conclude our dialog here.

Note how his threat to take me to arbcom is parlayed into my alleged threat to take him there. I'm afraid this is a classic example of PetersV's modus operandi, which is to say his apparent inability to take responsibility for his own attitude and conduct. Gatoclass (talk) 08:13, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I did tell Gatoclass I expected him to assume good faith and not re-tag the article and instead come up with specific items. His response was to post the above instead. His characterization of my removing his immediate tagging upon abject failure of his AfD as "prototypical" of editorial behavior he has encountered is little more than acting as sheriff, judge, and jury. From my perspective, his immediate lumping me into his cabal of prototypical Eaastern European axe-grinders is proof that Gatoclass is all about preconceived stereotypes, in fact, seeking battle (when did you last read of an editor invoking petard hoisting?) against an editorial enemy he has already convicted--and not about reaching consensus on content. —PētersV (talk) 05:06, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

A typical content dispute... I personally believe that User:Gatoclass is fighting against a consensus of several good users who worked hard to create and improve this interesting article.Biophys (talk) 05:22, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I read through the links above, the talk page, and so on. Horlo's intro para, the first one, is bbetter than Irpen's. Irpen's second para ought to be incorporated into the lead as it now stands, which is solid and neutral. The talk page is Gatoclass VS a stack of editors who have provided sources, and tried to engage him. maybe I'm missing something ,but it reads to me like

• 'get me sources, cause i don't like or believe this'
• "well, here's these books, these speeches, and this stuff that supports us"
• 'no no, get me the sources I want'
• "Like what?"
• 'Well, like those books and sppeches and stuff, but saying hwat I want them to say'
• "Which is?"
• 'What I believed at the very beginning, stop challenging my preconcieved notions and agree with them.'
• "what can we do to change your mind?"
• 'get me sources, cause i don't like or believe this'

GOSUB line 20.

This is a content dispute that one person refuses to let go of, despite sources and consensus. Why? Don't know. b ut the race-baiting might be a clue. Gatoclass needs to find other articles to work on. ThuranX (talk) 05:33, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

In 1932-33 the Ukrainian ethnographic territory was divided up primarilly between Poland and the USSR. The Holodomor is the term that Ukrainian people use for the Great Famine of 1932-33 which took place on the Soviet side of Ukrainian Ethnic territory. Many Ukrainians who lived on the Soviet side of Ukrainian ethnographic territory died. Some say up to a quarter of the population. It was initially denied by Soviet authorities. Various journalist also made reports denying the Famine. Visiting dignitaries also made reports denying it. In 1983 the Ukrainian community in the diaspora made a concerted effort to bring public attention on this act. As a result the first secretary of the Communist Party in Ukraine acknowleged that the Famine happened in 1987. In circa 1991 the term Holodomor was introduced by a Ukrainian writer from Ukraine to specifically describe the great Famine of 1932-33 in Ukraine. In 2006 the Ukrainian parliament passed a law stating that the Holodomor was an act of Genocide and made it a criminal offence to publically deny its existence. many countries have also joined in labeling it an act of Genocide

The Holodomor and aspects related to it have been the subject of heated debate since 1932-33. During the course of history numerous people have denied that it took place. This article gives a concise list and references to the people, companies and organizations that made statements of denial of the Famine. Despite the Holodomor having been acknowleged by the Ukrainian government and many other governments, Books and materials written specifically to deny the existence of the Holodomor have continued to be published by organizations (up until 2002) and despite some being withdrawn from sale are available to download without explanation that they were withdrawn from sale or to the inaccuracies within them. These writings continue to be quoted in various disgusion groups. Early scholarship on this topic has been quite poor, with examples of incorrectly labeled photographs and poor access to source materials which initially hampered the subject and which continues to cause problems. There exist a small group of editors who are vehemently opposed to this topic for reasons that are not clearly explained, who continually obstruct the work of the editors of this article by the continuous placement of various labels, discussions not related to the topic and general rudeness. Bandurist (talk) 05:37, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

For 5 or 6 days now, Gatoclass has done nothing but attack the recently started article on Holodomor denial, which by the way was proposed for a DYK, before this relentless campaign against the article, and its editors was started by Gatoclass. (See here for more comments about the DYK nomination.) After all sorts of claims about the article, including that clearly sourced statements by Walter Duranty were only "alleged", and that using "denial" to refer to what Duranty, Fischer, and others did with respect to the Holodomor was "odious", Gatoclass took the article to AfD, where his nomination was soundly rejected by a vast majority (I'd say, near-unanimity). In the process, Gatoclass harassed many of the editors expressing opinions contrary to his, implying that their opposition to deletion was based on their supposed ethnic origin, stating:

"Did I ever stop to ponder why so many disagreed with me? Sure I did. And in that regard I couldn't help but notice that all of the editors of the page apart from me appear to be of East European origin, with potential axes to grind against their former Soviet overlords. Just as this AFD is currently accumulating a host of "Keep" votes from Latvians, Lithuanians, Ukrainians, Hungarians and so on."

I personally was outraged by this. Several other editors expressed their dismay: ,. Gatoclass never apologized for these remarks, but only continued his campaign of tagging and random accusations, despite repeated attempts to come to an understanding, clear the air, and move to a more productive, dignified discussion -- most recently by PētersV. How much longer do we have to put up with this kind of attitude? Turgidson (talk) 06:14, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Turgidson purports to be "outraged" by the fact that an editor should suggest that someone's national or political loyalties might possibly influence their political viewpoint. That he should seek to twist such a banal and everyday observation into some kind of insult only demonstrates how desperate he is to find a weapon with which to attack me. For the record, I did not volunteer this comment - I am not normally in the habit of commenting on users at all, as it obviously isn't conducive to a co-operative atmosphere. The comment was made in response to Turgidson's own question regarding what I thought might be motivating my opponents, in which case I gave him a frank reply. (If someone solicits my opinion about an aspect of their behaviour and I oblige, am I to blame if they don't like the answer?). But if I'd realized then what a meal he would try to make of this passing comment, I might nevertheless have been more cautious in my response.

I can't help but wonder now whether his question was merely a means of setting me up in order to denounce me for my "prejudice". Either that, or he must be about the only editor left on Misplaced Pages who is yet to acknowledge the problems that nationalist POVs present to this project. And I suppose I may have been put somewhat offguard by my participation at the Arab-Israeli pages, where editors are openly referred to as "nationalists" and even "ultranationalists" with barely a murmur of protest. If I'd realized what a bunch of shrinking violets our East European editors were by comparison, I'm sure I would have been more circumspect. Gatoclass (talk) 07:37, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I note that some of my opponents have described this as a "content dispute" and I quite agree. That's why I tagged the article. These users are trying to present this article to the readership as issue-free when multiple users have raised serious questions about this article.

WP:NPOVD states the following:

It is important to remember that the NPOV dispute tag does not mean that an article actually violates NPOV. It simply means that there is an ongoing dispute about whether the article complies with a neutral point of view or not. In any NPOV dispute, there will be some people who think the article complies with NPOV, and some people who disagree. In general, you should not remove the NPOV dispute tag merely because you personally feel the article complies with NPOV. Rather, the tag should be removed only when there is a consensus among the editors that the NPOV disputes have indeed been resolved.

Just because the other editors who made the same complaints about the article as I did currently appear to be taking a Wikibreak, does not mean that "disputes have been resolved" - clearly, they haven't. I am simply asking for some support from the community for what I regard as a fundamental policy - the right to tag an article which is in dispute. If there is no community support for even such a basic principle as this, what is to prevent a majority of likeminded users from totally controlling an article by sheer weight of numbers?

One more point - as usual there have been multiple attacks on my character in the responses above, falsely accusing me of "bad faith" (when a look at the talk page will reveal that it is I who have been subjected to a relentless stream of bad faith accusations), of "general rudeness" (when I have bent over backwards to remain civil), of having some sort of vendetta against East Europeans (I haven't made a substantial edit to a page involving Eastern Europe for eighteen months - take a look at my adversaries' contributions by way of comparison), and even, ludicrously, of "race-baiting" (Eastern Europeans are a race?). I'm afraid this has been the general tenor of "debate" on the article talk page from the outset. So when reading about my alleged breaches of good conduct, please take note of these ad hominem attacks and ask yourself which party is bent on personalizing this dispute. Gatoclass (talk) 06:50, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Like already pointed out to you several times, Gatoclass. Please feel free to follow WP:NPOV by adding any alternative takes in to the article according to any published sources of your liking. Misuse of tagging such as adding "totallydisputed" to the well referenced article is not going to be tolerated. Thanks for your understanding.--Termer (talk) 08:04, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

RE: Gatoclass And in that regard I couldn't help but notice that all of the editors of the page apart from me appear to be of East European origin, with potential axes to grind against their former Soviet overlords. Just as this AFD is currently accumulating a host of "Keep" votes from Latvians, Lithuanians, Ukrainians, Hungarians and so on."

Whoa, even if it was the case, which is not, everybody who has bothered to check out the userpages who have voted at the AFD can see that the alleged "East European origin" is a speculation at best and in fact there were editors involved who have clearly identified themselves as not of East European descent. But the point would be arguments like this shouldn't be used really on WP to support your opinions as far as I'm concerned. Regarding grind against their former Soviet overlords, that must be a joke since Soviet Union collapsed about 20 years ago if I'm not mistaken.--Termer (talk) 08:21, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Good work Termer, you guys just keep beating me over the head with the same comment I made several days ago made upon solicitation of my opinion by one of your own number. Don't forget to alternate it now and again with the "Hoist by your own petard" comment or people might get bored.

Update: User:TableManners restores the tag,, User:Biophys deletes it.. Gatoclass (talk) 08:37, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Gatoclass. And sure, unless I have missed something and you have apologized for supporting your opinions with commenting the possible ethnic background of your opponents instead of the content or referring to any published sources, always ready to help to remind you your mistake. that keeps at last you from repeating it I hope.--Termer (talk) 08:47, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
PS. How about my suggestion feel free to follow WP:NPOV by adding any alternative takes in to the article according to any published sources of your liking. you keep ignoring for some reason?--Termer (talk) 09:02, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm not going to apologize for giving an opinion that I was asked to contribute. An opinion moreover that ought to be self-evident to anyone with a lick of sense. And I am certainly not going to apologize to people who in my opinion have been roughly an order of magnitude more uncivil than me.

I'm not asking for an apology and I don't need one, but if you want an apology from me, you folks will first have to apologize for the way you have pilloried me these last few days for happening to hold a contrary opinion. Gatoclass (talk) 09:22, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Since you keep ignoring my request for any alternative published sources that would be in conflict with the denial of the famine called holodomor ; to back your opinions or the tagging, please let me remind you that the rules are simple. Any material that is challenged and for which no source is provided may be removed by any editor according to Misplaced Pages:Citing sources. therefore feel free to ignore the request for alternative published sources and tag the article, until no source is provided to back up the opinionated tag, it's going to be removed by any editor. Thanks--Termer (talk) 09:29, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I forgot to add a comment about that. My response as always is that this is not in my opinion a dispute that can be resolved with the addition of a few extra sources. It's a dispute about (a) the name, about whether or not "Holodomor denial" is an encyclopedic topic, and (b) if it is encyclopedic, where are the scholarly sources to validate that, and (c) if (a) and (b) are satisfied, is the current content truly reflective of the article name and if not, should we be adopting a different name that reflects the article content, or should we keep the name and dump the content? So you see it's not something that can be fixed just by adding more info to the article, it's a structural problem that really needs some planning on the talk page first IMO. Gatoclass (talk) 09:44, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

It is strange that you bring up issues over here that have been addressed on the talk page several times. whether or not "Holodomor denial" is an encyclopedic topic is pretty straight forward in case you have looked up one of the primary sources, it's an encyclopedia. But just in case, I'll just cite it once more: the famine is called holodomor ...Denial of the famine declined after the Communist Party lost power.... So in case you have any alternative encyclopedic perspectives on the subject, please do not hesitate to provide some published sources to back up your opinions. thanks!--Termer (talk) 09:55, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Hello, in reading over the debates and discussion, I see two separate issues: first, one of content; second, one of procedure. If I may, I would like to deal with them in order.

First, the issue of content. Very early in the existence of the article, a POV tag was added, with no appropriate discussion on the talk page. Therefore, I removed the tag. User:Irpen added another tag, stating that there were some questionable numbers in the lead. . I removed the numbers, re-wrote the lead, and removed the tag. There has been no issue with user:Irpen since that time. Every effort has been made to cite only verifiable - and non-offensive - sources, including changing citations, such as here: .

The second issue is one of procedure. An editor appears and applies tags without any discussion on the talk page or any attempt to improve the article. As discussed above, issues are dealt with in good faith. User:Gatoclass's issues are repeatedly addressed, for example here: and here: and here: .

One editor does not agree with a consensus. An AfD is initiated. This is understandable, especially considering user:Gatoclass's closing comments: it was an attempt to bring more people to the discussion, and that is a good thing. Unfortunately, even though that AfD seems to have ended on a positive note, a POV tag was added to the article immediately after the AfD was closed. This seems to have become personal to user:Gatoclass, and that is a bad thing. To me, this AnI appears to be arena-hunting.

What really offends me is dismissive statements such as "editors of the page apart from me appear to be of East European origin, with potential axes to grind against their former Soviet overlords". User:Gatoclass has no idea where I am from. I understand that such things may be written with no subliminal intent, but they do highlight the difficulties in writing articles about Eastern Europe, and possible biases towards the articles and editors.

Hopefully, now, a larger number of editors has been reached. Again, thank you to user:Gatoclass for bringing wider attention to this topic, and I look forward to any help in developing this article, Horlo (talk) 09:30, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Where do I take this mess?

this user page is the editor's only real work, and it's creepy, if nothing else. I ceratinly don't want to know how he 'scores' it. Is this MfD material? or can an admin just fix it? ThuranX (talk) 03:43, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

MfD, IMO. It looks like a record of some sort of contest or game. It doesn't look like an attempt to build an encyclopaedia. Guettarda (talk) 03:51, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

The user hasn't edited in months, so I just blanked it. As Jimbo says, this is a wiki, after all. ;) --B (talk) 03:55, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Holy friggin' World Catfight Championships. bibliomaniac15 04:27, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Is THAT what it was? I sorta was afraid to think into it too deeply. Thanks B. ThuranX (talk) 05:09, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Sockpuppet of banned user

Resolved – IP checked and blocked; sleepers buried. -Jéské 07:53, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

LauraWA (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Another one that needs a block. See the users contribs and Category:Suspected Misplaced Pages sockpuppets of LaruaWA11 for evidence. Also, when blocking, please protect the users' talk page, as when blocked, the user abuses unblock and helpme tags (as evident from the other sockpuppet).

Is there anybody who can further investigate this and perhaps issue an IP block (maybe a range block is needed here, as I guess the autoblock on the other accounts isn't kicking in)? Should I fill out a SSP report? - Rjd0060 (talk) 04:35, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

 Done. As it's pretty obvious socking, go to the IP block section of WP:RFCU and one of the checkusers will take care of it. east.718 at 04:38, January 4, 2008

I'll file the IP sock request. -Jéské 04:38, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Aaaaaand filed. It's in the CUs' hands now. -Jéské 04:44, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I had the check request all done and got the e/c...you're too quick. Thanks for the help. - Rjd0060 (talk) 04:45, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

It's over. -Jéské 07:53, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Admin Guettarda violating 3RR, suggesting bad faith

Guettarda (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) , , , . The last edit suggests bad faith, incorrectly characterizes a fact tag (the fact tag was to a sentence that never had its own citation). I don't think this is good form on the part of Guettarda, but thought I'd submit for others to look at. Guettarda is well liked no doubt so disinterested admins only please. TableManners 05:17, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps you were looking for the 3RR noticeboard; I see nothing in here that requires special attention beyond that. --Golbez (talk) 05:21, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

User notified of thread. Rjd0060 (talk) 05:22, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Okay, Golbez, was this the wrong spot? I'll have to move it then? Thanks. TableManners 05:23, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Please close this as I moved it to the 3RR noticeboard per above advice. TableManners 05:41, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Raggz

Can someone please keep an eye on User:Raggz? For several months, he's been adding false information to articles and systematically deleting anything critical of the United States government — often for patently false reasons. He's received countless warnings, and several editors have gone to great lengths to explain how he's been violating Misplaced Pages's core policies. He either ignores the warnings or apologises and carries on exactly as before.

For example, he's just added a brazen lie into an article about the Iraq war. In response to a Human Rights Watch claim that the human rights situation in Iraq before the invasion was "not of the exceptional nature that would justify such intervention", Raggz states that "the International Criminal Court refuted this claim after an extensive investigation". However, the source he cites (PDF) makes absolutely no mention of the human rights situation in Iraq before the invasion. In fact, the International Criminal Court has never examined this, as it's clearly outside the court's jurisdiction. This is just one example of how Raggz systematically invents stuff and distorts his sources to advance his POV. I've included a few more examples in the collapsible box below. Regards, Sideshow Bob Roberts (talk) 05:45, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

When I first began editing WP, controversial topics unfortunately drew my attention because they so clearly violated the WP NPOV and OR policies. The ICC articles drew my interest early, they might have been my first editing projects. I did sometimes and still do violate WP policies, but by error and not intent. When this was correctly brought to my attention by Sideshow Bob Roberts I apologized and changed. When this was incorrectly brought to my attention by Sideshow Bob Roberts I did not apologize and persisted. Sometimes I later discovered that he was correct, sometimes not. Sideshow Bob Roberts is not easy to work with, particularly when his pov-based agenda is denied expression. He knows international law and WP policy better than I do and does not collaberate or help, but uses this as an advantage to advance his pov. I've asked for insight six months back from other editors on a WP page for this, and got one comment and none from him. I suggest reading my comment to Sideshow Bob Roberts on his page last week. More than anything else it will explain my collaberative attitude with Sideshow Bob Roberts.

He cites errors of six months or more back, but not my many useful edits. I could debate his collapsable box material, but why? I should be judged by how I edit now. As for the "brazen lie", he could have simply added his concerns to TALK, and if he was correct (as he too often is) I would have changed it if necessary. I don't know how to source his abusive posts and am not inclined to play his game anyway.

On page 7 (footnotes) of the source cited is the information referenced in regard to Human Rights Watch. On page 3? it states that 250+ claims of human rights violations were recieved and no evidence was found to support these. The ICC does have jurisdiction over ICC members in Iraq, and did investigate the human rights issues with this jurisdiction. It is all in the citation. The US and the UK have conducted joint operations, and if widespread violations of human rights were ocurring, the UK would be involved with these and these would be in the report. You may judge if the inclusion of the UN and ICC sections involve "brazen lies".

I stand by my edits generally. I also stand by my unintended errors, and also my corrections and retractions that were sometimes necessary. Sideshow Bob Roberts is a pov warrior, but a smart one that plays within the rules. As I get experience, as I become a better editor, my participation with controversial articles threatens the few pov warriors camped in a few controversial articles. I knew that editing controversial articles where the pov warriors are camped out would eventually require your review. Human rights and the United States is a better and far more recent editing project, I suggest visiting it to get a sense of my style, strengths, and weaknesses as an editor.

Sideshow Bob Roberts is incorrect to say "adding false information to articles and systematically deleting anything "critical of the United States government". I make errors, and admit to these when corrected. I systematically edit OR and NPOV, sometimes aggressively. The articles that I edit are usually heavily in violation of NPOV guidelines, so I often delete material "critical of the United States government", but only when it is OR or in violation of NPOV. I recently deleted dozens of citations where the citation did not support the text. Most material "critical of the United States government" is of course retained if it meets WP guidelines (in my opinion). A review of the articles I edit will prove this, they are filled with such material "critical of the United States government". The United States government has much that should properly be criticised, but this should be accurate, referenced, and need sustain the NPOV policy. I delete or edit that which is (in my opinion) innaccurate, unreferenced, and does not sustain the NPOV policy. Raggz (talk) 07:36, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

A few quick points:

1. Raggz has repeatedly made false claims about me. His assertion that I'm "on a POV campaign" is flatly untrue, and I encourage other editors to examine my edit history for any evidence of POV-pushing. I've addressed this claim before but he ignored my response and continues to make this claim.

2. I made a specific accusation that Raggz told a "brazen lie" today. He responded, as usual, by citing a source that has nothing to do with his claim.

3. It's true that I'm mostly citing examples from a few months ago, but a glance at his recent contributions reveals that his behaviour hasn't changed. Of course any admin action should be based on his current behaviour, not past mistakes.

4. "I've asked for insight six months back from other editors on a WP page for this, and got one comment and none from him." - I have no idea what this means.

5. With respect to his most recent message on my talk page, Raggz pretends he wants to collaborate with other users but he conistently ignores editors who disagree with him. On countless occasions, I've written lengthy posts explaining to Raggz how one of his theories is wrong and asking him to cite a source for his claim, only for him to completely ignore me and continue making the false claim. There's just no point trying to engage him in a rational discussion. Sideshow Bob Roberts (talk) 08:58, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

• From International Criminal Court This is a typical example of me making an error and admitting to this. I suggest visiting Talk, and note the lack of collaberative effort by Sideshow Bob Roberts. He claims that I am incapable of engaging in a "rational discussion". Judge below if this is actually true. Raggz (talk) 09:08, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

"Dozens of reliable, published sources explicitly state that judicial authorisation is not required where a situation has been referred by a State Party or the Security Council. See, for example: Christopher Keith Hall: "The Powers and Role of the Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court in the Global Fight against Impunity". Leiden Journal of International Law (2004), 17: 121-139; Michela Miraglia: "The First Decision of the ICC Pre-Trial Chamber". J Int Criminal Justice 2006; 4: 188-195; or Annie Wartanian: "The ICC Prosecutor's Battlefield: Combating Atrocities While Fighting for States' Cooperation. Lessons from the U.N. Tribunals Applied to the Case of Uganda". Georgetown Journal of International Law 36 no4 1289-316 Summ 2005 (which is free to read here). Does anyone object to changing this? Sideshow Bob Roberts 03:45, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Not I. Your legal expertise when engaged, rarely fails to illuminate. Thank you for correcting my error. I didn't follow your explanation fully, but as long as you are certain that the ICC Prosecutor may investigate the Iraq War without referral from a State Party, I'm fine. Raggz 03:50, 19 September 2007 (UTC) "

=====================

"Hello, you became so heated last time we worked together that I took a break to give you the opportunity to calm down. I've been working on some articles today and expect that you will have comments. This time may we work together collegially and productively? Our past collaborations have improved several articles and we may continue to do this together. So, let me know which, if any edits may be issues for you. Raggz (talk) 06:13, 24 December 2007 (UTC)" usertalk: Sideshow Bob Roberts.

Extended Discussion
The following is a discussion that has been placed in a collapse box for improved usability.
Examples of User:Raggz's disregard for Misplaced Pages's core content policies: 1. He has made dozens of false claims about the International Criminal Court, without ever citing sources that agree with him. For example: "there are no appeals" "there are no nations who oppose the ICC" Human Rights Watch "tacitly admits" that the Rome Statute violates Americans' basic constitutional rights "No constitutional authority rests with any organ of the US Government to enter into a treaty that would permit any judge to try any American, Americans may not be tried, except before juries" "There is no doubt that these measures are fully legal" "Many ICC advocates expect the ICC to soon exercise "universal jurisdiction"" "The three political appointees acting as judges have no checks or balances upon them beyond their own interpretation of law" The ICC Prosecutor appears to be pursuing a political agenda in Iraq The ICC Prosecutor "exceeded his authority" in Iraq 2. He has falsely claimed in various articles that the ICC Prosecutor has stated that all war crimes committed during the invasion of Iraq were "properly investigated and prosecuted by national governments". , , , , , , . He also claimed that "The report of the ICC Prosecutor that there were no known crimes related to the Iraq war to prosecute disapointed the radical left". , 3. He has repeatedly claimed in various articles, without ever citing a source that agrees with him, that the United Nations Security Council's decision to not act in regard to the 2003 invasion "definitively settles" the question of whether the invasion was illegal (for example, , , , , , , , , , ) It has been repeatedly explained to Raggz that this is false, that it's original research, and that there's a consensus against making this claim. He has ignored these detailed explanations, and he has attempted to use his theory to silence all debate about the legality of the invasion: he has claimed on the talk page that Misplaced Pages's discussion about the legality of the war "only requires one paragraph" and he has repeatedly removed the statement that "A dispute exists over the legitimacy of the 2003 invasion of Iraq" . At one point in the discussion, he falsely claimed that "we have consensus that the legality of the war is a long-settled issue" . When it was pointed out that there was a consensus against including his claim and that Raggz was the only person who disagreed with this, he claimed a "consensus of one" , cited WP:NOT#DEMOCRACY as an excuse to ignore the consensus and carried on inserting his false claim into various articles. 4. He has repeatedly claimed that United Nations personnel were accused of war crimes (or other crimes within the jurisdiction of the ICC) and that the ICC prosecutor was ignoring this. , , , , 5. He systematically deletes material critical of the United States government, often for patently false reasons. A few examples: He removed a link to this New York Times article about a State Department memo, calling it an "unreliable citation". He deleted a well-sourced opinion by Benjamin B. Ferencz (a highly respected Nuremberg prosecutor) that President Bush should be prosecuted for waging an aggressive war, with the edit summary "OR deletes, fact updates, cites". He deleted the claim that "Former CIA officials have stated that the White House knew before the invasion that Iraq had no weapons of mass destruction, but had decided to attack Iraq and continue to use the WMD story as a false pretext for launching the war", saying it was "not supported by the citation". (Read the source here.) He deleted the claim that some of America's traditional allies opposed the invasion of Iraq and wanted to give the UN weapons inspectors more time, calling this "unsupported extraneous material". He removed all mention of countries that opposed the invasion of Iraq: when he was done, the section called "Countries supporting and opposing the invasion" only discussed countries that supported the invasion. He deleted a paragraph consisting almost entirely of direct quotes from a single source, calling it "original research". He deleted well-sourced statements by Human Rights Watch and US Ambassador David Scheffer on the grounds that, since he disagreed with them, they were not reliable sources "for lack of fact checking". He repeatedly deleted Ambassador Scheffer's quote, falsely claiming that "the citation is used out of context and introductory sentence is partially incorrect factually". (Read the source here and decide whether the quote was taken out of context.) 6. When he does cite sources, he frequently misrepresents them. For example, he has repeatedly claimed that "Judge Philippe Kirsch, President of the International Criminal Court states that "balancing the disclosure of evidence necessary for the defence to prepare its case with the need to redact information to protect victims and witnesses" remains an ongoing challenge." , , . According to Raggz's source, this is what Kirsch actually said: "One of the significant areas of activity has been balancing the disclosure of evidence necessary for the defence to prepare its case with the need to redact information to protect victims and witnesses" (PDF).
The above is an extended discussion that has been collapsed for improved usability.

User talk:Debbiesvoucher 3rd request

I'm none too happy about having to go through the archive to find that my complaint was moved there with no action or response taken on it, even after I had to come back to the complaint the second time and ask again for someone to look into it, and then someone else put (needs attention) on the heading. This is the original request:

The comments that this user made in response to my note regarding the rude and incivil edit summary left on the Front Page Challenge page (diff) & admonition regarding a pattern of unsourced, speculative and original research additions was beyond acceptable, and is not new behavior from this user & his/her sock puppet. This is a sock puppet identity of another user who has said similar things in the past (diff) and was blocked for it, nearly identical to what was said tonight. (diff) My confirmation was the comment regarding the use of interlibrary loan, which was brought up in a dispute resolution process for the article Karyn Kupcinet. I can't file a sock puppet report on this until after the holiday week, as one or the other identity has indicated elsewhere that he or she is not at the regular place he/she posts during the holiday. This is a pattern of behavior that waxes and wanes from this user. Thanks. Wildhartlivie (talk) 05:31, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

I would think that at least SOME administrator would leave, at least, a warning about personal attacks. If no one on this board wants to deal with it, could you at least direct me to someone who will? Wildhartlivie (talk) 07:46, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I've responded to the user, fwiw. --Tagishsimon (talk) 09:37, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Seeking assistance with personal attack containing possibly confidential information

Resolved

Can someone please delete the following revision: ? It contains information that might be used to locate or harass the subject of the attack by the IP vandal. I have reverted the live version of the page, but it is still in the history. Lankiveil (talk) 08:56, 4 January 2008 (UTC).

Deleted. violet/riga (t) 09:03, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

(ec'd)Beaten to it by User:Violetriga. However, whilst I was there I have also given a strong warning to User:Dlo2012 here Pedro :  Chat  09:04, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Category:

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards