Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 18:35, 7 August 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)

• 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?

User:Calton

The other day, I responded to a helpme template issued by User:Turner&associates. Right off the bat, there's an obviously username issue there, and I mentioned that in my reply. What was refreshing to me was that this particular user had written an article in their userspace (restored for ease of reference), but was politely asking if it was worthy of inclusion before putting it into the mainspace. I also mentioned the COI issue that was quite obviously present and told them I wasn't sure if this individual met our notability guidelines for people. In the meantime, the user was blocked (appropriately, but I would've liked more time to discuss the issue since they weren't being disruptive) for their username. The blocking admin was kind enough not to template the user, as I had clearly already mentioned the username issue to them. This user quite politely accepted my determination that the article was likely not worthy, and made a further query about citations, to which I responded thusly, asking for some more reliable sources.

It is at this point that Calton (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) arrives, templating the user and blanking the potential article that was being discussed replacing it with {{indefblock}}. I undid the addition of both of these templates. He put them on again, saying don't be daft: this is SOP and not a special admin task. Again, I undid both, and he again blanked the userpage, which I again reverted. At this point, I began a discussion with Calton, the entirety of which can be viewed here.

Now, this act of users templating other users while admins are in discussion with them is perhaps my greatest annoyance. If an admin is in full control of the situation, there is no need for another user to be throwing templates around. This needs to be written into the guidelines. That being said, the major problem which brings me here today is Calton's attitude towards admins. He seems to feel that he knows best - whereas admins are the ones who have been entrusted by the community to uphold its standards as they see fit refusing to accept any one's judgment of the situation but his own. This user in particular did not deserve templating because they had the common courtesy to actually ASK if their article was worthwhile of inclusion. Whether or not it is - is completely peripheral to the matter. I felt it necessary to show the user the same level of respect that they had shown us.

Ironically, while I was writing to him tonight to tell him not to template users while admins are discussing issues with them, he was simultaneously involved in edit warring to reverse another administrator's actions at WP:UAA. I also see that there was another similar issue some months ago with respect to him adding a now deleted template to userpages as he tagged them that several administrators attempted to address him about. He seems to be unwilling or unable to accept the judgment of administrators.

I apologize for this long explanation, but feel that this type of behaviour needs to stop. –xeno (talk) 00:35, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

This is a typical type of behaviour shown by Calton, he's extremely quick to tag/warn users with promotional usernames, regardless of what their intent is here. He isn't willing to discuss issues with users, he simply tags and reports, and when concerns arise, he gives flippant replies and carries on regardless. I personally think that his COI and promotional username work is detremental to the project, and I'd certainly support a topic ban the prohibits him from working in these areas. There's a serious case of WP:BITE here, and this has been brought up on AN/I before. Ryan Postlethwaite 00:50, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

I was just going to let this drop (I usually don't let myself get too worked up about things) but since the AN/I is already here I'll come comment. As a fairly regular patroller of UAA, I can only agree that Calton has had something of a history of making borderline reports, and often in large quantities. This isn't too troublesome in and of itself, but going back and repeating declined reports is pretty unhelpful. As an "involved" administrator I will refrain from belaboring this topic further and leave it to 3rd parties to observe and decide what to do. Shereth 01:01, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

The "borderline" judgment, to go by the talk page of WP:UAA, appears to be yours alone. Given that your judgment's been questioned -- by at least one other admin -- it's clear that a third opinion is needed. --Calton | Talk 01:35, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

(ec)I've been privy to his behavior at WP:UAA where Calton shotgun reports usernames that match a person, band or company that has created an article, whether blatantly advertising or not. Regardless, it's the not the mass reporting that bothers me (although it does peeve abit), but it's the sheer unwillingness to listen when approached. I have major concerns with users who breach WP:BITE, and we all know that UAA is one of those hot zone areas that need special sensitivity. The above behavior described, coupled with the activity at UAA, lead, me to believe that he is being more detrimental to the project than anything else. Wisdom89 _{(T / )} 01:03, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Wrong. I tag blatant advertising -- but even if you disagree about the "blatant", perhaps a read of this would be helpful, or perhaps you should take up your concern with the multiple admins who do the actual deleting and the actual blocking. --Calton | Talk 01:38, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

This behavior is one of the worst case of biting I've seen in a while. It must stop. — Coren  01:05, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Really? "Worst"? And the ones being bitten are whom? --Calton | Talk 01:38, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

To be honest, I'd like to see Calton steer clear of UAA for a while, or at least approach it more gingerly. Wisdom89 _{(T / )} 01:12, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

This is absurd to the point of ridiculous. The most succinct replies I can give to Xenocidic's long-winded explanation are 1) to point out he seems to forget what admins actually are: they're editors with a few extra buttons. They're not gods, they're not supervisors or managers, and their edits and work have no more authority or judgment than any other user; in fact, given their extra buttons, they need to be more careful about their work. Yours was careless and had not the slightest grounding in policy, practice, or guideline -- or at least none you would reveal, since all you did -- and are doing now -- is throwing your weight around. 2) to point out that you put up not a single rebuttal to the numerous rules, guidelines, policies, and standard practices I pointed you to, relying instead on vague handwaving. 3) that your resorting to thinly veiled personal attacks ("If you had bothered to read", "use common sense") while complaining about civility is more than a touch hypocritical. 4) mistaken about WP:UAA, which a simple reading of the talk page would have shown, and would show that User:Shereth's judgment had already by been questioned, directly by, hey, an another admin 5) that employing obvious hyperbole such as "He seems to be unwilling or unable to accept the judgment of administrators" is not only damaging and false, but assumes facts not in evidence? Certainly the various Barnstars I've received point out how ridiculously inclusive that claim is. And for the record, I am unwilling to accept the judgment of editors who don't know what they're talking about; who provide no actual reasons for their judgments; who make false claims; who resort to insults throwing their weight around in lieu of actual arguments; or who violate actual policies, guidelines, rules, standard practices, or the actual goals of the Project: whether said editors are anon IPs, ordinary-level users, or administrators doesn't and shouldn't make the slightest bit of difference if they are, you know, wrong.

Speaking of absurd, could Ryan Postlethwaite explain exactly how removing blatantly obvious spam and COI --- 'exactly as is done at WP:UAA every single day by multiple users and -- mirabile dictu -- admins? "detremental to the project", and how, exactly, he divines the intent of said spammers outside of their actions ("regardless of what their intent is here", to quote you)? The rest of your comments, I'll simply say because I'm tired of typing, are outright false (deliberately or not, I don't care) and I'll leave it at that. --Calton | Talk 01:35, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

I think the point I was trying to make is sometimes you need to forget about rules, guidelines, policies, and standard practices, and just talk to people like they are human beings. –xeno (talk) 01:40, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

You really can't help yourself with the thinly veiled insults, can you? I guess I'll just have to ask you when you stopped beating your wife, then? --Calton | Talk 01:47, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Speaking of absurd, could Ryan Postlethwaite explain exactly how removing blatantly obvious spam and COI --- 'exactly as is done at WP:UAA every single day by multiple users and -- mirabile dictu -- admins? "detremental to the project", and how, exactly, he divines the intent of said spammers outside of their actions ("regardless of what their intent is here", to quote you)? The rest of your comments, I'll simply say because I'm tired of typing, are outright false (deliberately or not, I don't care) and I'll leave it at that. --Calton | Talk 01:35, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Let's cut through the noise: all I do is tag the spam pages and report said spammers. Multiple admins -- might as well do the appeal to authority bit, too -- are the ones who do the actual deleting and actual blocking, not me. If you have a problem, take it up with them, or work to get actual policies, guidelines, rules, and project goals changed to match whatever it is you have a problem with. --Calton | Talk 01:47, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

After removing some non-blockworthy listings from the odd "relisted" section, I poked around in the WP:UAA history to see what was up with that section, which led me here. Calton, knock it off. Your reports push the borderline. Multiple admins tell you this, and you ignore them. It's one thing if you continue to list new borderline cases, I would never have a big problem with that. But this relisting thing, which is a serious ongoing problem with you, has to stop. Although Calton is a great asset to the project, this admin shopping he does is really really inappropriate and I advocate blocking if it happens again. Enough is enough, I've been seeing this behavior from Calton for over a year. Mangojuice 01:54, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

What the hell ARE you talking about? What "ongoing problem"? What "admin shopping" What "multiple admins"? Your comments don't make the slightest bit of sense and don't seem to have the slightest relationship to what's going on. Did you read the talk page? --Calton | Talk 02:04, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

And let me repeat: "And for the record, I am unwilling to accept the judgment of editors who don't know what they're talking about; who provide no actual reasons for their judgments; who make false claims; who resort to insults throwing and their weight around in lieu of actual arguments; or who violate actual policies, guidelines, rules, standard practices, or the actual goals of the Project: whether said editors are anon IPs, ordinary-level users, or administrators doesn't and shouldn't make the slightest bit of difference if they are, you know, wrong." --Calton | Talk 02:06, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Calton, I understand you're indignant and maybe a little frustrated here, but your tone is starting to become incivil and even hostile. Just cool off a bit and discuss the situation. Wisdom89 _{(T / )} 02:08, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

You're damned right I'm upset: the charges of Xenocidic & Ryan Postlethwaite -- especially the latter -- boil down to nothing but indignant and fact-free cries of "Respect Mah Authoritah!" and the subsequent pile-on, from Mangojuice on down is similarly fact-free.

One more point - I can't speak for anybody else, but I assure you that I am not implying or asserting that administrators are above any other user. Goodness knows that's not true. However, this brings me to another one of your comments: Just because administrators block your username reports does not absolve the continued action that obviously multiple users have a problem with. Wisdom89 _{(T / )} 02:10, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Catron is doing the work of God, keeping the spamming scum off WP user pages. This is Catron's "current project", secretly given unto to him by Jimbo himself in the sacred Temple of Wikia. How dare you question? FishNewbieWikiNoob (talk) 03:46, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Good Lord. Calton doesn't seem to understand the concept of discussion at all. This kind of behavior in response to reasonable requests from multiple concerned editors is like a cliche that people who hate wikipedia bring up in online discussions. Dayewalker (talk) 04:05, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

And you don't seem to understand what I wrote, so I'll repeat once again: "And for the record, I am unwilling to accept the judgment of editors who don't know what they're talking about; who provide no actual reasons for their judgments; who make false claims; who resort to insults throwing and their weight around in lieu of actual arguments; or who violate actual policies, guidelines, rules, standard practices, or the actual goals of the Project: whether said editors are anon IPs, ordinary-level users, or administrators doesn't and shouldn't make the slightest bit of difference if they are, you know, wrong." I'm still waiting for an actual explanation of what it is I'm doing that's violating any rules or guidelines or is somehow detrimental to Misplaced Pages -- especially from Ryan Postlethwaite, who had NEVER done anything close. --Calton | Talk 09:40, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

This admin shopping behavior is far from new for Calton; he's been doing it for years. My first (and maybe only) interaction with Calton was back in July '07 when he tagged User:Losplad as spam. He tagged it with {{spam}} once, and OwenX (talk · contribs) decline the request. He tagged it a second time, and VirtualSteve (talk · contribs) decline it. Calton tagged it a third time, and I declined it. After OwenX, VirtualSteve and I all explained the issue to him (and why were declining the request), the issue seemed resolved. Then, two weeks later, Calton tagged the page a fourth time and came up lucky; Kylu (talk · contribs) deleted it. His behavior is nothing new, and it's just as unacceptable now as it was then. - auburnpilot talk 04:42, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't remember that in detail, but I certainly don't remember any detailed explanations: I remember two admins mindlessly backing another -- and the fact that it was eventually deleted should have been a tiny clue that maybe, just maybe, you were, you know, wrong. --Calton | Talk 09:40, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

I see lots of users sitting around complaining about Calton, but not doing anything about it. Maybe it is time for some kind of topic ban? Tiptoety 05:01, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

This is not a new pattern of behavior for Calton. He is incessesantly abusive towards all users who disagree with him and has been for years. No one has ever done anything about it, aside from the occasional RFC: Calton has shown a consitant and unchanging pattern of behavior that includes refusing to work with others or compromise his position on anything, admit fault in any situation, and is unyieldingly rude and dismissive of all other editors. Some established set of sanctions, such as civility parole, needs to be enforced with escalating blocks for this long pattern of behavior. It is only because he always gets away with it that he continues. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 05:32, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

While civility seems to be a concern, it's not the major one. WP:BITE whether intentional or not is the major problem. User should be temporarily banned from UAA and CSD spam. Wisdom89 _{(T / )} 05:35, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

I've worked with Calton before and he can be quite abrupt. Perhaps working with new users that may be influenced to become productive contributors, mindful of role account, SPA, and COI issues, if dealt with politely, but may also be influenced to give up, badmouth Misplaced Pages, sock, vandalise, etc if dealt with abruptly... perhaps this area may not be the best use of Calton's talents. So yes, perhaps Calton should be encouraged to contribute in other ways for a while. And if he is not willing to take that polite guidance from his peers, perhaps a topic ban would be the next thing to try. Because I think Calton misses the point... the point here is that situations like Xeno described in the opening of this section, if they are valid descriptions of actual events, ought not to happen, and input about that ought to be accepted. Coming in guns blazing with templates slapped down when another volunteer is already in polite and constructive discussion with a new user is almost certainly not the best approach. ++Lar: t/c 05:38, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

not willing to take that polite guidance from his peers - except, of course, no one has actually offered any. When that starts -- either the adjective or noun, separately or together -- you might have a point. And your mischaracterization as "guns blazing", while colorful, has the slight problem of not actually being true. --Calton | Talk 09:46, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Someone did offer some. Actually a lot of someones did. You just don't choose to acknowledge it, which a big part of the issue. To be crystal clear, I'll reiterate it for you... If another user is working with the newcomer, and a productive dialog is underway, don't slap templates down that interfere with that dialog, and especially, don't revert war to keep them in place... instead take the time to look at what is going on and if it's being handled, let it be.... clear enough guidance for you? I see multiple places in this very thread where you have been told not to do that. Politely. ++Lar: t/c 15:53, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

User:Calton arbitrary break 1

• Yep, I must agree and after dealing with Calton myself in a previous case I see the likely hood of him taking on the advice given here relatively low. I support a topic ban from UAA along with spam related situations (CSD, userpages...ect). Tiptoety 05:43, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

• If someone were actually offering actual advice instead of vague unsupported claims and abuse, you might have a point. As no one, including you, as actually done so, makes it hard to take the comment seriously. --Calton | Talk 09:40, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

• Support Tiptoety's suggested ban. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 05:46, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
• Support- Agree, I would like to add to my previous suggestion above, COI concerns and CSD tagging in userspace, not just spam articles and UAA. Wisdom89 _{(T / )} 05:48, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
• Support a la Tiptoety. Civility towards established editors aside, this guy seems like a horrible welcoming committee for wikipedia. This topic ban would keep him as an editor, and also protect the newbies. Dayewalker (talk) 05:50, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

• Yes, as it's very important to welcome as many spammers and site abusers as possible to Misplaced Pages, as it gives the page patrolers something to keep them busy. --Calton | Talk 09:40, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

• Weak support. I wish this wasn't necessary, because frankly Calton does a lot of good work, especially finding these spam pages and reporting them for CSD. But yes, this is a problem. I was going to suggest the ban be just for WP:UAA, but it's not the only area. But it's Calton's extreme frequency of incivility combined with his complete disrespect of anyone who disagrees with him or criticizes him, that makes him just really not the person we want dealing with new users. Mangojuice 05:56, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

• I don't deal with new users, I deal with spammers and other abusers of Misplaced Pages. This is not difficult distinction, no matter how you muddy it. --Calton | Talk 09:40, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

• Support. --TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 06:46, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
• Support topic ban from UAA, CSD, and spam/COI-related with other users or with articles in general. I've had no prior interaction with Calton, but his tone in the discussion above confirms the concerns raised by Xenocidic and others.  Sandstein  07:58, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

• My "tone" is the product of my complete disgust of the fact-free railroading, the hyperbolic claims, the thoughtless pile-ons, and the overall cumulative insults to my intelligence. --Calton | Talk 09:40, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

• Absurd. Let Calton take a couple of weeks off, but a topic ban? Please. Everyone who deals with abuses of the project on a long-term basis gets a bit jaded over time and can become inclined to see abuse where none exists, and it is absolutely true that bands, companies and other entities arrive at Misplaced Pages in large numbers to promote themselves. Oh, and the "Turner&associates" page is a biography of the founder of Turner & Associates, a firm of no obvious notability. See WP:COI. Guy (Help!) 09:15, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
  • I dealt with Calton around the beginning of his editing career, and I can testify that his attitude has always been terrible and completely uncivil. To present it as though he gradually became jaded after dealing with problems for a long time is completely inaccurate. Everyking (talk) 05:13, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

...his complete disrespect of anyone who disagrees with him or criticizes him - perhaps if those anyones would include a few actual facts, actual references, or actual charges I can actually answer, they might get some "respect". --Calton | Talk 09:40, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

• Support the topic ban. This is hardly an isolated issue. Viridae 09:54, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose - too broad (particularly, 'spam-related discussions') and somewhat premature to be that broad. On the other hand, I wouldn't oppose the topic ban on UAA and CSD, and a ban on him inserting, modifying or removing block-templates (or block-tags) in his edits, particularly on user talk pages. I think Calton just needs a break, and stepping back would be helpful as a first step to address other concerns. A proposal similar to mentorship would be the second option - ideally, it wouldn't go beyond that. (If it did, the wide topic-ban suggested would be the third, and finally...well everyone knows what that would be....) Ncmvocalist (talk) 11:20, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose. A topic ban isn't the answer to this; perhaps a wikibreak may be what the doctor has ordered. I'm with JzG on this one, and I have seen some particularly good reports in my dealings with him (all of which have been civil if memory serves). Rudget 11:34, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose. For several reasons. (1) It seems excessive to pull out a host of past grievances in an ANI report and use that to take broad action against a user. At best, Calton should be told to cease and desist in this specific case. If anyone feels that the case should be broadened, an Rfc that seeks community consensus would be more appropriate; (2) According to Xeno: If an admin is in full control of the situation, there is no need for another user to be throwing templates around. This needs to be written into the guidelines. That being said, the major problem which brings me here today is Calton's attitude towards admins. Consensus on actions are determined by the community, not by a cabal of admins. The complainant seems more upset with disrespect shown to admins rather than with the actions of Calton, which, with apologies, is not a constructive attitude since, technically, there is nothing special about an admin except for a few extra buttons. I don't disagree with the 'trust' and 'experience' part but expecting other editors to butt out when a couple of admins are involved is excessive. --Regents Park (paddle with the ducks) 12:06, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

• How is it excessive, is this not what ANI is for? A user with a long history BITEy behavior and incivility should not be dealt with appropriately and past events should be excluded from the discussion? I mean how do you propose we deal with users with a long history of disruptive behavior? Sweeping it under the rug and telling him to take a break has proven not to work. Tiptoety 13:16, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

What we have here is an editor who believes that he/she is acting for the betterment of the encyclopedia by identifying COI and advertising accounts. This is not vandalism and the editor should be treated with appropriate respect (civility works both ways). If several editors believe he/she has a civility issue, then it is far better to address that issue directly in an RFC where he/she can respond to all the charges/issues at one time rather than having to deal with serial complaints. (I'm not saying don't address an issue if you think it important, but rather that this is not the right way.) --Regents Park (paddle with the ducks) 15:09, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

• Comment - Calton has this phrase on this talkpage - "Adherence to common sense and rational argument trumps ruleslawyering, as far as I'm concerned." - how about he actually adheres to his own advice? Exxolon (talk) 13:29, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

• How about you show where I haven't? Let me make this simple for you: Spam is bad for Misplaced Pages. I find spam. I tag spam. Spam gets deleted. Spammers get blocked. Easy enough?

• Maybe I should have also put, "Don't make up shit. It insults my intelligence." --Calton | Talk 14:42, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Ok - you asked for it. The COMMON SENSE thing to do here would be to admit that certain editors have a problem with the way you're editing and to work with them and the rest of the community to resolve the situation amicably. Instead you seem to be under the impression that working to prevent spam gives you carte blanche to ignore other editors concerns, talk down to them and generally behave in an unpleasant and condescending manner. Misplaced Pages is a collaborative environment, not a battleground - if you can't work constructively with other editors then there's no place for you here. Exxolon (talk) 15:08, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

• I'm not exactly sure what the best course of action here is. I don't think anyone should be templating a user while an administrator (or anyone, for that matter) is discussing the situation with them. Plain and simple, it's rude - to both parties. @JzG, as I said, it isn't about whether the T&A account or their proposed article was worthy of inclusion - it was about showing them the same respect that they showed us. This is what I was trying to convey to Calton, and instead he edit warred, dismissed my concerns, and made an appeal to the letter, but not the spirit of our rules. And in this entire thread, the behaviour is repeated - a downright refusal to admit any possibility that perhaps he has made a mistake. Users like this necessarily have problems working in a collaborative environment. I'll admit, my initial approach to him lacked tact, and I tried to de-escalate the situation and extend an olive branch - one that was refused. My request is simple and flows from not any rule, policy, or guideline, but from common sense: don't template a user while the situation is under discussion. –xeno (talk) 13:41, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
• I'm troubled by this one. I think Calton does a great job finding the hidden spam. Most of the userpages I've found tagged by Calton, I've felt were straightforward, reasonable matters for deletion. I don't know that preventing Calton from doing what (a) Calton is very good at doing and (b) other people don't seem to be so keen on doing is all that good for the project. (Note that I don't mean by this to defend disruption in the doing.) OTOH, speedy deletions are meant to be uncontroversial. With the exception of copyright & attack pages, there should be no reason to repeatedly list an article or userpage for speedy deletion. Any editor who disagrees may remove the tag, following which other processes (like MFD) should be followed. With respect to CSD tagging, I wonder if it would suffice if Calton agreed to tag an article or userpage only once? --Moonriddengirl 14:02, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
• First of all, bringing up a history of misconduct is not pulling out a host of past grievances. New users are the lifeblood of Misplaced Pages and his ongoing newcomer biting needs to cease. These issues have been coming for literally years. Support topic ban (even if temporary). If that doesn't stick, a block is a perfectly reasonable way to prevent his biting new users and ongoing bad judgment in a sensitive part of Misplaced Pages. Preventing spam is not more important than treating new users with respect. RxS (talk) 14:04, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
• Strongly oppose topic ban. I've clicked on xeno's links, and feel somewhat uncomfortable with Calton's salty edit summaries, but very uncomfortable with xeno's responses to them. Xeno being the admin, more is expected of him—that's an important principle here. I will offer a little advice to admins in their interchanges with experienced users. Don't try to squeeze deference out of people like Calton; it's inappropriate, and it's simply doomed. Look to your own demeanour, ignore his. YMMV, but, for example, I'd never go "NPA!" when somebody says "Don't be daft"; xeno, such a response is just going to make you look starchy and fussy, you know. (Come to think of it, I don't think I've ever invoked NPA because of something said to me.) It's much better to respond to the point being made. You're an admin, yes; but the only relevance of your adminship to this issue is that, being an admin, you'd do well to develop a thicker skin. For instance, I can't agree that Calton's responses are "approaching disruption", as you write in this edit summary. Not anywhere close. In the guideline dealing with disruption, that term is defined as "gross, obvious and repeated violations of fundamental policies, not subtle questions about which reasonable people may disagree." . The word "disruption" is woefully overused, by no means by xeno alone, whenever admins can't think of any more specific accusation. It should never be used to mean that an admin isn't getting as much deference as they'd like. It's an absurdity here. Is Calton approaching "gross, obvious and repeated violations of fundamental policies"..? Is he within shouting distance of such violations, in anything linked to above? Certainly not. Xeno, please try to get over your sense that "admins are the ones who have been entrusted by the community to uphold its standards as they see fit" . You've been entrusted with a mop and bucket and a little extra responsibility, that's all'; you haven't become Misplaced Pages nobility.
• (Full disclosure: Calton's no friend of mine. He's been startlingly rude to me, details on request. But we're not all cut with a cookie-cutter. I advise him to make a habit of assuming more good faith from newbies; but in the individual case, I can rarely fault his judgment on this or other issues.) Bishonen | talk 14:17, 2 August 2008 (UTC).

Edit warring is not disruption? As far as the comment about nobility - I'm not sure what that's all about. Yes, I have the tools. So, I was fully prepared to delete the page once my discussion with the user had come to a satisfactory close. Blanking it with "indefblocked" was unnecessary - it wasn't harming anyone. It's tough to discuss a page with someone when it's been covered by a template. And the user had already been blocked - had they attempted to edit outside their talk space, they would've been presented with the {{usernameblock}} notice. No need to pile it onto their talk page. In other words: it was under control. –xeno (talk) 14:21, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

No, that's right; edit warring's not disruption. Not unless it's "gross, obvious and repeated". And, uh, was Calton edit warring with himself, or with whom..? With you, am I right? And before you tell me he had the effrontery to edit war with an admin; no, that's not worse than edit warring with somebody else. Not in a month of Sundays. As for your not being sure what the "nobility" crack was about, I'll have to work on expressing myself more clearly. I thought my quoting your assumptions about the powers and privileges of admins would do it. Here they are again: "admins are the ones who have been entrusted by the community to uphold its standards as they see fit" . No, they're not, you know. I really wish you'd take this to heart, because you're wrong. Admins are merely the ones entrusted with a few extra buttons, which they're absolutely not supposed to use "as they see fit". As Jimbo is fond of pointing out, we were all admins at one time:

In the very early days of Misplaced Pages, all users functioned as administrators, and in principle they still should. From early on, it has been pointed out that administrators should never develop into a special subgroup of the community but should be a part of the community like anyone else. Generally, the maintenance and administration of Misplaced Pages can be conducted by anyone, without the specific technical functions granted to administrators.

That's policy: Misplaced Pages:Administrators. Admins should never develop into a class of nobles. Calton is dead bang in policy when he conducts " the maintenance and administration of Misplaced Pages", and your quest for a guideline that says he's not supposed to is doomed to failure. Bishonen | talk 15:55, 2 August 2008 (UTC).

That's not really what I was trying to get at, so given this unfortunate interpretation, struck and annotated. It's the fact that he seems to believe he is always right - no matter what - no matter who (admin or otherwise) disagrees with him. –xeno (talk) 05:30, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree with what you're saying, but I'm not convinced in regards to this particular case. The block was placed at the discretion of the blocking admin, as was the choice not to template - according to the initial complaint at the top, there was none due to issues raised by xeno, who was in discussion with the blocked user too. For Calton to then blank the userpage and insist on placing the block tag (3 times without discussing it with either the blocking admin, or the user reverting him) seems to be gross, repeated and obvious. Thoughts anyone? Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:59, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

• not the spirit of our rules - Encouraging spam and spammers is "not the spirit of our rules". Editwarring to restore spam is "not the spirit of our rules". Editwarring yourself is "not the spirit of our rules". Throwing your weight around as an admin without justifying it is "not the spirit of our rules" -- and certainly bears no relation to your gas about "working in a collaborative environment". More to the point, other than vague handwaving, you haven't said word one about what actual damage this {{indefblocked}} is supposed to be doing, given that a) the editor was indefblocked, b) the editor is still indefblocked, c) whatever the result of your talks, that name will always be indefblocked, since it's a role account. --Calton | Talk 14:42, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Not necessarily, the account may be temporarily unblocked so the user can request a change at WP:CHU. The intent of my talks were to show the user the same common courtesy and respect that they showed us by asking (politely, might I add) if their "spam" (so-called) could be included in the encyclopedia. –xeno (talk) 14:51, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose topic ban Calton is one of those guys where you occasionally want to ask for his badge number and file a report! Still, topic bans and administrative action are far too likely to drive a user away from the project permanently and bitterly. We shouldn't "criminalize" Calton's actions in the way we're saying he has done to others. I'm aware that his BITEy actions are themselves a threat to drive users from the project, but this has to be dealt with some other way. Mr. IP 《Defender of Open Editing》 16:06, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
• Suggestions - Xeno, you could have just left everything Calton did in place, apologized to the user for the 'drive by', and continued your conversation. A history link could be provided to the blanked proto-article and things gone on with only minor disruption. Had Calton blanked or requested protection of the talk page that would have been a different matter, but short of something which actually prevents progress on more diplomatic lines it's almost always going to be more trouble than it is worth. Likewise with the statements above about reposting of items to UAA... I'd suggest just adding a note saying that they were previously rejected and possibly a link to such to inform the next admin who reviews them. Yes, it would be nice if people always considered all sides of an issue and preceded with due care... but they don't. Just accept it and be the better person.

Calton, nice to see you've mellowed. --CBD 16:35, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose. Calton does yeoman's work dealing with COI accounts. Raul654 (talk) 19:04, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose per Bishonen's well reasoned argument, an admins opinion should carry no more weight than any other editors. RMHED (talk) 21:16, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
• Support, Calton has been abusing people (myself included) for years, and it's high time something was done to limit his behavior. Everyking (talk) 05:08, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
• Support until he realises why people are getting sick of it. Then we can lift the ban and see how it goes. —Giggy 05:43, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose He's doing routine spam fighting. It's much better than the admins that actually do the tagging AND the blocking. At least there is a review. Give him a barnstar and recruit more regular editors to do that kind of work. This isn't 'MyWikiBiz'. --DHeyward (talk) 07:53, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
• Support, given that Calton's attitude throughout this entire discussion is that he can do no wrong, and refuses to "hear" the kind advice being given him. His past record of being blocked should be a strong indication that (once again) a "time out" is needed. P.S. What is "MyWikiBiz"? -- Shuckers Long Neck (talk) 15:43, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

— Shuckers Long Neck (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. _Gb 20:21, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

• Strong Support. Calton is not just the guy whose badge number you want to see. He's the abusive cop you want fired from the force because his behavior is so frequently incivil and lacking any good faith, that he gives the department (Misplaced Pages) a bad name with the public. Just imagine this guy with a taser. How fast do you think he'd end up on the news? The very nature of HIS User & Talk pages are disturbing. By the third line he is already making open insults and even a personal attack on a person. "(The above obviously includes the various trolls, spammers, quacks, greedheads, and crackpots -- and their enablers -- who hang out at ED and WR. I also seem to have attracted the unwanted attention of a crackpot spamming "psychologist" calling himself "Wyatt Ehrenfels". If you're one of the those various trolls, spammers, quacks, greedheads, crackpots, and/or their enablers, welcome! Now get lost.) Is THIS really what Misplaced Pages considers being CIVIL or showing GOOD FAITH? Welcome, now get lost??? Calton is the ill-natured cop who joined the force because he was DYING to taser and billy club punk kids, but never had ANY intention of adding anything constructive like helping old ladies cross the street or getting a cat out of a tree. (or creating and editing articles) Bad attitude. Bad intentions. No matter how many smammers he blocks (skaters he tases), he is bad for Misplaced Pages. For a very clear example of how blatantly insulting and abusive he behaves have a glance at my User talk:BillyTFried#Your e-mail. BillyTFried (talk) 21:10, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose - maybe a short break is required, but a permanent ban is excessive. PhilKnight (talk) 21:34, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

• Clearly a short break is not a way to resolve this issue, but instead just push it under the rug until another incident occurs seeing as this issue has been going on for quite some time now, there needs to be a resolution and everyones concerns need to stop being ignored. Also, no one said the ban would be permanent. Tiptoety 23:36, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

• Concerns over specific conduct issues need to be expressed in order for the break to have any chance of being effective of course (RFC on user conduct is a good way of doing so). That, accompanied with a break from the area, is something that can resolve the issue. I think people here would be more willing to support a ban proposal if there's still no change after taking those steps. Ncmvocalist (talk) 04:40, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose Calton performs what is probably the most tedious janitorial task on the project: going over hundreds of useless/promotional userpages and deleting their waste of Wikimedia servers. He shoved his nose into an ongoing discussion and I can see why xeno thought it was rude, but the same thing happens on this very noticeboard every day, so I don't see anything actionable. If he is willing to put in the time to patrol for spam, thank him. When he is willing to pick a fight with anyone who disagrees, seek input from impartial parties (mediate). If editors require appeasement for the resulting irritation, advise them to calm down and not take Calton's comments personally. ˉˉ╦╩ 23:52, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

What I do

Given the vague and entirely fact-free claims above -- especially by Ryan ("I am the law") Postlethwaite, who's never lowered himself to give the slightest explanation of whatever the hell I'm supposed to be doing wrong -- and the obvious kneejerk "support the admins" responses that followed, let me explain EXACTLY what I do. Feel free to tell me where the horrible crimes are.

1) I scan the "New Pages" page, under "Users" (after being busy until recently, I went backwards through the list) or use User:MER-C's "Vanispamcruftisement in the userspace" page.

2) When (not if) I find obvious candidates, like this...

05:46, August 2, 2008 ‎User:Uniproma (hist) ‎ ‎Uniproma (talk | contribs) (← Created page with 'Uniproma is a value-creating bridge between China and the rest of the world. Since its founding, Uniproma has been striving to add value to a global supply chain, ...')

a) User name is a company, organization, band, or product: check.

b) Text of created page is advert for said company, organization, band, or product: check.

3) I right-click it to open the page onto a new tab in Edit mode.

4) I continue until I have several tabs at once. This, sadly, almost always takes just a few minutes.

5) I add {{db-spam}} to each and save.

6) I go to each talk page. Some fraction of the time (10 or 15 percent) there's already CSD warnings regarding spam addede in article space. I add the {{Spam-warn-userpage}} template, which I wrote myself and which reads:

A tag has been placed on on your user page, Uniproma, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Misplaced Pages. This has been done under the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page seems to be blatant advertising which only promotes a company, product, group, service or person, and which is a violation of our policies regarding acceptable use of user pages: user pages are intended for active editors of Misplaced Pages to communicate with one another as part of the process of creating encyclopedic content, and should not be mistaken for free webhosting resources. Please read the general criteria for speedy deletion, particularly item 11, as well as the guidelines on spam, the guidelines on user pages, and, especially, our FAQ for businesses.

If you can indicate why the page is not blatant advertising, you may contest the tagging. To do this, please add {{hangon}} on the top of the page in question and leave a note on this page explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this.

7) I go to WP:UAA with the names I've gathered and list them there, where 99% of the time -- at least until User:Shereth's recent peculiar and essentially unilateral rewrite of actual policy and practice -- actual (and multiple) admins delete the pages and indef-block those I list.

Now, begging your pardon and in the interest of eliminating the vague handwaving, kneejerk agreements, and general chest-puffing -- will somebody tell me where the fracking hell in that process are my monstrous crimes against policy, practice, common sense, decorum, and/or Ryan Postlethwaite's delicate sensibilities? --Calton | Talk 14:42, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

My request is simple: don't template a user while the situation is under discussion. –xeno (talk) 14:47, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Calton, as I mentioned earlier, you have unfathomably excellent skills at rooting out the spam userpages, promotional usernames/edits/accounts etc., and any other accounts that are relevant and fall under the username policy and thus able to be reported to the UAA noticeboard. I've worked with you on occasions before (at least I think I have) and found your efforts to sift through the newuser log highly admirable, and I've consequently become more involved through the process due to the straight-forwardness of the reports absent few. However, commenting on Xenocidic or Ryan Postlethwaite in a less-than-constructive manner (whether they are right or wrong) is not conducive to finding a resolve to this. Rudget 14:53, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

You just don't get it do you? The issue is not WHAT you are doing but HOW you do it. Enforcing our policies on spam is good. Behaving in an arrogant and condescending manner while doing it is NOT. Exxolon (talk) 15:14, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Calton, thanks for the link to the spam search list. I think that rather than arguing the toss here we might all be more productively employed clicking some of those links. "Our services" include nuking spam. Guy (Help!) 15:16, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm not trying to dismiss Calton's contributions to spam-fighting, and in the vast majority of cases, I'm sure a tag, block, tag combo is just what the doctor ordered for some spammers. This particular case was different (because the user was kind enough to ask, I felt I could take the time to explain it to him without templates), and all I really want to hear from him is, "OK, maybe I don't need to template a user while another user is discussing that same situation. I won't do it again." or something along those lines. No topic ban. No RFC. Just a simple head nod and a "I'll take this into consideration for the future". –xeno (talk) 15:22, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes. Calton, I don't think anybody here objects to your commendable efforts to fight spam and other disruption; quite on the contrary. What we object to is the way in which you go about it and the way you interact with other editors. This is, after all, a collaborative project; tact and civility are not optional for any of us. I've not examined your contributions in this matter thoroughly, but the uncollegial and heated statements that you have made in this discussion lead me to believe that Xenocidic was justified to bring the matter up here. Whether the appropriate outcome of this discussion is a topic ban, a different sanction or no sanction at all is certainly open to discussion, but that outcome depends on you above all.  Sandstein  15:36, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Xenocidic's statement is eminently reasonable and the perfect way to end this disagreement. Calton, the ball is in your court. --Regents Park (paddle with the ducks) 15:57, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

My fundamental concern is the same as User:Wisdom89. While it can be a little frustrating at times, there isn't really any issue with Calton's occasional reporting of large blocs of users. I also really don't care that he wants to butt heads with administrators, and he is absolutely correct when he says that admins are editors and should not be treated as being special. I do have some problem with what appears to be habitual opinion-shopping by re-adding reports until he gets the desired result. Calton needs to understand that his interpretation of what is and is not a blockable offense is just that - his interpretation. (This is where I expect him to call in to question my eccentric reading of WP:U, but I still challenge anyone to show me where the policy states that a user with a company name as a user name must be blocked on sight.) In any event, it's the WP:BITE issues that I have the biggest concern with. I am not really keen on the notion of imposing a topic ban on Calton, but it needs to be understood that blocking is an extremely sensitive issue and prone to evoking strong emotion and opinion. Making the reports to UAA is one thing, but continuing to push his cases until they get blocked isn't the solution. He accuses myself (and by extension other editors) of making unilateral decisions when removing a case sans discussion, but isn't that how 95% of the blocks proceed - unilaterally and without discussion? If a problem persists then I see no harm in re-adding a report, but doing it just so that a block can be issued comes across as malevolent. All I would really like is for Calton to see that his crusade against spam is not the most important thing possible, be willing to accept that his judgment of what should be blocked is not the end-all, and that sometimes blocking a potentially spammy username is not the most expedient solution to an issue. Shereth 16:22, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Sandstein says it well. --John (talk) 02:49, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Above Calton asked "will somebody tell me where the fracking hell in are my monstrous crimes against policy, practice, common sense, decorum, and/or Ryan Postlethwaite's delicate sensibilities?". The answer is that they're not there - the 7-step process is beneficial work which (a) no-one else seems to engage in with anything remotely approaching to the dedication that he does, and (b) keeps this encyclopaedia clear of spam that shouldn't be here.

The problem is in step 8 - it's not included on the list above, but just as formulaic and predictable a part of his actions as the preceding seven steps. Step 8 is what happens as soon as anyone dares disagree with his actions, or question his judgment (or, as he terms it, "insults his intelligence") - whether that be in flagging the page for speedy, listing the name at WP:UAA or whatever - they open themselves up to his, erm, interesting and somewhat relentless style of discussion.

The DRV linked to above is a prime example - the declining admins get a dose of step 8 (here, here and here), and it doesn't take a lot of looking through his talk page and its archives to dig out similar episodes almost beyond number - I've been on the receiving end of it myself a couple of times, in both cases because I've declined or removed a speedy tag. Maybe it's not a "monstrous crime", but it's clear that his way of dealing with all other users, and not just spammers that he deals with, that is against policy, practice, common sense and very definitely against decorum. I can't speak for Ryan's sensibilities, delicate or otherwise.

I would oppose a ban from WP:CSD or WP:UAA - doing so would be to cut off our noses to spite our faces, because I do think that the work that he does is exceedingly valuable, and he rarely gets enough credit for it.

I would support some sort of check on his behaviour, however - even though it's fun to see how long he can resist before wheeling out one of his staple phrases (accusing the other person of "projecting", of making "vague, handwaving assertions" (which he's used three times in this thread alone), "reality check", "period / full stop", "Guy" and "Buckwheat" invariable make an appearance somewhere along the line), no matter how much he may feel his intelligence is being insulted there's not excuse for the manner in which he responds to it.

I'd also support a restriction on resubmitting the same pages repeatedly to CSD or the same username to UAA.

Numerous reports to WP:ANI, blocks and an RFC in the past haven't actually lead to any modification of his behaviour, though, so I wonder how much benefit all the above discussion will actually result in, if any. _Gb 21:23, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

This discussion seems to be losing momentum, but I must say that, IMO, Gb absolutely nails the situation on the head here.--Kubigula (talk) 04:46, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Related discussion at DRV

I've opened a deletion review for the page User:Losplad, mentioned as an example a few subsections above, as its deletion seem to have been at least somewhat controversial. I hope this somewhat nonstandard DRV nomination may help determine the actual consensus on whether pages like that one should be speedily deleted or not. Everyone involved in this discussion here is welcome to comment. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 16:02, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

kind of a moot point being a year later (though the precedent may be worthwhile), but it does demonstrate his tendency to edit-war/admin shop on these types of things. –xeno (talk) 18:27, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

User:Calton 0RR restriction

• Support revert and/or re-tag ban The solution here, I think, is not to ban Calton from CSD'ing what he sees as spam completely, because in most cases he is correct in his view, and we shouldn't push someone away from an area where he is doing what is mostly a good job. The main problem here, from what I can see, is his unwillingness to accept when another user (admin or not) declines the speedies or reverts his edits. So I propose that he be banned from re-tagging declined speedies, and also that he be banned from undoing reverts of his edits without first discussing it politely with the reverting editor. I think this finds the right balance.--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 01:13, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

  I think this could work. –xeno (talk) 01:18, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

• This sounds like a good idea, lets him do the stuff he's good at, but keeps him from being too attached to an issue and causing harm as a result. MBisanz 02:02, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
• Support - the discussion does appear to have run out of steam, to a degree, and (if past behaviour is anything to go by) were things to peter out without any firm decision coming out of the discussion he would simply keep a low profile for a few weeks, then return to his usual activities without any modification of his behaviour. This allows him to continue doing what he does best, but hopefully avoids the friction that at present arises somewhat inevitably whenever anyone disagrees with his actions. _Gb 09:10, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
• Support Aervanath's proposal. Calton is right 99.9% of the time; it's that 0.1% that causes problems, but we do not want him to stop doing the 99.9%. A simple "do not re-add tags removed by an admin without discussing first" - which does not mean doing it anyway and telling them afterwards - is a perfect solution. It is not right to call this a ban, which is a loaded term; I would call it a 0RR restriction. Neıl ☄ 14:29, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Tweaked as suggested. –xeno (talk) 14:33, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

• Support I have declined only one time Calton speedy request on User:Djlanet, although I do not strongly oppose his revert of my decline, I believe that Caldon does a good job here and 0RR would be a nice compromise to address some problems with communication. Carlosguitar  19:11, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
• Support - 0RR in respect to CSD tags. PhilKnight (talk) 19:17, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
• Supports A 0RR on CSD tagging would certainly be beneficial. My only question would be whether or not it would also be beneficial to have a similar restriction on reporting names to UAA. The initial report at the top of this discussion indicates there's also been an issue with resubmitting names to UAA after an admin declines to block (I haven't looked into the UAA issue). - auburnpilot talk 21:37, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
• Support. It's a good idea. I hope Calton will take to heart both the positive and negative feedback. The consensus here seems to be that he does some really good work, but that his occasionally brusque or sarcastic manner undermines a collegial environment.--Kubigula (talk) 22:39, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
• Reluctant support. This all goes back to "point 8" above. Calton, 99% (even 99.9%!) of the time, has it right. Once in a while, someone disagrees with his tagging/requests for deletion. Once in a great while. And yet, it is still frustrating to some users/editors/admins. If Calton would please agree to not "go back" to the one's he's "attempted" and try to "re-attempt" a deletion (at least, not without talking to the declining editor), then I see this as a reasonable solution to both Calton and to the community at large. Let me reassert, I strongly believe that Calton's work is invaluable, 99.9% accurate, incredibly necessary, and appreciated. Just need a better approach to "step 8" 'tis all...Keeper ǀ 76 22:44, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
  • (allow me to clarify, that by "step 8", I mean the "step" that is expounded upon by User:Gb above). Cheers, Keeper ǀ 76 22:45, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
• Calton's "I'm right, you're stupid" approach begs for this type of remedy. 0RR seems a bit restrictive though, I'd say 1RR provided that he petitions an impartial third party for a review. ˉˉ╦╩ 23:58, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Isn't everyone technically under 0RR by default for CSD tags? Once they're declined, they're not supposed to be re-added. –xeno (talk) 01:25, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
    • Yes, everyone is already under this restriction. Maybe a "Look, you should already know this, but..." and "...continued misbehaviour will result in sanctions, and you've been warned." would be helpful though. WilyD 02:00, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
    • I should have been more specific. Challenged CSD tags in articlespace do necessitate a trip to AfD. However when it comes to blocked accounts and spam userpages (as in the above case), 0RR looses its meaning, since {{indef}} tags are basically markers for the userpage deletion queue. Then there's the vague distinction between indefinite blocks and bans, where WP:CSD#G5 deletions have caused controversy on various noticeboards over the right course of action. The vast majority of cases deal with obvious spam, so arguing about deleting those userpages is counterproductive. So, in short, I'm in favor of enforcing the limits on CSD re-tagging for anyone in articlespace, but userspace content is a gray area. ˉˉ╦╩ 04:53, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
• I'd object to the voting but I know no one would listen... regardless, I'd prefer to hear Calton's response to the above proposal before making any further statements. We're not cops, getting him to talk reasonably about the problem will be better than "enforcing" something. - brenneman 00:12, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
• Support - a formal measure is needed here. Ncmvocalist (talk) 01:51, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
• I would also Support a UAA re-submit ban, per AuburnPilot's comment above. I should clarify that when I say "ban", what I mean is that Calton is free to appeal to the editor who declined his speedy or UAA submission, since it is certainly possible that he could convince the editor in question of his view by pointing out something they may have missed.--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 03:32, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
• Well, as Xeno pointed out above, there is already a 0rr on declined speedies. Once declined, an article can be tagged for PROD or sent to AfD, but not re-CSD tagged. Calton should simply follow the rules as any other editor should. So, in lieu of a better choice, I guess that I will reaffirm my support for the existing procedure. —Travis 03:45, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose. - ludicrous. You admit he's rarely if ever wrong, and then you want to limit his ability to act. Raul654 (talk) 03:51, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

  So let me get this straight, Raul. You believe that when an editor tags an article for speedy deletion, and that request is declined, it is perfectly acceptable to retag that article for speedy deletion? That is ludicrous. Speedy deletions are not for controversial deletions; if the request is declined, other methods should be used. - auburnpilot talk 04:24, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

  Follow the logic, Raul654 - Calton is rarely wrong, correct. But on those infrequent occasions when he is wrong, he refuses to admit it and causes (directly or indirectly) a great big fuss. Calton being reminded that speedy tags are not to be reapplied is not ludicrous. Speedy deletion tags aren't like cooking spaghetti - you don't get to keep throwing them until one sticks. Neıl ☄ 08:36, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

• Support—anything that can be done to place a check on Calton is worthwhile, although I think a strict civility parole would be more appropriate because, in my view, his main problem is his utterly hostile manner of interaction. Everyking (talk) 04:59, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

  Yeah, but I'd say the root cause of most of his outbursts of hostility is when an admin or admins repeatedly disagrees with one of his speedy deletion taggings. Remove that root cause, and the saltier comments should dwindle away. Neıl ☄ 08:38, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose If Calton is right 99.99% of the time, and does a whole lot of useful work for wikipedia, we should be willing to live with the .01% of the time they are wrong. Why censure or restrict an editor who is almost always right? --Regents Park (paddle with the ducks) 10:04, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

  Opposing on the grounds that Calton is right 99.99% of the time is missing the point entirely. Under current policy/procedures, nobody is supposed to re-tag a declined speedy. —Travis 12:04, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

• Support. Good work, Aervanath, on proposing a corrective action that is appropriate and acceptable. Cla68 (talk) 02:12, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
• Support per Everyking. Dwain (talk) 02:27, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

I think the community consensus is for the 0RR restriction to be enacted. Ncmvocalist (talk) 03:39, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Moot point

I’m left wondering why this “0RR restriction” is even being discussed. To quote existing policy:

Renominations: Either a page fits the speedy deletion criteria or it does not. If there is a dispute over whether a page meets the criteria, the issue is typically taken to deletion discussions…

Everyone is essentially already under a 0RR restriction against renominating an article for speedy deletion. —Travis 12:18, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree and mentioned this above, but I gather this would also apply to such things as UAA reports, tagging userpages, templating talk pages/ etc. –xeno (talk) 13:24, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

With a formal restriction in place, however, should Calton continue to edit-war over such things, there will be far less kerfuffle when he is blocked for doing so. Neıl ☄ 09:56, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Edit war at Gender of God

Closing - ArbCom request being considered--Cailil 16:31, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

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

Involved parties:

• Alastair Haines (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• Ilkali (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• LisaLiel (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• Teclontz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Would somebody mind over-viewing this issue for me. I've just blocked User:LisaLiel for 24hrs for a blatant breach of 3RR at Gender of God. But I'm concerned that other users may also be edit-warring and possibly gaming 3RR.

Users Teclontz & Alastair Haines may have gamed 3RR. I have warned all parties at the page to seek dispute resolution and stop edit-warring. But I am also aware that Alastair has been that subject of a recent user conduct RFC and hs received 2 blocks for edit-warring within the since June 2008. However I'm also concerned that there may be an ongoing issue between Teclontz/Tim and LisaLiel - Teclontz has alleged harassment and I am awaiting diffs to demonstrate this. I would be grateful for more sets of eyes on this issue.

Also considering the possible gaming of 3RR should further preventative action be taken? I was considering protecting the page but I'm hoping the warning will make that unnecessary--Cailil 22:03, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

User:Alastair Haines is also edit warring at Why Men Rule. I tagged the article and explained my concerns on the talk page. He repeatedly removed my tags without a valid explanation. I requested a third opinion, which User:Jclemens provided. He suggested using inline tags with a rationale for each at the talk page. I did that and User:Alastair Haines removed my tags without responding to my concerns on the talk page. JCDenton2052 (talk) 22:21, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm afraid that cuts both ways JC - you've both reverted each other twice on two separate issues on the same page - you both should stop and find consensus. Open an RFC for the page if after a WP:3O you are both still dead locked. Also please note that your warning is not helpful may escalate rather than a resolve this issue. I can see no evidence of Alastair vandalizing the page--Cailil 22:52, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

His definition of consensus is his and only his opinion or something about "silence is consent". If removing tags without responding to the corresponding comments on an article's talk page or achieving Misplaced Pages's definition of consensus isn't vandalism, then what is it? JCDenton2052 (talk) 23:15, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

In relation to the history between editors here please see Misplaced Pages:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2008-07-07_Shituf & Misplaced Pages:Requests for mediation/Gender of God (deleted)--Cailil 23:39, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

I concur with JCDenton2052's assessment that Alastair places his own opinion before consensus. There have been three primary content disputes in the past few days:

• Teclontz makes an edit. I revert it, giving my reason in the summary. Alastair reverts my reversion, telling me to "try using talk before reverting".
• Alastair reinserts text that was removed (per consensus) sometime before the RfC/U (saying that this is "per talk page" despite there having been no recent discussion of the material). I revert his edit. He reverts my reversion, telling me to "discuss on talk page".
• LisaLiel makes a change. Alastair reverts it without discussion on talk page. When LisaLiel does exactly what Alastair has done twice, as documented above, and reverts his reversion, Alastair reverts her again, saying "Undo edit warring without use of talk page".

There is a clear double standard here. When someone disagrees with a change Alastair agrees with, they must argue against it on the talk page before the change can be reverted. When Alastair disagrees with a change someone else is making, they must argue for it on the talk page before the change can be made. In effect, the protocol at work seems to be that Alastair's preferred version of the article must remain until he is convinced that it is inferior. His delusion that he owns the article is even clearer in some of his talk page comments, such as this one, where, when facing disagreement over whether a subheader he inserted should be there, he declares "subhead stays until it can be demonstrated that ". This is not the language of respectful, collaborative editing.

Additionally, he is incivil and aggressive. He is quick to make threats (, ) and personal attacks (), even going so far as to do so on pages he has never edited before. These incidents are all since the closing of the RfC/U and are in addition to the evidence presented there. Neither the RfC/U nor the counsel offered to Alastair by User:Wizardman appear to have had an effect, and he still staunchly denies having (ever) done anything wrong ().

I'm not sure how this can be taken forward. Of the two attempts at mediation made so far, one was terminated by the mediator due to what he perceived as hostility against him from Alastair, and the other was rejected by Alastair on the grounds that it focused too much on content and not enough on attacking me. I believe that Alastair has a great deal to contribute to the project, but he will inevitably cause more and more conflict if he does not learn to deal with disputes in a civil and cooperative manner. Ilkali (talk) 00:05, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for providing diffs Ilkali but I'm going to ask you to withdraw your remark about double standards. This thread was opened specifically to ask what else should be done in relation to all parties in this issue. I will remind you once that this thread is for dispute resolution not escalation.

Just a question weren't all many of the issues regarding the above raised at Alastair's RFC/U?--Cailil 00:11, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Also I've added you to the list of involved parties Ilkali--Cailil 00:19, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

"Thank you for providing diffs Ilkali but I'm going to ask you to withdraw your remark about double standards. This thread was opened specifically to ask what else should be done in relation to all parties in this issue". My intent isn't to attack Alastair, and I don't think I've been in any way gratuitous in how I've described his actions - I've said only what was needed to indicate the extent of the problem. If Alastair is practicing a double standard regarding edits, isn't that pertinent here?

In response to your struck-out question: All of the evidence I've given is for events occurring after the RfC concluded. Ilkali (talk) 15:43, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

LisaLiel's view of this issue can be seen here--Cailil 00:48, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm glad to see that someone finally brought this to AN. I tried to mediate this case a while back with medcab, was unable to reach consensus. I attempted to get it moved over to the medcom, but Alastair made some comments that someone took as legal threads and immediately closed down the whole thing. When he redacted his comments, no one ever bothered to reinstate the case. I'm honestly not sure if it would have helped, but I didn't have the patience or strength of will to subject myself to more of the needless drama. Ilkali and Alastair seem to have some sort of vendetta against each other, and Lisa and Tim (Teclontz) will usually disagree on any given topic but I've found that they are slightly more willing to talk- in fact my interactions with Tim have been largely positive. Just my five or six cents... L'Aquatique 07:45, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

I am glad that this has been brought up. Too many editors are following one another into unsubstantiated claims regarding my actions and character. There is in fact not even a single example of me having done anything out of line with either common politeness, let alone Wiki policy, not only at this article, but in two years of editing.

Unfortunately, first Ilkali, then others like L'Aquatique have made not only unsubstatiated, but demonstrably false allegations, in addition to defamatory speculation. This is inappropriate behaviour and needs to be identified and addressed as such.

The result of this inappropriate behaviour has been uninvolved editors reverting text I've contributed, refusing discussion on various presumptions of my bad faith, citing the opinion of anonymous editors like some listed above. That's objective defamation and clearly something the community must address.

As a simple form of evidence of the point I'm making, please note how blatant edit warring by Lisa, opposed by two independent editors is being construed as "possible gaming of the system". The contrary is, of course, the case. Edit warrers have smoke-screened their behaviour with personal attacks, and parties that have attempted to take responsibility to investigate have been deceived by the misrepresentations of character.

As I've mentioned before, this is genuine slander in the legal sense, and while holding the community (and ultimately the foundation) accountable for it, I have confidence that the processes, convoluted though volunteer structures are, will ultimately remedy this situation.

I look forward to this finally being resolved. I also thank, in advance, those who patiently wade through all the misrepresentations in order to fact-check them. Alastair Haines (talk) 08:24, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Here is an example for you. JCDenton2052 (talk) 11:14, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

• I have asked Alastair to refactor some remarks made above in view of WP:NLT. I have also unblocked LisaLiel after she committed to not breaking WP:3RR again--Cailil 11:23, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Alastair has clarified the remarks above--Cailil 14:09, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

I really don't want to make this any more dramatic than it has to be, but the notion that Alastair is patently innocent is complete and utter... well, you know. Apparently, he never read his RFC/U, which was chock full of diffs that showed his edit warring and uncivil behavior. I rest my case... L'Aquatique 18:30, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

I find it rather disturbing that Alastiar keeps using the word defamation here. I don't think that's toeing the line at WP:NLT, I think that's running roughshod over it. — The Hand That Feeds You: 19:34, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

I actually agree with both of you. As far as I can see all four editors listed above are behaving improperly. And I have advised Alastair of NLT and of the problem with the post here. I do agree that there is perhaps a letter & spirit of the rules issue, but AFAIK he can't be blocked for this (the above) as he has made it clear he is not threatening anyone with action. (If I'm wrong do correct me.) I would prefer if he removed the remarks & I've advised him about changing the name of his account - he doesn't want to. So all I can do now is take that use of language and refusal to refactor into consideration.
There is also a problem with all of these editors indulging in ad hominem remarks and there may also be a civil pov-pushing issue. None of the editors I've listed at the top are innocent in my view and I'm open to suggestions on ways to resolve the issues with all of their conduct, together at gender of god and separately between Alastair & Ilkali and LisaLeil and Tim--Cailil 20:18, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm unwatching this page, I have very little interest in following speculations based on hearsay. When someone can present even one supposed allegation of even a minor infringement of anything on my part, I'll be happy to hear it and discuss it. Until that time, I'll get on with my usual flawless and constructive editing.

When the hoohah dies down, I will pursue having the defamation dealt with, unless someone does this on my behalf without prompting by me, which is the way it should be. The defamation is obvious, serious and someone needs to do something about it.

Please feel free to let me know how I can help, one thing at a time, at my talk page, best regards all. Alastair Haines (talk) 21:18, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Uh huh. User_talk:Alastair_Haines#This_stops_now.... L'Aquatique 22:34, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Suggested measures

I'm hoping that this dispute cools down after the warnings from myself, Slrubenstein and L'Aquatique. However I'm not 'over the moon' about the way they've all reacted at the talk page or here. These are three measures that I am prepared to enforce to prevent further disruption. I'd like uninvolved editors and sysops to review these proposed measures (please see above and linked pages for case history):

1. Enforce a 1RR restriction on all four editors (for 3 months duration) at Gender of God and treat any "tag-team" reverting as a breach of the 1RR restriction.
2. Place Talk:Gender of God under heightened civility watch for 3 months duration.
3. Ask Alastair & Tim not to post in Ilkali & LisaLiel's user talk pages for an indefinite length of time. And ask Ilkali and LisaLiel not to post in Alastair and Tim's user talk pages for an indefinite length of time.

Any thoughts on these suggested measures? A further measure would be a restriction on all four editors to 3 or less posts per day on Talk:Gender of God, but I'd hope that would not be necessary--Cailil 22:52, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm replacing No.2 above with "2. Place all four editors on civility parole" --Cailil 18:58, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Also I'm not suggesting we ignore other outstanding issues - just deal with the problem at Gender of God first--Cailil 22:52, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Views from involved users

"Enforce a 1RR restriction on all four editors". Sounds like a good first step, but it will do nothing to stop edit-warring in someone who refuses to acknowledge that he is even guilty of it.

"Place Talk:Gender of God under heightened civility watch for 3 months duration". Can you elaborate on what this means?

"Ask Alastair & Tim not to post in Ilkali & LisaLiel's user talk pages for an indefinite length of time. And ask Ilkali and LisaLiel not to post in Alastair and Tim's user talk pages for an indefinite length of time". Fine by me. I think the only time I've posted in either was to give Alastair some advice on edit summaries. Ilkali (talk) 11:05, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

It's a positive thing to try and be fair and not take sides in a dispute. But there's a point at which treating everyone equally when some people are willing to listen to you and some people basically spit on you just isn't that reasonable. Equal treatment should mean treating everyone according to what they do; not treating everyone the same regardless of what they do. -LisaLiel (talk) 14:04, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Listen guys first of all I'm looking for outside uninvolved editors to review these measures; second you all share a collective responsibility for the problem that all of you contributed too (edit warring); and third individual sanctions will follow separately as they go beyond the Gender of God article and thus the remit of this thread and this sub-section. For information on what the restrictions are see Misplaced Pages:Editing_restrictions (note that in this instance the restrictions will be applied to the 4 of you only in relation to the specified pages). Some people may need further sanctions - but that will be handled separately. If I can get outsiders to find a consensus on these measures (pro or con) we can then move on--Cailil 14:59, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Sorry folks, I forgot to put this on watch and lost it until a few minutes ago. As for restrictions on talk pages, I think Lisa and I have already toned down our rhetoric on each other's talk pages a few months ago, so I don't think this will be a problem to keep. There really needs to be a way to stop the edit warring long term, though. I think I've been in about 4 edit wars and they were all with Lisa. They were quite unnerving and I had to completely give up on all three pages they involved -- that is, Lisa had to have the last edit in every single case. The first time, the ENTIRE PAGE disappeared. The second time, the ENTIRE PAGE was rewritten by Lisa. The third time is this time, and the ENTIRE SECTION was simply rewritten by Lisa. Whatever measures are taken, all I want is to stop being followed around, dragged into edit wars, and then have to watch as days, weeks, or months of work from numbers of people are all eradicateed in favor of one. If you put a gag on me and Lisa, GREAT! I don't like edit wars. I don't want edit wars. And I don't want to be followed around from page to page. But please, DO SOMETHING. It's getting to be that if I care about the integrity of a page, I need to stay away from it so I don't get followed there and watch helplessly as everyone else's edits are destroyed just because I had the misfortune of visiting the page.Tim (talk) 15:19, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

This morning, I'd made a small edit. To something that Tim hadn't written. Tim reverted it. That's all. -LisaLiel (talk) 16:27, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

I reverted your revert of another editor you yourself had invited in to help! If you didn't want his help, you shouldn't have invited him. But don't call your revert an edit and my restoration of another editor's edit a revert. Technically, they are BOTH reverts. I can't believe I'm in trouble for helping to defend an edit of someone YOU invited to help you defend Judaism against ME! How's that for irony? And I would appreciate a retraction on the Wikiproject page. I am not trying to misrepresent Judaism.Tim (talk) 16:43, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand. Yesterday, we had started to cooperate. This morning, I go to the computer, and there are two edits by you. One a reversion, and one an attempt to pick a fight on the WikiProject page. What happened between yesterday and today? -LisaLiel (talk) 16:46, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Lisa, you went to the Wikiproject Judaism page and made it sound as if I were some co-conspirator in a plot to misrepresent Judaism, and you needed help to defend the faith from me! And then when one of those people you enlisted DID try to help (as you asked him) you reverted his edit . I merely supported it , because the page needs more hands than just your own. Honestly, I'd really rather you and I and Alastair and Ilkali ALL be blocked from the page for a month just to let other people do some constructive editing. If you won't let ME edit in peace, at least let the people you enlist to combat me edit in peace. You're even reverting people you bring in!Tim (talk) 16:52, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

For the record, here are today's edits to the WikiProject page: . Judge for yourselves. -LisaLiel (talk) 16:56, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

For the record, here is your initial edit: . I would appreciate a retraction of "misrepresentation of the Jewish view". But I don't expect it.Tim (talk) 17:00, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

For crying out loud, I'm entitled to my opinion. And rather than get into another war with you and Alastair, I did what everyone was telling me to do, and pursued dispute resolution. And now I need to apologize because my opinion differs from yours? -LisaLiel (talk) 17:32, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

No, I've asked for a retraction of the idea that I'm trying to misrepresent Judaism. And I'd like you and I to BOTH step aside from the article and let the people you've enlisted edit in peace.Tim (talk) 17:36, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Improper use of NPOV/POV tag on Female Genital Cutting

I need some assistance on the Female Genital Cutting article. Some time back I removed the POV tag from the article, explaining my reasoning on the talk page. There seemed to be no active discussions on the talk page about the content of the article. I was reverted fairly quickly. The person reverting, editor Garycompugeek, stated that he disputed the article title as being non neutral. This despite a previous discussion (now in the archives) about the very topic. The standing consensus has been, for some time, Female Genital Cutting, rather than the other two terms used Female Circumcision and Female Genital Mutilation. The other term point to the same article, and all terms are desribed and part of the history of the terms, in the article as well. All in all very neutral. The most neutral term was used as the article title, and the two terms considered to be represented by extremists on either end of the spectrum use the other two terms.

Well, So GaryComputerGeek said he added the POV tag because of the article title. He submitted a change request to rename the article "Female Circumcision". He started a survey, and there was a number of people who responded and gave their views (10-12 depending on the way you look at it.) I left the POV tag to stand, based on waiting for the results of the survey. Well, after a few weeks, the name change failed, and GaryComputerGeek, and cohort, editor Blackworm failed to generate a consensus for renaming the article. They had neither a majority, nor a consensus for their view that the article be changed to "Female Circumcision". Read the talk page for the reasoning of various people who offered opinions, should you be interested Requested move and Survey.

So, satisified that the issue of the title had been resolved, I removed the POV tag again, since there is/was no active discussion or dispute on the talk pages, the issue of the article title gaining closure.

The removal of the tag was reverted by editor Blackworm, no explanation given. I discussed on the talk page my reasoning and explained my view on the proper use of the WP:NPOV and the tag. I removed the POV tag again. This time I was reverted by editor Garycomputergeek. I explained again why there should be no tag, and asked if there was any open dispute regarding the neutrality of the article. Garycomputergeek basically said that because he and Blackworm both disputed the article title (still, even though their consensus change failed) that the POV tag should remain. Maybe they do not perceive that there was a standing consensus already, as they did not participate in that (see archives).

I explained that putting the POV tag only because one or more editors disagreed in unspecified ways (that they weren't willing to work through) was not appropriate use of the tag, and that I felt that they were trying to be disruptive.

As I have been reverted twice on the POV tag, I am not going to get in an edit war about it. It is not like it is that important of an issue. I would just like the WP:NPOV policy properly applied. Anyonewho can explain to those editors (and perhaps to me, should I be mistaken) the appopriate use, would be welcome.

The section where we have been discussing this is at removal of POV tag.

Enforcing the POV tag as a form of protest because you didn't get your way doesn't seem like appropriate use to me. Atom (talk) 23:23, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

It isn't. I have removed the tag and will warn the editors. — Coren  01:55, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Please read the talk page and make your own opinion. Don't be so easily guided by Atom. He has been making false claims since I have encountered him which are easily verifiable by reading Talk:Female_genital_cutting. Notice he didn't notify Blackworm or myself of this post. I would say nothing further and ask that you draw your own conclusions. Would it be possible for another uninvolved admin take a peek as I have lost faith in Coren. Garycompugeek (talk) 18:20, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Please explain why this issue needs any further discussion at ANI, since the proposed rename of the article failed to gain consensus. See the closed debate here. JPG-GR is one of the regular move-closers at WP:RM. Disagreement with the result by a minority of editors doesn't appear to be sufficient reason for an NPOV tag. EdJohnston (talk) 18:31, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

There is no disagreement with the closing of the Request for name change. It ended in "No consensus" and I'm fine with that. The issue is the use of the NPOV tag. The tag is being used for its purpose. To draw attention to unresolved debate. Perhaps new editor will see the tag and help with a solution. If my logic is incorrect I apologize but can point out many pages where seems to be the case. (see Circumcision) Garycompugeek (talk) 18:52, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Your logic is flawed, I'm afraid. The debate was resolved as "no consensus to change the title." Perhaps in a few months, it might be worth bringing the question up again, but adding the Disputed tag is not correct at this point. As to other pages with the tag, other articles do it isn't a valid argument in this matter. — The Hand That Feeds You: 22:38, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Ok but not sure point is being understood... Tag was there before the Request to change was made. I reverted Atom's removal of the tag because "No consensus" means there were editor's for and against name change. Revert to keep tag in place was not added for any type of disgruntlement but to bring attention to the debate. Other editors agree tag should stay besides myself. Shouldn't we have some consensus from involved editors before removing it? Garycompugeek (talk) 22:56, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

I understand your point, but I believe you're approaching it from the wrong angle. If we did as you say, then tags could never be removed from the article as long as a single editor considered it disputable. The tags aren't meant to stay in place once the debate is resolved, and "no consensus" is considered a resolution. — The Hand That Feeds You: 17:41, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

I see Garycomputergeek's view, but as I recall, I checked the article to see if there was any active dispute occurring, and seeing none, removed the POV tag. It was reverted, on the grounds that the article title was not perceived to be neutral, as was being disputed. Immediately following that, the name change request and survey was submitted by Gary. I let the POV tag stand on the article based on that. A few days after the completion of the name change discussion, which ended in no consensus for change, I removed the tag, as again there was no current dispute on the neutrality of the article. Atom (talk) 23:13, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

New process page?

• Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet Investiagtion Unit
• User talk:Blackwatch21
• User talk:DJS24

The spelling typo aside, I should note that the two (one?) involved have been enthusiastic, though somewhat combative, editors. The jury's out whether they're trying to help or if this is intended for disruption. I'd like to lean towards "help", but there are a few edits that concern me somewhat. Note also that one of them has claimed that the two of them are brothers. (And has edited under his brother's username "by accident".)

Just thought others should know, and would like others' thoughts on this and the editors edits/actions in general. - jc37 15:01, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Now at MFD: Misplaced Pages:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet Investiagtion Unit. MBisanz 15:07, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Checkuser is inconclusive but plausible that they are brothers rather than sockpuppets. Thatcher 15:24, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

• I've worked with them both closely within the Xbox project, and I don't think it's sockpuppetry. They do have a penchant for continually creating new projects however, some with very limited scope or overlapping with other projects. –xeno (talk) 16:13, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Um, looks like Special:Contributions/Blackwatch21 some bizarre copy-paste moves going on, can someone fix them? MBisanz 16:36, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

If you're just talking about the proj and the MFD page, this is  Done –xeno (talk) 16:44, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. MBisanz 16:46, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

• Even though this should probably continue at the MFD, I've notified Blackwatch21 & DJS24 of this thread. –xeno (talk) 16:47, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm upset that I'm just finding out about this report sumitted earlier today, thanks Xenocidic informing me. I'm not quite sure I understand the reason why Jc37 needed to summit this notice and why (he/she) didn't feel the need to inform me of this situation. Also, under what reason or evidence given; was a checkuser used. Last time I checked, you needed good reasons/evidence to even request a checkuser - I don't even see a request. I'm sure Thatcher remembers me from before when I request a checkuser a couple of months ago. When I did that I needed to give a request and reasons/evidence. I would like to hear some answers. Like why this was even sumitted.--DJS24 17:03, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Also; Jc37 - The jury's out whether they're trying to help or if this is intended for disruption. What jury?? Who's talking about this situation outside of this notice. You make it seem like this is a huge situation and a huge discussion. You seem to be the only editor concerned w/ our "helping" edits and creations--DJS24 17:13, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

First, I was (and am) asking for WP:3PO here. It's what (I believe) admins commonly do. And sometimes notifying the editors that they are being discussed "can" be more disruptive, especially if the concerns turn out to be less than they appear. If not, then I assure you, I would have cross-posted a notice to your and your brother's talk pages. (As I commonly do, and have done in other cases, including an unrelated situation with a different editor earlier today.)

Second "the jury is out" is a euphemistic turn of phrase, meaning that I have not formed an opinion about this myself, and am still thinking about it.

Third, I am far from the "only editor". But then I also disagree with the premise of your statement. My "concern" happened due to other editors having concerns at WT:CMC, and then I decided to (as I am wont to do) go through your (plural) edit histories. And I found some things that were concerning. Some of which was confirmed by your brother. (Note that his claim has not been confirmed, and that whole situation can be considered concerning.)

If anything, I tried to start a discussion, when others were suggesting a bit more direct action. (If you want links, I've got 'em - but I really don't think you want me to link to some of your comments and responses. Indeed, even some of your comments here have been, I would presume, less helpful than you might have thought or intended.)

I won't comment about the CU, since I think Thatcher conveyed it well enough already, below.

As a final thought, I'd suggest that while you may be an enthusiastic editor, someone who, I would presume, we all would be happy to have around positively contributing to the encyclopedia; your current choice of "tone" in "discussion", and your over-enthusiastic boldness that's apparently been bordering on disruptive behavior, may cause Misplaced Pages to lose the benefits of your enthusiasm and contributions. Not a threat, just an observation from a fellow Wikipedian whose seen such happen in the past. - jc37 07:40, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

I would have to disagree w/ just about everything you just said. I interpret the jury is out a different way, however we're not here to discuss that.

First of all, let me just point out, I have great respect for Misplaced Pages Admins, however when an (editor/admin) throws out a claim/notice like this I get defensive, especially when I see no point to it. Now from what Jc37 just said, I'm very confused. I don't know what a single thing means in your parentheses (claim, what claim?/unrelated situation/my comments, what comments?) I don't know what possible comments or responses you could possibly be talking about unless they we're from months ago. Let me just point out, that I've only talked to you once, I believe before this whole notice.

Second - choice of "tone" in "discussion", and your over-enthusiastic boldness that's apparently been bordering on disruptive behavior, I don't like to tell admins what to do, but you need to explain this stuff, what disruptive behavior and my "tone" is the "tone" of me defending myself against false claims (in my opinion). As far as my tone goes, my tone is getting right to the point. I don’t communicate by dodging the issue or writing things that have nothing to do w/ the situation (not accusing anyone of that), I’m just saying. I don’t write a lot of BLAH, if you like to call it that, I’m right to the point. --DJS24 15:32, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

<--Checkusers have broad discretion to investigate potentially disruptive editors and situation, and there is no requirement that check requests be made publicly. Having two editors who are "brothers" and who have "accidentally" edited from each others' accounts suddenly propose a new bureaucracy to investigate sockpuppetry certainly qualifies as potentially disruptive. As I said, the results are inconclusive but plausible. Thatcher 17:44, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Another new process page

• Misplaced Pages:Page protection patrol
• User talk:Aldrich Hanssen
• User talk:Mboverload

Looks like a similar situation (with two editors of possibly similar tone). But is there already such a process in place? (And for that matter is that something that would be wanted?) Thoughts welcome. - jc37 08:24, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Spuh, 72.218.42.26, and StreaksOnTheChina

A little too complicated for AIV, but we need some blocks handed out here. 72.218.42.26 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) started out this morning by insulting Raven-Symoné‎'s weight ... the edits would have been borderline, but the misleading edit summaries put them clearly into vandalism camp. Spuh (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) then takes up the charge, with edits that get him warnings from both Bongwarrior and myself. Unfortunately for him, he forgets to log in while editing Spuh's talk page, revealing our IP vandal and Spuh to be one and the same, which he later admits. No sooner than that admission is over, when a shiny new account, StreaksOnTheChina (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) launches into a personal attack on me for having warned Spuh against vandalism, and also takes onto the talk page responding to year old comments about her weight
Kww (talk) 00:15, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Warned the streaker. Toddst1 (talk) 00:54, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Not sure why you warned him that he should AGF about a demonstrated vandal. Isn't the appropriate action to block him for creating an alternate identity just to battle with himself in public?
Kww (talk) 00:58, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

I have warned Spuh for BLP violations, but the edits are very, very close to vandalism, especially considering the edit summaries. I will monitor for any further bad edits and block if warranted. —Travis 01:14, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Spuh is not battling with himself. Spuh is battling with me. I can understand Kww's suspicions here, but I can assure you that we are not the same user. I did create this account for the sole purpose of making the comments which I have made on this issue, but it is simply not the case that we are the same person. In addition, I did not create this account to make "personal attacks" on anybody. I made this account to supply a rational viewpoint on what I find to be a wholly inappropriate debate. Please refrain from making any undue accusations. StreaksOnTheChina (talk) 05:21, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Ultimate results here: Spuh (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) blocked 48 hours by Toddst1 for sockpuppeting 72.218.42.26, StreaksOnTheChina (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) blocked indefinitely as an abusive sock of Chalkieperfect (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), Chalkieperfect (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) blocked 48hours by Toddst1 for sockpuppeting. Misplaced Pages:Requests for checkuser/Case/Spuh confirmed both relationships.
Kww (talk) 17:20, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

User:Mynameisstanley

User:Mynameisstanley has started an edit war on John Gotti, violating WP:3RR. He has a history of disruptive editing, see this and this. He uses a double identity to do so, operating as User:Sdhilio as well (see here) He did the same in Talk:Greenwich Village, which was resolved without him participating in the dabate. He rather seem to start edit wars, rather than resolving them. - Mafia Expert (talk) 12:51, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

What is this edit war about? You both seem to be swapping one picture for another. Why? Theresa Knott | The otter sank 13:37, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Mynameisstanley (talk · contribs) and Mafia Expert (talk · contribs) both blocked 12 hours for edit warring. This was brought to ANI a couple of days ago as well. Please try Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR next time. Toddst1 (talk) 13:38, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Endorse double block. People are willing to fight over the lamest things. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 13:41, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Indeed <3 Tinkleheimer TALK!! 20:49, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

SchmuckyTheCat

• SchmuckyTheCat (talk · contribs)

Removed CSD tags even when he was warned against doing so, removed himself from AIV when reported, and then went "speedy keep" asserting my nominations of several criticism articles to be disruption (I did not intend disruption in any case). Requesting admin intervention. Sceptre 14:45, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Sceptre, you and I haven't exactly seen eye-to-eye on many things, but you had to have known what an awful idea it was to attempt speedy deletions on criticism pages (CSD G10 no less) and mass AfDs on others. Slow down...reporting SchmuckyTheCat for vandalism wasn't exactly a smart move either. Any editor other than the author can decline a speedy deletion request, and your repeated retagging (using rollback) was more problematic than his removal of the CSD G10 request. - auburnpilot talk 14:47, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Non-admins should only remove it in clear-cut circumstances (e.g., I tagged The Beatles with {{db-band}}). As it wasn't, he shouldn't've removed it. I rollbacked because I knew there was a warning template for removing speedy tags, and reporting to AIV was just natural progression. Sceptre 14:53, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

You slapped up warning templates that you clearly DID NOT READ and don't know how to use. What is this "non-admins" junk? Admins have no special authority on judgment. It isn't a speedy candidate and any user can remove wrongly placed CSD tags. Calling that vandalism, and continuing to maintain it here, is a slap to my face. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

Anyone that didn't create the article can remove a speedy notice. Arguing that people shouldn't remove them from articles that aren't clear cut is very counterintuitive. If they aren't clear cut, then they definitely aren't speediable. Also, natural progression for an AIV report goes beyond two warnings. And it's kind of trollish to give a user who has been on Misplaced Pages for 5 years a "Welcome to Misplaced Pages" template that says "Do not remove speedy notices from articles you have created yourself" when they didn't do that. --Smashville 16:20, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Sceptre, You might want to read {{Uw-speedy1}} again. It's for people removing tags from articles they created. SchmuckyTheCat was not vandalizing the articles. - auburnpilot talk 14:56, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

My bad removing myself from AIV, but it was plainly put there as retribution for calling out your WP:POINT AfD's and removing of your CSD. Wrong thing to do, but no apology about it. Removal of CSD tags from non-CSD candidates is welcome behavior, not a wiki-crime. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

Yes you shouldn't have removed yourself from AIV (hence my note to you). And yes, you should not have been reported in the first place. Pedro :  Chat  14:59, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

These were not speedy candidates and SchmuckyTheCat didn't do anything terribly wrong by removing the tags. If you ask me, it was pretty evident that they did not qualify as speedy candidates and thus any non-admin would be well within the right to remove them. As to the AIV removal, that probably should have been left for an admin (or at the very least someone uninvolved) but it would have been removed. I don't see anything here requiring a remedy, except perhaps to trout-whack SchmuckyTheCat for removing his own AIV case and Sceptre for being a little tendentious with shaky CSD noms. Shereth 15:01, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Sceptre has started to become a troll. I am sad to see it, as he used to be a decent guy. After he had a big pointy brainfart and decided to tag WP:CIVIL as historical the other day, he is now tagging any and all "Criticism of" articles for speedy deletion or AFD, and edit-warring over his pointy speedy tags by misusing rollback (, then reporting editors who removed the tags for vandalism(!). A block is starting to look appropriate. Neıl ☄ 15:02, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

It's rare around here that WP:POINT is used in it's correct context but many of Sceptre's recent edits have been nothing but pure disruption. It is getting to the stage that his edits have become more a hinderance than benefit, and a preventative block would be required. This would be deeply regretable but this situation cannot continue as is. Pedro :  Chat  15:06, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree that we walk a judgmental tight-rope by saying a user is unfit to use "rollback" or "twinkle" or any other task-specific editing tool, but still fit to edit in general. Abuse of such tools really amounts to " edits which annoy people". If his edits are disruptive enough for a block it really doesn't matter how they were done. Take away the guns they'll swing knives, take away the knives they'll throw rocks, take away the rocks they'll fling dung... it's all downhill from there and almost always a symptom of a deeper problem. — CharlotteWebb 16:11, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Downhill from dung? That I do not want to see. --Rodhullandemu 17:00, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I noticed him being completely unreasonable a couple days ago. Doesn't look like it has stopped. Friday (talk) 15:05, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

I've given him a polite warning. Maybe he'll listen to me, I don't know. I hope so. Neıl ☄ 15:08, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I'd advocate a formal warning prior to taking any action. If he continues to edit in a disruptive, pointy manner after Neil's warning then a block may be warranted, but given the user's long-term history I'd be hesitant to take punitive measures yet. Shereth 15:13, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

No one will take any punitive measures. I'll speak to him on MSN. I think it'd be a bad idea to block him. He's just... angry... about the whole Kurt episode. I'm sure he'll get over it soon, apologise to the people he's upset and just move on to building our encyclopaedia. Scarian 15:15, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree. Let him calm down a bit, if this is actually the case. Synergy 15:17, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

No punitive measures, of course. A warning's been given, and unless Sceptre continues, that'll suffice. If he does continue, then a block would be preventative, not punitive. Note Mbisanz has (appropriately) removed Sceptre's rollback rights for 30 days. Neıl ☄ 15:27, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

How is that not punitive? I honestly thought Schmucky's edits were rollbackable. Sceptre 15:41, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Removal of the tags would arguably have been worthy of a revert if Schmucky was the creator of the article, but he wasn't. It was created a few years ago by Saravask, using content which was previously part of the main article. — CharlotteWebb 16:11, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and the view that rollback should be used only in vandalism cases is outdated. While it isn't explicit, the use of rollback is viewed as acceptable by most people for any cases where the edit would be exempt from 3RR (e.g it's used all the time to rollback in a user's userspace and banned users, and neither of that are in WP:VAND). Sceptre 15:21, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

• If you believe that, then you should update the policy page that points out that the tool is only to be used for reverting vandalism and talkpage cleanup. S. Dean Jameson 15:24, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

  WP:RBK actually does allow it in the case of reverting banned users and in ns-2-and-3, but not for obvious copyvio or BLP violations. Sceptre 15:26, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

  Rollback isn't the problem. I believe we would be having a nearly identical discussion if you had repeatedly added the speedy deletion tag by making manual reverts. — CharlotteWebb 16:11, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

While I agree with some of your ideas, Sceptre, maybe you really should step back and look at your tactics. If several editors/admins on here (me included) who are generally well-respected in the Misplaced Pages community think you are being disruptive, maybe you are. Tan ǀ 39 15:25, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Agree with Tan. It may be a good idea to actually take that wikibreak you've mentioned on your userpage. Come back with a clear head. –xeno (talk) 15:33, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Er, I don't think it is widely accepted that the use of rollback in one's own userspace is universally acceptable for non-vandalism, non-banned-user edits. I'm pretty sure it's still seen as both inappropriate and extremely rude to use rollback to remove comments from one's own talk page, for instance. (Exceptions may exist where comments are spam or ongoing harrassment.) TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:48, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

WP:UP#OWN and WP:3RR explicitly allow reversion though. Sceptre 15:51, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Rollback is a software tool, reversion is a kind of edit, they're not the same things. Rollback is meant to be used only on vandalism. The last chapter has not been written on rolling back comments on one's own talk page (I think it is almost always taken as rudeness). Gwen Gale (talk) 16:15, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

It's not as rude as "fuck off, troll". Sceptre 16:22, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

I think maybe it can be, since the tool is meant only for reverting vandalism, its use will strongly imply that the reverted edit was taken as vandalism. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:26, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Forgive me for not checking everybody's edits but is this an actual quote relevant to this discussion i.e. did somebody call you a troll and tell you to fuck off? If so you should have mentioned it from the get-go. — CharlotteWebb 16:30, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Forget "assume good faith"

Hi. Previously, I've reported this user because of abusive language 14:40, 4 Aug 2008 (he called me "snide arsehole").
Since then, he got two explicit warnings, by admin user:Gb 16:15, 4 Aug 2008 and with friendly notice of user:AniMate 23:31, 4 Aug 2008 .
However, that user showed no improvement of behaviour.
See his response to user:AniMate (that followed) from 10:36, 5 Aug 2008 . "Maybe you would "refactor"" (Kirker messed up; still, he still puts the blame on others) "...the words I used pretty much express what I was trying to say...So being blocked or banned holds no terrors for me.". Does this mean that we, decent contributors, have to be his "punchbag" until some admin finally recognises the problem and gives him proper sanction?
In fact, here, he openly admitted his guilt and showed no wish for improvement of behaviour, and even more, he showed his intention to continue with such behaviour, despite warning by an admin and an user.
This answer of Kirker to admin Gb "So I might be blocked. Oh dear." Comparing this with his messages above, we could treat this like disrespect of admins; sounds like "Who gives a damn about you". Admin is not a punchbag, and admins are not here so that some users annoy them or use them to cure their anger, frustrations. An admin can use his time more efficiently, than to spent his precious private free time on playing someone's ....
This message, that user Kirker sent to me 10:03, 6 Aug 2008 is ordinary taunting and provocation.
"Surprise, surprise! Rjecina, the King of sockpuppet referrals, has decided that this is one case he dare not pursue. So get on with it. Or have you lost your nerve too?". Even more, this is inflammatory content. I find this an intentional perpetuating of fruitless discussion (I gave him previously explanation of one of my previous messages, that referred to him, but he doesn't want that to end). He's annoying me.
This is not that repeated only once. Instead of understanding, he sent provoking messages to three users (AniMate, Gb and me) and provoking four users (add user:Rjecina to that list).
We can forget WP:AGF here. Provocations don't belong here. Misplaced Pages is not a forum. We came on en.wiki to contribute, not to waste our time with persons that annoy us. We are not here to be a punchbag as a mean of killing someone's frustrations. Kubura (talk) 14:47, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

The user in question is Kirker (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log). UltraExactZZ ~ Evidence 17:17, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

hey, kubura, you made a little speling mistkae on your first post: it should have been "a user" instead of "an user". Cheers! :D — Preceding unsigned comment added by Smith Jones (talk • contribs)

To be honest, I've had worse thrown at me. Whilst his attitude is unhelpful, Kirker does appear to have refrained from personal attacks since the one he was warned about. I see that the contributions at Talk:Miroslav_Filipović are getting a little heated, and when I get a moment will have a read through. In the meantime, though, I don't that there's sufficient specific activity to warrant any more action at this stage. _Gb 18:58, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Ignoring the rather ironic message from Smith Jones, there really isn't any admin action necessary. Editing in areas related to the Balkans is tricky, and considering all of the sockpuppet allegations and circular editorial requests related to Miroslav_Filipović, being called an arsehole really isn't all that bad. This strikes me as an attempt to gain an editorial edge. AniMate 06:14, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

No, you're getting into the wrong direction.
I'm not speaking about the articlecontents.
Things 'd be the same, even if it was the case of Greenland, Oregon, Canada, pudding, banana tree or goldfish-related articles.
Problem is (recent) behaviour of the user Kirker on the talkpages.
Insult, provocations and inflammatory content, persistent perpetuation of arguing (the latter can be serious problem, such trolls have "stopped the production" on hr.wiki last year).
The last one might not necessarily require heavier admin's sanctions right now, but the pile of problematic behaviour is growing. We have to recognise the problem in the beginning, so the admins won't be unprepared in future. This way admins'll already have prepared dossier.
So, I've notified you about his behaviour. You can put "resolved" here, we don't have to waste time on discussion here, there're bigger problems right now, but keep an eye on him.
The user who names others as "snide arseholes" usually never improves; things only get worse, unfortunately.
Thanks for your attention. Sincerely, Kubura (talk) 09:16, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Possible continuation of User:RiverRubicon

RiverRubicon (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was recently blocked for vandalism and sockpuppetry (RFCU). Just now, I declined an unblock request from User talk:Tammie120, who had been hit by an autoblock from RiverRubicon. Upon looking into things, I saw that Tammie120's account was brand new, and the first thing she did was make five additional accounts: log. I declined the unblock on the suspicion that she was RiverRubicon again and blocked the five socks, but I haven't directly blocked Tammie120 yet as I wanted a double-check to make sure I'm not just going really paranoid. Hersfold 17:12, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Looks like the autoblock just expired a few seconds ago (expires at 17:23, current time is 00:48), so no action necessary. Blocks of other accounts look fine to me; creation of five accounts so soon after account creation is kinda'.... odd. Cheers. lifebaka++ 17:25, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

First Baptist Church (Hammond, Indiana)

Not sure if this belongs here or in "Arbcom enforcement". The article in question is on Arbcom probation, and "The expectation is that Vivaldi, Arbustoo, and other editors of these articles will in the course of editing remove poorly sourced controversial material." However none of those people have touched the article for months, and it currently contains a "Controversy and Criticism" section that massively violates the rules for biographical material concerning living persons, not to mention other bad things. Looie496 (talk) 17:23, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

If that were only it! First, 80% of the article seems to be a copy of the church's publicity materials, and 20% is backlash. Eeek! The whole of it could go into a pot and get rendered down to 1. It's a church, 2. part of this part of the denomination, 3. has a congregation of X, 4. has made news with good and bad things (vague), 5. it's located at. I mean, at this point it looks more like a matter for AfD than AN/I, but it's really a content question rather than a matter of user misbehavior. Geogre (talk) 17:49, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't think Arbcom probation would prevent the removal of advertising. Not to mention, it's been 2 years since the arbcom case. --Smashville 18:00, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Probation really means be extra nice and extra careful when editing the article. It should not be either a coatrack to attack its founder nor an advertisement for the wonders of the church. Thatcher 20:43, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

The person who added the 80% of the material taken from the church's website was Looie496, which is the same person who removed all the cited criticism. If you read the talk page there is a long consensus of supporting the inclsuion of these notable controversies. If you view the history of the article, you'll notice a long history of IP whitewash. Lastly, the church is not a BLP as the above person claims. This seems more like vandalism. Feerzeey (talk) 23:00, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Can an adminstrator step in? Looie496 (the person who white washed the page) again added tons of non-encyclopedic material at removed all the categories. The book reference, "First Baptist Church 120th Anniversary," according to google and amazon brings up nothing- no books or mentions at all. Therefore, its not a WP:RS and a clear attempt to white wash the page. More non-critical material needs added, but not like this. Feerzeey (talk) 23:09, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

A vandal-bot reverted him so he removed all critical WP:RS. Feerzeey (talk) 23:14, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

You are misreading. I never added anything to that article. It was User:Jonsuh who added the spam. Yesterday I removed the spam and the libel, then saw the probation notice, and immediately reverted my own changes. Today I brought the matter up here. Meanwhile you and Jonsuh have been warring over the spam. I have nothing to do with that. I think the spam should be removed, but I haven't touched it today. All I did today was to remove the libel, after which you reverted my change. It looks like you are trying to keep the libel, and Jonsuh is trying to keep the spam. In my opinion both the spam and the libel should be removed, and the article should then be protected. Looie496 (talk) 23:35, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it is User:Jonsuh that is removing the material despite being warned about 3RR twice. I was confused because you and he was misreading WP:BLP. You removed it only once.

All the criticism comes from WP:RS. It is not "libel" when it is reported in the press repeatedly and when it talks about someone who was convicted of child molestation. BLP is about living people. The church is not a living person and neither is Hyles. Even it they were, all criticism is backed with WP:RS and has been for over two years. Feerzeey (talk) 23:44, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Looie496, All the criticism in the church article is backed by WP:RS. BLP deals with living persons. What claim, and subsequent source, about a living person are you calling not a WP:RS regarding BLP? Please don't wholesale remove cited material. Feerzeey (talk) 23:48, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

• I've protected the page pending some resolution between the parties on the talk page. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 01:05, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

I may be crazy, but is any of it actually notable? I mean, all of the controversy seems to revolve around a person that already has an article. --Smashville 03:29, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, it looks like the editing controversy is one of emotions, and that's why the two sides won't find middle ground. I really think a vast stripping down would be in order. There isn't much to this church that sets it apart from other Baptist churches, except that, at least locally, it has achieved some controversy. Well, we avoid localism and newspaper-like coverage, as we're supposed to look for things that have at least some life to them or broader effect. At least that's how I've always edited. If it's your high school's gym teacher boffing a student or your college's new recreation center, we need something more than a local furore and more than a local good, it seems to me. (N.b. I'm far more anti-granular than others lately.) Geogre (talk) 13:40, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

I think I'm going to think about it for a few hours and possibly send it to AfD...it looks like it's not as much as either side wants it to be. --Smashville 16:12, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

I've done the deed. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:27, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

User:Sponge417

Sponge417 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) says that he is:

1) Under age & 2) Has a "boyfriend" in banned user AlwaysUnderTheInfluence (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

For security reasons I do not feel that this is appropiate. This is not a place to "hookup" or for adults to "troll" for underage sex partners.

Thanks,

Ann M. Haralambie, JD

Private Attorney and Author, Tucson, AZ— Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.86.226.18 (talk) 21:19, 6th August 2008 (UTC)

• The user you mention has no edits of any kind, including to his/her userspace. Where are you getting your information? NawlinWiki (talk) 21:22, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

That would be a slight error in the {{user}} tag causing that confusion, I think...now fixed. _Gb 21:26, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

The userpage of Sponge does appear to have been edited by AUTI here to say that the latter is the former's boyfriend, and given the other edits it would be my presumption that they're all socks of the same account, by the look of it - Sponge's former "boyfriend" is a sock of AUTI too..._Gb 21:29, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Regardless, this is too much information for a child of legal status. Thanks, Ann — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.86.226.18 (talk) 21:32, 6th August 2008 (UTC)

Erm, well, what's the age of consent in New York...? _Gb 21:34, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

17, but California, where Wikimedia's offices are, it is 18. Don't split hairs. Thanks, Ann —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.86.226.18 (talk) 21:39, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, if you think that's splitting hairs, you're going to be a bit miffed when I tell you that its servers are hosted in Florida, which would potentially be the relevant state law if any state law had actually been broken. Your "security reasons" aside, and working on the assumption that the person concerned posted the information about themselves, what law do you assert has been broken? And by whom? _Gb 21:55, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Do any US states actually prohibit 17 year-olds having boyfriends? DuncanHill (talk) 22:03, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

This is ridiculous and smacks of prejudice. Teenagers have boyfriends and girlfriends. No mention of illegal activity has occurred. Being gay is not a crime. Toddst1 (talk) 22:06, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

As no one else did, I have informed Sponge417 of this thread. DuncanHill (talk) 22:06, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

This has nothing what so ever to do with sexuality. This is a child privacy issue. This page, http://en.wikipedia.org/Help:User_page, states: "What may I not have on my user page?: Personal information of other persons without their consent" Since children cannot "give" consent, that means you must obtain a release from their parents. Since websites do not want to obtain this consent, the just keep personal information, like what high school they attend and what city they live in, off of the site. Please read: http://en.wikipedia.org/Megan_Meier and don't make this about prejudice or sex, it is about child safety. Also, Florida is 18. I don't have time to keep discussing this with you. Just do the right thing. Please post the name and address of Wikimedia's attorney's in your reply. Thanks, Ann, or and these four tildes: 209.86.226.18 (talk) 22:18, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

IP address blocked for 1 week for making legal threats in accordance with Misplaced Pages policy. Legal info provided in block notice. Toddst1 (talk) 22:23, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

All he says is that he has a boyfriend - there is absolutely nothing wrong with that. Now go away and stop being silly. DuncanHill (talk) 22:22, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

(e/c) Do the right thing? Okay. I'll do nothing about it then, because no administrative action is required. Your frivolous comments is hurting my sides. seicer | talk | contribs 22:23, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

I'd like a second opinion on the length of the block of the IP: Misplaced Pages:No legal threats says:

Users who make legal threats will typically be blocked from editing indefinitely while legal threats are outstanding.

Is 1 week appropriate? It's an IP address, so I don't think indefinite is the right answer. Toddst1 (talk) 22:27, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

There is a concern on the IP talk page that it may be used by a blocked editor. Is there any similarity between that blocked editor's behaviour and the behaviour today? DuncanHill (talk) 22:33, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Blocked user is requesting unblocking. Toddst1 (talk) 23:11, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

All that aside, the user page gives the kid's name, his date of birth, the name of his high school, the names of the middle school and the elementary school he went to and his father's place of employment. Until recently, he even had a note on his page telling all and sundry what summer camp he could be found at. If he were 13, I'm sure we'd delete and oversight all that, but he's 17, so ... how should we handle it? --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 23:45, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

You might leave him a friendly note advising so many identifying details may not be wise, then let him respond as he chooses. Many people younger than he have even more personal stuff for public view on myspace or whatever. Jonathunder (talk) 00:22, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

IP editor improperly blocked, this report was not a legal threat per WP:NLT

The IP editor who started this thread appears to have been, in good faith, concerned about a possible violation of law. Whether or not there is actually a violation would properly be a question for an attorney, though we may have, if what is above is correct, sufficient information to dismiss the report as not requiring administrative action, and allowing the IP editor to go ahead and contact the Foundation attorney as WP:NLT advises -- what's the problem with giving contact information for Michael Godwin? -- however, there was no legal threat here, asking for the address of the Foundation attorney is not a legal threat by any stretch of the imagination. Rather, on the face of it, it is one attorney, not representing a client, wanting to discuss the matter with another attorney. "Legal threat" as described in WP:NLT refers to an individual threatening to sue, not to simple information provided about a possible legal problem not accompanied by any threat. From WP:NLT, at the top of the page:

If you do choose to use legal action or threats of legal action to resolve disputes, you will not be allowed to continue editing until it is resolved and your user account or IP address may be blocked. A polite report of a legal problem such as defamation or copyright infringement is not a threat and will be acted on quickly.

This was a "polite report" of a possible problem involving, allegedly, child endangerment. The post is not at all what one would see from someone contemplating legal action against Misplaced Pages or any Misplaced Pages users. So it was an error to block this IP, unsupported by WP:NLT which was given as a reason for the block and as a reason for the denial of the unblock request. --Abd (talk) 01:26, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm sure she just wanted the attorney's name to have a beer with. Toddst1 (talk) 01:30, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

This was a failure of the ability of Toddst1 to WP:AGF. The writer was, no the face of it, an attorney, and saw that her issues were not going to be addressed here, with users debating over irrelevancies, such as sexual orientation. So, I can easily assume -- it is by far the most likely explanation to me -- she simply wanted to talk to an attorney for Misplaced Pages. She wasn't threatening a lawsuit, she wanted to provide information and analysis, just like she provided here.

If she had been making legal threats, she'd have written quite differently. Occam's razor, though. She is what she said she was, and simply wanted, as an attorney acting on her own, not on behalf of a client, simply trying to be helpful, to talk to an attorney who would, she thought, better understand what she was saying. And I'm sure Mike Godwin would have been happy to explain the issues to her, I'm pretty sure he's an expert on this. Instead, we may simply have made one more person out there who thinks that this place is crazy and administrators are power-mad. Nice work. Not. There is a reason why we block for legal threats. It did not apply to this case, at all. --Abd (talk) 03:23, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

We have blocked for "vague" legal threats in the past -- much more so than is alleged in this case. The slightest inclination of legal threat usually prompts administrators to question the motive of the editor, and as it escalated to the point of the OP requesting Wikimedia's attorneys, one must play it safe here. What possible good could come out of requesting an attorney? A possible lawsuit because we are acting within policy or bounds? Or would the OP actually talk to the attorney to see if our policy was actually legit? The OP was hesitant to actually discuss the matter further, only stating that we needed to do this, and needed to do that, and was being very vague in the responses. The OP can still request an unblock, or a comment fur further review -- and I would be happy to unblock if she retracts the statement and actually become involved in the discussion so that we may possibly reform the policy on situations like this. We already have some vagueness in the policy as demonstrated in the postings in this thread, so it is something that needs to be clarified. seicer | talk | contribs 01:49, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

There was no legal threat whatsoever, and the IP should be unblocked. The block was unfounded in any Wikipdeia policy or guideline. Since when is contact info for Godwin such a deep dark secret that anyone who requests it must immediately be blocked? Unblock the user and point him to Godwin's user page. Edison (talk) 02:41, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

If you feel that way, perhaps you could explain what the "the name and address of Wikimedia's attorney's" would be needed for besides legal issues. Toddst1 (talk) 02:47, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

The editor wanted to do what she did here, and there is utterly no reason to suppose otherwise. She wanted to discuss the issue she raised. That is not a legal threat, period. Attorneys talk to each other all the time, about legal issues, with no lawsuit being threatened. If contacting Misplaced Pages counsel with a comment like she made here -- and there is no reason to think she would do otherwise -- is "legal action," well, we'd better make that far more explicit at WP:NLT and, in fact, some of WP:NLT is dead wrong in that case. Really. Read it! It says that raising legal issues civilly without threats is not a "legal threat." It is really very clear, and I can imagine the frustration of this attorney looking at that and saying "But I didn't do that! I just wanted to talk to someone who'd understand what I was saying. Don't they know that if I wanted to sue, I'd know exactly what to do, I wouldn't go to AN/I and raise the issue and politely ask for the name and address of counsel. Have you ever seen an attorney who was preparing to sue ask someone for the name and address of their attorney? People do that to avoid lawsuits, even if they have some problem, and this person did not allege any personal problem or problem of a client, and would have had no standing to sue based on what she alleged at all. --Abd (talk) 03:31, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

I endorse Toddst1's block of this IP editor per WP:NLT. The "threat" does not need to be an impending lawsuit; simply contacting Wikimedia's legal team would be considered "legal action" and, until we obtain a reasonable explanation of why this editor wants the contact info, all editing should be constrained to his/her talk page. There's a reason we have this policy, and being even the slightest bit lax with it could cause serious problems. I can see blowing off a few other policies once in awhile for common sense reasons or turning a blind eye to a minor civility issue - but this isn't one of those issues to ignore. Tan ǀ 39 02:58, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

The policy is actually very clear, and simply did not apply here, because there was no threat, no reasonable possibility, even, of legal action involving this user who was, on the face of it, simply trying to be helpful by reporting what she saw as a problem. And the plot thickens. As I note below, there is an attorney with the name given in this report, who is a published author in the field, she has over 3,000 ghits. If we were worried about her motives, wouldn't it have been interesting that she was an expert trying here to give expert advice, and then wouldn't this have explained why she wanted to talk to a fellow attorney? In other words, it was possible to figure this out without demanding that she provide the answer. And, in fact, she wasn't asked the question. Seicer did not ask her, "why do you want to talk to WP counsel?" He said, "this could be construed as a legal threat." Weasel words, by the way, taking no responsibility for so construing it.--Abd (talk) 04:21, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

His name is Mike Godwin. He has a user page User talk:MGodwin. He has a Misplaced Pages article Mike Godwin. Martindale Hubble at contains the mailing address of most attorneys at . That article provides contact information as well,all of which is public information no one has complained about. Why are you so afraid that the IP MIGHT make a legal threat that you preemptively block to prevent it from happening? Edison (talk)

You can't answer the question, can you? Toddst1 (talk) 03:02, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

That still does not answer the question. seicer | talk | contribs 03:06, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

The contact address for the Wikimedia Foundation is given at . Why are you so afraid for anyone to know it? I do not pretend to be a mindreader, so there is no more basis for me answering the question than there was for you answering it. Edison (talk) 03:04, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

There are online instructions for me to file a lawsuit, too, but if I come on ANI and specifically ask how to do it - and mentioning Wikimedia - it would probably be construed as a legal threat. The point, Edison, is that we just want to know why. Yes, perhaps we could have sussed that out here without the block, but if you read WP:NLT to the letter, this block was valid. If there's a perfectly reasonable explanation, as there probably is, the block can be lifted and minimal, if any, harm will have been done except maybe a bruised ego or two. Tan ǀ 39 03:06, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

The block was a preemptive one, and invalid, based on mindreading. Edison (talk) 03:07, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

You still have not answered the question, and you seem intent on dancing around it until the cow jumps over the moon. People whine and complain when a block is punitive rather than preventive; in this case, we were too preventive instead of punitive? seicer | talk | contribs 03:09, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

What was being prevented? WP:NLT exists so that legal actions and potential legal actions aren't prejudiced by communications here while they are unresolved. The block would not prevent a legal action. There was no threat or reasonable possibility of a threat from this user over what she reported here. So we block not in response to legal threats but to prevent legal threats based on an administrator's inability to imagine any legitimate motive, other than, what, making legal threats?, for talking to Foundation counsel? But we don't prevent people from "making legal threats to Foundation counsel," and it would be Foundation counsel which would decide, in that case, if a block were necessary. We block for legal threats, much more commonly, simply because they can be uncivil and disruptive, plus we essentially take them seriously. Planning a lawsuit, eh? Okay, but, of course, until this matter is resolved, you can't edit here. But now we block *before* someone indicates they are planning a suit? It's going to be interesting to see what Mr. Godwin has to say about this, if he replies. --Abd (talk) 03:54, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

"WP:NLT exists so that legal actions and potential legal actions aren't prejudiced by communications here while they are unresolved." - no, that's absolutely not the reason. See the rationale section. We forbid legal threats because they can be used for intimidation, hinder free editing, and poison the atmosphere. We are not concerned with the effect for legal cases (that is for the parties to worry about), but with the effect on Misplaced Pages. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 04:14, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

It would be nice to see a reply from Mr. Godwin on the situation, to see what the threashhold should be for cases such as this. We have an equal discussion, it seems, on both sides of the camp that both condemn and praise the block, for varying reasons, and since this is not the first time that NLT has been questioned for its usage, it should be clarified.

I'd also like to extend the discussion to what should be appropriate for the userpage that deals with those under the age of 18. We seem to have a murky policy, based on this discussion and prior discussions regarding different cases, about what is acceptable. Name? Age? Should we exclude information that may be personal in nature? As long as it is not MySpace-y? There are some clear boundaries already penned, but I think we should be more specific in the future to prevent the run-around. seicer | talk | contribs 03:59, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

(Shrug) Take action, then. I've said my piece; do as you will. Tan ǀ 39 03:10, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

(e/c) This is a tough one. On the one hand, it might've just been to clarify the jurisdiction/age-thing. But on the other hand, I can see why alarm bells went off - my first reaction was to think it was a legal threat. I think a block was valid. But, I do think the IP should answer the question, and then that'd make it much clearer. Ncmvocalist (talk) 03:29, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Folks, I've made over 2,000 blocks an a couple of them have been bad (right Ned? 8-). This was not one of them. However, I had unblocked several minutes ago in good faith. Again, I feel it was a solid block. Here's to good faith and de-escalating drama. Toddst1 (talk) 03:21, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Here's hoping the IP edits in good faith and in compliance with WP:NLT as well as other policies and guidelines. Thanks to Toddst1 for his great energy in admin work. Edison (talk) 03:31, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

• FYI, Some time ago I dropped a note at User talk:Mike Godwin, and sent him an email, because I suspect he might want to know that someone was blocked simply for asking for his address without threatening anything.. I'm glad to see that Toddst1 unblocked, good move. --Abd (talk) 03:42, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Gee, maybe he'll give you a cookie, Abd. Drop a note on Jimbo's page while you're at it, see if you can be made a hall monitor. Tan ǀ 39 04:07, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

That's not really necessary or constructive. --jonny-mt 04:11, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

The above is uncivil and uncalled-for. —David Levy 04:12, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

• And I finally did what I wanted to do quite a while ago, and I don't see that anyone else did it. The IP editor, if it isn't impersonation, is an expert in the field. That doesn't mean she is right, because she may not be familiar with rules as they apply to the specific situation of Misplaced Pages, but, nevertheless, I'd be far happier with her discussing this with Godwin rather than on AN/I, and I think she came to the same conclusion, hence her request. Because she can email Godwin -- his address is visible on his user page User:Mike Godwin -- the block isn't really harmful, just a bit of an insult. Hair-trigger block, maybe not a bad idea, but, of course, it can do social damage, so, really, the unblock shouldn't have been grudging but apologetic. I.e., I'm sorry, it looked like a legal threat to me, and we'd rather be safe than sorry, so please accept my apologies for any inconvenience. But, for the future, someone asks, without creating a context of legal threat, for who the Foundation attorney is, don't block them! Give them the address politely. If they say, I'll sue your ass, what's the name of your attorney, well, that's another story! (And you know what you should do there? Block them *and* give them the name of the attorney *and* politely explain to them that until the matter is resolved, our policy requires that they don't edit, and that Misplaced Pages counsel will inform us of when there is no longer a problem, and we apologize for any inconvenience.) --Abd (talk) 04:11, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm late to this discussion, but I'd just like to note my strong disagreement with the (thankfully lifted) block. The above request for contact information doesn't remotely resemble a legal threat. There is absolutely no indication that the user in question wanted anything other than to contact a Wikimedia attorney to discuss her concerns. That's exactly what someone is supposed to do when he/she believes that a legal issue should be brought to the Foundation's attention. This block, while issued in good faith, was completely and utterly inappropriate. —David Levy 04:12, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

(ec)My thoughts exactly, David, thanks. There was another error here, a technical one. The blocking administrator was engaged in a dispute with the blocked editor, arguing against what she had stated, denying the validity of her report. I've been seeing that one a few times recently, which is the only reason I mention it. I still assume good faith on his part, he really did read it as a legal threat, because he couldn't imagine anything else. That worries me, though. It's circumstantial evidence, only worse. Editor does A. Admin can't imagine that A could mean anything other than B. And B would require a block. Okay, so far, maybe the admin should block. But then other editors start saying, no, that wasn't a threat. At that point, the administrator should have done an abrupt about-face. Instead, it was repeatedly demanded, well, then, what did it mean, huh? huh? The existence of a mystery does not prove something bad is happening, and, if someone was, in fact, on the verge of considering legal action, but hadn't decided, and hadn't threatened it, blocking them could precipitate the action. WP:NLT should be followed as written. Legal threat equals practically automatic block until threat disappears. No legal threat, no block. Vague threat? Well, "vague threat" means, in this context, a statement which is vaguely threatening to someone or to Misplaced Pages, specifically, like, "You might regret that. Lawyers are expensive." On the other hand, suppose this was someone attempting to give you advice about a criminal offense that the person thinks you might be committing. Or about the possibility of someone else suing you. They are not threatening you, they are pointing out a "legal threat." It is not their threat. You don't block them, they are not engaged in a legal dispute with you or Misplaced Pages, they are, on the face of it, attempting to protect you or Misplaced Pages. --Abd (talk) 04:37, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

(ec) As a fellow latecomer (hooray for timezones!) who's spent the last twenty minutes or so reading through everything that happened, I'm definitely with David here. I'm glad to see that the block was lifted, and while I don't agree 100% with everything Abd said about the future application of WP:NLT, I just wanted to note that he did a great job helping to sort this out. --jonny-mt 04:27, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but none of you nay-sayers has been able to answer my question about what possible activity other than legal issues might involve the need for a lawyer. Given that and all you smart folks, I feel pretty justified. Thanks for those who had the courage to support me. To those that opposed (all of you) without being able answering my question, I bid you a good night. Toddst1 (talk) 04:25, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

I must say that this last comment makes me worried about the competence of Toddst1 to handle his admin bit. I've given, several times, an explanation, on my Talk page in response to his comment there, here above, on Mike Godwin's Talk page, as to why the editor would ask that question. He now responds as if nobody was able to answer his question. Has he noticed that the user he blocked was apparently an expert in the field? Numerous editors have stated, again and again, that the comment wasn't a threat. Yet he persists in defending the block. The block is understandable given that he perceived the comment as a threat, we could say that WP:IAR actually required him to make the block first and ask questions later. However, as is common with IAR, questions of competence can arise. Let's hope that a night's sleep allows him to think a little more clearly about this, because if it doesn't, I'm truly worried.--Abd (talk) 04:46, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Hope you don't mind my reordering the comments to make it easier to respond. Misplaced Pages:No legal threats is named that for a reason--someone who threatens legal action on-wiki is to be blocked. Someone who wants to speak to our legal council about a concern they have is not threatening any legal action; last I checked, it's entirely possible to speak with an attorney without suing anyone. Yes, of course that means legal issues will be involved, but your arguments make it sound like we should apply WP:NLT to everyone with a question about copyright. --jonny-mt 04:31, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

That's a straw man argument; you're demanding that people justify the nonexistent claim that the desired contact doesn't pertain to a legal issue. Of course it does, but as has been repeatedly noted, discussing legal issues ≠ making legal threats! People who believe that legal issues regarding the Wikimedia Foundation should be brought its attention are supposed to contact Mike Godwin. That's why he freely distributes his official contact information.

And really, let's not divide people into the categories of "courageous" and "non-courageous" based on their opinions. Everyone discussing this matter (irrespective of his/her viewpoint) has done so in good faith. —David Levy 04:42/04:57, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

• Comment - How inappropriate. Other than biased opinions toward homosexuals, I support the block. Anywho, it was most inappropriate and "gangbanging"(jumping on?) an admin's block decision was uncalled for too. Hopefully, he stays blocked. Just my thought. Thanks --eric (mailbox) 04:47, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Gangbanging? Really? —David Levy 04:57, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

....... LOL. --eric (mailbox) 05:13, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

(ec) I agree that someone simply expressing a desire to speak to wikipedia's lawyer should not be blocked, although I recognise that the block was done with the best intentions. There is a simple explanation as to why someone would wish to make that contact without necessarily having it in mind to take legal action: they may be contacting wiki's lawyer, so that he can be alerted to an issue, which he may want to take action over. Ty 04:50, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Any manager would know that if your employee wishes to talk to the companies legal team or HR department about something the business is currently allowing that (s)he fears might be illegal they would give her/him the number. They would have a tough time defending themselves in court if they suspended that employee for that question. (S)He could sue the company for retaliation. If criminals have the right to talk to an attorney cant wikipedia allow those with legitimate concerns to contact wikipedias legal experts with those possible concerns? -- Phoenix (talk) 04:54, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Comparing anonymous editors to employees of a corporation is a little naive. Tan ǀ 39 05:00, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Not to mention, it would make no sense. (^_^) --eric (mailbox) 05:10, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

You seem to have missed the main point of the analogy that someone can consult a legal department not to take action against the company, but to take action to safeguard the company. Ty 05:16, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for understanding and for backing up my example! -- Phoenix (talk) 05:22, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

IP editor improperly blocked,section break 2

I don't like confrontations, so I'd just thought I would comment and go. Thanks :) --eric (mailbox) 05:19, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Also, this seems to be turning into a big thing. Hopefully a consesus can be reach in the appropriate time. What'cha think? --eric (mailbox)

Would everybody agree that WP:NLT should be updated to say those with reasonable/legitimate concerns that wish to consult wikipedias legal team should be allowed to do so without fear of blocking? -- Phoenix (talk) 05:53, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Comment -- Mmmm, I'm not too sure. It really all depends on the tone of the person. Irate people may seem more or less inapproachable, ya know? --eric (mailbox) 06:28, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

From a quick google search for Ann M. Haralambie, I find it a little odd that someone with such qualifications and expertise would be acting like the IP was. There really shouldn't be an issue with the seventeen year old, right? -- Ned Scott 06:36, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, I don't see any issue with the user. So no, I believe. Yup. I take everything I said totally back. Per Wildartlivie on the paragraph regarding the James Garner edit on my talk page, per this edit and a related edit to the same article with this edit which leads me to this edit by the suspected HarveyCarter sock puppet IP, it would seem that Sponge is a sock puppet of User:HarveyCarter -- does it not? Just take a look at Sponge's contributions to the Paul Newman article and that of this IP, Sponge puts back the exact same information the blocked IP did. Hmmm.. --eric (mailbox) 06:42, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I don't mean about the sock stuff, but about the concerns of the IP. -- Ned Scott 06:57, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

LOL, sorry. --eric (mailbox) 07:02, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

My two cents on the IP blocking: I think one of the problems here is that we don't normally expect a situation like this. Most people who are asking these kinds of questions are doing so via OTRS or directly to someone else using the contact information on the site. We seem to assume that people who want to take legal action against Misplaced Pages are doing so because they don't understand how Misplaced Pages and/or the law works (and this is probably right, but maybe that's just my bias). It also seems somewhat rare for someone find ANI and be able to follow our discussion system (which is out of the ordinary for most of the internet). Here we have someone who was able to understand enough of Misplaced Pages to get here, and understands the law. I'm not saying the block was good or bad, but this doesn't seem like our average situation. -- Ned Scott 06:51, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Wow. You go to bed for a few hours and look what happens. I have to say, there are a few things that strike me as slightly odd about how :

1. the person making the original post claims to be Ann Haralambie, a sole practitioner from Tuscon Arizona, yet their IP resolves to Georgia. My US geography isn't particularly hot, but I reckon they're what, 1,500 miles apart?
2. an attorney, a sole practitioner, in the middle of the afternoon on a working day, decides to do a bit of tinkering with some articles on World War II related topics (although later declares that she hasn't got the time to keep discussing her "security concerns" with us) before chancing across (how, exactly?) the userpage of a 17 year old boyfriend of a banned sockpuppeteer and deciding to raise a stink about it.
3. the attorney signs her name, giving her status, etc., in quite a full-on manner ("Ann M. Haralambie, JD Private Attorney and Author, Tucson, AZ). Exactly the same, in fact, down to the punctuation, as one would get if you copied and pasted her information over from this page.
4. I'm not a great believer in coincidences, so would someone mind explaining why Sponge417's only recent edit was to Paul Newman, and why the history of that article shows, 24 hours previously, it being edited by IP 209.86.226.15 which is in precisely the same range as the current one?
5. The format of Sponge's userpage follows exactly the format of all of the sockpuppets of a prolific sockpuppeteer, even down to the presence of an IMDB account....

Anyone else get the slight feeling that there's a possibility someone's jerking our communal chain(s)? _Gb 08:23, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Forgive me if I'm being dense, but...

1 + 2 + 3 <> blockable offenses

4 + 5 <> anything about blocked user

There is a massive gap between "This person's story is a bit odd" and "Block."

brenneman 08:39, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, per above. --eric (mailbox) 13:52, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

You misunderstand - I wasn't putting forward 1 - 5 as reasons for a block (and don't really think they should have been blocked in the first place). I was looking at the wider issue by saying, in effect, that it's not entirely impossible we're just being trolled by the same sockpuppeteer here... _Gb 08:56, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

In many of my comments on this issue, I've noted that it is possible that the IP editor was impersonating the attorney. However, As Gb implies, that is actually irrelevant to the block issue. Besides, suppose the attorney is travelling, visiting Atlanta. Maybe this person has an account, but didn't want to log in from a public computer. Etc. Really. Single issue here: was a legal threat made? Nobody has presented a cogent argument that it was a legal threat, the defense of the block has mostly been on the order of "Well, it might have been a legal threat, and better safe than sorry." However, that's a seriously bad argument. We block for legal threats for reasons that don't apply, indeed might militate directly against, blocking for possible legal threats. "Veiled threats" are another matter. If a reasonable person would feel personally threatened by a comment, that can be taken as a legal threat until safety is verified. Did anyone here feel that they were being personally threatened? It looks like the editor was asking for the information to be removed because (1) it endangered a minor and (2) it thus endangered Misplaced Pages. People here focused on mostly irrelevant arguments, and the editor obviously thought, "Well, I should talk with someone where we can cut through this and directly address the problem."

The blocking admin dropped a note on my Talk page saying I shouldn't make it personal. I haven't. When an admin uses their bit in a way that can be alleged to be incompetent (very different from "bad faith," which nobody has alleged), it is not "personal" to express concern about it. Competence is, indeed, a personal trait, but one which must be addressed in considering fitness for admin privileges. My concern isn't that the admin made a mistake, it is practically impossible to be an active admin, serving the project diligently, without making mistakes. It's that he defended the error long past any reasonable position, thus raising the competence issue. If he can't recognize that it was a mistake, he could make it again, and, we might wonder, if he's made 2000 blocks, how many problems might we not have noticed? ArbComm desysops admins who make block errors and don't recognize them. Most blocks take place under the radar. I'm raising the issue, my style is not to go after editors and admins unless there is an immediate and serious risk, so I'm not pursuing it. Besides, I'm travelling for a couple of days -- and AN/I would not be the place to seriously address this, if that is to happen. --Abd (talk) 13:26, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

I have posted an apology on behalf of Misplaced Pages to the IP Talk page. Please be careful with it. My goal there is to limit damage to Misplaced Pages's reputation for fairness. I can imagine someone who supports the block going there and arguing, NO! Which would cause further damage. --Abd (talk) 13:36, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Block review for User:Lenerd part 2

See: Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive456#Block review for User:Lenerd

Lenerd (talk · contribs) has been away for a few days since I last left him a message:

"I can understand how you feel. While I don't completely agree with the blocking admin, and I don't think it's necessary for you to have to spell it out, it looks like they just want some reassurance that you'll be more cautious about leaving vandalism warnings for other users. Personally, I think it was just a matter of miscommunication. So rather than asking you to say that you did something wrong, which I don't think you technically did, I think it is more appropriate to ask this: Do you think you will be more cautious with user warnings? -- Ned Scott 03:31, 29 July 2008 (UTC)"

He has now since replied to that message:

"Yes, of course. (Lenerd (talk) 00:01, 3 August 2008 (UTC))"

Does this suffice for an unblock? -- Ned Scott 03:46, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

I'll be looking over this in more detail, soonish, and will revise my opinion if I find any skeletons in the closet, but I notice that several users in the previous thread seemed to indicate they'd be willing to support an unblock if the user indicated a willingness to move forward on good terms (or finite block of about a week, which would be passing about now) . Unless we're in the practice of demanding shrubberies, this seems to be such a promise. Some, I believe particularly Sandstein, seemed to be concerned the user might have been acting in bad faith... that might preclude an unblock, in these circumstances, but it did not seem to be the overriding opinion. – Luna Santin (talk) 05:38, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

As in the previous discussion, I'm leaving the decision whether or not Lenerd should be unblocked to other admins. What I, personally, am looking for is a good-faith committment to productive editing, which I think has not yet been forthcoming, but others may view the matter differently or be willing to give Lenerd a second chance regardless.  Sandstein  05:55, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

I've got the diff right here. -- Ned Scott 06:44, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

In addition to that, he sent me an e-mail: "I've been away for the past week so I haven't been able to respond to anything but concerning being cautious with user warnings, of course I will. If I am unblocked I will be more cautious in everything I do. It has been hard enough fighting this block I don't want to do anything that might put me in this situation again." August 4, 2008 11:20:35 AM GMT-07:00

It's pretty clear to me. -- Ned Scott 06:49, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Endorse an unblock - per Luna, it seems pretty clear, and I don't see why there should be a drift from normal practice here. Ncmvocalist (talk) 08:17, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

I've pulled this back out of the archive since there was no other comment within 24 hours. Are there any objections to an unblock of User:Lenerd at this point? -- Ned Scott 21:30, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Unblock him. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 08:21, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, much appreciated. -- Ned Scott 08:47, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

SPA account that is concerned with announcing that a person is Jewish in the lede in violation of WP:MOSBIO

24.147.246.76 (talk · contribs) is a single purpose whose only edits are adding that a person is Jewish in the in lede. According to WP:MOSBIO, ethnicity and religion should not be in the lede. I have told him that in his talkpage and in the edit summaries where I reverted him. He has not commented on this and just reverted my reversion. For those of you that will respond "well this is a content dispute that should be solved on the articles talkpages" I ask you to use common sense. Historically, these these types of editors only mean trouble. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 00:48, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

• ...unless it is relevant to the subject's notability. Though looking at the contribs briefly, that's not the case. RBI. Sceptre 00:51, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

I've advised this IP editor of this discussion and invited him to take part here. Agree with Sceptre that it should only be mentioned if relevant to notability, but if he continues on this course without discussion, there's only one place it's going. --Rodhullandemu 01:01, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Kudos to Dayewalker (talk · contribs) for helping out with this situation. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 01:15, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

I undid his edit twice at Ralph Lauren. He keeps doing it. Recommend a block. Enigma 01:20, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

OK, definitely time for a block now. Just did it again. Enigma 01:23, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Agree. Anyone that refuses to interact with other editors regarding their content additions should be blocked. A fortiori, where an editor's good faith is dubious. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 01:26, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

After his final warning here, he made 25 more edits violating the same precept he was warned against. Enigma 01:31, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

• Blocked for 55 hours. Absolutely unacceptable. --Rodhullandemu 01:36, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
• Comment - it says in Phil Donahue he is Irish-American, so do we go around eliminating all ethnic roots?--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 02:10, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

• Ethnic roots should be included in the article, but - per wp:mosbio - not in the lede. If he was born in Ireland, its another thing, the "Irish" refers to his nationality, not his ethnicity. Indeed, the custom is to include nationality in the lede. But ethnicity should be mentioned in the bio/family section of the article. I will now proceed to fix Phil Donahue as well. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 02:26, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Oh, good Lord, let's not get sidetracked into "is Judaism an ethnicity, religion, culture, or race" thing, please. That's not an appropriate discussion. If a person's ethnicity is part of the person's function in culture, then it's fair. So, Donohue's Irish-Americanism is actually something he has relied upon in interviews. Jon Stewart refers to his Judaism as part of his comedy. On the other hand, Paul Volcker's Jewishness or lack of it is so brazenly unrelated to his work as an economist or advisor that it's simply not worth discussing it in the same terms. Common sense ought to be part of our editing at least a wee bit, and whether this IP is trying to build a Hall of Jewish Champions or trying to show a Jewish Conspiracy is irrelevant. We ask for relevance before we go into a person's background. Geogre (talk) 13:34, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Need block of IP sock of indef blocked editor

User:Enforcing Neutrality was recently indef-blocked as a sock of User:Klaksonn, and since then related IPs have been popping up and reverting on articles that the former account was involved in such as Umar at Fatimah's house. One, 77.42.134.185, has been blocked already but another has appeared and continued in its wake on the same article topics and in the same manner: 218.213.226.210. . Requesting a swift block of the IP in question. Regards, ITAQALLAH 01:42, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

The ip appears to have been blocked since upon incivility issues, so hopefully the above purpose is also served. LessHeard vanU (talk) 10:17, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Assistance with Darimore

User appears to only exist to add spam links. Although the link is to a specific organization, the spamming is appearing on almost random pages - anything to do with food. Warnings have been placed... Best, A Sniper (talk) 02:51, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

WP:AIV if it continues. Hersfold 03:18, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

semen2.jpg

A long time image on the semen article has suddenly dissapeared, and now gives a red link. I've been unable to find it listed in any of the deletion requests queues, and there was nothing posted on the semen article regarding it being up for deletion, or anything like that. I also did a look on the commons site, in case it had been there, but could not locate anything about it there, either. It seems to have just vanished.

I found where it had been discussed for deletion in November of 2006, and then kept, but nothing recent. ]

If someone knowledgable about these things can find out what happened to it, and possibly return the image, that would be great. I'd hate to think that it was removed outside of the normal process. Atom (talk) 03:11, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Deleted on Commons.Geni 03:15, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I just found it there too. What is the deal with that? HOw can they delete an image that has had a delete request in the past with a Keep, and is currently used in one of our articles? With no notice? Atom (talk) 03:20, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Commons can delete pretty much whatever it likes (generaly due to copyright issues). In this case there was a better image and well someone may have been applying a version of Commons:Commons:Nudity#New_uploads but the deletion does seem somewhat odd.Geni 03:38, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I put in for a deltion review on commons. It is odd as the image has been in the semen article for two years, and survived a deletion request in November of 2006. Also, although a few opinions were that some other image was better, the content of the en.wikipedia article isn't their area, commons:nudity does not seem to apply. What I object to most, I guess is that there was no notification of the deltion request on the semen article. If there had been a number of people would have responded, and ironed out any confusion about it being a new or old image. Anyway, thanks for looking into this. I will try to iron it out over at commons. Atom (talk) 04:13, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm sure there would be no shortage of volunteers to provide a replacement photo. In fact, I'll be glad to do so. I just need to go get some eggwhite, like they do in prestigious exotic websites, since nobody can tell the difference from a couple of feet away. That's what I've heard tell, anyway. 0:) Baseball Bugs 05:13, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

And on that note, I think we've shot our wad on this one. UltraExactZZ ~ Evidence 14:16, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Entry's references are mostly from blogs

The article in question is 2006 Lebanon War photographs controversies. It relies almost entirely on slanted political blogs to make highly controversial insinuations; primarily that many of the photographs coming out of the 2006 Lebanon conflict were staged or fabricated.

Blogs are not reliable sources according to Misplaced Pages policy: Misplaced Pages:BLP#Reliable_sources and WP:SPS.

I'm not even suggesting the article should be deleted. Simply that it needs to be rewritten more neutrally and that the bulk of the article shouldn't be written around the claims of these dubious sources.

Thanks. Kitrus (talk) 08:42, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

I've reviewed the subsection which details the controversy and the blogs are being used as sources for statements made on those blogs, further supported by verifiable reliable sourced material from CNN and the AP which did stories on these blog postings. The subject of the section is the posting to the blogs and using them as the primary source, supported by secondary sources, is completely in line with the policies of Misplaced Pages. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 09:36, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

User:63.87.6.102 Continuing nuisance and personal attacks

User:63.87.6.102 Is the fixed IP of a well known nuisance editor aka: User:Yamchaken User: 6 synth pop

Previous misconduct includes Vandalism, POV pushing, Removal of content, Inappropriate remarks on talk pages and edit warring. User has had numerous warnings from editors about their conduct:

User talk:63.87.6.102

Recently the IP was banned for vandalism for one week. Concurrently two accounts by the same individual were blocked indefinitely for proven Sock puppetry:

Misplaced Pages:Suspected sock puppets/Yamchaken

Now IP ban has expired User has returned to edit warring. I gave individual a WP:3RR warning on their talk page to warn of consequences of continuing this course of conduct. This has resulted in personal homophobic abuse on the talk article which I referred to, this is clearly unacceptable:

"andi064 is very gay. he is cop so he can frisk other men touching there butts and doing other nasty stuff. stay away from this guy at all cost."

Talk:The_Human_League/Archive_1

I have not responded to the abuse, as this will just evolve into a personal dispute. This IP is nothing but a nuisance to Wikipeda and user is obviously is not getting the message from warnings and short blocks. Please consider a longer block and Admin warning for the personal attack. Thanks andi064 17:58, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Blocked for 3 months. I have templated the account, but don't feel it necessary to warn after the fact; they know why they are blocked. LessHeard vanU (talk) 10:27, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Thank You for your prompt attention. andi064 10:54, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

WP:OUTING or not WP:OUTING

Sigh. Ok. Time once again to ask for review of my actions. As a bit of background, I have had a couple of clashes with User:DreamGuy in the past, such that I long ago declared myself ineligible to act in an admin capacity towards him. Even moreso, I have generally stayed away from the articles he edits, as I just do not need to be involved in the level of drama that tends to swirl around him. I do however still have a number of things watchlisted that he gets involved with, particulatly the Jack the Ripper page and it's talk page. And it is from these that I saw something last night that I felt I needed to act upon. Not an action by DG, but rather one against him.

User:Berean Hunter, on the JtR talk page, made a couple of edits declaring that DG is actually a specific person within the Ripper author/theorist/etc community. Upon seeing these edits, WP:OUTING alert sirens went off in my brain. I then proceeded to delete the two edits in question from the talk page and gave BH a "one and only" warning on the subject. As I have never that I can remember interacted with BH previously, and while the actions I took were related to DG, but not against DG, I beleive I am OK as far as my situation of avoiding admin actions about DG. But while I wanted to state that reasoning, that's really not the reason I'm asking for review.

BH has returned this morning and, again on the JtR talk page, is questioning my application of WP:OUTING at all. See this edit for his response, but his general argument is that DG himself released his identity elsewhere on the net, and thus WP:OUTING does not apply. As I am not intimitely familiar with the ins and outs of WP:OUTING, I felt I should get some other admin input on whether I correctly applied the policy or whether I was off-base. - TexasAndroid (talk) 13:00, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

In my humble opinion, unless DG has himself revealed his name on wikipedia, it's not ok to post it here. But BH can claim not to have thought of that, so a warning is the way to go. If he posts it again though, further sanctions are needed. However, if DG is trying to push a theory he holds as an author (if he really is that person) then that's a possible WP:COI and might be relevant, but not to the extent perhaps of going down to names. Sticky Parkin 13:15, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

• Support: TA, "elsewhere on the net" is a ridiculous and absolutely inapplicable argument. In fact, the very meaning of the "outing" policy was to prevent people from taking something "elsewhere" and disrupting Wikipedians' ability to edit here in the conditions that Misplaced Pages promises. No one is going to draw up a list of "acceptable" other venues for a revelation of identity, and no one is going to argue how much of a confession is a revelation; it's all verboten. You were right. Geogre (talk) 13:27, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Wait, WHAT? When did that become the "meaning" of the outing policy? There's a very big difference between someone _else_ revealing someone's identity offsite (which is what the policy is supposed to prevent or at least prevent using that here) and someone revealing their _own_ identity. --Random832 (contribs) 14:29, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

To clarify, the outside sites being referred to by BH are not me revealing my own identity, it's him assuming someone with a similar username must be me and then adding links to personal attacks made by people on the web against the name found there to try to support his own personal attacks on me here. That's several major policy violations right there. Plus, if anyone with any sense looked at the results of the search he pointed at (which should also be deleted per OUT rules, they'd see that the accusations made there are pretty obviously over the top bizarre. One of the main people involved, if you do a search on that name, is mentioned as having been locked up on psychiatric charges for stalking all sorts of people, and another was User:Sollog (read his article for whether his claims against someone should be proof of someone being a troll -- err, looks like that article got deleted somewhere along the way. switched to user page, others can Google if they care, he still exists on Simple English Misplaced Pages), and so forth. The existence of libelous personal attacks on the web by people, the most important of which actually got locked up for them, is not proof of anything wrong being done here. DreamGuy (talk) 15:51, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

That's very different tune than what you said here this morning, where you didn't mind that they stayed. ..and you seem to know an awful lot about those users and other folk on the web for having just looked at it and not being familiar with the other identity..who just happens to be a published author in the field of Jack the Ripper (as you claim you are) and using your same handle for the last 6+ years..what a coincidence.⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 16:13, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

How in your head does my comment on my talk page at all contradict what I said above? You're just making accusations and hoping something sticks. You are well past needing a block, since you are unrepentant in your attacks and reliance on character assassination to try to get your way. DreamGuy (talk) 17:03, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

• Comment : I posted specific information to prove that he is intentionally trolling. (How-to Redacted) and look at the mountain of info (greater than 5 years) of specific info about him trolling. As I am trying to establish this as a pattern that precedes him and should be admissible...especially since it has been consistent with his Misplaced Pages activities. ⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 13:37, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

So you assumed bad faith, and try to use wild accusations you dug up on the net of some name you think you found as proof of this? Standard troll behavior is to call other people trolls. 100 million people could call someone a troll or other names and all it would prove is that people love to make wild accusations instead of dealing with real issues. You also need to consider the motives and reliability of the people making the accusation. Certainly the accusations of trolling on the JTR talk page are simply attempts at character assassination. I think a little looking into the accusations you find on the talk page will discover that the people making the claims cannnot be taken seriously. By your own admission you have violated several policies, and even if you think you are doing it for a good cause it's not an excuse. You need to understand the seriousness of what you've done and stop trying to rationalize it all away in an effort to make more personal attacks. I haven't even seen the accusations this time around about who they think I am, but certainly a similar username being used out there by someone isn't any sort of evidence. "DreamGuy" isn't exactly a rare nickname. DreamGuy (talk) 13:53, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree with this conclusion, though I can readily understand both the frustration level that BH has encountered as well as the outrage at discovering the CoI aparent. I went through these same feelings when I discovered the same thing (another CoI point exist aside from the one revealed by BH) last year, and think it is partly what leads him to be as disruptive an influence as he has been for years. However, outing is simply uncool.

This begs the question of how we address the Conflict of Interest without divulging personal information about the person? I would think it has to be addressed by admins, as it cannot really be addressed in open article discussion space, and you folks are the only ones with the private discussion boards. As I think that DG is going to insert those points he feels are important - because he has expressed such emphasis in other media - I think this oversight might be necessary.

Of course, the alternative would be to ask that DG be prohibited from editing JTR-related articles. That way, we avoid much of the WP:DRAMA that seems to tornado around him, and we also avoid the need for the additional CoI oversight (he's already under behavioral restriction from ArbCom). Thoughts? - Arcayne () 13:47, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Arcayne has been wikilawyering for years, and so alleging a COI is just the latest strategy of his. DreamGuy (talk) 13:53, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, had to switch browsers, for some reason typing text was delayed by about 30 seconds per character, so long posts weren't getting through, especially with page being editing while I typed. The above was supposed to include: It is especially bizarre considering that he has alleged that Colin4c, another editor on the page, is supposedly a published author in the field, and Arcayne has tried to use that as an excuse for why any conflict between me and Colin should result on Colin having his say. He didn't raise any COI concerns about Colin, but pretends to be worried about me. As far as alleged COI concerns go, I've told several admins watching the page over the years my name and background, and even a longtime bitter foe of mine, Elonka, knows it. If there were any real COI problems with my edits, which I bend over backwards to not make (perhaps even underrepresnting the views of people I am personally acquanited with), certainly Elonka or one of the other admins would have raised them eons ago. DreamGuy (talk) 14:14, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Oh, good we're all here! There's a specific conflict of interest noticeboard for such issues, but to be fair to DG, I don't think he's ever made any bones about his 'expertise'. Kbthompson (talk) 13:58, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Actually, he has; the insistence of the Goulston Street Graffito as being used by first "most" and then "many" is but one instance of that dismissal of other opinions that do not dovetail with his own. The difference between Colin and DG is that Colin doesn't push his published pov as being better than anyone else's - a point to his credit, I think. I hesitate to continue, due to outing concerns. I will take a look at the CoI noticeboard, and have emailed one of the admins here my specific concerns, sidestepping outing worries. - Arcayne () 14:19, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Your particularly bizarre interpretation of a personal conflict over a minor point in the article certainly isn't a COI issue, or else you could declare ANYTHING I ever say a COI by equally flimsy logic. And the fact of the matter is, Colin certainly has and does push view as better than everyone else's... or at least those who disagree with him anyway. DreamGuy (talk) 15:59, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

• Support: There's specific policy to support your actions, even when there are clues elsewhere on the net, or in real life. BH became incensed at the continuing drama and brouhaha at Jack the Ripper, and went a little OTT. As I keep tying to explain, the talk page is not the place to punt accusations back and forward. In addition, I should explain, I specifically recused myself from admin actions at JtR because I had an editing history there before I became an admin. It's a bit of a storm in a teacup, but if there are any admins left who haven't had experience of the participants, then independent eyes on that article are more than welcome. Cheers Kbthompson (talk) 13:52, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
• Support TexasAndroid's decision, especially considering BH's clearly misplaced rationale behind the attempted outing. DreamGuy (talk) 14:18, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Er, I think the user was looking for confirmation from other administrators, DG. Your opinion as the affected user is pretty clear aleady. - Arcayne () 15:06, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

• Support not only was the outing unnecessary, but BH's comments were little more than a blatant personal attack. Shell 14:28, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
• Question shouldn't the edits in question be oversighted? --Akhilleus (talk) 15:32, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

I emailed oversight to request removal of the edits. --Akhilleus (talk) 15:41, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

I would ask they remain at least long enough for this ANI to close. In the event, it comes into question and/or what I wrote needs explanation and those who are making judgments may be properly informed, please. ⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 15:47, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

• Comment about what looks like BH defying the warning -- If we agree that it was right to warn BH and remove the edits naming who he thinks I am, how is him naming the exact steps he used to try to identify me any different, functionally, as the intent and end result is exactly the same. He has done so at least twice since he was warned. Once above in his own response here, and one on the talk page of someone he hopes will join him in his conflict. If he's not supposed to be able to do this, he needs more than just a warning of one and one time only and then let him go ahead and do it multiple times later, he needs all such edits removed and maybe a block for defying the order (plus, as others have pointed out above, he other recent comments have included way over the top personal attacks, the kind that usually lead to immediately behavior blocks). DreamGuy (talk) 15:42, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
• Comment No, I'm not trying to defy any orders..I'm explaining my actions. The policy is meant to protect innocent people but not people who intentionally troll. This isn't about a simple revelation of identity but that the identity has a notable history of doing this. I don't imagine too many regular folk have such things printed on the web..but then there are also the things you wrote yourself which are revealing about your intentions...and No, I'm not wanting Jack to join into this (I like him too much for that). Since you went at him so often and drove him off I thought he might be interested in seeing it..that's all. I believe he is a self-proclaimed wikiGnome and doesn't usually butt heads with people. ⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 16:00, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

History of being accused is not proof, and it's disturbing that you not only can't tell the difference but that you purposefully don't want to and instead try to find some bizarre character assassination rationalization to justify your bad behavior. DreamGuy (talk) 17:03, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

I have to agree with DG's point about the How-to, though I give you the benefit of the doubt about you not doing it in defiance of my warning. I have removed the How-to from Jack1956's talk page history, though I left the bulk of your comment. Above, I have redacted the how-to from your comment, though I am unable to actually do anything about the history of it, as 1) there have been many edits here since, all of which include it, and 2) ANI's history is far too large for admins to actually delete specific edits. - TexasAndroid (talk) 16:24, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

• Comment: Suppose, on a blog that I run, I admit that I'm actually Ted Turner. Now, that blog uses the same user name as this: Utgard Loki (who knew Ted read Old Norse?). The fact that I might, there, reveal, to that audience, my name would not license anyone to come to Misplaced Pages, to this audience, and reveal that I own land in Montana and used to be married to Jane Fonda. The person doing so is actively going out and looking for my information. To say that it's ok then asks administrators at Misplaced Pages to decide, "Well, it's ok if it's a blog, but not if you dig three years back through Usenet" or "It's ok if it's five years ago on Usenet, but not if you go to high school newspapers" or, guess what, "It's ok in the online version of the high school newspaper, but getting information from the estranged best friend from high school who says she's sure that Utgard Loki is really Ashley Alexandra Dupre." That seems pretty messed up, if you ask me. Whether this user meant to release confidential information or not, bringing it in is just kind of... irrelevant or speculative or bad. Utgard Loki (talk) 17:17, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

As I noted before, this begs the question of how we address the Conflict of Interest without divulging personal information about the person. While I agree that BH was wrong to give any personal info or 'how-to', DG does indeed surrender their ID in normal netspace, though the simplest of methods (read: nothing sneaky or especially complex).

I still think the issue has to be addressed by admins, as it cannot really be addressed in open article discussion space, and you folks are the only ones with the private discussion boards. As I think that DG is going to insert those points he feels are important - because he has expressed such emphasis in other media - I think this oversight might be necessary. That DG has acknowledged the existence of CoI, and that he actively takes steps to avoid it are to be commended. Unfortunately, he has also claimed to be aware of the finer points of civility, and continues to fail in that respect. I think maybe he might need some assistance in ensuring that his edits to JTR-related articles remain free of CoI.

Again, a viable alternative would be to ask that DG be prohibited from editing JTR-related articles. That way, we avoid much of the WP:DRAMA that he seems to engender with his manner of editing; we also avoid the need for the additional CoI oversight (he's already under behavioral restriction from ArbCom). Thoughts? - Arcayne () 17:34, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Not sure if you will get a good answer in your question of the conflicts between WP:COI and WP:OUTING. Those two issues have been in conflict for quite a while now, with a number of debates right here on ANI on the issue. I've seen strong opinions on both sides, and I don't remember any specific resolution to the conflict between the two. - TexasAndroid (talk) 18:07, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

If there are administrators who already know the details of DG's identity and background, they should be able to evaluate claims of WP:COI without revealing any personal information. Not that I've seen a credible allegation of COI in this thread yet... --Akhilleus (talk) 18:16, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

I think that is a side issue that just muddies the primary purpose of the thread. It's not about DG's self confessed involvement with ripperean matters off-wikipedia; DG's behaviour, nor indeed other's behaviour - merely whether TexasAndroid was correct in removing the outing information. cheers Kbthompson (talk) 18:24, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

It seems like a conflict of interest would only come close to anonymity in importance if the person so accused were an administrator using some version of extraordinary powers. Therefore, if Jimbo is with some ladyfriend and then hard protects her article, people can say, "Ooooh, this is a conflict of interest that's worth knowing," because the extraordinary power of his position were being used to immunize him from regular reversion or oversight by other users. If you don't have some use of position then normal oversight and peer editing takes care of conflict of interest, and there is therefore no way that identity should be revealed. At least that's how it seems to me, but I'm gender confused. Utgard Loki (talk) 18:35, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Disruption by User:ROH Historian

ROH Historian (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

There seems to be some disruption going on with this user. He has been adding material that violates WP:RECENTISM and WP:NOTABILITY, despite being warned on his talkpage see here. See also this discussion at WP:PW. In response to the comments left by Tromboneguy0186 (talk · contribs) and Nikki311 (talk · contribs), ROH Historian accuses them of going on angry outbursts, which isn't the case. He also left a troubling statement on his userpage, which has since been blanked, with accusations directing towards other users. I think admin intervention might be needed here. Thanks, D.M.N. (talk) 13:08, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Appears to be a troll. I'm gonna' go leave him a civil message on his talk page, see if I can get him to stop. Will block if these things continue, as they're highly disruptive. Cheers. lifebaka++ 13:20, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

(e.c.) Also note and - D.M.N. (talk) 13:22, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Back and doing the same. Blocked for 24 hours. lifebaka++ 18:28, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

User:Signsolid:ownership, personal attacks, & failure to assume good faith

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

This user is getting very emotional in his/her attempts to delete longstanding material from the circumcision article. See discussion here. Seems to have limited understanding of some of our basic content policies. Articles (and See also links) deal with all aspects of a subject, not just from one point of view or the majority POV, but also tangential and related subject matter, including historical. -- Fyslee / talk 14:28, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

I have responded on the article talkpage, and issued Signgold a 3RR warning. LessHeard vanU (talk) 15:32, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

• Signsolid has made a WP:POINTy edit with a petulant summary, which has been reverted by a third party. As I have been involved in the immediately prior matter I do not feel I can deal with this. Is there anyone else willing to risk being referred to as a "weirdo" and advising the editor of the consequences of releasing content under the GDFL as well as violating point? I would comment that since they already have a 3RR warning that disrupting the encyclopedia in such a manner may be considered blockable, but I would be inclined to issue a further warning with explanation in this instance. LessHeard vanU (talk) 15:51, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

2 pro-circumcision editors removed my edits which changed the article from over emphasising the link between Jesus and circumcision, which would mislead readers into believing circumcision was related to Christianity or a Christian ritual as the image was posted right next to an image of Jews circumcising a baby. Yet there's no mention of Islam, who by far most circumcised men are Muslims. Signsolid (talk) 15:44, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

I am uncircumcised, and do not consider myself religious (while acknowledging I am the product of a predominantly Christian culture). I find the appellation "weirdo" quite cute, however. LessHeard vanU (talk) 15:55, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

BLP problems on Joji Obara?

On Talk:Joji Obara, a user claiming to be Mr. Obara's attorney has requested that the article be deleted because it contains false and libellous claims: . I suppose the user should be advised to contact OTRS or the Foundation or something, right? Should anything be done to the article in the meantime? --Akhilleus (talk) 14:32, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Oh, the user has also placed a (very detailed) prod template on the article: . --Akhilleus (talk) 14:34, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, contacting OTRS would be best. WP:NLT isn't applied there, thank goodness :) Plus we can confirm the email address the email is sent from is that of an attorney, etc. etc. Daniel (talk) 14:41, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

I actually asked about it to a user who has edited criminology a lot. Anyway, the alleged lawyer sepecialzing in such field seems to really exist in Japan according to googling.--Caspian blue (talk) 14:47, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Looks like it would be a good idea if some of the BLP experienced editors examined the article closely, including checking for newer sources. GRBerry 15:44, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

The IP user will complain about the article, even if the article is rewritten. He seems to strongly support Mr. Obara.--ACSE (talk) 17:38, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Review of block

Folks, I blocked an editor as noted on her talk page here: for using "the F-bomb" in this , edit summary. Please review it and tell me if I over-reacted. Bearian (talk) 14:48, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Needed a warning. —Wknight94 (talk) 14:52, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

I didn't see a prior warning, so a block may have been a bit much. I'd suggest a storng warning, and seeing if the user calmed down from there. Wildthing61476 (talk) 15:04, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree, the block seemed a bit harsh. I didn't look this over thoroughly, but generally a block isn't warranted for something like foul language unless there is a prior pattern of incivility going on. Shereth 15:24, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

By the way, I'm not quite certain that the statement "We don't use the f-bomb on Wiki" is accurate. The oft-cited WP:FUCK is a prime example to the contrary :) Shereth 15:28, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

I'll revert and post a warning. Bearian (talk) 15:46, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Admin. Jfdwolff has repetitively deleted my addition to Diabetes

I cannot leave a warning, because the User talk:Jfdwolff page is semi-protected. He systematically deletes from the lead of Diabetes my sentence adding monogenic diabetes (with a NIH reference) and its example MODY (wiki-linked), but he does NOT offer alternatives and just says I do not like it to be there. Monogenic diabetes constitutes 1-5% of all diabetes (]) 18 M cases in US; see ] (230 M worldwide; see ]), so - 180,000-900,000 cases in US (2.3-11.5 M worldwide), and he claims that it does not deserve a mention in the lead. So, how people will find its existence otherwise, please? Just one little sentence reading "Less common is a monogenic diabetes, e.g. MODY.".

I explained at User talk:162.84.184.38 that "your point of view on the INTRO is not supported by WP:LEAD; deletion with a frivolous explanation (e.g. yours "I really think...") qualifies as Blanking of WP:VANDALISM, because it was based on a private opinion, and additionally it contradicted the guidelines provided by WP:LEAD, because MODY is a distinctive type and monogenic diabetes is a distinctive group, without which diabetes is not presented completely" and repeated it on the Diabetes talk page. Why from 180,000 people with monogenic diabetes in US to 11.5 M worldwide have to be discriminated against in easy access to a basic info at Misplaced Pages, because sir Admin. Jfdwolff selected such fate for them (not popular enough), please? Is he God or eugenics is back or worse?(162.84.184.38 (talk) 15:27, 7 August 2008 (UTC))

This is a content dispute, work it out on the article's talk page. There are no actions taken by anyone involved that seem to need admin attention. lifebaka++ 15:43, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Also, the IP may want to check out WP:DR for some other ideas regarding dispute resolution if s/he feels the discussion on the talk page is not going anywhere. Shereth 15:45, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree with both of the above but wanted to add that I placed a notice for the admin, whose talkpage seems to have been recently infinitely semi-protected. --Moonriddengirl 15:46, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

JFW has provided more than reasonable explanation of his reverts here. Please be kind enough to review them before reinstating the information. It is not him reverting your edits which is the problem, it is you readding the information before consensus from other editors has been sought after. —Cyclonenim 16:28, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

After reading the page history, I'm inclined to side with Jfdwolff here. However, this should be discussed on the article talk page. Please don't expect such a major addition to be accepted at face value; consensus for this should be gathered on the article talk page first. Stop forum shopping. Tan ǀ 39 16:55, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Continued baiting and harassment by User:GoRight

Backstory: Over the past few days, User:GoRight and myself have found ourselves on the opposite sides of a scuffle over on The Great Global Warming Swindle. GoRight is part of a small but ferocious contingent of somewhat-tendentious editors who came to the article after some conservative commentators wrote bitchy Op-Eds about how unfair the article was to noble global warming "skeptics" who falsify data. For backstory, check the history of that article.

To get to the point of this post: Yesterday, I received the following post on my talk page: . While under most circumstances this would be a friendly reminder (and a great alternative to a uw-template!), under these particular circumstances I take it as nothing more than baiting from Stock Character #593: "The Civil POV-Pusher". He and his cohorts have behaved the exact same way on the talk page of TGGWS, demanding sources that say the sky is blue, opening a RfC using perhaps the most inflammatory "civil" language possible, and so on.

I responded , asking him to kindly refrain from posting on my talk page. There are other editors and admins on the Global Warming Swindle page whose judgement I actually trust who would no doubt be happy to warn anyone who was crossing the line in this regard.

This morning, I received this message: .

I would appreciate the voice of a third party, since he was clearly unable to comprehend my request, and seemingly unable to stop himself. I am not adverse to a "mutual agreement" that would keep both of us off the other's talk page, if that's the only "comfortable" solution. Thanks in advance, and sorry for the tl;dr --Badger Drink (talk) 16:36, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

As an aside, I would appreciate a third-party being the one to inform him of this thread - I know it's customary for the complaint-issuer to do the informing, but in this case I believe that a warning from myself would be taken poorly. --Badger Drink (talk) 16:40, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

As clearly documented in my second reply, I am merely following the recommended dispute resolution processes. Where they direct me to leave a message on the user's talk page I don't know that I have any choice. Under these circumstances should I instead move directly to WP:ANI as Badger Drink has done here? It seems that there are a number of dispute resolution steps to be applied before this, but I will defer to the judgment of the administrators here on this point.

Regarding the notices I have placed on Badger Drink's user page I have no specific quarrel with him other than he treat me in a WP:CIV manner and refrain from making personal attacks in violation of WP:NPA. I am not contacting Badger Drink for any purpose other than to stop his aggressive behavior against me. I think that the record will show that I have been nothing but civil in this discourse. --GoRight (talk) 17:10, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

GoRight has a substantial history of disrupting these pages. Looking at his RFC, a plurality of editors endorsed Stephan Schulz's comment that everything I said in my initial discussion (summarizing GoRight's misbehavior, including his BLP violations) there was accurate, and further that he contribute virtually nothing to the encyclopedia and has a history of disruption to make a point and inserting "laughably wrong" material into the encyclopedia. Furthermore, the second most supported comment said (essentially) that GoRight has misbehaved, but so have other people. I think administrative action is necessary. Raul654 (talk) 18:00, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

I will point out the following in response:

1. As one of the certifiers in the above mentioned RfC, Raul is not a neutral party.
2. Raul's comment does not actually address the topic raised in this incident, but is instead an attempt on his part to WP:FORUMSHOP for action against me when he has failed in his last two such attempts.
3. I have taken the RfC process to heart and have been voluntarily adopting a WP:1RR policy (although there may be rare exceptions) and I have been consistently WP:CIV in my edit summaries and talk page comments.
4. I draw everyone's attention to the last two paragraphs of Misplaced Pages:NPA#Personal_attacks.
5. Accordingly, my past behavior is not at issue here. What is at issue, or should be at least, is the fact that I am receiving uncivil comments and personal attacks from Badger Drink and I merely want them to stop.

--GoRight (talk) 18:24, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

189.192.xxx.xxx

IP range block needed here again - two prior blocks but more and more and more vandalism on a daily basis. I have been doing temp blocks on the IPs as I find them but obviously this really doesn't help much. Can a larger range be blocked this time? This person is a real nuisance and nothing s/he has ever modified has been a legitimate or constructive edit. IP addresses so far found here: Thanks...... eo (talk) 17:13, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Can you narrow it down any? Thatcher 18:03, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

I checked and there is almost no one else on that range, so blocked one month anon/ACB. Thatcher 18:19, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

1. "Monogenic Forms of Diabetes: Neonatal Diabetes Mellitus and Maturity-onset Diabetes of the Young". National Diabetes Information Clearinghouse (NDIC). National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases, NIH. Retrieved 2008-08-04. {{cite news}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards