Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 05:19, 3 February 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?

Spam-blacklist/UnrealRoyal

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

Unrealroyal.com was blacklisted as spam (which it is not) by User:Hu12 who seems to be partisan on the subject as is clear from User_talk:Hu12#unrealroyal.com. The subject was looked at rather perfunctorily at MediaWiki_talk:Spam-blacklist/archives/January_2008#Unreal_Royal in which User:Lazydown participated. He is a sockpuppet of User:Kingofmann who is David Howe (claimant to King of Mann). Would an independent admin please have a look. CarbonLifeForm (talk) 18:25, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

As to whether it is spamming, I have no idea. But I see no reason to think it would qualify as a reliable source (it appears to be a personal site, even if a well-researched and well-written one), so the point seems to be moot. Am I missing something? - Jmabel | Talk 20:28, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

The first point is that it is not a spam site. Which is the purpose of that list. WP:RS is not the issue. The second point is that it is not for User:Hu12 to determine the issue as he has been involved throughout. CarbonLifeForm (talk) 21:53, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

My past experience with User:Hu12 is that I talked to him, and he fixed the problem. Bearian (talk) 17:55, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Well he would say that, wouldn't he? It should have been closed by an uninvolved admin. More than one person who has looked at this thinks it was improperly resolved by an involved person - namely he who put it on the spam list in the first place. CarbonLifeForm (talk) 21:36, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

It wasn't blacklisted as "spam". Also, an univolved admin (also meta admin) closed the removal request, not I. Repeating the same request 3 days after that close, does not become re-opened by virtue of repetition--Hu12 (talk) 01:06, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Not only was Hu12 the person who added the link to be blocked, he was the original creator of the article which the content from the site was criticizing. Hu12 is apparently camping-on the blacklist, any removal requiring personal approval, and ignoring consensus. The blacklist additionally, in my humble opinion, is being used to stifle criticism and suppress dissent. The use of the admin bit, by an involved admin, in content issues, is at-odds with the project goals. Any question of reliable sourcing should be taken to that board to discuss, not pre-emptorily blocked by a blacklist addition. This disruption has already led to one ArbCom case. The issue of community involvement in the blacklist should be taken up somewhere, I'm just not sure exactly where. Wjhonson (talk) 22:20, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

The site in question is based on this blacklisting of a attack site. The "Criticism", as claimed about the subject of the BLP's was not the reason for the blacklisting. This site contained an entire page devoted to outing various editors ("Misplaced Pages.htm" located at unrealroyal.com/page_1199151805093.html) in an attempt to identify and harass several Misplaced Pages users. Misplaced Pages:No Personal Attacks and Misplaced Pages:Harassment apply to any kind of attack or harassment in any context. see also WP:NPA#Off-wiki_personal_attacks and Misplaced Pages:Harassment#Off-wiki_harassment. Linking to off-site harassment, attacks, or privacy violations against Wikipedians for the purpose of attacking another or multiple Wikipedians has never been acceptable on wikipedia. Websites outside Misplaced Pages that are used to facilitate, promote, or encourage the harassment of individual Misplaced Pages editors and those who choose to edit the encyclopedia is a serious matter, as evidenced by ArbCom rulings.

Consensus was achieved by multiple admins in the first request for removal, yet in pursuit of a certain point, despite that concensus, Wjhonson re-requested within 3 days of the other request being declined. This type of tendentious re-request is normamaly unusual, however it was uncovered there was something else going on . It was uncovered that Wjhonson was acting in a Meatpuppet capacity for the purpose of influencing the blacklisting, shows of support and for performing reverts and edits related to the interests of the site owner of unrealroyal.com. See here.

"You solicited to the owner of unrealroyal,(MAR), on groups.google.com, in a thead entiltled Misplaced Pages is exceeding its own record of stupidity "By the way MAR, if there is something in particular about that article to which you object, let me know. I'm not adverse to battling it out on Misplaced Pages.", which clearly demonstrates your intent to misuse wikipedia. Of course MAR replies to your offer by linking direcly to the article, my userpage and the blacklist."

This ongoing "forum shopping" is continued evidence he is infact following through with his off wiki threat to "battle it out" by using wikipedia as a battleground and foregoing aims of Misplaced Pages in order to advance outside interests. Reinforcing that Wjhonson states himself that "I don't think the argument of citing your article however will win" ....the site owner himself states..."I actually *agree* that under the policy, my site should not be used as a citation or reference" , conclusively there is no valid reason for pursuing this matter except to WP:DISRUPT Misplaced Pages to illustrate a point.

Although the link is no longer on the blacklist (moot), this, does not excuse Wjhonson's behavior in manipulating Misplaced Pages in order to advance outside interests by acting in a capacity for the purpose of influencing, shows of support and for performing reverts and edits for the site owner of unrealroyal.com. Although his behaviour is clear misuse wikipedia and disruptive, I'll leave it to some other admin to propose sanctions. thanks--Hu12 (talk) 00:09, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

So at some point are you going to publicly admit that you created the article that started us down this long trail of tears in the first place? I think that's fairly relevant to your long-winded counter-attack above. As for all the above I'll invoke WP:KETTLE which covers it quite nicely. Have a great day. Wjhonson (talk) 09:19, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Nothing on MediaWiki_talk:Spam-blacklist/archives/January_2008#unrealroyal.com justifies putting unrealroyal.com on the spam blacklist. All the arguments for doing so come from Hu12 who is a wiki spamcop. He should step well back and let someone else sort out this mess. CarbonLifeForm (talk) 10:21, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

• Wjhonson, did you somehow miss that tidbit in the KOM/Rfa? Arbitrators did not express any concerns, nor was there any to express. Interesting manor in which you phrase it, however. Guess you would find it relevant if your defense to my comments above is to mischaracterize that fact, to seem somehow unreasonable or improper. See article history. I'll invoke bothWP:SEI and the Duck test
• CarbonLifeForm, in all your objectiveness, please explain then why was the offending page ("Misplaced Pages.htm" located at unrealroyal.com/page_1199151805093.html) was deleted from the site? Which, infact, occurred just prior to Wjhonson's removal request, and shortly after his "offer" to the site owner of UnrealRoyal? Perhaps your application of WP:COI is misplaced.--Hu12 (talk) 13:23, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

I have no idea. I have never seen it. CarbonLifeForm (talk) 10:51, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

• Fine. It's not technically a spam site, so it does not technically belong on the spam blacklist. However, it is unacceptable as a source or an external link, as described to you many times. Therefore, there is no pressing need to take it off the blacklist, is there? Because you certainly wouldn't want to get into an edit war by using it as source, would you? Of course not. So, issue closed. Thatcher 13:18, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

As it is agreed that it is not a spam site, let it be removed from the blacklist of spam sites. Then the issue will be closed CarbonLifeForm (talk) 09:58, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

As I stated above its no longer on the MediaWiki blacklist. Agree, the issue is closed --Hu12 (talk) 11:01, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

BrownHairedGirl involved in tendentious and disruptive editing

BrownHairedGirl (talk · contribs) has just reverted much of my work from December and January, of converting external map service links to the more general geographical coordinates, improving existing coordinate tags, reviewing the quality of the results, and then removing the links from articles. She abused administrative and other tools by blindly reverting 220 edits, restoring all the removed links, and in many cases making the reusable coordinate information unavailable for now. Her tendentious and disruptive reversion spree was a result of an ongoing discussion on Misplaced Pages talk:External links#Links to map services, where she wasn't capable of thinking the situation in a wider perspective and her personal viewpoint of "any map link in all articles" wasn't supported by other participants, as opposed to clicking on the coordinates and choosing a link from the first page, though the same procedure had already been done with book sources and ISBNs. She was pointed out the Misplaced Pages policies against the inclusion of such links, but she decided to ignore those fundamental principles and go by her personal preferences. During the heated debate the last couple of days I had stopped all article editing related to this issue until more people voice in, but BrownHairedGirl lost her cool regardless and decided to go solo.

For background on this: My original edits were part of WP:GEO goals to "have a uniform, extensible way of accessing all types of map resources, avoiding having direct external links to maps in articles" by consolidating and standardising coordinate and map link use on Misplaced Pages. This goal is based on Misplaced Pages:Five pillars, that Misplaced Pages information should be reusable, that external links to general map services are not information about the articles' topics when there exists dozens of other similar services usable with the same geographical coordinates, and that Misplaced Pages has a neutral point of view and it doesn't offer to readers or support any single external advertising supported map service over all the others, but readers will have to choose themselves. More details on these at Misplaced Pages talk:External links#Links to map services - summary.

What can be done with administrators who disregard Misplaced Pages policies and revert other editors in a tendentious manner with nothing but their personal opinion behind their actions? Arbitration is probably too drastic as the damage she has done is only temporary and the information is easily recoverable, but there must be something to discourage such admin behaviour? --Para (talk) 07:21, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

BrownHairedGirl has the same right to edit as any other user, but mass-reverting good-faith edits doesn't seem to me to fit the intended purpose of admin tools, and puts Para at a severe disadvantage. Can we agree to stop these high-speed admin-tool-powered reverts now, and then work something out at WP:GEO, please? -- The Anome (talk) 07:41, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

WP:GEO would indeed be the right place for the discussion, but whenever users new to a debate join a discussion that has for the most part taken place on a wikiproject page, they are fast to point out that the participants haven't represented the views of the community, and that the discussion should not be continued there. The proposed correct location is often the village pump or other central dumping ground, but all discussions can't be had there, which is why they are separated on pages focused on some very specific topics. Should all wikiprojects that simply enforce Misplaced Pages policies and guidelines in an organised and centralised way then have the wikiproject connotation removed from their names? --Para (talk) 06:46, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

On review: yes, Para has a point -- this is very much like the links-to-Amazon issue for books. Sure, the ISBN link system is clunkier than a simple link to Amazon, but it gives the reader more choice, and avoids any suspicion of commercial promotion. -- The Anome (talk) 07:59, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

First thing: if a complaint is raised about someone at ANI, it is helpful to notify the person complained about so that they can respond, and it's a pity that Para did not to do so. Thanks to Luna Santin for pointing me to this discussion, which I would otherwise have been unaware of.

On the substance of this, there has been a lengthy discussion at WT:EL about Para's mass removal of all direct links to external map services. The discussion was an exceptionally difficult one, because of Para's repeated refusal to take seriously the deep concerns about the usability of the GeoHack system which were expressed by every other contributor to the discussion other than Para — everything was repeatedly and arrogantly brushed off as "resistance to change" or as "nonsense".

Para's summary above the discussion at WP:EL is a gross misrepresentation of that discussion, and in particular Para's attempt to conflate a series of policies into a ban on any direct links to map services is highly misleading. Para is acting as if there is a clear policy supporting his actions, when there is not, and refuses to listen to any objections.

It is quite clear from that discussion that there is no consensus for this mass removal until the usability of the GeoHack system is improved. (I believe that the discussion shows a consensus against, but Para disagrees on that point),

For now, the relevant guideline is at WP:EL, whose nutshell says "Adding external links can be helpful to everyone, but they should be restricted to those that are most meritable, accessible and relevant to the article." One or two direct links to a relevant map at an appropriate resolution are entirely in keeping with that guidance.

There is no objection from me (nor, so far as I can see from anyone else) to the addition of GeoHack links to articles which do not have them, and I would welcome that addition. The issue in dispute is solely Para's unilateral mass removal of all other links contrary to the existing guideline at WP:EL, before usability issues have been resolved.

Unfortunately, Para is engaged in a one-man exercise of mass-removal of direct map links, before usability problems have been resolved, and has adamantly refused requests from several editors to desist until the usability problems have been fixed, decrying the consensus against him as "resistance to change", which is a bizarrely arrogant description of widespread concerns about poor usability.

The folks at WP:GEO are doing good work in developing the GeoHack system, and I wish them well in developing the system further to improve its usability to the point where it is welcomed by other users as a satisfactory replacement for all map links. However, it's not there yet, and there was a very sensible proposal last night by User:Wikidemo, who wrote "The best, I think, is for anybody who feels strongly about this and/or wants to do a lot of good to develop our technology a little further, and maybe the usability of the way geocodes are displayed in articles. Once it's so good that everybody loves it, we can set about converting external map links to geocodes using bots."

Unfortunately, that wise proposal was immedaiately rejected by Para, who wrote "The best solution is to just go for it and then see about the comments.".

In response to that, I warned Para that any mass removal of direct links without consenus would amount to disruptive and tendentious editing ... and when I later checked Paras' contribs and found the extent to which this had already been done, I reverted those edits of Para's which were described in the edit summary as the removal of map links. (Note, I did not revert edits which described the addition of geohack links, or even of those which replaced map links with geohacks — in those cases, the map links should be restored but the GeoHack should stay, and simple reversion would be inappropriate).

As to a solution, it is not for the WP:GEO project to impose its system on the whole of wikipedia. I wish them luck in improving the GeoHack system, but for now the guidance at WP:EL permits a limited number of relevant links to external sources, and there is no consenus to ban any direct links to map services. If, as Wikidemo suggest, the folks at WP:GEO improve the usability of their system to the point where "everybody loves it", I'm sure that there will be consensus to change the guideline. However, we are not there yet, and Para's mass-removal should stop.

(BTW, in reply to The Anome, this is not the same issue as links to Amazon. Amazon exists to sell books, but Google Maps or Line Search Maps or Yahoo Maps are not trying to sell a product. Like online newspapers to which there are squillions of links, they are advertising-supported information services, which is a very different matter to a sales site.) --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:02, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

BrownHairedGirl continues to ignore fundamental Misplaced Pages principles, doesn't even try justifying why they could just be brushed aside with her personal opinion, and seems to be completely ignorant of the fact that what she has done is not appropriate for someone who supposedly has the trust of the community and is expected to know Misplaced Pages policies. The book source system was taken into use and Amazon links removed, and the map sources system works exactly the same way, except that more attention has been given to usability. Both types of services benefit from incoming links, and with such services that have dozens of alternatives usable with a known identifier, Misplaced Pages should not promote any single one over the others. Even if the usability was on the same level for both, we could already move to using the centralised map sources page as there's the precedent and supporting policies, but BrownHairedGirl insists on imposing her personal preferences on all Misplaced Pages readers.

The only people to ever have complained of my removal of map links are Sarah777 (talk · contribs) , who then alerted BrownHairedGirl to speak for her, and we all know now how she delt with that. All comments of her disruptive actions have been negative, and people have already started reverting her reversions independently . I am not alone at all in converting map links to coordinates, see for example the entirely independent edits from these users during the couple of days I was monitoring external link changes:

• 201.38.195.168
• Americasroof
• New World Man
• Blinadrange
• Asn
• Majoreditor
• Nyttend

See also the WP:GEO discussion on getting rid of all external map service templates, at Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Geographical coordinates#Replace uses of Geolinks with a text and coord, where there was a clear consensus to remove the links. The people opposing the change there only had concerns that have been taken care of since.

In addition to the direct map links BrownHairedGirl restored, she also restored a WikiMapia link to 900 articles through a template , though the links had been gone for almost a month already without a single complaint. WikiMapia in particular is an ad infested website that, despite the name, only has the community editing part of the site common with Misplaced Pages, but keeps the results of the work for themselves. Such a site shouldn't be supported in any Misplaced Pages article except the one about the site itself. People who really want to use it can choose it from the list of all other Google Maps mashups.

I expect BrownHairedGirl herself to have to revert her own reversions. Meanwhile, as there is obviously a majority supporting the removal of external map links, how do we get that in the guidelines so that other opinionated revert warriors ignorant of Misplaced Pages's goals won't go on the same path? Guidelines are after all just extensions and longer explanations of the existing policies, but obviously a direct note about this is needed in WP:EL. Generally it has been very difficult to get people comment on a minor issue such as map links or coordinates. Should everyone identified in editing map links or coordinates be contacted directly, or can we just act based on the existing fundamental policies? --Para (talk) 21:27, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Use of rollback

Just as an aside, isn't the rollback tool only allowed for "obvious" vandalism? Lawrence § t/e 21:30, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

The mass removal of valid links which are not deprecated by policy or guideline seems to me like a very appropriate use of rollback, and I will not revert my rollbacks. Despite Para's long posting above, the fact remains that in the discussion at WT:EL, I can see no-one else supporting Para's purge of all direct map links.

Para points us to a discussion at WP:GEO, but a wikiproject does not make policy or guidedline for wikipedia as a whole. And it's very depressing to see that despite a clear consensus at WT:EL not to support the amendment of the guideline, Para claims that "there is obviously a majority supporting the removal of external map links". That's a transparent falsehood, and it's very disappointing to see Para trying to make all these false assertions. In two years of editing wikipedia, I have never before encountered any editor so utterly unwilling to listen, and so determined to ignore consensus. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:53, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Which part of the discussion on WP:EL makes you think there is consensus in any way? Perhaps I'll summarize: I support removing map links, Wikidemo supports removing map links, SEWilco supports removing map links, DanBealeCocks prefers the list of map services over single links, Sarah777 likes Yahoo and WikiMapia and would have liked to have been notified of changes, BrownHairedGirl likes any map link as long as it's directly on the page, some anonymous user dislikes the WikiMiniAtlas, and EdJohnston seems yet to have decided on an opinion. No matter how many ways I try to count this in or weigh the arguments, I can't see how anyone could come to the conclusion that the discussion is finished or is showing any consensus at all. Above I provided diffs of edits where 9 different people have removed map links from articles. What kind of inverted view of consensus do you have?? --Para (talk) 01:48, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Para, I don't know why you persist in repeating so many untruths, but I have never before come across a wikipedia editor who will so blatantly claim that black is white.

I'm not going to waste time summarising how you have misrepresented several editors, but I'll just repost wikidemo's latest comment in full, highlighting in bold the points where wikidemo specifically opposes the mass removal of links at this stage:

"Maybe everyone should take a little chill. This issue isn't new and it's not getting resolved soon, so no emergency worth getting personal over. I don't think it's a good idea to link directly to map services, and I would probably remove such a link if it appeared for no good reason in an article I was working on. At the same time we have 300,000 and it's premature to delete them en masse from articles without having a really good system in place. The best, I think, is for anybody who feels strongly about this and/or wants to do a lot of good to develop our technology a little further, and maybe the usability of the way geocodes are displayed in articles. Once it's so good that everybody loves it, we can set about converting external map links to geocodes using bots. We could even give people some notice and warning time so they can put a "do not convert" flag somewhere for the bots, if they strongly feel that a particular external link to a mapping service should remain. Of course they could always just revert the bot too"

If you really think that "it's premature to delete them en masse from articles without having a really good system in place" should be read as meaning "I support Para's zealous insistence on immediate mass removal of all direct links to maps", then you need to do some urgent remedial work on your reading comprehension skills.

Anyone else concerned about this issue should read the thread for themselves rather than relying on the bizarre misrepresentations posted here and elsewhere by Para. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 05:21, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

The only remaining usability issue that has been reported is the interpretation of the title "Global", on whether it indicates map sources with data on a global scale, or if it means services that only show a globe. Nobody has confirmed the issue or suggested other alternatives, but it is of course listed in the appropriate place for further comments. Absent any other issues, we can say that the system is good or at least as good as the book sources list, and the quoted comment from Wikidemo is therefore unrelated. To further quote the same editor :

"for the sake of consistency and fairness, where we have essentially the same need on 300,000 articles we shouldn't be linking to external web services on an ad-hoc basis. Best to have a standardized, predictable way of doing it so that all the users know what to expect and we're not in the position of favoring one advertising-supported commercial service over another. I like the system where the coordinates bring up the template, and the template gives users a choice of which mapping service to use for a display. We should then discourage people from including their own maps"

Making Misplaced Pages's external linking neutral is an ideological issue, and BrownHairedGirl's personal opinions are irrelevant when keeping Misplaced Pages's principles in mind. Book sources have already been centralised, and so will map sources. BrownHairedGirl is acting from a minority viewpoint mostly represented by herself alone, and any of her attempts to keep Misplaced Pages biased should be reverted. --Para (talk) 06:13, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

• cough* Alone? I have not been silent in my opposition to it, nor have other users. Orderinchaos 11:03, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

I participated briefly in this discussion and overall, it's pretty clear that the way to go in the long run to remove links to specific mapping services in favor of a universal geocoding system promoted by the appropriate wikiproject. It seems that 282,000 of 300,000 articles already take this approach but that there's some objection to mopping up the last 18,000, on account of the geolinking service on Misplaced Pages is clunky and takes extra clicks to use. That's a fair criticism, and if the community really thinks so, it's valid request to ask the geo people to go back to the design lab and come back when the feature is perfected. I don't know what it even means to talk about consensus in such a context, but in any event the bickering between BrownHairedGirl and Para at the village pump has gotten so intense that it's very hard to tell what's going on, and unpleasant to participate in the discussion. Perhaps a full review would reveal that one or the other started it or is being unreasonable, but I'm just an editor and it's not worth the frustration to wade into someone else's flame war. In any event I don't see any chance of a new consensus emerging as long as the discussion is so hot (which leaves open the question of what the current consensus really is about these articles). Perhaps they both need to take a short or long-term break from this issue, or invoke some kind of mediation. In any event it would seem inappropriate for any party to such a dispute to use administrative tools or privileges to have their way - even if administrative action is called for it would be a lot better if it could come from a disinterested party. Wikidemo (talk) 11:14, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

The proposed Misplaced Pages:Rollback policy does not seem to me to countenance rollback for "the mass removal of valid links which are not deprecated by policy or guideline seems to me like a very appropriate use of rollback" as suggested by BHG above. Can those in favour of rollback for such purposes please get consensus on that page either for changing the rollback policy/guideline or for correcting that document's mis-statement of WP policy? Thincat (talk) 11:48, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Allowing the use of mass-rollback over content disputes in this manner, sets a chilling precedent for editors without this tool. It is not an appropriate manner for dealing with the issue. The previous versions should be mass-rollbacked and dispute resolution should be entered. This is a content issue. Admin tools were not given for the purpose of engaging in content wars. Wjhonson (talk) 16:43, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

So far we have four people who feel that this was an inappropriate use of rollback. Anybody else care to weigh in, or is this "chilling precedent" going to stand? Pairadox (talk) 01:11, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Personally (and I'll admit a past involvement with this matter) my perception of this situation is that Para and SEWilco have been quite difficult to deal with with regards to this. They seem to have decided in absence of any community consensus on what they are going to do, are mid-way through implementing it, and there is nothing anyone can do to stop them. It's an approach that flies completely in the face of consensus-building. Developers of the map link templates such as myself are getting occasional bouts of criticism for doing nothing about these incursions. It seems like WP:OWN on a grand scale where a small wikiproject has decided to take ownership of a particular attribute on thousands of articles. While there have been some minor improvements, a quick inspection of the WP:GEO talk page will put paid to any notion that there is a consensus or that they take criticism on board. As far as they are concerned, this is going to happen whether we like it or not. As such, I support the actions taken by BrownHairedGirl to date. When we become admins, we are expected to protect the encyclopaedia from vandalism and disruption. This is very much a behaviour issue, not a content issue. Orderinchaos 10:58, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to add with regards to "inappropriate use of rollback" that rollback is a tool. It's a technical mechanism that works as a fast undo. Any editor who can make a snap decision that a particular edit should be reverted (either because of the nature of the editor or the nature of the edit) is going to do so, rollback or no. I don't think the method of reverting is relevant. • Anakin 11:52, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Rollback is for controversial edits. During December and January when map links were removed from those 220+900 articles (and others), only a single editor protested the removal from her 3 articles. This is not a sign of the kind of community wide controversy that would give reason to a massive retroactive rollback by one deeply involved administrator. Using rollback in this manner is abuse of a tool which is restricted to the use of people who have been trusted not to do anything controversial with it. Orderinchaos seems to be disgruntled for having been left in a minority when trying to oppose the removal of another more organised linkspamming. I cannot fathom how people can even think that promoting some specific external service over all its alternatives would be following WP:NPOV, when it in most cases isn't even the "most popular" and therefore not the most relevant or the most useful for the article. --Para (talk) 12:51, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

I completely object to the above characterisation of my actions. As a user and admin with 26,000 edits and a two-year history including getting one of the geographical articles to FA status in a project which has thousands of articles which are affected by these arbitrary decisions, and getting asked by others in my project why I had not stood up for common sense in the face of such blatant hostility, I finally decided a month or two ago that enough was enough and something needed to be done. As Para will recall, we had previously been on cooperative terms when another now-Arbcom banned editor was causing all manner of havoc at a Geo-related page, and I supported the introduction of Coord on just terms. There seems to be two disputes here, one of which relates to the direct placement of links in articles, which I have always opposed (apart from being messy, it's also impossible to manage from any point of view), the other relates to the indirect placement of links via Mapit/Geolinks templates, which I have always supported. This is not "linkspamming", and to use such language towards a long-standing user is, in anyone's language, inflammatory. My genuine concern, and I've seen evidence of it, is that since WP:GEO started trying to force change on the latter issue in November last year, users (not including myself) have been fighting back by removing the templates entirely and resorting to manual links. This moves us from a situation which we can manage, to a permanent battleground. Orderinchaos 18:34, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

• There is not, and has never been, any kind of policy, nor consensus, that restricts the usage of rollback to "only vandalism", nor anything similar. Rollback is a tool, not a big deal, and does absolutely nothing that cannot be reproduced by many script tools, as well as the default edit button. All these allusions to a non-existent policy must stop, just like we weed out the equally misleading non-policy idea that "you may not remove warnings from your talk page". >Radiant< 13:00, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

(Edit conflict)Comment from previously uninvolved editor/admin Rollback is for non-controversial reverts; vandalism, countering 3RR violations, etc. Notwithstanding its possible inappropriate use in the context of the above content dispute, the attempt to have BrownHairedGirl sanctioned for using it in that dispute has not gained traction. It is not "abuse" of the tools since it only replicates the effect of the undo option or choosing the previous edit in the article history - it confers no special or unique power to a sysop.

WP:ANI is not the venue to continue the content dispute. There are other places to pursue resolution; please use them. I am marking this resolved since there is nothing that any admin can or will do. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:12, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

No, it's an appropriate discussion to have here. Any use of administrative tools to gain the upper hand in a content dispute is abuse. The argument that they simply achieve the same thing as a non-adminstrative tool is spurious. If the administrative tool were no better than what we non-administrators have, then why use it? Administrative privileges aren't granted to allow some people to be super-editors. Wikidemo (talk) 16:08, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't know where you were a week or so ago, but there was quite a few discussions relating to the fact that Rollback had been made available to all editors of "good standing" via Twinkle (not that I had remembered this when I wrote the above a few hours ago). Also, the point stands that Rollback achieves nothing that Undo or choosing the previous edit in the article history doesn't means that this tool gives a sysop any extended power in a content dispute. Therefore the argument should not be about the tool but why it was used; and that is a content dispute, and this is not the right place for such matters. LessHeard vanU (talk) 17:22, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

(OD) Perhaps I misunderstood the first above. It appeared that the objection was that admins have some sort of special tool for mass-rollback, not one-by-one rollback. I'm sure we can all agree that blind-reverts of 220 edits in one long spree is tendentious editing. I actually respect BrownHairedGirl, I've seen some of her comments and they seem spot-on in many situations. But this shouldn't be simply igored as a typical editor reaction. This isn't the way we want to approach consensus editing. Instead, if Brownhaired Girl felt this was highly inappropriate, that is why we have dispute resolution. An RfC, Mediation, etc would have handled it quite properly.Wjhonson (talk) 00:05, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

• (resolved label removed - an important point has yet to be made). I've reviewed the edits that were of concern, and I agree that rollback was being used inappropriately here because, and this is important, the edit summaries were not informative enough and the edits were being marked as minor. Three styles of edit summaries were used:

• (1) "Reverted 1 edit by Para. using TW"
• (2) "Reverted 1 edit by Para; Rv, per discussion at Misplaced Pages talk:External links, there is no consensus for this mass removal of links. using TW"
• (3) "Reverted edits by Para (talk) to last version by Raymond Cruise"

The third one is the rollback summary, the first and second are TWINKLE summaries. The second edit summary is good, and (except for the use of "minor") should have been used for all the other edits as well. Please, please, please, do not use rollback for mass non-vandalism reversions like this without using a custom edit summary (pointing to where there was consensus to use rollback in this way) and removing the "minor edit" label. Rollback is very bad at leaving a paper trail to help editors reviewing the edits to work out why the reversion was done - unless, of course, it is obvious vandalism! There are several scripts available that enable people to modify rollback to output custom edit summaries. One is User:Gracenotes/rollback.js, described at Misplaced Pages talk:Requests for rollback/Archive 5#Rollback summary. Another is User:Mr.Z-man/rollbackSummary.js, described at the bottom of Misplaced Pages talk:Requests for rollback#Vandalism only?. I am going to update WP:ROLLBACK to include this, and I will notify BHG, Radiant!, Wjhonson and other people in the above thread. Carcharoth (talk) 01:15, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks to Carcharoth for a productive and pro-active approach to a sticky situation!Wjhonson (talk) 01:30, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

No problems! :-) Those who are interested, please see here for a discussion on how best to phrase all this in the documentation. I've left various other notes around, so hopefully people will realise the sense in using custom edit summaries for non-vandalism reverts (regardless of what tool is used to do the reverts, be it rollback, undo, or some combination using scripts). Ideally, people on a dedicated run of rollbacking vandalism (eg. RC patrolling) would also have a custom edit summary enabled (eg. "rollback of vandalism reviewed during recent changes patrolling"). People spotting the ocassional instances of vandalism during normal editing will still find it quicker to hit rollback, and I am aware (before someone says this) that there is no requirement to use edit summaries at all, but it makes a great deal of sense to use informative edit summaries where possible. Carcharoth (talk) 01:43, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Bizarre behaviour of User:Dbmoodb

Frankly, I'm not certain if this is appropriate for this forum. But anyway I'm puzzled and frankly rather irritated by the sub-troll behaviour of User:Dbmoodb. He mostly confines himself to user page stuff which he defines as "silly" but makes an occasional foray into article editing. All very teenage. No big deal - many of us have kids.

Most of his edits are reverted but (and here's the troll thing) he comes back much later and either re-does the edits or makes stupid comments on talk pages. It's parasitic on the goodwill of other editors and the openness of WP. The example that's prompted this is a series of "silly" edits to one paragraph in a boring little article called Moriah College, Sydney.

Here's my question: do you leave this sort of thing alone (i.e. Don't Feed The Trolls) and accept a minor level of corruption to WP, or do you tackle it head on, which is like smacking a child for doing childish things (i.e. you usually end up apologising for being a brute?

Answers on a postcard please.

andy (talk) 21:58, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

"Penzance: A View of the Art Deco Lido (circa 1952)" (other side) This is an encyclopedia - children should use a colouring book if they wish to draw doodles. Remove the vandalism, and if they don't get bored or grow up then send them to their room without biccies; i.e. warn them. Hope that helps. Weather horrible. Wish we weren't here! LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:12, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

"Greetings from Baltimore, Maryland" When in doubt revert, block, ignore. The weather is here, wish you were beautiful. Wildthing61476 (talk) 22:15, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Many thanks. RBI it is. Winter weather gets me down sometimes. andy (talk) 10:03, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Hello there Andy. I did warn you that I was watching you. Some of My early behaviour was incorrect, changing languages to suit the traditional English, but if you wish to look through my edits you will notice that I am not some sub-troll. I do not just edit user pages, Barkochbar's page was altered because I thought he was South African after I found out he was not I stopped adding this erroneous information to the page. I do have fun and do not follow normal behaviour at times. However, when I edit articles I edit articles seriously. I edit them for wikipedia and the world. I do not edit them to troll. If i see an error I will fix it. Andy you seem to want to attack me for correcting your grammar to the Moriah college article after I had put a hold on to the Milw0rm page. The Milw0rm page you deleted and would not provide me with a full explanation DGG will hopefully soon (I have contacted him and provided my email). DGG told you off for not being polite. You are incorrect to post here. This page is to be used after you have posted on my user page the exact issue. I have posted on your user page and given you warning for personally attacking me. Thus, we must go through the dispute process and "This page is not part of our dispute resolution process". Hence would an admin please inform Andy about how to use this page and remove mine and his post. Andy I wish to proceed down the dispute resolution process. Remember Andy I am watching you. I openly invite users to review my contributions. It will get you silliness points. Dbmoodb (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 04:04, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

• I have warned the above editor with regard to the comments "I was/am watching you." I consider them and the tone of the above to constitute harassment. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:08, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Connell66 banned long enough

I think it is high time we let such an excellent contributor back onto the project. See AN thread as well. Lancastor (talk) 00:29, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

New editor whose first edit was the above. Corvus cornix_talk 00:36, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

I was wondering if the community was willing to give this guy, who has obviously reformed, a second chance. Check all of these outstanding contributions - Special:Contributions/Connell66, Special:Contributions/LOZ: OOT, Special:Contributions/AR Argon, Special:Contributions/The Wikipedist, Special:Contributions/Kaktibhar, etc. Lancastor (talk) 00:41, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Also, it's likely the recently blocked sockpuppeteer User:Maser Fletcher was related in some way. Maser was one of Misplaced Pages's prized editors. Lancastor (talk) 00:43, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Hurry and block this obvious sock, please. (Yay for rhyming ^_^) JuJube (talk) 00:48, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Indeffed per WP:SOCK, WP:BAN, and WP:DUCK. Daniel 00:56, 1 February 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lancastor (talk • contribs)

Note that this comment was added by Lancastor posing as Daniel, signed by SineBot and then Lancastor repeated his attempt to mislead by removing the Sinebot message. Bencherlite 01:02, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Sock or not, let's just consider the merit of the comment as opposed to bitching over who said it Lumberjake (talk) 19:38, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

What is the point of re-discussing a block every time the blocked person comes up with a new sock? They can make a request at the UNBLOCK-L mailing list, just as the block message explains. It doesn't need to be discussed and rediscussed here ad nauseum. Corvus cornix_talk 23:27, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Lucyintheskywithdada (talk · contribs)

After talking with JzG, will be unblocking user a few hours after the conclusion of the original 48h block. Orderinchaos 10:07, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Earlier today (or, depending on the time zone, yesterday or tomorrow) I blocked Nealparr (talk · contribs) and Lucyintheskywithdada (talk · contribs) for forty-eight hours (essentially for edit-warring against each other). Apparently, Lucyintheskywithdada is the same person as the users noted at Misplaced Pages:Suspected sock puppets/Lwachowski, from December 2007 (she openly admits that here). Now, the question is: should I/we indefinitely block Lucy and unblock Neal? I ask because none of the accounts on that page received progressive blocks, so it's not clear that Lucy is evading a ban. Additionally, Lucy does not appear to currently be using her current account alongside other sockpuppets, as she appeared to be doing when the SSP was file. Granted, as one can see by Lucy's contributions, she (particularly in conjunction with Neal) has been highly disruptive on articles related to Spiritualism. So, any thoughts? -- tariqabjotu 03:00, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

• I was toying with blocking Lucy as a tendentious and disruptive editor, so an indef there is good. I refrain from comment on Nealparr. I have indefinitely blocked Lucyintheskywithdada for the reasons I noted on her talk page. Guy (Help!) 18:52, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Sorry, I didn't see this until just now, but was also reviewing this situation as my experience with Neal has been that's he's a solid and constructive editor, albeit one whose views I often do not share. I too was about to indefinitely block User:Lucyintheskywithdada as a disruptive editor and questionably legit alternate accout, but I held off and left a note at User Talk:Orderinchaos, as that admin had more experience with the sockpuppetry issues surrounding this user. In any case, I am in general agreement with Guy's indefinite block, unless Orderinchaos has something ground-shifting to say about it. Personally, I would have given Nealparr a bit more benefit of the doubt on the 3RR thing, partly because he's had a long track record of constructive editing on tough topics, and partly because his "opponent" in this case has a quite different track record. Still, he did edit-war rather than seek outside help, and he did lose his patience. I'd favor a good-faith unblock of Neal and commutation to time served, with the understanding that this was an isolated and regrettable incident, won't happen again, lesson learned, etc. MastCell 19:26, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
    • I support unblocking Neal. I'd gladly do it myself, but have had previous interaction with him (perhaps ironically, we've often been on opposite sides of an issue). Raymond Arritt (talk) 22:24, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

I support unblocking Neal, but I believe Lucy's should be commuted to the original block as imposed. On the Arbcom-probationed BK articles they have shown a newfound ability to work constructively with the other side and I think having the entire of one side blocked when the other side has an open conflict of interest is not a good idea. (For the record I believe both should be there so the article exhibits balance.) That being said, we shouldn't tolerate bad behaviour in unrelated areas for this reason alone, so I believe the original block should stand. Orderinchaos 02:58, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Developments since mean this thread is probably unnecessary now. Orderinchaos 10:07, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

OK, sounds fine to me. MastCell 18:13, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

User:Cordeyn

This user was just recently blocked for trolling, attacks, inflaming disputes, and has already restarted making the same types of edits. His recent comment here is obviously offensive and unconstructive, as well as his other recent edits. Yahel Guhan 06:03, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Obvious troll is obvious. I support an indef-block of this account, but I'd be willing to accept a new account from the same person, as long as it's legitimate. Maybe it's a troll, but I'll give him the benefit of the doubt. Maybe he's pissed and wants to let out his emotions, maybe he's tired and not thinking straight, maybe he's going through a tough time. He ought to have another chance with another account. Lumberjake (talk) 06:10, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

I blocked again for one week to give him a longer cool off time. If he returns for a third round, I would support an indef block at that time. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 06:12, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

The words "indefinite block" give me the heebie-jeebies. Maybe, if all goes wrong, we can block him for a couple months, maybe even a year if he fucks that up too. But indef-block is undeserved by anyone. Lumberjake (talk) 06:16, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

That seems to be in direct contradiction to your 06:10 comment - "I support an indef-block of this account" - ;) Support block, either way ~ Riana ⁂ 06:18, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

I also just declined an unblock request based on this edit, which he made directly after being blocked this time around. --slakr 06:24, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

And now his talk page has been protected to stop the feeding frenzy. This should be quiet for a week. We'll see what happens next Friday. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 06:30, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Someone keep an eye on my talk page, per above

Apparently he's decided that we won't stop him. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 06:37, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Note: Indeffing an account is fine, indeffing a person is not. If he wants to come back as a happy person and play nice, that's fine, but this account should be killed with fire. Lumberjake (talk) 19:00, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Deleting Misplaced Pages Account

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

Hi, How can it be possible to delete a Misplaced Pages Account. I want to delete wfgh66. Thanks. Wfgh66 (talk) 08:07, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately the software doesn't allow us to delete accounts, however, you are welcome to stop using your account at any time which will have the same effect. Shell 08:14, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

It's a matter of principle to delete the account. Unfortunately being the operative word.Wfgh66 (talk) 08:16, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Since this user is an admitted sockpuppet master, I placed a note on his talk page informing him that if he deletes his wikipedia ID and comes back as another identity, the same WP:COI will still stand. He hasn't gotten the point, so I thought I'd act pre-emptively. Snowfire51 (talk) 08:19, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Here's a perfect example why I want to delete the account. The Administrator above is obviously ignorant of who I am. I apologised in good faith over the sockpuppet incident and now I am on the receiving end of this type of nonsense. Wfgh66 (talk) 08:23, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm not ignorant of who you are, we've been trying to explain to you for quite some time that who you are doesn't matter. Misplaced Pages is an encyclopedia, and everything in it must be properly sourced, regardless of the qualifications of the editor who posts it. Your site is not properly sourced, and you promoting it here is a clear WP:COI. I bear you no grudge or ill will, but you are refusing to listen and have spammed talk pages all night instead of just trying to understand wikipedia policy. If you go about your own way now and actually make productive edits to wikipedia, no one will complain. Snowfire51 (talk) 08:29, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

I placed a Bibliographical source that did not originate from any website and that got deleted. Here:

Where is the bibliographical detail to Politica Hermetica, Number 10, 1996 on www.priory-of-sion.com that information did not come from any website,

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

Wfgh66 (talk) 08:32, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

• Per this and the thread above, since this user seems to be unable to grasp that Misplaced Pages would rather not have him adding links to his site and is arguing across many separate pages, I've blocked him for 24 hours. He also re-added his link after starting the above thread (and others on other noticeboards) when he clearly knew not to. If someone thinks a longer block is appropriate (for instance, the sockpuppetry is kosher), feel free to extend the block. Shell 08:46, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

A review of the above link shows that a {{fact}} tag was fixed by a bibliographic citation. That seems perfectly acceptable to me. The magazine in question Politica Hermetica does indeed exist. It's possible that people are reverting his edits without really looking at them. One approach for this editor might be to disengage for a few days. That would probably help.Wjhonson (talk) 08:48, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm now getting my inbox spammed with "FUCK OFF". As far as reverting without looking, its rather difficult to ask people to leave link to his sites in when a guy has created what appears to be several accounts to spam. There's no reason not to put the full reference to the actual article in place of the fact tag. Shell 08:51, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

The bibliographic citation was not to his website, it was merely the name and issue number of a magazine, that's all.Wjhonson (talk) 08:57, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Probably have to ask the editor who undid that one; I notice that someone else replaced it shortly after, so there seems to be little harm done. Shell 09:00, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for that heads up, appreciate it. I was reviewing his recent contribs and it does seem like he was using two different accounts, but the other above "suspected socks" seem to be very old and dormant. I'm also a bit concerned by bringing up issues from 2006 as a "repeat case". That seems very dated to me. This editor did make a good-faith attempt to fulfill a fact tag with a proper citation. To me that shows the possibility of useful contributions. And just because an account is old doesn't mean they're going to know all the rules. Some accounts lay dormant for a long time between editing bursts. I guess we'll see tomorrow.... Wjhonson (talk) 09:09, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

If your inbox is being spammed, then there is truly no reason to allow this user to edit Misplaced Pages anymore.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 09:11, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

This editor was informed and warned multiple times by multiple editors, and showed a determinedly willful negligence of wikipedia policy. He may have the possibility of being a useful contributor at some point, but his history of spam, blocks, and sockpuppets doesn't add up to much right now. If he's sending out spam emails as well, it doesn't bode well for being productive in the future. He should probably cool down for a while, and hopefully that'll help him understand. Snowfire51 (talk) 09:18, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

(undent) There are two things that can be done. 1) The user above clearly shows that he wishes to vanish and he has that right. While we cannot delete the account per se he does have the right to have his user page, user talk page, and any other user subpages deleted. He also has the right to return under a new name (this is an allowable use of a sockpuppet, provided he is NOT trying to dosge a block, ban, or other sanction. I suggest that if he wishes, we may do a courtesy blanking or courtesy deletion of his userspace and meet his request. 2) If he continues to abuse the email function of Misplaced Pages, the block can be extended, and the block can be modified to prevent him from emailing through Misplaced Pages. I endorse the current block, and endorse his right to vanish as well. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 13:43, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

The discussion on my talk page demonstrates utter cluelessness both about Misplaced Pages policy and in general (i.e. asking a question about whether you can ask a question). Time for some bigger cluesticks.

By the way, spam citations are not a new concept. MER-C 13:47, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

FWIW, I have blacklisted the web site in question as spam. No further discussion required. Ronnotel (talk) 14:06, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Just stop editing with your account, request deletion of your user/talk pages, and come back with another account, and don't stir shit up. Lumberjake (talk) 19:37, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

JJJ999

This user is not assuming good faith and is making personal attacks in this AfD.

Past issues:
He was discussed on ANI in September here when he accused someone of lying.
He was blocked for edit warring and incivility on October 1st for a different incident here.
He was warned again on October 20th.

Current:
On January 21st, he nominated this article for deletion, speculating with no basis that the creator, Faithlessthewonderboy, created the article because he had a personal relationship with the subject. This would seem to violate WP:AGF.

On January 28th, Faithless nominated the AfD mentioned above for deletion. JJJ999 violated AGF by accusing faithless of nominating the article as retaliation.. He attacks him further here and here. There's more violations on that page, including accusing others (including myself) as voting because we are friends of Faithless (not true in my case, I don't know him). You can see for yourself on the page. V-train (talk) 11:33, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Reply- what a tissue of feeble complaints. You don't assume good faith either when it's clearly not deserved!JJJ999 (talk) 12:57, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

the article that JJJ999 nominated for AfD was in fact deleted by clear consensus & IMHO good reason by an uninvolved admin. DGG (talk) 13:06, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

The article Faithless nominated is still under discussion; opinion by independent eds. seems divided. The discussion there seems to show intemperate language by both Faithless and JJJ, but primarily by Faithless. I've had a number of disagreements with JJJ, but this does not seem like a situation where he is seriously at fault. DGG (talk) 13:14, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

My take is that JJJ999 is trying to stir up trouble with some very borderline and snarky comments. However I can't see what admin action is required here. I'd ask JJJ999 that he calm down a bit, and start assuming more faith, but it's hardly blockable. Pedro :  Chat  13:12, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

As I've said several times, the article that I created deserved to be deleted, and I did not object to its deletion. DGG, please explain which posts of mine you find objectionable. JJJ999, on the other hand, repeatedly attacks me (even my username), refers to anyone you disagrees with him as "friends of Faithless," and in general is incredibly uncivil. The article currently at AfD is one that I've kept my eye on for some time; I gave it time to be improved, which it never appreciably has been. This is the reason I nominated it, not as retaliation for an article I didn't care about. JJJ999 hasn't committed any one, single blockable offense, but I just can't understand why he conducts himself the way he does. faithless () 16:09, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Agree with Pedro that JJJ999 is stirring the pot. FWIW, another incident, so far unmentioned in JJJ999 (aka Jembot99) that editors may wish to review to get some flavour of the history is Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Christopher Erskine (2nd nomination) (that's not the AfD I was thinking of I'll find the link later) Pete.Hurd (talk) 16:40, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

What are we arguing about? It seems like we're trying to decide if he's a dick or not. Either way, it doens't matter. Dickery is not a reason to block someone. /thread Lumberjake (talk) 19:36, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, WP:AGF is just a guideline, but WP:NPA is a policy, I think he's demonstrated a continuing refusal to abide by either (while frequently invoking whenever his actions are criticised). Perhaps this really belongs at WP:WQA, or a user conduct RfC, but I think continued flagrant violations of WP:AGF and WP:NPA -if they occurred- would be blockable. Pete.Hurd (talk) 20:17, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Inappropriate discussion closure

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

Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#ScienceApologist has been inappropriately closed three times. To prevent edit warring/wheel warring, I will not undo the closure again. However, I will strongly state my objection to that closure. I am being directed to the RFAR page, which is inappropriate because a pending RFAR does not preclude reporting incidents and behavior through normal channels and additionally so because the case is leaning towards rejection. As a further objection, both one admins (JzG and SirFozzie) who closed the discussion are is not an uninvolved admins but an advocates for the subject of discussion. I would like feedback on this issue. Vassyana (talk) 18:19, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Feedback: the section you added is inappropriate forum shopping and you should take your complaints to RFAR; the closure of the section is entirely appropriate. Hope this helps. ➔ REDVEЯS has changed his plea to guilty 18:23, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to know what administrator action you or the user you are proxying for would like here. Ronnotel (talk) 18:24, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, this discussion was absolutely inappropriately closed. Please provide an explanation. Bstone (talk) 18:25, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

The explanation is perfectly clear: there is an active debate at WP:RFAR and we do not need yet more forum shopping against ScienceApologist, especially by people who are not prepared to do their own dirty work. This is hardly controversial. Guy (Help!) 18:29, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Guy, dash it, I'm with you there, but could you please express yourself more temperately? See Ronnotel's remark below, which makes the same point, except without sounding pettish. Relata refero (talk) 18:44, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Vassyana, you can post a copy at Talk:Homeopathy/Article_probation/Incidents. Create the page, copy the text there and add a link from Talk:Homeopathy/Article_probation. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:28, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

I would prefer not to post it there since that would be no less "forum shopping" than posting it here, unless those stating it is forum-shopping disagree. Vassyana (talk) 18:36, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Um, I would like to know how I am someone who "advocates for the subject of discussion". Please make sure you have your targets correct before you bring out the smears. SirFozzie (talk) 18:31, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

If I am incorrect in remembering that you have defended SA in the past, please accept my honest apologies. Vassyana (talk) 18:35, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Apology accepted, as obviously you have confused me for another administrator. No harm, no foul, I guess. SirFozzie (talk) 18:38, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

(ec)Thanks for accepting the apology. I've stricken the comment about you out. Vassyana (talk) 18:42, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

What admin action is required?

You know, I'm thinking of making a template for that. Every new incident must fill in a little thingie specifying what they expect to get out of coming here because this is not the complaints department. Relata refero (talk) 18:37, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

The discussion SHOULD be closed. This is NOT the appropriate place for it. As has been noted several times above, these comments SHOULD be added to the RFAR discussion instead, which si where they belong. No one is censoring you, but it is a bad idea to start several threads in different places relating to the same subject. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 18:36, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Vassyana, I would like to re-iterate, what admin action are you requesting that you don't feel comfortable doing yourself? I'm not dismissing your concern, but this board is for requesting admin involvement and I don't see anything concrete in your statement. Ronnotel (talk) 18:40, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

The intent was for an uninvolved admin who is familiar with the situation to review the situation. I know it is a complex and ongoing dispute with all kinds of accusations and tomfoolery flying around from all sides. As such, I intended to defer to those more familiar with the editors and the ins and outs of the situation. Hope that helps explain. Vassyana (talk) 18:44, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Without taking a position on the merits either way, it seems to me that situation is already being reviewed by ArbCom and they should be allowed to continue with their deliberations on this matter. Ronnotel (talk) 18:49, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

And the tomfoolery being described is being looked at by ArbCom. It would be inappropriate for admins to take action where ArbCom is already dealing with it. The above comments are VERY APPROPRIATE for the open arbcom case on Homeopathy (see below), however there is no one to block or ban or pages to be protected on this yet. Make those comments THERE! --Jayron32.talk.contribs 18:51, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

I am honestly confused by this. Not reporting incidents because there is a pending RFAR is a new thing to me. Certainly, when an RFAR appears like it will be accepted or has been accepted, such things should be entered into /evidence for the arbs to consider. But quite honestly, I have never heard of not reporting things when there is a failing arb request. Vassyana (talk) 18:39, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Which RFAR is it as there are several possibilities? Anthon01 (talk) 18:40, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

The one where you have already commented. And now you should leave this subject as you are a meatpuppet of a banned user. Guy (Help!) 18:42, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Guy! Please! Relata refero (talk) 18:45, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Please what? Block Anthon01 for tendentious editing, trolling, POV-pushing, disruption and posting on behalf of a banned user? Great idea, I'll get right on it. Guy (Help!) 18:53, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

(ec) The one called "Homeopathy? Lawrence § t/e 18:43, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Civility?

Zenwhat continues to make public reference to me with perjorative terminology; ignoring WP:NPA, WP:ATWV, WP:DONTBITE, and the noticeboard rules. In his ANI, I am referred to variously as a "conspiracy theorist pusher," a "vandal," "troll," "editor with bad faith," and "possible sockpuppet." In his FTN, I am implied to be a " crank."

Overall, the attempt feels to be focused on marginalizing me, and driving away any further verifiable (perhaps, controversial) edits.

Thank you for any advisement on this matter. BigK HeX (talk) 18:26, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Admin protection of Talk:Homeopathy/Article probation

Editors who are involved in the disruption that caused the community probation, are editing the Talk:Homeopathy/Article probation page disruptively. I propose am indef protection of the probation page. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:55, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Jossi, you propose that only adminstrators be allowed to notify other users about the probation on the Homeopathy articles? You suggest that I did not notify Vassyana here? Have you discussed your concerns on the notification page and sought consensus of other involved editors before reverting the page twice? PouponOnToast (talk) 18:57, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't think Vassyana should be warned, not least, because he hasn't recently edited any of the articles. Addhoc (talk) 19:04, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

It's not a warning, it's a notification. Vassyana has proxy edited for a user who is clearly interested in the article - as such, Vassyana should be aware that any disruption on the article (directly or by proxy) would result in sanction as severe as bans. Finally, Vassyana was notified, regardless of the correctness of doing so, and as such can be subject to sanction via the probation. Such a notation should remain in more than just Vassyana's talk page history. PouponOnToast (talk) 19:07, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

(ec)As I have proxied for a complaint in a heated topic, and have no intention of editing homeopathy information, I do not object to being listed as a notified party. No need to advocate on my behalf in that regard, though I appreciate the well-intended effort to indicate I am not an involved party to the dispute. Vassyana (talk) 19:08, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

This would cut out the ability of non-admins to issue and log notifications, which would be inappropriate. Anyone is entitled to do that, not just admins. If a user is violating an actual policy, that user can be addressed. In full disclosure, a number of users have expressed that they feel Jossi is too involved in the homeopathy issues himself, and should recuse, which he refused, as is his right. As the community ultimately decides anything and everything, an editor removed Jossi, who then re-added himself. Another user also added Vassyana as detailed above. Lawrence § t/e 19:11, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't think protecting the page is a good solution. Hopefully, with Vassyana's comment above, common sense can prevail for now. The purpose of the list is to ensure that people are aware of the probation. Vassyana is aware of the probation. Problem solved. It's not necessary to edit-war over whether or not his name appears on the page. He doesn't have any intent to edit the article, so it's a moot point in any case. Let's move on. MastCell 19:17, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

As a note, to conteract the possible belief I was creating a "Wall of shame" - I had added myself to the list long before I added Vassyana. PouponOnToast (talk) 19:19, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps adding all editors that you have notified would help eliminate any appearance of a COI. Anthon01 (talk) 19:42, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I just removed my comment to that effect as unecessary (probably should have struck it instead), but you're right about that. MastCell 19:20, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

If this becomes a problem again, we can split the list of notified accounts off onto another subpage, transclude it into the main Probation subpage, and hard protect the main Probation page without extending protection to transcluded pages. That accomplishes both goals. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 19:30, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Protecting the page would leave us with no place to discuss the matter. It is the talk page and I thought it was therefore the appropriate place to discuss it. I see my own comment has been removed. (I haven't read the responses yet, but there have apparently been some.) What can we do? -- Fyslee / talk 02:36, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

I should note that there are several objections to Jossi listing himself as uninvolved on that page. Relata refero (talk) 20:25, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

I second those objections to Jossi as being "uninvolved." -- Fyslee / talk 02:36, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Problem with a talk page

There is problems going on here: Talk:List_of_Virtual_Console_games_(North_America)#January_28. Several users are using it as a place to whine about the subject, and other off topic discussions. When I try to remove it (which I'm pretty sure is the right thing to do), it gets re-added for no good reason. One of the editors involved with this: User:Lamename3000, has been very uncivil about it, and refuses to listen when I post on his talk page. He just reverts it off, and has called me a pest and 'tard (short for retard) in the edit summaries. This needs some admin involvement, as everything else hasn't worked. I originally brought this up at Village Pump, but I feel this is the better place to discuss it now. RobJ1981 (talk) 19:07, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Yup, you're the master of civility. --LN3000 (talk) 19:08, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Which has nothing to do with the matter in hand. RobJ1981 is correct, Misplaced Pages is not a forum and while a certain amount of discussion about the article subject is permitted it should always be with the ultimate aim of improving the encyclopedia. It really helps if folk can stay on topic, in all instances. LessHeard vanU (talk) 19:55, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

I am having the same problem understanding the difficulty as another user above. Somehow, we managed to create (not "me" in that "we" but Wikipedians in general) a full article about "Lourdes" which deals with the facts of the place and the beliefs that have made it famous. Why aren't Science Apologist and friends over making difficulties at Lourdes, there being not one shred of scientific evidence for its claims of cures? I'm not defending Lourdes or homeopathy, or attacking them, for that matter, but why can't the article at least be as polite in setting out that there are large numbers of people who believe it, like Lourdes, works? Both may be right; both may be wrong. Where is the need for such contention? ៛ Bielle (talk) 21:28, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

As we're all now very sick of Homeopathy, idea to modify probation

Anthon01 posted an interesting idea on my talk page just now. I propose we make an ultra-simple modification to the terms of probation, sound off here if supported. Once someone is aware of it (notification, editing the Probation page, etc.), they are subject to a hard 1rr on all articles that are under probation, and this 1rr will include the Talk:Homeopathy/Article probation page itself. This'll take care of all the edit warriors on any or all sides. Sound off with support or oppose. I support. Lawrence § t/e 19:23, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose - if there is evidence of edit warring, any administrator can place any editor on 1RR within affected articles. Doing this automatically for all editors is too gameable. Who needs this now? Jehochman 19:28, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

• I was going to say the community, as we're averaging like 3-5 of these topics per day. :) Lawrence § t/e 19:29, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

• (EC x3)At risk of becoming involved, I support with the caveat that someone has to be involved in editwarring to start in some way. That way we don't WP:BITE the newbies who post and then wonder why six people are jumping on their talk page and yelling that they're a bad person, etcetera. We actually had something similar come from the Troubles ArbCom case (warning before being put on probation by a neutral administrator, once on probation 1 revert limit/week on Troubles related articles, and civility parole). SirFozzie (talk) 19:30, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose - too much rules and regulations make Misplaced Pages into a martial law state! Igor Berger (talk) 19:32, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

And I'm sure too little rules and regulations make Misplaced Pages into a state of anarchy. We're trying to strike a balance between allowing folks to edit freely and not letting folks disrupt the encyclopedia with constant edit wars. SirFozzie (talk) 19:35, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

The admins can intervene when necessary, that is their job. Igor Berger (talk) 19:37, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

I have personally voluntarily placed myself on 0RR on these articles. What might calm things down is an aggressive attitude towards spamming of talk pages with nonsense.--Filll (talk) 19:38, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

• Since the probation, so have I. Anthon01 (talk) 20:08, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
• (tons of e/cs) I don't think this is a good idea. What will happen is that there will be races to gather more friendly editors than the other side on a single page and gamble 1RR, which would lead to slow-moving edit wars. Let's give the current system a chance - give everybody lots of rope and the better editors will do well with their freedom while the more unrepenting edit warriors will fashion themselves nooses. east.718 at 19:41, February 1, 2008

Can someone explain what the deal is with this Homeopathy article, it seems like such a mundane topic, why does it have such heated disputes about it on such a regular basis, its not like its a particularly contentious subject--Jac16888 (talk) 20:03, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

To put it in general terms, it's become a battleground between people with different interpretations of Misplaced Pages policies, especially with regards to the inclusion of material that some believe lends credence to pseudoscientific ideas. And as with any battle, there have been associated cases of incivility, edit warring, etc. At least that's my take on the dispute. Dlabtot (talk) 20:15, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

• Which articles are covered by the probation? Those under Category:Chemical elements, Category:Plants, Category:Organic chemistry? -- SEWilco (talk) 20:13, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Essentially all articles in which the subject of homeopathy is mentioned. It is the mere mention, especially when deemed an unwarranted and irrelevant (for the article) form of homeopathic promotion, that ends up starting fires and edit wars. Many of the mentions are related to attempts to promote the use of a homeopathic editor's book as a resource in those articles. It's like reading the book's TOC, and then articles are created or visited in an attempt to create a means by which the book or its author can get mentioned. The probation enables admins to work with a shorter leash with which they can reign in parties who are improperly promoting homeopathy (advocacy is forbidden at Misplaced Pages), and anyone - regardless of POV - who acts improperly. No one is totally innocent. -- Fyslee / talk 03:49, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Users who appear to have engaged in post-probation reverting without consensus

1. TheDoctorIsIn PouponOnToast (talk) 19:34, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
2. ScienceApologist PouponOnToast (talk) 19:34, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

   Orangemarlin PouponOnToast (talk) 19:34, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

   Anthon01 PouponOnToast(talk) 19:34, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

3. Levine2112 PouponOnToast (talk) 19:34, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
4. Cobaltbluetony PouponOnToast (talk) 19:34, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

This list is incomplete; you can help by adding missing items.

I strike-out myself from this list. Anthon01 (talk) 20:42, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Please take me off that list immediately. I fear I am a marked man. Woe is me. PoupounOnToast, you are making it difficult for me to AGF in your actions towards me and others. Anthon01 (talk) 19:45, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

^ If you are gonna make such a list, shouldn't you include diffs? Such a list seems pointless unless others can examine the substance of your accusations. Dlabtot (talk) 19:37, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

• I am just about ready to ban PouponOnToast from these pages because they seem to be engaged in combat. This is not appropriate at all. Jehochman 19:52, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
  • On the contrary, PouponOnToast hasn't edited in the mainspace substantially since the probation came down. A ban from all related pages seems to be jumping the gun - perhaps a final warning that future attempts to turn a talk page or noticeboard into a battleground will result in blocks without warning? east.718 at 20:00, February 1, 2008

PouponOnToast intends to participate in User Talk:Raymond arritt/Expert withdrawal and so will be making no mainspace edits for a month. Relata refero (talk) 20:23, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

To disputed scientific articles. We are the worlds formost and most valuable resource for Pokemon and obscure indirock, and I have no problem editing those articles. PouponOnToast (talk) 20:24, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

• • • I have explained this. Let's wait and see. Jehochman 20:11, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
• I don't belong on that list. But he saw fit to place me there. Anthon01 (talk) 19:57, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

I do not see any reason to put Pouponontoast on the list or to block him. Can someone show me a diff of him being disruptive?--Filll (talk) 20:14, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Popupontoast made the list and signed each line, apparently. Mike R (talk) 20:50, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Is discussing ways to improve Misplaced Pages at User Talk:Raymond arritt/Expert withdrawal discouraged? I would hope not. I would encourage all to visit and contribute ideas to help improve things.--Filll (talk) 20:48, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Note: I'm not sick of Homeopathy. I don't even know who that is. I don't appreciate when people put words in my mouth and say such pretentious things as "the Misplaced Pages community this" and "the Misplaced Pages community that". A group of people say something and then associate themselves with the entire project to make themselves seem bigger. Lumberjake (talk) 20:51, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

I am having the same problem understanding the difficulty as another user above. Somehow, we managed to create (not "me" in that "we" but Wikipedians in general) a full article about "Lourdes" which deals with the facts of the place and the beliefs that have made it famous. Why aren't Science Apologist and friends over making difficulties at Lourdes, there being not one shred of scientific evidence for its claims of cures? I'm not defending Lourdes or homeopathy, or attacking them, for that matter, but why can't the article at least be as polite in setting out that there are large numbers of people who believe it, like Lourdes, works? Both may be right; both may be wrong. Where is the need for such contention? ៛ Bielle (talk) 21:28, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Note that the sanctuary water article states as fact, "It does not have power in itself to cure anyone and has no special scientific or medical properties." So the question is then, why aren't there dozens of true believers in Lourdes Water edit warring to insert magical beliefs into the article? Homeopathy supporters claim their magic water has power to cure anyone and has special scientific and medical properties. That's why there isn't an edit war at Lourdes, and is at Homeopathy. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

I don't think the characterization is quite right. No plausible method of action has been found for homeopathy. So Anti-Homeopathy editors would like the article to reflect that in more words and ways then I just stated. Pro-Homeopathy editors want less, and it's been suggested, (not confirmed) a few want no criticism in the article at all. In the middle are editors who want a balanced article but it is difficult to achieve that with pro and anti editors constantly at odds. Anthon01 (talk) 22:12, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

But method of action has been proposed, and their are specific claims of it having scientific and properties, and of it being a treatment for specific ailments. That's why the thorough debunking of these things need to be in the article. Anything further discussion should be on the article page. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

• This whole Homeopathy thing is WP:LAME Igor Berger (talk) 22:19, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
• obiovusly, but when you get a lot ofpeople who feel strongly that the words on wipkipedia shape reality, then thats what you get. some Pro-homeopathy types think that any criticism fo homeopathic science on their aritcle is tantamount to HOlocaust denial, and some pro-Allopathy types think that anything non-critical of homeopathy is pretty much a rejection of all science now and forever. Thats what i have decided to take a brief sabbatical form editting the article itself to give me some chance to get a better perspective on the whole sitaution, because currently the situation that i am in right now is contraversial to the whole issue of why Misplaced Pages exists as a community. Smith Jones (talk) 00:01, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
• What needs to be decided is what constitutes an NPOV article here. Will it contain 1% material debunking homeopathy? 10% ? 20%? 30%? 50%? Also, Lourdes is not promoting itself aggressively across the internet and in many communities. Lourdes also does not make scientific claims about itself, or claim that allopaths are evil, or that Big Medicine is part of a conspiracy, or that Big Pharma is some malevolent force, etc. Lourdes does not claim that people should not be vaccinated or should not take antimalarial precautions. I cannot buy Lourdes water in my drugstore or my grocerystore, but I can buy homeopathic products there. I do not see Lourdes water being advertised on TV or the radio, but I see homeopathic material advertised in the media frequently. Lourdes does not claim all kinds of strange theories for how it works including misapplied QED or water memories or dozens of other strange bits of scientific nonsense for which there is no evidence. Lourdes is not pushing for government funding and grants for research studies. Lourdes does not frantically lobby people and claim fraud when studies show that their water does not have an effect. The priests at Lourdes managing the spring do not insist on being called doctors. And there are many other instances in which the two are not quite parallel. --Filll (talk) 04:17, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Blocking Problem

I am having trouble getting to any pages related to blocking Garyxxxxxx (talk · contribs), who seems to be another sock (see Misplaced Pages:Requests for checkuser/Case/Qwerty of Man and compare his contributions). Every time I try, I insta-timeout; is anyone else having this problem? -Jéské 20:08, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Brion committed a bad revision that was undone before you posted. east.718 at 20:09, February 1, 2008

Indef'd User:Wfgh66

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.

Blocks exist to protect the project from harm, and reduce likely future problems. There has been significant disruption, abuse of the wikipedia e-mail system, repeating inappropriate behavior and major breaches of policy by this user. This is not controversial and an appropriate use of a block--Hu12 (talk) 06:43, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

After escalating blocks, I have indef'd Wfgh66 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) for copyright vio on his talk page. He was apparently enraged that his pet site, priory - of - sion (dot) com, was blacklisted, so he resorted to uploading the content to his talk page. Please be on the watch out for potential socks posting the same material. Ronnotel (talk) 20:30, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Correction, it was User:Sam Korn who indef'd. We seem to have ec'd on the indef button. Ronnotel (talk) 21:06, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

I have done a history delete on the talkpage, we don't need the information to be linked via e.g. a permanent link. --Dirk Beetstra 21:57, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

How is uploading your own content to your own page a Copyvio? Thanks. Wjhonson (talk) 23:11, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

It's not a copy vio, it's a violation of WP:POINT. Horologium (talk) 23:15, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Is Point now a violation that can cause a user to be indef'd? I don't recall that consensus gathering meeting where that was decided. The entire episode from top-to-bottom here is a bit of an extreme reaction to the actual situation, imho. Wjhonson (talk) 23:22, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

(EC) I was just going to post this: It is a violation of the GFDL if the text hasn't been released on a free license. Otherwise you end up with text under two licenses and that's a recipe for disaster. That's why even the authors of text need to formally release their material into a free license before we can host it. Spartaz 23:25, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

(responding to Wjhonson) He was blocked because of his abuse of the wikipedia e-mail system. That's why Pwok got indef-blocked, too. Look at Wfgh66's block log; the POINT violation was the straw that broke the camel's back, to use the old cliché. He was engaged in edit-warring, disruptive behavior and spamming. (That is why the site was blacklisted.) Horologium (talk) 23:29, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

WP:POINT violations are disruptive, which is blockable. This users conduct severely Disrupted the project and persistently violated multiple policies or guidelines, where there is a consensus among uninvolved users that the violations were disruptive. Repeatedly he was warned and chose in pursuit of a certain point, to reject community input and consensus that his edits were disruptive.--Hu12 (talk) 06:43, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

If the rules stand in the way of blocking a blatant troll, we should ignore them.

Wjhonson, you don't appear to be addressing this user's behavior or what impact he has had on Misplaced Pages, but argue, "But WP:POINT says X! And policy says X!" This is a red herring.

In order to defend the indef block, others say, "No, but policy really says Y!"

My comment: The specific, technical wording of policy is irrelevant, per WP:IAR. The man was blatantly spamming Misplaced Pages with his website on the Priory of Sion, which reeks of self-published conspiracy theorism. He was blocked over doing this several times. He disrupted Misplaced Pages again, so now he should be banned. Again, the specific, technical wording of policy is irrelevant, per WP:IAR. ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 00:08, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Well I respectfully disagree with your analysis of what actually occurred.Wjhonson (talk) 00:11, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

And I respect your right to disagree. However, please be aware that this user was found by multiple admins to have engaged in seriously disruptive behavior. As stated above, it was a single purpose account with a WP:POINT agenda to flog his web site and willing to do pretty anything he could to do so. Disruptive editing, badgering emails, trolling, sock-puppetry, you name it. What's described above is literally the very last straw. At some point, WP has to accept that a certain individual has nothing useful to offer and move on. That point was reached. Ronnotel (talk) 02:18, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Anonymous IP's anti-semitism.

Someone posted on WP:FTN about some people pushing the fringe theory that Jewish women did not originate in the Middle East.

So, I posted on the talkpage :

Talk:Palestinian people#This article should not mention genetics.

75.72.88.121 (talk · contribs) then made this rant.

I'm not Jewish, actually. And characterizing those you disagree with as Jews is a bit off-the-wall, aside from the claims that the Jews are all lying about their heritage.

Looking at his contribs list, he actually was making genetic comparisons between Jews and Palestinians on the article on Palestinian people! ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 21:12, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

No opinion on whether the IP is being used for antisemitic trolling, because I haven't looked, but I've posted to that talkpage and to WP:FT/N that studying genetic differences between populations is fairly standard in population genetics. Actually, to tell the truth, its almost all they ever do, the boring fellows. Relata refero (talk) 22:43, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

When IPs make racist remarks, remove the remarks and move on with your life. Maybe warn 'em, or block 'em if they've been a problem before. WilyD 22:47, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Please look at the diff above before commenting. The population genetics of Jews do not belong in the article on Palestinian people. WilyD, I'm not a politically-correct person who is particularly bothered by racism. I just brought this here because this is where it belongs, no?. Telling me to "move on with my life" and "maybe" warn them in response to being accused of being a Jew is quite frankly absurd. ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 22:50, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

"accused of being a Jew"? Wow. That's...an interesting sentence construct, there. Wow.Gladys J Cortez 19:38, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

The IP sounds like a bad lot, but comparative genetics are not per se racist or antisemitic. Can we establish that, please? And the comparative genetics of X people is hardly an irrelevant subject for the article on X people. I have no opinion on the specific content that the IP added to the article, but your general claims are overstated. Relata refero (talk) 23:07, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Err, once IPs go dormant, there's often little point in blocking them - unless they're a) actively misbehaving, or b) persistantly misbehaving, there's really nothing to do, and you've not suggested either is the case. WilyD 00:32, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Population genetics are not anti-semitic. I never said they were. ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 23:57, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

It would seem obvious to me that the relationship of the palestinian people to others peoples is relevant in an article about them; population genetics is probably the most reliable objective evidence. The difficult come because, like all evidence, it can be interpreted or quoted in ways that unfairly emphasize a particular point of view--as is routine in this particular topic. the rule of citing all positions holds, as it always does. . DGG (talk) 00:54, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

I think I see what Zenwhat was getting at - it's not the use of population genetics that's looks a bit antisemitic, as that's merely a standard research technique, it's the rather hostile comments about "CURRENT jews got caught red handed ( historically) stealing a land that their recent or ancient ancestors never been to" (sic). I've seen worse, to be honest. As the others have said above it's not really worth blocking an IP unless it's doing this kind of thing routinely or in large volumes. I'd just remove the anon's comments from the thread as not being relevant to improving the article (see WP:TALK#Others' comments). -- ChrisO (talk) 01:07, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Pookeo9

Pookeo9 has had a history of creating tests, doing nonsensical things, and overall semi disrupting Misplaced Pages. So far, he has nominated 1 AfD (but then closed it as keep), and closed about 2 others. That's not so bad, but so far has files 2 RfA's that seem to be tests, or vandalism (Also 1 request for mediation). He might be trying to do good, and I am assuming good faith, but he is doing things that I have never seen before, and it is likely to continue. Just as an extra note, he has been given a final warning for vandalism. Soxred93 | talk count bot 23:30, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism and improper AfD closure by non-admin

This covered several categories, so I hope it's okay here. User:Pookeo9 has closed several AfDs, for example Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/The Southern Cat Rocks On (check the history). User contribs: Special:Contributions/Pookeo9. It was suggested at the Help Desk that I bring this here. Wyatt Riot (talk) 23:30, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Oops, see the above notes. Wyatt Riot (talk) 23:31, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

:) Yeah, I should have actually just posted here instead of both. But oh well. Thanks for reading that reply so fast! Soxred93 | talk count bot 23:33, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Just a note, it would be good to hear from Pookeo9 and his/her mentor/adopter - JetLover. I'll direct them here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Iamunknown (talk • contribs) 23:34, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi, I have seen what you wrote and i did not know it was vandalism. I will remind my adopter one more time to look and comment if he/she can.--Pookeo9 (talk) 23:50, 1 February 2008 (UTC) P.S: Some things on wikipedia i have done were good and bad and i knew some bad things but i just couldnt stop doing it. As i said before i will remind my adopter one more time about this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pookeo9 (talk • contribs) 23:52, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

• I would like to politely suggest, until you gain quite a bit more experience, that you don’t try to close any more AfD debates. —Travis 01:18, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Ok Travis.--Pookeo9 (talk) 12:39, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Possible oversight required

Creator of this Mike Ward (TV director) article has unfortunately put a private email address in the edit summary. Pollytyred (talk) 23:44, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

 Done without oversight...nat.utoronto 23:51, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. The deletion has been oversighted, also. ~Kylu (u|t) 02:06, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

User just doesn't stop uploading the same image

See User_talk:Sidhugill#Please_stop_uploading_this_picture_now. This user just keeps uploading the same fair use violations: . I even asked him to stop. I don't know what to do. He keeps on uploading fair use violations, even months later after being asked. The Evil Spartan (talk) 01:07, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

User:Shell Kinney blocked the uploader until a resolution is reached. I deleted the images. — Carl (CBM · talk) 01:15, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Yep, indef'd until we get some kind of acknowledgment out of the user and an agreement to stop the copyright infringement. Probably going to take some explaining if the user finally communicates since they're grabbing text and images from all over the net and tossing them up here. Shell 01:19, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

{ec}OK, I hope that's useful. I know indef blocks take care of the problem, but I hope he's able to figure out how to ask for unblock and return.

As for the text, I wasn't aware he did it any other than that one time, but it isn't really surprising. The Evil Spartan (talk) 01:21, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Jw120550 in continual edit warring

Jw120550 is a new user, but recently engaged in an edit war on Nancy Pelosi. In fact, he violated 3RR a few days ago, after being warned, and I had the report completely typed up, but right before I was ready to submit, he promised to stop: . He did not: . He has also vandalized the same page via his IP: . I ask for someone to please block this user. The Evil Spartan (talk) 01:18, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

And I believe I've found a second IP used for vandalism: . The Evil Spartan (talk) 01:25, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't know what his deal is but again tonight and for some reason this . R. Baley (talk) 09:17, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

I want to ask that any admin looking at this, hold off on any action (involving the "buttons". . .any other assistance is, of course, appreciated) at this point. Thanks, R. Baley (talk) 10:20, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Is someone going to respond to this? Why do my ANI posts go unheeded so often? The Evil Spartan (talk) 22:29, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Dethzone and BRIEFCASE FULL OF GUTS

Hello. I'd like to voice concerns that BRIEFCASE FULL OF GUTS (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is a sock puppet of blocked user Dethzone (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). The account BRIEFCASE FULL OF GUTS was created about three days after Dethzone's block ( ). Both make similar edits to Misplaced Pages:Sandbox and enjoy music. They both appear to be fans of Metalocalypse, their signatures reference the show, and BRIEFCASE FULL OF GUTS once edited a comment made by Dethzone (). This is highly suspicous. JetLover (talk) (Report a mistake) 01:40, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

There's also this. JetLover (talk) (Report a mistake) 01:42, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

They also both seem to have problems with a stuck caps lock key: . If this wasn't so obvious, I would say take it to WP:SSP. But it is. Does this user deserve another chance? The Evil Spartan (talk) 01:47, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Iam Not A Sockpuppeter But iDo Like Metalocalypse But that Dos not Mean That Iam Deathzone But Its A Small World iThought iWas the Only Fan With There T-Shirts And Album The deathalbum But there Is A Resembles But iShould Check His Page iHave Know Idea What His Page Looke Like Seriously Plus caplock is my thing some times But Not Always. Nathan Corpsegrinder Wartooth (talk) 01:51, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

If it looks like a duck. It'd be very unlikely that Briefcase isn't a sockpuppet. Useight (talk) 01:57, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Rather than have people waste their time further, can I just say

 Confirmed - Dethzone (talk · contribs) =

• BRIEFCASE FULL OF GUTS (talk · contribs)
• BRIEFCASE OF GUTS (talk · contribs)
• BREIFCASE OF GUTS (talk · contribs)
• ELECTRIC DEMON (talk · contribs)

- Alison 02:03, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

All blocked and tagged. east.718 at 02:42, February 2, 2008

Disconcerting

I'm not sure what to make of this, but at 1:37 this account was created and edited until 1:41. At 1:42 this account was created and started making identical edits. The edits appear to be constructive, so I don't know if another editor is creating accounts and reverting vandalism rapid-fire, or what exactly is going on here, but I thought I'd point it out. Useight (talk) 01:54, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Their edits don't look constructive at all -- they both look like they're removing a bunch of article tags (notability templates, etc) that were added by User:Gavin.collins. The edit summaries claim to be "Reverting vandalism by single-purpose account disrupting Misplaced Pages to make a point" but that doesn't seem plausible, given that User:Gavin.collins has been around almost a year, I doubt it's a single purpose account. And the edits being reverted don't look all that disruptive to me; see this for example. Doesn't look at all like they're reverting vandalism. To me this looks like an abusive sockpuppeteer. -- Why Not A Duck 02:05, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

This sounds like it's related to Misplaced Pages:Requests for checkuser/Case/Grawp - same sockpuppeteer who was reverting edits by User:Gavin.collins some weeks back - Alison 02:08, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Coincidentally, Jéské just reported Zhentarim (talk · contribs) at the above checkuser request and it's now  Confirmed as being Grawp. Halruua (talk · contribs) is now also confirmed, as well as Daysroach (talk · contribs) and Toldaside (talk · contribs).  IP blocked also - can someone move these over to the Grawp case at RFCU? I have to run here :) - Alison 02:23, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

You're right, the editing wasn't as good as I initially thought. I was at work and couldn't do more than take passing glances at Misplaced Pages as my contribs pattern for the last 4 hours shows. I see that the IP has been blocked. Useight (talk) 02:27, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Rolling back the edits, indef semi-protecting the articles, tagging as sockpuppets. -Jéské 02:57, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

122.148.180.50‎

To keep this short and sweet, this ip adress has been vandalizing wikipedia. Check contribs--DurzaTwink (talk) 02:40, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Click Here to check contribs. Thanks--DurzaTwink (talk) 02:48, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Has been reported at WP:AIV. If you report it there, it (usually) gets dealt with faster. x42bn6 Talk Mess 02:49, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you--DurzaTwink (talk) 02:50, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

• Have also semi-protected talk page for same period as the editor vandalised the block notice and continuing not to make any sense. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 03:20, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

WP:3RR against User:Jossi

I invoked WP:IAR and common sense to No Action this 3RR report against User:Jossi. As far as I can tell, Jossi was acting in good faith and in an admin capacity on a procedural page. I therefore declined to take the rather drastic step of blocking an admin in good standing. This is a fairly contentious issue right now. Does anyone else want to chime in? Ronnotel (talk) 03:06, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

This brings up 2 questions:

i) Does WP:3rr apply to pages other than wikipedia articles? In my opinion, no, thus Jossi should not be blocked (or punished). The reason for this is that, articles are important because they are the only content read by the public. In fact, everything on wikipedia exists for one main purpose, that is to improve articles. Thus it is important that articles be stable.

ii) Are admins and users in good standing exempt from WP:3rr? Certainly not. Infact, if anything, good users, as members who represent wikipedia interests, should be held to higher standards than edit warriors who violate the rule. (In this case, though, as already stated, 3rr doesn't apply). Bless sins (talk) 03:16, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Not to Wikilawyer, but WP:3RR says "An editor must not perform more than three reverts, in whole or in part, on a single page within a 24-hour period." The use of "page" instead of "article" in that sentence seems significant to me, so I don't think I can agree with Bless sins' first point. I endorse his/her second point absolutely, mind you. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 03:35, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Certainly I've seen people blocked for violating 3RR on policy pages, talk pages, and even user pages. The only time I have seen an exception made was for people removing stuff from their own user page. ScienceApologist (talk) 03:47, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm reviewing the edits to the Homeopathy notice subpage - disruptive edit warring seems to justify a few short blocks, and not of Jossi. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 03:32, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

There are instances where reverts may not constitute a breach of this policy and it appears Jossi was acting in good faith and in an admin capacity on a procedural page. Not reason for a block, and agree with Ronnotel's decline.--Hu12 (talk) 03:38, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

I encourage you to look through Jossi's recent editing history and some of the rumblings going on at User talk:Jossi. I know it is hard to block what you may consider to be a trusted admin, but I'm afraid he's stepping beyond the bounds of policy and making some very provocative maneuvers. ScienceApologist (talk) 03:43, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

to be honest, I'm much more concerned about your behavior. I find it unlikely that you filed that report with the expectation that it would be acted on. I think Jossi is trying to de-escalate the environment. I can't say the same for you. Ronnotel (talk) 03:53, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

I'll take that under advisement. In the meantime, I think you should carefully note that this 3RR report was not due to me edit warring with Jossi, so there really isn't a kettle to be seen. Also, FYI, "I find it unlikely that you filed that report with the expectation that it would be acted on." is basically flouting WP:AGF. I know that you are upset with my hardline position at cold fusion, but you shouldn't let that cloud your judgment. For what it's worth, I really appreciated that you started this thread because it shows that this is not an easy situation. ScienceApologist (talk) 04:00, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

The real problem is that a cadre of dedicated warriors on each side is pushing the situation to where uninvolved admins can't step in without being attacked somehow.

This whole article probation / etc situation was set up to defuse that, and yet has now become another focus of disruptive editing and infighting.

From a practical standpoint - it doesn't matter who's fundamentally right. If both sides make it too toxic for uninvolved admins to step in, both sides need to get blocked and pages need to be full protected until things cool down.

That is approximately the last step left, and we're approximately there. I haven't pulled any triggers yet, but I think it has to be on the table. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 04:22, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

As a previously uninvoled admin, I generally agree with User:Georgewilliamherbert. I had some hope that Arbcomm would agree to look at the article to look at issues of user conduct, but it appears that they continue to view it as a content dispute. I'm not really sure what else can be done from this point, because I don't think most of the unconstructive behaviour is actually blockworthy. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 04:25, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Blocks aren't the only tool that admins can use here. You can impose revert paroles on individual users, or article/topic bans. That might be a way to address disruptive behavior that doesn't rise to the level of blocking. --Akhilleus (talk) 04:36, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

The trouble is that the most disruptive behaviour I see isn't to the article (in the form of excessive reverting, etc.) but on the talk page, where many editors seem interested only in denigrating (civilly, natch) their opponents; the talk pages get flooded with this sort of thing, and attempts to achieve consensus get buried and have low participation. Revert paroles wouldn't do any good. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 04:55, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

But that's where the article/topic bans come in. If an editor consistently makes disruptive edits to the talk page, including incivility and obstruction, then they can be prohibited from editing the talk page. --Akhilleus (talk) 04:58, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) It's more subtle than that, I'm afraid. They behave civilly, they're polite, and they don't obstruct others' efforts. They just do nothing to advance the cause of consensus, and a whole lot to fill up the talk page with endless debate. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 06:31, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Blocks

In order to centralize disussion related to admin responses to the situation...

I have just blocked ShmuckyTheCat for 3 hours for the edit: , which I judge to be disruptive and drama-increasing rather than reducing behavior. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 04:32, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Heh, so following WP:TALK is now blockable. In this forum, it figures. Shot info (talk) 04:39, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Maybe it was Shmucky's edit summary? This does seem like an odd choice. --Akhilleus (talk) 04:47, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Deleting a bunch of comments is not helpful. By itself it would probably be worth a warning or overlooking - but it was further escalation after comments by myself and other admins that further escalation is unacceptable, and that crackdowns for existing behavior might be justified. 3 hrs is enough to make the point without abusing anyone severely. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 04:51, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I seemed to have missed that bit in WP:TALK. Would you be able to point out where jossi's comments helped improve the article? Shot info (talk) 04:55, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

If I were to rigorously block for violations of a strict interpretation of WP:TALK on the article talk page, about 35 editors will be sitting on their hands for the next week.

Alternatively, one can acknowledge that WP:TALK is a guideline not a prescription, and "violations" of it aren't removable barring other disruption... Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 04:59, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I'm not sure that having a bunch of the editors sit on their hands is a bad idea. You could accomplish that through article/topic bans through blocks, though. --Akhilleus (talk) 05:01, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Just shaking my head at what actually is acted upon decisively. No, it shouldn't surprise me, given the obsession with civilness over content. And edit warring civilly is tolerated....until it becomes uncivil, but by then it's too late for certain admins to act. Instead they pick and easy but largely tangential target. Shot info (talk) 05:07, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, large scale edit wars and disruption are worse for the Encyclopedia than even having clearly factually wrong content in some articles. Edit wars and personal attacks are attacks not just on individuals, but on the community. The community will, if it's not damaged or scared off a topic, eventually fix incorrect articles and related problems. But there's not much which fixes the community if people rampage around trying to break it.

Schmucky happened to be the first incivility to step in front of the bus, after we started the bus moving. That it was him and not one of a few dozen other people is not his fault, nor a conclusion about his position in the article dispute.

If you will excuse me from this little discussion, however, I have some people to ban from the talk page for a couple of days, I think. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 05:11, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

George, in all honesty, there are a LOT of editors who are just waiting to see admins actually begining to act and act sensibly. Blocking Schmucky wasn't sensible (IMO). But if he is the first sign of a movement by admins to enforce content by removing editing warning, then I think he would be accepting of his fate. But then again, some oldtimers have heard this sort of talk before. I personally look forward to in anticipation to see what happens. Will the project move forward, or will WR be proven correct? Shot info (talk) 05:19, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

This is an absurd thing to block over. From George's perspective, removing comments made things worse. Schumucky felt differently. So instead of asking him not to do that.. no warning, you jump on a block? Wha? Schmucky's logic for removing the "OMG I'm leaving" comments are reasonable. We should not block over bad judgement calls (not that I even agree that it was a bad judgement call or not). -- Ned Scott 06:29, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

• Infophile (talk · contribs) is banned from Talk:Homeopathy for 24 hrs for this edit which was disruptive and uncivil. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 05:21, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

endorse. I think it's time to start asking what has an editor has done to be civil rather than how they have been uncivil. Ronnotel (talk) 06:06, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Please note that there's some edit warring over the inclusion of the Pseudoscience and Fringe science categories on Homeopathy. This sequence of edits strikes me as a bit odd, since QuackGuru is an advocate of the categories and Dance With The Devil has never edited the article before. --Akhilleus (talk) 06:13, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

(ec to Ronnotel) This is the major problem with the Project at the moment. The most civil POV is rewarded by the admins rather than NPOV and improving the article. I think it's time to start asking what has an editor has done to improve the project rather than how they have been uncivil. Shot info (talk) 06:16, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

WP:CIVIL is an official policy at Misplaced Pages. Editors who are laboring under the misapprehension that they can 'improve the project' while being 'uncivil' are... laboring under a misapprehension. Dlabtot (talk) 06:37, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

First let me say that I endorse the article ban of User:Infophile, and further endorse User:Dlabtot's comments on civility. That said, I understand where User:Shot info is coming from; editors can be as frustratingly obstructionist as they want on the article talk page, but as long as they're polite about it there are no consequences to them. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 06:40, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

There is a failure to enforce NPOV. This leads to POV pushing, which leads to CIVIL issues. The problem isn't the civility, it's the failure to enforce NPOV. It's time to reward those who contribute to the project, rather than do what we have been doing - which is reward those who editwar, but do it civilly. Shot info (talk) 06:46, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

I guess I just don't agree with your assertion: There is a failure to enforce NPOV. This leads to POV pushing, which leads to CIVIL issues. I'm pretty sure that the overwhelming majority of admins are putting forth their best good faith efforts at enforcing WP:FIVE. And I'm sorry, there simply is no way to justify uncivil edits: not only is incivility a violation of one of Misplaced Pages's fundamental principles, it also just doesn't work - it's poor rhetoric which not only fails to persuade, but backfires. Dlabtot (talk) 08:38, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

That's right, it backfires, meaning that the uncivil NPOV pusher is overwhelmed by the civil POV pusher. Which is worse? From the answers here is it clear that it is the more civil. Also it is plain only one one of the pillars is monitored - civility, because the civil POV pushers are rewarded. If you want people to believe you, then it's time (as I keep advocating) for the admins to start enforcing the others. NPOV as a starter. Clamp down on that, and you will find that users (on the whole) won't be around to be uncivil. It's not difficult - although the evidence is clearly to the contrary. Shot info (talk) 09:31, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

The community has decided that WP:CIV is its most important policy, ahead of WP:NPOV, WP:V, and all the rest. (Don't even think about WP:IAR.) It's frustrating to those who value content, but you can't fight city hall. You either play the game by whatever rules you're given or you get off the field. Raymond Arritt (talk) 09:45, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

The community has decided that WP:CIV is its most important policy, ahead of WP:NPOV, WP:V, and all the rest. Another assertion with which I must respectfully disagree. In fact, that is precisely why I linked to WP:FIVE. These fundamental principles form a whole. It makes no more sense to think one is more important than the other than it does to think that your heart is a more important organ than your brain. But as far as "getting off the field if you don't like the rules" - yes, I completely agree. Dlabtot (talk) 10:07, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

This can be tested empirically: make impeccably neutral edits supported by top-drawer reliable sources and use uncivil edit summaries, then make POV edits supported by the lousiest possible sources but do it civilly. See which gets you into trouble faster. I'm not suggesting you actually do this, but I think the outcome of the thought experiment is obvious and is supported by past experience. Raymond Arritt (talk) 10:35, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't know why you posted this below my comment, as it seems to be completely unrelated to anything I have said. Dlabtot (talk) 13:06, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Not only can it be tested, the evidence supporting it is rather apparent. Saying it doesn't happen is just rewarded the civil pov-pushers, but that is the default position, and has Ray states, no point fighting it. Too bad it isn't actually the rules of the game, just umpires being selective in how they do their job(s). Shot info (talk) 10:45, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

(Outside view as an interested but uninvolved ordinary editor) Shot info, I think part of the problem is that enforcing civility is content-neutral, while enforcing NPOV requires making judgements about content. As soon as an admin tries to evaluate where NPOV lies in a contentious article, that admin is an involved participant in the content dispute. And since admins are explicitly prohibited from using their administrative tools to adjudicate a content dispute, there's no straightforward to "enforce" NPOV. I think the current system relies on the assumption that anyone focused on pushing a particular point of view will also trip up in more objectively measurable ways, such as incivility, excessive reverting, lack of sources, or abuse of multiple accounts. Most of the time, that's true. Sometimes it's not, and then what do you suggest? --Reuben (talk) 18:24, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

So what you are saying is that admins don't enforce NPOV, and just enforce CIVIL - because it is "easier"? This agrees with what I have been saying (and others have disagreed with I note). The solution is for admins to become more informed, not involved, of the issues. Too many admins opt for the "civil" solution and reward the civil pov-pushers, while with a bit of care and attention (and doing some of this stuff called "work") the correct solution can be applied to correctly ID the real editwarrior. Besides, as it is noted over in Homeo-land, almost every admin adjudicating over there has been "involved" at some point or another. Something which is proving to be a problem for admins. My personal solution is "AGF" for involved admins regardless of the level of involvement because if an admin editwars, well that what we have AN/I for. But as we see here at AN/I, an admin can 3RR (and even "civilly") and get off scot-free. God help us if the watchers don't watch their own watchmen. Shot info (talk) 01:48, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Refocussing

Jossi's behaviour is troubling. He has been told that he is not considered uninvolved or a trusted mediator by a particular side, and yet he continues to maintain he is, and to take actions to the point of violating 3RR. Can someone explain why that is considered OK? Relata refero (talk) 08:06, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

He's been told that by both sides (see e.g., the comment by Martinphi, who is a paranormal-oriented editor) but in this case both sides are wrong. Unfortunately I don't know how to fix that since I'm just a science geek and not a lawyer or diplomat. Raymond Arritt (talk) 09:50, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

From my perpsective, it became a problem when he had to "edit war" to assert his uninvolved neutrality. What should have happened (given the half dozen admin eyes on the page, and the assumed dozen more watching it) is that a different admin should have made the revert so that Jossi wouldn't have had to do it himself. No one is perfectly objective or as we say here "neutral". But I imagine that more than anything, Jossi got riled by the lack of support that he should have received. My comments here notwithstanding, I hate how this turned out, mostly because, with the recent block of that cat guy (gal?), it reinforces the (mis?)understanding that being admin is more than just having a mop. R. Baley (talk) 10:51, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

I have to admit I've looked through some of Jossi's edits in this area, and I have to say that in my opinion he and the rest of us would be best served if he looked elsewhere. I can recommend several other problematic areas that would benefit immensely from his energy.

I'm not sure what Martinphi's objection is, but he seems to be more welcoming than the other 'side'.Relata refero (talk) 13:32, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

I have to agree with some of the above. Although I respect Jossi, he should know perfectly well that 3RR is a community consensus and he has ample methods to deal with the situation other than what occurred. No one is served by allowing admins to IAR content-issues where they are related. Rather it presents the image that admins are under no restrictions to do as they will. The project already suffers from too much of that image. It's almost a daily refrain. I also agree that the extent that Jossi has self-involved now becomes problematic.Wjhonson (talk) 20:23, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Repeated false additions to World Heavyweight Championship

User Charaxes‎ and IP's 64.85.130.207‎ and 64.85.130.139‎

Are adding information to World Heavyweight Championship that is incorrect and completely false. I beleive all ips are from the same. Always posting and deleting the same material. Has refused to pay attention to numerious warnings. --DanteAgusta (talk) 03:29, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Add IP 64.85.131.147 to the list--DanteAgusta (talk) 05:02, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

WP:RFPP? D.M.N. (talk) 09:57, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

This is fundamentally not something that belongs at AN/I; it's a content dispute and you should pursue the standard dispute resolution options. If it needs to be brought to admin attention, take it to WP:AN3 and note that you, too, appear (at a cursory glance) to be risking a 3RR violation, too. Rdfox 76 (talk) 16:58, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Ok thank you. I am new and have been trying ot read through all the information about this, but it is vast. --DanteAgusta (talk) 18:47, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Possible return of V-Dash?

My spidey sense is tingling at DeathMark (talk · contribs) - his contributions look a hell of a lot like indefinitely-blocked user V-Dash (talk · contribs)'s, and, as V-Dash did on Pokémon Diamond and Pearl (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and The Legend of Zelda: Twilight Princess (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), he's stonewalling discussion at Advance Wars: Days of Ruin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and edit-warring (albeit slow-mo) over the genre of the game (, , , ). I have an RFCU out on him, but I wanted other administrators' opinions first. -Jéské 03:31, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Linkspammer issuing legal threats on talk page

70.188.184.84 (talk · contribs) (among many other IPs as well as the username 'Mondrago') has re-added the link to their personal website (which adds nothing to promote the content of the article and vios WP:EL) has gone 10RR+ and has some sort of "if we don't get our way we will sue you" jargon posted on their talk page. 156.34.222.28 (talk) 03:51, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

• Blocked for 31 hours. The user has also been warned for legal threats, and there is a sockpuppet case open regarding this IP, 3 others, and User:Mondrago. See also: Misplaced Pages:Suspected sock puppets/Mondrago. UltraExactZZ ~ Evidence 04:05, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

• • The article has now been semi-protected due to increased vandalism of external linkspam from 5 IPs. UltraExactZZ ~ Evidence 04:17, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

I'll go ahead and add the link to the spam blacklist. Nakon 05:37, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

I dunno man, are you sure you want to risk being sued for deformation (sic)? Resolute 05:59, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Good point, you could get bent out of shape... -- ChrisO (talk) 13:15, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

User:Sharadtriyama inserting fair use images on Julia Allison

Someone else watch the page, because I am taking it off my watchlist. miranda 02:33, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

After many warnings, Sharadtriyama is continuing to insert a fair use image to Julia Allison even when there is a plain consensus that a free image of her is on the page. She uploaded fair use image screen shots and (same image here). She inserts the image here and here. I told her to stop doing so, but she continues the behavior here. I am not violating 3RR due to the free content exception, but one of two options need to happen. Either fully protect the page, or block Sharadtriyama from editing. miranda 04:07, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

And, she has broken 3RR. miranda 04:26, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

I've left her a note explaining the situation. If it continues, blocks will follow, but hopefully that won't prove necessary. Seraphimblade 06:52, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

This is turning into a wheel war. I would strongly ask someone to fully protect the page, because I am tired of reverting the page because of some picture of her not putting on her best dress, etc. (i.e. pathetic minute details which are disruptive). Cheers. miranda 21:17, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Grawp

Banned vandal, Grawp (talk · contribs), is back. See Suck my dick, kid, like your daddy did. (talk · contribs), Master of the Flys (talk · contribs), Breaking Faces (talk · contribs), Hubba Hubba Hot Chick 9 o'clock (talk · contribs), etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. --Yamla (talk) 04:11, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

See Misplaced Pages:Requests for checkuser/Case/Grawp, too. He's been back for a few weeks now; he's just mainly been stalking Gavin.collins (talk · contribs). -Jéské 04:18, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Indefinitely semi-protected all pages edited by these socks. Post any further ones at the checkuser case above; Alison (talk · contribs) has it top-priority. -Jéské 04:23, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

We're on some sort of Grawp paranoia. AIV just got a request to block Dickmann1960 (with NO contributions) as a Grawp sockpuppet. Folks have got to calm down about this. I'm not saying they're not, but there is NOTHING to say they are. - Philippe | Talk 04:27, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

We'll see about that; I'm submitting the names above to the checkuser. -Jéské 04:31, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

 Confirmed - it's Grawp yet again; same narrow IP range, also Expand my brain, learning juice (talk · contribs).  IP blocked yet again - Alison

Damn, you're quick. I just submitted the above. -Jéské 04:34, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Regarding User:Dickmann1960 (created 4:12) - the previous sock User:My dick is bigger than yours. was blocked at 4:11, and an autoblock (with ACB) for this user was set on 4:13. From my technical understanding it is excluded that this is a Grawp sock. --Oxymoron 04:42, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

 Note: - fun's over. I rangeblocked his main range for a month. There are a few others, mind, but I'll prolly hit them, too, as he returns - Alison 04:49, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

I have asked WP:D&D to supply me with a list of articles that both have tags (or have had them recently) and aren't protected. Once I get this list, I will post it on a user subpage as a reference. However, I will state that one Grawp sock attacked the completely unrelated Perfect Hair Forever article; keep an eye out on any unprotected articles bearing cleanup tags. -Jéské 05:20, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Condoleezza Rice Article

Somebody who knows how needs revert the obvious vandalism to the photo used in the Condoleezza Rice article. I attempted to revert it myself, but could not revert back to the correct photo --TommyBoy (talk) 04:26, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, that's a doozy. I've replaced the image with a cropped version of the original from Commons, but I'm not sure how to get the good original back. The article is OK for the time being, but we should probably fix the original image. UltraExactZZ ~ Evidence 04:40, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

It was a vandal on Commons who also vandalized Image:Rumsfeld1.jpg and Image:Oprah Winfrey (2004).jpg. I've reported it to the vandal board over there, but it's a bit of a ghost town. If any Commons admins see this, please go block Commons:User:Downstage. - auburnpilot talk 05:08, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Has been blocked by Commons:User:LX. Sandstein (talk) 18:49, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Serious Vandal. This guy is creative

OK, several users, particularly User:Thingg, have been reverting vandalism by a single IP vandal that is using a dynamic IP assigner to circumvent the blocks he has been given. In one of his edits, he said what he was doing. As far as I can tell, all his IPs are 75.100.x.x . While it may be drastic, I think someone is eventually going to have to block all IPs from 75.100.0.0 to 75.100.255.255 . Seriously, this guy is really starting to get on my nerves. He is laughing in our faces, and us non-admins can't do anything but keep heading him off hundreds of times. J.delanoy_adds 05:22, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Even if I knew how to rangeblock, I don't think we can block such a huge range anyhow. -Jéské 05:27, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Sure we can. We don't like to, but as Ryulong just demonstrated, we can when required. I was going to rangeblock 75.100/16 for 3 hrs to discourage them, but he did for 2 weeks. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 05:34, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Continuing

This discussion from the top which has since been archived.. I'm concerned about Lumberjake's actions on Misplaced Pages. Besides the above mentioned issue, see this. Editors removed his PROD and began sourcing the article. That wasn't good enough so he sent the article to AfD. Bells go off when an account only 5 days old is on a PROD removal spree, or PROD/AFD placement spree.. Then his edit summaries such as this, this, this and this PROD reason only further make me wonder what is going on here. - ✰ALLSTAR✰ 05:20, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

User is currently blocked; block is being reviewed. What is it that you would like us to do? El_C 09:12, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Nothing now. At the time I posted, he wasn't blocked. - ✰ALLSTAR✰ 10:01, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

There's a puzzling thread on the mailing list about this. Relata refero (talk) 13:33, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Will (film)

Numerous editors, in general anons but not always, keep adding unsourced cast members to Will (film). What's there now has citation needed tags on it, and I'm going to remove them in a few days if valid sources aren't provided. I don't know if this is some kind of orchestrated hoax being perpetrated, or some sort of PR campaign, but I keep removing these unsourced names, and will continue to do so, but I could use more eyes watching this. Thanks. Corvus cornix_talk 06:28, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

User talk:129.133.124.199

Could an admin or admins please review User talk:129.133.124.199? The IP editor is making a lot of claims against a couple of other people that need to be addressed and the editor either admonished or their complaints resolved. Corvus cornix_talk 06:44, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Warning again... perhaps an umpteenth opinion will set him straight? Sasquatch t|c 08:02, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

This is from two weeks ago... How is this an incident? Or, why did it come up now?El_C 09:08, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Because there was an edit war going on over removing and reinstating the comments. Corvus cornix_talk 20:44, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Possible suicide note

The following discussion is an archived report. Please do not modify it. Subsequent reports should be made in a new section.

No further comments, please. El_C 09:27, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

... on Talk:I Hate Myself and Want to Die: The 52 Most Depressing Songs You've Ever Heard by 24.66.47.124 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). Someone from IRC said I should post it here instead of G8'ing it, so here I am. :P Cheers =) --slakr 09:14, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

By the way, the RWHOIS on the ip block (from shaw) says that it's an allocation for Medicine Hat, which is presumably a town in Alberta (Canada). Those would likely be the popos to call/notify so that they can call up the ISP and obtain customer info from their DHCP. Cheers. --slakr 09:18, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Sadly enough, it will be too late by the time someone would get there. The average suicide note is left within 15 min of the action. This would be an interesting medium for someone to use - for what, attention? Sad. Rarelibra (talk) 09:21, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps a sick joke or vandalism? Jmlk17 09:24, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archived report. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Disruptive Editing by user Koonleg50 (talk · contribs) 3rd complaint

This user has been engaging in disruptive editing practices again on Jee Shim Weng Chun Kungfu. He was previously blocked twice for these practices. This includes consistently adding WP:OR, and material that violates NPOV. He has been engaged via the talk pages for his entries in the past as well and has had it explained how he needs verifiable references, not references to his own blog and forum pages. He has responded with continuous reverts to strong arm his edits. The user has also used multiple anonymous IP's. He just engaged in a revert war at Jee Shim Weng Chun Kungfu. I have stopped before violating 3rr. I'm requesting administrator intervention again. Here is the record for the previous blocks: IncidentArchive347 IncidentArchive348 Here's the current listing of anonymous IP's: 61.18.170.141, 61.18.170.108, 61.18.170.107, 61.18.170.129. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 09:22, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

I'll sprotect it, for now. El_C 09:31, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Jay Brannan

162.84.234.178 has repeatedly over the last several days removed content from this article. Now the IP claims to be Jay Brannan on the IP's talk page. Then, I'm assuming this user registered and is now known as Jaybrannan, a user that just blanked both the article and the article talk page. I restored the article and talk page. The user then just now left me a message on my talk page regarding the deletion. Someone have a look? - ✰ALLSTAR✰ 10:09, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

User:slackr has blocked the account for 31 hours, and i've done the same for the IP —Reedy Boy 10:22, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Well before seeing this post, I blocked him for 3RR, since he was a bit out of control. I still have no idea if this is actually the dude or not, but if it is, it's still a huge conflict of interest issue, which I warned the IP he was editing under about. --slakr 10:23, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Help with possible rangeblock

Hi - my first post here as a new admin. I've noticed that Nancy Kulp has been subject to the same vandalism from Carleton University IPs (134.117.0.0 - 134.117.255.255 according to WHOIS) for several months. I think all the vandal IPs fit into 134.117.137.0/24, so I was thinking of blocking this range. Could someone confirm whether or not I'm right and if so for what sort of period I should block? Thanks!  —SMALLJIM  12:22, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Well Maxim has protected that page, but as I suspected, it's just made the vandal move on - see .  —SMALLJIM  14:08, 2 February 2008 (UTC) Oops, that was an old one!  —SMALLJIM  14:34, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm not an admin and not an expert on blocking, but I'd certainly hesitate to block a whole university. How many good edits are also coming from that range? Would it be the type of block that allows logged-in users to still be able to edit? Do you have a feel for how many good contributors are using that range of IPs? Is only one page affected by the vandalism, and if so, why not just semi-protect that page instead? Surely a university is a fertile source of new, good contributors. Putting a barrier in their way such as making them get an account in some more complicated way before being able to edit might just turn away potential excellent contributors before they ever discover what editing Misplaced Pages is really like. Congrats on your RfA, by the way. --Coppertwig (talk) 15:46, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

I'd be more inclined to avoid the rangeblock and leave the semi-protection in place. Unless we can demonstrate vandalism ac cross the project coming from that range. But one article can be protected and such is less damaging than a rangeblock. And thanks for asking first. Always a good idea. -JodyB _talk 15:54, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict; agree with JodyB.) My impression is that a rangeblock would be way overkill. I looked at the article and what I see is anon-IP's repeatedly inserting "(ironically)" into the article. If you want to stop that, just semi-protect the article (or have a non-involved admin semi-protect it). I looked at the contribs of one of the anon-IPs that added in that "ironically" thingy: 134.117.137.183 (talk · contribs). I see a bunch of apparently (at a brief glance) good-faith edits on other articles plus one edit adding the word "ironically" to this article. That's nowhere near enough vandalism to block even just that one IP, let alone a whole range, even if you consider it to be vandalism rather than a content dispute which is discussed on the talk page. I realize you're proposing to block a certain range, not the whole University, but still. Just my opinion as a non-admin. --Coppertwig (talk) 15:59, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks both of you for the feedback. I certainly wouldn't have gone ahead with a rangeblock with my current level of knowledge without checking first: I know they can be problematic. You're right, of course that semi-protecting the page is a far better idea, though I was concerned that would just encourage the vandal to move on to other pages (as he has done at least once ). He's also been making a repetitive edit to James Lipton since the end of December.

It looks like most of the addresses in the range 134.117.137.18 - 134.117.137.253 have been active, so I guess dynamic allocation is being used. I've checked the contributions from a number of them and while there were quite a lot of good edits up to around 2006, there's not been so much since. Anyway, it's been more an exercise in detective work than anything actually useful, but at least it's made a change from continually rolling back "poop"! And I've learned some new stuff today, which is good.  —SMALLJIM  17:53, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

This is an honest question...

...but it could be absolutely trivial, so if I'm making a tempest in a teacup, please be kind...

Exploring the contributions list of ACMEMan(as part of an AfD issue I recently discovered) I discovered the following:

# 17:54, 29 January 2008 (hist) (diff) User talk:76.230.233.240‎ (←Created page with '(blocked)')

This user is not an admin, and thus can't block anyone. Is it appropriate for non-admins to do such things? As I said--this is an honest question, and though it's a bit stale, I'm not trying to waste anyone's time--I'm still trying to learn my way around here a little better. Thanks... Gladys J Cortez 16:30, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

I think you could leave a polite note for ACMEman explaining things. It seems like this could be a simple misunderstanding of how things work. Jehochman 16:33, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

It's an ongoing misunderstanding, then. He's been doing that to IP user talk pages for a month now, as his contribs page shows. ThuranX (talk) 16:57, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

(ec)Normally that's what I'd do...but if you'll take a peek at his talk page, you'll notice that much of it is dominated by AFD notices, placed there by yours truly. I have a sneaking suspicion that he would not take kindly to even the politest question, especially since there's a potential appearance of stalking. (NOT the case--I found one non-notable article he wrote, then discovered another on the same general topic, and figured I'd check his contribs to see how many more there might be--but I can see how it might look bad.)Gladys J Cortez 17:08, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

I've left them a note. Hut 8.5 17:25, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

You are indeed full of awesome. Thanks! Gladys J Cortez 17:40, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

King of Mann

Please would you semi protect. I suspect puppetmaster User:Kingofmann is back.CarbonLifeForm (talk) 18:13, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

I can't see any recent vandalism worth protecting the page against. For future reference, such requests usually belong on WP:RPP. Sandstein (talk) 18:54, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Just a reference if missed, it looks like he made and removed this edit here. Lawrence § t/e 19:26, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

User:Zenwhat Civility issues, 2nd incident

In addition to the previous complaint, now, apparently a public noticeboard has degenerated from content discussion into a railing against my persona itself, as can be seen by clicking here. I'm not sure how content issues have merited that my entire persona become the focal point of a public discussion of "crankery." Sadly, I'm also not sure why these attacks are not engaging some form of intervention. WP:NPA seems to offer me some protection against this mess .... "some types of comments are never acceptable: Using someone's affiliations as a means of dismissing or discrediting their views — regardless of whether said affiliations are mainstream or not."

Not quite as serious, but another recent problem that troubles me is that Zenwhat has taken to misquoting me, in an apparent attempt to cast me as a gullible idiot. Here he states how I've assessed myself to be overly biased and deluded. I've never made such an assertion.

These attacks have persisted despite my admonishments to Zenwhat. Please look into the matter. Any consideration would be very greatly appreciated. BigK HeX (talk) 19:28, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Observation by User:Mayalld

Having had a, pretty minor, run-in with User:Zenwhat over the past couple of days (he was restoring comments to user talk pages that the user had deleted), I'm unsure that this is an AN/I case. Far more a WP:WQA issue. Having said that, there is an issue to resolve. The user is not infrequently abrupt, and seems to believe that WP:IAR means that he can unilaterally change policies and guidelines quoting WP:DICK. Mayalld (talk) 20:06, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Mayalld. There seems to be disagreement over which forum is appropriate. My previous issue was bounced back from the WQA, though not entirely due to "inappropriate forum." I'm not really sure where to turn on this. Dedicating an entire noticeboard section based on his characterization of my persona, instead of focusing on the verifiability of content seems to thoroughly cross the line, but in any case, please advise which way I should turn. I kinda need for his disparaging behavior to stop. I'm thinking only an Admin can make that happen, at this point. BigK HeX (talk) 20:14, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

I was the editor who handled the WQA complaint. It was bounced back because, as noted, there are several existing unresolved threads already open on two other forums, AN/I and FTN. When a complaint has already escalated to AN/I and to this level of discussion, there isn't much a friendly note from a WQA clerk without administrative abilities is going to do. It's already being addressed elsewhere, and since it appears to be an ongoing dispute, it's best addressed on a noticeboard where it will have the attention of admins or through mediation.

I'd also add that in the specific issue of restoring the deleted comments, I think that Zenwhat was acting in good faith. The discussion in question was about a policy/conduct issue. I believe he felt it needed to be addressed on the user's page and was frustrated that it kept being deleted. I'm reserving an opinion on everything else, because I've done my best to stay out of it. DanielEng (talk) 20:43, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Other Comments

IN Zenwhat's defence, this particular complainant is rapidly approaching tendentiousness in my opinion. Relata refero (talk) 20:16, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Ah ... now that you've said it. Show how it's true. BigK HeX (talk) 20:20, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

• While I am inclined to think that Zenwhat's characterisation of your comment (diff) is tenuous, at best, I would recommend that this not be dealt with on the administrators' noticeboard, where nuanced solutions (which is what I believe is required in this case) are generally not arrived at (in part due to the heavy volume of posts to this board). --Iamunknown 20:32, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. I wasn't aware that any other appeal could actually enforce any solutions .. ? well, except Arbitration which seems premature. But, anyways, I just need him to attack content, more so than me, personally. Whichever venue can make that happen is cool with me. BigK HeX (talk) 20:38, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

No problem. Re enforcement: individual admins can "enforce" things, though if they are contested, a review should generally happen here. My hope, however, is that we can arrive at a solution without the need for enforcement, but I guess we'll see.  :) --Iamunknown 20:42, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Since this does appear to be something ongoing between these two users, how about mediation?DanielEng (talk) 20:45, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Disagree. I'm no fan of Zenwhat for what I see as baiting other editors at Misplaced Pages:Article Rescue Squadron as seen here and here. There was also an AfD Zenwhat opened just to make a point which seems a bit abusive and some threads on Jimmy Wales talk that also seemed to be veiled soapboxing. Having stated this I have seen perfectly civil and constructive dialog take place elsewhere. Benjiboi 20:58, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

It seems that no interpretation is required to characterise Zenwhat actions at talk:ARS as baiting. He is overt about it when, in Misplaced Pages talk:Article Rescue Squadron#A request for comment, he asks other editors to comment on two articles and that AfD in order to - as he says a bit later on - demonstrate that the group's actions are disruptive. My impression is that Zenwhat is a learned person who's very deeply convinced of his own rightness and whose interactions with others here are characterized by that. Notice how he opens his dialogue with ARS in this section by titling it with a vicious insult and following up with more. --Kizor 22:38, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Editor Rebuttal

This complaint is tendentious. His complaint is about Misplaced Pages:FTN#About BigK Hex on WP:FTN, created for the benefit of other users making edits to Monetary policy of the USA, who have also been having problems with this user. After being notified by User:Gregalton of some pretty bad sources being used on Monetary policy of the USA, I came across this user making some pretty absurd assertions and tendentious edits. I checked his contribs, found a number of blatantly absurd edits indicative of trolling through a single-purpose account, which I then reported on WP:ANI . On the advice of some the users who responded, I posted an RFCU to investigate the possibility that this is the sockpuppeteer, User:Karmaisking.

BigK HeX then used this posting as justification to start another thread on WP:ANI about "incivility" in a thread that admins themselves can already read a few pages up. His WP:WQA was then issued for him on his behalf, by User:Addhoc, who copied and pasted BigK's remarks to WP:WQA with the dubious summary "add Zenwhat - copy from WP:ANI - no opion on complaint." Administrators don't take the extra step of copying and pasting WP:WQA violations they think are unfounded or are indifferent to. Danieleng asked him about this and Addhoc removed his comments from the talkpage and didn't copy his original comments to Danieleng's page, thus wiping the information from any future archives. Danieleng would then comment on Addhoc's talkpage, Addhoc would immediately remove it (they reverted a couple times over it), but they continued to discuss the matter on Danieleng's talkpage, where the rest of the conversation remained. I then attempted to restore Daniel's comments, because it seemed inappropriate to remove them, but was reverted. I then posted a thread on Addhoc's talkpage asking him to stop removing comments and Addhoc again reverted it. Within the policy of WP:Talk, he is fully free to do this of course, but Daniel and I both agree that it was belligerent and immature -- reasonable for a non-SysOp, not for a SysOp, however, who is accountable to the community. I recommended Daniel issue an RFC, but he doesn't think it's that big of a deal. I'm willing to just let it go also, but it's relevant here, so I thought I'd mention it anyway. Until 1=2 has continued to debate the matter with me on my talkpage, now referring to me as a "vandal" for restoring Daniel's comments with one revert. Based on that, I'm not going to debate the matter any further here or with Until 1=2.

OK, so anyway, after this, I post the sub-section about BigK Hex on WP:FTN to demonstrate his past pattern of behavior, to help other editors. It seemed to be helpful to User:Itsmejudith who responded, "Thanks for this as I now see why editors were so concerned."

Then (a day after BigK's last posting on WP:ANI), BigK posts a second thread on WP:ANI about incivility over the same issue.

Is there going to be a third after this one, BigK? You're wasting others' time here and only seem to be digging yourself a larger hole.

That's all. I have no further comments on the matter. ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 22:36, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

• "BigK posts a second thread on WP:ANI about incivility over the same issue"

Funny guy. Obviously, the admins can quite plainly see that the two ANIs are referring to two incidents of questionable civility. In fact, this 2nd posting was made because the behavior was decidedly more aggressive, IMO.

• "Is there going to be a third after this one, BigK?"

Errr ... only you know the answer to that.

All of this inflammed commentary, and not a single apology. Kizor makes an intersting point, above. It is quite obvious that Zenwhat sees no fault in what are obvious personal attacks and is unlikely to disengage. This is why the matter has been presented. BigK HeX (talk) 23:20, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Regarding Zenwhat's second paragraph, interested editors and admins may wish to see my (somewhat lengthy) remarks on Zenwhat's talk page: (talk page section) (diff). --Iamunknown 00:40, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Some clarification: The remarks about User:Addhoc are a side-issue and yes, as Iamunknown just noted, based on my own misunderstanding of certain diffs. I think Addoc's actions were still inappropriate, but only mildly so, not worth arguing, even suggesting RFC, or taking note of, since all comments were restored in full on Daniel's talkpage. Sorry about that. Please ignore it. ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 00:56, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

On a side-note, thank god I didn't finish that policy proposal "requiring admins to not remove comments from their talkpages!"

I frequently have difficulty reading these horrible things called "diffs." Please, forgive me for my blatantly horrible reading comprehension and tendency to speed-read to the point of humiliating inaccuracy. Sorry for wasting your time.

Still: This apology extends to the matter of Addhoc. The diffs regarding BigK HeX stand and seem pretty solid. ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 01:03, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Irish ISP user

• This is in regard to delete Siobhán Hoey and Aoife Hoey (bobsleigh) from an anonymous account that from the WHOIS file are all Ireland-based. Siobhán's effort to being deleted occurred last March 30, but was reinstated on April 4. Aoife was deleted, but I had brought it back in an effort to work on bobsleigh, luge, and skeleton. From both article's histories, I have seen where these edits look like they have been vandalized from these IP addresses. Also, this same user (or users) is attempting to delete Siobhán's article again and tried to put Aoife's article on the February 1, 2008 AfD before succeeding. Please have a look at this because most of these articles are Irish-based and there may be other signs of abuse as well. Thank you.

The accounts in question are shown below:

• 84.203.1.58 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 213.190.141.211 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 194.125.97.208 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 213.202.149.105 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 213.190.141.210 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 213.202.132.52 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 194.125.98.62 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 194.125.52.12 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 212.2.170.84 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 194.125.76.92 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 194.125.21.131 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 213.202.183.229 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 213.202.174.145 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 213.202.138.250 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

Chris (talk) 21:12, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

For context: this relates to the sub-stub Aoife Hoey (bobsleigh) and its on-going deletion discussion Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Aoife Hoey (bobsleigh), and the article Siobhán Hoey and its closed (as keep-cleanup) deletion discussion Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Siobhán Hoey.

Personally, I'm not seeing an incident. I'm seeing an anon with a bee in his/her bonnet about these articles, who is arguing loudly for deletion from multiple semi-dynamic IPs. But established editors are not agreeing and seem at the moment unlikely to do so. Such are the ways of AfD, the louder and longer the anon calls for deletion, the more established editors will say keep. This isn't to detract from the annoyance the author of the article will be feeling: it's just not all that an unusual circumstance (albeit usually anons ask for a keep). ➔ REDVEЯS has changed his plea to guilty 22:51, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Maybe so, but if you click on the contributions to these links, you do see some of these articles linking to Irish related articles, including a few links that are single-purpose accounts (194.125.52.12, 213.202.132.52, 213.202,149.105 (all but one edit), and 194.125.97.208 (all but one edit).). These are things to think about. Chris (talk) 22:59, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Anonymous IP has threatened an editor

• 83.7.209.185 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) has just made this threat. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles 21:17, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Oh. Him again. Looks like the little monkey has learned how to use random IPs this time. Marvellous.HalfShadow (talk) 21:35, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Blocked by Jéské Couriano. Sandstein (talk) 21:37, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Reported all IPs to the Grawp CU case to see if they're possibly related to Group I (Senang Hati (impersonator) and his socks), and left a warning on one of the IP's pages that any more death threats will result in an abuse report to the ISP. -Jéské 21:58, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

User:Anthon01

(Moved from WP:AN) east.718 at 21:43, February 2, 2008

Resolved

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards