Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 14:57, 25 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?

User:Badagnani category blanking again

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

Just returned from his block – still visible at WP:AN/EW#User:Badagnani reported by User:William Allen Simpson (Result: 48h) – he began page blanking categories again, as his 8th edit. (The 1st three edits were also reverts of my very recent edits, within minutes, perhaps WP:STALKING.) This is the same as the previous behavior.

removed category header

Page blanking is generally considered vandalism, category blanking should be similarly treated.

--William Allen Simpson (talk) 07:38, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Removal of material is not automatically vandalism, so no. This removal is apparently done in good faith because he disagrees with the material, for whatever reason. Content dispute. Incidentally, I find the boilerplate text of that template he removes utterly confusing and useless. Shouldn't such a category header explain what should be in the category, rather than what should not? Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:57, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

He's been deleting the headers from multiple categories. That doesn't seem like a "content dispute", that's just a continuation of his dispute (and multiple DRV) about how to handle surname categorization.

This language is the product of multiple editors, discussed at length, and incorporated in a template for uniformity across all the related categories. The template says what should be in the category as its first sentence: Surnames of origin.

Unfortunately, some persons (the ones that opposed the new system) began gaming the system, moving Gaelic names into the English-language category, as they'd been "anglicized". Or Russian-language became English-language because they were "transliterated". These are about language origins, not the current modern spelling. So, each and every category has had exclusions added for clarity. (Most are still very simple.)
--William Allen Simpson (talk) 08:53, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Oh and, W.A.S., why are you revert warring against him on another issue in parallel, removing his additions of Category:Native American surnames (in cases where on the face of it that category makes perfect sense)? At the very least, it appears you are both engaging in sterile revert warring here, and I don't see you discussing at all. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:22, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Native American is not applicable. Creek and Navaho are not the same language group. These are categories concerned with language origin, not some abstract "racial" or "cultural" grouping – as noted in the 1st edit summary – I don't waste my time repeating myself in later edit summaries, I just click the Undo button again. French-language origin surnames do not magically become Creek-language origin or Native American language origin, either; not even under the notably rare circumstance that a French explorer marries into the tribe.

Likewise, Ukrainian names of folks that were born during the Soviet Union do not become "Russian-language origin" names (another area of previous dispute with a different editor).
--William Allen Simpson (talk) 08:53, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

"I just click the Undo button again"? Well, with that attitude you are hardly in a position to complain of others revert-warring, are you? Anyway, I personally find Badagnani has a point on both issues, and I invite you to a discussion at the relevant category talk pages; this noticeboard is not the place to discuss the content. I'll just say that I don't find your explanation of the native American case compelling. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:01, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

That discussion already took place at the relevant category talk page (Category talk:Surnames) and previously at WP:CFD, and has concluded. I was just re-explaining to you, because you asked. Sorry for wasting our time.
--William Allen Simpson (talk) 12:57, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

William Allen Simpson's complaint

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

• I find this compliant disturbing because William Allen Simpson too engaged in "edit warring". The CFD closure without notification to all pertinent projects is skewed in my opinon. If the discussion for the massive deletion had been notified to the projects (quite a lot 30 ~ 50 projects?), then the result would be not the same as the current one. I did not notice it until Good Olfactory complaint about another admin's alleged wheel war. Therefore, I can sympathize Badagnani's wrath a bit since he is known for "inclusionist" and "status quo keeper". However, Badagnani did not violate 3RR on your report, but equally edit war with you, William Allen Simpson. The only reason that you're not blocked for that edit warring is that somebody complaint about Badagnani's manner to WP:WQA, and you used it to block Badagnani. Indeed, he was blocked for the reason, not for non-existent 3RR violation. And since you too have been engaging in the same subject, the false accusation of "stalking" looks like an attempt to make Badagnani bad. This is a "content matter" that you need to find a solution via WP:DR, not to land here. Besides, you too keep reverting on multiple articles multiple times at the same time for your POV, so please be wary of WP:Edit warring.--Caspian blue 15:54, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Regardless of the complaint, I find this to be completely inappropriate and a blatant form of forum shopping. This isn't the first time he's done this either. Several past AfDs were canvassed/votestacked literally all over Misplaced Pages to talk pages with obviously biased participants. In fact I call this spam, not ordinary canvassing. GraYoshi2x► 20:49, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

And this certainly isn't an appropriate attitude. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:27, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

He's been warned many times for that behavior now, blocked several, and still has yet to change it. So it's a typical conversation for him, and I'm finding it difficult to assume good faith. GraYoshi2x► 17:02, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

I've done a little further reading into his comments and again, this page contains quite a bit of dialogue that's just plain rude, not to mention that he's talking with an administrator like that. GraYoshi2x► 17:10, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Happens yet again here. And this time in a worsening manner. Apparently we have a bit of a WP:OWN issue here. GraYoshi2x► 18:39, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Please, feel my pain: Category talk:Icelandic-language surnames. I tried—really I did. Then I gave up trying. Good Ol’factory 00:17, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

User:Badagnani reopening CFD

User:Badagnani is persistently re-opening a closed CFD. I presume this is against Misplaced Pages policy. Cordless Larry (talk) 21:17, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Notified Vegaswikian about this edit. Frankly, he better have a good reason for reverting an admin's closure or I'm giving him a week. He's been on a terrible roll so far. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 21:44, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. Ever since his 48 hour block I've mostly seen disruptive editing from him instead of anything constructive. And he's been given too many 'second' chances to count. GraYoshi2x► 22:15, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

I think he missed the original close decision. It took me a few minutes of headscratching to work out what Vegaswikian was on about.--Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:39, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Doesn't mean you get to ignore an admin. Ask them. Besides, his response just keeps on adding fuel to the fire. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:28, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Further problems with User:Badagnani

Following a WQA post, Badagnani was blocked by WMC for continually reverting warnings and notices on his userpage as threats. (and yes, the block summary was apparently poor, but that's been dealt with, so perhaps we can not go there again).

Despite several requests (here's three: ) to stop referring to notices and warnings as threats, he is continuing to do so. This behaviour really needs to stop, as by this point it really is outright disruption. In no way is it acceptable to continually refer to warnings from other editors as threats; it is dishonest, assumes bad faith, and is generally chilling to any attempt to have a discussion with the user. I believe at this point a longer block is in order to get the point through to him, and/or a strict ban on using such language in his edit summaries. → ROUX ₪ 05:32, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

I fear attempts to talk to the user are not effective. He seems to allow us to talk past him rather than to him. If he continues to refuse to drop this (which I suggest he do, even if for no other reason than that continuing to bring it up is not changing anything and likely will not change anything), I agree with Roux that a block might be necessary to prevent continued disruption. Cheers, everyone. lifebaka++ 05:51, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Badagnani has explained himself: "Thank you for your opinions. I am a long-time editor who edits always with a mind to enhancing our encyclopedia for our users. Some editors don't seem to share this view but edit more with a mind toward being "enforcers," and, as such edit in a highly aggressive manner. When they show up at a talk page right off the bat stating that they will block, they will ban, they will retaliate, they will attack, etc., such messages are indeed threatening in nature and not exhibiting the proper decorum necessary to preserve a collegial, collaborative environment to which we should aspire. As such I am entitled to remove such comments as I see fit. " and "If editors post at my discussion page in a collegial manner, I will of course respond to them in the same manner. I reserve the right, as do all WP editors, to remove unnecessarily inflammatory and highly provocative posts, which are against our project's fundamentally collaborative ethos."

Makes sense to me. As Lifebaka is seeking to resolve an editing dispute with a block, I understand why Badagnani feels threatened. I suggest a collegial and collaborative approach with a longer term good faith editor. If that doesn't work there's a dispute resolution process. Cheers. ChildofMidnight (talk) 06:25, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

All discussions tend to fall into "I am doing what's right for the encyclopedia and nobody else's opinion matters because they aren't." Period. It's completely unproductive. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:21, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

That seems like an attack. I've seen Badagnani respect consensus even when he disagrees with it, but he's certainly passionate about doing what's best of the encyclopedia's readers. He's explained why he finds certain messages threatening. If editors choose to pursue those type of communication, they will be received per that understanding. We generally respect editor's managing their own user pages as they see fit. ChildofMidnight (talk) 06:29, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

We do not, however, respect users continually accusing others of threats, particularly when they are being told that no threats are being made. → ROUX ₪ 06:37, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

I find edits like reverting an admin's close inappropriate (and "my opinion of what's appropriate supersedes everyone else's" isn't an appropriate response). If it's now an "attack" to question the judgment of users doing so and to request they stop, then nothing around here will get done. Everyone doesn't have to walk on eggshells because one editor has now decided they don't want people questioning their activities. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:23, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

(@ ChildofMidnight, above) Two things. Firstly, I didn't make myself clear in what exactly I was referring to. I was referring to his continued assertions that Good Olfactory's close of the surnames CfD was inappropriate and that Good Olfactory should burden himself with all of the work necessary in implementing a new categorization system for surnames, an opinion he appears to be shopping around for someone to listen to, and which he appears to be unable to drop. Second, I'd very much prefer not to resolve this with a block (hence why I "fear" it), but talking to the user doesn't seem to be effective, as I already said. If you'd like to try you hand at talking, feel free, I hope you'll have more success than I had. Cheers. lifebaka++ 15:52, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

The messages like "I (uninvolved or involved admin) will block you if you do the same thing one more time", "You're vandalising, so you would be blocked after your 48 hours-block", "I will report you to AN/I/WQA/AN3" indeed sound threatening. Because those who have have reported him to AN/ANI/AN3, he feels threatened. He did not say they gave him threats, but threatening messages. He does not play well in dealing with such messages though. If Badagnani wants to record that repeated unwelcome visits from unwelcome people in edit summary, then I would suggest him to change "threatening message" with "unhelpful messages from people whom I pleaded not to visit here" or "disruptive message".--Caspian blue 13:10, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Both alternative messages sound equally offensive and the latter more so. My suggestion would be for him to just drop the edit summary altogether and stop removing every message that he finds remotely unpleasant. GraYoshi2x► 18:10, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

And therein lies the problem. He objects to behavior he finds threatening and contrary to collaboration and respect for a long term good faith contributor. And you object to him objecting to these behaviors. A fundamental part of civility and collaboration is respect for various editors who represent a variety of cultures and approaches. If you're going to aggressively enforce policies in a way that he finds threatening he's going to react accordingly. There's room for improvement and increased sensitivity on both sides of the dispute. ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:42, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, surely these edits show good faith. After all it's fully appropriate to refer to people as "Korean nationalists", is it not? GraYoshi2x► 20:22, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

To GraYoshi2x, well the reference of "nationalists" in March was about me and another editor that opposed to Badagnani's inclusion of an "unauthorized YouTube link". However after that, I've seen/undergone many rude hypocrites' and verbal abusers harassment who have admin buddies, so even thought they said "fuck off", "you idiot", "spammer", or "8 years old", they are free from any charge for their extreme incivility but they are very critical of others' behaviors. So I let the accusation by Badagnani go some time ago. Contrast to them, Badagnani's comments sound to me less threatening and he has tried to improve himself like refraining from adding unreliable links or picture links or saying WP:STALK, so I rather choose to work with him than fight with his dreadful buddy or face other unpleasant people around him. As far as I know, you also did some mistakes to Badagnani, so well...why don't you try to peacefully work with him rather than accuse him in not so much civil manners? --Caspian blue 01:59, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

I would slightly question your assertion that Badagnani is a "long term good faith editor". This is the user who, on several occasions suggested that I be banned for nominating article for deletion (many of which were subsequently deleted by consensus). See here. But I agree with the comments about the need for sensitivity on both sides. Cordless Larry (talk) 18:55, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

• The user has not been adopting reasonable or proportional reactions to comments from others. He automatically removes any comment I make on his talk page as "threatening", regardless of what I have stated—even if there is zero discussion of possible blocks or other sanctions. If I try to discuss a content issue with him, it is removed as "threatening" and "unwelcome". I was recently accused by the user of making a "death threat" against him: , , , , , and he continued to maintain it was a death threat after I had apologized for any misunderstanding and it had been explained to him by multiple other admins that it was not a death threat. He has essentially accused me of racism in general and anti-Semitism in particular: . Any attempt by me to discuss these issues with him on his talk page are removed as "threats". He treats some other users and admins similarly, and apparently because of background content disputes. Something must be done. I'd be very happy if the user would simply change his attitude and approach. But barring that, I also fear a longer block may well be appropriate. The user has a history of blocks and it concerns me that the most recent block only seemed to embolden his misbehavior. Good Ol’factory 22:20, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

I find it funny that people who have done far less than Badagnani have been blocked indefinitely. He certainly has made a number of excellent contributions to Misplaced Pages, but if this behavior continues I believe the only course of action would be just to give him a longer block like you said. He's shown that he's unwilling to change his ways, and he's been reported to AN/I for what, at least 10 times now? Every single time I edit an article edited by him in the past year, I'm nervous about how he'll react to it, and 90% of the time he just reverts with some nonsensical statement. Needless to say it gets me a bit irritated, especially when he ignores or deletes all my requests to discuss. GraYoshi2x► 23:12, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

It's just the classic "he's problematic, but he does good work" excuse. Never mind Jimbo Wales's recommendation to show jerky people the door, regardless of the work they've done. Good Ol’factory 01:42, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

I think I have known him for much longer than any of people here who complain about him, and have really many ups and downs with him. However, I feel that he is at least not a worst one among harasser/verbal abuser nor rude hypocrite that deserves indef.block, so I could have more leeway toward his behavior and his contributions are indeed "valuable" than Wiki-cops's who do not contribute anything but tag or delete someone's contributions with O article creation. // @Good Ol’factory, since you're deeply involved and want to "resolve this issue", why don't you do something by yourself? --Caspian blue 01:59, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Precisely because I'm deeply involved. It wouldn't be appropriate for me to block the user in this instance, though I certainly am willing to give my opinion in this instance. Good Ol’factory 02:48, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

I have been deeply involved in working with him for years and have tried, so should you.--Caspian blue 02:54, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

As I've mentioned, over the past few weeks I have tried to make efforts to talk to him, but any effort I make on his talk page is immediately removed as "threatening". I would like to see him at least acknowledge that some of his behaviour may be viewed as problematic and at least make a good faith agreement to try a bit harder to show civility to others and respect administrative actions performed by administrators (i.e., don't try to unilaterally revert them). But if a user refuses to budge after dozens of complaints—sorry, but there's the door. And it's not like this is a first instance or that he's still learning the ropes—he's been legitimately blocked at least 7 times in the past! Good Ol’factory 02:58, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

"Jerky people" are only jerky in the eye of the beholder. User:Good Olfactory has a penchant for getting involved in disputes, presenting himself as a neutral mediator, appearing to take one side and then expressing befuddlement when his actions of indeterminate faith are questioned. The threat of blocks is sure to follow the inevitably unsuccessful mediation efforts with further expressions of frustration that blocks questionably imposed have angered the editor and only caused more damage then they could ever have solved, which can in turn only be addressed by threats and demands for more blocks. The "shoot the horse" remedy of blocking anyone and everyone in all cases, legitimate or otherwise, needs to be replaced with a far-more refined process that keeps valuable editors like Badagnani from areas of conflict while allowing them to continue to work they work well. Punitive blocks such as are being advocated never work. Any advocacy by Good Olfactory for blocks where he has a clear conflict of interest should be accepted only with a lump of salt the size of a small planet. Alansohn (talk) 02:38, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Just to be clear, I haven't put myself out as a "neutral mediator" here. I think that's probably clear from the recitation of my recent encounters with the user in question. I've also clearly stated that a so-called "punitive block" is not a preferred solution. (Incidentally, If accusing someone of uttering a death threat and refusing to apologise or retract the accusation when having it pointed out multiple times by multiple editors that there as no death threat (not to mention a repetition of the accusation after this has been pointed out) is not "jerky behaviour" under Alansohn's loose "eye of the beholder" standard, then he certainly has enough salt on his planet to pass around and share with us all. Anyway, an assessment of jerky behaviour coming from a user who has been blocked x number of times for such behaviour should be, well ... you get the idea. As for my alleged "history" of claiming to be neutral when I'm not—this probably refers to one or more ANIs Alansohn has recently filed against me, which are probably best regarded as vexatious sour grapes trolling from a user who is apparently still upset that I blocked him some time ago. (Links/diffs available upon request.) Looks like more of the same.) Good Ol’factory 02:43, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

1RR proposal

Propose to put Badagnani on 1RR against established editors (not anons). Disclosure that I have clashed with him a lot when he reverts, he always shouts "WP:POINT" but he is always the first to complain when anybody questions him and says that people aren't allowed to question him. I ain't the only Vietnamese editor he disagrees with all the time eg Amore Mio (talk · contribs) and he always adds unsourced stuff or any old thing and insists on keeping it even with no sources because it's "useful" and he adds whatever he wants irrespective of undue weight. He does this in all Asian spheres of editing YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) paid editing=POV 03:34, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

• As an editor who has had problems with him in the past, I would be inclined to support this proposal; however, I think a major aspect of the problems discussed above relate not just to edit warring on articles, but deleting other users' comments from his talk page and labelling various comments as "threats" or "threatening" (or "death threats", in extreme cases), as well as unilaterally attempting to reverse administrative actions—so I'm not sure if a simple 1RR would solve the problem, unless it also applied to his own talk page (which would be unusual). Personally, I'd like to hear from the editor on these matters. I've left him a quick note inviting him to do so, but it would be consistent with his past practice if my message is deleted and ignored. Good Ol’factory 06:00, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
• I believe that any action should also limit Badagnani's removal of material from the talk page. By doing this, an editor can make it difficult for others to ascertain if they are currently the source of problems. This delays timely administrative action. That is to no one's benefit. Vegaswikian (talk) 06:18, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
• Having had minimal interaction with Badagnani, but reading this as a cold record, what is proposed (with Vegaswikian's add) seems reasonable. I do vaguely recall Badagnani demanding 1 month blocks against admins at DRV, so that editor would probably conclude that a suitable remedy for a violation of probation after all these warnings and blocks. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:56, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
• I also agree that Vegaswikian's suggestion would be helpful. Badagnani has most recently taken to archiving comments on his page rather than removing them, which is kind of a step in the right direction. Good Ol’factory 22:42, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
• Strongest possible oppose The first comment in this thread is a complaint about the way an editor removes notices fromt heir talk page. Now those trying to get him blocked are trying to put him on 1RR restriction? This looks like an end run around dispute resolution to get an easy fix to winning disputes with this long term good faith editor. If there is edit warring take it to the appropriate boards. This recommendation and its support from those in editing disputes with this editor is not a good look at all. ChildofMidnight (talk) 23:14, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

So you're telling everybody else to change their ways because one editor is different from the majority? He reverted an official admin closure of a discussion and you support his undoing it based on his own opinion? Where's the logic in that? The 1RR restriction should be well deserved, seeing as he's been given way too many chances, blocked many times, and still has yet to change his behavior. And the "strongest possible oppose" thing... I'm getting a bit suspicious here. GraYoshi2x► 00:14, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

And speaking only for myself, I've had no real "content disputes" with the editor. My sole concerns have been with misplaced allegations of threats, unilateral reversions of administrative actions, repeated solicitation of me to reverse an administrative action, edit warring with other editors, etc. For me at least, this would not be a matter for DR; here seems far more appropriate. Good Ol’factory 03:43, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

He reverts all the time, and basically always accuses everyone else of violating point or stuffing up the article by removing unsourced stuff. I don't care about his removing warnings. He knows what other people think of his actions bcause a few reverts are sign of a dispute. But if he can't revert then he can't go and do all this stuff against the consensus all the time and there would be no need to say anything to him. YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) paid editing=POV 05:03, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

YellowMonkey, it is quite surprising that you propose the sanction since he depends on you a lot (checkuser request or asking your opinion on Vietnamese topics). Anyway, I oppose your proposal because the one-way-sanction could be used for his disputers to game the system. (that is quite obvious expectation) I think enforceable community mentorship upon him could be better or there is no other way than RFRA. However, there is a possibility that he could leave the project for good given the fact that he left Commons after his misunderstanding of admins' roles there and OTRS made him feel to leave. So do I want him to be banned? Certainly, not.--Caspian blue 20:14, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

The idea of mentorship came up in one of the last AN/ANI threads. That would probably be an acceptable (potential)solution for many editors, but, 1) noone has volunteered their time to doing so, and 2) Badagnani has made no indication that he recognizes the problems some of his habits are causing, which would obviously be needed before he would accept anyone's mentorship.

I've been trying to assist in helping him to communicate what I think is his perspective, since April. I believe he is a good content contributor, and I'd be very dismayed to see him leave. But, his tendencies towards hyperbole, and his frequent refusals to admit the validity of alternative perspectives, or to even communicate at all, are creating continuous problems. We're not a monoculture, and Badagnani doesn't have to "conform"; but he does have to "adapt", in order for him to function as part of our "community". He has to adapt, simply because we cannot continue on like this indefinitely. I've left a final attempt at communication on his talkpage, to which I'm desperately hoping to receive a conciliatory response. If he won't admit any fault at all, then I'm bereft of hope.

That said, I do believe that many of the editors who have interacted with him have been at as great a fault as he has, in regards to poor communication/mediation/civility skills, and I've been trying to point that out to some of them at the same time as trying to "translate" the perspectives from one to the other. I don't claim to be a good mediator, but some of the people who do, are terrible at it! And some of the people don't even try.

More generally, GTBacchus's draft of User:GTBacchus/A recurring problem is one of the clearest perspectives on these types of conflict that I have seen. Nobody has come up with a workable solution yet though, asfarasIknow. -- Quiddity (talk) 18:31, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

If nothing is done in this case, after a relatively high degree and volume of disruption, I guess I'll definitely be taking the issue to DR/ArbCom after the next major incident with the user. I do find it hard to believe that a neutral editor with no past encounters with the user would find this behavior acceptable. Good Ol’factory 07:30, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Indef block proposal

I don't see how a 1RR restriction would accomplish anything other than hastening this editor to the door. If that's what we're going to do, then it's better to just do it, call it a "community patience" ban, and move on. If that seems to be preferred by a consensus, then... ok.

If, on the other hand, we'd like to keep him on board, then. . . the current strategy is not working. He won't adapt unless he recognizes that he must do so. Individual editors or groups telling him hasn't worked. His block log shows 8-12 blocks, none longer than 48 hours. Hmm.

Here's an idea: Indef block him, and make it abundantly clear that it's not for any particular incident, but for a well-defined and clearly articulated list of chronic problem behaviors, which have exhausted the community's patience. Make it clear that he's welcome to return to editing upon recognition of the problem, and the opening of a dialogue on what to do about it. Heck, he could still edit content through a proxy, if he wanted. It's just the interactions with other editors that have to change.

It might not work, of course. It might just lead to an indef block and that's that. The current strategy, where would-be mentor after would-be mentor is worn out on someone who's convinced that the problem is always everyone else... it's not the best, I think. -GTBacchus 20:26, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

• Support Won't do much good anyways as he never really responds to anything, just removing the notices under a claim of being attacked and recreates things and the like if he wants, all because he knows better than the admins, the consensus, and everyone who disagrees with him. If you truly believe in MPOV (especially "it is necessary" to do things), nothing short of a full block is going to stop you. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 22:32, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

You mean meta:MPOV, right? You just posted a dead link :P GraYoshi2x► 23:40, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

• Support. Yes—the block need not be irrevocable. Don't block him from editing his own talk page, and when he says there he's ready to have a dialogue, then we can go from there. But please, whatever is decided, someone do something. With so much history, it seems ridiculous not to do something here that will move us forward and get us out the vicious circle we've been in with the user. Good Ol’factory 04:42, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
• I think a complete break from editing the areas he normally edits would be most useful - a couple of weeks to a month should do the trick, whether it's imposed here or at some other chain of DR. Either way, I have a feeling this isn't going to end well. Ncmvocalist (talk) 05:52, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
• I support an indef block, but it's because I think his behavior crossed the line of warranting it a very long time ago, not because I think there's any chance he'll actually suddenly become communicative and cooperative. Maybe I'm wrong, though, and he's only persisted in acting this way because the worst that happens is that he occasionally gets blocked for a few days, and most of the time he just gets away with it completely without even having to defend himself, or acknowledge the discussion, at ANI or RFC or anywhere else. If an indef block prompted him to improve his attitudes, that'd be great, although I'm sure he's capable of pretending to have changed long enough to get the block lifted and then immediately returning to his old ways if there's nobody ready to watch him and call him on it. Propaniac (talk) 12:35, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

• Then before he is unblocked, he should be issued a statement along the lines of: if he goes back to his original problematic behavior, he may be reblocked without warning or have the case taken to ArbCom. GraYoshi2x► 18:46, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

• Support. At this point I doubt just another 24 hour block or 'discussion' is going to help change his behavior. Maybe not indef, but definitely make it a long duration, so that his patience will wear out and he will (hopefully) leave a well-thought out message explaining how his past behavior is inappropriate and such. I have the feeling that since he's only been blocked for very short periods of time occasionally, he takes advantage of that fact to (for lack of other words) disrupt Misplaced Pages. I don't want another editor clashing with him again. It's like deja vu, honestly. GraYoshi2x► 17:13, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

I see Propaniac above has quite a similar idea... GraYoshi2x► 17:15, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

• Take the issue to ArbCom. Here has no uninvolved people in contacting with Badagnani except Ricky81682 (or he may dispute with Badagnani in the past that I don't know). So that everyone should be evaluated on the equal ground. Indef.block and then what? Do you guys really think that he would suddenly say "I'm sorry for what I've done and said to you even though, I suffer long term and persistent following by some of people who endorse to block me" after indefinitely blocked? Except the mere blocking, there is no solution presented so far to regulate Badagnani's problematic behaviors. I think PHG and Mattisse's ArbCom case could be good models for him, so take the issue to ArbCom instead.--Caspian blue 17:26, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

• Except what will ArbCom do? Give him a block like we proposed? Heck at ArbCom he may be even banned, not to mention the big hassle there is dealing with all the conflicts, involved editors, etc. It's just going to lead him to a worse fate on Misplaced Pages. GraYoshi2x► 17:30, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

• ArbCom is a good place for resolving this kind of conduct issues. The ArbCom may not or may ban him, or assign enforceable mentorship or civility patrol to him, and other disputers could be judged in the same enforcement as well. The indef.block suggestion at this time is not fair because he did not commit dreadful things that he deserve "indefinitely block" (though different from infinite block) which completely disregards his whole contribution to Misplaced Pages. You know I've been disputing with him a lot for his original research and many many other things, but I think he should have at least an opportunity to speak out for himself. He rarely comes to defend himself whenever ANI calls him because in his viewpoint, all are to drive him away. Besides, what idea can you have give us after he would be indefinitely blocked?--Caspian blue 17:42, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

• Just because he made many contributions to Misplaced Pages doesn't mean he somehow has some higher status. And frankly it's now more than just his behavior; he's reverted an admin closing of a discussion. That alone is not acceptable. If he wants to stay then that's up to him; we're not saying he can never come back, he has a choice in whether or not he would change his behavior to come back. Besides, we wouldn't know what his current stance is anyway; any discussion that contains something related to a block or restriction is either removed on his talk page as "threatening" or he simply never participates. GraYoshi2x► 17:53, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

• That's why I suggest you or other complainers to take the issue to ArbCom. If you believe you have behaved to him by abiding the rule, then you do not need to be afraid of ArbCom. Regardless of what you and we think of him, he has a right to defend himself at least once.You also do not answer my question; so what is your idea after indefinitely blocking him? Block and then wait for him to say sorry? If not, we move on? I suggested you to look into Mattisse and PHG's ArbCom cases, they are pretty strictly mentored by the Committe.--Caspian blue 18:01, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

• "so what is your idea after indefinitely blocking him? Block and then wait for him to say sorry? If not, we move on?" I can't speak for anyone else, but that's certainly my interpretation of the notion. At some point we say the value of his contributions isn't worth letting him do whatever he wants. (And my question to you would be: What's your idea if the issue goes to ArbCom and he refuses to participate there?) Propaniac (talk) 18:15, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

• If he would not come to ArbCom, then he would be indeed doomed.--Caspian blue 18:21, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

• What I'm trying to say is that there is no need for ArbCom (as of yet). ArbCom is an absolute, last-resort situation where nothing else can fix the problem. Looking at all the cases so far it's much more hassle than it's worth, and it's not an idea you can freely throw around. I've already answered your question from the start. Badagnani is welcome to return anytime. If he wishes to come back to Misplaced Pages and change his ways, fine. If he wishes to leave, fine. If he pretends to change his ways and then go back to the same old disruptive editing, it's then that we should start an ArbCom case. GraYoshi2x► 18:21, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

• I think you and I could not reach any agreement on this. So do you think making him have an indef.block log is a best way to fix his problem at this time? What if the block log only serves him to have much humiliation, so he would not change his attitude? The idea of filing RfAf has been suggested by many before, so it is hardly my "free-trowing" thing that you're accused. Mentorship and civility parole for him have been also suggested so far, but none of uninvolved admins or editors were willing to do so, but I think ArbCom could enforce it without the disgraceful indef.blocking him.--Caspian blue 18:44, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

• I'm not really sure what you're on about. But in any case I doubt the theoretical ArbCom case would go anywhere seeing as he just lets every complaint slide by him and let his supporters do all the work. As for what you're saying about the block log, eh, it's unlikely, and again I'm not sure what you're saying there. Also I'm sorry if the "freely throw" thing insulted you, that was never my intention. GraYoshi2x► 18:50, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

• The people who endorse the proposal are all "involved party", so this so-called "Let's the community (the involved people) decide his fate" is not only ignoring the premise but also not a fair play. That is what I'm saying.--Caspian blue 19:09, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

• Support as an uninvolved editor, I've made a fair play judgement of the situation and reading what's going on here, I think an indef block would be for the best until he agrees not to continue with this behavior.--_{Sky Attacker} 21:10, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
• Oh, well. It appears once again the ANI report and discussion are going to be archived and dismissed without any actual resolution, or any consequences for Badagnani's actions or his complete lack of interest in participation. You can't deny that the strategy tends to work out very well for him. Propaniac (talk) 14:20, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

User:Darwinek (admin edit warring)

Darwinek (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) Following this report at the WP:AN3 board, this is a clear example of edit warring by both sides (history of article), but I note that User:Darwinek, an admin, has blocked his "opponent" in the edit war.

Given that this block is clearly invalid, have unblocked and then reblocked the IP for the equivalent time for the 3RR violation, and have blocked User:Darwinek for 24 hours as well.

Obviously the more pressing issue is the use of admin tools; comments are welcome about the blocking of an opponent in a content dispute. Black Kite 20:54, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

The first step is that Darwinek should get a block for edit-warring. Although the warnings given by the opposing editor were botched and the opposing editor is pretty clearly in the wrong content-wise, as well as being incorrect in referring to Darwinek's edits as vandalism, an admin needs to know better than to engage in a revert war. Looie496 (talk) 21:11, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

As mentioned above, I have already done that. Black Kite 21:12, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, sloppy reading on my part. Looie496 (talk) 21:23, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

BTW: Darwinek's administrative privileges had been revoked in April 2007 as a result of Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Darwinek. He was resysopped in October 2007 per decision on ArbCom mailing list . -- Matthead  Discuß   21:13, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

They should be revoked again, permanently; this is blatant abuse of sysop tools. Would that take a whole new RFAR, or a motion or what? And I'll take the opportunity to plug my proposal for a community-driven desysopping process. → ROUX ₪ 21:42, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree completely with Roux - given the history and egregiously abusing admin privileges in a content dispute, they should be immediately desysopped. Wisdom89 _{(T / )} 21:46, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

I see no need for discussion. We all agree and know that you mustn't use your admin tools against someone you are in a content dispute with, don't we? Darwinek has abused them and he has been correctly blocked, good decision Black Kite. A quick look over their contributions does not show the similar amount of behavior in recent times that lead to the 2007 desysop but if you found more, please do tell us about it. Regards SoWhy 21:46, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

The block was for edit warring, not abuse of admin powers. They are completely separate and should be treated as such. Wisdom89 _{(T / )} 21:47, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't know the particular circumstances, but admins should never use the block or protection buttons in a content dispute. The only exceptions would be clear vandalism (where any reasonable person would agree that's what it was), or an unambiguous BLP violation where there's no one else around to deal with it. SlimVirgin 21:48, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

I also found a year's block of this dynamic IP for this single edit in a dispute with Darwinek, and a long slow edit war between Darwinek and other editors on this article, during which he blocked one of the IPs but this is going back to 2008 - he doesn't use the block button often. Black Kite 22:13, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

In addition, a content dispute with User:Adam.J.W.C. about the use of Template:Tourism in June 2008 seems to have led to a 24h block two weeks later. -- Matthead  Discuß   01:32, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

If Darwinek apologizes and promises to be more careful, I think we should let it be, perhaps with a short block in a block record as a reminder. Sure, admins should not abuse admin tools, but a singular exception in the background of years of good work should not be enough to strip one of their adminship. If you disagree, I'd suggest taking this to ArbCom, but this would really be blowing this out of proportions. PS. Please note that I saying that I oppose taking away his admin rights if and only if he apologizes and promies to be more careful in the future. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 22:56, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

You realize he already did apologize and promised to be more careful in the future. Tan | 39 22:58, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

In March 2007. Or was that what you meant?Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:17, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

My edit summary noted the year. To me, this makes no difference - an apology and promise made in an ArbCom case shouldn't have an expiration date. Tan | 39 23:18, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

So is what you're saying that he apologised, promised not to do it again, and then did it again? Or that because he promised not to do it, he didn't do it. (sorry, I'm being a bit thick. I'm supposed to be in bed - I have the flu)Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:27, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

I recommend reading the above thread, particularly the opening post, prior to getting involved. It's pretty clear. Tan | 39 23:30, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

I think I'll just take some more Anadin and go to bed. It seems the safer bet. I'll leave you guys to it.Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:35, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

@Tanthalas39: It is not completely clear what point you're making, sorry. One interpretation is that Darwinek has apologised (back in 2007) and all is well, and another is that Darwinek has violated his promise not to do it again. Could you clarify please? Often, if someone evinces confusion, it's because they are confused and need help understanding. I've read the entire thread. ++Lar: t/c 02:22, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Darwinek recently blocked someone for edit warring with him (an abuse of admin tools). Piotrus said, "...I oppose taking away his admin rights if and only if he apologizes and promies to be more careful in the future." In response, I pointed out to Piotrus where Darwinek had already done exactly this, prior to the most recent breach of policy. I thought (and think) I was being pretty clear, but my point was that he already did promise - and broke that promise. Tan | 39 02:25, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Nod. (that's what I got when I read it but I can see the other interpretation) I think you and Elen are actually agreeing with each other, but at least one of you doesn't realise it, and I think Elen will once they read that restatement. Thanks. ++Lar: t/c 02:34, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

What I meant was that a new apology is needed. The 2007 one is not enough, since he made a new mistake. One mistake per two year can be understandable (we are all human, and we err), but he has to acknowledge it. If he doesn't, than he is not fit to be an admin. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 02:53, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm, I should have looked at some details earlier. He was dealing with a disruptive anon - that's should be taken into consideration. I don't think that there are grounds for desysoping anymore, but I'd still like to see his apology here. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 07:52, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

No, you are the disruptive one, together with your POV pushing friend. 158.143.166.124 (talk) 20:47, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

It is pretty clear this user should not be a sysop. How about somebody explains the circumstances politely and asks them to resign, to avoid all the unnecessary fuss and drama. If ArbCom is asked to look at this, they almost certainly will remove sysop access. Jehochman 04:23, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

I wanted to stop by here to mention my (very positive) impressions of Darwinek before he gets crucified by the mob. Darwinek is a longstanding sysop here (who has done yeoman's work with images and has generated a fantastic amount of content). My interactions with the fellow have been nothing but positive and he is very reasonable when approached on his talk page imo. I am uncertain of the details here but I would engage Darwinek as to the rationale for his block (as Piotrus suggests above) before making any summary decisions to de-sysop him -- Samir 05:30, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

• I’m asking myself, are you guys real? Can’t you see the forest for the trees? What Darwinek did was in fact very reasonable under the circumstances. The offending IP reverted his edits five times in several hours with numbingly repetitious insults in his edit summaries. The anon did it in total impunity which only a no name dynamic IP number can give. Here are the examples of his language: 17:47, 19 July 2009 (rv vandalism), 19:25, 19 July 2009 (rv Polish nationalist POV vandalism), 19:40, 19 July 2009 (rv vandalism/POV pushing). And than, as User: U158 his insults continued: (rm nationalist POV and foreign language spam). Administrators are there to help others, so they should also be able to defend themselves against attacks when they are being victimized. The anon should have been blocked after his fourth revert at 19:25, 19 July 2009. And, he was, exactly as expected. There are no other rules to deal with here, and so, please stop creating an impression, that there IS a rule Darwinek might have broken by administering a (midly) punitive action against that IP number (24 hour block, not much). I repeat, he did it not against a user and not for a prolonged period of time, but against a nameless number, which Darwinek blocked temporarily for 3RR at 19:45, 19 July 2009, half an hour after the fourth revert. I strongly oppose the idea of an official apology. Darwinek did nothing wrong. --Poeticbent talk 05:08, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Poeticbent, calm down, everybody understood your argument.

To the issue: I would like to mention that Darwinek likes to engage people, something that stimulates productive, quality editing, but it is also something that can get you into trouble with people which are disruptive, because it creates the impression that you are involved in a content dispute. Darwinek has committed a key mistake: instead of being formal with disruptive editors, he has engaged them. As a result he applied blocks (correctly!) while he was formally already part of the edit process. Given that the disruption was clearly not Darwinek's in any of the cases, and that he/she is an excellent contributor and uses well the mop, I suggest Darwinek to voluntarily renounce to using block button for 1 month, while retaining all other sysop powers. Do not forget that block button is not the main admin tool, but one of many, and while some primarily use this one, Darwinek clearly does not. Dc76\ 07:21, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Saw this on Darwinek's user talk page, since he is blocked and unable to edit this page Livewireo (talk) 14:52, 20 July 2009 (UTC):

Firstly I would like to say that a block for me is fully justified in a response to 3RR. As for my blocking of that IP it was premature and wrong. For that reason I apologize for that. I should've inform other admins of that disruptive editor and seek their opinion on that specific case. I shouldn't have block him as a person involved. On the other hand IP's edits to that certain article were disruptive, as all his behaviour around. It doesn't constitute "I love Cindy"-type vandalism but is a clear case of disruptive editing. As for the fear and fuss about my admin tools and blocking abilities. I am not a kind of "blocking spree" admin, who blocks various IPs every day. I am fighting with classic IP vandalism every day (several recent examples , , ) but I don't use blocking tool very often. The reason is that in my experience vandalizing IP stops vandalizing after being reverted and/or warned. I am "janitorial" type of admin doing mostly silent and dirty work and admin opened to help other editors. Since my ArbCom case I really changed my wiki behaviour and more than two years of serenity and silence can prove that. My behaviour leading to ArbCom ruling was utterly inappropriate, punishment was strict and just. My behaviour since that time improved significantly ... this regrettable isolated incident is an exception. Me and my admin tools don't pose any threat to WP community. - Darwinek (talk) 09:45, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Did anyone even look at the edits of the IP? I do not see anything disruptive in this and this initial edit. In fact, in my opinion these improved the article; for example Cieszyn is not identical with Teschen, as Teschen was divided between the Czech republic and Poland after WWII. Same with the category Cieszyn Silesia, which is the wrong category given that parts of the Landkreis Teschen were not in what is today Cieszyn Silesia. But the fact that this edit had its merits and was definitely not vandalism did not stop Darwinek to add this warning to the IP's talk page . And then the editing derailed, with reverts and accussations. Guess this is another example of how IP editors are less editors than those that hide behind an anonymous user name. 76.117.1.254 (talk) 17:54, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

My response, moved from my talk page:

User:Darwinek is a disruptive editor, who behaved in a highly disruptive way, repeatedly (by revert-warring and abusive use of rollback tool) reinstating spelling errors in articles (Jerzy Buzek: , Austria-Hungary cannot be referred to as "the Austria-Hungary" in English, "after the 1939 it was..." does not make sense in English - but maybe in Polish?) and inconsistency, despite being told he was in error. He refuses to discuss his edits (Talk:Jerzy Buzek). Furthermore, he is a Polish nationalist POV pusher. This is a fact, and it does not surprise me that other long-time members of the Polish lobby are rushing to his defense now. It's very unfortunate that a lot of Central European topics at this project are largely controlled by disruptive Polish nationalist POV pushers, just have a look at Misplaced Pages:Lamest edit wars, Misplaced Pages would save a lot of time and trouble by blocking all access to the English project from Poland. And I was not being more uncivil to him than he was to me - he accused me of "vandalism" despite the fact that he is the vandal, who was messing up grammar and consistency, revert-warring, refusing to discuss, and pushing POV. But I did not block him, that's the whole difference. I don't trust his "apologies" at all, clearly he's only interested in retaining his admin rights in order to continue to abuse other editors and enforce his Polish POV (and odd grammar), as he's done before, and he's broken all his promises before as well. This time, he needs to be permanently desysopped. This project does not need people like him as administrators. I'm fed up by Eastern European nationalist POV pushers (with a poor command of English), and so are a lot of other non-Eastern European users. 158.143.212.147 (talk) 11:07, 20 July 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 158.143.166.124 (talk)

Excuse me, but is this what you have to say: "Misplaced Pages would save a lot of time and trouble by blocking all access to the English project from Poland" ? Are you at least 1% serious? BTW, I was under the impression that Darwinek is Czech, not Polish. Dc76\ 12:57, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm really fascinated that you've tried to criticise another user's neutrality with such statements ... really fascinated. ~~ Phoe _talk ~~ 13:57, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

One has to say, that ignoring this ips diatribe here the edits in the article space seemed to be very reasonable and factually accurate. But I guessed that doesnt matter, right? 76.117.1.254 (talk) 15:30, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Clearly, it's a content dispute. Instead of bitting at your opponent, you should try to resolve it in a civilized tone. Darwinek was wrong in that by not being formal he has entered the content dispute, therefore even if his block was correct from the point of view of lessening the disruption upon WP, it was not correct because it was issued by Darwinek. I repeat: whatever the impact upon Darwinek, that won't solve the content dispute, so please do be calm, civil, assume good faith (when discussing content, at least), and please work kindly in the talk pages. Dc76\ 14:18, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

IP editor

Let's leave aside the issue of Darwinek. They seem to have taken the points raised here. What shall we do about the apparently disruptive IP editor? Jehochman 13:24, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Have you even looked at the edits of the ip in the article space? And did you notice that this ip is now willing to discuss changes on article space and has thus apparently learned his or her lesson? Maybe Misplaced Pages should just stop allowing ip edits, because apparently they are not very welcome here. 76.117.1.254 (talk) 15:28, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Edits are welcome from everybody. (In principle, even Bin Laden can edit Geography of Pakistan.) Bad temper is not.

A suggestion: punish the IP for exactly what s/he has done, nor more and no less. If after the punishment the tone and attitude have changed, if there is no more disruption, everybody would be happy. If there is more disruption, you know what to do. Dc76\ 14:18, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Let's be honest. Many constructive IP editors feel as though they're treated like shit. Certainly it's acceptable to say stuff to a good faith IP editor that woud get you a warning if you said it to a disruptive logged in editor. NotAnIP83:149:66:11 (talk) 18:32, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

I have already received the same "punishment" as User:Darwinek, which I have stated was fair. I'm the only one who behaved non-disruptive in this dispute, while User:Darwinek refused to discuss his edits, abused his admin tools to enforce his POV, harrassed me and blocked his opponent, I have never blocked anyone in this dispute, and I have discussed all the controversial aspects (without receiving an answer). Still, I'm being harrassed by users like User:Jehochman at this page, clearly in retaliation for the fact that I made a report resulting in Darwinek being blocked for his disruptive edit-warring. If anyone deserves more punishment, it's certainly not me. 158.143.212.153 (talk) 11:29, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

User:Jehochman

The only user who is behaving disruptive is User:Darwinek, who is systematically refusing to discuss his edits. It is indeed very unfortunate that User:Jehochman now is engaged in personal attacks against me in retaliation for my report of User:Darwinek, even after the case is over. If he continues to be engaged in personal attacks, I will report him as well. The last report I made on an abusive admin resulted in that user being blocked for 24 hours. 158.143.212.153 (talk) 11:14, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

I would suggest you either withdraw this comment or show diffs of where you were attacked by Jehochman. There's nothing in his ANI comments here that qualifies as a personal attack. — The Hand That Feeds You: 12:48, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

I'll go one step further; this is funny. Jhochman making personal attacks. ok, you do realize he's been on the site since dirt was a new idea, right? We know him and we know how he acts. You don't seem to realize its like telling us the guy who sits next to us at the office is actually an alien.

I'm chuckling at this, will be for a while. Thanks for the laugh... KillerChihuahuaAdvice 22:59, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

I've been a Wikipedian way longer than Jehochman (longer than you as well). Your comments are just silly, personal attacks are personal attacks whether you first encountered the site in 2005 (quite recently in my opinion) or at some other time. I don't care if you know him, I'm not impressed by the way he behaves. Thanks for the laugh. (and just for the record: It's not Misplaced Pages policy that you can abuse other editors if you registered in 2005). 158.143.213.58 (talk) 12:37, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm sayng he's been here a while, and I've never seen a personal attack by him. Stillhaven't, as you've ignored the request to post a dif. If you've been there that long, then you know your complaints are simply unsupported allegations without a dif. There is no nonsense about being able to abuse editors; there is simply no evidence of abuse. KillerChihuahuaAdvice 13:44, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

IP, the pith is, saying without diffs after having been asked for them that Jehochman is making personal attacks is... a personal attack. Gwen Gale (talk) 13:56, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

This constitutes a personal attack because he labels me a "disruptive IP editor" and asks "what to do" about me, despite the fact that 1) this case was already resolved and both I and Darwinek had been blocked for 24 hours, 2) it was proven that it was not me who behaved disruptive. Merely the fact that my complaint against Darwinek resulted in his abusive block of me being overturned and he himself blocked for 24 hours proves this. It was also already proven in the discussion that I had in fact discussed my edits (contrary to my opponent) and that this was a content dispute. Under the circumstances, it is very clear to me that the above comment by User:Jecochman, after the case was resolved, was made in retaliation for my report against Darwinek, which makes it a personal attack. (btw, I've been here since before the "diff hysteria" and seen the Misplaced Pages culture evolve, which is the reason I place more emphasis on common sense than technicalities, of course more recent editors believe things have always been the way they are now) 158.143.166.124 (talk) 14:51, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

This goes nowhere. We should move on. 76.117.1.254 (talk) 15

09, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

User:DanaUllman

DanaUllman (talk · contribs)

Dana Ullman (wikipedia article: Dana Ullman) makes a living promoting homeopathy, and was banned for one year, by the arbitration committee, for the extreme disruption he caused by promoting it here. He has recently returned, and, immediately upon returning, continued his behaviours of attacking any studies that found against homeopathy.

The man makes a living promoting homeopathy. The obnly way he's going to ever come under Misplaced Pages's NPOV policy is to give up his living. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 06:09, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Actually, while I remember the issues a year asgo from reading up on them here, the two posts he's made to that page aren't of the evil nature you suggest. One is him providing first hand knowledge on the talk page about the faults in a study, and from his explanation, they may in fact have some serious issues, and another explaining the idea. I will concede that the second is phrased in the style of an advocate for 'the other side'. but not like a lunatic. These two comments on the talk page alone aren't enough to convince me he hasn't learned.ThuranX (talk) 06:23, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Maybe - if there hadn't been a huge thread, in which it was shown that the objections to the protocol only emerged afer it failed, and were approved before. Frankly, after months of everyone having to spend all their time dealing with Dana Ullman, tracking down studies and information which it almost inevitably turned out he vastly over-hyped,a nd which often did not say what he claimed - have a look at the Homeopathy case evidence page - having him back is enough to make one scream. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 06:28, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

To be fair to Dana, while he was indeed revisiting an old battle, he didn't bring the subject up himself - he was replying to a thread started by another editor the day before. His particular COI with respect to this specific issue has been pointed out on the talk page. On the other hand, he does have an obvious COI WRT the whole subject of homoeopathy. Brunton (talk) 09:13, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

From looking at the user page, there's a topic ban mentioned. I only took a quick look, but it sounds like it's still in effect. If this is the case, someone needs to remind him of this and tell him to stay away from the associated articles and talk pages. The right venue for him to contest studies is in the academic world, not here. Friday (talk) 15:19, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

The topic ban needs looking at, and also WP:COI. He is an actor in the section being discussed, so probably should only provide information on that subject (the ABC/BBC programs). Verbal chat 18:02, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Where is the topic ban? There was a total one year ban which expired this week, I can't see a topic ban. Dougweller (talk) 18:11, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

He was given a three-month topic ban by Vassayana before the Arbcom total ban -- obviously this expired long ago. Note that the Arbcom decision allows any uninvolved admin to impose new sanctions if such are deemed necessary, after appropriate warning. Looie496 (talk) 18:38, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Wow. It sure seems like the kind of thing that should be re-instituted, permanently. Knowing nothing other than who he is, I think we can safely conclude that he's not interested in neutrality with respect to his pet topic. Friday (talk) 18:45, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm asking Vassyana to clarify the topic ban - seems like it was initially 3 months, then a full indef ban was instituted, then lifted (but with the topic ban still in effect), followed by an arbcom-imposed year in the clink. I also notified Mr. Ullman of this discussion, out of courtesy. My personal opinion is to let him contribute on talk pages, but re-institute a topic or full ban if he starts showing us the full monty again. I will note, though, he is jumping back into one of his old favorite crusades - namely, the 20/20 incident, which is a viper's nest of reliable source, conflict of interest, and BLP issues. I wish I could point editors to Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_arbitration/Homeopathy/Evidence to get a feel for Mr. Ullman's conduct, but despite multiple assurances from arbitrators that it will be undeleted it has not been. Skinwalker (talk) 23:03, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Although I make a living from homeopathy, I also have a long academic record, including writing a chapter in an Oxford University Press textbook (2009) on "Integrative Oncology," writing a chapter on homeopathy and pain management in "Weiner's Pain Management" (one of the leading authoritative textbooks on pain management), and many other peer-review articles and chapters. I may have made some mistakes of advocacy in the past, but I have been punished and have learned. If wikipedia will choose to topic-ban me, it must also consider topic-banning many many other experts who also make some type of living from their expertise, including many medical doctors and medical researchers (and on and on). And I wonder then can and should be done with all of the anonymous people who edit here and who might theoretically deserve a topic ban (needless to say, I am not recommending this). Instead, I believe that it makes more sense to topic ban those people based on their behavior and actions rather than on theoretical grounds. I sincerely hope that wikipedia be careful in hearing the "testimony" of those editors who I happen to show are not providing accurate information on homeopathy, as is what happened with this initial complaint. DanaUllman 01:21, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, other crap exists, even in some textbooks. Just because some publisher was foolish enough to allow homeopathic nonsense some mention doesn't mean we have to allow its very active promotion here. Promotion of nonsense and pseudoscience is not welcome here, while defending proven and documented reality is status quo and expected. Why? Because Misplaced Pages aspires to become a serious encyclopedia, and not a Conservapedia or Altienonsenseapedia. Brangifer (talk) 05:45, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

I was all set to support his access to talk pages, but he went right into his SOAPBOXing here, which shows that he's unable to discuss this rationally. He asks that people be banned for their actions, not their office, but even on this matter, he fails. He seems more concerned with his ego than with either actual science, or improving the article. He frames his comment in the manner of 'I was there, therefore I am qualified to both correct this, and MORE qualified than others to write an article on this topic.' Even in the last two days' comments, he goes on with the whole 'Homeopathic science is done in a secret and different way which cannot be reproduced by non-believers' jive. It's demonstrative of his inability to hold rational discourse on a topic which for him is a faith and religion; like religion for many, discussion must be an 'us and them' not an objective examination, which is what's required for good Misplaced Pages editing. Therefore, I am convinced that he should be the subject of an indefinite topic ban, one which will, in practice, likely be a permanent ban. His view is simply at loggerheads with our intentions here to provide solid, cited information. ThuranX (talk) 06:22, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

I have worked with dana Ullman in the past. while i do feel like his homeopathy advaocacy can have led to problems in the past, I do feel that he makes an important point here. essentially, he is being censured by past conduct and his profession rather than his current behavior. according to our blocking policy, blocking is preventative not punitive so I feel that he shouldnt be blocked from editing Misplaced Pages completely just because he MIGHT offend in the future. Rather, i propose that the mentioned topic ban be commuted to probation, in which case if he does behave unethically then an unvinovolved Administrator may impose sanctions such as a topic ban. I am worried that we are using a WP:ANI to win a content dispute in Homeopathy, which was a problem that myself and other homeopathy editors dealt with extensively to our detriment two years ago and I think that we can prevent by being less aggressive and more preventative now. User:Smith Jones 02:35, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Dana Ullman caused about 6 months of disruption last year, over dozens of articles. If the evidence page of the Homeopathy case was undeleted, you'd see that he lied or mislead about the content of sources, claimed that an article for a very, very obscure journal without its articles online was the leading journal in the field, and that that his summary of it MUST be included (While not providing the article, nor mentioing the journal had a section specificaly devoted to - I forget the exact term, but it was something like speculative research on unproven concepts. He caused a couple weeks of disruption claiming that Linde's retraction of results in a later paper wasn't a retraction becuase that exact word didn't appear, and so the original study - whose results he liked - should be used in the article without updates, etc, etc. He and a few others had made the situaton at homeopathy such a horrible mess that admins weren't even willing to go there and deal with clearly-documented problems with pro-homeopathic users, because if they did, a large group would swoop down to attack. Back in that time, it ws widely said that the only thing enforced there was WP:CIVIL, and only if you weren't a homeopath (certain homeopaths were allowed to engage in extreme incivility, regularly). Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 06:19, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Oh, and, if it matters, he also showed up off-wiki on my blog after I posted about homeopathy on Citizendium, back in February, which was kind of creepy. I'll provide a link in e-mail upon request to enough administrators that they can confirm, I'd rather not link publicly. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 10:11, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't read too much into that. He regularly turns up in the comments of blog posts with any kind of critical view of homoeopathy. A couple of recent examples: . Brunton (talk) 10:57, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Smith Jones, DanaUllman is being put up for a ban because he's a religious zealot, and his religion is more important to him than anything else. This leads to a total inability to deal with things rationally. For example, he came to my talk page to attack me for paraphrasing his attitude as being an unattributed and unreal quote. Had he bothered to use those vaunted writing skills he brags of, he'd know the difference between ' and ", but he doesn't. this same irrational reaction is brought to anyone who brings scientific debunking to the Homeopathy article. Because it 'hurts' his religion (whether Homeopathy or profit is the underlying religion is up to you). This means that like all the other religious zealot issues we deal with, like the images of Muhammad, one side can spend the rest of eternity explaining scholarship, dispassionate writing, citation, applications to a wide audience and so on, and the other side will shout "MY RELIGION! NO BLASPHEMY" over and over, which is exactly what we have going on here. DanaUllman just shouts it with more and bigger words than most. Same principle underlying the situation. ThuranX (talk) 14:19, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

In due respect, I do not think of homeopathy as a "religion," and actually, I have a good academic record. The fact that UC Berkeley's alumni magazine chose to feature me and my work amongst the millions of its alumni is an honor. I feel that I have something to contribute here, and I have sought to better understand and learn the rules of wikipedia. To be honest, it seems that it is ThuranX who has an axe to grind here. I expressed concern to him privately that he put quotes in a statement above that I have never said NOR implied, and I simply did not think that this assertion was accurate or fair. Whereas double quotes would suggest a direct quote, the use of single quotes suggests a paraphrase, and yet, he never referenced any such paraphrased statement. Instead of apologizing or seeking to correct the situation, he simply went on the attack again. I told him in my post at his user-page that I wanted to assume good faith, and yet, he doesn't seem to AGF back. I do not plan to be a very active editor here, but when appropriate, I may do some editing. I will probably work more on Talk pages. That said, I hope that admins here watch some of the people here who seem so lividly anti-homeopathy. Livid is no place for an encyclopedia. DanaUllman 17:12, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm anti-bad biased writing, not anti-homeopathy. You refuse to listen to others, abide by good writing styles, by Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines, adn continually go on the offensive against anyone who doesn't acquiesce to your POV. You are an inherently biased editor on this topic, and you spend the vast majority of your time here agitating for a Pro-Homeopathy article. All critics are flat out wrong in your view, all outsiders are wrong because they don't understand the 'science' like you claim do, and anyone else is just getting in the way of you and the 'truth'. I'm sick of seeing such zealotry on Misplaced Pages, because contrary to your claims that a Pro-Homeopathic bias tot he article would help more people by saving their lives, such an article does NOT help the uninitiated reader to become more educated and learn both sides of an issue. You continually work to obstruct good writing, NPOV articles, and to antagonize those who don't agree with you. You had a one year ban for it, and your immediate actions on return are to run right back to the front lines and start it up again. Misplaced Pages is better off without you. ThuranX (talk) 18:50, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

believe me, Thuran is udnerstand your point. the fanatcisim of one side of the alternative medicine debate that I participated in last year was practicaly obscene. People were banned and blocked and others wer accused of murder because they promoted Homeopathy. I remember an ex-user, Randall Blackamoor, who was banned after lashing out at both sides and accusing Misplaced Pages of being a murder because it even had an article on Homeopathy in the first place! I can see why Dana Ullmans presence is unwelcome. However, comparing him to a religious blitz then what the Thing is to do is to always follow Wikipedias policy scrupulously instead of using it to create revenge on Dana Ullman for his past and not his present sins. I believe that an uninvolved administrator can review his episodes and and if he is found to be disruptive BASED ON HIS CURRENT ESSAYS then he should be topic-banned (from Homeopathy only -- he has contributed extensively and constructively outside of Homeopathy so he should be allowed to remained). I am anti- a hardline on any user. Just follow the rules and the right thing User:Smith Jones 23:55, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

I can't see any evidence for these extensive and constructive contributions outside homoeopathy. While he has edited other articles, they have pretty much invariably been either articles connected with homeopathy, or articles with references to homoeopathy, or articles or into which references to homoeopathy have been inserted. Brunton (talk) 09:22, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Good point. As with all COI editors, it would be great if Dana could consider editing in areas completely unrelated to homeopathy. He must have some hobbies or something. It would open a new perspective for him, it would be a chance for him to prove that he can cooperate with others in a constructive atmosphere. I think it would be in the best interest of all parties concerned. Hans Adler 09:44, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

I would support a topic ban of Dana Ullman from all homeopathy pages, broadly construed, so as to avoid a repeat of past behaviour which is already evident. Verbal chat 08:05, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, before the 1-year ban Dana Ullman got on people's nerves at homeopathy talk pages, including mine. I haven't seen anything problematic from him since then. Since when is an actor in an event reported by Misplaced Pages, who is open about the COI, not allowed to point out politely and in few paragraphs that he doesn't agree with the article, giving reasons? As a general principle that's the best thing that can happen, in order to ensure that we interpret our sources correctly and fairly.

Is it now acceptable to run to ANI with nothing? I will keep this in mind and come here to ask for BullRangifer to be topic banned the next time he says something outrageously stupid on the homeopathy talk page, or makes an unfounded personal attack which he is not prepared to take back. (See User talk:BullRangifer/Archive 10#Personal attacks for some of the details, with pointers to others. Or just look at his 22 July post above to get an impression of his influence on the talk page climate.) Hans Adler 09:17, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

i agreeee that the people who see the WP:ANI as an excuse to punish people they dont like. User:Smith Jones 23:09, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Topic ban based on COI makes makes no sense. Mds and pharmaceutical companies employees should not edit medical articles? Most editors do not use their real name - how do we know that there is no COI? This is a content dispute. Dana believes that the editors dont interpret the sources correctly and fairly and thats why they want him out. --JeanandJane (talk) 02:27, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

User:Stephen Bain

First, the simple version

In the 2008 Homeopathy case:

Me: accidentally links to a non-identifying former user name, not realising that it was any sort of secret, since the rename happened very publicly.

Two other parties, not identified to protect their privacy: Edit-war to keep up a harassment campaign involving outing me to my real name. This was oversighted, though, keeping it from being easily seen.

And now, in the present

Stephen Bain: Repeatedly insists on impling that I am mostly, or, at best, equally at fault in his posts, and that my action was done intentionally. Refuses to withdraw accusation despite repeated requests.

This strongly risks damaging my reputation, and is unbecoming to an arbitrator.

Details

Stephen Bain (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA), despite repeated requests to withdraw the accusation, continues to insist that I was formerly involved in an outing war because, on Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_arbitration/Homeopathy/Evidence, I inadvertently linked to what I think was a RfC or suspected sock puppet case regarding a user who had very publicly switched names a couple months before, and whose talk page archives to this day contain the old user name. The other user repeatedly attempted to out me to my real name, without relevance to the case, and was blocked over it, I made a single link, as and apologised when it came out that the user did not want his previous nick known.

I have asked Mr. Bain repeatedly to stop making accusations that the link was retaliatory, he refuses to doso, and indeed, is spreading the accusations further.

This accusation is particularly harmful, because, thanks to oversighting of the very vicious attempts by the user in question to out me, only oversighters are capable of seeing the truth of the matter.

Putting it shortly, for those of you without the oversighter bit - I took a big risk and exposed myself to the full fury of quite a number of edtitors acting in concert to cause trouble on Homeopathy and related pages by opening an Arbcom case.

The Arbcom then... ignored the case for about three months, letting the evidence page turn into a maelstrom of attacks on me. I had to defend myself from every accusation, because, let it not be forgotten that this was post Matthew Hoffman, which the arbcom recently made a statement about:

Note that that statement outs me, but never mind. I had just been exposed to that major fuckup on the Arbcom's part, which even they admit was a gross miscarriage of justice. So, Homeopathy case comes up, I'm terrified - all these accusations being slung at me, the arbcom have not, at that time, even apologised for their behaviour, or admitted any wrongdoing.

I spent about 100 or 200 hours responding to everything. Meticulously documenting every single accusation against me, and showing the truth, in a panic that the Arrbcom were about to fuck me over again. One link accidentally went to an unreformated RfC or SSP page or whatever it is, that contained his old, apparently non-identifying nickname.

Meanwhile, the user in question is edit warring with an oversighter to reveal my real identity to people actively hounding and attacking me.

Mr. Bain thinks that this is irrelevant - that one accidental link to an apparently non-identifying name which the user still has in his talk page archives should be considered equivalent to edit warring with oversighters to get my real name outed on a page full of people actively attacking me in bulk. Mr. Bain is throwing all the blame on me.

Two of the worst people in that case are now back. People deserve access to the evidence I spent about 100 hours assembling. But Mr. Bain would rather attack me, and make it out to be all my fault, rather than do what the arbcom have repeatedly promised to do. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 13:40, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Also, perhaps a bit more on-topic, Mr. Bain, despite being told that many of the attempted outings of me were oversighted, evidently did not bother to check before perpetuating his accusation, claiming that only deletion had ever occured on the page.

This is, at the very best, sloppy. I had repeatedly mentioned the posts being oversighted when asking him to withdraw his accusation. He evidently didn't bother even to check whether I was correct, but just said I was wrong.

I linked toMisplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive406#User_blocked_for_attempted_outing above, and won't quote it again here, but it must be admitted that those who can see the oversighted diffs can see a concerted campaign of harassment by outing, edit-warring to keep the information on the page. He says as much here:

With the harassment campaign completely oversighted, he's risking major damage to my reputation with no regards to the facts. I linked to relevant information under a user's apparently non-identifying account. Others edit-warred as part of a harassment campaign with outing as its goal. His statements cast me as either equally, or even mostly the one at fault, and without being able to see the oversighted diffs, this may appear to be true, when being able to see the oversighted parts will show it to be patently false.

I give the Arbcom permission to quote the oversighted diffs if my real name is deleted. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 15:26, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Can I ask what exactly you're expecting this noticeboard to do? Hersfold non-admin 15:17, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Addendum: I'm especially confused about that since you've already filed both a case request and a request for clarification (or as you originally had it, a "Request to finally do what you've been promising to do for an entire year") on this same matter. This seems very much like trawling for attention to me. Hersfold non-admin 15:20, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

If Mr. Bain is willing to withdraw his accusation, I'm happy, but if not, I'd ask that he be warned or blocked over it. Just because Mr. Bain is arbitrator should not recuse him from the No Personal Attacks and Harassment policies, particularly when his arbcom position gives false claims a patina of respectability. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 15:44, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't undertstand why this is posted here and at WP:RFAR. Are you asking administrators for their opinion or for some action? Hersfold already asked you above but you seemed to answer an slightly different question. Nobody is going to block or warn Bain (even were it appropriate) on an issue that you are simultaneously asked to be arbitrated. CIreland (talk) 19:22, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't want to say too much - I have a frend trying to advocate for me to get this sorted with rather less drama. I'll explain things further tomorrow or so, if that doesn't work out. Suffice it to say that I have a well-known bad experience with Arbcom. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 07:40, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Are you requesting a community sanction of Stephen Bain? It seems like WP:RFC should be done first. This thread appears to be idle. Jehochman 18:36, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

New editor Bogglevit messing up layout of lots of articles

A new editor, Bogglevit (talk · contribs), has appeared today, who has made about 60 edits, mostly with edit summaries saying just "Wikify", in which all that is being done, as far as I can see, is to add a bunch of paragraph breaks, usually in places that mess up the flow of exposition. Long paragraphs are not good but this is not the way to fix them. I believe that all of these edits should be rolled back en masse. I have come here instead of first attempting discussion because the large number of edits by a brand new editor indicates that this is a matter that needs to be handled with some urgency: if a rollback is needed, it should be done before the articles go stale. I will notify Bogglevit of this thread. Looie496 (talk) 16:38, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm not seeing the big problem. From the edits I've looked at, they appear to be perfectly regular copyedits. Was it necessary to take this to the dramaboard right away? Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 16:47, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

In addition to that, WP:ROLLBACK is only to be used against vandalism, which this is not. Undo the edits if you like, but there isn't any admin intervention needed here. Cheers. lifebaka++ 16:48, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Probably should have just started by asking the editor what was up. If that failed, ANI would be the next option. Tan | 39 16:53, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Excuse me if I've overreacted. There's something about misuse of automation that pushes me in that direction -- the damage accumulates so rapidly that it feels to me like the balance between being nice and preventing further damage should shift. Anyway, I've fixed the six damaged articles that are in WikiProject Neuroscience -- other people will have to fix the other 40 or so. I'll take a shot at explaining to Bogglevit why paragraph-breaking is not something that can be done at the speed of light. (Re rollback: my understanding is that the "bulk" feature is sometimes used for non-vandal damage that would take too long to fix one article at a time.) Looie496 (talk) 17:44, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Okay, this is getting weirder. We now have another account, Swerqitamin (talk · contribs), created an hour after Bogglevit's last edit, who seems to be doing exactly the same sort of edits. Looie496 (talk) 17:59, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

I concur with Looie. Bogglevit virtually vandalized the health psychology page under the guise of wikifying it. What Bogglevit did is not editing. It was destructive. Iss246 (talk) 02:28, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

I support this ANI report – the two users need attention. Swerqitamin's eighth edit was "quick add using HotCat" with a misguided category (the article was already in Category:Psychology which is in Category:Human behavior that was added in the edit). There are lots of other category changes and I would bet that most of them should be reverted. The user puts a few random paragraph breaks or adds categories with no helpful edit summary (just "wikify" or "quick add..."). Other editors should spend twice as long checking each edit, then undoing it with a meaningful edit summary – a lot of unnecessary work. Johnuniq (talk) 02:30, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

A few accounts (User:Wickelyby, User:Beteltreuse and User:Julippia) have made similar edits recently. Possibly sockpuppets of User:Hatherington. snigbrook (talk) 02:41, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

It's totally and absolutely obvious that these are all the same indef-blocked editor. I would file an RFCU, but past experience says it would be declined as a duck and nothing will happen. Looie496 (talk) 20:16, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Bewildered

Hi there. I don't know why this section exists on the Administrator's notice board. Every edit I have made to wikipedia has been a good faith, constructive one.

There are three main building tasks I like to do:

One, to link together interconnected articles that are not yet linked - basically, to build the knowledge web. This includes putting articles into categories, and linking categories together.

Two, I like to find orphaned articles, and link them to appropriate others. This can be a lot of work.

Three, I seek to improve the readability of articles. Many articles contain wonderful information, yet are not easy to read. There is little copy editing, with large amounts of text clumped together. There are no paragraph breaks. Simply putting paragraph breaks into a mass of text allows that text to be more easily read & comprehended by a reader.

Anyway, that's what I like to do. I'm very proud of my work, because I feel it increases people's accessibility to education.

Bogglevit (talk) 09:12, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Sears Tower

There is currently a bit of a controversy regarding the naming of the Sears Tower/Willis Tower. The tower was officially renamed a few days ago, and the page moved to Willis Tower in accordance with that event. The move was made without a discussion or a consensus to do; however, the move has now attracted significant controversy on the talk page. Because the redirect Sears Tower had more than one line in the history, it was not possible for a user without administrator tools to move the page back; however, I am strongly of the opinion that it should not have been moved without discussion in the first place, thus I have moved the page to Sears Tower for now until some sort of consensus on the naming issue can develop. In doing so, I seem to have created a small host of problems related to the move request and such like, and I would very much appreciate it if another administrator could neutrally assess the situation and determine what should be done. It's clear enough that once a consensus is established for one name or the other, the page should be there. The question is merely where it should stay in the meantime for the next few days (which in some sense is really more or less irrelevant). Anyway, I will be going out later this evening, so I figured I would raise this here in case further controversy develops. Cool3 (talk) 19:55, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Hard to understand why this is controversial. We have about sixty reliable sources that say it was renamed to Willis Tower. Move the page, create a redirect, wipe hands on pants. Tan | 39 19:58, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

The article should have been left alone for the duration of the discussion; moving it from Willis Tower -> Sears Tower while there was an outstanding request to do that very thing is at best confusing. At worst, it could be seen as an attempt to preempt the outcome of the discussion. I am positive that was not the intent, but unless the outcome of the discussion was evident (ie. WP:SNOW type closure) it is the sort of thing that just shouldn't happen. I am going to revert the move, where it should stay until the termination of the discussion. I sympathize with your point (the original move probably shouldn't have happened) but adding another move that shouldn't have happeend mid-process only serves to further confuse the situation. Shereth 20:08, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

What possible justification can there be for failing to keep the article at the official name, and leaving the former and better known name as a redirect? I'm mystified here--reversion is a disruptive action that serves no encyclopedic purpose, and there's simply nothing to be discussed, unless someone is asserting that multiple RSes are wrong. Jclemens (talk) 20:14, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

The Misplaced Pages naming conventions in the WP:MOS determine what name we should use. It is not the official name, but the one most commonly used. The official name may become the most common one in the future, but is unlikely to be well enough known at first. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 20:47, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Please submit all further discussion regarding the name of the article to the discussion taking place on Talk:Willis Tower, where it can be taken under consideration by the administrator who closes that discussion. We will not be deciding the fate of the article's name here at ANI. Shereth 20:52, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but what you've got here is certain users abusing the "common names" guideline as a way of having that wikipedia article serve as a "protest" against the name change. This is a blatant form of POV-pushing. It looks like consensus will keep it at its official name, but this shouldn't even be under discussion. Baseball Bugs carrots 23:47, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm with BB here. Did ANYONE read WP:BURO. We don't force process for process sake. This discussion is a WP:ZOMBIE move and it seems patently obvious that the official name of the building is the one we use here. The desire to force a consensus discussion on a matter such as this is silly. Consensus is fine for deciding policy or for carrying on deletion discussions, but consensus will NOT change the name of the building. It's the Willis Tower as of about 3 days ago. To force a discussion which will simply WP:SNOW-ball into the obvious end result seems beyond silly. --Jayron32 00:49, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

On WGN-TV news tonight, they called it "Willis Tower" and "Big Willie". No "Sears Tower" in sight. Baseball Bugs carrots 03:18, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

What choo talkin' bout Willis?! <>Multi-Xfer<> (talk) 00:35, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Semi-automated creation of approximately 3,000 unreferenced sub-stub BLPs

AlbertHerring (talk · contribs) has created approximately three thousand unreferenced sub-stub biographies of living people in the past few days, many of which are not categorized as such, using AWB. I'm sort of blown away. Considering we are not able to maintain what we have now, and those of us working with BLPs are already breaking under the load, I don't even know what to do with this. Mass semi-automated creation of unreferenced BLPs is utterly inappropriate. I need some help here. Lara 20:09, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

They were referenced to de.wiki with {{iw-ref}}. –xeno 20:12, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Does that count? Even AlbertHerring apparently doesn't think so considering he created the articles with the BLPunreferenced template. Lara 20:19, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Albert used the BLP tag Lara not because he thought the reference was not good enough, somebody complained to him. All people do is complain! Dr. Blofeld 20:22, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

It's better than nothing I guess... It was likely done in the hopes some Deutsche speakers will import the information from de.wiki. I don't think the re-vamp templates should be on there though, there's no guarantee a major revamping will be forthcoming. –xeno 20:24, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

I actually added the BLP template per request from User:Who then was a gentleman? - if you'd prefer it to be left off, I can do that as well. --User:AlbertHerring 20:23, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

They ARE ALL referenced to German wikipedia and is utterly appropriate given that these articles are to be transwikied and differ in respect to other articles because the content is intended to be transferred directly. German wikipedia has the relative external links. If you think Lara that they are utterly inappropriate you seriously need to consider what our goals are on here. You cannot ignore 99% of the notable politicians in German history to achieve the "sum of all knowledge" whether you feel stressed out with the number of article we have already or not. Sure they are very stubby but we SERIOUSLY need to do something about the transwiki article system on here as few people seme to giv e adamn that we could be massively better off with content from other wikipedias in english. I would ask you to kindly explore the articles on German wikipedia and to reconsider your thoughts that wikipedia wouldn't benefit from these articles. Also note that the BLP tag is redundant for half of them as the politicians are deceased. It is a mixed bag. Note also I am considering a new wikiproject dedicated to the generation of missing content from other wikipedias but hopefully in a more coordinated fahsion that won't raise any concerns in regards to referencing and content. We could benefit massively with articles translated from other wikis. I have asked for a bot but got no reply!!! Dr. Blofeld 20:20, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

While some people think it's appropriate or even beneficial to boost edit counts by created thousands of sub-stubs, others disagree. Especially when they are BLPs. As far as adding the BLP template, it's been put on the BDPs, too. So, explain to me Blofeld, how it's A GOOD THING that we now have at least, I estimate, 2500 more BLPs to improve and maintain? Lara 20:27, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Well why did you think wikipedia would be better off with a new front page? Because you believed it was the right thing to do towards the progression of wikipedia. I aslo believe that blue linking clearly notablke articles from other wikipedias allows other editors to develop them. Sure to expand them all may take some time but several have bene translated by visitors already. You;d be amazed how many articles we've created have bene expanded and have developed properly. You should be grateful at least that editors like us care about missing notable content that can be transferred by anybody, We merely build the bridges across to build content upon. Sure I'd love every new stub to be wonderfully developed and referenced but we have a lot to do and these articles should be english whether it seems stressful or not. Dr. Blofeld 20:28, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Can I get some assistance from someone who can focus on the topic at hand? Lara 20:30, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict x 2) Dr. Blofeld, with all due respect, I'm not sure you're truly objective here. Creating content-less (which is essentially what these are) generic stubs is one thing; mass-creating content-less biographies of living people is an entirely different matter. This needs to be appropriately addressed. --MZMcBride (talk) 20:30, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

It may be that most (or all) of these sub-stubs become full-fledged articles someday; on the other hand, it may be that very few of them do. Therein lies the problem. Human-created articles come along at a manageable pace and allow other parties to read, review, comment and ultimately help guide the editorial process along for each individual article. The mass creation of over 3000 at one time is an enormous strain on that system, as it will take a long time for people to actually review these articles, improve when possible and take other actions where appropriate. Any kind of mass-editing on this kind of scale really, really needs to have had discussion on how to handle it happen before the fact and not after. Shereth 20:33, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

This task differs from independent article creations in that the content is there is already there in a different language to put in our pages. What you arne't seeing is that the content is really there so be added, they will all become full articles someday. It is time the different language wikipedia became more interconnected and coordinates and work together at translating each others articles in a much more efficient way. Dr. Blofeld 20:37, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

One of the biggest challenges for people working on BLP is dealing with articles that have no or few English language sources available. I raised this as an issue several days ago to put to the Foundation because I saw that a large back log was developing. This will make it much worse. :-( FloNight♥♥♥ 20:39, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

I hope it's a more efficient way than creating thousands of one-sentence articles in a matter of a couple days. Lara 20:39, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Do you disagree that we should have articles on notable German politicians in english wikipedia? I think you would probably like to see the content transferred but would like to see every article perfectly done first. Given that I don't speak German myself and nobody else is bothering other than us to at least start them somebody has to take the iniative. As the saying goes If you build it they will come.

Trust me I have made a big effort to get people like Jimbo Wales and the bureacrats to transferring information between wikis more efficicent. Each wikipedia could beneift MASSIVELY by transalting referenced information betwene wikipedians but I see no coordinated approach to link wikipedias together with an effective translation scheme, It is incredibly disappointing that in a project of this scale the masses of good articles on other wikis are largely ignored by the community and the moment somebody like Albert or me makes an attempt to do something muc much less efficiently by hands, slogging our guts out in the process me get conflicting tell tales reports about us. I'd love more than anything to have a more coordinated efficient process in which content is transferred upon creation and these problems are tackled but I really wish more people would support what we are trying to achieve in the long run. Dr. Blofeld 20:37, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

It would have been nice if some more information was automatically translated or transferred such as birth and death dates, and the references! Graeme Bartlett (talk) 20:43, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Do you, Blofeld, and Albert plan to watch and maintain these articles? If not, then I stand firm in my opinion that it's utterly inappropriate. While you think there is value in one-sentence sub-stubs, others think they are completely pointless; serving only to open living people up to potential libel. Lara 20:48, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

I did start creating them that way but I found I really didn't have the patience to get through what needed to be started by ensuring every article was full each time. To share the workload would have been nice but few editors seem to work together on here and support each other. I had a wikipedia tell me they ar eleaving wiki early precisely because of this lack of support between editors. Dr. Blofeld 20:48, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

My concerns were with the fact that they were unsourced, I certainly don't disagree with their creation. The English Misplaced Pages needs to expand its horizons above English-language subjects and I thought the creation of German politician stubs was quite appropriate. BLP or not. I was very happy to see Albert add the BLPsources tag. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 20:45, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

No, staring articles about living people that do not have references is not alright no matter how short of long the articles is. We need for all of our content about living people to be sourced!! I want to expand our content, but only if it is well sourced. FloNight♥♥♥ 20:48, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Not to mention that your lack of patience is by no means a valid excuse for creating articles - BLP articles, no less - that lack reliable sourcing. It is not sensible for you to expect other editors to pick up the slack created by your lack of patience. Shereth 20:55, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

They do have references!! Over half the articles are not living people! Dr. Blofeld 20:50, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

This is definitely not the way to go about creating BLP articles. This only adds to the massive backlog that there is and creates a headache for cleanup-minded editors. If AlbertHerring wants to create these articles he should adequately cite them in accordance with our BLP and verifiability policies. ThemFromSpace 20:51, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. Creating thousands of poorly referenced stubs because "I found I really didn't have the patience to get through what needed to be started by ensuring every article was full each time" seems a poor way to build an encyclopedia. Please take the time to correctly write them one at a time. — Satori Son 20:55, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Living people is a good place for people who support the mass-creation of BLPs to help out. In about four hours, a list of around 2,000 BLPs is going to be generated for us to clear. That's in addition to the ~3,000 we now have to go through and verify the absence of a death date because Blofeld didn't have the patience to create an informative article, and it was at some point decided that slapping a BLP template on BDPs was a good idea, and categorize any living subjects not in the living people category. Any estimate on how much time this will take? You want teamwork, Blofeld? How about organizing a group beforehand, instead of dumping hundreds of hours of work on unsuspecting volunteers, especially when it's work that you yourself don't have the patience for? Lara 20:59, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Are you completely ignorant of the amount of traffic wikipedia gets? Why shouldn't I share the workload with other editors? Dr. Blofeld 21:01, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Care to explain to us how dumping an unsourced sub-stub on people, expecting them to log the hours of work researching and sourcing the information (if possible) that you "don't have the patience for" is sharing? Shereth 21:04, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

The answer is obvious. It is the first step to make towards the spreading of knowledge which I, maybe not you are here for. The articles are started. Somebody visits it, adds a little and so forth. Misplaced Pages is used by millions of people everyday, it is incredibly narrow minded of you if you think there will not be more than one editor who will ever expand any of the stubs. I do a huge amount of work on here, why should I be expected to do all the work? I have expanded thousands of such stubs and have spent many hours of my time referencing and improving existing articles. Why shouldn't anybody else come across an article and have to write it? Dr. Blofeld 21:10, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

The creator of an article has a duty to ensure that it at least meets the bare minimum inclusion standards. To do otherwise is irresponsible and inconsiderate at best. Shereth 21:13, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't think it has been mentioned yet that the articles are/were all created with the underconstruction template (which reads "This article or section is in the middle of an expansion or major revamping."). I consider that highly inappropriate. --Conti|✉ 21:06, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

The bot will remove that in a few day anyway. Dr. Blofeld 21:10, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Dr. Blofeld, were you aware of the problem that is already in place with articles about living people? Did you know that there is already a growing backlog of articles that are written about people from non-English speaking countries because we have less ability to source the articles since the language is not spoken by many people that edit Misplaced Pages English? We need to find a solution to the problem before that we dump thousands more articles into Misplaced Pages English with out good sources. There are other issues are well. Some of the articles look stale already. And all will grow stale soon since they are living people unless they are maintained. So as it stands now, we have a massive number unsourced articles, that may or may not be current. And later will grow stale. I think that adding individual articles about living people from these broad categories with no plan to maintain them is not good for Misplaced Pages as it tries to raise the quality of our articles. FloNight♥♥♥ 21:12, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

There are enough German speakers on here to make it possible. This is Germany not Kreblakistan. There may evne be sources in english but as I said the content is referenced on German wikipedia and should be immediately transferred. Dr. Blofeld 21:17, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Holy mackerel, the last thing this place needs is thousands more poorly-watched BLPs! There should be a blanket prohibition against creating BLPs by automated means. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 21:13, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Half the people are DEAD Boris. Why shouldn't anybody else come across an article and have to write it? The way that wikipedia has developed so far has proved to me that enough people care about building an encyclopedia of the highest quality that these articles will develop in due course. Many thousands of my articles have been expanded into fuller articles by people visiting and the end result? I have very productively improved wikipedia in the long term and have had made a major contribution to knowledge on here. I plant seeds to sow as does Albert and I will continue doing so whether you dislike what I do or not. Many people support what I do on wikipedia and see what my long term goals are even if you people don;'t Dr. Blofeld 21:10, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Dead or not, they're all (at least those from today) categorized as living people, which means others have to go through and check every German version for a death date. Maybe you want to get to work? Lara 21:17, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

The BLP tag had nothing to do with me. Dr. Blofeld 21:18, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm fine w/ these articles being created. I don't think it is necessary to hassle people or create a rule that prevents the mass creation of like articles. Protonk (talk) 06:14, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Can we form a consensus

I think we're stuck with these biographies now, so a small group of editors have just had a giant pile of work dumped on their desks, because Blofeld thinks we should be sharing. He gets a bot script to semi-automate the creation of thousands of articles in a matter of days, gets someone else to run it, and now that's created hundreds of work hours, which will take weeks, if not months, for others to clean up... and, somehow, that's sharing the workload.

Can we get a consensus that this doesn't happen again? Can we prohibt the mass-creation of these sort of biographies? Lara 21:17, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

(after uncountable ECs) I think the thing which Lara is trying to express here, but that people are missing, is the ethical problem with freely editable articles about living persons. The deal is, a person has certain rights, and among them are the right not to have lies and misinformation printed about them, unchallenged, in the public forum. A highly visible site like Misplaced Pages can host material which is substantively damaging to real people. Given that, the Foundation has established stricter rules for biographies of living people. No one is argueing that German politicians are not notable, so to use that as a way of dismissing Lara's very real concern is a red herring, and entirely misses the point of her concern. Her concern is that 3000 unwatched articles about real, public, living people can be a liability to the project in the sense that, should someone print libelous or slanderous material in those articles, and no one notices, real harm can come to those people. It is not that the articles currently have anything objectionable in them, its that the rate at which they are being created does not show that care has been taken to ensure that they are properly watched and patrolled to see that potentially damaging material is not sureptitiosly added to the articles. Its not that Misplaced Pages should not have these articles on notability arguements; its that it is irresponsible to create such an open target for slander and libel and to not have a mechanism in place to defend against the very real threat of that. --Jayron32 21:17, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

I see what I you mean Jayron, but really that argument opposes the expansion of wikipedia because the number of articles becomes too much to monitor. Dr. Blofeld 21:47, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Actually not. Insofar as 3000 articles can be created by people who spend the time to research, craft the wording of, and spend labor in working on them, 3000 articles will then be watched by editors that have a real interest in seeing those articles well taken care of. Insofar as 3000 sub-stubs are rapidly created by a semi-automated process by a single person, it seems highly unlikely that THOSE 3000 articles could be watched as well as 3000 articles managed by involved editors. The deal is, if the 3000 sub-stubs were French Communes or Billboard top 100 Singles or species of beetles, then it would be a "no-harm-no-foul" situation; no one is writing slanderous material about a beetle (maybe a Beatle, but I digress), and no one here would have batted an eyelash. When the 3000 sub-stub articles are created about real living people there becomes a whole new level of responsibility for the article creators; I fail to see how one person (or even 2 or 3) could manage 3000 such articles in an effective manner. It is neither the number of articles, or the manner of their creation, that are the sole problems. It is the intersection of the number, the way they were created, AND the fact that they are all BLPs that creates the problem here. --Jayron32 00:17, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

In my opinion, all the AWB mass created articles should probably be mass deleted as they have no real content. Since they presumably all meet inclusion guidelines, a better way to get them into the English encyclopedia is to write a bot that can parse certain basic information out of the German articles for use here. It should be feasible to pull birth/death dates, political party, and probably some other basic info using a bot. It could also transfer the references, obviously. If there is interest in this idea I'd be willing to help with the coding, but I don't speak German so I'd need some assistance figuring out what to look for. --ThaddeusB (talk) 21:17, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Which is exactly what I proposed before Thaddeus (see the bottom of my talk page) and would love to see happen to extarct basic data and start articles from other wikipedias but nobody listens to what I have to say or propose. Jimbo and the people who authorise such tasks are about as helpful as a goldfish. Dr. Blofeld 21:20, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, creating and maintaining bots is a lot of work and requires technical skill that most people don't have. As such, bot requests often go unfulfilled. (The best place to ask is at WP:BOTREQ for future reference). --ThaddeusB (talk) 21:27, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Note also the original creation possibly violated BOT policies since no approval for these actions was sought. --ThaddeusB (talk) 21:19, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

No it wasn't created by bot. Dr. Blofeld 21:21, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Extremely automated editing can fall under bot policies, so it is best to seek approval. It isn't clear cut, which is why I said "possibly". --ThaddeusB (talk) 21:30, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Creating a bunch of articles with no content, expecting others to fill the content, and then leaving them unwatchlisted so they can be malformed is intellectually lazy at best. With the BLP policy it's even worse. Agree with Jayron. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs 21:22, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

"Intellectually lazy"? What does that make an editor who spends his time hanging around ANI and FACs and does nothing to actively contribute information to wikipedia then and pretends to be a professional critic? Dr. Blofeld 21:31, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

This sort of behavior absolutely needs to be prohibited. As ThaddeusB states above, this is essentially running a bot without going through the proper approval (granted a human may have been running an AWB script under their own account but lets call a spade a spade - this is bot-like behavior). The user(s) involved need to be sternly warned not to repeat this kind of behavior and prohibited from causing a repeat of this scene. Shereth 21:22, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

I would support deleting all these articles. Mass production of almost-contentless substub BLPs without references does not provide any useful information to the reader, and merely results in a large potential for libel in the future. If someone creates decent little articles on these politicians, then great - that person is likely to keep an eye on them. If someone creates three thousand terrible articles automatically and expects other people to do all the niggly work and all the monitoring, then I think we have a problem - one that can be readily solved by getting rid of them until someone's willing to make them properly. ~ mazca 21:23, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Forgive me if this is way off base, but has anyone checked whether Blofeld is the same editor as Betacommand? The behavior seems very similar. Maybe he's evading his ban. Friday (talk) 21:23, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Blofeld's been around for a lot longer than Betacommand's been banned, and I've never noted any similarities in their styles apart from large-scale use of automation. I very much doubt it. ~ mazca 21:24, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

I have never used automation in my life.What did Betacommand ever do to expand wikipedia?? Dr. Blofeld 21:26, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

No, this is my fault. I was creating them; someone asked for the BLP tag; I didn't realize it would create such a headache; I went and included it in when I was working on the stubs. I will say that I had some concerns about using AWB to do articles like these - however, I did a few test runs earlier in the week, and everything seemed to go fine. So I didn't think there would be any problems with it. Evidently there are, and I apologize. I'm going to stop for now.

Although for what it's worth, I have been operating under the understanding that someone was going to come and fill things in, once the articles had been created; I would not have created them otherwise, so that they be left in their current state. --User:AlbertHerring 21:27, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Who? I honestly have no problem with these actions at all if that was intended; it just looks like you were creating abandoned unreferenced sub-stubs. If there's a plan to fill them out, great - if not, I rather think they shouldn't be here. ~ mazca 21:31, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

User:Rjwilmsi. I hadn't spoken to him about it, but Blofeld had, and he had in fact begun adding dates, constituencies, and such for some of the politicians in another list. (List of German Christian Democratic Union politicians). He actually did start...I don't know if he continued or not. --User:AlbertHerring 21:35, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm just confused about why it was thought a good idea to create so many at once. The massive backlog this has created is just overwhelming, and working with BLPs is already overwhelming. I really think it would be best to mass-delete what was mass-created and go with the idea Blofeld has above about creating a bot to transfer complete articles with references. Three thousand is just too much for us to take on at once, and we don't need them sitting there like sitting ducks. Lara 21:40, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Seriously to delete them now would be a huge waste of time, We need to be working forwards not backwards. ANy of these articles can instantly be translated and referenced. I really think a bot would be best to autogenerate content properly though in the future extracting basic facts and referecning them and create more solid starter articles to build upon. Both ALbert and I did not think we were violating any policy and I really hate the way we get treated around here. Comparing me to BetaCommand and calling me "intellectually lazy" is very hurtful and unnecessary. Dr. Blofeld 21:42, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

For the record, I believe your & Albert's actions to have been entirely done in good faith. --ThaddeusB (talk) 21:48, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

As do I, as I told Albert on my talk page. Lara 23:00, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

All I want is to organise a scheme where we can root out the missing articles from other wikipedias and do something to work together not with conflict like this so transfer content in a much more efficient and organised way. I apologise if I sometimes think too much in the future on wikipedia rather than any problems geenrating a lot of stubs in the meantime may create but that is only because I care about developing in the long term. Without a doubt every one of the articles started can instantly be translated and referenced and is much needed and useful content, the main problem is finding enough editors to expand them all. Quality is more important to the community on here it seems but we really need to find a better way to not ignore the mass of good referenced content which exists on other wikipedia. Dr. Blofeld 22:04, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

The great majority of the equivalent German articles are unreferenced or stubs themselves, ie random picks . If there's no one on the German side improving them, I find it unlikely there's going to be tons of people wanting to improve them and punt them across the wikis. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs 22:20, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

The larger issue of creating thousands of unreferenced articles at a time should be given an RfC, as it is out of this board's scope. The issue at the moment is this specific batch of articles. Is there any current effort to categorize and/or clean these up? I don't see this mentioned at WikiProject Living People yet, although the project has been brought up during this discussion. Since a problem has been identified it would be nice to begin fixing these in a timely and coordinated manner. ThemFromSpace 00:24, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

We were waiting for the report of newly created BLPs to generate, which it now has. This report usually yields just a handful of articles to be checked each day. Generally five to ten. However, today's report is an overwhelming 1095. There's really just one editor who normally clears this list. I used to do it, then he took over; because it's tedious, boring and thankless work. Clearing this list will take at least a few days, depending on how many people I can get to go through it. Lara 00:39, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Cull and re-introduce using a better mapping?

Even if this was done in good faith, it was ill-advised to do it in this way, and it would make sense to cull all the unchanged versions and try again using smarter sort of automation. For example:

1. There could be a filter on which articles to being across in the first tranche, based on the size, or number of sections, or existence of a WebLInks and/or Einzelnachweise (=References) section. This approach would reduce the volume for translation and checking. As David Fuchs points out, a lot of the source articles are poorly referenced and will be hard to QA here. In any case, there is a significant problem when articles are created that no-one will ever have on their watchlist, because they are potential magnets for vandalism.
2. Some content mapping could be automated. For example, where there is a lifespan like "de:Ludwig Marum (* 5. November 1882 in Frankenthal (Pfalz); † 29. März 1934 im KZ Kislau bei Bruchsal)" this mean "Ludwig Marum was a German politician", not "is"; ideally at least the dates would be automatically translated into English. Another example in the same article is the image on Commons: surely automation could bring this across too?
3. When linking to the original article, it might also be helpful to link to a machine-assisted translation (e.g. Babelfish's translation of Ludwig Marum. This would at least ensure that a non-German reader could be some rough idea of the original article, pending work by language-skilled editors.

I was very concerned to see the discussion at User_talk:Dr._Blofeld#Beyond_Germany and I hope that the parties will refrain from creating any further articles in this way until they have helped resolve the existing situation. - Pointillist (talk) 00:15, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Note that the {{Expand German}} tag at the top of the article does automatically link to a machine translation (Google, which tends to be best). Calliopejen1 (talk) 12:42, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

May I just say that I have noted, repeatedly, that I am not going to continue, for the moment at least? The discussion began before I knew about this; once I found out about it, I decided to put the brakes on the whole business. --User:AlbertHerring 01:08, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

O tempora o dramatis!

Someone creates many articles on German people. One complains that we're "stuck" with them. Another complains that (god forbid) they aren't watchlisted by anyone. Someone makes the claim that the created used an unapproved bot. First, creation of articles is not disruptive. If someone thinks that any (all) of them merit deletion, we have a nice process for that (WP:DELETE), but don't be WP:POINTy. We're not "stuck" with them, we are glad to have them - as we are with all good faith contributions - unless they fall afoul of WP:DELETE. Second, no one owns articles here; even if they are on someone's watchlist that editor has not more or less responsibility for the article's content and care and feeding than anyone else. Remember, this is the encyclopedia anyone can edit. While we remain that way, and allow that for BLPs without any oversight or control may be something to decide the wisdom of, but not at drama central. Third, a claim is made about the creator's use of an unapproved bot. Is there any proof of this? Dr Blofeld denies it and no one has shown any evidence of it - anyone can appear to create articles at great speed - if they compose the articles' content off line, say in MS Word - and cut and paste it into the blank pages that appear when you hit a redlink here. That is behavior that is fundamentally good rather than being forced to use the editor here which seems to have no shortage of bugs reported at bugzilla much less a spellchecker and undo function. So, let's cut the drama, welcome the new articles and move the discussion whether BLPs should be permitted to be edited by anyone and the results show up for immediate view to another forum as I know that conversation has been had before and seems utterly incapable of resolution. I don't see that any admin action is needed here. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:38, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

You have no grasp whatsoever of the BLP problem. If you're "glad to have them", maybe you can help clean up the mess. Lara 00:43, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

What BLP issue is presented here that is not the same as the overall BLP problem, which I said is something that we have had no end of jawing over? Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:48, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Lara. You're fundamentally misunderstanding the nature of this problem. Unsourced biographies of living people are the single most critical issue facing Misplaced Pages. A batch-creation like this is pouring salt directly on an open wound. --MZMcBride (talk) 00:51, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Carlos, while I understand that you don't have a problem with unreferenced, unwatched BLPs; it is, in fact, a huge problem for the project. The BLP issue presented here that is "not the same" is that it's adding to an already overwhelming problem, as I explained above. Lara 00:55, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Also, when endorsing the creation of thousands of unwatched BLPs, I would like to also remind you, as you reminded me, that this is the encyclopedia anyone can edit. Lara 00:59, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Let me be more blunt than Lara... This is the encyclopedia that anyone can add malicious, slanderous lies to an article which no one else is watching, and which could therefore survive a very long time, opening up real potential damages to the subject of the article. Again, as I stated above, if someone had created 3000 stub articles about species of beetles, no one would bat an eye, or even care. The distinction is that articles about real living people must be held to a different standard because real living people can be slandered and libeled. --Jayron32 01:02, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

The problem I see is that people consider new articles as a "mess" to be "cleaned up" as Lara states bluntly. If we have a problem with BLPs being edited by the hoi polloi, that's an inherent problem with having BLPs AT ALL or allowing anyone to edit AT ALL. If these 3000 articles came in from 3000 contributors we would have the same problem. Misplaced Pages should probably not permit edits to BLPs by new or unregistered users - but that's a policy choice and I am probably in the minority in that opinion. If you are worried about vandalism on these articles, since that what seems bluntly clear from Jayron's post, why hasn't someone protected them all rather than all the lamentation and drama? Carlossuarez46 (talk) 01:23, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

• What an utter shambles - the encyclopedia could deal with the creation of many thousands of contentless sub-stubs about settlements etc. (even though not ideal), but articles about people? Simple answer here is to delete every single one on the spot, unless the creator is prepared to check every single one for BLP issues. Black Kite 01:35, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Don't you assume the creater has done so? I WP:AGF. I also notice that among the thousands of new BLPs yesterday (WP time) are dozens created by others unless there is some vast conspiracy to add Russian football managers, Canoers of various nationalities, other sportspeople fashion designers etc., also added in droves. Indeed few after #944 seem to be German politicians - I haven't checked them all, however, before which number most are in alphabetical order with Germanic looking names and are probably part of the ensemble. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 01:46, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
    • Of course they haven't done so. Now, I'm also fairly sure that few if any of these articles are BLP violations, but did anyone check? No. Who is going to check them? Someone else. That's the problem, just assuming that someone else will sort out the issues for the sake of X thousand articles which in their current state are pretty much worthless anyway, because they've no content. Black Kite 01:53, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
      • If they have no content, speedy them. WP:CSD#A1 or WP:CSD#A3 is fine. Fundamentally, I think that all unsourced articles should be deleted on the spot, it sounds like you may soon become a convert. Why we allow unsourced stuff here is beyond me, but we need the policy before we have a mass deletion where (next time) content exists. And as much as people have said this is BLP and if it were places or beetles it would be a non-issue. I beg to differ for being hauled to the his drama page for creation of articles on places months after I created them and people expanded them, hence my sensitivity that people will play this for more than it is. Anyway, someone will likely delete them all, which if they have no content is no loss, and the creator seems not inclined to re-do anything so we have drama and seems to be dying out, just as I go to dinner. :-) Carlossuarez46 (talk) 01:58, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
        • I agree actually, I'm just astonished that anyone could believe that creating thousands of unsourced BLPs was somehow OK. But since it's 3am here, someone else will have to speedy those thousands of articles. Just like someone else was expected to fix the problems of someone creating the articles in the first place. There's only one person who should be expected to do this, and that's the author. Black Kite 02:03, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
        • Clearly they don't fall under the speedy criteria, else I would have speedied them all to begin with. The fact that they don't is why I brought it here. Just because a policy does not exist for the matter at hand does not mean it is inappropriate or dramamongering for me to bring it here. We need a policy or whatever prohibiting this. As far as AGF that the creator is going to watchlist and maintain these approximately three thousand articles, indeed I don't believe that is the case, merely because it's just too much to maintain for one person. Add to that the political climate in Germany and it just further exasperates the situation. The worry is not about what libel may be present in the articles now, rather what may be added to them later and be left unnoticed for any amount of time. As they're German politicians, they're not going to get the same volume of views as politicians from English speaking countries, thus it is less likely that targeted vandalism will be seen and reverted in a timely fashion. Furthermore, the suggestion of protection shows a lack of understanding of the protection policy. The proposal to protect all BLPs was shot down, so there's no way protecting all these articles would lead to anything other than more drama. Lara 03:53, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Ugh. Good Christ, what a mess. Mass deletion is really the only option here; these articles are all pretty much borderline worthless from an informational perspective, and are now jumbled and mistagged all to hell and back from the good-faith efforts of Misters Blofeld and AlbertHerring. Piecemeal verification of the references and BLP status of 3,000 articles...all of which are in German? YGBSM. You two guys broke it, either figure out how to fix it quick, or let us squash them all quickly and you can recreate the salvageable ones at your leisure. Oh, and here's your trout. Bullzeye 03:07, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

You're all forgetting that German Misplaced Pages has Flagged Revisions technology, so every one of these articles will be free of any flaws. As long as somebody has all these on a watch list, and nobody ever adds anything to the English versions without a ref, or without proving they are a fluent german speaker, we should be Golden. On with the perma-stub revolution I say. At least there is an outside chance an actual real life reader might be looking for information about these people, well, more chance than someone looking for confirmation that a small town in Uzbejistan does exist according to Misplaced Pages as well as the atlas/geodatabase makers. MickMacNee (talk) 03:06, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

• I'm fully with Bullzeye on this - unless Blofeld or others are prepared to put their money where their mouths are and "adopt" the things they should be deleted. Most of them are too stubby to be useful as a standalone article to begin with, and slightly muddled from translation. If you advocates for keeping them and shouting that there isn't a problem can watchlist, maintain and reference 3,000 articles then be my guest, but if you can't (which, assuming you aren't User:God, you can't) then lets smack them. They can be recreated in time by people who honestly care about the subject matter and therefore have an interest in writing a decent sized, well-referenced biography and then maintaining it. Ironholds (talk) 06:42, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm wiht Lara/Jenna, Bullzeye, Ironholds (no, really) and others who support immediate deletion, under the basic premises Lara/Jenna set out - that 29xx articles created by automated process by a single editor would overwhelm that one editors' watchlist, meaning that there's little hope that he could keep up with changes. He knew this and apparently didn't watchlist them, as someone noted above. This means no one's watching them, unless someone commits to making ever burgermeister in Germany their one and onle area of study for Misplaced Pages, which seems unlikely. Delete every one that's had no significant edits by editors other than the creator (i phrase it this way because there's apparently some futzing with tags that occurred on a number of them.) They can be individually recreated by interested editors at a later date with citations included, to protect the living subjects of the articles. ThuranX (talk) 20:17, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

2798 articles

As listed here. Lara 03:58, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Goodness my. So now we have 3,000 articles in the vein of "Hans-Ulrich Pfaffmann is a German politician, representative of the Social Democratic Party"? Unlike settlements, people die occasionally, and without any biographical information it is likely that the English Misplaced Pages will continue to record Hans-Ulrich Pfaffmann as a serving German politician by the year 2109. A good idea, very poorly executed. I'd support a mass AfD on all of these with a view to starting over properly - with sources and biographical data.  Sandstein  06:13, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

I've asked on Talk:AFD how to pull off such a mass nomination. I'm not sure how to tag the pages, but I suppose at this point, it's not really that necessary. I'm about to go to bed, but I'll get the AFD in motion. Lara 06:37, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Claus Peter Poppe. Lara 06:47, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

• Those with no other editor than User:AlbertHerring could be speedily deleted per this. Kusma (talk) 14:33, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
  • That would be great, but individually checking the history of nearly 3,000 articles? Good luck finding someone to do that. This is what batch delete was made for. I'm inclined to let the AFD ride out, give Blofeld and whoever else a chance to remove any that have been expanded (and maybe the BPDs) from the list, and then batch delete them. Lara 15:38, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
    • This is one reason I hate automatic edits. I tried to rescue a few of these, & ended up having my work deleted. (FWIW, one person wasn't even an SDP member -- he was a deceased member of the Communist party of the DDR.) So I was forced to ignore the rules & restored them. One of them twice due to different Admins misusing AWB. -- llywrch (talk) 18:49, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
      • May I ask if I'm one of the admins misusing AWB? –Juliancolton |  19:08, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
        • No one was misusing AWB. The article she accused me of wheelwarring on was deleted using TW, not AWB, but it was only deleted once. So I don't know what she's talking about. Lara 20:22, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Abuse of ops by Llywrch

According to admittance in the logs and right above at 18:49, 24 July 2009, Llywrch has abused his authority as an administrator and restored pages that he worked on that were deleted after a consensus based determination. He did not participate in a DRV. Instead, he went around the community's authority and directly broke the CoI standards on using ops. This is completely unacceptable and proves that he have violated the community's trust to use ops appropriately. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:34, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't believe there was any prohibition on individual re-creation of the articles so long as they had more information added to them than just the one original sentence. -- Soap /_{Contributions} 19:43, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

This is not about if a page is allowed or not. This is about using ops to restore revisions on a page that were deleted when you made edits to that page. Standard procedure in such a case is to ask for it to be placed in subspace first so it can be worked on if at all. Not to use ops, undeleted 6 pages, one twice, and then harass the deleting admin and make inappropriate accusations. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:45, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

To be fair the closure of the AfD left a little wiggle room in that it stated articles that had been "improved" would be spared. It is somewhat questionable as to whether the addition of a date of birth/death is the kind of "improvement" that was alluded to - personally I would think that the intent behind the statement was to ensure articles that had been sourced were not deleted - but there is no sense in wikilawyering or getting too worked up. Have you brought up this concern with Llywrch? Unless someone has done so and they have continued to restore articles in spite of that, I don't think this warrants any kind of further action. It's a bit of a stretch to start fretting about violations of the community's trust. Shereth 19:50, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

I can only see one stretch here, and that's stretching to breaking point the fiction that administators are held to at least the same standards as regular editors. --Malleus Fatuorum 19:56, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Indeed. Personally I've been ignoring the ones that have had any appreciable additions since creation, to allow for review at a later time. –Juliancolton |  20:01, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) x however many times. I don't believe anyone considered that sort of expansion (another unreferenced sentence) to be "improved". I don't really care if she restores articles herself if they were inappropriately deleted, but it would be more appropriate to request an undelete from the deleting admin rather than just restore and ask them not to delete the articles you'd edited. Also, she claimed wheelwarring where there was none, which seems unnecessary. I recommend recreating the articles in user space and expanding them one at a time. Lara 20:03, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

If anything is to be done about this (or to determine whether anything needs to be done), then links need to be provided. I gather there was some kind of AFD discussion regarding these articles? Exploding Boy (talk) 20:10, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Claus Peter Poppe. Shereth 20:17, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

The list is at User:Juliancolton/List. All this is above. Lara 20:27, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

• Just a note: Did anyone even tell Llywrch about this thread? Personally I think we're getting way to excited about things. Maybe if we just talk to one another we can accomplish more. I think we're all wanting to get positive things done here, rather than calling people out on things - "discussion" can work wonders. I know everybody is running into edit-conflicts, and doing their best - it's just a thought. — Ched :  ?  20:29, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Am I correct in thinking that the articles "Werner Pidde," ‎ "Hans Pohl," ‎ "Walter Pilger," ‎ "Bruno Plache," ‎ "Philipp Pless," ‎ "Hans Carl Podeyn," ‎ and "Hans Pohl," ‎all restored by Llywrch, were covered in the AFD linked, the result of which was "Delete any unreferenced biographies"? Recreating a previously deleted page is not forbidden, however these undeletions do not seem to meet the requirements for restoration, and have no references. It seems fairly clear that per the AFD they should be re-deleted until such time as they can be recreated with appropriate refs. Perhaps Llywrch could work on them in their user space in the meantime. I've notified them about this thread. Exploding Boy (talk) 20:32, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

She was already active in this thread. And yes, she restored the articles, and I just saw she did so with poor edit summaries. She seems to be confused about the reason for deletion, which is G6 for AFD, not G7 for user request. It doesn't matter if she added to them or not. Someone needs to go back and redelete these articles. They should not have been restored per AFD. Lara 20:47, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Uh Lara, I'm a he, not a she. Very much a he. -- llywrch (talk) 21:25, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Come to think of it, Llywrch, can you actually think of many female Wikipedians? I know, there must be some out there, but few and far between.--_{Sky Attacker} 21:32, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Getting totally off the subject here, but I could say the same thing about male Wikipedians - they are few and far between. The fact is most Wikipedians don't make a huge point of identifying their gender (or race, age, or most other things that have little or nothing to do with editing.) Many times assumptions are made about gender, many times they aren't corrected if it's not important. --Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:22, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Someone told me Llywrch is female. Apologies. As far as female Wikipedians, \o. ohai! Lara 21:39, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm guessing you are a female Lara.--_{Sky Attacker} 21:42, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

If the name, the pink sig, and chick pic on my userpage didn't give it away; yes, I'm a female Wikipedian! XD Lara 23:01, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Unless you actually are an overweight 30-something guy with no friends living in your parents' basement, who gets your jollies from fooling other overweight 30-something guys with no friends living in their parents' basement that you're an attractive woman. Waitasec: IIRC, you once said you're married with children. So you are just an attractive woman. <emily litella>Nevermind.</emily littela> -- llywrch (talk) 02:20, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks to Exploding boy for letting me know I was the subject of a thread. I learned about these articles in the AN/I thread above, & after reading it I believed that the best solution to this problem was to try to salvage articles, not delete them. (I've always believed this, & I still do.) There was no indication above that these 3,000 would be quickly submitted to Articles for Deletion (which I only read occasionally), nor that the discussion would be rushed thru to a decision to delete them all (opened & closed within 24 hours), nor did anyone bother to inform me of this before deleting the articles I attempted to bring up to what I felt was the bare minimum standards for a stub as I was working on them. But when I belatedly learned about this rushed AfD, I noticed that both discussions exempted expanded articles from deletion. So I started to restore the ones I had been working on, to bring them up to the minimum I would expect a stub should contain -- all the while no one bothered to contact me. (I was the one who contacted Jennavecia, & then posted a notice above explaining what I had done.) Nor did anyone bother to notify me about this thread until Exploding boy did. Either I must have a reputation for sending to the cornfield other editors who annoy me, or the obliteration of these sub-stubs was the undeniably most important task any Wikipedian could do today.

As for "abuse of Admin powers" -- I doubt you can find any Admin who uses his elevated privileges less than me. I used them here because people appeared to be more eager to delete these sub-stubs first & ask questions later than to try to salvage any of them. (To repeat, I only discovered the thread in WP:AfD after four of the six I worked on had been deleted, & only because no one had bothered to inform me. I might have been on Misplaced Pages longer than any of the rest of you, but I still haven't learned to read minds.) Maybe Ottava Rima can conform to a consensus she/he has never been properly informed about, but I cannot. Lastly, when it was clear that I would encounter resistance to improving these articles, I stopped well short of my intended goal of salvaging a total of one dozen of these. I do have other articles which I have been working on, & only so much time to work on them. -- llywrch (talk) 21:20, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

The reason for deletion is listed as "per AFD", which should have been an indication of the AFD with your first restoration, which can be seen here where you restored with the edit summary of "WTF???". As far as people appeared to be more eager to delete these sub-stubs first & ask questions later, the question was asked first. The overwhelming consensus was to delete. You, sir, are the one that acted first and asked questions later. Restoring articles outside of accepted use of administrative privileges for articles in which you had been working, and ignoring completely the deletion summaries of the deleting admins. Your restorations ignore the stipulations of the AFD, as simply adding years or another unreferenced sentence does not qualify as improvement, expansion or referencing. Lara 21:38, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

• Isn't the thread below enough over-reaction for one day? Everyone here is acting in good faith, and there is no emergency, so why not hold off on lynching any more people until Monday? It's happy hour; let's save the unnecessary recriminations until after the weekend (those of you not in EDT will have to stay up late, or cut out early). --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:58, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

So if it's happy hour what do you want us to do? Go to the pub and drink for an hour and come back on Monday to continue this discussion drunk? ;)--_{Sky Attacker} 22:02, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

It's all explained in the link. And we wouldn't come back Monday drunk, just hung over. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:04, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Good faith abuse of tools is still an abuse of tools. This was a willful act under a misinterpretation of IAR with knowledge enough to know that the act would be inappropriate. The rerestoring of an article alone is evidence that this user misstepped in an egregious manner. Ottava Rima (talk) 22:50, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

And yet, it was done in good faith. Remember, rules are not strictly laws in their own right, merely guidelines to maintain a form of order and well-being on Misplaced Pages. Abuse or not, if it was done in good faith, it was done in good faith, simple as that!--_{Sky Attacker} 23:36, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't think you understand what good faith means. It means not to accuse people of being horrible people in real life. It has nothing to do with not taking appropriate measures to limit people from abusing power. They can have the best attentions and still deserve to be desysopped. Robin Hood, for all the good he may have wanted to do, was still a thief. Ottava Rima (talk) 23:52, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Actually, no. For starters, It means not to accuse people of being horrible people in real life. is wrong. How people are in real life and how they are on Misplaced Pages can be two completely different matters. Someone can be a bad person in real life, but a good person here. It happens. On the other hand, someone can be a good person in real life, but horrible here. See the difference?--_{Sky Attacker} 00:06, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Besides, we can't judge someone as a person in real-life here anyway. That is called "off-wiki" and doesn't apply here.--_{Sky Attacker} 00:09, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

I think you need to reread WP:AGF before speaking based on your response above. "Good faith" deals with a thought process. There is no split self or two minds. There is only one mind. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:22, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Of course, that's what I was trying to tell you. Why did you need to bring "real life" into this?--_{Sky Attacker} 00:28, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Because AGF is connected to NPA. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:32, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

You keep contradicting yourself. Before you said There is no split self or two minds. There is only one mind. What have I been trying to tell you? On Misplaced Pages, of course there is only one mind. The split is "off-wiki" and, like I said, does not apply here.--_{Sky Attacker} 00:34, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Sigh. So, according to you - my identity, Ottava Rima, has a different brain than the person who is currently typing? This isn't some roleplay game. There are no alter identities, hidden personas, separate minds. There is words, and there is a person creating the words. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:46, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

You missed the point completely. You brought the words "real life" into this discussion and I'm merely reminding you that what someone does "off-wiki" is of no concern to anyone when "on wiki". It cannot be related to good faith here. Once again, it does not apply here. Simple as that!--_{Sky Attacker} 02:21, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

WP:NPA deals with real life identities. So, you are wrong here. AGF and NPA both deal with the real person typing, and say that we should not judge their internal processes or make attacks on attributes of their real life self. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:44, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Again, not my point. But why don't you just let this discussion go. The main point of this thread has been resolved, so no more, yes? Also, I know Misplaced Pages isn't some roleplay game. Because if it was, it would have millions of roles but no main character.--_{Sky Attacker} 02:58, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't think it was that egregious. The only reason for deleting these particular articles was that they were among the large number of sub-stub articles dealt with in that AFD. They were covered by the AFD however; this is why I suggested the temporary redeletion of those articles while Llywrch works on them in his user space. Exploding Boy (talk) 00:29, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

He didn't ask the deleters to undelete. He undeleted himself and then attacked the deleters. That is the egregious aspect. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:32, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, again, restoring deleted pages is not specifically disallowed although there are additional considerations in this case. So what you're objecting to is a civility issue? If this is to go anywhere, perhaps you could provide diffs. Exploding Boy (talk) 00:40, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

The information from those pages has been moved to a subpage in Llyrwch's user space, and I've deleted the articles in question. I trust this ends the matter. Exploding Boy (talk) 02:47, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Proposal to block AlbertHerring

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

No way would we ever block for this. It would serve no purpose. It was good faith actions followed immediately by a promise to stop. Lara 15:41, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

I propose that AlbertHerring be subjected to an indefinete user block with immediate effect. There is a clear duty of care on editors using automative tools, such as Bots, to ensure that their work stictly complies with Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines before they are let loose on mainspace. It is a clear breach of good faith create or contribute to Misplaced Pages on an industrial scale if there is no quality control. The creator of these articles should be blocked indefinately - its clear that this mass creation of articles is just a stunt to attract attention. Childish pranks like this may be forgiven on a smaller scale, but on a large scale is hard to defend that this premeditated act of vandalism on a grand scale. This is an extreme example of WP:POINT and the administrators need to deal with this now. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 14:55, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, it's already being discussed in massive scale above. I don't think we need another thread for this. Tan | 39 15:01, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

(RE to GC) A block would be the worst sort of violation of the preventative not punative concept of blocking. Further it's far from clear that it's a "stunt", "prank" or "vandalism".--Cube lurker (talk) 15:09, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

I think you are failing to see this stunt for what it is - it is an inappropriate use of automative tools. Basically you are arguing that articles created in this way are exempt from Misplaced Pages content policies and guidelines, and the editors who operate these tools cannot be held accountable for their actions. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 15:17, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

The articles are not exempt. There is a huge discussion above on whether or not they should be deleted. And you could very well be correct that this is an inappropriate use of automated tools. However, not every policy violation results in a block. In fact, the vast majority of policy violations do not result in blocks. I think AlbertHerring has participated in the above discussions enough that a block is certainly not warranted at this time. Tan | 39 15:22, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Somebody go and lock Gavin in the safe and thow away the key. What a banker. Dr. Blofeld 15:23, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Cut it out, Blofeld. Tan | 39 15:25, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Never mind. I can find my own way out, and shall do so. Thank you kindly. --User:AlbertHerring 15:30, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't think there's a need for this. It was an action done in good faith, and it doesn't look like AlbertHerring is gonna do something like this again. --Conti|✉ 15:33, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

This sub-thread is, frankly, likely to be more disruptive than creating the articles. Blocking for good-faith efforts - when the author has realised his "error"? I think not. Pedro :  Chat  15:35, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Completely disagree with sprinkles. It was clearly good faith, he's stopped doing it. Aside from whatever headaches may or may not happen from trying to sort things out, blocking / banning would have no positive effect on things. Syrthiss (talk) 15:40, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

The issue here is whether editors should be allowed to use automated tools without being held accountable for their actions. Lets say I am the editor of Yellow Pages, and I decide that every company listed for 2009 should have its own listing on Misplaced Pages, which is just a valid argument for article creation as those employed in this case. What is there to stop me? I am not saying this outrage is the thin end of the wedge, the real point is that the administrators have to take swift action to counter the impulses to spam articles on an industrial scale. The reason is that individual articles can be adminstrated in accordance with Misplaced Pages content and behavioural policies by individuals, but large numbers of articles can't be dealt with in this way. By allowing this outrage to go unchallenged is to permit size or scale to over rule policy, and I think Albert and friends know this. The creation of thousands of articles is not a technical issue about stubs, it is about automated tools being used without duty of care. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 15:45, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Duty of care is not Misplaced Pages policy, no matter how many times you link to it. Also, one can be held accountable without being blocked. The editor realized his mistake, as Pedro pointed out above. You have no support for this block, and four or five editors immediately saying "no". Recommend re-archival of thread. Tan | 39 15:48, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

• No no no. Blocking now would purely be punitive, as AH has clearly realised (too late, unfortunately) the problem that he has created. It wouldn't solve anything. Let's try to fix this mess without too much drama, aye? Black Kite 15:51, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Seconded. If Gavin.collins would like to propose a new policy or guideline that explicitly limits automated article creation in future, why not start a thread at the village pump? It would certainly be topical! - Pointillist (talk) 15:55, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Blocking? that's if the editor concerned feels like returning to this nasty place now you've forced him to leave. Few people here assume good faith over things like this, whether they claim otherwise. I'm appalled by the way others are regarded on here. Dr. Blofeld 15:57, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

He has not left, and if he has, it is probably another stunt.--Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 16:01, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm archiving this, again. We are not blocking. That's absurd. If you want to keep this discussion going be removing the archive again, perhaps someone will be inclined to block you for disruption. Unlike your proposal, that would be completely appropriate. Lara 16:33, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Unless you are blind to the disruption this incident has caused and enourmous cleanup operation that must follow, I would be inclinded to agree with you. But this is just not plausible, and in hindsight, it would have been better if you had acted decisively from the onset. Happy editing. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 16:42, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

The archaic and offensive use of the term 'blacks' over the preferred term 'black people'

 No admin action needed.

I've been trying to tidy up Black people, having noticed that it (and other articles) refer repeatedly to 'blacks' instead of the preferred 'black people'. 'Blacks' is an offensive term to many people, which is probably why http://en.wikipedia.org/index.html?curid=17072530#Identity states that 'black people' should be used instead of 'blacks'. Unfortunately, more than one editor has felt the need to revert the article back to the offensive version. Little grape (talk) 23:23, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

How about trying to discuss it on the article talk page? Good first step. Tan | 39 23:40, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Political correctness is an ever-evolving process, and sometimes it's hard to keep up. Baseball Bugs carrots 23:43, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

WP:ANI is not for content disputes. if it gets to level of constistent abuse of process, then it should go here but you should start on th e talk page and move on from theire. dont assume that anyone is racist until you have tried to talk to them and explain you're oan position User:Smith Jones

Good point. Smith Jones, don't ever go into copy editing. And, learn to correctly sign your posts. Tan | 39 23:52, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

His typing is actually much better than it used to be. :) I think this is the first I've heard that "blacks" is considered offensive. However, it's not a term you hear that much anyway, nor is "black people". In the USA, anyway, "African-American" is the preferred term. Some would consider "black people" to be offensive. PC never ends. Baseball Bugs carrots 23:55, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Why ever would you assume that I think anyone's being intentionally racist?! I think it's a matter of not knowing or understanding the issue, rather than editors having racist views. Although of course that doesn't make the article any less offensive. Fair point re. talk page, have discussed on editors' talk pages, and in edit summaries, but of course the article's talk page should have been the start point. Mea culpa, thank you. Little grape (talk) 00:06, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

• You might want to look at a recent similar discussion here: Misplaced Pages:Village pump (policy)/Archive 64#"African American" → "black"?. –xeno 00:18, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you - that was indeed an interesting debate, that appeared to conclude (rightly in my view) that 'African-American' was a) not interchangable with 'Black' and b) couldn't be applied outside the USA to black people. Thus the correct term, if one takes a global rather than a US-centric view, is 'black people'.

However, this issue is between the terms 'blacks' and 'black people'. Perhaps I can illustrate the issue by example - let's say you as a white man were addressing a wholly black congregation as a guest pulpit speaker. You might start by marking the novelty of your presence by stating "Ladies and Gentlemen, this is the first time I have had the chance to give a sermon to a congregation of blacks". Alternatively, you could say "Ladies and Gentlemen, this is the first time I have had the chance to give a sermon to a congregation of black people". Can you feel the chilly difference?! Little grape (talk) 00:37, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

No. I think either statement would be considered patronizing and offensive. I recall the stir that was created when Ross Perot addressed a black organization and merely referred to them as "your people" or some such. Even that presumably innocent comment was taken as being patronizing, and he was criticized for it. It's best not to even bring it up when talking directly to someone. You can say it indirectly, as in, "I want to thank you for this unique opportunity." That's a positive comment. You don't need to remind the audience that they're dark-skinned. They probably already know it. In fact, it's likely they get reminded of it every day. Baseball Bugs carrots 14:49, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't think they are any hard and fast rules here, it's all about context. In certain contexts it is offensive to say blacks, in others it isn't. Wapondaponda (talk) 14:52, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure what the next step is - discussion on the black people talk page seems limited to variations of "yes, I know MoS says we shouldn't use it, but we're going to keep reverting any edits that attempt to bring the article inline with policy and consistency". I cannot understand why we can't simply use the preferred term 'black people' when the MoS recommends this and we're aware that it doesn't cause offence. Conversely, we *know* 'blacks' sometimes causes offence thus there should be a *very* good reason for using it. Little grape (talk) 17:25, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

The arguments at the talk page aren't at all as poor as you make them out to be. What's the point of discussing this in 2 different venues? It doesn't belong here at all.--Atlan (talk) 17:50, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Bah, take it from me, "blacks" is not usually an offensive term. "Blackie" or "spook", yes they are archaically offensive. Heck, "African-American" is often offensive to many. Indeed, many black people in North America are from the Caribbean - although their ancestry may be African from waaaay back, they don't call themselves that. At the same time, many North American blacks are 3rd/4th generation or more removed from Africa. Let's put the discussion back where it is on the associated talkpage, and close this. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 17:58, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

User:Pzrmd

Despite past warnings and blocks about uncivil behavior (most recently this) and other concerns, Pzrmd continues acting in an inappropriate manner towards fellow editors. At some point, it's just too far. Vicenarian 00:20, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

This was a little over-the-top. There are *many* users here way more uncivil than I am. Pzrmd (talk) 00:23, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Pzrmd exhibits a range of odd behaviours. Creating multiple accounts and having his current page redirect to those. Odd references to his original account Then moving them back again. The snippy, pointy comments he makes in various discussion (as linked to by Vicenarian.) Every edit marked as minor. It goes on. WP:AGF aside, it's hard to see what constructive purpose he has here. Crafty (talk) 00:27, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Vicenarian, for attracting every enemy I have to gang up on me. I don't even know Craftyminion who suddenly pops up and attacks me so vigorously. Pzrmd (talk) 00:30, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Pzrmd, the fact that other users on here may or may not be less civil than yourself does not excuse your bad behaviour. Javert 00:32, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

I called someone a pipsqueak and another a drone. So what? Pzrmd (talk) 00:33, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) - Two points Pzrmd. One, having editors who's civility is worse than yours doesn't give you a free pass on civility yourself - that's a WP:OTHERSTUFF argument and doesn't hold any weight. Two if you're if you're finding lots of "enemies" on wikipedia something is wrong - this is supposed to be a collaborative and collegial project where even editors with serious disagreements should not become "enemies" - if you're finding you are generating lots of "enemies" suggest you look at your editing and behaviour. Exxolon (talk) 00:35, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Unless you're an admin, then you can say "F.U." to another editor, and that's OK, as long as you use a proper signature. Baseball Bugs carrots 00:37, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

thanks BB, =) Pzrmd (talk) 00:38, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Bugs - the issue of hypocrisy/double standards for admins & editors is something I'm actually concerned about myself, but it's not relevant to this thread - please stay on topic. Exxolon (talk) 00:41, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

ANI threads are not usually started over such minor incivility. Pzrmd (talk) 00:42, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps not, but the OP appears to be suggesting a pattern of behaviour over time. BTW - if you can't see a problem with calling editors "pipsqueak" and "drone" then you seriously need to (re)read our WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA policies. Exxolon (talk) 00:44, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Whatever. I hate ani and am not going to participate in this anymore. Pzrmd (talk) 00:46, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

If you don't like an edit or an action that someone takes, that's fine, it happens all the time. However, I believe that I read somewhere that we should comment on the "content, not the contributor". Best, Javert 01:02, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Incorrect, many of them do get started over incivility. MuZemike 01:36, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

I've noticed Pzrmd before too. He needs to start behaving like a reasonable adult, or be shown the door. He was just blocked a few days ago.. if he doesn't shape up, I'd recommend a series of blocks of escalating length, until he either gets a clue, or gets bored and goes away. Friday (talk) 01:05, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

ok, I'll make a last comment. Friday, you have done a lot of horrible things on Misplaced Pages to different users, and have said very offensive things, particularly about Docu, and still manage to follow wp:civ. Jeffrey O. Gustafson could be extremely rude and difficult and annoying and obnoxious, but what you said about him was deplorable. I don't want any interaction with you whatsoever in my WikiLife. Leave me alone and I will leave you alone. Pzrmd (talk) 01:15, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

While he seems to have made some useful edits, Pzrmd seems to have difficulty interacting with other users. So far he's got 3 blocks for disruptive behaviour, a propensity for point-iness, and a habit of incivility and (it appears) trying to bait other users, in addition to some peculiar habits (as noted above). I don't think there's anything actionable here, so this section should probably be closed now, however I hope Pzrmd takes notice that his behaviour is attracting negative attention, and with three blocks already, admins should be far less willing to unblock him early the next time. Exploding Boy (talk) 01:50, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

It shows either an unwillingness or an inability to edit collaboratively with others, a tendency that was most evident in the Docu RfC. Tarc (talk) 18:11, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Cut & Paste used to move a page

Could someone take a look at the activities of 67.225.38.162 (talk · contribs), who appears to have used cut & paste to move Ukrainian Orthodox Church - Kiev Patriarchate to Ukrainian Orthodox Church - Kyiv Patriarchate (plus the talk page), making a right old mess of the page history in the process. Perhaps it needs a history merge, perhaps it needs to be reverted as vandaliasm against consensus (is "Kyiv" really preferred over "Kiev" on the English Misplaced Pages, I just know I would never think of spelling it "Kyiv" when searching for the capital of Ukraine). Thanks. Astronaut (talk) 02:12, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Prodego just fixinated it. Kiev is the common US english spelling (and in the United Kingdom as far as I can tell), and as such is the correct article title for en.wikipedia. Alternate transliterations or local spellings are perfectly valid as article redirects and as names listed in the introduction to an article, but the article name should be standard most common english name. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 03:40, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

And I just fixinated it again after the IP, again, copied and pasted content from one into the other. I've left a note on the IP talk page about the problem and directed them here to explain their side. — Huntster (t • @ • c) 10:37, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

User:Bandurist has just moved it again, and altered every spelling of Kiev to Kyiv.--Elen of the Roads (talk) 15:38, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

There are two spellings in common use in English for the Ukrainian Capital. There are also a number of Orthodox Churches in Ukraine.

The Ukrainian Orthodox Church - Kyiv Patriarchate is registered using the Kyiv spelling, (the preferred spelling suggested for use in English by the Ukrainian government) and uses it in all its correspondence and on its web sites. It is a national church and represents the specific interests of ethnic Ukrainians in Ukraine and outside having services in the Ukrainian language. Its leadership and administration is in the Ukrainian capital of Kyiv. All the Ukrainian Orthodox Churches which are and affiliated with this particular Orthodox church in the West, including the United States, Canada, Australia, New Zealand and Great Britain use the Kyiv spelling exclusively in the official registration of their name in these Anglophone countries.

The Ukrainian Orthodox Church (Moscow Patriarchate) does not have any Ukrainian ethnic affiliations outside of Ukraine. It is not a national (ethnically-based) church but a regional juristiction of the Russian Orthodox Church with its patriarchate in Moscow. It is in "communion" with Moscow. Services are in Church Slavonic or Russian with sermons in some churches in Ukrainian. It uses the spelling Kiev in all its correspondence. Bandurist (talk) 17:45, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Matt Sanchez part 2

I'd like to point out that Matt Sanchez, aka Bluemarine (talk · contribs), is still under a community ban yet is editing articles and user talk pages, including my own. I request an admin block him immediately until a consensus on lifting the community ban is in effect. He has asked at Misplaced Pages talk:Project namespace#Appeal a Community Ban how to go about doing that. - ALLST✰R▼ _{wuz here} 06:43, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Looking at the history, his ban was partially lifted in December 2008 to allow him to edit "related to increasing the accessibility of Misplaced Pages to users with handicapping conditions." It was supposed to be under the mentorship of user:Durova. It says he may be reblocked for an appropriate period if he violates those limits. It doesn't appear that he's many edits about accessibility. The only mainspace he's made is to Matt Drudge, and it concerned political affiliationon. It appears he's in violation and the account should be blocked for some period.   Will Beback  talk  07:01, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Blocked for a week in enforcement of the ban. For future reference, the dedicated noticeboard for arbitration enforcement is WP:AE.  Sandstein  07:41, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Not resolved

Sad to see this develop while I was sleeping. Allstarecho does not give a full presentation of the facts. Matt Sanchez's current editing status is in limbo. He was originally community banned, then arbitration banned, then the Committee modified both bans in order to allow limited editing, and then the arbitration ban expired, leaving his account unblocked. So to people that a community ban is a block that no administrator will lift, he isn't banned.

Sandstein has blocked in the mistaken belief that Matt's arbitration ban remains in place. Was Matt's edit disruptive? Meanwhile a complaint has gone unexamined for two days, that a different person (possibly indefinitely blocked and article banned Eleemosynary) has been damaging Matt's biography. Could we have evenhanded attention here, please? Durova 15:26, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Speaking with the utmost respect for those involved, I concur with Durova's comments and concerns. There is a strong appearance of inconsistency in the way these two seperate, but related, matters have been handled. Speaking only for myself, this leads to feelings of frustration and is a bit demoralizing. From what I can see, the only editor not acting in good faith is the one who hasn't been blocked, banned, or even acknowledged. Doc Tropics 15:38, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

I guess I'm confused. All I see at the arbitration page is If Bluemarine complies with these conditions for a period of 60 days, a request for further modification of his ban may be submitted. Was a modification of the ban accepted without a record being left? --jpgordon 16:14, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

ArbCom was willing to modify his ban further upon request. He made no additional request and ArbCom's ban expired. Durova 16:45, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

His Arbcom ban expired, his community ban did not. Call it a technicality, but that's the fact. That's a full presentation of the facts. Anything else is trivial. Also, to say that "Arbcom was willing to modify his ban further" is a bit putting the cart before the horse. You have no proof that they would have done so, even if he had followed through and submitted such a request after Arbcom's 60 day "you can upload images for the sake of handicap folk" probation. - ALLST✰R▼ _{wuz here} 17:14, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

While I'm not well-versed enough in the details of applicable policy to comment on such a technicality, it seems to an outside observer that the editor's intent should be taken into account. Whether or not one actually agrees with the specifics of his edit, it was explained on the talkpage in advance, and accompanied by an appropraite Edit Summary. Certainly such actions are subject to the normal course of debate on the talkpage, or even reversion, but a 1 week block? Again, speaking with the utmost respect for those more knowledgable than I am, things seem out of balance in this situation. Doc Tropics 17:28, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

As the enforcing admin, all I know is the following. The relevant arbitral decision of December 2008 reads:

"This committee's decision in this case and the preexisting community ban of Bluemarine are modified solely to the extent that Bluemarine is unblocked for the limited purpose of his making contributions related to increasing the accessibility of Misplaced Pages to users with handicapping conditions. This includes uploading encyclopedic audio files, formatting audio file templates, and captioning those audio files, as well as editing his userpage and talkpage, all under the mentorship of Durova. Except as expressly provided in this motion, the ban on editing by Bluemarine remains in effect. If Bluemarine violates the terms of his limited unblock, or makes any comment reasonably regarded as harassing or a personal attack, he may be reblocked for an appropriate period of time by any uninvolved administrator. If Bluemarine complies with these conditions for a period of 60 days, a request for further modification of his ban may be submitted." (emphasis mine)

Since no request for further modification of the (indefinite, community-enacted) ban appears to have been submitted, the ban remained in effect except as provided for in the motion, underlined above. By editing in violation of the restrictions of that motion, Bluemarine triggered its enforcement provision, also underlined above. Durova, are there any relevant community or ArbCom decisions since that motions that need to be taken into account?  Sandstein  17:42, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your cogent explanation; I don't mean to challenge your interpretation of facts, or your decision, as based upon that interpretation. My issue is more that the editor appeared to have been acting in good faith and was perhaps unaware of this technicality. In such event it seems that the block might be reconsidered and either reduced or lifted. Thanks for your time, Doc Tropics 18:21, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Not so fast; I do mean to challenge Sandstein's interpretation of the facts. More than one interpretation of policy is feasible. A significant portion of the community defines a community ban as a block that no administrator is willing to unblock; Bluemarine has been unblocked and the arbitration-enacted restriction has expired. Since Bluemarine's status has remained undefined, a warning would have been more appropriate. One week is punitive; it discourages editors from reforming to come down that hard for a constructive edit in an ambiguous situation. Given that a weeklong block resulted over a single edit while I (the editor's mentor) was asleep, Sandstein acted with precipitous haste. It is also worth noting that Sandstein refused to weigh a socking/ban evasion complaint in a different but related instance, which has languished for days. It is hardly worth encouraging difficult editors to reform, when site administration acts this way. Durova 19:21, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

You keep bringing up the fact that this happened while you were asleep. Misplaced Pages does not revolve around your sleeping schedule. His community ban was never removed by the community. He violated the ban by editing (on a controversial article at that). He is blocked. If you want to discuss lifting the community ban, feel free to start that conversation. But as it stands now, he's in violation of that ban - and has violated the ban by socking via verifiable IP addresses for over year. - ALLST✰R▼ _{wuz here} 19:39, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

There was no urgency to action over a single undisruptive edit. Mentorship is hardly possible when people act precipitously in non-urgent situations without giving the mentor a chance to participate. Allstarecho did not even notify me that this thread existed, his representations were partisan and incomplete, and his tone is uncollegial. I do not wish to initiate a formal complaint against Allstarecho, but he seems to be attempting to personalize this discussion. Durova 20:03, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

On reconsideration, I think Durova's correct. The ArbCom sanctions expired, which means the addendum to the sanctions (the terms restricting the lifting of the ArbCom one-year ban) also expired with them, so blocking on those grounds is improper. He's still in breach of the community ban, but that's a different issue, not subject to arbitration enforcement. --jpgordon 20:00, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Since he was never warned (and the situation has been murky), would you consider unblocking with a warning? I advised him to refrain from editing until his status was cleared up; there have been delays due to his work/travel schedule. Durova 20:04, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Jpgordon, you raise an interesting technicality, but Bluemarine should remain blocked either way. If one considers, as you do, the ArbCom motion's effects to expire after the 60 days, then Bluemarine should have been indefinitely reblocked as the community ban reenters into force (because the motion expressly preserves the effects of that ban). If, on the other hand, one considers the ban to be suspended by the motion, as I do, then I properly blocked Bluemarine as provided for by the motion. We could probably find out by means of a request for clarification, but an unblock would mean either the lifting of a community ban (if one follows the first interpretation) or an undoing of an arbitration enforcement action (if one follows the second interpretation). Either action would require clear and sustained community consensus, which is not currently in evidence.

Durova, I did thoroughly evaluate your (still open) request at Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#StephenLaurie and I am sorry if the result of that evaluation is not to your liking, but so far no administrator colleague has disagreed with me. (Or indeed offered an opinion, unfortunately. AE needs more admin contributors.)  Sandstein  20:26, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Sandstein, I think you're wrong about the '60 days'. Nothing expired after sixty days; sixty days was the shortest, not the longest, time that could elapse before an appeal of the editing restrictions would be considered. ArbCom unblocked him and limited him to editing specific areas. The fuzzy part is whether ArbCom's restriction to specific areas carries past the end of the original ArbCom one-year ban; a simple request for clarification to ArbCom should take care of that. --jpgordon 23:39, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

You're right about the shortest time, but there's no indication that an appeal of the editing restrictions was either submitted or considered, so the restrictions remain in force. Moreover, nothing in the motion obviates the community ban. I am now submitting Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification#Request for clarification: Bluemarine to clarify this.  Sandstein  04:58, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Durova, you said above, I advised him to refrain from editing until his status was cleared up. I offer that you also advised him back in May as well not to edit anywhere until the issue was resolved - or at least that's what you told us. He was fully aware of this as per this diff. He has not been informed since then that the ban was lifted yet he suddenly started editing again once on July 11 and severl times yesterday. You can't possibly believe that someone with such an intellect that he is a "journalist" for FOX News, can not understand that "don't edit anywhere except your own talk page until this is resolved!" means exactly that (granted it can be argued that anyone associate with FOX News lacks any intellect but I'm erring on the side of decency here). You and I even had discussions back in May about the best way to go about dealing with getting him un-community banned. I agreed to it with what I thought was agreed upon stipulations. So no, don't try and turn this around on me by saying it's becoming personal for me. Then our discussion went stale. Nothing happened, including Sanchez not being told "all is well, you can edit now!". So what made him think suddenly all was well when he hadn't been informed of such? Other discussions since regarding Sanchez have ended with you telling us "I'm working on finding him a new mentor". Stale again. Yes, Arbcom placed him under a ban, while a community ban was already in place. Arbcom's ban expired. The community ban didn't/wasn't removed by the community. All of this of course could have been avoided if Arbcom would have left well enough alone and let the community ban handle the matter instead of placing a ban on top of it with an expiration date. I'd suffice to say that if this would have happened, Sanchez would have been un-community banned long ago by the community. - ALLST✰R▼ _{wuz here} 20:59, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Allstarecho and Durova, I believe that it is not necessary or useful for this matter to become personal on either side. I think we could use more input by other people, here.  Sandstein  21:11, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

I think there is a sock puppet of Eleemosynary contributing to the ruckus. I left comments at WP:AE. Please check my three diffs and the early contributions of the sock account and see if you agree with my conclusion. Jehochman 21:16, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

See now also Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Eleemosynary. Comments should be left there or at AE, since that's not really the subject of this thread.  Sandstein  21:36, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

As this has now been filed at Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification#Request for clarification: Bluemarine, I assume we can mark this thread closed but left here for reference since it's been linked to there? - ALLST✰R▼ _{wuz here} 07:40, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Legal Threat from User:Scottfoster005

Earlier today, I reverted a clear copyright violation on the article Ann Kobayashi . The copy-vio material was placed in the article by a user named User:Scottfoster005. Not long after reverting the copy-vio, the same user readded the same copyrighted material to the page , which was immediately reverted by User:C.Fred . The user then replaced the entire article with an angry message that accused me of working for one of Kobayashi's opponents (Kobayashi and others are currently vying for a seat on the Honolulu City Council). I reverted this message back with the following edit summary: "restoring original page. you're free to improve the article; however, wikipedia policies prohibit the use of copyrighted material". I then left a mesage on the user's page, explaining why I made the reversion.

Immediately after that, I received an angry message on my talk page demanding that I call his office immediately, threatening legal action if I didn't.

I'm very flustered by this and I'm not sure what to do. Can someone help me? 青い(Aoi) (talk) 07:06, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Just to clarify further, I'm going to recuse myself from editing the article Ann Kobayashi regarding this issue beginning immediately, as I do not want to face any legal actions from the user noted above. 青い(Aoi) (talk) 07:20, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

This is completely ridiculous. The article in no way "infringes on First Amendment rights". Where he's drawing that the page was written by a political opponent of Kobayashi is beyond me because with so little content, the article is entirely neutral. If Mr Foster is "far too busy running an election" to read our guidelines, then I suggest he focus on his day job and be banned from the site. Therequiembellishere (talk) 07:26, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:No legal threats is quite clear on this point. Scottfoster005 (talk · contribs) an admin should block him until his withdraws his threat. --Triwbe (talk) 07:44, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Blocked indefinitely, and that's about as much help as admins can provide. I recommend educating him about our copyright policies and that we, as a private website, can't infringe on anyone's right to free speech.  Sandstein  07:53, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Please could someone 'adopt' the reporting editor, and give them re-assurance that they are welcome to edit? they appear to have retired. 82.33.48.96 (talk) 09:22, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Aoi acted very well and linked Foster to our policies; Foster declined to read them. It's clear that he doesn't intend to actually edit Misplaced Pages save for "protecting" his client(s) and will not cooperate with our rules. The block should stay permanently. I rather imagine seeing some site linking to this discussion when Foster attempts to sue us. Therequiembellishere (talk) 19:26, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Basically, the user thought whomever he represents owns the article. MuZemike 21:33, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

And I see no point even attempting to correct his think-headedness. Therequiembellishere (talk) 23:18, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

I think they were referring to the editor who received the legal threats User:Aoi and has since retired due to the stress. Don't anybody say a legal threat doesn't have an impact. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 23:26, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

I posted a short note hoping to bring Aoi back to Wiki. Sad we lose a user to a empty legal threat. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 23:30, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Block of User:Ninthwhen

I just blocked Ninthwhen (talk · contribs) indefinitely and would appreciate another set of eyes to review this. The user has for several months been removing cleanup tags with no explanation; he never leaves edit summaries, and never responds to messages or attempts for discussion (in fact, he has never edited a page outside of mainspace). I gave him two shorter blocks before this (log), and many warnings, so when I saw him continuing to remove {{fact}} tags today I made the next block indefinite because I don't know what length would be appropriate (the last was a month...although given his lack of complaint, I wouldn't be surprised if he just edited from IPs during that time). Personally I think he should remain blocked, but I figured I could at least make it indefinite and then seek input here and it could be adjusted if need be. rʨanaɢ /_contribs 11:36, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

A complete and utter failure to communicate back, or to even understand the importance of said communication. Although they were given a nice Welcome, a couple of gentle blocks, I unfortunately have to agree with the block until they actually start to communicate. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:57, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Per Bwilkins. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:13, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Harrassment/Long-term Vandal

An IP editor has run into several frustrating situations trying to report a long-term vandal/sockmaster. I don't know enough about the vandal (User:Mynameisstanley) to help, but would any other admins care to lend this anonymous contributor a hand? The details are in the link provided in the section title. TNXMan 14:50, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

82.41.207.84

Can someone place a block on 82.41.207.84 . They have been vandalising numerous pages on the this site , and no-one seems to take initative to make the vandals stop. Rio de oro (talk) 16:07, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Done. However, please note that edits like this are not useful to resolving the situation. If you run across future vandals, please report them to AIV. TNXMan 16:10, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

It was already been reported at AIV and turned down do to no activity after the "only warning" was issued. --Farix (Talk) 16:14, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Should this edit be removed? It seems uncivil. -- Myfavouritecolourispink 20:19, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I just issued him/her an only warning just moments ago because the editor has been blocked 5 times for repeatedly vandalizing the Bayblade article. Give it time and see if the IP returns to vandalizing. --Farix (Talk) 16:12, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Serial copyright violator

ArnoldZippo (talk · contribs), after repeatedly being warned for copyright violations, was blocked for this in April. Earlier today he created Starburst Ovation, which was speedied as a copyvio, and then ArnoldZippo removed the speedy nom. The article has been edited in the meantime but it is still a blatant copyvio of this web page. It is difficult to assume good faith given these facts. I will notify ArnoldZippo. Looie496 (talk) 16:10, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Since this isn't the first incident with this user I've blocked indef. The article (which was still a blatant copyvio even with the changes) has also been deleted. If they get an unblock request up, I'd suggest they need to show they clearly understand what's wrong with copy/pasting material from other websites and perhaps agree to look for adoption to stand any chance of being unblocked. EyeSerene 16:30, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

History restoration requested for Manarom Hospital.

The article Manarom Hospital was first created by User:Siwimol at 10:35, 10 June 2009 (according to AlexNewArtBot). The page was speedily deleted at 00:07, 4 July 2009 by User:Orangemike due to CSD G11 concerns. However, the article was re-created by Siwimol at 05:00, 9 July 2009. I asked Orangemike to restore the prior version of the article, in order to preserve the edit history, which he kindly did so at 16:47, 10 July 2009, however with the unexpected results of the restored history being truncated and showing me as the first contributor, which I was not. Further requests to Orangemike have not as yet been responded to, so I would like to request assistance in correcting the article history. --Paul_012 16:18, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

 Done. Couldn't see anything particularly dodgy in the history, so I've restored the lot. Happy editing. ~ mazca 22:13, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Unproductive editing by a possible sockpuppet

Know-censorship (talk · contribs) is a single-purpose account that has made a number of unproductive edits to satanic ritual abuse articles. See their first edit which adds a personal complaint right into the middle of an article, and this allegation of criminal complicity on the talk page. This is not the first time such issues have arisen with this article, and I suspect that this person may be a sockpuppet of the banned user ResearchEditor (talk · contribs) who has used numerous such sockpuppets in the past (see here and here). Whether they are or not, I don't see a likelihood of productive contributions coming from this account. I think that an administrator should consider blocking it. *** Crotalus *** 19:35, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Seems to me someone could apply a broad interpretation of WP:NLT and take exception to his You people shouldn't be aiding and abetting criminal activity. You won't get away with it forever.. --jpgordon 19:57, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

I expect we'll see an increase in this sort of activity, they are upset because we've spam blacklisted a number of domains related to SRA that were being used to spam. --Versageek 20:37, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Wow, that's fast, moving to black already. I don't know what a sock puppet is. You have my IP, it should be traceable to the city where I live and simple to discern a difference with any banned editor, unless sharing an opinion with a banned editor makes one susceptible to banning? Spam, I thought spam had to do with selling products. So, is there a list of certain peer-reviewed journals and mainstream media outlets that are not allowed as sources on Misplaced Pages? Please direct me to that list so that I won't make the same mistakes as previous editors. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Know-censorship (talk • contribs) 21:24, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Doesn't look good. I say give him a little more rope though. Either he'll use it to really get that noose just right, or he'll climb out of the hole with it. Let him bring to the article talk page a list of reliable sources, per our WP:RS, which he thinks substantiates the SRA as a real phenomenon and not a moral panic, and discuss those sources calmly there. IF he's incapable of that, then ban him. ThuranX (talk) 21:29, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Unlikely a sockpuppet, could be a meatpuppet. WLU (t) (c) Misplaced Pages's rules:/_complex 21:59, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Editors may have already seen off wiki canvassing. See, for example, this Usenet News post -

start headers
From: childadvocate email address removed
Newsgroups: uk.legal
Subject: blacklisted by wikipedia
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 2009 17:41:39 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <f5e04d69-13ad-41d7-aa6c-e52b44f56c42@h18g2000yqj.googlegroups.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 72.79.202.177
end headers
start quote

It is recommended that people write wikipedia to complain about this blatant censorship of information exposing child abuse crimes. It is also recommended that people do not use wikipedia as a resource until these websites are taken off their blacklist and are allowed on wikipedia pages again.

A sample letter to send is below:

An encyclopedia should contain a variety of information, especially accurate information about child abuse issues. Blacklisting these pages is a censorship of information of research exposing child abuse crimes.
I will not be able to use wikipedia as a resource again until these websites are taken off your blacklist and are allowed on wikipedia pages again.
end quote
Clearly disruptive campaigning, with little understanding of various wiki policies. NotAnIP83:149:66:11 (talk) 14:49, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Protect Mark Buehrle

(Moved from WP:AN)

Can someone go over and protect Mark Buehrle? He just threw a perfect game and the article is being slammed by vandalism. <>Multi-Xfer<> (talk) 20:17, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Semi-protected for a day. I do note that this is probably the funniest vandalism I have ever seen on Misplaced Pages. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 20:23, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Yeah I got a kick out of that too. Simultaneously hilarious and deeply disturbing. <>Multi-Xfer<> (talk) 21:12, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, he did yell "YES!!!" five times, which is probably a personal best. Baseball Bugs carrots 22:34, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Hawk is lucky that the Angels' team of Hudler and Physioc are around, otherwise he would be, by far and away, the worst announcer in all of baseball. His homerism is unmatched and insufferable (thus my amusement at the vandalism). Ice Cold Beer (talk) 10:19, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Perfect game could use watching for the same reason- it appears to be under control, so need for protection, but the editing rate is currently quite high. — Gavia immer (talk) 03:47, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

FWIW, members of WP:MLB are already watching those two pages, along with 2009 Chicago White Sox season, Chicago White Sox, and 2009 Tampa Bay Rays season. Help is always appreciated, though. :) --Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:45, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Long-term serial copyright infringer; indef-blocked. Review requested.

• Paknur (talk · contribs), who is also
• Misaq Rabab (talk · contribs)
• Mirza Barlas (talk · contribs) and
• Siddiqui (talk · contribs)

Investigating a couple of articles at the very backlogged WP:SCV, I have uncovered another serial copyright infringer, this one having infringed across multiple account. Under his current username, I have discovered infringement going back several years. Learning of his alternate accounts (See ), I found that CorenSearchBot picked up problems with another (User talk:Mirza Barlas/Archives/2008/June}, while he was given personal warnings by several users as far back as 2007 under another ( and ). I need to run a contribution history so that we can eliminate material that the user may have pasted under his various identities.

I have indefinitely blocked pending some assurance that this contributor will not continue violating copyright policies, which he's been aware of for several years, under any username. Since I do not typically start with an indef-block, I wanted to invite review. Also, please, assistance. WP:SCV is swamped, we have several multiple-article infringement issues up for cleaning at WP:COPYCLEAN, and I do not know until I run our contribution surveyor program on these username how extensive the investigation is going to be. --Moonriddengirl 20:16, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

I have accidentally cross-posted this to WT:AN, where I somehow wound up while trying to post it here. ? --Moonriddengirl 20:25, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Ack. That much, that many accounts, going on for so long... I would recommend permanent blocking and IDing the IP range to do something about that too. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 23:11, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

A bunch of socks of User:Hatherington

Let me sum up the outcome of the thread WP:ANI#New editor Bogglevit messing up layout of lots of articles above, because I fear it has fallen off the radar, and something needs to be done. It is clear that:

• Bogglevit (talk · contribs)
• Swerqitamin (talk · contribs)
• Wickelyby (talk · contribs)
• Beteltreuse (talk · contribs)
• Julippia (talk · contribs)

are all socks of Hatherington (talk · contribs), who was indef-blocked by Rlevse for socking, see Category:Misplaced Pages sockpuppets of Hatherington -- however I haven't been able to locate an SPI page for this case. This editor has a pattern of creating a sock and using it for a few hours to do 20-100 of what appear to be harmless copy-edits, but actually are subtly destructive. If possible, it would be good to auto-revert all the edits by all the socks. Looie496 (talk) 20:51, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Are you able to give direct evidence on this page to show that all of these socks are related?--_{Sky Attacker} 21:14, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

The user pages all consist of two-word phrases, and the contribs all have a lot of entries saying "Wikify" as edit summary -- if you examine a diff for any randomly chosen one of these, you're likely to see a bunch of added paragraph breaks. Looie496 (talk) 21:37, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, you are right about one thing. Something is definitley going on here. Any CheckUsers viewing this thread, can you please check for any sleepers?--_{Sky Attacker} 21:48, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Bewildered

Hi there. I don't know why this section exists on the Administrator's notice board. Every edit I have made to wikipedia has been a good faith, constructive one.

There are three main building tasks I like to do:

One, to link together interconnected articles that are not yet linked - basically, to build the knowledge web. This includes putting articles into categories, and linking categories together.

Two, I like to find orphaned articles, and link them to appropriate others. This can be a lot of work.

Three, I seek to improve the readability of articles. Many articles contain wonderful information, yet are not easy to read. There is little copy editing, with large amounts of text clumped together. There are no paragraph breaks. Simply putting paragraph breaks into a mass of text allows that text to be more easily read & comprehended by a reader.

Anyway, that's what I like to do. I'm very proud of my work, because I feel it increases people's accessibility to education.

Bogglevit (talk) 09:12, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Wikistalking by a dynamic IP address

I request immediate help with this. An anonymous user with a dynamic IP address (starts with 217.112.178. and 217.112.186.) and is stalking my contributions list and undoing all of my edits. This user didn't get his way on an article, which was semi-protected, thereby preventing him from inserting his unsourced claims into. He has now turned his wrath on me, and as we speak, is destroying large portions of work I have done. Please help me if you can, the user's IP shifts each time he posts. Here are examples: Legitimus (talk) 22:05, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

I concur he did this on your last report.Hell In A Bucket (talk) 22:11, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Can the range of IPs be blocked or something? Disagreement with me or not, this is an obvious attempt at harassment.Legitimus (talk) 22:15, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Please do not post the exact same thread on both AN and ANI. Tan | 39 22:16, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

I realized my mistake and was trying to move it, but he got there first.Legitimus (talk) 22:19, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Merge From AN thread:

Even here. Can someone figure out the right range to get? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 22:15, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

It's 217.112.176.0/20. However, there are plenty of contribs to choose from, so it's kind of risky to block it long term. Maybe like a 1 week block? (X! · talk)  · @970  ·  22:17, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

That's the right range, but way too long. I was thinking 1 day, myself. Tan | 39 22:18, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

I was saying 1 week at an absolute max. Forgot to write that. :) (X! · talk)  · @979  ·  22:29, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

I'd agree that it's best to start short. This may very easily be a short-term attack by a bored person rather than anything more sinister. ~ mazca 22:21, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

IP has been blocked for 12 hoursHell In A Bucket (talk) 22:22, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the help. Unfortunately, the bastard is still trying to pull stuff. He just created an account User:Treuity and is continuing his rampage:

No doubt the same user, only warning given as matter of procedure. Will actively monitor. Tan | 39 23:42, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Never mind, George indef blocked. Tan | 39 23:44, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Yeah. Harrassing people like this, with a clear SPA for the purpose after a rangeblock, is not ok. As Bishzilla would put it, STOMP RAWR <flame> Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 23:54, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Yep, you made the correct call. Overconservativeness on my part. As I stated below, the entire 217.112.XXX.XXX range has been blocked. Tan | 39 23:55, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

To shut off the problem, I changed the rangeblock to 217.112.0.0/16 for twelve hours. Tan | 39 23:53, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Ongoing Harassment from User:Amadscientist

Would someone please look into the behavior of User:Amadscientist. He has broken numerous guidelines and policies, including attempting outing, and appears to be carrying on a vendetta against me, User:smatprt. In addition, he has attacked many other editors who have tried to intervene (see examples below). The original dispute stems from an edit war over image use, for which I was blocked. During my block period, User:Amadscientist proceeded to escalate the situation, and violated wp:hound and wp:forum shopping, adding negative comments and duplicate accusations on several other articles I regularly edit. He has been warned about this continuing behavior from numerous editors ], ], ].

Unfortunately, he has chosen to disregard any intervention and has vowed to continue editing however he likes and no matter how many editors disagree with him, ], a threat he has carried through, often attacking other editors along the way (see below)

User:Amadscientist has violated numerous editing guidelines including wp:game and WP:EW, as well as the spirit of wp:3RR ], ], and ]. Regarding this series of edits, after seeking a 3rd opinion on the image, rendered here ], User:Amadscientist extended the quarrel to the new editor, defied the consensus, and reinstated his revert here ].

By spreading his dispute over several pages he is WP:Forum shopping, as was noted by an intervening editor ].

He also violated wp:outing ] and ], in spite of being warned by 2 other editors ] ]

After the first attempted outing he ultimately found my name linked to an old image upload record and has used that as an excuse for spreading my name all over the pages in question. He then escalated further and filed an AFD, first, the Misplaced Pages article on me ] and then, escalating further, the lead photo ].

Violation of wp:civ and wp:harass and wp:attack include quoting non-existant guidelines in an attempt to intimidate: ] for which he was warned: ],

Attacking other editors who tried to intervene: ] ]

Accusing me of copyright violation on multiple pages ],] which he was warned about by an intervening editor ].

Name calling, including “creepy” ],

After filing the AFD, he has proceeded to argue with or berate every single editor who voted to “keep” the article ] ] ], especially after being called out for voting twice, in addition to being the nominator. ]

Many long-time editors have jumped in to try to smooth the waters and warn User:Amadscientist about misquoting guidelines, as well as numerous violations:

] ] ]

only to be rebuffed further:

] ]

This is an unfortunate and awful situation. I am appealing to any interested administrator for a permanent solution. Smatprt (talk) 23:58, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Comment (non-admin): In addition to whatever disagreement triggered this editor (and which appears to be ongoing on Carmel-by-the-Sea's mainspace and Talk page and elsewhere), the period from July 19 forward (especially July 19 through July 23) reveals an alarming series of focussed harrassment centered around anything connected with Smatprt. I note in his edit history during that period: A block request ; an AfD nom ; an autobiography tag , replaced again ; an 11,000-byte deletion ; a second autobiography tag , reposted again ; a third autobiography tag ; and a fair use tag , among other things. In the words of an editor on the AfD discussion page, "It looks to me like you're trying to punish smatprt through every avenue available." User history since the initial Carmel debacle denote an intense negative focus on these articles and the editors involved in them . -- Softlavender (talk) 01:57, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Reviewing. Please be patient - there's a lot here to go through. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 02:32, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

I endorse this complaint. Almost all of the diffs I would have posted in this are contained in the original post. Amadscientist posted a query at WT:BIOG about the validity of the creation of the Stephen Moorer article that also contained extraneous information about Smatprt, including allegations that he was using the Carmel-by-the-Sea article to "market his theatre and push self serving information", and including Smatprt had been blocked for 3RR. I responded, stating that while there were guidelines discouraging creating an article about oneself, that there is no policy against it, noting that I had seen issues with some of the edits involved by Amadscientist as well and stated that those issues didn't belong at WP:BIOG. The response was hostile, including comments such as "You have nearly no idea what you are talking about" and "You are defending the very thing that the Guidline and several others were created to avoid." I'm not aware I was defending anything. I also responded at Talk:Stephen Moorer, after I noted that Amadscientist had made a series of posts there about the article, none of which had a response from anyone, , one

wherein he identifies the editor by name and explicitly telling him he could not edit the article, and another which identifies the creator of the article as the subject . I responded and again noted that there was no policy prohibiting the creation . His response explicitly accused me of assuming bad faith ("I suppose this is litle more than assuming bad faith on you part"), claimed that Smatprt had been dishonest about his identity when asked about it ("the user was dishonest") and defending his having outed the editor. The behavior just continued. Smatprt, whose username was never an attempt to hide who he was, but did not use his exact name, has outlined the rest of this in much greater detail. Wildhartlivie (talk) 05:02, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Ok. A couple of hours of my life I now sorely miss...

I AGF about all parties in this dispute. That said, I agree that Amadscientist is pushing very hard (perhaps borderline wikistalking behavior but nothing I want to enforcement-sense act on at the moment), too hard for constructive collegial behavior at the moment.

I have asked that he take a week or two break from edits on the Stephen Moorer, Forest Theater, Pacific Repertory Theater and Carmel-by-the-Sea, and try to avoid being confrontational with User:Smatprt.

Other editors can continue to review the specific issues he has raised on talk pages and with the AFD. I see potentially valid issues, though I believe that there's no supporting consensus on any of those at this time. Let's let those run their courses with uninvolved parties reviewing and weighing in.

Once things cool down hopefully everyone can cooperate moving forwards. Both editors seem to be involved in those topics and interested in Misplaced Pages articles on them, and I don't think any forceful topic ban or such is necessary or appropriate for the Encyclopedia at this time.

If Amadscientist choses to disregard the disengagement request but doesn't do anything else which is provocative or potentially harrasing, then I recommend leaving it alone. I hope he disengages for a short while to let things cool down but I don't want to make it mandatory unless the situation gets worse.

Smatprt, on your side, please avoid edits in the hot-button issues that Amadscientist identified while they are staying away from the articles, and please do what you can to disengage as well for that informal cool down period.

Thanks. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 04:17, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

User:Ldsnh2 and New York Radical Feminists – ongoing pattern of disruptive editing.

There is an ongoing dispute over the article New York Radical Feminists over what several editors (User:Iamcuriousblue (aka Peter Werner, that is, myself) and User:Shadowjams) feel are problems with original research and editing based on unverifiable claims of first-hand knowledge of the group in question on the part of another editor User:Ldsnh2 (see note for associated accounts). The reason I am coming here rather than seeking out request for discussion or otherwise starting the mediation process is that Ldsnh2 engages in ongoing edit warring and behavior that meets most, if not all, or the criteria for disruptive editing. The editor engages in an ongoing pattern of personal attack toward other editors by name on the editors user page (User:Ldsnh2) and on Talk:New_York_Radical_Feminists. The editor continually removes citations referring to Alice Echols Daring to be Bad, a widely-cited source about the history of NYRF, based on her assertion that the book is biased and inaccurate. However, the editor's only reference for their view that the book is inaccurate is claimed personal first-hand knowledge on the part of Ldsnh2.

Since I am trying to avoid further edit warring myself, I am refraining from further editing of the article for the time being, but am seeking outside intervention.

(Note: the editor also edits under the following IP accounts: User:75.0.193.152, User:70.235.86.209, User:75.13.228.250, User:71.139.149.187.)

(This has been previously reported as Misplaced Pages:Wikiquette_alerts#User:Ldsnh2, without resolution.) Iamcuriousblue (talk) 00:02, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, User:Ldsnh2 is interesting. I'm pretty sure User:Shadowjams feels like he's in good company. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 00:06, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

this editor appears to lack critical wP:knowledge. he has repeatedly used an incorrect version of the {{cite}} which disigures the article ! User:Smith Jones 00:15, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

I've deleted the user page. Attacks against other editors are not allowed here. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:50, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

I've also removed two sections from Talk:New York Radical Feminists for being violations of WP:TALK as inappropriate attack sections and have asked the editor for comment on another section. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:10, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

User:Liberal00Q1

• Liberal00Q1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

User is repeatedly inserting obvious POV statements into many articles after repeated warnings. Examples:

• Communist
• Blanking
• Diatribe
• Marriage POV
• Matt Lauer infobox
• Deleting factual information

A quick browse of his contribution history shows plenty more... Thanks in advance! //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 01:23, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

user ShondaLear

I'm at a loss of what to do on the Grand_Slam_(tennis) page. I have tried talking to User Talk:ShondaLear and I'm even more confused. There is a common term in Tennis, the 4 Majors, which he keeps deleting. First for no reason, then he asked for a source. The term is common usage, far longer than the term slam. This article has very few sources so I added what he asked and put on terms I wanted sourced from him. He reverted them again. It looked like he said I proved my point. I removed the and he reverted the article again. I also removed a ref that didn't do what the article said it did. he reverted that too. My last revert I said he does not Own this article and that I would bring it to administration attention. And here it is. Could someone tell him to leave this line in? I mean really... if Tennis Major needs sourcing than Tennis slam needs sourcing. Maybe he's not up on tennis terms and I didn't want this to go off the deep end. Thanks. Fyunck(click) (talk) 01:59, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Hounding by group of editors

A group of editors, my opinion, is harassing and hounding me. Most are editing mostly one topic chronic pain and fatigue conditions, and for months mostly are following me and taking out my edits. They have strong POV on chronic conditions, that is OK with me!!, and some from them use Misplaced Pages for social networking for patient activism, for example . Group includes User:Ward20, User:RobinHood70, User:Sam Weller, and specially a IP editor User:71.212.10.108/User:66.244.69.1 that calls me "hey sexy lady" and talks about my weight "big sexy girl" and puts things on my talk page and the IP talk page and follows me around to articles I edit and they do not edit before . The IP was blocked twice for these things and is not new on Misplaced Pages, i do not know all names this person is using, or when it is one from the named editors that is following me.

I do not care they call me names and fight about edits on their articles but now every edit i make, i need suspect, these people will follow me and delete me and argue with me also when it is not an article they edit before, it is like Misplaced Pages editing for them is hunting me, like the first thing they do on log in is, see what i am editing today to go there and confront me. I am also suspect, they try to provoke me BC some said before they want to ban me. It is making contribution very difficult. I do not say I am a perfect editor, i am learning alot but I am not all ways perfect and i can be very strong some times, but i do not think this treating of me is right.

Examples from hounding just in last weeks,

• I give a Wikilink in article i never did edit before, chest pain bc I learned from reliable sources that medically unexplained symptoms can be chest pain, same day Ward20, editor who in June calls me "it" and "this" is there reverting , and calls my link "WP:EGG" all though "no definite cause" and "medically unexplained symptoms" are synonym with each other. Ward20 did never edit chest pain before and obvious, is just following me to delete my edits.

• I add a medical review on Malingering at Malingering, next editor who is there is Ward20 and W20 does not suggest new words or change things, W20 deletes everything also the reference that is MEDRS and accuses me of POV when it is right from reference. Ward20 did never edit this article before . Ward20 also tells other editors what pages i edit at the CFS talk page so they can follow me to .

• I add information to Culture-bound syndrome, next editor is Ward20 who never did edit that article before and Ward20 reverts , says it is unsourced and "inaccurate" but does not take any thing out from rest of section where every thing does not have source, is only deleting my stuff. On talk page, Ward20 uses words like "for pity sake" and User:Tekaphor also comes to talk page to argue against me and another editor on the page. Tekaphor and Ward20 did never edit this article or talk before me.

• I link to article Medically unexplained symptoms from Chronic fatigue syndrome, that is a Medically unexplained syndrome. User:Sam Weller, User:RobinHood70, User:Ward20, User:71.212.10.108 who was blocked for 48 hours on disruptive editing and harassment of me, and User:Tekaphor start editing this article and talk page together but they did never edit it before.

• I did not edit Jamie Doran for near one year, on July 22 i edit. User:RobinHood70 is there same day and did never edit the article before. This article is not a relation to chronic pain conditions, there is no godly reason to follow me there but RobinHood is monitoring me and following every thing I do. Then RobinHood says "I have no particular interest in this page—I just made some quick improvements to the article while I was here—so I'll leave it to you and the other editors of the page to figure out what's most appropriate." but when i edit again, RobinHood comes back and accuses me of things i did not say and says i am "biting newcomer" and warns me on my talk page.

• I ask User:Ward20 pls stop following me around Wiki. Ward20 said they edited these pages before, that is not true. I ask User:RobinHood70 to explain why user changes my comment title and says it is OK to follow me around, and next day they do the same thing again.

Do I over-react, please advise me how to resolve the problem, thank you very much. RetroS1mone talk 02:00, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

As one of the many users accused by this ANI, I will respond to those edits for which I am responsible, and I invite commentary from others if there are things I should have done better. In point of fact, however, I am preparing my own RfC or ANI discussion towards RetroS1mone at this very moment. RetroS1mone has previously been warned by multiple editors, both on and off her talk page for behaviour (e.g., User_talk:RetroS1mone#Suggestion).

• There has been an anonymous IP harassing RetroS1mone at her talk page and elsewhere, and I and others have in fact been reverting these comments, for which she thanked me.

• The fact that RetroS1mone added links to medically unexplained physical symptoms in several articles should probably explain why this drew attention and people started editing that article as well. The article in and of itself is dubious in my mind (though that's under discussion on the appropriate talk page), and adding it into a wide variety of other controversial articles, such as chronic fatigue syndrome, fibromyalgia, and multiple chemical sensitivity was seen by many as a POV fork to add weight to a pro-psychological POV. (At the time the additions were made, the MUPS article very much had a psychological tone to it, and still has a very lopsided view where one section is all about psychological causation and others maintain more of an even physical and/or psychological approach.)

• I explained my edits to the Jamie Doran page when RetroS1mone accused me of hounding/stalking her here. Rather than acknowledge that explanation, she has chosen to bring it up here. I was content to ignore the page up until she bit a newcomer, accusing him of a conflict of interest and implying that this brand-new account might be a single-purpose account , at which time I warned her on her talk page, which she reverted with the accusation of "i remove harassing by stalker" .

• The accusation of hounding was addressed by the above, but just to save people some reading: Due to recent communication, RetroS1mone's talk page was in my Watchlist. I read all diffs in my Watchlist, as I've indicated to RetroS1mone previously. When I saw a discussion about that article on her talk page, I was curious to see what was up. While there, I made non-controversial format changes, and verified one very minor fact readily apparent in the source available (the second source was dead and a {{dead link}} tag was added). In no way did I make any changes or contribute to any discussion in a controversial or negative manner apart from the above-mentioned bite warning. --RobinHood70 (talk) 02:39, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

In summary, I think what RetroS1mone perceives as harassment/hounding by a group of editors is in fact several individual editors who have concerns over an apparently unilateral editing style in which consensus is rarely ever sought or respected, and those editors are taking appropriate actions per Misplaced Pages policies and guidelines to address these issues. --RobinHood70 (talk) 03:49, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm also mentioned, although it doesn't look like I'm one of the main editors in question (probably because most of my disputes with RetroS1mone have been limited to the talkpages). Some of the accusations made by RetroS1mone (R1 for short), now and in the past, appear somewhat distorted or jumping to conclusions:

• R1's first given example () is of a short conversation on RobinHood70's userpage about webhosting, but R1 labels it as "social networking for patient activism" despite that no actual activism was going on or that Ward20 never specified what the webhosting is for. Perhaps Ward20 should have emailed RobinHood70 instead, but so what? At first it might appear odd why R1 decided to begin with that example, until one considers that; (a) R1 believes Misplaced Pages is under attack from some anti-psych "cabal" of POV/COI patient activists, (b) R1 has occasionally reverted other peoples edits due to such mere speculation about motives, with a tendency to focus disproportionately on the editor rather than the edit.

• The next major point seems to involve two themes: (1) a "group of editors", (2) "hounding". I'm not mentioned specifically, but I will say that these accusations of "they" have been an ongoing problem. The first few following points about "hounding" seem to be about other editors (not me), so I'll let those editors speak for themselves, but perhaps what I say about my involvement will provide some perspective?

• When discussing the Culture-bound syndrome article, R1 claims that other editors and "User:Tekaphor also comes to talk page to argue against me and another editor on the page". However, all I did was post a short sentence about an epidemiological study of CFS in Nigeria, there was no "arguing" by me or even any suggestion of how to interpret the cited study.

• When discussing the Medically unexplained symptoms article, R1 notes that other editors and "User:Tekaphor start editing this article and talk page together but they did never edit it before". I did indeed make one relatively minor edit some time after posting ( 3 edits but for the same single comment) on the talkpage. However, it needs to be understood, as RobinHood70 already covered, that the issue of R1 embedding "medically unexplained symptoms" into a range of Misplaced Pages articles was spilling over from a debate at the Talk:Chronic fatigue syndrome page, so obviously people started visiting the actual main article of the topic in question?

The Jamie Doran article has nothing to do with me, so I don't need to comment. Anyway, WP:HOUND states that "Proper use of an editor's history includes (but is not limited to) fixing errors or violations of Misplaced Pages policy or correcting related problems on multiple articles." When considering R1's claims of being "followed", it needs to be kept in mind that R1 has a history of disputes where some of their edits were successfully reverted for being "original research" or not properly representing the sources. Also, as RobinHood70 explained above, it can be convenient to monitor other editors' contribution histories as a way to keep up to date. Another important note is that R1 does over-react and often makes false accusations against other editors, which is a whole topic of conversation in itself. Of course, this doesn't mean that all of R1's accusations are false, and occasionally there have also been apologies from R1.

_Tekaphor (TALK) 07:52, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Not guilty, individually or collectively. I have nothing to add to my reply to R1 from earlier this year . Sam Weller (talk) 10:47, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Reynoboy

Last week I brought this user's good faith, but unhelpful edits up. He's continued making such edits, but they are not involved in making new articles on speculative content. Instead he is modifying other pages to include speculative content.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 02:53, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Instead of giving block warnings on his talk page, try talking to him. Also, have you notified him of this thread?--_{Sky Attacker} 03:08, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, this user ignores all messages on his talk page.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 04:07, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Mgillfr

Mgillfr (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been a long-term problem on articles about California roads. Here he admits that he doesn't know what the phrase he's putting into articles means. Is this really the kind of editor we want writing articles? Can anything be done? --NE2 02:57, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

And do we want this kind of editor, NE2 (talk · contribs), who constantly ignores community consensus over the period of several years with overwhelming evidence of these: 1, 2, and 3? Mgillfr (talk) 03:05, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

The latest one of these was two years ago, and the issues behind those were largely resolved. Please stop referring to stuff that you were not on Misplaced Pages for and do not understand fully - it is clear you don't understand what the issues involved here were. --Rschen7754 (T C) 03:28, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

NE2 - did you notice the Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Mgillfr filed? I wasn't sure if you did. --Rschen7754 (T C) 03:27, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

That seems to have produced no result. --NE2 03:53, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

It does provide documentation should we decide to take this up further through WP:DR. --Rschen7754 (T C) 04:43, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

We can discuss this without either side making it into a personal attack. Both sides chose to lead with that, but it has to stop now. NE2 and Mgillfr, both of you, further personal attacks here or elsewhere will result in short blocks. Mgillfr - Do you acknowledge that your english grammar and usage have caused some specific mistakes on article pages? It appears that you've stated english is not your native language and that you're still studying it. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 03:35, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

English is my native language, but to be honest it's not that strong - my reading/writing skills are basically below national average. Mgillfr (talk) 06:17, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Honestly, I'm not sure how I've made a personal attack. We have someone here who doesn't understand what he's writing in articles. --NE2 03:53, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

That was not the most politic phrasing to use in filing the report, exasperated by the situation or not... Please be aware of that moving forwards... Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 04:40, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

New user TOV

SPONGEBOBSQUAREPANTS109 (talk · contribs) made this edit (deleted). The location appears to be Ballarat, Victoria, Australia. Almost certainly just a crank, but is there anybody down that way who feels like making a phone call to the authorities? --Bongwarrior (talk) 05:27, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

By authorities are you suggesting the police?--_{Sky Attacker} 06:56, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes. --Bongwarrior (talk) 07:19, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Smart move. But who here is from Australia?--_{Sky Attacker} 07:33, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Religiously offensive, deceptive user name used by User:Supreme Deliciousness

User Supreme Deliciousness has previously requested a user name change to "Supreme Allah". Obviously, his request has been denied due to the offensive nature of the proposed name, in spite of his begging for the change. Please see here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Changing_username#Supreme_Deliciousness_.E2.86.92_Supreme_Allah http://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:EVula#Excuse_me_but

Other users have expressed disapproval of User Supreme Deliciousness's proposed name change. Please see the following:

http://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:Supreme_Deliciousness#supreme_Allah.3F

However, unfortunately, Supreme Deliciousness has snuck around the Admins' decisions and is now deceptively making his signature appear as "Supreme Allah" using: "User:Supreme Deliciousness|Supreme Allah". Please the following examples:

http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Anti-Israel_lobby_in_the_United_States#Survey

http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Druze

This is a very offensive turn of events on this matter and is grounds for serious Admin action against this user.

--Arab Cowboy (talk) 07:48, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

I have removed it now.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 08:12, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Too late. Users, including myself, have already taken offense to this insult to God, Muslims, and non-Muslims alike. User SD had been pre-alerted of the hugely offensive nature of this matter. The fact that SD has snck around the Admins' decision is a violation already committed, in addition to the offense itself. --Arab Cowboy (talk) 08:21, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

No it is not too late, your personal pissing match with SD will have to resume at another place and time. Editors expressed concern, he responded to the satisfaction of those editors, end of story. nableezy - 08:33, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

If I remember rightly, Supreme Allah was also a character from the TV series Oz, so possibly Arab Cowboy's dudgeon is a touch too highly placed. Crafty (talk) 08:37, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Finally someone gets it, Supreme Allah was one of my favorite characters, after Poet and Kareem Said. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 08:42, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

I really don't want to reopen this - AC, SD changed his signature. Please discuss the religious and Oz-related aspects of the former signature on your respective talk pages. There is nothing else to be done here. Law _{type! snype?} 08:49, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Law, there's nothing else to discuss. SD only changed his signature after the AN/I had been brought up. He had ignored previous Admins' decisions on the name change request as well as other users' concerns on his Talk page. Mission now accomplished. --Arab Cowboy (talk) 08:53, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Isn't "Supreme Allah" a redundancy? Baseball Bugs carrots 09:58, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

←I've yelled at SD on his talkpage for this incident. He's seems to be a good editor, but clearly this wasn't one of his brighter moments. Crafty (talk) 10:24, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Nevermind the supposed genesis of the username, SD is wise enough to know that offense that would be taken by such a username. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:33, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

I guarantee this would not have happened or have been as heated were his signature "Supreme Jesus." Sad commentary on political correctness. Pzrmd (talk) 11:58, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Unless his real name was actually Spanish, and was Jésus Suprémo, yes, I would report "Supreme Jesus" to WP:UAA in a flash. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:51, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Please keep in mind, Allah is not a given name in any Arabic culture I've heard of, whilst Jesus is a given name in many Romance language-speaking cultures. The rough Anglo-Saxon match to this username would be Supreme God, which I do think would raise some hackles in sundry ways. This is not "political correctness," words have meanings and one shouldn't be too startled when folks who like editing encyclopedia text tend to get stirred up by them. Gwen Gale (talk) 13:13, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Pzrmd, I can guarantee you that I would have denied the CHU request if it had been "Supreme Jesus." Thanks for the faith, buddy. EVula // talk // ☯ // 14:56, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Banned user is back with sockpuppets

John.Edwards.1967 (talk · contribs) at article Cluj-Napoca and Babeş-Bolyai University. See history: Cluj-Napoca (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and Babeş-Bolyai University (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

User:John.Edwards.1967's contributions User:Nobias101's contributions User:Lincoln1984's contrubutions

User:Nobias101 and User:Lincoln1984 accounts are the puppets of banned user User:John.Edwards.1967. These accounts are only used for vandalism. Compare John.Edwards.1967's edit (Edit summary text: "Funar is mentioned three times in this article") with Lincoln1984's edit ("Funar seems to be mentioned three times"), or check Nobias101's edits or this. Nobias101 already blocked by admin, Please check contributions and block puppet User:Lincoln1984 too. Thank you.--B@xter 08:16, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Darko Trifunovic returns

Darko Trifunovic (talk · contribs), who was blocked for long-term vandalism, disruption and sockpuppetry, has returned and is disrupting Report about Case Srebrenica (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and its talk page. It has been temporarily semi-protected for now, but it would be helpful if admins could watchlist this article and deal with further disruption. A newly created sockpuppet, Arthur999 (talk · contribs), also needs to be dealt with. -- ChrisO (talk) 08:30, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

user:SOPHIAN - copy of Obama's birth certificate on user page and talk page (and the file itself).

SOPHIAN (talk · contribs) (who seems to be mentioned a lot recently and whose signature I note has been question as he doesn't use Sophian in his sig() has uploaded File:Obama's short birth certificate problems.jpg and placed it on his talk and user pages. He has also placed it, for some reason, on another problematic file of his, File:R1A map.jpg. He just escaped a block for edit warring at Genetic history of Europe because the page was protected just before the block was placed (the editor first warned Sophian and then reverted the warning with an edit saying "nevermind, the page is protected". We seem to be having continual problems with this editor. Dougweller (talk) 09:41, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

I took the liberty of removing it from the R1A file, as it has nothing to do with the subject. Otherwise, the user is obviously pushing a viewpoint, although why he thinks an obviously blacked out item, as well as a smudge, need to be circled is hard to figure. Baseball Bugs carrots 09:57, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Comment:He also started to spam other, not subject related articles (or sections) with his image. For example he added it to article Slovakia History/Before the fifth century section (?!), but it was removed by another user. After this he re-added it with a "possible vandalism" comment. He also added it to Hungarian prehistory (?) "Migrations" (??) section, after this.--B@xter 10:55, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

I find it interesting that SOPHIAN says he created this elaborate image File:R1A map.jpg and owns the copyrights, yet the user is consistently unable to properly format urls/wikilinks as exemplified here. He has yet to provide a source for this information contained in the map. So I have listed it possibly unfree noticeboard Wapondaponda (talk) 12:15, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I was going to block the user for edit warring on that (Genetic history of Europe), and other pages (per this), but for the former page there was what appeared to me as a genuine content dispute between him and another problematic editor so I went with protection rather than blocking both. I am completely neutral with someone blocking however and unprotecting the page if need be. I was simply trying to cause the least amount of drama as possible, but as it's already here.... Nja 13:17, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Can we remove the stupid damn birther SOAPBOX violation immediately? Any jackass who can't be bothered to read up on the facts of the case really deserved to be community banned, and they certainly must not be given a soapbox to stand on. This thing has been so thoroughly debunked so many times that the only people still believing it are brain damaged. ThuranX (talk) 13:35, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

I haven't followed closely the ArbCom stuff on Obama related pages, but does that apply here? Dougweller (talk) 13:44, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Drama is never too far from SOPHIAN. Many are aware of SOPHIAN's activities, but some aren't so I will give a short recap a brief history

• Used the move feature to change his username
• Request for adminship after only 37 edits Misplaced Pages:Requests for adminship/SOPHIAN and solicitation
• A few weeks ago he was eccentrically welcoming hundreds of users , . When asked why he was being so "courteous", his response was that he wants to be famous .
• in the edit summary, called a fellow wikipedian an "idiot".
• Inappropriate accusations of Sockpuppetry Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Pdeitiker/Archive
• Recreated the deleted article Sub-Saharan African DNA admixture in Europe, diff, after it was deleted by AFD.
• Edit warring across multiple articles per this report
• Suspicious use of the R1A image
• Uploading Obama's birth certificate.

• SOPHIAN takes sides in content disputes without demonstrating any depth of knowledge about the subject matter. In some cases this gives the impression that legitimate content disputes are taking place. For example SOPHIAN has been edit warring on E1b1b article. But on his talk page, he demonstrates that he hasn't read one of the most important publications on the article E1b1b. He requested certain information, which I volunteered to provide . After doing so, SOPHIAN deleted the comments from his talk page and continued edit warring pretending that the latest information I provided him didn't exist, and reinserting info from an obsolete source. Wapondaponda (talk) 14:08, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

SOPHIAN is the gift that keeps giving. All these events have taken place within about a month of editing and there has been no sign of improvement. Within the last month, he has received three 24 hour blocks and one 48 hour block . But these appear to have been ineffective, because as early as yesterday, he was causing drama by uploading Obama's birth certificate. With such a record of absurd behavior. It is very difficult to collaborate with this editor. Wapondaponda (talk) 14:08, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

I've blocked him for a week. Since I won't be online all that time let me say here that anyone wishing to revise this block should do so without consulting me. The multiple links to a POV-titled file are pointless disruption; the unexplained upload of it into R1A is just baffling. I have formed the impression that SOPHIAN doesn't really know what he is doing and doesn't take wiki seriously enough to learn William M. Connolley (talk) 14:57, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Vandalism or Content Dispute

I'll try to make this succinct. We have User:Bal537 who seems to have one purpose here and that is to introduce this idea: . This user is arguing with 2 other users on article talk pages with this tone. I have been approached by an editor who is concerned that Bal is 'vandalizing' pages with this information. Apparently it is inflammatory. Given Bal's edits, I am inclined to think that Bal is not concerned about consensus, and is obsessed with placing this edit across various articles.

Here's the deal - I know less about Indian culture than I do about women. I don't want to take administrative action until somebody can tell me if this a content dispute, or if the information is inflammatory, or perhaps just flat out wrong. I'm resigned to the idea that Bal is not playing by the rules, but I don't know how serious this is. I thank you in advance for the help. Law _{type! snype?} 12:34, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Although this is at its core a content dispute, there are many worries. User:Bal537 is making personal attacks, the sources posted as "proofs" don't look reliable and there may be some cite spanning and moreover, half the sources cited in Ramdasia are en.Misplaced Pages articles, which as we know, is never allowed (I can't recall the last time I even saw an en.WP article as an inline citation). If Bal537 doesn't stop this behaviour quick, I'd say it's blockable. This said, if there are clashing PoVs to be had in the reliable sources on this topic, they can and should be brought forth together as such in the text. Gwen Gale (talk) 13:45, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards