Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 18:56, 3 November 2008

• WP:ANI
• WP:AN/I

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

• Before posting:
  • Consider other means of dispute resolution first
  • Read these tips for dealing with incivility
  • If the issue concerns a specific user, try discussing it with them on their talk page
  • If the issue concerns use of admins tools or other advanced permissions, request an administrative action review
  • 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)

• Blocks for promotional activity outside of mainspace
• Voluntary RfAs after resignation
• Two-factor authentication for page movers
• Proposed rewrite of WP:BITE
• LLM/chatbot comments in discussions

User:Tundrabuggy

Proposal: 1-month topic ban for Tundrabuggy

Proposed: Tundrabuggy is prohibited from editing in the topic area of ancient Persia for the month of November, 2008, due to abovementioned stalking and topical problems. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 22:12, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Summary

People have requested below that some diffs be provided to provide info on this issue. Key points:

• Tundrabuggy has a prior history of conflict with me due to our mutual involvement in Muhammad al-Durrah, an article relating to contemporary Israeli politics.
• Tundrabuggy has since followed me to five pages on ancient Persian history in which he was not previously involved, but involved himself very shortly after I did - Cyrus cylinder, Cyrus the Great, Battle of Opis, Kaveh Farrokh and Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Battle of the Tigris.
• He has been canvassed twice by editors in dispute with me: first by an unnamed administrator who "wrote me in email some days later suggesting I look at the page and its Talk page", , second by the now-blocked Ariobarza . He responded to both canvasses by involving himself in those disputes.
• He has accused me of "pushing a particular pov" and of being part of a "campaign" to push a "pro-Palestinian nationalist perspective" of ancient Babylonian history . Many other editors regard this as ridiculous, as do I.
• He constantly assumes bad faith of myself and engages in sophistry and unreasonable behaviour, indicating that he has a personal issue with me; see this exchange.
• Other editors and I have asked him to desist from this pattern of behaviour. , , . Instead of responding to these concerns, he has dismissed them out of hand.
• He appears to be intent on treating Misplaced Pages as a battleground, sustaining personal conflicts and importing ideological issues into new areas. I have left him alone since our conflict over Muhammad al-Durrah; he has not reciprocated, but seems to think that he has to "police" my edits. -- ChrisO (talk) 12:53, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
• (added) A longer discussion of this issue has been split over to Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents/User:Tundrabuggy

Support:

• Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 22:12, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
• See my comments below. ChrisO (talk) 12:01, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
• Support. A classically obvious example of our need to protect expert contributors from ideology-driven ignoramuses. That is one of the most urgent quality issues that Misplaced Pages faces, IMO. Bishonen | talk 12:15, 2 November 2008 (UTC).
• Support. I've been observing this from a distance for a long time now. We need to stop "travelling circuses" where edit-warriors import their pet ideological battles into completely unrelated subjects. --Folantin (talk) 15:15, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
• Support strongly, now Chris0 has complied with Jehochman's request. There is no need to drag this to another page. I have another example of this wikistalking behaviour on my own page, Ashley Kennedy, a fine, hard-working content editor, has been banned for a week for expressing (with highly improper language) his frustration at it, while the stalker persists. It has returned with brio to I/P wiki pages recently. This is becoming a farce, and the stalking, and tacit collaboration with it by many otherwise reasonable editors threatens to create a precedent or pattern way beyond the I/P area.Nishidani (talk) 22:50, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Oppose:

• I'm not seeing the stalking issue. I've been following the edits of all three of them for some time, and despite the rhetoric from ChrisO and Nishidani, I'm not seeing any major issues with Tundrabuggy's work. --Elonka 22:37, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
• Not seeing any on-going issue. Jayjg 00:49, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

• This isn't simply about "on-going issues" - it's about a pattern of behaviour. I don't want to find Tundrabuggy dogging my heels throughout this topic area because of his peculiar belief that I'm promoting a "pro-Palestinian nationalist POV" of ancient Persian history (seriously, that's tinfoil hat stuff). -- ChrisO (talk) 18:36, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

• There's definitely a "pattern of behaviour" here, though not the one you refer to. Jayjg 00:47, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

• I'm not convinced by the discussion above that Tundrabuggy's doing anything wrong, much less deserving of a month long topic ban. Last time I checked, getting rid of your opponents isn't one of the steps you should be using in conflict resolution. Shell 22:27, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose I see mostly content disputes here, behavior of both ChrisO and Tundrabuggy is this conflict is not exemplary (per Jayjg analysis) but I do not see how a long block is warranted to either of them Alex Bakharev (talk) 02:46, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Comments:

The evidence won't go stale. Why not wait a few days and start a topic ban discussion on WP:AN when things may be calmer. I would prefer to see the evidence presented in a clear fashion, rather than rely on people new to the discussion to dig through an ANI thread trying to work out what has happened. Topic bans are, in my opinion, best started in a new venue, not started from an ANI thread. In theory, the result of the topic ban discussion should be the same, regardless of where and when it is held, so why not see if the result really would be the same if held in a few days time on AN, with a careful presentation of the evidence? If the discussion remains here, could someone do an executive summary rather than rely on the phrase "abovementioned stalking and topical problems" to refer people to the above? i.e. distill out the most relevant diffs and evidence. Carcharoth (talk) 22:36, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Agree with Carcharoth. This proposal won't get full consideration because editors will not want to wade through a long, boring, disorganized thread. It would be far better to provide a concise summary of the evidence on a new thread. Jehochman 08:35, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

I happen(ed) to be against a one month topic ban, (as opposed to a permanent ban against following Chris0 in non I/P articles) which seems punitive and extreme. I just don't want him trailing a competent, trained historical editor into areas Tundra knows nothing about, but has lynx-eyes for all potential POVs he reads as 'anti-Israeli', a farcical position. I twice wrote as much, (oppose) until I saw two remarks, in successive edit conflicts last night which gave personal opinions, without evidence, and that simply declare 'I support Tundrabuggy'. I therefore withdrew my comment. Leave aside my own analysis of what Tundrab.'s own words mean, if analysed (what Elonka calls 'rhetoric'). By all means give a snap summary of the gist on the other administrative page. But by his own admission he was a proxy in vote-stacking organized by a canvassing admin. This is not a partisan matter, but simply remarking on the obvious, which has to be construed 'rhetorically' (i.e. at length) because some editors refuse to note the obvious meaning of words, giving the impression this is a 'political' fight over I/P POVs. Since Tundrabuggy is convinced there is a political bias in all I/P editors who write on ancient ME history, not take some measure, here or elsewhere, is to open up these obscure pages to the kind of one-eyed POV-sleuthing that makes contemporary I/P articles an unreadable mess. He should simply not edit where Chris0 works on ancient historical articles not dealing directly with the history of Palestine, until at least he shows he has read sufficiently to have a reasonably solid knowledge of the area. Nishidani (talk) 09:53, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Oops. This is absolutely incorrect: "But by his own admission he was a proxy in vote-stacking organized by a canvassing admin." I was simply recruited to "Cyrus Cylinder" by an admin. The "vote" for the Battle of Tigris article was solicited by the author, not by any admin, and I take responsibility for my "vote" for the reasons I gave earlier. I have however come to see that as a mistake, but it has nothing to do with any administrator. Tundrabuggy (talk) 13:51, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

"Votestacking" isn't necessarily about AfDs. WP:CANVASS: "Votestacking is an attempt to sway consensus by selectively notifying editors who have or are thought to have a predetermined point of view or opinion ... and thus encouraging them to participate in the discussion." You were recruited by someone who saw you as an ideological ally. -- ChrisO (talk) 15:48, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

ChrisO, when you explain "votestacking", are you referring to these edits? ? I notice quite a few people contacted in that way have been prominent in this discussion. Jayjg 22:15, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Individuals who were already or very recently involved in discussions on my talk page, or Ariobarza's talk page, about issues with Ariobarza and (in a couple of cases) Tundrabuggy. I certainly don't think you could consider individuals as diverse as Akhilleus, Jaakobou and Alvestrand to be supporters of any particular POV. Of course, this is quite different from off-wiki stealth canvassing by an unnamed administrator. Which you would presumably consider bad, right? I've not seen a word of concern from you about that issue. I wonder why? -- ChrisO (talk) 22:35, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

ChrisO, you appear to be trying to change the subject, which was your own complaint about "votestacking" even as you were doing it in this very situation. Jayjg 00:47, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

I would support a ban - preferably longer than a month, but that's a good start. Tundrabuggy consistently refuses to assume good faith on my part, which makes working with him unnecessarily difficult. Read this exchange for a case in point. He clearly has personal difficulties with working with me as well as an aggressively ideological approach. He responded to an improper off-wiki canvass. Since then he's actively gone to several articles in which I've been involved, deliberately following me from article to article and creating conflict. He's already been counseled several times that this is inappropriate behaviour. Since he has repeatedly disregarded the advice of others and requests to desist, something stronger needs to be tried. -- ChrisO (talk) 12:01, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

(added) I've added a summary of key points and diffs above per Jehochman's suggestion. However, I think it should be kept in one place rather than splitting it into multiple threads. -- ChrisO (talk) 12:54, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Could you provide a diff down here, to the edit you made above? I scanned the thread, but I think it got lost in the noise. Carcharoth (talk) 02:13, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

See the Summary immediately below #Proposal: 1-month topic ban for Tundrabuggy. -- ChrisO (talk) 08:26, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Arbcom Elections

I am all caught up in electoral fervor, watching fox news about 7 hours a day. I was told about Misplaced Pages; the upcoming Arb Com elections already have my interest. This is my first edit: 30 October 2008 -- I am looking for a few mentors and a team to get me prepped to run for Arb Com by December. Please point me in the right direction so I can help lead Misplaced Pages into 2009! Morris Battle (talk) 02:14, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

...And blocked. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 02:20, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

...And bitten. Was that really necessary? Even vandals get warnings, and this guy appears to have good intentions, if unrealistic goals. Mangojuice 02:27, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Mangojuice, why was a block appropriate here? I am not seeing any imminent danger to the project. --Elonka 02:32, 31 October 2008 (UTC) amended post below

Unless there is some other information we are not privy to, I echo Mangojuice (talk · contribs)'s confusion as to why this user was blocked. Cirt (talk) 02:33, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

(multiple edit conflicts) I think he should use his original account if he's interested in running for ArbCom. (Does anyone really find it plausible that I bit a new user here? His very first edit was the above post to AN/I. His three subsequent edits were tag-bombing an obscure science article. It took him less than three minutes to discover that he was blocked and figure out how to write a disingenuous {unblock} on his talk page.) I will resign my adminship right here and now if a consensus develops that I actually bit a newbie in this instance. Y'all were trolled. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 02:36, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The user’s first edit was the one above followed by three edits adding tags to an obscure article. I agree with TenOfAllTrades’s assessment of this user being a troll. —Travis 02:39, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

I think this user wants power and I don't trust that. I think his tag-bombing was probably designed to give the account the appearance of legitimacy. So yes, I agree, this behavior isn't good. But I do think it's too early to conclude that this user will never do anything but troll. Mangojuice 02:40, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Very bad block if ever I saw one. And by golly have I seen some. Sarah777 (talk) 02:42, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Okay, though on first glance I was scratching my head here, I'm starting to come around to Tenofalltrades' view. This new account does seem to have extensive knowledge of wiki-procedures, and this edit is highly suspect as he tagged the Cytomere article as a hoax. Granted the stub could use more sources, but to put in an edit summary "can't find any references", when even a simple Google search shows it's a valid term, is not reasonable. Though I think it would been better to warn first and block second, I do support the block at this point. --Elonka 02:44, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

OK - I'd bet real money he's a troll (apologies Morris, if you're not) - but where isWP:AGF? Sarah777 (talk) 02:47, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) To Sarah777: Perhaps you don’t speak Morris’s language, but to someone fluent in it, their first edit is, to say the least, disingenuous. —Travis 02:51, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Travis declined the unblock request, and I've left a note explaining the block just in case. I expect that if the user comes back with a good answer they'll be given a second chance, since this was a stronger reaction than truly necessary. Mangojuice 02:53, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Elona- rubbish AfDs because people haven't even bothered to google to see if there are sources happen all the time, so I bet tagging things as a hoax without googling happens sometimes too.:) Mind you, most new users perhaps wouldn't know or care what arbcom is, let alone run for it. Sticky Parkin 03:14, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

• Support the deserved block. There have been a rash of new accounts crop up lately, make strange AN/ANI postings, and then post some obscure crap elsewhere. I'm sure it's some teenager jacking around or a serial troll. Nothing new. seicer | talk | contribs 03:40, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Eh, block wasn't necessary. Highly likely to be a troll but blocking simply created more drama than anything else. The post would have been ignored or we would have given the user a polite explanation. And in the unlikely case this was a real user it would have been a very bad bite. JoshuaZ (talk) 03:59, 31 October 2008 (UTC) Thinking about this more, I'm not sure I want blocks like this in general, but there does seem to be a major DUCK element to this block which is reasonable. I doubt any real user would run right over to ANI to post this sort of thing as the very first edit. JoshuaZ (talk) 20:26, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

• What an absolutely horrible block. I think Ten need a short block to remind him of wiki policy. Bstone (talk) 04:40, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
• I consider it possible that Morris Battle lives under a bridge, is a "smallish giant" , possibly akin to ogres , and inclined to eat up any goats who attempt to cross the bridge. Edison (talk) 04:50, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

de-lurk (I'm retired, dammit :) ) - this is a  Confirmed Wiki_brah/Jeanlatore sock, yet again. Here for the lulz and the trolling. Nothing to see here, folks, move along now - Alison 04:53, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you Alison -- either you read my post or read my mind.  :) Antandrus (talk) 05:00, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Someone contacted me off-wiki. Good guess, though :) - Alison 05:05, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Next time I won't say anything here, I'll just block the troll and be done with it. Sorry for letting all of you get sucked into feeding the troll. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 05:33, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I would prefer if you did say something, because the alternative would be just as bad, as the no-explanation block would also raise questions. A better way to handle this, would have been to post a reply here at ANI with a bit more information as to why you blocked. I have to admit, when I first saw this thread, I saw what looked like an overeager newbie posting something, and then your immediate block made it look like you had blocked him for saying he wanted to run for ArbCom. It appeared (on first glance) to be an over-reaction bite of a newbie. Many established editors and admins here are already on pins and needles as we await both the on-wiki (ArbCom) and off-wiki (US) elections, and the concept that someone was blocked just for saying that they wanted to run for ArbCom, understandably got some hackles up. So if you would have posted something such as, "Based on this user's other contributions, this appears to be a troll, so I am blocking," that would have de-escalated the situation. Or, you could have simply chosen to not block, but post a warning to the user's talkpage, and a message here that you felt it was a troll (and why). But just saying "blocked" without any reason, was what increased the confusion. --Elonka 16:42, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

The thing is, even after the detailed explanation from multiple users, we still had people chiming in to tell me what a terrible admin I was for making the block, right up until a couple of minutes before Alison ran a checkuser to confirm what was patently obvious from the user's contributions. People are telling me not to bite and to WP:AGF. Well, AGF is a two-way street. Why can't people be willing to assume that in four years of Misplaced Pages experience (most with the admin buttons), I might have a bit of a clue? Why is the automatic assumption made that the Big Bad Admin must be oppressing the innocent newcomer?

Elonka, you've been editing Misplaced Pages almost as long as I have. Instead of immediately agreeing with Mangojuice, why didn't you look at the guy's contributions? Anyone with some experience on Misplaced Pages's high-traffic noticeboards should know what a troll looks like by now. While you're right that I should have been more descriptive in my first message, I honestly thought that the block would be both obvious and uncontroversial. I will also note that even after my explanation was posted we still got at least four editors (Cirt, Mangojuice, Sarah777, Bstone) insisting I was wrong (with varying amounts of invective). If we're genuinely at the point where we can't block obvious, returning, block-evading socks without needing a Checkuser every time, we're very deep in the shit indeed. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 20:15, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

I think the point is that an experienced user should also know that this sort of misunderstanding and thread is common (you have seen threads like this before in your time on Misplaced Pages, right?) so an extension of the "experienced user" argument is that a warning, followed by a block if there were subsequent edits, would have been slightly more effort, but would have avoided the possibility of this thread. I suppose you might not have had time to hang around and see if the troll carried on editing after the warning, or you might have been worried that another admin might have wasted time with another warning, when you had correctly assessed that this was a troll, but in these mental calculations and cost-benefit analysis, did you consider the cost of this ANI thread? I suppose the benefit of this ANI thread is that those reading it are now less likely to react like this in future. Maybe you, Elonka, Cirt, Mangojuice, Sarah777, and Bstone could clarify how they would react to a similar situation in future, and we can try and avoid ANI threads like this in future (or at least work out how to close them efficiently and sensibly). Carcharoth (talk) 05:55, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

There are a large number of admins who have been round long enough, shown good faith and care often enough, that when they do summarily block an account, they are unlikely to be doing so on a completely unreasonable basis. Perhaps mistaken in good faith, but usually well within reasonable judgement and with forethought. Users who develop enough cluefulness to spot disruptive users early should obviously still take care, but it's more in line with assuming good faith to ask them for more explanation, rather than just diving in to declare it a bad block or whatever. Those who have complained about this thread being on ANI should note that the blocked sock-user himself started the ANI thread, and should expect a competent admin to spot the trolling and quickly deal with it. That said, Elonka's point is a reasonable one too. FT2  08:31, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

There are at least three problems with the warning-only approach. The first is philosophical. Why give a warning only when the purpose of the account is obvious? It's a waste of my time and it's a waste of the time of the admin who eventually blocks later. It's also damned disingenuous — why should I pretend to be clueless when I'm not? What should I say in a message that isn't utterly phony? What is the point of a message that says, 'You're obviously a troll, but I'm not going to block you because I'll get grief for it from less-perceptive editors at AN/I'?

The second is that it offers the opportunity to make the trolling more effective. We offer an oh-so-stern warning while the troll laughs up his sleeve. He then goes ahead and continues trolling here or on his talk page, while some suckers fall for his innocent act and rail against the Evil Newbie-Biting Admin.

The final issue is the risk of harm to the encyclopedia. If the troll actually does stop (for a couple of hours, even) then he's free to resume the same behaviour later on. Be honest — are there any admins here who have the time and inclination to follow a trolling account's contributions for more than a couple of hours? In a few days, he's got an autoconfirmed account that can be used for much more serious mischief (and this is a problem I've seen multiple times). Heck, he can clear his talk page and it's at least even money that no one will even notice that the first warning was issued. We go on and repeat the 'final' warning cycle two or three times.

I've finally realized my mistake here. I should have followed the process at WP:RBI. No attention at all for the troll. I had hoped that this experience could be educational and helpful to new admins and admin candidates who read this board. I had hoped to demonstrate that we could demonstrate that we could respond quickly and effectively to obvious trolls, without a lot of wasted time and effort. Obviously a different lesson was delivered. Next time I'll blank the whole thread and block without comment, and leave the armchair admins in blissful ignorance. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 18:05, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. Revert the ANI post (with a note in the edit summary), block as a troll. Any subsequent discussion would be on the talk page of the blocked account. For what it is worth, I think some admins reading this will have learnt more about how to spot trolls, so as I said, the thread wasn;t entirely wasted. Carcharoth (talk) 05:04, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

It's really amazing to me how hard some long-time contributors allow themselves to be trolled. Seriously. Grandmasterka 07:33, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, and saying that helps how? Hindsight is a wonderful thing. I agree that the initial post above was obviously trollish, but the point about trolls is that they are trying to fool people and they do, by their very nature, succeed sometimes. That is why you have to manage not just the initial trolling, but also the response (including educating people about how to spot a troll). Carcharoth (talk) 05:04, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

This entire thread is one big WIN for Mr. Troll. Tan | 39 05:10, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Trolls exist. By definition not everyone recognises them. Arguing over who should be trusted to recognise them and whether the troll has "won" or not is not productive. There is a reason why the standard response is revert, block, ignore. That didn't happen here, but there is no harm in learning lessons. Carcharoth (talk) 05:14, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm glad that you've had a chance to learn a lesson too, Carcharoth. Twenty-four hours ago you were telling me that the correct response would be to not block, and offer a warning. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 05:24, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Exactly. I was wrong (I have no problem admitting that), and we've both learnt something. The trick is, if someone picks up on the block or the revert, is to: (a) explain calmly if you are around; and (b) if people do get fooled into discussing the trolling while you are not around (note that we are not discussing the trolling, but the response to the trolling), to diplomatically minimise that response and not castigate people for being fooled. Saying "Y'all were trolled" might be true, but you are feeding the troll by saying that. No-one takes kindly to being told that they've been fooled, and it is part of the response the troll wants to see. Note that the checkuser by Alison cleared things up like a shot. Technically, that shouldn't be needed, because as you say most people should recognise the troll. But if people do get fooled, checkuser is a good way to pick up a sock-troll. Really, though, we should both stop here. If you want to say something more, by all means do, but I'm now going to respect the 'resolved' tag and move on from this - lessons learnt! Carcharoth (talk) 06:21, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

• Obvious troll. Props to the admin responsible for blocking. JBsupreme (talk) 05:32, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Review of A Man In Black's block of Jtrainor

A Man in Black has been in a content dispute with multiple parties over his claim of a copyvio for general information in a infobox on Gundam (mobile suit). He has threatened and followed through on blocking Jtrainor in blatant violation of our blocking policy in the following manner: You do not block those who you are involved in a content dispute with. I would suggest that Jtrainor is unblocked immediately and AMIB be reminded that you do not use the tools to gain an advantage in a content dispute and that blocking is not to be used in a purely punitive manner. There was no other dispute resolution tried other than AMIB threatening this user. Thank you. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 09:37, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure that "this is a copyvio" constitutes a content dispute. Misplaced Pages is not a bureaucracy, and citing "policies" will get you nowhere. Admittedly, it might have been a better idea to ask somebody else to block, but I'm not sure that an immediate unblock is warranted.

Also, it's a long-standing practice to block people who insert copyvios – it's not necessarily punitive, but deterrent (which is, of course, a legitimate preventative purpose for a block). — Werdna • talk 09:49, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

I understand that he claims it is a copyvio, however, claiming that a character has blonde hair or a spaceship has laser beams does not seem to be copyvio, but simply a ploy to hide the fact that he's attempting to camouflage his violation (which is threatening to use the mop to quell dissent and gain advantage in a simple content dispute). Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 09:54, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm having a look at this. The relevant diff seems to be here. The website in question is here. The next few edits to Gundam (mobile suit) were reverts of this information about the character. One of the reverts was by Kyaa (who started this thread and should have mentioned that she was involved in this). Kyaa was carrying out the same edit as User:Jtrainor, but Jtrainor was the only one to re-add the information more than once. Presumably that is why User:A Man In Black blocked, but I need to check the user and article talk pages and the block logs, and check they've been notified. I'll do that now, as well as consider the copyvio claim. Carcharoth (talk) 11:10, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Initial follow-up: there is another article involved: MSN-03 Jagd Doga. See this diff and this website and then step through the page history from there. Kyaa mentioned this thread on Jtrainor's talk page, but didn't link to the thread, so I've left a link there, and at AMIB's talk page. Looking at the block log and contributions now to find out if this is being discussed elsewhere. Carcharoth (talk) 11:21, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

I've found another article where this dispute has erupted. See RGM-89 Jegan, where with this edit AMIB says " All of this is copyvio from mahq.net" (). The root of the dispute seems to be at Template:Infobox Mobile Suit. It seems to go back as far as November 2007. See here (compare with Infobox MS Gundam, now a redirect). There was an edit war over that infobox back in November 2007. Then things started up again a few days later with this edit and this edit ("Why do we have two infoboxes for the same thing?" - from User:TheFarix), which led to this edit by AMIB ("Because I never finished converting them to dump all the in-universe nonsense"). The diffs for that infobox from here to here seem to sum up what is happening:

• AMIB - "Dumping a bunch of unencyclopedic in-universe detail; a lot of this still needs to be retooled to better emphasize RL, but hey"
• TheFarix - "rvt; given past opposition. The fields previously removed where those suggested by proponents as unnecessary"
• AMIB - "It's still highly in-universe, unencyclopedic, and wholly unsourced"
• L-Zwei - "oh, then exclude heigh as well. I think weapons are actually more important in represent mech's characteristic"
• TheFarix - "I agree, the height and weight doesn't really tell you anything about the mecha while aremaments and special equipmenet does"
• AMIB - "It's not the most important facts about the subject as an object in the real world. If a weapon or special system is important, it's in the body of the article. If it isn't, it doesn't bear mention"
• TheFarix - "rvt; You are not going to dictate what can and cannot be included in the infobox without discussion and consensus. You don't WP:OWN this template"
• AMIB - "Offer a single non-licensed source discussing the armaments in the detail that these infoboxes go into and I'll relent"
• Jtrainor - "rv vandalism by someone who has no interest or knowledge about the subject matter and insists on inserting his version anyways against consensus"
• AMIB - "Reverted edits by Jtrainor (talk) to last version by A Man In Black"

OK. That's enough for now. I think I've uncovered enough of the history for something sensible to be decided. Hopefully AMIB and Jtrainor will add more if I missed anything. Carcharoth (talk) 11:42, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Missed a few. See Template talk:Infobox Mobile Suit and Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Gundam. Particularly the sections Ahem (from the November 2007 dispute), and Redesign (the October 2008 dispute). At the WikiProject, we have numerous threads showing clashes between AMIB and the WikiProject. Starting from around here (June 2007). More clashes are here, here, here, here, here, here (what is the "I believe the differing parties are engaged in a resolution process occupying their attention right now" referring to - from November 2007?), and here (the latest dispute in October 2008). So what we seem to have is a long-running dispute over in-universe and possible copyvio stuff, running from at least June 2007 through July 2007, November 2007, and now October 2008. Anyone have any ideas how to handle this? What was the resolution process back in November 2007? The first "Characters and Episodes" arbitration case? Carcharoth (talk) 12:06, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

And more to point, was the block justified? I'm not entirely convinced that the copyvio case is not debatable, but I do see a long running attempt by AMIB to clean up an in-universe area (the Gundam anime articles), along with dealing with copyright issues (non-free images and possibly character information - if that turns out to be copyrightable - see for example the note AMIB left for Kyaa ), and a long history of resistance at the WikiProject and poor interaction between AMIB and Jtrainor, culminating in the confrontational exchange here: Copyright warning by AMIB, "Why yes, please do block someone you are involved in a content dispute with. I am utterly underwhelmed by your threats." (Jtrainor), followed by "Well, okay. You're blocked for 24 hours. Please don't do that again." (AMIB). The block is due to expire 08:47 UTC, 2 November 2008, which is around 20 hours from now. No response yet from either side. I would hope AMIB manages to answer here before the block expires - someone should also keep an eye on Jtrainor's talk page for any response there. Carcharoth (talk) 12:22, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

I've seen blocks overturned, due to the block being done by "involved admins" - overturned on far flimsier grounds than this. It looks to me like AMIB simply doesn't like that info being in the article, and is using whatever reasons he can come up with, to keep it out. It looks like blatant abuse of admin power. Baseball Bugs 12:14, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The simple fact is that AMIB is POV pushing in template and article space. His claim that listing the armaments and other statistics of fictional elements amounts to a copyright violation is simply the latest argument he has used in order to remove these statistics. Originally, it was that the statistics overwhelm the page giving WP:UNDUE weigh to in-universe details, that they violate WP:WAF, or that no reliable third-party sources list such information. At no point has he ever sought a third opinion or any other dispute resolution procedure, instead preferring to use his administrative tools to enforce his preferred version.

If you also look at WT:GUNDAM who will see a long history of AMIB and the Gundam WikiProject bumping heads over various issues. At times, I do think that AMIB is deliberately antagonizing them. As a result, the WikiProject has lost its focus in cleaning up and improving Gundam-related articles. This is one of the reason why I've suggested that WP:ANIME absorbs WP:GUNDAM as a work group. --Farix (Talk) 12:23, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

I saw that. AMIB does make some good points though. There is a point at which sourcing/copying character information from a website probably can become a copyright violation. The essential points are whether the basic elements of the information is copyrightable (probably not), and whether the information as a whole for a character, or set of characters, is copyrightable (a bit like a database copyright, but not quite the same as here we have artistic content). If Misplaced Pages is presenting the information here in the same way as it is being presented on the official websites, then we are, in effect, directly competing with them for web traffic, even if some of our readers follow the links to the sources and to the official website. It is also easier to justify including such information when it is discussed and placed in a real-world context in the main text of an article (using third-party sources) rather than just repeated verbatim as in-universe information in an infobox. One final point - it is possible for different editors, working over months and years, to separately add stuff from a source, and for the final article to end up being a copy of all the information from that source - this is a problem of unintentional "piece-by-piece" copyright violation that is peculiar to the wiki-model, and that Misplaced Pages will have to address at some point. Carcharoth (talk) 12:38, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

You're generously making AMIB's argument for him, whereas it would be much better if he himself would comment - if he decides it's worth bothering with, since there is currently no hint of any sanction against him. While his claim of "copyright violation" is pretty lame, it would have more credibility if he hadn't been all over the map with his previous arguments against it, which simply add up to "I don't like it". Baseball Bugs 12:42, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Those are actually my arguments, not AMIB's arguments (though he may agree with me). I will say that I'm not impressed with AMIB's flippant "well, OK" response to Jtrainor's "this is a content dispute". As I've laid out above, AMIB does have a long history of disputing what should go in that infobox, and in the past, AMIB has started from trying to clean up in-universe stuff, to switching to copyright stuff. He may be right in both cases, but it does feel like another stage in the same long-running dispute. AMIB is clearly heavily involved here, and should have requested a second opinion, instead of allowing Jtrainor's 'block me if you dare' comment to bait him into blocking. Carcharoth (talk) 13:32, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Whether AMIB has a point does not justify him enforcing that point by edit waring, blocking one editor, and threatening to block a second editor involved in the dispute. --Farix (Talk) 12:57, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Sure. You've said that. I'm waiting to see what others say. I think there are two issues that need resolving here. The immediate issue of the block, and the wider issue of the long-running festering issues at the Gundam WikiProject. Carcharoth (talk) 13:32, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

• Update - it seems that the previous dispute resolution wasn't an arbitration case. It was a mediation. See Misplaced Pages talk:Requests for mediation/Gundam. See Misplaced Pages talk:Requests for mediation/Gundam/Archive 1. Not sure how far that got things to improve (seems to have been withdrawn when things started to improve), but it is clear that things have taken a turn for the worse again. I've also noticed that the dates of Jtrainor's other two blocks (July 2007 and November 2007) coincide with the dates of Gundam-related disputes. Unfortunately, the blocking admins did not specify the articles that were involved in the blocks. I could dig through Jtrainor's talk page history, but will drop a note off for the blocking admins as well and see what they can remember. Carcharoth (talk) 13:32, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Final update for now - there is quite a history of this on Jtrainor's talk page. See here, here, here, here, here, and here. This is a mess. Jtrainor has filed an unblock request under the latest section. See here. I have to go out now for the rest of the day, but I hope there is enough here for others to review and sort out what needs doing. As I said, it is a mess and a long-running dispute. I'll check back in the evening and see what has happened then. Carcharoth (talk) 13:50, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
    • • FYI the November 2007 blocks probably revolved primarily around Gundam Mk-II, Psyco Gundam and MSN-03 Jagd Doga (disputes over "in universe" content and sourcing) and Jean Carry Talia Gladys (along with all the other characters in the ZAFT / OMNI / PLANT alliances) re: copyright material. GundamsЯus (talk) 14:49, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
        • For what it's worth, I was also blocked my A Man In Black (my first block on Misplaced Pages) over almost the same thing, though things were more civil back then. I had hoped that that big mediation process we went through with AGK had resolved some disputes, but obviously that is not the case. This is an old issue. MalikCarr (talk) 18:46, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
        • Addendum, interested parties ought to review Jtrainor's unblock appeal, in which interesting and relevant points are made on the topic of copyright violation. See here. This issue has also been addressed before, wherein some consensus was gained and to which A Man In Black was opposed to, in the infobox template's talk page which has been previously addressed above. MalikCarr (talk) 19:32, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

The request for mediation on Gundam was exclusively for edit warring on in-universe-like items in one of the Gundam infoboxes. At its worst, they were repeatedly reverting each other without discussion. Then they seemed to be getting better at talking more than reverting, and so I didn't think mediation needed to be pursued. hbdragon88 (talk) 19:41, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

This is very similar, except what AMIB is saying is not just that they are in-universe, but that they are copyright violations as well. I haven't looked closely enough into this 18-month-long dispute to work out when the copyright concerns first surfaced (a few days ago, six months ago, a year ago?). Hopefully AMIB will turn up and clarify that. There have been more developments on Jtrainor's talk page, by the way. Carcharoth (talk) 20:01, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

I do have a question. If Jtrainor is going to remained block for edit waring, should AMIB also be blocked for the same violation? --Farix (Talk) 20:00, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

That would be punitive and unhelpful. A warning would be justified if consensus finds that AMIB did anything wrong. I personally would warn him not to block in cases like this where he has a long history of clashing with Jtrainor. If someone wants me to explicitly put that on his talk page, I will do so. But a block would not prevent anything here. Carcharoth (talk) 20:03, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

I've unblocked based on the discussion here and on the user talk page. If Jtrainor resumes the edit war, he can always be reblocked. PhilKnight (talk) 21:12, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

And if AMIB also resumes edit warring, I assume he will be blocked as well? After all, it wouldn't be appropriate to give such a stipulation to one party but let the more aggressive party in the dispute off the hook. --Farix (Talk) 21:43, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

I would certainly hope so. Policies should apply to everyone, sysop or no. MalikCarr (talk) 00:59, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

-undent-

The locus of this dispute is based around whether it is acceptable to include some of the fictional statistics of the items in question. AMIB's latest position on this issue is that it is not, because they are a copyvio. This is clearly false, as the information falls under fair use, and is not as detailed as in, say, model kit manuals and so forth, as well as the official guides on the matter. The current material in virtually all cases serves to better describe the items in question, similar to the stat blocks on, say, Star Destroyer, or USS Enterprise (NCC-1701), or Battlestar Galactica (ship), or Andromeda Ascendant, or . It provides additional information in a concise form that is of interest both to fans of the subject and to people who are seeking information about an item. Certain items in these lists of equipment are even linked elsewhere, to better provide understanding about the subject to those who may be unfamiliar with it. For example, in the previously mentioned MSN-03 Jagd Doga article, there are links on the words Newtype, psycommu, mobile suit, and funnel, to points in the appropriate article which explain what these things are. Likewise, the name of the designer, the series it appears in, and the fictional pilot of the unit in question are highlighted as well in case one wishes to find out further information about them.

It is unclear what AMIB's actual position on this material is, other than he doesn't like it and wants it to go. It is very clear that his dislike is not truely based on policy and a desire to better Misplaced Pages, as he has changed this reasoning several times over the years concerning the same material, and has displayed erratic behaviour when he hasn't gotten his way, including blocking those who disagree with him, such as myself and User:MalikCarr. Jtrainor (talk) 04:03, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Previously, I was pretty sure much of the content in question was copyvio from somewhere. Now I know specifically where it's copied from. I removed it as such, was reverted, warned the users, and blocked the one who reverted copyvio into an article the second time. Jtrainor didn't attempt to defend himself, he just removed my comment from his talk (which is the typical acknowledgement of a warning) and replaced the copyvio content.

This is not the first time MalikCarr and Jtrainor have engaged in brinksmanship over copyright to affect an aggrieved posture. I am not interested in playing political games over copyright.

The dispute over in-universe content is being discussed at Template talk:Infobox Mobile Suit. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 11:09, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

So, if they properly attributed those bits of trivia as being from would that fix everything? Baseball Bugs 11:18, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

It would not satisfy WP:FUC #2 (Bandai and its licensors publish their own guides, either for sale or to guide people to their promotional websites), #3b (we can discuss the weapons with encyclopedic prose, so there's no need for blocks of stats), or #8 (the blocks range from somewhat to entirely trivial detail). Copyrighted material requires not only a source, but a valid fair-use rationale.

It is important to note that these are not uncopyrightable statistics, like the weight of an aircraft or the caliber of a firearm, but instead copyrighted fiction that affects the style of a technical readout.- A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 11:26, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

So if the editors re-stated that info in prose style, and properly attributed it, then it would be OK? Baseball Bugs 11:35, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

This is getting into the actual content issue. Personally, I don't think it would be okay using a stat dossier as a source, because parroting fiction of lesser importance only serves to obscure the important facts, like the object's role in the story, artistic development, impact on licensed goods, etc. Disagreeing about this is a content dispute.

That said, I'm not blocking anyone because they disagreed with me on that; I'd have blocked dozens of users by now if I blocked people because they disagreed with me about how to present fiction in an out-of-universe way. I blocked Jtrainor because he replaced a block of text copied verbatim from a copyrighted source after being warned. That's not a content dispute. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 11:42, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

A Man In Black continues to edit war

AMIB has once again reverted an edit that restored the disputed text. Since he has reengaged in the edit war, I expect another admin to take appropriate actions. --Farix (Talk) 11:37, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

The "disputed text" was copied, verbatim, from here. That's not a content dispute, that's copyvio.

I also removed a section immediately below it, apparently since my first edit; this was in error, and has since been corrected. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 11:43, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

He also added a "primary source" template to try to pre-empt bringing the information into the article directly from its source. This is nothing more than a content dispute hiding behind a claim of copyright violation. The claim of the info being "trivial" was AMIB's original complaint, and that's what this is really about. Baseball Bugs 11:51, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

The material I removed was copyvio. I don't like a lot of things about that article, but I excised only the portion copied directly from a copyrighted source, despite the fact that the history is riddled with copyvio at this point.

If someone were to rewrite the block as prose, I would be unhappy and would disagree for the reasons above, but I wouldn't treat it as a copyright violation because it wouldn't be. I would rather the article be written based on sources that aren't fiction, yes, but, like I said, not blocking people over it.

I don't really appreciate these accusations of bad faith, especially immediately explaining directly to you that I understood the difference between what I would like and what the rules are. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 11:58, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

And I don't appreciate being accused of bad faith, especially since you yourself originally brought up triviality as the complaint, and have since gone looking for "legitimate" reasons to delete it. And you yourself blocked someone with whom you were having a content dispute, which is a gross violation of your authority. I don't know anything about you except what you write. And you're all over the map on this one item. Maybe you should leave it alone for awhile. There are plenty of other articles that need improvement. Baseball Bugs 12:34, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

I would like trivial information to be marginalized or removed. Copyvio needs to be removed on sight. The complaint I have always had is that the blocks made the articles too much like a fansite, and being copied exactly from an official fansite is a pretty excessive example of that.

On top of all of this, I had moved on. Someone reopened the issue, I limited my edits to the template, and for the last several days limited my edits to the talk page of the template. Someone suggested that the stats were copied verbatim from somewhere, and after checking two articles I'd edited a year before, I found them to indeed be copied verbatim from there. So I removed the copyvio, tagged one of them for style, and moved on, until my removal of copyvio was reverted with undo or edit summaries of "rvv". I warned, saw the warning ignored in one case, and blocked in that case.

I have more or less abandoned what I would like, save in the limited case of not cramming things into infoboxes, where I've been discussing it on a talk page. This vague suggestion that I'm trying to muscle my way through a content dispute makes no sense considering that Jtrainor, Kyaa, and until today MalikCarr hadn't even commented on Template talk:Infobox Mobile Suit, the only place I was pursuing what I would like. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 12:52, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

So if they rewrite it as prose, with proper attribution, that removes the copyright issue, and takes it back to your original complaint, as stated in your first sentence: That you don't like it. Hence, it still comes down to a content dispute, and you were out of line blocking someone in that circumstance. Baseball Bugs 13:26, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Jtrainor didn't rewrite it as prose with proper attribution. He reverted copyvio into an article. He was warned, and then blocked.

Farix rewrote as attributed prose, and got no warning and no revert.

So if people are rewriting as prose, I'm not much happy, but, for the third time, I'm not warning or blocking people for making me unhappy. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 13:38, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

And yet again, you revert changes to Template:Infobox Mobile Suit (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) because you don't like them. Even though the reason part of the template was collapsible no longer exists because the articles that had problems with overly long infoboxes were merged a few days ago. --Farix (Talk) 15:18, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

You were bold, I reverted, you reverted, discussion ensued. I didn't even revert to a version I liked; I just reverted a change that didn't seem to make any sense until you explained it. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 22:50, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

You are still edit warring on the infobox. LEAVE IT ALONE. You are not the arbitrator if which fields are legitimate and what fields are not. If you want to ask about changes in the infobox, ask them on the discussion page instead of undoing them. I am aghast that another admin has not blocked you yet for continuing to edit war. --Farix (Talk) 00:11, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Reverting an unrelated edit once, to a version I don't like, is not a revert war. If you're aghast that someone might revert an edit you made because they disagreed with it, you might be interested in reading this. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 00:25, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

And yet you revert again. What I am aghast about that you haven't been blocked for continuing to edit war over Gundam articles. But if that's not edit warring, then there is no such thing as edit warring. But since you are not discussing your reverts on the template's talk page, then you are simply vandalizing the template. --Farix (Talk) 01:07, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

You reverted some style changes to the infobox as vandalism, so it wasn't clear what you had done. Perhaps if you didn't revert good-faith edits as vandalism, but instead asked about them on the talk page instead of undoing them, you might get a better response. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 01:22, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

I you've been the one removing good faith changes to the template without explanation because WP:YOUDONTLIKEIT. I think we call see that you are edit warring/vandalizing the template. --Farix (Talk) 01:26, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Let's look at the history.

1. AMIB - "rm forced italics; not every work is longform (for example, a suit that appears in only one episode, in a short story, or in a single volume"
2. AMIB - "When did a last appearance field get added? That's not a very good idea; most designs continue to appear in licensed works, in guides, in spinoffs, etc."
3. Farix - "rv vandalism" - This was apparently reverting edits #1 and #2.
4. Two edits - I change some template code, Farix changes it back. Stylistic difference, essentially no practical difference.
5. - Two edits by AMIB - I wasn't clear what had happened to the ital change and the removal of the last appearance field from #1 and #2, figuring that they were lost in the fiddling with the title. Farix reverted them as vandalism in edit #3, for reasons he hasn't felt the need to share with me.
6. Farix - "rvt vandalism"
7. Two edits by AMIB - I revert with a snarky comment, then self-revert, thinking better of it.

Vandalism? Ownership? IDONTLIKEIT? I'm not seeing it anywhere in the history. I'm seeing you edit war to revert my good-faith edits as vandalism, ignoring my edit summaries and making wild accusations.

So. Where are your good faith changes again? Where is my vandalism? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 01:38, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

You conveniently left out this edit where I originally added the italic and the last field. That was the edit you kept reverting because you didn't like them. The documentation of the template states that the series was for the name of the series the Gundam came from, not the name of a episode. That is what the first field is for. And the last field, it is standard on pretty much every infobox for fictional elements. Yet you kept removing them for no reason what so ever other then not liking them. Which is funny because you were the one originally complaining about the lack of out-of-universe field in the template. --Farix (Talk) 01:50, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

When your edit summaries don't explain what your edits are, how can I hope to know what you're doing in an edit? What part of "rvt; I perfectly know well why this was made collasable as I was the one who did it. It is no longer an issue" implies that you're adding a new field or changing the formatting of one? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 01:56, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

See what we have had to deal with, ladies and gentlemen? Changing reasons and a complete refusal to negotiate in any way, shape, or form. He's now taking advantage of the fact that I am not allowed to revert him without being blocked. I should hope you now block him for edit warring, as he is clearly interested in continuing it. Jtrainor (talk) 18:33, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

What you need to do is start a wider discussion on whether or not the text in question is a copyright violation. You say AMIB is enforcing his view of things. Equally, you are merely stating that you think you are right and he is wrong. Get a wider discussion started on this. That's the only way it is going to be resolved. Carcharoth (talk) 02:52, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Review of A Man In Black's block of MalikCarr

I've had to block MalikCarr (talk · contribs) under essentially identical circumstances, in MSN-03 Jagd Doga. This brinksmanship over copyright is not appropriate.- A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 23:00, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Really? You absolutely had to do this? I'm not impressed with either side here. The Gundam editors should be discussing this, not reverting, but equally you should be getting a second opinion on whether this is a copyright violation and whether you are too involved here. I laid out above the long history here. You should have made a report here that MalikCarr (talk · contribs) was violating copyright and asked for someone else to block him. That is one way to find out if anyone else agrees with you. For the record, I agree that there is an issue here, but I think what needs to happen is for there to be a wider discussion about this. You talk about fair-use rationales for text. That's confusing things terribly. We have non-free-use rationales for images and other media, but the issue of how Misplaced Pages:Non-free content (and the associated policy) applies to test is covered at Misplaced Pages:FU#Text -

"Brief quotations of copyrighted text may be used to illustrate a point, establish context, or attribute a point of view or idea. Copyrighted text must be attributed and used verbatim. Any alterations must be clearly marked, i.e. for added text, an ellipsis (...) for removed text, and emphasis noted after the quotation as "(emphasis added)" or "(emphasis in the original)". Extensive quotation of copyrighted text is prohibited."

There is no mention of use rationales there, and quite rightly so, since Misplaced Pages articles are primarily text-based. We must attribute the use of texts as information sources and quote them when using short extracts of text. Use rationales don't apply here, unless you want people to supply a rationale everytime they quote something - please tell me you didn't mean that. Don't get me wrong here - I think you have a very valid point about the copyright issue, but I don't think it is black-and-white enough for you to be handing out blocks over this, especially not give the history here. I'm not going to dispute the specifics of the block you made here, but I will note that you have twice blocked MalikCarr before over copyvios (back in July 2007), so you need to get this resolved one way or the other. If MalikCarr's previous copyvio blocks were also valid and over the same issue, then you are not resolving the situation merely by issuing blocks. Carcharoth (talk) 01:43, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

The previous blocks over copyvio were over misuse of a non-free image after having been warned by multiple people, followed by repeated uploading of the same image after it was deleted. Again, MalikCarr ignored warnings that what he was replacing violated copyright policy and he continued to do so.

There may be a possibility of rewriting the copyvio text or quoting it properly or some other alternative, but no such effort was made. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 01:54, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying the previous issue. It is a pity that block logs are not more descriptive - there is usually room available in the block log to provide a diff to an explanation, but the explanation usually gets written after the block is applied (so you have to go look at the user talk page history instead). You haven't responded to my point that you have a long history here with the Gundam WikiProject and copyright and in-universe issues and that you might need to ask for opinions from others to see whether you are judging things correctly here. Do you think that your long history here means outside opinions would be helpful? I'm finishing off a post about this in more detail on your talk page. I've also added a link above to the bit where you talked about fair-use rationales for quoting text. Would you like to respond to that point as well? Carcharoth (talk) 02:00, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

We could get into a lengthy discussion of how to properly deal with copyrighted text here. However, it'd be in the wrong place and not germane to the issue at hand.

Copyvio needs to be dealt with swiftly. I had no reasonable way to be assured that copyvio would not be reverted into these articles after a warning; in fact, after a warning, copyvio was twice reverted into articles with no explanation at all.

There exists the possibility that I'm wrong, that none of this is copyvio, that I'm completely off my rocker. But there was no "This isn't copyvio," no "This could be reformatted," not even "I think you're wrong," just "rvv" and "revert to last good version." Faced with that, at some point I was trusted enough to use my discretion to block people who act in a way that can harm Misplaced Pages, so I exercised that discretion. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 02:28, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough. I'm satisified with that. I'll continue the discussion on your talk page about where to get a second opinion. Carcharoth (talk) 02:50, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

This block is patently ridiculous. AMIB has still provided no proof whatsoever that there actually is copyvio, he is most definitely an involved admin, and now he's adding a citation needed tag to the Gundam (mobile suit) article over whether the Gundam... is the Gundam. I've displayed extensively that the practice of using a summary of a unit's fictional equipment in an infobox is widespread and accepted, so he has not a leg to stand on. This is nothing more than an admin abusing his tools in order to push his POV. Jtrainor (talk) 16:37, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Seems to me there's a page where copyright violations are to be discussed. In fact I think it's mentioned somewhere below this section. Here: Why isn't MIB bringing these issues there instead of setting himself up as judge and jury of copyright matters? And why is he allowed to continue to get away with blocking users with whom he has disputes? Baseball Bugs 17:10, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

IRC#Admins' Abuse

User:WindowsLiveHotmail1

This is a strange one. The new user log shows several of these in numerical order being created within minutes of each other. We're up to number six as of now. I've left a note of concern here with number one. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 19:48, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Matches the name of a company. Block per policy? Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 19:55, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Something tells me they're not here to flesh out all the articles linked from Pre-Raphaelite Brotherhood. Gwen Gale (talk) 20:00, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

This has the smell of an automated tool. Might ask them whether they created the account in the usual way, or are experimenting with an account-creating tool, or something. Looie496 (talk) 20:14, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Ah, but in regards to Gwen's comment, we may never know.  :) --PMDrive1061 (talk) 04:19, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

I hate to remind everyone this but WP:U states that Use of a company or group name as a username is not explicitly prohibited, but it is not recommended, I agree with you that the accounts are suspicious enough to be blocked on sight but please do not make the Username policy harsher than it is in reality. -- lucasbfr 12:51, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Sneaky removal of information from Barack Obama

People are removing discussion from the talk page of Barack Obama and then deleting the edit. This is harmful to WP because we NEEED to discuss things. By removing the discussion, the end result is that things are being hidden.

The administrative action needed is to warn people not to remove comments from the discussion. (this is not a content dispute). The edit was done by BBBH who just summarized the sub-article. The sub-article mentions that Obama's first election: he got everyone disqualified so that he would run unopposed.

This is not vandalism.

There are violent supporters of Obama. We need to maintain neutrality of the article and state the facts. If we allow removal of the edit and the discussion, we have defacto censorship, not neutral writing. Midemer (talk) 22:15, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Can you supply diffs? Removing talk page comments can be allowed, but there needs to be good reasons.--Scott MacDonald (talk) 22:19, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

BLP violations, plain and simple. The account making this report has been attempting to include BLP-violating material, and start discussions on a blatantly BLP-violating topic that has no hope of being included in the article ever. The claim that Barack Obama disqualified all his opponents in his state legislative career, as made here, is unsubstantiated gossip. There is no evidence whatsoever Obama had anything to do with his opponent's divorce records being released whatsoever. --GoodDamon 22:26, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Midemer needs to be given a warning about adding potentially libelous info to articles. Remind the user about the sourcing all additions to wikipedia and to assume good faith. --neon white talk 22:33, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. In one edit, she even compares him to Kim Il Sung - not very neutral... Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 22:54, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

The user was also informed of the Obama article probation, and then again added back the unreferenced BLP violation. Note that this all began with their 5th edit ever made, yet they knew enough to immediately come here. ~ priyanath  23:10, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Also, this user - 15 months ago, in their last edit before today - opposed redirecting Obama to Barack Obama because "they were looking for someone else named Obama" (). So their relationship with the truth is also pretty suspect. Nothing much to do here except to revert any more edits like the current ones. Black Kite 23:23, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

I've always wondered why Misplaced Pages allowed the deletion of entries from the discussion pages. It's an opportunity for fraud and what useful function does it serve?Aaaronsmith (talk) 01:07, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

I've got to agree; article histories (let alone talk page histories) aren't indexed by search engines, and unless the contribution has edit summary vandalism or includes dangerous personal information (i.e., a typical oversight situation), I don't see the purpose of deleting said contributions. —/Mendaliv//_Δ's/ 01:44, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

(EC)Direct deletion from talk pages isn't done often, but without that people could make personal attacks, leave unsourced material, or the like. This editor was replacing material that directly compared Obama to Kim Jong Il. It doesn't seem like a stretch to say that doesn't fit with WP:BLP. That's something that doesn't need to even be brought up without a reliable source, so it wouldn't be discussed on the talk page either. Dayewalker (talk) 01:46, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Short block requested for bad behavior and POV pushing

I know that Barack Obama is a controversial article. Another editor added a sentence which was a summary of information covered in the sub-article (was about Obama getting all his opponents off the Illinois Senate ballot so he ran unopposed). I never edited the sub-article so I have no conflict of interest.

This is not about the edit content but improper behavior of GoodDamon. Good Damon needs a short block.

GoodDamon removed a legimate discussion on the talk page. This kills discussion and isn't what Misplaced Pages is about. This is very disruptive. A non-disruptive editor would calmly allow discussion.

This is what GoodDamon removed...http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk%3ABarack_Obama&diff=249122163&oldid=249121591 He says he is removing vandalism, but this is clearly an excuse.

Midemer (talk) 03:37, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Midemer has reverted 3 times against consensus on Barack Obama, which is on article probation. He was notified of the article probation after his first revert. He can and should be blocked. ~ priyanath  03:40, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

This appears to just be an attempt at continuation of the above thread, here. —/Mendaliv//_Δ's/ 03:42, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

(EC)Agree with Priyanath. :Midemer has claimed consensus to reinsert a very contentious sentence into a WP:BLP. His report here is a response to being reverted. Dayewalker (talk) 03:43, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

So why hasn't he been sent on a short vacation yet? Baseball Bugs 03:50, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Per an earlier discussion which established that BLP violations would be dealt with stricter on the pages I recently unprotected, I have blocked Midemer for 24 hours for edit warring and disruption. However, I also suggest to GoodDamon not to remove talk page posts for maximum transparency. ~ L'Aquatique 03:53, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Damn, he's fast. Posted an unblock request before I even got around to posting a block notice... ~ L'Aquatique 03:58, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

• note: User:GoodDamon isn't "removing" discussion. The same thing has been archived multiple times. He is simply removing repeats as the editor was persistent and fully intent to war on the article talk page. Digital 04:06, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Ah, I see. My full apologies. ~ L'Aquatique 04:18, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

As the election draws closer, attempts to insert material of an undue weight and unsuitable nature have reached a fever pitch. If I get a little overzealous, it's because this has been a literally exhausting experience. Single-purpose accounts, or accounts that haven't edited in ages, have been showing up on an almost hourly basis to try to add the latest campaign talking points to the article, and it gets hard not to assume they're all just meat/sockpuppets trying to turn Misplaced Pages into an extension of the campaign or make utterly inappropriate accusations on the talk page. So I don't see any need for you to apologize; you were reacting to perceived shortness on my part, and I really was beginning to get rather short. --GoodDamon 19:14, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Excuse me, I shall apologize to you whenever I want! But seriously, I think frustration is a fairly valid emotion at the point in time. Just remember, you have to get through one more day and then the pages will be protected until this is all over. Then, we can all go to sleep for about a month to make up for all the late nights. ~ L'Aquatique! 01:56, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

problem with wp is the result looks like manipulation by supporters

the editors and administers in question may not be campaign workers, let's assume they are not. however, their actions would be exactly what a campagin would do. some people removed legit discussions comments, removed the edit, and banned the user midimer. they said they would warn the person who deleted the discussion comments (not ban them) but they didn't even do this.

we must think hard before administers do things and see if what they would do would be like a campaign supporter. in wpikipedia, we must strive for the object encyclopedia, not play partisan politics. BBBH (talk) 14:25, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

conclusion: i quit, at least for the forseable future. so the disruptive users have chased soemeone away so they are left to manipulate wikipedia. administers should beware of these tactics. they work. see, they are aggressive and i leave, leaving only POV pushers and students left. goodbye. BBBH (talk) 14:51, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

I've left some friendly advice at this user's talk page explaining why his edits were reverted. He unfortunately ran into the steamroller of Misplaced Pages policy; a heated election article; and his strong feelings about the candidate. ~ priyanath  16:48, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

That's why I don't edit political articles. I've too much of an opinion to approach it with any amount of dispassion, let alone the dispassion WP:NPOV requires. -Jéské Couriano 22:48, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

If you return you would do well to observe the rules about assuming good faith and to read through discussions properly. --neon white talk 16:50, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Editors have also responded to BBBH at Talk:Barack Obama with some good friendly advice. ~ priyanath  16:52, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

"When you start accusing everyone of being in on a conspiracy, you shouldn't be surprised if they decide to confirm your paranoia by banding together against you..." ~ L'Aquatique! 18:32, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

So we've lost someone with an agenda? Oh, boo hoo. HalfShadow 19:01, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Look at it this way; our articles on Barack and McCain are still more neutral than this and that. :) Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs 19:17, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

That's the very definition of a left handed compliment. :) Protonk (talk) 19:51, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

If you're left handed, are all compliments you give also left handed? ~ L'Aquatique! 01:53, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Dunno, but I re-read the Obama article on conservapedia. That is always good for a laff. Man...just crazy. Protonk (talk) 05:52, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

And if you need some more laughs, watch Keith Olbermann and count down the lies spread by the right-wingers during the campaign. Although if the Republicans get clobbered on Tuesday, Olbermann might become insufferable for at least a week. Baseball Bugs 14:30, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Maybe I'm a bad liberal, but I liked Olbermann when he was the only one in broadcast (basically) standing up to bush et al. more then when he became a standard liberal exponent. That's not really his fault, as the democrats' star rose, he became less the lone voice of reason and more of a simply hyperbolic voice. Protonk (talk) 15:29, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

It's kind of like political news done as if it were SportsCenter. Baseball Bugs 17:05, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

One problem with politician articles is that many people have COI. If you work for IBM, some think you should not edit IBM. The same goes for politician's articles. If you feel strongly about a candidate, maybe you shouldn't edit it. That is really true if you wear a campaign button or have a yard sign. Chergles (talk) 18:05, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Chemtrail conspiracy theory

As I've put some comments on the talk page I probably shouldn't take action, but there is edit warring going on, a 3RR warning from someone whose edits also may be 3RR, etc. Thanks. Doug Weller (talk) 09:05, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

I've blocked one user (Slipgrid) who made four reverts for 24 hours, and warned one (Kaiwhakahaere) who only made three reverts to knock it off. Gentgeen (talk) 09:21, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Does anyone think the page should be protected for a few days? These 2 weren't the other editors involved. Doug Weller (talk) 15:29, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Having looked, I don't see a need for protection now that Slipgrid has been blocked and Kaiwhakahaere has been warned. Gwen Gale (talk) 15:41, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Hi, I originally brought this to WP:FTN a few days ago, but it seems someone thought I was targeting them rather than the POV back and forth. I wasn't happy with either version, so made a partial revert when I came back earlier - not realising there had been another faster edit war in the meantime. I don't think the page currently needs protection, but unfortunately looks like it will need watching for a while. Verbal chat 18:54, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

User:YVNP

I have just deleted this userpage due to its content. Other admins may wish to look at this, and the edits of this user - I may not have much time to do so this evening. Black Kite 19:13, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

OK, that user page was seriously fucked up, and you were right to delete it. However, it may be a very good idea if you contact the user on their talk page, and explain why you did it (and I may use more diplomatic phrasing than "seriously fucked up") Please drop them a note, explain why to deleted it, and kindly ask them to return to building the encylopedia. Their edit history (aside from that userpage) looks fine to me. They aren't a very active editor (less than 500 edits since July 2007), but I haven't seen any bad faith editing in the main space or elsewhere... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 19:20, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps not bad faith, but repeated insertions and discussions (though not to the point of actively edit warring) on fringe-y poorly sourced racial theories about Barack Obama in early October, after being asked not to do it, which was bizarre coming from a long-term editor.Wikidemon (talk) 19:25, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

I've done that, and since the user's edits appear to be on possibly contentious race and sexual articles, suggested the above. Black Kite 19:27, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

I also think you were right to delete it, vivid imagination or wishful thinking it needed to go.— Ѕandahl ♥ 20:03, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

• Oh great; now I'm going to spend all day wondering what I'd missed... HalfShadow 20:11, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

• Don't worry - unless you're into unpleasant misogynist fantasies, you've missed nothing. Black Kite 21:17, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

But did they involve unpleasant, misogynist fantasies that also involved kittens and peanut butter? I mean, let's be serious here ... -t BMW c- 21:24, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Straight up torture porn, and pretty clearly out per Misplaced Pages:USER#What may I not have on my user page? May have fallen under Misplaced Pages:USER#Statements of violence and most certainly "likely to give widespread offense". --Moonriddengirl 22:44, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

No kittens at all. Any story which ends "Now she's in my basement" is never good. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 22:45, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Actually, it's pretty standard BDSM porn, after having given it a read. Don't let's jump to conclusions with 'threats of violence' here. The cutting is a bit much, but at least a third of the stuff in that story is pretty standard fare. Don't be too harsh on him ;-) Actually, that last paragraph is not standard fare. Still, AGF and all. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 22:51, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm not assuming bad faith, just explaining why I agree that the user page was blatantly inappropriate. People's kinks aren't my personal concern so long as not acted upon, and there's a far cry between doing it and writing about it, but a torture porn story can (imho) legitimately be read as among "Statements that encourage, and/or condone, specifically, acts of violence against any person(s) or group(s)", including "the mention, or implication, of specific violent acts — for example, murder or rape". I don't think it's blatant, though, which is why I said "may." --Moonriddengirl 23:58, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Category:Articles vandalized by religious bigots since June 18, 2008

I've found this here with my talk page on it. I presume it relates to this edit on my talk page which has put real and nonexistent categories on it. These aren't actual categories obviously, but 71.32.223.31 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) is being a bit weird. Doug Weller (talk) 21:47, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

I've removed the category from the two pages that were in it. Not sure there's much to see here. oren0 (talk) 21:50, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

User:67.234.104.242

This user 67.234.104.242 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) has been on the Julianna Rose Mauriello article claiming to be her brother. He has already been banned three times for adding unsourced information to the article and rudeness/incivility. On that article's talk page he has repeatedly made assertions about the factual accuracy of the article. He has also been asked to be civil, on that talk page, and today is still being rude, using bad language, and making unsourced factual assertions. (He has also been told to contact Misplaced Pages, or have JRM contact Misplaced Pages, with some proof of who he is, and apparently has not, so it's doubtful that he is indeed JRM's brother.) He is also violating WP:OWN by telling people not to change the article. RainbowOfLight 22:15, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

I have blocked the above ip for a month (as the ip has been previously blocked for a week), noting that they need to contact OTSR or WP:Office - or have Miss Mauriello's representatives do so - in order to prove their identity. I also pointed out that having their identity checked does not allow them to continue violating WP policy. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:53, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

user:Jobxavier

Jobxavier (talk · contribs) I just asked the above blocked user if he's still editing Misplaced Pages. I know he's an Indian 'sociologist' with a pretty virulent hatred of Christians, but he sent me this in reply. I think, perhaps, it might help with orchestrating a rangeblock? Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 22:16, 2 November 2008 (UTC) Template:Archive box collapsible

Strange behavior by apparently unrelated IPs

This is happening now, so I expect this status to change, perhaps as I type this. I just blocked the ip: 99.167.225.149 (talk · contribs) and immediately afterwards, another IP address blanked that user's talk page: 76.10.27.248 (talk · contribs). This seems a little much of a coincidence. They seem likely related somehow. Could someone look into this? --Jayron32.talk.contribs 23:27, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

99.167.x.x is an AT&T address; 76.10.x.x is registered to "Distributed Management Information Systems Inc.". Network-wise, they don't appear to be related. I'll run a port scan. Hersfold 23:47, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

No indication of open ports on the first address; port 8000 may be open on the second. Hersfold 23:51, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

User:85.75.249.159

User 85.75.249.159 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) is a single purpose account which keeps attacking me personally despite my warnings and advice about Misplaced Pages policies regarding personal attacks. He calls me a " machine" and a "group of Olympic watchdogs". At the same time he is engaging in a long term edit war on Olympic Airlines. Dr.K. (talk) 23:29, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Blocked for 31 hours (and explained to at their talkpage). In future issue the necessary warnings and report to WP:AIV if they continue edit warring/violating WP:CIVIL. LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:42, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

I am really indebted. Thank you very much for the quick response and the advice. Tasos. (Dr.K. (talk) 23:46, 2 November 2008 (UTC))

user:147.52.67.230

Unfortunately another long term edit warrior IP 147.52.67.230 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) has reverted me yet again. Since I am at my 3RR limit I could not revert but I simply modified the edit to at least conform to the actual citation. The WP:AIV and WP:3RR noticeboards cannot help as this is not a clear-cut case because it involves long term edit-warring and it is not clearly vandalism. Here are some related discussions.

• Talk:Olympic_Airlines#Recent_edit_warring_and_misleading_use_of_citations
• Talk:Olympic_Airlines#Third_opinion
• Talk:Olympic_Airlines#Semiprotection.3F
• Talk:Olympic_Airlines#Request__for_Comment:Can_the_comment_of_a_single_customer.2C_as_reported_by_a_Greek_newspaper.2C_be_included_in_the_article.3F

These IPs seem determined to game the system through coordinated long term edit warring and personal attacks. The contested edit has gone through Third opinion and is currently going through RFC. Almost everyone agrees that it cannot stand because it is trivial. I modified it to reflect the exact citation and it is completely trivial and useless IMO. I don't think it is worthy to go to mediation over this because as I explained in the talk page of the article, and other users agree with me, this is a clear case of WP:POINT, WP:UNDUE, WP:GAME etc. etc. Please assist. Dr.K. (talk) 17:15, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

User:67.68.14.192

User 67.68.14.192 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) is modifying BLP's by changing numbers (e.g. weight 185, to 188. Or height 6'5" to 6'8"). I can't find where he is getting this data, but it seems he's pretty bent on just changing numbers without explanation. I was going to leave him a warning template on WP:RS, however I don't want to be bite-y. Should I go ahead and revert and warn? Digital 01:12, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Very likely vandalism. You could try leaving a friendly note so the IP at least knows someone is watching. Gwen Gale (talk) 01:38, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Lil Wayne Death Hoax

Yet another death hoax, this time for Lil Wayne (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Let's go for full protection for a while, and I think it's time to hand out some of those indef blocks people agreed were necessary for participating in this crap to Jammininthestree (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), EveryDayJoe45 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), and Mikaela123 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). —Kww(talk) 01:29, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Eh, it's annoying, but I don't think we need to start slapping blocks on people right off; I've warned two of them so far, and I'm still watching the page carefully. A few more eyes would be nice, though. Tony Fox (arf!) 01:31, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

It is absolutely necessary to block any editors that participate in this kind of crap, and that was the consensus that we reached quite recently on on WP:AN.—Kww(talk) 01:39, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Do they know it's a hoax? I've warned two; others haven't been warned. They're referring to something that looks, to some extent, like a BBC website claiming the death. it's entirely possible they don't know they're being sucked in by someone. Tony Fox (arf!) 01:42, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Of course they know. It's a hoax BBC report, hosted on a different website. On the hand, even if they don't know, I don't see how it matters ... excessive gullibility is as much of a problem as malice, perhaps even more. Posting something like that when there isn't a single hit on Google News or any reputable news site (or, indeed, on BBC News), is a dangerous level of irresponsibility.—Kww(talk) 01:50, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Wow. Well, I disagree with immediate blocks, so I'll leave it for other admins to consider whether or not they're required in this case. Tony Fox (arf!) 01:51, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Add WaterZoo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) to the list.—Kww(talk) 01:59, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

For what it is worth, a look at the previous contribs of EveryDayJoe45 seem to show he has done some nice work. Maybe he just got suckered into thinking this was a BBC article? People get trapped like this from phishing every day. He backed off when it was explained that it wasn't BBC, I would think the benefit of the doubt may apply. PHARMBOY 02:08, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

I've full protected for three days, if that'll make people happy. I don't think blocks are necessary for people with one edit or who appear to have been suckered, so I"ll leave that for others. Tony Fox (arf!) 02:10, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I have to agree with the above. Blocks aren't meant to be punitive. Think of it as a form of phising; you wouldn't seriously advocate victims of phishing be further victimized, do you? Celarnor 02:24, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Note: Kww seems to be forum shopping for someone to perform blocks on these users. Also, I think a dose of good faith is in order. Celarnor 02:31, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

After having gone through Miley Cyrus night, I came to the conclusion that very few of the people claiming that they have been deceived actually are. My good faith supply has just been exhausted with death hoaxes. I had long term editors claiming that the reason their account was being used to edit war a death hoax in was because their "roommate stole their password". I'm surprised that after having gained consensus on WP:AN that immediate blocks were appropriate for cases like this (an not just from hot-head editors like me, I'm talking long-term, highly respected admins like Newyorkbrad), no one seems to maintain that view when the event actually comes to pass again.

As for forum-shopping, I contacted the admins that had previously come to agreement as to what to do in events like this and pointed them at this thread. Talke a look at the discussion at WP:AN and compare it to the editors I contacted.—Kww(talk) 02:35, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Had I followed that discussion, I'd have opposed the concept of blocking without a warning. It now appears that two of the editors were suckered in; as far as I know, our blocking policy doesn't have a provision for blocking people for being suckered. We really do need to assume good faith and at least drop one warning, unless it's quite obvious that it's a blatantly organized hoax campaign. This looks like people finding that link someplace and going "ZOMG MUST UPDATE WIKI" with little investigation because it looks like a BBC piece. Tony Fox (arf!) 02:52, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Had I been around for the previous incidents, I would have expressed the same concerns that I've had here. There's nothing to suggest that these users didn't hear about the site from word-of-mouth and made their edits accordingly, assuming that the site in question was either RS or the BBC itself. It has been corrected, the editors in question have realized their mistakes, and a note has been left on the talk page. What kind of benefit do you think blocking them would bring, except increased frustration from everyone? Celarnor 02:58, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Adding news of someone's death is about as serious as a BLP violation can get. We are under frequent attack by people that either add these things directly or trick credulous friends into adding it for them. 3 days of full protection for the page will help a lot, but my bet is that the talk page will get hit a pile more times.

From looking over the past hoaxes, I've come to the conclusion that most of them are from editors that appear to be sleepers: old accounts that only edit rarely. In several cases, they were old accounts that only edited user-space simply in order to become auto-confirmed so that they could get past semi-protection.

An indefinite block sends a pretty clear message: if you want to insert something that major, do the bare minimum of responsible research first. Hopefully, it would hammer that message home pretty hard. The unblock cycle is a reasonable place to sort the gullible from the wicked. Net result is that we would have blocked a number of sleepers, and gullible editors would have learned a valuable lesson, hopefully preventing them from repeating such actions in the future. It skates pretty damn close to punishment, to be sure, but I think it prevents future damage as well.—Kww(talk) 03:14, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

I totally disagree. While I hesitate to speak in absolutes, a single good-faith edit should never result in a block, and certainly not an indef block. The first thing that should have been done here is a hidden comment on the top of the page that the death was a hoax. If that failed, protection is the answer. Blocks are a totally wrong reaction IMO. oren0 (talk) 03:23, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Also, you shouldn't bite people like this for edits like this that are likely in good faith if a bit misguided. oren0 (talk) 03:26, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

How is adding a death notice immediately under the warning that the death rumor is a hoax likely to be a good faith edit?—Kww(talk) 03:29, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Consider the following alternatives: 1. He didn't read anything on the talk page and just put that there because he couldn't edit the article and believed the hoax. 2. A user with no history of vandalism decided to vandalize a talk page by placing notice of someone's death at the bottom. To me, option one is MUCH more likely, and the behavior isn't close to deserving a threat of a block. oren0 (talk) 03:40, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

It shouldn't anymore. I just posted a note pointing out that the actual BBC's website has a different suffix and URL than the hoaxsite. I would think that anyone trying to add the site on the talk page now realizes they fell for it hook, line, sinker, and first guide ring or realize that they've just earned themselves a BLP block. -Jéské Couriano 08:39, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

It's a dynamic IP. A lot of vandalism comes from dynamic IPs with only one or two edits. You didn't mention the most likely scenario that explains why in the last 4 hours we've suddenly seen a number of editors adding death information for Lil Wayne: somewhere, off-Wiki, a group similar to the group that coordinated the Miley Cyrus death hoax and the Oprah death hoax are attempting to coordinate a Lil Wayne death hoax, and edits that reference it are as likely to be from intentional vandals as from innocent dupes.—Kww(talk) 03:51, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Do you have any kind of evidence at all to back up that claim? That "there's an international vandal army coordinating edits to discredit some random rapper!" comment is probably the most bad-faith thing I've ever heard in my life, which is saying quite a bit. There are also lots of good driveby edits that come from dynamic IPs with only one or two edits. As for the most likely scenario regarding it's cause, I'm not going to make any naive assumptions about the ignorance of the editors with regards to the source. Instead, I'm going to do what we're supposed to do here and assume good faith and assume they probably didn't realize it was a hoax and heard about it from a friend or a friend of a friend.

We are, after all, talking about a rapper; this isn't exactly the kind of subject known for having a technical following. If this was, say, Cory Doctorow, I might be a bit more disillusioned with the innocent users idea, but that's a different case. Celarnor 12:43, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

It's obvious that the consensus reached on WP:AN was some kind of fluke, so I'm not going to press that point. I am curious as to why you think a hoax about Lil Wayne is somehow fundamentally different than a hoax about Miley Cyrus or Oprah Winfrey. Death hoaxes are death hoaxes, whether they are perpetrated against talk-show hosts, Disney stars, or rappers. Somebody starts them and does it intentionally. I agree that many of the perpetrators on Misplaced Pages are simply gullible, but it's a pretty high probability that some of them are malicious. Why did all these people hear about it from a friend between 00:35 UTC and 02:40 UTC on November 3, 2008? That's not randomly wandering across some hoax website, that's coordinated. It may have been a coordinated mailing in the hopes of triggering innocents to update Misplaced Pages, or it may have involved the people involved in starting the deception directly editing. There's no way to tell that, but denying that there's a group of people somewhere that started this is simply denial. 4chan and Something Awful are the usual culprits, but there are other message boards where people get their kicks doing things like this.—Kww(talk) 14:26, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

There is no fundamental difference. My point was that the people who know who Cory Doctorow is and who would follow the events in his life are generally people well versed in CS and wouldn't be fooled by someone downloading the HTML source and images from the BBC news pages and putting it up on another host. Fundamentally, there's no difference. But, still, we have no way of determining who started it, and whether those same people are the same people who made those edits. Even if they did, though, it's a moot point; solutions other than blocking were used, and they worked, making it entirely unnecessary. I don't know if you're trying to "strike back" or something, but circumstances seem to point to people being told about it, posting it, being told it was a hoax, and stopping. Whether they're an innocent contributor or a vandal is irrelevant; the problem was solved.

Presumably, the particular page was made live at some between between 00:35 and 02:40. Even if it was started by someone intentionally, presumably said someone IM'd his friends and told them about it without telling them it was a hoax, who IM'd their friends; it doesn't follow that everyone who was informed about it had the knowledge that it was a hoax. Regardless of how it happened, there's no evidence of malicious intent, so we can't simply block people for what was possibly a very innocent (albiet admittedly stupid and preventable) mistake. Blocks aren't meant to be punitive; they're meant to prevent further damage. Since there were other ways to prevent the damage in the case of innocent contributors (i.e, "This was a hoax, please stop posting it"), blocking doesn't do anything other than make a bunch of people angry. Now, if someone had continued to add the material, that may warrant a block, since they a) don't get that it isn't a hoax, or b) are malicious. In that case, there's no other solution than to block them, which is the only times blocks should ever be used.

The point is, even if there is some evil, malicious intarweb army out to ruin Misplaced Pages articles, the problem has been solved by telling them it was a hoax. Celarnor 14:38, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree that the problem seems to have been solved at this point. I was simply taken aback by the resistance. I had worked on an open bulletin board with other editors and admins to derive a solution to problems like these, and, the moment I proposed using the solution that had been agreed upon, I was treated like some kind of idiot hothead that was ignorant of basic policies like WP:AGF. I'm not. I came to ANI with the solution agreed to on AN, which strikes me as being a very reasonable thing for me to have done.—Kww(talk) 15:20, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

I certainly hope the bit about "treated like some kind of idiot hothead" wasn't referring to me, because I certainly wasn't treating you like anything of the sort. My view is that warnings should be issued before blocking in a case where it's not blatantly obvious that the person involved is specifically vandalizing, and that was what I was trying to point out here, not that you were being trigger-happy. Tony Fox (arf!) 17:12, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

It continues on the talk page with 69.248.253.110 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)—Kww(talk) 02:43, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Time to Trout the User

Kww, I would kindly ask that you not canvass other users, especially other users who either are assuming good faith or whom are unfamiliar with the scenario. It never works. -Jéské Couriano 08:25, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Abuse of administrator tools

Administrator Mikkalai (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) has, over the span of numerous years, been deleting articles about various specific phobia without a deletion summary and without any accordance to the policy. He believes that these articles are garbage and that he is free to delete them as long as restores them if there are objections. Mikkalai came to my attention after I created the article Phasmophobia to feature in DYK over Halloween only to find that Mikkalai had deleted the article three times; once in 2006, once in April 2008 and October 2008 (about 12 hours before I recreated it). Other articles he has deleted include; Apotemnophobia, Siderodromophobia, Pithikosophobia, Papaphobia, Oneirophobia, Nosocomephobia, Nomatophobia, Cymophobia, Climacophobia, Aulophobia, Amaxophobia, Podophobia and they are only the first few in his deletion log that lack deletion summaries and do not pass CSD. I tried to discuss this with Mikkalai, his answer was that he will restore them if asked and if no one objections to the deletions then he was right in deleting them. He then claimed that there is nothing wrong with him abusing his administrator tools to push his point of view and then blanked his talkpage before I had a chance to respond. I'm not quite sure how to proceed with an administrator who refuses to discuss their out-of-line deletions and is self-admittedly pushing their POV by using the delete button. ~ User:Ameliorate! 02:30, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

I see nothing wrong here, other than a bunch of slanted personal attacks being made against Mikkalai. JBsupreme (talk) 02:33, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

I would not be so quick to judge either of the two, JBsupreme. bibliomaniac15 02:39, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Agree with Biblio, this bears looking into. If summary deletion of articles has been going on, ie, no talk, no afd, no speedy tags, etc, this is of concern. — Rlevse • Talk • 03:11, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

I dropped a note on Mikkalai's talk page alerting him of this discussion, Metros (talk) 03:34, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

If user:Ameliorate! thinks I am refusing to dscuss with him, this is their problem, not mine. Nowhere I told them to "step off". On the contrary, they are free to continue recreating stupid but harmless pseudo-"phobia" articles, which I restored after objections and even not going to nominate or tag them for deletion. I don't think I want to have any discussion with a person who does not want to learn from what is said in -phobia#Phobia lists and who has buddies who posted an article on DYK while it was under AfD. And unlike Ameliorate, I am not going to make fuss about the double violation of the admin who closed AfD against the rule only to promote a fake phobia aricle in DYK, again against the rule: DYK cannot post contested articles. I have no idea what was the problem of the creators of the listed "phobia" articles, such as Papaphobia (which is a persistent fear of Pope): whether it is immaturity, weird sense of humor, or disruption of wikipedia. Yes, for four years now I am deleting articles such as fear of belly buttons (exercise: guess what was the article name), and until now they died without fuss. Now I see I stumbled across a strong-willed phobiaphiles User:Arbitrarily0 and User:Ameliorate!), and I am stepping off. Have fun dealing with Prostitute Phobia yourselves. `'Míkka>t 03:59, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

• none of this answers the core question: Why were you deleting pages outside the criteria for speedy deletion unilaterally? That you were willing to restore them upon request is unimportant. Protonk (talk) 04:02, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

  WP:IAR. I was saving large amounts of time of other wikipedians. Yes, willingless to restore is important. `'Míkka>t 04:11, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

  Your deletion rationale is IAR? That it improves wikipedia for you to ignore the rules about unilateral deletion of material? No. That's the wrong answer. Protonk (talk) 04:22, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

  As an aside, that is the sort of response that caused this. Tan | 39 04:29, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

  I'm brusque. Can't help it. I also can't help it that there is a right and wrong answer to this question here. Protonk (talk) 04:41, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

  I see. Can't help but disagree, but at least now I see the point you made in Protonk's RfA. If only you had included a diff to anything of the sort in your RfA comment, Tan. Everyme 12:50, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

  Yes it improves wikipedia as long as it does not create conflicts of opinions. Willingless to restore is an important part in it. I don't see fundamenal difference between deletion of an unreferenced section in an article or the whole blurb. Once again, you are feel to disagree with my opinion, and it will not lead to disruption of wikipedia form my side, the latter being an important caveat in WP:IAR. `'Míkka>t 04:27, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

  P.S. While I am at this, may I recommend you in the future to write "IMO that's the wrong answer", rather than "That's the wrong answer": you will look less authoritarian. `'Míkka>t 04:30, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

  Noted. The issue isn't how I look in this conversation with you. The issue is that the admin bit isn't a right to delete things at will. The deletion policy is written to protect article contributors from admins deleting material out of process. IAR would be an exception to that like "This isn't quite a G10, but I'll delete it as defamatory anyway" (not that I would agree with that). IAR isn't an operating rule for you to delete a class of material because you feel like it. You can feel free to cast this as some difference of opinion between the two of us, but it isn't one. There are expectations for how you delete material and you aren't following them. Protonk (talk) 04:41, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Mikkalai, the impression I get is that you think these phobia articles are spam. Is that a speedy deletion criteria? (Looks like G11 might apply.) If so, or even if not so, why not apologise for not stating your deletion reason in the deletion log summaries, and say that in future you will state your reasons in the deletion log summaries? (Preferably by using an explicit speedy deletion criterion). That would, as far as I can see, resolve this entire matter. Carcharoth (talk) 04:45, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

G11 applies to advertising. The articles are not advertising a company or product, G11 most certainly does not apply. ~ User:Ameliorate! 05:32, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

As an aside, I have created one article on the subject matter for a specific event (it stood out to me as a redlink on Misplaced Pages:Did you know/Halloween 2008) so while your offer of giving me permission to continue creating articles is appreciated, Mikkalai, I will have to decline the invitation. I fail to see how you claim that it is my problem that you blanked your talkpage, removing discussion related to the matter; that is refusal to discuss it. The information on -phobia#Phobia lists is supported by one source, everything else there is a primary source, while content spamming may be a problem it has not effected books that were written before the internet (as we know it) existed and it not an acceptable reason to delete articles outside of policy and process. I fail to see what the article being added to DYK has to do with this, it was added by a completely uninvolved party and the AFD was closed by an uninvolved party. What you appear to be missing is that this is not about one specific article, this is about a number of articles that you have been deleting outside of policy for over 2 years. I don't necessarily WP:CARE about phobia-related articles, I care about the damage that can/is being done to the project by spontaneous deletions. What would happen to the project if every administrator was given the ability to delete any article because they WP:DONTLIKEIT? Deleting an article is entirely different from editing portions out; only admins can see deleted content, edits can be reverted by anyone, undeletion can only be performed by admins. What I wanted was an assurance that you would not continue to delete to articles in this fashion, what I got was that you will undelete them when asked and that you are free to delete articles that conflict with your WP:POV and then had the discussion closed, which, frankly, is not good enough. ~ User:Ameliorate! 05:32, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't know if all of these are real phobias or not, but I do know that Phasmophobia is legit phobia and should not have been deleted. — Rlevse • Talk • 11:10, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Original research in -phobia

Er, I just read -phobia#Phobia lists, and while it may be true, it is currently presented as original research. What is needed there is a source that confirms the assertion "A large number of-phobia lists circulate on the Internet, with words collected from indiscriminate sources, often copying each other. Also, a number of psychiatric websites exist that at the first glance cover a huge number of phobias, but in fact use a standard text to fit any phobia and reuse it for all unusual phobias by merely changing the name." - at the moment, the sources cited are only claimed examples of this. We need a reliable source (not a Misplaced Pages editor) that confirms that this spamming practice exists. Carcharoth (talk) 04:05, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Oops. Strike that. I see one of the sources is about the phenomenon. Not a great source, but still the sort of thing I was asking for. Should have looked more closely. Sorry. Carcharoth (talk) 04:08, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

While the source is reliable for content about websites, I think the section on phobia spamming is a violation of WP:UNDUE in that article. It contains a bit of clever spamming too, the name and phone number of the spammer/scammer. Strongly suggest removing that content as it appears to be commercial spam.

As for mass deletions, I think it would be best to assemble a list of any unreference-able phobia stubs and AfD them all at once. Anyone may request sanctions against those who are apparently adding useless cruft to the enclyclopedia in persistent violation of our content policies. I have not looked at these stubs yet and am not saying that is or is not what's happening here. I am suggesting a process for dealing with alleged problems. Jehochman 08:09, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

The "clever spamming" you reference was added by Mikkalai. ~ User:Ameliorate! 09:06, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

I think the person who originated the spam was clever, because their spam meme spread to WebProNews and then to Misplaced Pages. We should not be publicizing the name of the company and their telephone number in our articles, even as an example. Jehochman 11:26, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

For example, papaphobia mentioned above: it has 3 sources, 2 of them are VERY trivial entries in dictionaries, which shouldn't really be used because they are tertiary sources, and the remaining one is to a commercial site that fails WP:RS, IMHO. Now, how Misplaced Pages readers are supposed to verify its truthfullness? In its present state this article looks like a 100% for PROD, at least I would have deleted it, had I stumbled upon it while clearing prod backlogs. MaxSem 15:09, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

RFC

Perhaps one should be opened concerning the use of tools here? One's POV is hardly reason for mass-deleting articles with no recorded explanation.— Dædαlus /_Improve 11:24, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree; that's grossly inappropriate, and should be dealt with as quickly as possible. Celarnor 13:06, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

While Mikkalai has acknowledged what he is doing is not within the "Rules", he has claimed IAR, which in this case, is inappropriate. IAR does not mean "I can do what I like". Rules should be ignored only for a very good reason. Deleting stuff being "I don't like it" is not a very good reason. To be fair, he did restore the articles without a fuss, but I'm unconvinced he's going to stop doing this. – How do you turn this on (talk) 13:14, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't particularly care even if I was convinced he was going to stop doing it. "Oh, okay, I won't do it again" is not the correct answer to this problem. Abuse of administrator tools is abuse of administrator tools. This represents a clear misunderstanding of both IAR and deletion policy, and I'm very uncomfortable with having someone like that in possession of the mop. Celarnor 14:41, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

In that case I suggest you start an RFC, where I will probably weigh in. Best wishes, – How do you turn this on (talk) 18:00, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

After reading the arguments presented here and in the section below, #DYK hoax article?, I admit that my course of actions was wrong. While I still insist that an occasional deletion of a silly article created by and anon is well within WP:IAR, since the creation of fake phobia articles is a rather persistent and ongoing problem, I should have invited other wikipedians to a discussion how to deal with this problem in a systematic and consensus way. The presence of phobia-peddling websites makes it easy to create fairly convincing "podophobia" articles, and unfortunately occasional AfD voters are easily fooled when not bothered to look into the essence. `'Míkka>t 18:56, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

The reverse: undiscussed un-deletions

Are admins supposed to restore pages without a DRV? Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 11:18, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

It was an expired prod that was deleted. Anyone can contest a proposed deletion at anytime, even after deletion. It's standard practice that any admin can overturn a deletion if it was deleted because it was a prod. Nothing to worry about with that one. Ryan Postlethwaite 11:28, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Personal attacks and disruption by WorkerBee74

Despite an earlier request, WorkerBee74 (talk · contribs) continues to make personal attacks diff and edit disruptively at Talk:Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now. It would seem from an extensive block log that this editor is incapable of remaining civil. -- Scjessey (talk) 02:32, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

• Clearly disruptive editing; a problem editor. Who's ready to use their tools? 1 week blocks have been tried twice now; I think a longer break is needed. Ncmvocalist (talk) 02:44, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
• Dealing with this disruptive, single-purpose account and probable socks has been prompting me to prepare my own incident report, and I see Scjessey has beaten me to it. This user has exhausted all remaining dregs of good faith. I no longer even trust it to accurately report the contents of a citation. --GoodDamon 02:59, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

I have blocked WorkerBee74 for 21 days for the disruptions and incivility. Because of the ineffectiveness of past blocks, I believe that this is an appropriate length. Perhaps some can establish some sort of civility parole for him upon his return? Metros (talk) 03:03, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

I wonder if he will return, since the presidential election will be over by then. Political passions should have cooled significantly at that point. If he does come back, though, very little tolerance should be shown for any misbehavior. We don't need to institute a formal "civility parole" for that. --Akhilleus (talk) 03:21, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't think a civility parole will be worthwhile here; if he can't stop being disruptive, or is incapable of being civil after 21 days off Misplaced Pages, probably better to let the blocks duration escalate - he'd certainly be heading towards a full site ban if his conduct does not improve. Ncmvocalist (talk) 03:46, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

He's a single-purpose user, and his "purpose" will expire on November 5th, so don't hold your breath waiting for him. Baseball Bugs 03:53, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

...until 2012; 2010 if that year's Congress elections turn out to be as hotly contested as 2006's were. -Jéské Couriano 04:12, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

By then he'll have his own show on Fox News. Baseball Bugs 14:26, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Don't touch this article again

Re:. Could somebody look at this article? I've reviewed the talk and concluded that it's not a copyvio, but Jayjg reverted me with the rather strong comment "Don't touch this article again"... I don't want to edit war with another admin on copyvio issues, but I detected strong IDONTLIKE feelings on talk. Comments by neutral reviewers appreciated.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 02:47, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

• I think you both need to step back for a while. Jayjg doesn't accept your good faith assertion that the article isn't a copyvio and you aren't waiting for some neutral assessment that it isn't one before changing it. If he replaces the article with the COPYVIO template in good faith, then don't edit it superficially and remove the template. It's that simple. However, he seems to have escalated the talk page discussion pretty quickly. My guess is that the article isn't a copyvio but that it is plagiarized somewhat from that pdf. I am not going to read the whole 273 pages of it, nor am I going to search every 7 word string of text to find unquoted liftings, but enough has been lifted (including the sources) so as to raise concern. I'd wait until some thrid party steps in and either deletes the article or removes the template. Protonk (talk) 03:34, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
  • I agree with Protonk's suggestions here. I've also commented at the talk page. Incidentally, are copyvio discussions raised at Misplaced Pages:Copyright problems designed to be conducted on talk pages of the articles in question and then be deleted along with the article if it is determined to be a copyvio (or borderline enough to be a concern - obvious cases should go speedily)? Or should such discussions be preserved much as deletion discussions at AfD are preserved? Carcharoth (talk) 03:43, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

I think using phrasing like "Don't touch this article again" is not at all a good approach. Certainly not one that we would expect someone of Jayjg's long experience here to use in good faith. So I'm disappointed in that choice. Somewhat milder and less confrontational phrasing probably would have been a better choice. ++Lar: t/c 13:30, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

User:Vgnerd vandalism only account

Vgnerd (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) hasn't still made any edit that was not vandalism. He has blanked all his warnings. I'm bringing this to ANi because he has uploaded Image:Rougeirl.jpg a image of a black woman with no license just to illustrate Nigger , and make vandalism on other articles.

(He could also be User:74.66.238.136, per similarity of topics, and editing the same page with a minute of difference to continue introducing the same vandalism) --Enric Naval (talk) 05:00, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Blocked indefinitely as VOA. User's third edit sets an early tone. Tan | 39 05:03, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Brian Mulroney vandal

There's been a lot of recurring vandalism to this article, clearly by the same person who still seems to hold a grudge fifteen years after Mulroney left office. The names are all jumbled insults which begin with "Brianmulroney" and which go downhill from there. Checkuser, range block, blacklist the "Brianmulroney" string or...? --PMDrive1061 (talk) 05:15, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

• Semi protecting the article and blocking the obvious socks seems to have done the trick. Autoblocks should catch new accounts created with the same IP. Keep an eye on the related changes feed for any nonsense. Should this get worse, we can send it over to RFCU, but checkuser time is pretty valuable and wasting it on this guy might not be worth the effort. Protonk (talk) 05:32, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Works for me. Thanks.  :) --PMDrive1061 (talk) 06:30, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

User:Jagz

User:Jagz' indefinite block appeal was unsuccessful. This editor had operated the sock puppet account User:Fat Cigar while blocked and made uncivil comments such as , , and . A ban should be considered. --Whistler's Notch (talk) 05:50, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

He is effectively banned under the basic definition: "no administrator willing to unblock". A formal ban is not necessary. Out of curiosity though, why are you interested in the matter? This appears to be only your second edit to the site, and yet you seem to have an in-depth knowledge of this case. Hersfold 05:56, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Good question. — Rlevse • Talk • 11:05, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Threatened edit warring and lack of good faith

It would be good to have some administrator attention at Geoff Simpson (particularly towards the end of Talk:Geoff Simpson). Cumulus Clouds (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) is turning a relatively minor content dispute into a full blown edit war, with comments like "I will continue to remove this information for another 48 hours" (full context). Other editors are attempting to address any neutrality concerns, but with that discussion style consensus looks difficult to obtain.

Additionally, Cumulus Clouds is descending into some serious assumptions of bad faith, including accusing other editors of having a political agenda. I'm backing off from the article itself (it takes two to edit war and I don't want to be one of them) but an explanation of policy from a third party may help out. Orpheus (talk) 07:26, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

That's the same editor who deleted "Ike" from the list or presidental nicknames under Dwight Eisenhower, on the grounds of being "original research". Maybe he needs to go back to elementary school and review what he missed while he was napping. Baseball Bugs 14:25, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Blocked without notice or comment?

Hi,

I just got back from the weekend to see that 3 hours after my last edits last Friday, I was blocked for 31 hours by User:Nishkid64 for edit-warring on Sbarro restaurant suicide bombing and Reactions to the September 11 attacks.

In the former I agree, there was an editing dispute with User:NoCal100. In the later I had made only two edits in the past week, both about 7 hours apart -- hardly edit-warring. The later article as, as I have seen, been locked due to edit-warring, but NoCal100 and I seem to be the only ones who got blocked...

Now, while the reasons for blocking are debatable, the form is not. While I am aware of the special sanctions regime regarding the Israeli-Palestinian articles, I was neither informed of the block, nor of its reasons. I even went and reverted an IP on the first article this morning before even seeing that I had been blocked, which could now possibly be interpreted as me diving back into an edit dispute, perhaps warranting further blocks.

Is this the way blocks should work? I think not, and would like this taken off my log. Any thoughts from other admins here?

Cheers and thanks, pedrito - talk - 03.11.2008 07:48

I agree it's poor form not to notify you of the block on your talk page, but that doesn't make the block void. He could have simply forgot, it happens. The block can't be removed from the log anyway, save by a dev.--Atlan (talk) 08:22, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

You should allow Nishkid64 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) time to explain his behavior before coming here, as Atlan says, there might be a good reason for it. And as Atlan says, it cannot be removed, although an admin who made a mistake in such a case may do a 1-second-block to add to the block log that he made a mistake. But as I said, let's wait what Nishkid has to say about it before discussing this further. Regards SoWhy 12:20, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Not only is it frustrating for this admin not to let the user know about the block it's also against ArbCom rulings for the admin not to promptly explain his/her actions. Bstone (talk) 15:30, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Nishkid64 left a perfectly clear entry in the block log explaining why he placed the block: "Edit warring: Sbarro restaurant suicide bombing and Reactions to the September 11 attacks.". Had Pedrito attempted to edit while blocked, he would have seen the explanatory entry. Yes, Nishkid64 forgot to post a notice to Pedrito's talk page, so we give him a wrist slap for that. What additional explanation is required? It is readily apparent from the article histories that Pedrito and NoCal100 (whom Nishkid64 also blocked) were repeatedly reverting each other on the two named articles — clear edit warring, whether or not the 'electric fence' of 3RR was reached.

Now, after the fact, some editors want to discuss the matter further. That's fine. As far as I can tell, the first query to Nishkid64 about this block was left on his talk page () about four hours after Nishkid's last edit. The block in question has long since expired, so there's no urgency. There's nothing for Nishkid to undo, and there's no violation of the ArbCom ruling here. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:48, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

The RFAR Bstone cites requires admins to be communicative when questioned about actions. In the block policy; Misplaced Pages:BLOCK#Implementing_blocks, I don't see any rule requiring notifcation. Nish's block log entry was clear enough for any reviewing administrator to figure out what was going on. MBisanz 15:56, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

I still have some issues, though. There was no edit-warring going on when I was blocked and claiming I was warring on Reactions to the September 11 attacks is a really, really far stretch. So was this block punitive? And if so, what for?

Cheers and thanks, pedrito - talk - 03.11.2008 16:00

It looks to me – as someone who has never seen you, NoCal100, or either article before – like you acknowledged you were involved in an edit war (*ahem*, an 'editing dispute') with NoCal100 at Sbarro restaurant suicide bombing (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) just a few comments up in this very thread. I count at least five reverts of NoCal100 in two or three days, including at least one where you abused popups to do it: . You also appear to have reverted twice in the same day at Reactions to the September 11 attacks (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (one of those reverts undoing NoCal100's edits).

I see an ongoing pattern of combative editing (especially with regard to NoCal100), and Nishkid64 was acting well within his discretion to issue blocks to both of you. Why are you pursuing this further? You were engaged in disruptive editing, you got called on it, and – as it turns out – the block didn't actually even hinder your editing. Go forth and sin no more. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 16:37, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

BTW, mBisanz, I find it interesting that despite that ArbCom ruling the blocking admin still has not yet responded to why he did not notify the blocked editor on his/her talk page, as is extremely common practice. Bstone (talk) 16:35, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

There's no active block to undo, so there's no rush. Nishkid64 hadn't edited for several hours prior to the requests on his talk page. Presumably he has a real life outside of Misplaced Pages and he hasn't picked up his messages. Call me crazy, but I imagine that the reason he didn't leave a message on the blockee's talk page is that he forgot. Perhaps the baby was crying. What's the hurry now? TenOfAllTrades(talk) 16:41, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Bstone, I was under the (perhaps) mistaken impression that admins were allowed to log out occasionally and have, you know, a life. I have even (gasp) had a day or two where I didn't log on at all. Can we wait a little while longer before we get all offended that Nishkid64 is "ignoring" this, until he actually logs in again? Especially since this isn't time-sensitive, and since it certainly doesn't appear to be zOMG admin abuse? Talk about making a mountain out of a molehill. --barneca (talk) 16:57, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

User:Melecik's userpage

The userpage, although having some information on the user(which is a minor as far as I can tell), appears to be mostly an advertisement for a non-notable game(it hasn't even been released yet). The page goes on to explain the development of the game, the story about the game, and various other game-specific information. I'm quite sure there's a policy violation here, but I don't know what. I'm lost here on what to do.— Dædαlus /_Improve 08:19, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

It's a violation of our userpage policy. His article was deleted as non-notable and advertising, his userpage shouldn't be used as an alternative. Furthermore, he's asking for donations to fund his project, which is obviously not what your userpage is for. I'm also concerned about his personal info, him being a minor. I've deleted the advertising part, someone else should see if his personal info is ok.--Atlan (talk) 08:34, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

What about the website section in the infobox?— Dædαlus /_Improve 08:36, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

It's ok to link to your own website on your user page in most cases, although I am inclined to remove the links here, since all he has done so far is promote his project. --Atlan (talk) 08:41, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Actually, this young man is obviously not here to write an encyclopedia. He only wants to use Misplaced Pages as a vehicle for free advertising. I'd be better if an admin would delete his user page and block him. He can explain in an unblock request if he actually wants to contribute.--Atlan (talk) 08:50, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

DYK hoax article?

I reviewed the article John R. Smith, and I believe that it may be a hoax. This article is well crafted and looks authentic prima facie. However none of the online external references make any mention of the subject whatsoever - (United States Colored Troops Resident in Baltimore at the time of the 1890 Census - nothing to do with the Civil war?? ), (Article alleges he was on station at Fort Sumter - also in the hook - once again no mention in the source ) (Book preview contains no mention etc. . ). Most disturbing however, is the allegation that John R. Smith was the "first soldier to receive the Silver Star" (apparently during the Civil War). However, the Silver Star was first awarded in 1932 (more than 31 years after the subject's death) as per these sources . It turns out that the user deliberately inserted factual errors so that it corroborates with his own article. I've left a note on the article + user's talk page. Could someone more experienced with the US Civil war confirm/dispute these claims. If I'm wrong, then I apologize in advance, however I'd rather be whacked with a trout for false accusations than see a hoax appear on the main page. Peace --Flewis 09:31, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Note: Article was nominated in DYK on October 27 - Currently under the "expiring noms" section. --Flewis 11:08, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Ive removed it from DYK nominations. MaxSem 11:36, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Google search for 'John R Smith silver star' brings up nothing related to him but the wiki page in mention. Skinny87 (talk) 11:31, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

I would say that I cannnot, using the sources or google, corroborate a single fact in that article. I would say that this definately looks like a hoax. If you want to get wider opinion on it, start an WP:AFD discussion. Given that it looks, on its face, like a hoax, it should probably be deleted... It would also not be the first time someone went through this much trouble to create hoaxes. Anyone around 1-2 years ago should remember the "Estland" hoaxes... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 11:35, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

No mention in OR or in other online sources I've checked. Pretty dubious assertion that an African-American was able to enlist in the U.S. Regular Army in 1860. Would that it were true, but this seems very unlikely, and certainly not proved by online sources listed. BusterD (talk) 11:53, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Now at AfD; Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/John R. Smith. Iain99 12:01, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

• Article was created by a brand new user, who appears to be fully aware of rules like WP:CENSOR and signing on talk pages. I wonder if it's a troublemaker, or simply someone who didn't realise we write about facts here, not imaginary characters. – How do you turn this on (talk) 12:06, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Can any users knowledgeable in the American Civil War or Pennsylvanian African-American lawyers prior to 1870 give this a look?
    Also, after further inspection, it appears that sections from the article are copied directly from here. --Flewis 12:16, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
    • Never mind - Already speedied --Flewis 12:19, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
      • Has the creator been blocked? – How do you turn this on (talk) 12:21, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
        • Although we tend to presume that the user is a troublemaker, it's quite possible that they're acting in good faith with a purpose. For instance, I remember the Orange bellied pike hoax incident from several months ago and how the author ended up explaining why they created the article. At this point, I don't think we know about this user's intentions. JamieS93 12:28, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Agree. Also, thanks to Flewis's alertness there are now many eyes on that account and nothing he does would go unnoticed. Everyme 12:46, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

It is unwise to delete an article on a purported topic in U.S. history after a mere 21 minutes' AFD discussion in what, in most U.S. timezones, is the middle of the night. We don't speedily delete hoaxes, and it is unwise to "snowball" delete articles after just 21 minutes of discussion. We don't want all of the holes in the Swiss Cheese slices to line up just because only editors who live in a single timezone have been involved in the discussion.

Having said that, I was researching the article whilst it was listed for deletion, and at least one of the book citations was fake. Hardie Grant Books published no books in 1977 according to its own (somewhat poor and hard to search) catalogue and the other book catalogues that I checked. Uncle G (talk) 12:34, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

• When it is clear, as in this case, that the article is a hoax, I can't think of any possible purpose in keeping such an article any longer. This is what IAR is for - we don't want hoax articles here. I don't see the point in having a long discussion about it either. Also, there are people, other than those who live in America, who are familiar and are experts on U.S. history. That this was deleted at an unfavorable time for them is unfortunate, but not an issue. – How do you turn this on (talk) 12:46, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Actually, it is very much an issue. I suggest that you look at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Principle of Swiss Cheese Management for a particularly apposite example of how it takes several pairs of eyes, and more than 21 minutes of discussion, to determine whether something is a hoax or not. What may be "clearly a hoax" to you may well prove to be a viable subject. (The canonical example of this is Jamie Kane (AfD discussion), but there are many others.) I suggest that you read about the Swiss Cheese model, too. We don't want the collective holes in the knowledge and abilities of a 21-minute sample of editors in a single timezone lining up so that we end up making the wrong decision at AFD. Uncle G (talk) 14:01, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
• In general, I would agree. Closing debates that early is usually improper. But in such a clear case, there's no need to keep the article around. Hoaxes is one of those areas that can be very damaging to WP, so I applied a bit of IAR. But if you feel strongly about it, feel free to undo my closure and let the debate run longer. henrik•talk 12:53, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
  • I was actually coming to point where I was about to add an opinion to delete myself, based upon finding no sources when I looked, and the citation that turned out to be fake. But the point to remember is that we don't speedily delete hoaxes, and we let AFD discussions proceed for a reasonable length of time. We aren't in such a hurry to delete hoaxes that cite sources that we cannot afford at least 24 hours so that editors around the world, with different areas of expertise and different access to sources, can check things out. We want AFD to make the correct decision. Bad decisions at AFD usually happen when editors sheep vote without doing any research themselves or when not enough editors participate. We want to avoid that. If something is a hoax, we want multiple editors to check it out independently, so that we can be confident that the AFD process has come to the right decision.

    This is all explained in the Misplaced Pages:Guide to deletion#Discussion. Uncle G (talk) 14:01, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

  • Well, since it was tagged with a {{hoax}} template, I don't think keeping it for longer would have been a problem. That said, it would be really dumb for someone to undelete it now --NE2 14:17, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
    • I was just about to say the same thing. As long as it's clear to the casual reader that the article is bogus, it's not really an issue; in fact to the casual reader it speaks well of wikipedia, by letting them know that wikipedia editors don't just sit around. Baseball Bugs 14:22, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
    • In watching my non-editing friends using wikipedia, I've seen that nearly all of them invariably scroll past any and all maintainance templates without really reading them. I'm not sure {{hoax}} is 'scary' enough to deter a user from not relying on the information. Ideally, I'd like to see the hoax template look more like the text of {{Copyviocore}}. henrik•talk 15:05, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
      • That's a good point. I find myself asking my wife what templates are on the articles she sees and she says (usually) some variation on "dunno" Protonk (talk) 15:12, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
        • That is exactly my experience as well. The last time I asked my wife about the banners at the top of articles, she said they were "just for wiki-wonks and other people who care about the site's arcane rules and wiki-process." She might have read the first few banners on her initial visit to Misplaced Pages years ago, but I doubt she has even glanced at a single one since then. --Kralizec! (talk) 15:25, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
          • That's because the banner is an essay. It should be a single, bold-faced, large-print sentence saying THIS ARTICLE IS MOST LIKELY A HOAX. Then you could have another sentence in normal font that points to where the discussion is. Baseball Bugs 16:06, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
• Uncle G is usually right on the money, and his citing of Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Principle of Swiss Cheese Management is a good reason to not speedy delete hoaxes. However, for this particular case there is a critical difference. For the John R. Smith case, the evidence proves that there is a hoax, the anachronism surrounding the Silver Star award makes the statements in the article impossible. In the Swiss Cheese case, the nomination was "seems to be OR essay", and the problems were of the "I cannot find sources" variety. Although these are verifiability issues as well, it is not active proof that the content is a hoax. There is a difference between things which seem to be a hoax because its hard to find sources, and things which are proved to be a hoax because the sources were found and actively contradict the article. In the latter case, just getting rid of it and being done with it is not something I will lose so much sleep over. Sjakkalle (Check!) 15:34, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

• While personally I think it was, at the very least, likely to be a hoax, I didn't see any sources that contradicted the article being raised - if you're refering to the Silver Star being created in 1932, the award was handed out retroactivly. So without further sources, I see it as still possible. Personally, I think the account of the battle of Fort Sumter may have been enough to show it was a hoax, but that's a different issue. - Bilby (talk) 16:15, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

• The whole point is, we had to hash these things out in open discourse to show that the article was a hoax. While it showed itself to be patently a hoax, it was certainly helpful for people to enumerate exactly why they thought it a hoax. That discussion needs to happen before articles such as this are deleted. For the record, the discussion happened (albeit, mostly here rather than AFD where it belonged), and the right decision was made; however for more subtle hoaxes (and this one WAS quite subtle, but I have seen many worse, cf. the Estland debacle), the important thing is that the opportunity is given to investigate. This wasn't what speedy deletion was created for; it was created in situations where people create articles about their cat, so that we can just delete those without comment. However, there is no impending destruction that befalls the earth if we discuss these issues before the deletion. In some cases, it turns out that it wasn't a hoax after all; and its worthwhile to have the talk. Misplaced Pages is in no rush, and doing the right thing is much more important than doing something NOW... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 17:23, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Cut&Paste move at Anna von Schweidnitz

The anon 77.253.70.44 (talk · contribs) (seemingly from Warsaw, Poland) apparently has manually overwritten the redirect at Anne of Świdnica with old content of the article Anna von Schweidnitz, and turned that one into a redirect. -- Matthead  Discuß   10:16, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, yes they have. I do not want to get into discussion, which article name is correct and which one is not, but we cannot allow such copy+paste moves for copyright reasons, as they lose use the history. I reverted the move (and cleaned the history of it) but I strongly suggest discussion about the naming on the talk page. Also, I semi-protected both targets to prevent IPs from copy+paste moving in the next days (please request unprotection after a discussion). Regards SoWhy 10:26, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

'Assyrian People' page again

Hello, I just want you guys to realize the issue going on with the Assyrian people page. Familiarize yourselves with it please. What has been happening for a while (and more often recently) has been the deletion of information sourced by credible sources. The deletions are not discussed and not voted for. This is most likely done by Anti-Assyrian nationalists who have been doing this for some time now. I suggest you guys do something about these people (banning them) because even last wave of this occurrence they were given another chance. eg. the Template: Assyrian Ethnicity the population has been changed replaced by unreliable sources without any explanation as to why the change occurred, and the first line had been changed without explanation as well. Thank-you Malik Danno (talk) 13:52, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

This is a content dispute. You'd be better following the instructions at Misplaced Pages:Dispute resolution. ➨ ❝ЯEDVERS❞ a sweet and tender hooligan 14:07, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

User:Hoponpop69

This user has been blocked 9 times in the past for vandalism, sock puppetry, personal attacks, edit warring, etc. He has been warned by countless admins and editors like myself to stop making personal attacks. I have warned him recently about personal attacks for this edit summary, then days later he calls an admin incompetent simply because he doesn't get his way. He doesn't listen to me so I'm hoping if another admin warns him about personal attacks he will stop. Blocking doesn't affect him in the least, or the previous 9 didn't anyways. If he doesn't stop a topic ban may be in order. Virtually all he does is edit war on music related articles regarding genres in the infobox. He refuses to use the talk page, almost never does. On August Burns Red here recently he ignored consensuse of a dozen or so users and a lengthy talk page discussion and just continued to revert away. Landon1980 (talk) 15:37, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

I believe I issued a final personal attack warning after his last contribution, and before your post here... Tan | 39 15:39, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

OK, I didn't see that until just now when I was informing him of this thread. Landon1980 (talk) 15:41, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Suspected sock puppets/Ctjf83

Can somebody close this report, as it's been filed solely to be disruptive because the editor was himself accused of sockpuppetry (though with evidence). Grsz 16:29, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Scarian has closed the report, and blocked the abuser for 12 hours. CTJF83Talk 16:38, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

User:Pixelface and WP:NOT

User:Pixelface has been outspoken about the presence of the WP:NOT#PLOT clause in WP:NOT. Speaking one's own mind is acceptable. However, the user continues to push this forward by completely striking the section, asserting there was never consensus for this two-year old segment to be a part of WP:NOT. The user just did this again (see this diff) after a lengthy discussion (here) ensued no less than two weeks ago after Pixelface nearly hit the 3RR limit on removing it, reverted by three different editors (including myself) (see first, second, and third times within the same 24hr period). Pixelface has done this before on WP:NOT, roughly every few months (more recently since User:TTN has been back in action), and each time, if there's discussion, it is concluded that PLOT should stay, and the change is always reverted. I will note for full disclosure that I have in the past had issued a Wikiquette Alert for Pixelface for tenacious editing during the RFC on WP:FICT (see alert here), but I don't consider this a grudge - just the fact that the actions are disruptful and not helpful to achieving a compromise and consensus.

Pixelface knows better not to edit war (the editor is part of the involved parties of the Episodes and Characters 2 ArbCom case), and these continued changes, knowing that they are going to be reverted, does not help to foster discussion. It's obviously not a true 3RR case, but I would consider this to be approaching the behavior that 3RR is meant to prevent. --MASEM 17:26, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Masem, as the editor who has reverted my removal of PLOT the most, I don't really know why you've brought this to ANI. A few months ago there was consensus to remove PLOT from NOT, I removed it, yet was reverted anyway. Recently I've explained that I think WP:PLOT poses a conflict of interest to the Wikimedia Foundation. You're welcome to tell me why you think it does not. --Pixelface (talk) 17:38, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Reading your diff as a straight vote, you have a 7-7 "vote". It's rather disingenuous to summarize several clearly dissenting views (Ned's, SamBC's) without counting them in the "against" section. Methinks you should take some time and figure out exactly what consensus is before making the bold move of claiming it exists. Badger Drink (talk) 17:54, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, if it was 7-7 as you say it was, wouldn't PLOT need something greater than that to be considered policy, a widely accepted standard that should normally be followed by all editors? And as long as you're evaluating consensus, could you tell me if there was consensus here to add PLOT to NOT in the first place? --Pixelface (talk) 18:17, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

• It takes two to tango and Masem was not slow to revert in this case. The matter is subject to discussion in various places and we may hope that normal discussion and dispute resolution will eventually reach a satisfactory result. I have myself just proposed a constructive suggestion to Pixelface and assume that he will consider this in good faith. Colonel Warden (talk) 17:43, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
  • I doubt that if I didn't revert that it would have stayed removed; I'm not the only one in the past that has reverted the flatout removal of PLOT. That said, your option on Pixelface's talk page (notcopy vs notplot) is worth exploring which I will start there. However, I am still concerned with the flatout removal of a section over and over again over several months as pushing the bounds of being BOLD and of 3RR. --MASEM 18:04, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

• I am seeing more and more evidence that we are headed for another arbcom over episodes and characters as it seems that the various sides of this matter are failing to compromise. We clearly have no consensus whatsoever on fictional notability of which plots are an element and I know how frustrating it can be to see articles with templates slapped on them rather than that time being spent helping improve the articles under discussion, just as I know how frustrating it can be to see AfDs that claim sources do not exist and the articles cannot be improved only to have sources turn up and the articles be improved with relative ease. In any event, these disputes seem to be heating up all over the place as seen here and here, for example. --A Nobody 18:30, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
  • I've notified the other participants in Wikipedia_talk:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Plot (Pixelface has solicited participation in this thread from other editors that have agreed with him in the past, I thought I'd solicit from *all* participants in the recent discussion). Pete.Hurd (talk) 18:37, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
    • I asked two other editors who have also removed PLOT from NOT in the past to comment. I don't know why Masem has singled me out for removing PLOT from NOT. --Pixelface (talk) 18:44, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
      • I am specifically looking at the actions you have done on that page over the last two weeks - 3 changes (that were reverted) about 2 weeks ago, and then again today, which is compounded by the fact you do this every few months. The other editors like Hobit have done it once but didn't edit war over it. --MASEM 18:47, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
  • We've been working on trying to avoid that. A recent RFC on WP:N was put out to try to assess what community consensus was for how sub-notability guidelines can be written and how spinout articles can be handled. We're awaiting a neutral review of the comments though there are certain lines clearly drawn from that. In response to that, an excellent start on a renewed FICT that fits in those results as best we can tell that clearly represents current practices was drawn up by Phil Sandifer here. Regardless, however, there are those on both sides of the issue that seem to refuse to compromise. The problem is is that this is not a behavioral debate (TTN's recent AFD actions were brought to ArbCom after his block expired, but Arbcom agreed he's not violating anything at this point). The current FICT failed regain a guideline status because while it has 50% support, you had 25% from inclusionists that thought it too strict, and 25% from deletionists thinking it too loose; at this point, I think it's clear that there's a middle position we're going to have to take and a large fraction of editor base is not going to like it, otherwise we'll continue to war over the issues indefinitely. --MASEM 18:47, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

• I was contacted by Pixelface about this. I also had contacted him about the same topic just before this ANI page popped up. I think we need an RfC on this, and if there isn't consensus to keep NOT#PLOT it should be removed. I do think Pixelface has been a bit pointy on this issue (though I too have removed NOT#PLOT in the past). But I strongly suspect there is no consensus on it and it should be removed. Hobit (talk) 18:42, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

User:Ragusino revert-warring

Hi all, I'll cut right to the chase: User:Ragusino has been stirring trouble for weeks now on several Dalmatia-related biographical articles on people or noble families from the Dalmatian Republic of Ragusa , , . He has engaged in revert-warring to push his POV that's based primarily on the "fact" that he, as a supposed descendant of the noble Gondola family, possesses privilege to dictate (without any actual sources) that the articles in question must use exclusively the Italian mode of a family or person's name in the lead. In recognition of the dual culture of the Republic of Ragusa, these articles have been using both the Slavic and Italian names in the lead for a very long time. Now it would appear Ragusino has decided to try and achieve his goal by constant edit-warring, in the hope that his version will come out on top solely due to the relative obscurity of these articles. Frequently asked (by more than one editor) to try and restrain himself from reverting until discussions are finished, Ragusino did not feel the need to extensively discuss his edit-warmongering. I myself stopped reverting his POV-pushing and asked him to try and discuss with his version on top . As a consequence neither the User, or his associate User:Debona.michel (another supposed "descendant" of a noble family) found the talkpage to be of any interest after their version remained in place. In short, the nobility is restless and needs Admin attention. --DIREKTOR 17:30, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Tired of cleaning up after Mac

Mac (talk · contribs) has been editing since 2003. In that time he has cultivated an intense interest in electric vehicles, alternative fuels, and solar power. The result of this has been that although he does make some good edits, his editing does not follow policy or guideline much of the time, and instead produces hundreds of bad redirects (often circling to the top of the very page a reader is on), spam links and articles, very messy categories, and copyright violations. A non-exhaustive list of the warnings he has been given in the past, as well as difs of 33 poor edits he did in one day are here, and more notices follow. Mac does not respond to these notices, and continues with the bad redirects, copy/paste violations, spam links, etc...

Is there someone here who has more experience dealing with editors who, while not being "bad people", are harming the project because they are so blinded by the "righteousness" of their cause? The many people who have warned Mac in the past have not yet had an effect as far as I can tell, and he definitely does not pay any attention to me. NJGW (talk) 17:37, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

If what you say is true, then it's time for a short-term block of that user for disruption. Baseball Bugs 17:49, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

From briefly going over today's edits, this is copied from here (not copyright, but no attribution, which he has also been warned about several times), this redirect was made only so this edit could be made, this redirect to a company was made instead of to Upgraded metallurgical-grade silicon (which may or may not be a neologism, as Mac created that as a redirect this June), category:Ford was added to the Mazda page (the do business together, but aren't the same company as far as I know), inserted a bad redirect into the lead of an article (this redirect was created by Nukeless (talk · contribs), which other editors have questioned might be a sock of Mac's)... I don't have time to go through all of them... here are a couple of other strange redirects created today: NJGW (talk) 18:10, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

GNU FDL 1.3 released!

• http://www.gnu.org/licenses/fdl-1.3-faq.html
• http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2008-November/date.html

• ""Massive Multiauthor Collaboration Site" (or "MMC Site") means any World Wide Web server that publishes copyrightable works and also provides prominent facilities for anybody to edit those works. A public wiki that anybody can edit is an example of such a server. A "Massive Multiauthor Collaboration" (or "MMC") contained in the site means any set of copyrightable works thus published on the MMC site."

• "Section 11 imposes two deadlines on licensees. First, you can only use works under CC-BY-SA 3.0 if they were added to a wiki before November 1, 2008. We do not want to grant people this permission for any and all works released under the FDL. We also do not want people gaming the system by adding FDLed materials to a wiki, and then using them under CC-BY-SA afterwards. Choosing a deadline that has already passed unambiguously prevents this."

• "Second, this permission is no longer available after August 1, 2009. We don't want this to become a general permission to switch between licenses: the community will be much better off if each wiki makes its own decision about which license it would rather use, and sticks with that. This deadline ensures that outcome, while still offering all wiki maintainers ample time to make their decision."

There appears to be a problem. From November 1, 2008 on we can not accept any contributions by someone other than the copyright holder that were first published under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License at other than a "Massive Multiauthor Collaboration Site" such as Wikimedia projects.

I suggest we say so on the edit page and tell people at various forums and remove any such material that was placed in Misplaced Pages over the last two days. WAS 4.250 (talk) 17:48, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Can't we choose to stick with 1.2? This one seems a bit oppressive to me. Dendodge Talk 18:06, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

The plan is to go to GNU FDL 1.3 and then switch to CC-BY-SA 3.0. Of course we will have a community wide discussion first to get consensus. That is why it gives us a year to decide. I think the community will support this, but if it does not then we stay with GNU FDL 1.3. The not being able to use stuff made on non-wikis after Nov. 1 is only about avoiding stuff that we can't migrate to CC-BY-SA 3.0. WAS 4.250 (talk) 18:20, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Sure we can mention it, though I think there is very little material that enters Misplaced Pages after being copied from a GFDL licensed non-wiki by someone other than the copyright holder. In other words I think the impact is pretty limited. Dragons flight (talk) 18:20, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

While it is true that the impact is limited, these measures will make the impact even less. WAS 4.250 (talk) 18:24, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

The material restricted from addition if we plan to convert is pretty limited - I don't think there is that much work going on that involves moving previously published FDL material to Misplaced Pages. I'm also not sure that adding the bit to the notice would help - although if you include on the edit box "You assert by adding this material that it has not previously been released under an FDL license" that could be useful as cover later on. Avruch 18:35, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Block review

Perhaps someone can review my block of Cbreseman (talk · contribs). It seems he wasn't too happy with WereSpielChequers (talk · contribs) for getting his userpage deleted as an attack page. Indefinite blocks may not always mean forever, so perhaps a shorter block would've been better? Spellcast (talk) 18:14, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Endorse. Edits like this are totally inappropriate - and this wasn't the only one like it. User can always use the unblock template if he/she feels up to it. Tan | 39 18:17, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

In this case, I certainly hope indefinite does mean forever, and think "infinite" would have been appropriate too. We can do without someone spewing this stuff and throwing a tantrum when he doesn't get his way. --barneca (talk) 18:21, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

The deleted content of his userpage = bulletproof indef. Nothing to review, no chance for unblock. MaxSem 18:21, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your inputs. I'm only bringing this here because users with some constructive edits are sometimes given chances. Spellcast (talk) 18:25, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Oh no way. This guy should not have his block shortened. He's also going to have to have a doozy of an unblock request to convince us to let him back. His user page was WAY beyond the pale, and the stuff he has done since it was deleted is inexcusable... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 18:53, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards