Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 05:15, 13 July 2009

• WP:ANI
• WP:AN/I

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

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

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

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

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

Request review of administrative action

The action for which I am requesting review is my own. Normally I would bring the issue here first, but as this involves what I perceive as the potential defamation of a living person who happens to be a wikipedia editor, I am taking the action first (ala WP:BLP) and bringing it here second. There is a current years-long struggle over Circumcision and its related articles. Recently, there has been what I perceive to be a dangerous trend trying to alienate editors, one in particular, with what I perceive to be improper conflation of WP:POV and WP:COI, claiming that a particular editor has a COI. I see no other purpose for this other than to try and marginalize this editor, who, in my opinion, while having a distinct POV has edited the article in complete accord with wikipedia polices and guidelines. The discussion stretched over various talk pages, including User talk:Garycompugeek, User talk:Jakew, User talk:Tremello22, to name a few. COI <> POV, and claiming that any given editor with an opinion is automatically conflicted is inappropriate, in my opinion.

Today, someone added a {{COI}} tag to Circumcision with the following edit summary Jake Waskett is a circumcision fetishist and rabid advocate. He joined Misplaced Pages with the sole intent to remove NPOV from this article. If the {{COI}} tag was ever justified, it is here., a blatant personal attack and unsourced allegation against a living person if there ever was one. I reverted the tag, only to see it reinstated twice in quick succession. Because this relates to a living person, I have locked the article without the tag, and now I am coming here to get a larger perspective on the appropriateness of the action. Thank you. -- Avi (talk) 17:37, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

I suggest you contact WP:OVERSIGHT if you want the edit summary removed. lifebaka++ 17:42, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

That is up to Jake, he has openly admitted his identity, so there is not a privacy issue per se; but if he wants it removed, I'm happy to take of that. My request for review is am I correct in locking the article even though I am a significant contributor to the article and discussions, due to the BLP nature and implied attack against Jake's integrity by continuing to attempt and paint him as a COI violator despite no evidence of any sort. -- Avi (talk) 17:46, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Good protect. I'd suggest backing it down to indef-semi at some point in the not-to-distant future, though. There do seem to be long-term problems with ip vandalism/extreme POV editing there.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:47, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

I think it's fine, given the BLP concerns. If it were anything else, there might be a problem, but BLP/NPA concerns can be enough to IAR. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 17:53, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm grateful to Avi for his actions in this matter. I see no particular reason to hide the revision including the edit summary quoted above — my name is stated on my user page, and is no secret. The content of the edit summary is certainly offensive, and would probably constitue "potentially libellous information" per meta:Hiding revisions, but it would probably cause more disruption and in any case I've endured worse personal attacks. Jakew (talk) 18:11, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I agree the edit summary of the user who originally placed the tag was tactless but one could claim BLP on any COI of any living person. I have brought this matter up at the COI notice board also. Garycompugeek (talk) 18:16, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

"COI <> POV, and claiming that any given editor with an opinion is automatically conflicted is inappropriate, in my opinion." No one has claimed this to my knowledge. Vague accusations at shadows does not help this matter Avi. My COI claims of User talk:Jakew are extensive and documented on our talk pages. All I ask is a for an uninvolved admin to look at the whole picture. Avi is involved and typically backs Jake because of their similar POV. When multiple editors tried to place the COI tag on the page he reverted multiple times citing BLP and then protected. Garycompugeek (talk) 19:53, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

I was asked to comment on this. Gary, I don't agree that there's a COI issue here. Someone's having a strong POV doesn't amount to a COI, though I agree that it can lead to POV editing, but that's a separate issue (and I don't know whether it has; I'm saying only that it can). Having said that, I don't think Avi should have protected, as he's the second most prolific editor to the page after Jake, and the edit that triggered the protection didn't involve a BLP violation. I hope Avi will undo the protection. SlimVirgin 21:03, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

I believe that the re-application of the {{COI}} tag is a continuation of the calculated effort to cast aspersions on the credibility of a living person, who happens to be a wikipedia editor, and is covered by BLP. If we can be assured that the tag will not be re-applied as an effort to undermine Jake's credibility I will gladly remove/drop the protection down to semi. The article has been tagged as a POV issue for months, if not years; that is accurate. The COI tag is to attack Jake, and that is wrong. -- Avi (talk) 21:17, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree that the COI tag is inappropriate, though I don't see it as a BLP issue—all allegations of COI are criticisms of a Wikipedian in some sense— but as you're involved, it would be better to let someone else handle it. SlimVirgin 21:26, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

When it comes to BLP, that is the area where even involved admins can, nay must, act. However, my involvement is the reason why I posted here immediately after taking the protective actions. -- Avi (talk) 21:29, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, Avi, since you're asking: I believe that the protection was technically improper. While even involved admins may normally take action against clear disruption (including BLP violations), the COI tag as such does not constitute a BLP violation or other disruption. Even assuming that the edit summary does, well, readers don't see it, and reverting does not make it go away. Accordingly, I believe you should not have reverted the page to your preferred version (without the tag) prior to protecting it.  Sandstein  21:30, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

That is why I am asking. I know that I tend to err on the side of caution when it comes to protecting privacy and BLP issues without completely reliable sources. I am not going to revert if anyone unprotects the article, but based on the history of the COI discussions, I fear that the COI tag is being applied solely to undermine the credibility of one of the editors. -- Avi (talk) 21:36, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Well gee whiz Avi, if someone did have a COI that would undermine their credibility. I have already stated this is nothing personal but became concerned about Jake's activities based on other editors post about him. I will abide by whatever the community decides :) Garycompugeek (talk) 21:44, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

i'm confused - are you saying that the coi tag is a violation of blp? if not, i see no reason for protection of the article. at most, the edit summary could be oversighted, but the editor said he didn't think that was necessary. untwirl(talk) 03:36, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Avi you have either misunderstood BLP or used it as an excuse to protect the page. Could another admin unprotect the page since Avi seems unwilling? I will not edit war over the tag. I made one revert to show my support for the tag and that is all I had planned on making. I would like to add that I am disappointed in Avi's behavior in this matter and feel it is unbecoming of an Admin/Crat. Garycompugeek (talk) 22:24, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Technically, BLP applies everywhere, even if in practice NPA tends to be used instead for Wikipedians. Here, though, the tag appears publicly on the article itself and makes a controversial, and not objectively verifiable, assertion about a person who is a published author on the subject outside Misplaced Pages. Also, anyone checking to see why the tag had originally been added would see the edit summary with the personal attack. So yes, Untwirl, I agree with Avi that the COI tag can be considered a BLP violation.

Although my personal POV on circumcision is not the same as Jake's, I find that he edits neutrally, adhering closely to what the sources say, and (regardless of whether it's considered a "BLP" issue) I don't see a COI problem, unless we want to put a COI tag on almost every article with significant contributions from a published expert on the subject.

Gary, to get the page unprotected, I think it would help if you would say something to acknowledge the stated opinions of uninvolved editors here and at WP:COIN that the COI tag is not required, and indicate that you won't edit-war over the tag. (involved editor) ☺Coppertwig (talk) 00:21, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Gary, BLP applies to the entire project, and to all people, not just articles and article subjects. Furthermore, have you seen the response at WP:COIN#Circumcision? I am sorry that you think my actions are unbecoming, but the response here and at WP:COIN indicates, at least to me, that I was correct. Please reflect on the fact that it may be your POV that is driving your response here, and not pure logic. Regardless, I will lift the protection now, but reserve the right to re-implement it in cases of further inappropriate taggings and BLP issues. -- Avi (talk) 05:30, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Many here thought that you were incorrect, myself included. I don't see this as a big deal just that you jumped the gun and were to close to the situation to appear neutral. Thank you for unprotecting the page and thanks for the sock investigation on Rorschach test that was briefly plaguing us. I will not press the COI issue as long as neutrality is adhered to. Garycompugeek (talk) 12:54, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Incorrect about what? There is unanimous agreement so far that there is no COI issue by the uninvolved editors who have commented about COI here and at COIN. Lack of consensus about whether BLP applies or not and about whether Avi should have protected the page or not doesn't change that. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 22:21, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Re "as long as neutrality is adhered to": Garycompugeek, it's totally normal for there to be disagreement from time to time among involved editors as to whether a given edit conforms to NPOV or not. Normally the way to handle this should be to post cogent arguments about content on the article talk page, referring to reliable sources and Misplaced Pages policies and guidelines, and if necessary appealing for broader community input from article-content RfCs, the WP:NPOVN etc., not by trying to discredit one of the editors by repeatedly bringing up an alleged COI issue. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 13:25, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Incorrect about claiming the use of a COI tag is a BLP violation. Incorrect for reverting to his preferred page then protecting himself considering his involvement. Further I did not bring up the COI issue that started this thread but merely supported two other editors that tried to placed the COI tag. Next time get your facts straight before lecturing. Garycompugeek (talk) 17:01, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry: I didn't mean to imply that you had raised the subject of COI. I was just responding to what you had said above about your intentions for the future, which I quoted, and which I may have misunderstood. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 01:06, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

The IP account which originally posted the COI tag (with the offensive edit summary) was blocked for a week by Chillum for it for "abuse". ☺Coppertwig (talk) 21:34, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Casimir9999 and other socks

In late June I filed a report on an editor who was abusing multiple accounts (including Gil987 (talk · contribs), Casimir9999 (talk · contribs), Uruk2008 (talk · contribs), and others) to make useless edits, and not responding to warnings. The editor showed up at ANI and promised to improve, but the behavior has continued, for example and . Given the amount of time this has wasted for numerous editors (see Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Uruk2008 and the corresponding talk page), and the lack of any useful contributions, I suggest that it is time to take serious action. It is likely, but not 100% certain, that the parent of all these accounts is MessiahBenDavid (talk · contribs). I will notify the editor of this thread (one of his incarnations, anyway). Looie496 (talk) 16:37, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Please notify all the incarnations.

I had to block Uruk2008 in February for more specifically abusive behavior on several pages; they seem to have limited themselves to references rather than edit warring since, though if you have diffs for exceptions to that they would be useful.

The RFC seems to show a community consensus that they're not a useful editor, but didn't have much specific diffs and the problems with the specific references they're adding. Can you possibly get some more specific evidence in the thread here?

If the references being added are really bad, and they won't stop after a final warning, we can probably do something about it. I seems like they might well be bad but we need to get it on the record in more detail.

Thanks. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 20:02, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, that's too much work for a "maybe". I just got involved in this because he impinged on a couple of neuroscience articles, and I saw that the physicists, who are his main victims, weren't getting anywhere with him. I thought I could help move things along more efficiently, but that doesn't appear to be the case, so I'm going to back out now and simply revert him when he does it again to the articles I watch. Fortunately he's very easy to recognize. Looie496 (talk) 22:26, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

What's frustrating about this is that the rest of us end up having to put far more effort into this than Uruk2008 does. He (let's say) appears to be plugging keywords into Google and adding search results to the article without reading them. The rest of us either have to delete them indiscriminately, which amounts to the same thing as banning the editor, or else review each one for quality. I started out doing the latter but eventually gave up because so few edits are worth keeping and even those are marginal. They're sources you can imagine being in the article, but it would be easier to find similar or better sources than to sift through Uruk2008's mess (and why should he define the playing field anyway?). I know there's an argument that bad edits can spur improvements to an article, but I refuse to clean up after Uruk2008 in the long term and I doubt anyone else will volunteer. Without people specifically dedicated to cleaning up after this user it will not happen, because few editors bother to check references if they look okay on the surface. It would need to be a team of people with expertise in various areas because Uruk2008 adds to a wide range of articles. That's easy for him, of course, but hard for us. My point is, I don't want to have to compile a long list of edits with explanations of what's wrong with each one; it would take a long time and this user doesn't deserve that effort. If it would get him quickly banned and out of my hair then maybe it would be worth it, but I'd like to avoid it. If you just need a list of objectionable edits without individual justifications, then just look at Special:Contributions/Uruk2008, Special:Contributions/Gil987, and so on. Pretty much all of those. -- BenRG (talk) 21:02, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

User:Rebroad continues behavior which got him blocked just last week

Rebroad (talk · contribs) continues to edit war over the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills article, and continues to harass a user (in this case, me) by repeatedly adding his nonsensical warnings, even when they've been removed, this time on my Talk page instead of on Off2riorob's. There is zero consensus to add his edits to the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills page, and he has no explanation as to why it's necessary, but he refuses to listen. I know, "content disagreement", but edit warring is not about content, it's about contentious editing. See User_talk:Rebroad#re_block. He has also accused me of sockpuppetting because I disagree with him. As I have noted in the past, I'm American, I never heard of these people, I just find Rebroad's edits contentious. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 20:27, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Blocked for a month. Wow, that is some serious tendentious editing. Tan | 39 20:45, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Rebroad's Talk page now indicates that he plans on taking action against the blocking Admin once his block has expired. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 21:04, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

That's a bluff. Any editor is free to purse action against an admin, but in his case he would be laughed out of wiki-court. Baseball Bugs carrots 21:12, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

I think that Tan39 has responded appropriately, and if there needs to be further review of their action and for further sanctions I am certain they are capable of requesting the necessary opinions. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:17, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Users blocked for an extended period will often respond initially with various slings and arrows. The best thing at this point is to ignore him for the next 30 days or so. Baseball Bugs carrots 21:50, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Talk page protected for one week due to continued abuse of the unblock template. KillerChihuahuaAdvice 22:07, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

WebHamster, Anti-americanism

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

• No admin action required here. I would point out, however, that User:Noloop does have something of a track record of removing large sourced chunks of articles for various reasons - etc. Black Kite 20:41, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

A lot of the refs in the anti-americanism article don't say what the article attributes to them. In some cases, this is probably a legal issue--false representation or something. I'm trying to take out some of them. Nobody has objected excepted WebHamster. He has done very little to work toward consensus. He's not repsonding to my points or questions, and mostly just rudely contradicting me. On his Talk page he has said: "I just can't be arsed wasting the time on someone like you. The point still remains that you have no consensus. Either go get some or stop fucking about." http://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:WebHamster#Anti-Americanism

So, I think I do have consensus, since the only objector can't be considered to care about consensus. Also, I really wonder why the Misplaced Pages community can decide, by consensus, to misrepresent sources. Consensus shouldn't be required to remove definite fraud. Also, a huge amount of the article is just propaganda, because it reports propaganda about anti-Americanism as fact, citing propaganda as a source. If I try to remove any of it, WebHamster will declare it referenced (true!) and relevant (also true!)....I think the policies around here need fixing.

Anyway, swearing at me and dismnissing me with "I can't be arsed wasting the time on someone like you" is abusive.

Oh, here's the discussion I tried to start on the article's talk page: http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Anti-Americanism#Middle_East Noloop (talk) 22:22, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

This is a content dispute. Historically, one-versus-one content disputes are often intractable. You won't get anywhere without input from other editors, and you won't get that here. The NPOV noticeboard is a reasonable place to ask for input on issues like this. Looie496 (talk) 22:39, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Describing me as "fucking about" and not worth "wasting time on" is a content dispute??? Noloop (talk) 22:58, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Describing you as the above is a personal attack. Someone should warn that editor.--_{Sky Attacker} 23:56, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

I've left an attack warning on his talk page.--_{Sky Attacker} 00:01, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Your comment displays a fundamental misunderstanding. A "personal attack" is a comment addressed to the editor, not to the editor's behaviour, or another's opinion of that behaviour. If I say that I believe your comment to be thoughtless and stupid that does not necessarily mean that I believe you to be thoughtless and stupid. Simple really. --Malleus Fatuorum 00:02, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

No, it was more like "I can't be arsed wasting my time with someone like you" a direct adress to that editor. I'll check the talk page for exact wording--_{Sky Attacker} 00:05, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

You ought to have checked before jumping to conclusions, don't you think? --Malleus Fatuorum 00:07, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

You ought to check before accusing someone of jumping to conclusions, don't you think?--_{Sky Attacker} 00:10, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Read I just can't be arsed wasting the time on someone like you. A direct hit on the user not the content.--_{Sky Attacker} 00:09, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

WH's response was uncivil, but Noloop's claim to be supported by consensus when no other editor has actually expressed an opinion is rather provocative, and that should be taken into account. Looie496 (talk) 00:49, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Not to mention that the way the content of the references is described by Noloop is a little bit misleading to say the least. 76.117.1.254 (talk) 01:52, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) Noloop has requested a third opinion on the content dispute. Perhaps not a good idea to discuss this in multiple forums. --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 02:24, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

• In response to the original concern, I think you need the content dispute noticeboard, an RfC content, or a third opinion tag. ANI is not really the place to deal with the issue. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:28, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

It was in the process of requesting the Third Opinion that I noticed his last response to me, which was over the top regarding civility. I didn't think Third Opinions were for an editor telling another editor, basically, to fuck off.

It seems to me that if nobody is objecting there is consensus, or at least no reason not to edit. If the only person objecting isn't participating in a consensus process, as shown by telling editors to fuck off, what are we supposed to do?

There is a section for discussing the content of the refs. If you disagree with me, please discuss! Noloop (talk) 15:39, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

I was referring to your statement here: "So, I think I do have consensus,". If you think you have consensus, then open it up and get verification for it. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:58, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Apparently Misplaced Pages's civility policies aren't enforced. The incivility was my main motive in coming here. I mentioned the content dispute because I thought misrepresenting outside sources might be considered a legal issue, that's all. I looked at RFC but didn't really understand it; I don't know what the "content dispute noticeboard" is. Noloop (talk) 16:17, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Was it truly a blockable form of incivility? If not, then WP:WQA is where we deal with violations of WP:CIVIL. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 16:35, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

-Malleus Fatuorum deleted Sky Attacker's warning on WebHamster's page, 10 minutes after it was left, and called it "nonsense". Shouldn't administrators be role models? What a weird board. Noloop (talk) 16:21, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

That's because Sky Attacker didn't have a clue what he was doing, much like yourself. Whilst you are here, could you please explain why your user talk page is redirected to User talk:Noloop2? — Preceding unsigned comment added by WebHamster (talk • contribs)

If you read User talk:Noloop2 and look at the history, it should be obvious s/he was trying to archive the talk page and ended up moving it instead. Not much mystery. Off to help him/her straighten it out.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 16:42, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Administrators probably should be role models, yes. But what's that got to do with me? --Malleus Fatuorum 16:33, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

In case it's not entirely obvious from Malleus's comment above, you don't have to be an administrator to respond to posts on this page, and Malleus is not. Nor, for that matter, is Sky Attacker, but it is perfectly fine for both of them to jump into the conversation. LadyofShalott 19:01, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

To Bwilkins: I don't know what's blockable. Is there a difference between incivility that breaks the rules, and incivility that is blockable? It seems to me if you aren't willing to work with the other editor on an article, you shouldn't be allowed to edit that article. Wikis are collaboration. Noloop (talk) 19:19, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, the first step when encountering incivility is to try and fix it between the 2 of you. If that doesn't help, then you involve a neutral, third party - the role of WP:WQA is to facilitate conversation in this manner. From a WP:WQA perspective, let's look at the phrase you're angered about: "I just can't be arsed wasting the time on someone like you. The point still remains that you have no consensus. Either go get some or stop fucking about". First, swearing is not forbidden - in fact, we have an essay WP:FUCK, and I even have a standard userbox that says "This user does not give a fuck" - a similar version is "This user can't be arsed". What exactly does the phrase "someone like you" have in it that violates WP:NPA or WP:CIVIL? Maybe it means "someone who wears Nike shoes", or "someone who watches Torchwood", or even "someone who just doesn't listen to advice" ... are any of those a personal attack? So, there is no personal attack, as you can see. Now, about consensus: you both think you have it? Time for a third opinion or even an RFC on the content itself. WP:ANI is not the place that is mentioned in any of the above, is it? (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 19:56, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Is anybody responding on this "Administrators' noticeboard" an actual administrator? Or (it's like winning the lottery) an actual grown-up? I feel like I've stumbled into a middle school for the behaviorally disordered and all the teachers are dead. Noloop (talk) 20:24, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

(Not an admin, though I am a grown-up) I'd imagine administrators aren't responding because, as Bwilkins pointed out immediately above, WP:ANI is the wrong venue, this isn't an incident that requires administrative attention, and you'd be better served taking the issue to WP:3O. Cheers, TFOWR 20:31, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

No. WebHamster was uncivil. Everybody over the age of 15 (or under the age of 13) would recognize the comments as such. I did, in fact, double-check the civility policy before posting here. Examples of incivility:

1. Rudeness
2. Insults and name-calling
3. Judgmental tone
4. Belittling contributors
5. Taunting or baiting; deliberately pushing others to the point of breaching civility even if not seeming to commit such a breach themselves

It's a strict definition, not a loose one. Apparently, it is also one that is ignored by those who are supposed to enforce it. Noloop (talk) 20:42, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Merger dispute

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

This is turning into a back and forth and no good can come from that. Let's let the RfC run its course. No admin action needed. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 02:33, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

I proposed the merger of two articles, placing tags and seeking additional opinions. This is detailed at WP:CNB#Consensus and the merger of Bristol Indymedia into Indymedia, and I won't waste space repeating the details here. I posted that link today to ask if consensus now exists for merger. I was told yes. I accordingly merged the two articles, but the only person to speak against the merger has now reverted the merger, twice, see What should I do?- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 23:48, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

• Simon, I have noticed that you have posted here for whatever reason each day for the past couple days. ANI isn't your own personal dispute resolution board, though we do have a place for that. I think it would be best if you steered clear of these articles that are causing problems and work on something a little less problematic. Also, please know that ANI is for immediate admin assistance, none of your posts so far have required admin assistance and that might constitute overuse of ANI. Just throwing it out there. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 00:26, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

This issue was coming here whether I raised it or not - Jez announced his intention to raise the issue here (see his edit summary here). That I happened to post first doesn't change that both he and I both think an admin's involvement is called for. There is an issue here, and if your apparent dislike for me prevents you from assessing it in a neutral fashion, the appropriate response for an admin is to recuse yourself, isn't it?.- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 00:32, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

OK, let me run these down. I don't have an "apparent dislike" for you, I just think you are misusing ANI. This is your, I like, 4th or 5th post here in as many days and all have required no admin action. As for "recusing myself", I don't have to do that...seeing as I am not an admin. I am just giving out advice, answering questions, etc., much like what Roux or Baseball Bugs do here. It is not required that you be an admin to post on the AN or ANI boards in response.

But what I said holds true. Steer clear of these problematic pages and edits, and if you are having a problem with an editor that does not require immediate admin assistance (like a back and forth dispute), please consider taking it to the dispute resolution board. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 00:45, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

The claim that I've posted here four or five times in as many days is not true. The last time I posted something to ANI before tonight was July 4th - seven days ago. I've posted something at AN more recently, but there is not here.- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 02:34, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Actions of User:Simon Dodd

The above editor proposed WP:AfD for Bristol Indymedia at WP:Articles for deletion/Bristol Indymedia (2nd nomination). The result was no consensus. Immediately User:Simon Dodd placed a merger template suggesting merger to Indymedia - I think they meant Independent Media Center - on 24 June. Only myself and Simon Dodd commented, he for and I against. An RfC was opened by Simon Dodd on on 6 July. Today Simon Dodd decided to merge the artcles even though no censensus had been achieved. They claim that the AfD had a consensus for merger, but no-one else from that discussion has appeared at Talk:Bristol Indymedia to suppiort this. I have twice reverted his merger and request that the page be protected from this editor if possible. Jezhotwells (talk) 23:52, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Just to clarify an important detail: several editors commenting on the AFD proposed the merge I have just carried out (and that Jeremy has now reverted, twice) as an alternative to deletion. You can find the AFD here. What Jeremy is implying to be a unilateral act was anything but: several editors at the AFD suggested the merge, so I proposed it after the no consensus close. No one spoke in objection, even after seeking third opinions and comments, as I explained at WP:CNB#Consensus and the merger of Bristol Indymedia into Indymedia. Nearly three weeks went by from the nomination. Rather than unilaterally asserting that there was a consensus, I sought yet more outside input at WP:CNB#Consensus and the merger of Bristol Indymedia into Indymedia. Only when I was told there that consensus existed did I go ahead with the merge.- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 00:05, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Who's Jeremy? Is this some sort of attempt at outing? Jezhotwells (talk) 00:11, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

"Jez" is usually short for "Jeremy" and using first names is generally thought to enhance collegiality and civility. If you prefer "Jez," that's fine too. - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 00:13, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Clarification: at Misplaced Pages:Articles_for_deletion/Bristol_Indymedia_(2nd_nomination) there were four keeps, two merges and one delete. How this equates to a consensus for merger, when no others commented at the merger discussion is not clear to me. Jezhotwells (talk) 00:19, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Note also that after bringing the dispute here, which was already forum-shopping, Simon Dodd tried to rope in another admin. Looie496 (talk) 00:57, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

• There is no need to merge an article (Bristol Indymedia) with 30+ sources to what appears to be a parent company (Independent Media Center). That would be like merging USA Network with parent company NBC. It's just silly. If the spinoff article has survived two AfDs and has proper sourcing, there is no need to merge. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 01:08, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

No, it wouldn't. The key difference is that NBC and USAN are both notable, whereas BI is not notable - see discussion below.- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 02:34, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

(Simon asked me to comment here) I'm not too familiar with the topic of this dispute, but here's my two cents... the AfD doesn't look to me like there was a strong consensus either way (for merge or for keep), although most of comments at WP:CNB#Consensus and the merger of Bristol Indymedia into Indymedia did appear to be encouraging Simon to merge. The fact that Jezhotwells appears to be the only person strongly objecting to the merge is a bit troublesome, but now that it's gotten close to edit war territory it would be better to reach a clearer consensus about this (ie, wait out the RfC rather than quibble over how to interpret the outcome of the pretty small AfD) than to arbitrarily select one "consensus" or another, which would probably only be enforceable with blocks. So I think the best thing to do is drop all of this and wait for more discussion to come through RfC; after that is done, hopefully consensus will be much clearer than it is now.

As for each user's actions... I think it's good that Simon is not edit warring over this, and even if ANI was not the best forum to bring it to (it probably wasn't, but oh well, at least it's a way to get a fast response) then it's better he did that than edit war. Arguing over the character of each user involved here is not likely to bring any good, so why don't we just forget about this thread and wait for the RfC to happen? The encyclopedia isn't going to explode in the meantime. rʨanaɢ /_contribs 01:44, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Wait how much longer? The merge was proposed nearly three weeks ago, plenty of time has already gone by in which anyone who was remotely interested could have weighed in. The only person who made any kind of comment from the request for WP:3O said only that an RFC should be filed, without making any comment on the dispute. I've done everything I can in good faith and by the book to move us forward, and I don't think it's unreasonable to ask that we be more concrete about when the hammer falls. Consensus is for merge - that's the undeniable upshot of the AFD and silence for three weeks at the talk page. So why are we waiting, and how much longer, specifically, do we have to wait? - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 02:08, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Also, why aren't user:Jezhotwells' two reversions on this article today edit warring worthy of a warning, when my two reversions on Clarence Thomas a couple of weeks ago were?- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 02:14, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm not condoning Jez's reverting; I'm just saying that whether there is consensus here is not clear at all, and having a fuller discussion would make that clearer and render this whole discussion unnecessary. rʨanaɢ /_contribs 02:29, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Shouldn't the rules be applied consisently, however? And I'd still like to know your view on the appropriate timeframe, asked above.- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 02:42, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Why are you so gung-ho to merge a fairly long article with 30+ references into an even longer article making the new one completely unreadable? What is wrong with having Bristol Indymedia by itself? Also, where is this consensus for merger you keep talking about? From the AfDs, I see consensus for keep, never merger. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 02:12, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

The subject is non-notable. No one, in either of the two AFDs on it, has advanced a single policy-based counterargument, or added any material to the article, that demonstrates its notability. Read those AFDs again, and really look at the kind of counterarguments being made against the noms - they range from gossamer to farcical. It is clearly, plainly, inarguably, non-notable, its existence sheer vanity. Yet user:Jezhotwells has managed to thwart all attempts, including this one, to expurge it from the encyclopædia. It -- the article, and through its proxy, Jez's stonewalling or any attempts to apply wikipedia policy to it -- represents everything that is wrong with Misplaced Pages - the inconsistent application of rules, the ability of a single user to shipwreck consensus, etc.

As to consensus, there was certainly no consensus to keep, and I don't understand what escapes you and Jez about this: the consensus to merge isn't at AFD, the consensus to merge is based on what was said at AFD, plus what was and wasn't said in the three weeks following the merger proposal. Several users spoke in favor of merger at AFD. Only one user spoke against on the talk page, after multiple attempts to seek input. Unless you are suggesting that the entire community has to weigh in before any decision can be taken, you have to concede that if something is proposed and no one speaks against it for a given period of time, the community has in fact spoken, expressing tacit support or at least indifference. I think three weeks is a reasonable period to wait - more than reasonable, in fact, given that even AFD only waits a week or two. And if you don't agree, it is absolutely incument on you to name how many weeks you DO think is reasonable.- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 02:28, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Need an admin to check bot deletions- are they ongoing?

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

Bot owner replied, issues are being addressed, and it isn't ongoing. Thanks all. tedder (talk) 14:54, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

User:Orphaned talkpage deletion bot is apparently deleting pages, even when the article exists. I happened to see it for Talk:Ed Dickson, but a review of User:Orphaned talkpage deletion bot/Trial shows quite a few others- four of the first five.

I posted to the botowner's talk page, but the human doesn't appear to be terribly active. I'm wondering if the bot is actively deleting other valid talkpages. Can an admin check? (I assume it's pretty easy to check the deleted contribs). tedder (talk) 04:54, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Anyone can view the bot's deletion log. The first three I checked were incorrect. One of them was because of mistakes made by ClueBot III when archiving talk pages. Graham87 05:44, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Huh, I feel silly, I didn't know it was possible to see those logs. In any case, the bot isn't terribly active, so my post to the human talkpage is probably sufficient. Still, 15 were incorrect, and 4 were correctly deleted. In other words, that's a 79% failure rate. tedder (talk) 05:48, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

This appears to be related to (documented) corruption in the Toolserver's copy of the English Misplaced Pages's database. (You'll notice all the articles were created on July 2.) The bot just needs to do its own check with the API to see if the page exists at the time of deletion. --MZMcBride (talk) 05:55, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, MZMcBride. It certainly seemed like a dirty cache/dirty data type issue. I'll monitor the bot and come back here to request a block if there is further damage. tedder (talk) 06:00, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

It should probably also check whether there is a backslash in the page title rather than a slash, like what happened at Talk:Death of Neda Agha-Soltan\Reactions, which I've just moved to Talk:Death of Neda Agha-Soltan/Reactions. Graham87 06:03, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

I've undone all the incorrect talk page deletions from today. ChrisG seems to have taken care of the deletions before today. Graham87 06:10, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

I've shut off the bot until I can add the extra error checking (if we get a ETA on if and when the Toolserver's database will be fixed/re-imported I'll probably wait until it fixed as well before restarting the bot). As for the deletions before today, that was an unrelated problem that had todo with misconfigured Cluebot archiving templates. --Chris 06:28, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

My User Talk Page being compromised

I have a user/editor that continues to attempt to make edits on my own personal talkpage. This user reported to the admins that I was writing personal attacks on his page. I have since left that users talk page alone. Here is when I was warned...The user and I got into a personal attack debate and the user contacted a admin who issued the following to me.

Civility Note that civility here is not optional. This edit is not called for, and recurrences could lead to you being blocked. Kevin (talk) 10:50, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

I have not made any contact with the user and I wish not to do so, however the user will not leave my personal talk page alone and now I recieve daily interactions such as these below...

Welcome Back Wow, were you on vacation? I see you've also developed other interests and learned some HTML, great! You'll be a much more productive contributor now. McCoy has gained a lot of weight, I know why, that is a positive as well.--Victor9876 (talk) 05:36, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Advise It might be helpful to blank your talk page and begin aknew.--Victor9876 (talk) 16:14, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Last Request to blank Carrt. I have asked you politely to blank your talk page. You have a right to blank your own page or not. I am amending my request to ask you to blank only my exchanges with you on your talk page. If not, I will ask an admin to do it. Thanks in advance for your co-operation.--Victor9876 (talk) 17:17, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:Carrt81"

The user Victor9876 took it upon themselves to make edits on my personal page as shown here

01:28, 12 July 2009 Victor9876 (talk | contribs) (21,954 bytes) (I have blanked the issues requested below. If you revert this back, a request from an administrator will be made. I urge you, consider blanking the rest.) (undo)

This is my personal talk page..and the user Victor9876 put those responses on my page and then requested to have them taken off. I refuse since its my talk page. I can do what I please with it. Besides if I was asked not to make contact with the user, why I ask is the user contacting me. I just want this user to leave my page alone. What is the ruling on personal talk pages? If Victor9876 didn't like what they put on my talkpage maybe they shouldn't have done it in the first place. I was going to revert Victor9876's changes to my personal talk page but Victor9876 threatened if I did that, that a Admin would be contacting me. I just want my personal talk page to be left alone. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Carrt81 (talk • contribs) 04:57, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

I am someone who is relatively adamant on the rights of users to keep their talkpages as they wish. That being said, reading between the lines I'm guessing the two of you didn't hit it off very well? It would be an excellent gesture of peace for you to blank the section he is complaining about, and move on from the issue. → ROUX ₪ 05:06, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree. This user keeps contacting me so if this will make peace and ensure that this user won't continue to make contact with me or my page than its a small price. comment added by Carrt81

You shouldn't be made to feel bullied about your own talk page, IMO. His threats carried no weight at all. /shrug Tarc (talk) 05:16, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

• On deeper investigation, it's looking like some truly bizarre harassment from Victor9876 a few months ago. My advice above still stands, if you feel like forgiving him. The edits remain in the page history more or less forever, so if he starts it up again you can easily find them. → ROUX ₪ 05:20, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

• Thank you Roux...Yes Victor9876 has been at it for a while. The user has been banned before and has had multiple usernames. I was going to keep my talkpage the way Victor changed it but an Admin came in and reverted what Victor had done. Carrt81
  • Daedalus is not an admin (nor am I). Victor has used multiple usernames? Do you mean abusively, or has simply used different accounts? → ROUX ₪ 05:32, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

For clarity's sake, Daedalus isn't an admin. I agree with what he did, though. Whatever you'd like to do with your talk page is completely your decision, whether you'd prefer to delete it and get rid of any drama or maintain it as a record of your harassment. There's absolutely no policy the other editor can use to remove it, so don't worry about any of their threats. The choice is yours. Dayewalker (talk) 05:33, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

• Understood. Thank you very much. Yes I just wanted to document everything. Carrt81 (talk) 05:42, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

• • You said that Victor was banned under a previous username, and has used multiple accounts to avoid his ban. What was that banned account(s) so we can put the pieces of this puzzle together? If possible, you may want to file a WP:SPI report, or if that is too complicated, just leave the info here, and it can be dealt with. Creating new accounts to dodge a block or a ban is not allowed, and that in itself can be dealt with. --Jayron32.talk.say no to drama 06:14, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
    • Carr has left a list on my userpage. At least one of the named users I recognised as being a long-term and very constructive editor, so I'm not sure what exactly is going on here. → ROUX ₪ 06:27, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
      • Here, ], Carrt81 is being disengenuous. My prior edit name was DetroitNews9, but I could not log in and the password was forgotten, so I created Victor9876 and wrote down the password to prevent future mistakes. Carrt81 has compiled a list that is not exact and purposely uses the same argument that I misused Houston McCoy's name. That is not true and that issue was over with long ago, but he keeps bringing it up. My suggestions recently on his talkpage were genuine, even if he wants to portray them as threats, which there clearly aren't, and stalking, please re-read the link I provided. He recently returned from an a lengthy time of not "harassing" me, and provided a link on the Houston McCoy page with an error in spelling, which I corrected and in an attempt to prevent mistakes from the past, asked him to blank his talk page of my replies to his old harassments. He did not acknowledge me, even though he has edited after the requests, so I know he got the messages. Now he wants to play the victim and obviously get me in trouble. To defer that, I mentioned in the blanking comment that if he reverted the page, I would contact an admin about blanking the page. So, what is his point here? I suggest reading the whole history and look at Carrt81's comments from the past as well. I just didn't want history repeating itself as Carrt81 is apparently doing by acting like a victim. Also, there is no value in the old posts and reflect bad faith between Carrt81 and myself. Look from the beginning of his talk page when I tried to help him as DetroitNews9. Carrt81 has taken and portrayed these issues way out of context.--Victor9876 (talk) 08:54, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

You can't really 'order' another user to blank their user talk page or get an admin to do it for you. You can ask and that editor may do it as a courtesy, but he's not obliged to do it. I think the best thing now would be for both of you to forget what happened in the past and try to get along, as suggested above by Roux and Dayewalker. ≈ Chamal  10:14, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

• Comment - I'm not sure that every aspect of things is being presented here. Looking back at user contributions, way back on October 20, 2008, Carrt81 was the first of these two usernames to contact the other , to which Victor9876 replied here. It went back forth a few times, but nothing overtly antagonistic was noted, but it seemed to go sour between them. There is no evidence in the contribution history of Victor9876 that he contacted Kevin at all, but Kevin did leave a warning at Cartt81's talk page about this edit which was quite contentious and include the comment "you can just do the world a favor and walk in front of a bus". At that edit, Carrt81 also accused Victor9876 of having various usernames and suggested a number of extremely offensive ones to use. Victor9876 didn't attempt to hide the existence of a former user account, (Detroitnews9). Just in passing regarding the list of IPs and usernames that Carrt81 accused Victor9876 of having used, the IP numbers that I checked are located in the western United States, the eastern United States and in Burlington, Ontario Canada, and almost none of the IPs have been used here since 2006 or early 2007. It appears that some old issues that vastly predate the registration of the user account Carrt81, have spilled over from some past dispute onto others and thus makes me wonder if Carrt81 had a previous account. Some of the present argument extended to some unexpected posts to my own talk page , including one where he/she gave a list of "banished usernames" - the Victor9876 and Detroitnews9 mentioned above, an administrator in good standing, Johntex, of being the same person , and another editor in good standing on Roux's talk page. All of this is over issues relating to the same articles, all of which Carrt81 has also edited, as have I. Just a comment. Wildhartlivie (talk) 10:09, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

I believe that the passage above should be oversighted for BLP violations, Victor9876 should be indef-blocked for involving Misplaced Pages in legal issues, and the matter should be referred to Mike Godwin. I'm not an admin or I would immediately take action myself here. Looie496 (talk) 02:21, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

You have raised a serious concern Looie496. How is the above a Biography of Living Persons violation?--Victor9876 (talk) 03:21, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

• I have hidden the above per Looie's comment. An admin is needed ASAP to sort this mess out. → ROUX ₪ 03:27, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Personal attack on RfA - please remove

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

Could someone give some thought about removing or censuring this comment. This same editor also recently emailed me with some eccentric and strange remarks and I really don't like it. The remarks he is referring to were on another site and were so obviously intended as a joke that he should not be taking them out of context. Peter Damian (talk) 09:38, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

It cannot be construed as a personal attack if you are indeed the one that posted and owned up to such a remark. If that was not you, than you have my sincerest apologies. However, if that was you, a clear and concise plan is not hyperbole, and I am free to use your own words as an attestation. My email to you was one, as was my helping you on an article, done in good faith. It is not unconventional for users to be chastised for off-wiki commentary. As I reiterate, if that was not your posting, you have my apologies. Law _{type! snype?} 10:05, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

There's absolutely no WP:NPA violation here. If you don't want to be quoted, Peter, then I suggest you refrain from making statements. With that, I'm off to do some vandal fighting...gosh, I feel demoralized. :) Bullzeye 10:48, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

There is no personal attack. Don't say things like that if you don't want to have it quoted. --Deskana, Champion of the Frozen Wastes 10:52, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

It was a joke. A bit like the time Kenny Everett said 'Let's bomb Russia'. And Law goes well beyond simply quoting me, if you actually read what he says. I have removed Gwen's tag.Peter Damian (talk) 11:13, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Let me simplify it. I did not like how my block was undone. Hyperbole is not hyperbole when it is backed up with specific actions. If they were in jest, why qualify them? Subtle vandalism. This makes me uncomfortable, however.
Blowing off steam is one thing, but a plan, laid out, in which you are not even comfortable with your own device shows that you had shitty intentions. You should remain blocked. My only regret is that I adhere to COI. Law _{type! snype?} 11:23, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

And let me add, for those who accused me as a 'sleeper,' which part of this is an exageration or part of you blowing off steam?

I've indeffed people for username violations because they are simply usernames which are not acceptable. Why anyone allows you to edit here is beyond my comprehension. Law _{type! snype?} 11:30, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Go on keep up with the bullying. Peter Damian (talk) 11:33, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Law's email

And here then, as I must, is the strange email that 'Law' sent to me - I find it very disturbing the way he writes these strange disconnected, ungrammatical and mispelled statements. He comes across (to me at least) as someone who would be prepared to use violence. Peter Damian (talk) 11:46, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Peter Damian (talk) 11:44, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

'Cheers? That's not even in my colloquial vernacular. Take it to my talk page man. You really are reaching. I also am pretty adept at using caps when necessary. Cheers, Law. Law _{type! snype?} 11:52, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

You can't post that email unless the sender says it's ok to do so. Gwen Gale (talk) 11:55, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Um Am I OG?

This is a procedural action. I really would hope that I have not given the impression that I would unleash my gat when involved with a debate on wikipedia. Would I? I hate ANI, but seriously, I think the accusation does merit a discussion. Am I violent? This has to stop. Law _{type! snype?} 12:24, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Indeed it does merit a discussion. Any comment or action I would take with regard to that user risks being perceived as non-neutral, so I will refrain from further comment. Stifle (talk) 20:50, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

At the very least, that's an AGF failure. I'm up for a community ban of Peter once enough other people are. Jclemens (talk) 04:44, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

• I'm with Jclemens on this one. Enough is enough. → ROUX ₪ 04:48, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
• I have been uninvolved with the offender. My take after reading the link: Over the top, uncivil, basically outrageous. My vote is a concurring one with Roux and JClemens.--Yachtsman1 (talk) 04:58, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

User:Archaic d00d

Can someone please review my block of User:Archaic d00d here? The editor has requested unblocking. I would like to have my say if necessary, but it is late in my part of the world and I want to go to bed! -- Mattinbgn\ 12:17, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Looks good to me. The unblock has been declined and I can see why, if the editor still doesn't understand why s/he was blocked in the first place. TNXMan 13:09, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Excellent block and excellent decline, unfortunately. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 13:45, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Block, length and unblock decline all look ok to me. Gwen Gale (talk) 13:46, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

I have an objection, actually. I agree block is fine, decline is fine. what about length? I see no reason to have anything shorter than indef. Clearly someone here to troll and flame. Why prolong the nonsense? KillerChihuahuaAdvice 13:50, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

It's true, I'd likely have indeffed pending an acknowledgement, had I been the one dealing with it. Gwen Gale (talk) 13:53, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Legal threat

User warned for vandalism , replied with legal threat . JNW (talk) 12:59, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Looks like someone holding forth about legalities, not making a threat. "That's against the law" is quite different from "I will take you to court". KillerChihuahuaAdvice 13:03, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

I dunno, "your support to the contrary will and can be held against you in a criminal court of law, under federal regulatory restrictions." sounds like a (vague?) threat to me. — CRAZY`(lN)`SANE (talk • contribs) 13:05, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, and looking at this other contribs, he's definitely on a mission. "sheetheads" is completely beyond the pale. He'll get blocked in short order one way or another if he doesn't mend his ways. KillerChihuahuaAdvice 13:06, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

It is not a direct "I am taking action", but it is at the least intended to be disruptive, as were the edits preceding it. JNW (talk) 13:08, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, i think CIS is correct, "will ... in a criminal court of law" could be held to technically violate the NLT policy. OTOH, this person is clearly full of all kinds of hostility, and I agree with JNW that its not an actual threat. We could indef on a technicality, or we could see how he responds to the warnings he is getting. I have no argument with either approach. KillerChihuahuaAdvice 13:11, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

KillerChihuahua left a welcome and I left a warning. We'll see where it goes from here. TNXMan 13:12, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Hey, my welcome was one of the vandal welcomes! Not exactly a hug. :-P KillerChihuahuaAdvice 13:13, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but the alliteration worked so well! TNXMan 13:15, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Excellent point. I myself have bent to the call of the cadence upon occasion. You are forgiven. KillerChihuahuaAdvice 13:25, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the thoughtfulness. :P TNXMan 13:27, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Alliterative administrators ascendant!!! KillerChihuahuaAdvice 13:33, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

It's a legal threat, but so hollow as to worth, there's almost nothing to block over. If it happens again though, a block will fit. Gwen Gale (talk) 13:22, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Concur that "will" was the key word that made it a hopefully minor violation of NLT, and that just a warning was a valid action for now. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 13:48, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the above input and response. Although I saw little credibility in the suggested legal action, I thought it merited administrative consideration as a disruptive account moving, with the invocation of "a criminal court of law, under federal regulatory restrictions" in a more provocative direction. Much appreciated, JNW (talk) 14:48, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

No problem. I have the talkpage watchlisted and will monitor, but the behavior resumes, let me know. TNXMan 15:04, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Sorry but when a new users makes a comment like "support to the contrary will and can be held against you in a criminal court of law, under federal regulatory restrictions" then that is pure and simple intimidation with legal threats. The very last thing we want to do is wait for it to happen again. Allowing users to continue to edit after making a legal threat puts Wikipedians in the middle of a legal battle, the whole point of NLT is to insulate on-wiki from such legal action. It is incredibly damaging to neutrality to allow any sort of intimidation. I have enforced our no legal threat policy and blocked this user until he/she retracts the legal threat or the issue has been dealt with outside of Misplaced Pages. Chillum 15:18, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Even more appreciated. JNW (talk) 15:29, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't really agree with the interpretation, but what's done is done. The threat really didn't seem that coherent to me. TNXMan 15:49, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

IMH(non-admin)O, the NLT rule is of two parts: the obvious part is the "I will sue you!" direct legal threat which triggers our own Godwin's law, conversation is over, blocked until threat withdrawn. The other part is the vague "you are doing illegal things" which isn't technically a violation of NLT, but is most definitely disruptive as it is a wrong-headed intention to chill debate and frighten the editor. I believe that deserves to be treated under the NPA rule, warnings before blocking. Thoughts? Auntie E (talk) 15:42, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

"support to the contrary will and can be held against you in a criminal court of law"(emphasis added). This is not a "you are doing illegal things" comment, it is a "this will be used against you in court". If the user retracts this threat then unblocking would be prudent. That being said, if consensus emerges to do otherwise I will certainly abide by that. Chillum 19:19, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

my point of view is that most legal threats o this calibre should be treated like threats of violence or other example of implausible but still inacceptable threats. warn, if that doesnt work, then block, and if then that doesn't not work, then bann Smith Jones (talk) 18:17, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

And my point of view is that there was an ongoing discussion, and everyone who had spoken agreed that the warning left by Tnxman was sufficient, and before any response or further problems, and without even discussing your intentions with those already reviewing the situation, you indef'd. I'm not interested in undoing it; I don't think the contributor was likely to become at all valuable, however I am not happy that there was consensus and you merrily rode over it, on a technicality. If you feel NLT is to be always enforced with no room for common sense or judgment; that's your prerogative, however it would have gone down better to me had there been any indication this was even remotely meant as an actual legal threat. It seems a bit inflexible to me, and a bit rude to those who had already given this matter their attention and thought. KillerChihuahuaAdvice 20:46, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

It's a bare-faced legal threat, and legal threats must not be tolerated, because if they are then it opens the door to all kinds of nonsense. No leniency, unless they fully recant such threat. Baseball Bugs carrots 21:45, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Could it be called 'bald legal' threat? Should I run for the door now? HalfShadow 22:43, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Or fly. P.S. I indented your comments and mine, for better nesting. Baseball Bugs carrots 22:53, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

I almost blocked the account myself, I was ok with only a warning, I'm ok with the block, legal threats are blockable on sight. Gwen Gale (talk) 21:53, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

There are only 3 existing contribs from the editor, and they suggest the editor's only purpose here is BLP-violations and soapboxing, so it's a good block all around. Baseball Bugs carrots 21:57, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Shrug. I'm not arguing the editor was useless; I quite agree. Not arguing the block was legal; totally. Am saying that when there is a consensus on how to handle something, then running roughshod over the others without even the courtesy of discussing it first is a bit rude, that's all. KillerChihuahuaAdvice 22:10, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

My point is that there's nothing to discuss. Legal threat. Indef block. End of story. No compromise. If he comes back and retracts, that's a different story. He only made 3 edits, at least under that user ID, so unless he speaks up, it's done. Baseball Bugs carrots

Yes, this is indeed done, and the editor was indeed useless, and technically he made a legal threat. None of that is under discussion. I am saying that Chillum could have been polite enough to mention his difference of opinion rather than simply doing something several other admins had decided was overkill. Taht's clear enough. Your repetition that "there's nothing to discuss" does not mean my minor but valid quibble about this is somehow rendered moot; it is not. It has not, in fact, even been addressed. I would very much appreciate it if you wouldn't keep posting as though the editor were of any value to anyone, or the block were not technically completely called for. That's not, and has never been, at issue. KillerChihuahuaAdvice 22:19, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

I understand what you mean. I've long been willing to put up with an admin breezing by with a block over a legal threat, whatever the consensus may have been, because LTs are so harmful. If I was unhappy about this, I'd try asking about it on Chillum's talk page. Gwen Gale (talk) 22:23, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

I can't say for sure that the editor is "worthless". He's probably acting in what he considers to be "good faith". If he wants to appeal the indef-block and if he recants the legal threat, then it could be considered. I'm simply saying that when someone issues a legal threat, you start with the indef-block and work back from there as appropriate. Baseball Bugs carrots 22:38, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) Oh please, this is "good faith"? New definition I guess. KillerChihuahuaAdvice 02:56, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

In the editor's mind, he's doing the right thing. Baseball Bugs carrots 03:12, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Of course the editors's mind in this case probably resembles a game of Missile Command, but still... HalfShadow 03:24, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

I assume good faith. I don't assume sanity. :) Baseball Bugs carrots 03:27, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

History wars

This page has been deadlocked for well over a month. The page is not much visited by more than a few regular editors. One editor is sure (s)he is right and wishes to make large changes to a section of the page because in the view of the editor the page is so biased and inaccurate that only a large change will do. Other editors wish to make incremental changes to the page, but the large change editor thinks this is a wast of time. When the editor who considers the page to be biased, gets frustrated at the request for sources to support their position, they refuse to discuss the issue further which results in deadlock until such time as the editor makes their large change, which then gets reverted out, and the whole cycle starts again.

The situation has deteriorated so far that there has been a minor revert war over the archiving of a talk page that had grown to over 400k.

The current state of play can be ascertained from reading the section Talk:History wars#Genocide debate. I think what is needed is a non involved admin to have a look and make some constructive comments on how normal discussion and editing can be resumed. -- PBS (talk) 16:09, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Sock needs a block

Pat Wynnon (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is obviously Scibaby (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). I've started an SPI, but Wynnon is editwarring over the inclusion of the sock tag on their userpage, and is doing the usual disineguous "Who is Scibaby?" stuff. Pls block, and a CU can clear out the drawer via the SPI. → ROUX ₪ 23:03, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

PW blocked indef. Tan | 39 23:19, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Ta. → ROUX ₪ 23:23, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Roux on blocks of fox in socks. Baseball Bugs carrots 23:32, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Repeated false Accusations and Insults by User Supreme Deliciousness (SD)

Ever since I became an editor on Misplaced Pages, User Supreme Deliciousness has been falsely accusing me of being a sockpuppet of another user, Arab Cowboy. SD has even made a formal request for investigation, http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Arab_Cowboy, the conclusion of which has shown that Arab Cowboy and me are unrelated editors. Yet, SD has continued to make these false accusations and to call AC and me liars on this Talk page: http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Asmahan#Identity_Section and http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Asmahan#Sockpuppetry_Allegations. SD’s false accusations and insults are not acceptable. He is stifling my freedom of expression and impeding my ability to freely contribute to Misplaced Pages. He should be reprimanded, blocked, or banned altogether. --Nefer Tweety (talk) 23:37, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

That is not, in fact, what the SPI said. It said that there was not enough evidence to justify looking at your information. → ROUX ₪ 23:41, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict, as usual) While the US Congress may not make a law abridging your freedom of speech, Misplaced Pages can - a policy, that is. That said, I looked through the threads you linked to, and I can see no admin action necessary or even remotely warranted. Tan | 39 23:42, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Tan, do we take your response to mean that SD's false allegations and insults to be acceptable behavior on Misplaced Pages? Shall we start calling each other "liars" and other names? What kind of civilized discourse would that leave us? --Arab Cowboy (talk) 23:54, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

I hear the voice of the duck, calling "Plaxico!" Baseball Bugs carrots 00:16, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Nothing has shown that you two are related or unrelated yet, just that there is currently insufficient evidence to warrant CheckUser. MuZemike 00:25, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

• I am still waiting for some replies: do we take your response to mean that SD's false allegations and insults to be acceptable behavior on Misplaced Pages? Shall we start calling each other "liars" and other names? What kind of civilized discourse would that leave us?
• The burden of proof that Nefer Tweety is my sockpuppet is upon SD, and if he has "insufficient evidence" to support this accusation, then he should be reprimanded for making it, especially that he has already done so through a formal route. And to start calling NT and myself "liars" will open the door to a very different kind of dialogue on Wiki pages.
• Tan has stated that Misplaced Pages can stifle a user's freedom of expression by policy. What kind of violation has NT or myself committed to warrant that action? --Arab Cowboy (talk) 04:47, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Were I an admin, you and Nefer would have been blocked some time ago for the sheer obviousness of the fact that you are either sockpuppets or meatpuppets. Perhaps it's a good thing I'm not. → ROUX ₪ 04:53, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Roux, obviously, it's a good thing that you are not. --Arab Cowboy (talk) 04:56, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

There is no such thing as "freedom of speech" here. There is no constitutional right to edit wikipedia. Maybe you should just focus on good editing, and leave the personal stuff alone? Baseball Bugs carrots 04:54, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

The "logic" of some of the users here is pathetic. --Arab Cowboy (talk) 05:03, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

From where are you getting the idea that there is "freedom of speech" here? Baseball Bugs carrots 05:06, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Forget the constitution if you so desire, but to intimidate users through allegations of sockpuppetry and lying is not the sign of civilized behavior. If you find that to be an acceptable norm, then so be it, but from the way the answers have been coming here, it's more like a madhouse than a place to have an intelligent discourse. --Arab Cowboy (talk) 05:10, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

"Forget the constitution" is a red herring. How do you figure the constitution comes into play here? Baseball Bugs carrots 05:11, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

AC, knock off the disruption here. This constitutes an only warning. Tan | 39 05:15, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Sarey Savy and related pages

Can an admin take a look at these? The constant re-creation of this and now additional related content seems disruptive to me.

Three SPA accounts (75.92.208.32 (talk · contribs), Googleisawesome (talk · contribs), and BoredBoredom (talk · contribs) - from which I hear loud quacking) have been creating the musician's article under various names - sometimes more than one at the same time. And have attempted spamming links to the article onto multiple other pages.

The musician articles was first created under Sarey Savy, which has now been deleted four times (see Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Sarey Savy for the AfD on that one).

More recently, the content was re-created at Sarey, Sarey (Singer), and on the userpage of User:Googleisawesome (Googleisawesome has claimed to be Sarey in this post). Speedy tags were added to "Sarey" and "Sarey (Singer)"; but the author repeatedly removed the speedy tag from "Sarey (Singer)" despite warnings and having the text pointed out to them that says to "not remove notice from pages that you have created yourself", so an AfD was created for that one at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Sarey (Singer) so that visibility would remain even if the tag was again removed. Technically, it's a second AfD for the same content that's now under the new article name.

Now, today, BoredBoredom has created Don't Stop Believin' (Sarey Savy Song). Normally, I would add a speedy tag to that one as well; but, from my reading of {{db-a9}}, it appears that the speedy tag only applies if the musician's article does not exist (which, it likely wouldn't if not for the repeated removal of the speedy tag that resulted in it going to AfD again). --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 01:17, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Note, after digging a little deeper, I've also found that Sarey Savy has been salted, which is likely why alternate article names were used this time. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 01:53, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

I've gone and salted both the other titles used, but I want a second opinion before blocking the other accounts and the IP. Best, Mifter (talk) 02:41, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks - as the artist's page is now deleted, I've gone ahead and tagged Don't Stop Believin' (Sarey Savy Song) with {{db-a9}}. Also, I see that someone else has created Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Googleisawesome. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 02:48, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards